CPU

critiqueextension

The Rusty-Spectre v0.3.17 release focuses on upstream merges from Kaspa Rust to stabilize the codebase and minor adjustments for Spectre, which is a decentralized, proof-of-work CPU-mined blockDAG network. This release supports the SpectreX CPU mining algorithm based on AstroBWTv3, designed for efficient mining on various architectures, and is part of Spectre's broader ecosystem that includes a fixed maximum supply of 1.161 billion coins with decreasing block rewards, promoting a deflationary environment. * [Releases · spectre-project/rusty-spectre - GitHub](https://github.com/spectre-project/rusty-spectre/releases) * [Index of /downloads/ - Spectre Network](https://spectre-network.org/downloads/) * [Releases · spectre-project/spectre-miner - GitHub](https://github.com/spectre-project/spectre-miner/releases) ^(This is a bot made by [Critique AI](https://critique-labs.ai). If you want vetted information like this on all content you browse, [download our extension](https://critiquebrowser.app).)

mrestiaux

For mining BTC, you’re going to want an ASIC. There is GPU mining but it’s mostly unprofitable right now - unless you have cheap to free electricity. Some CPU is profitable but not really even worth the wear and tear on your machine. If you’re willing to mine at a loss for awhile and accumulate - it’d be a cool little side gig to stack.

MachinimaGothic

You even didn't read xD. BTC current state is not what Satoshi wanted. Each year its more and more centralized. Combined hashrate of three biggest mining pools is able to do this. If they could go to agreement. Or if someone would "convince" owners of the pools. It would be possible. One year ago you had to spend 6 bilion dollars to buy enough ASICs to have enough hash rate of your own. I think for governments it's still possible to pull this out. But such a thing would be immiedietly visible for us. You just can't buy such amount and appear in the network in one second. I wonder if this will be possible to pull with quantum computer. No one rly tried to seriously destroy network like this. Governments tried this just by simple ban on crypto. From their perspective it was much more efficient.  On May 8, 2024, the Bitcoin network's total hashrate was 569.29 exahashes per second (EH/s). The top three mining pools by three-day hashrate were: FoundryUSA, at 175.76 EH/s; 30.9% of the total Bitcoin network hashrate AntPool, at 161.77 EH/s; 28.4% of the total Bitcoin network hashrate ViaBTC, at 73.11 EH/s; 12.8% of the total network hashrate Combined, these three pools made up 72.1% of the network hashrate, a whopping 486.9 EH/s (486.9 million TH/s—the CPU in your computer might be able to hash at about 15 kilo hashes per second). If Foundry and ViaBTC were to collude, they could take over 51% of the hashrate (248 EH/s)."

_otpyrc

It makes no sense because your mind is too narrow. Early investors and the rich also get richer under a PoW system. They get the information first, have the capital to act on it, and get rewarded for building supply chains to control it. With a PoS validator, you only need capital and a minimal spec machine. That's a much lower barrier to entry than Bitcoin. CPU mining hasn't been a thing since 2013. GPU mining hasn't been a thing since 2016. The only ones "putting the hard work and labor in" are the Chinese companies that build 90% of the world ASICs and the three mining pools that make up 80% of the network.

Severe-Masterpiece61

Stop plaguing the discussion with your calculations. OP is only missing two words. That's 2048^2 combinations, so about 4 millions indeed. Any CPU will bruteforce that in seconds

frozengrandmatetris

I know how long GPU mining lasted. I used to do GPU mining as well. it would not have looked like that forever, even without PoS. ASICs did in fact appear, and if given enough time they would have been so popular that you would see the whole thing being controlled by ASIC farms next to hydroelectric dams etc. even now with monero being so ASIC resistant that you can only use a CPU, I still can't make any money trying to generate because I don't live near cheap enough electricity. it didn't used to be like that but now the hashrate is too high for small people playing with their computer in big chunks of the world. as PoW naturally progresses, more and more people get excluded over time.

x596201060405

I undoubtedly don't disagree with any of this. But it still doesn't really assaude by reticence. Not talking soft forking. Talking copying BTC source code 1:1 (with or without the changes). Undoubtedly no would just use it. But, if the security, functionality and scarcity are the literal same thing, but the price is different, then what explains the difference in price. Well it was first, existed longer, has an established user base. Sure. But then this implies in my mind that value of Bitcoin is tied with these intangible aspects (longevity, name recognition, etc.). There's roughly 1.2 million USD in circulation per BTC. So really I would think BTC instinsic value is higher than it's current price. The only exception being... There can be an infinite number of BTC's. (Not number on BTC in original chain, but infinite chains). Which they are already is basically, but they all distinguish themselves by working differently. The price should be different, if the price is reflecting something in code/functionaity. But if the code is the exact same... Why should the value of a currency be tied up on non functional characteristics of the currency? No particular reason to believe BTC2 is coming, or that anyone would adopt it. At the very least, you could mine BTC2 with a CPU again (for a bit) and can go without fees. So there could be incentive to mine, even if adaptation is painfully slow. Undoubtedly, I find all of it pretty fascinating though and the underlying concepts behind it all are undoubtedly genius.

HSuke

That's newbie thinking. Hashrate doesn't matter at all because it doesn't provide additional Sybil resistance. Just as theoretical example for Bitcoin mining: * 1M people use CPU mining: low hashrate, higher security * 10k people use S9 mining: higher hashrate, medium security * 100 people use S19 Max + S21 mining: highest current hashrate, low security

HSuke

That's newbie thinking. Hashrate doesn't matter at all because it doesn't provide additional Sybil resistance. Just as theoretical example for Bitcoin mining: * 1M people use CPU mining: low hashrate, higher security * 10k people use S9 mining: higher hashrate, medium security * 100 people use S19 Max + S21 mining: highest current hashrate, low security

valoov

There are 10 000 000 000 possible passwords. In Atomic Wallet your password is run through a password‑hashing KDF (e.g. scrypt, PBKDF2 or similar) that uses a random salt and intentionally high work‑factor (many iterations and/or memory‑hard operations). That means each guess takes on the order of hundreds of milliseconds (or more) of CPU+RAM work, drastically slowing down any brute‑force attack. Below is an estimate of how long it would take to exhaustively try every all‑digit password of length 4–10, given two attack rates: * **Normal CPU**: \~10 password‑guesses per second (a typical 4‑core desktop). * **Fast server**: \~150 guesses per second (e.g. a 48‑thread machine with \~150 H/s). |Length|Combinations|Time @ 10 H/s|Time @ 150 H/s| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |4|10 000|16 minutes 40 seconds|1 minute 6 seconds| |5|100 000|2 hours 46 minutes|11 minutes 6 seconds| |6|1 000 000|1 day 3 hours|1 hour 51 minutes| |7|10 000 000|11 days 13 hours|18 hours 31 minutes| |8|100 000 000|115 days 17 hours|7 days 17 hours| |9|1 000 000 000|3 years 62 days|77 days 3 hours| |10|10 000 000 000|31 years 259 days|2 years 41 days| If your password was up to 7 digits long, then it would take up to 2 weeks to crack it on your computer. In worst case scenario that your password was 10 digits long you would need to rent a fast server for about 2 years to get it solved. Easy! 

Numerous_Ruin_4947

**How can Solana realistically compete with over 60 Layer 2 solutions?** Platforms like Base are reportedly already twice as fast as Solana, and now Ethereum's L2 ecosystem is evolving even further. Projects like the upcoming "Mega ETH" are targeting performance levels of 100,000 transactions per second with 1-millisecond block times. It’s hard to see how a single Layer 1 like Solana can go up against the entire Ethereum scaling infrastructure. Solana already struggles under high traffic conditions - as we saw during the Trump meme coin frenzy, where transactions either failed or took hours to complete. Imagine if a financial institution or bank tried to execute time-sensitive transactions during a surge like that. Layer 2s work more like multiple CPU cores - distributing load and scaling horizontally. Solana, on the other hand, is trying to route all global transaction volume through a single, monolithic pipeline. That model has limits. The blockchain is reportedly growing by several terabytes per month, and even the most powerful hardware will eventually buckle under that kind of data load. And with such steep validator hardware requirements, Solana risks further centralization. Only a handful of entities can afford to run the necessary infrastructure, which undermines the core principle of decentralization. From a Reddit thread: >*According to Solana, the network will generate 4 petabytes of data every year at full capacity. This wont be stored on each individual node but will be split across all nodes enabling a bit torrent-esque distribution of the data.* >*4 petabytes seems like a lot of data but Solana also plans to store this 100x (to avoid data loss and corruption). This means that on the network there will be 400 petabytes of data created every year (at full capacity). If this were spread over 1,000 validators it would entail 0.4 petabytes of data storage per validator per year. This seems pretty excessive... unless I am missing something.*

Numerous_Ruin_4947

That's funny. The Dapps Q1 2025 revenue numbers indicate the opposite. Ethereum is like a multi-core CPU and Solana is like a single-core CPU. There is no way banks and institutions will want to share block space on a chain with MEME degens. Solana choked when Trump brought out his MEME. It's so obvious. Why anyone thinks all activity should be on one L1 is a actually a mystery. The world is like a multi-threaded application. It needs a multi-core CPU. [Ethereum Dominates Dapp Revenue in Q1 2025 Raking in Over $1 Billion – Crypto News Bitcoin News](https://news.bitcoin.com/ethereum-dominates-dapp-revenue-in-q1-2025-raking-in-over-1-billion/) [Ethereum](https://buy.bitcoin.com/eth/) continues to solidify its position as the leading platform for decentralized applications (dApps), with [dApps](https://news.bitcoin.com/solanas-dapps-revenue-hits-record-365-million/) on the network generating a staggering $1.014 billion in fees during the first quarter of 2025, according to [Token Terminal](https://tokenterminal.com/explorer/studio/dashboards/9da383a8-8ff5-452e-9542-5e44fbb731af). Trailing far behind, Base, Coinbase’s Layer 2 chain, secured second place with $193 million in dapp fees, reflecting its growing traction, but still a significant gap from Ethereum’s dominance. [BNB](https://buy.bitcoin.com/bnb/?utm_source=News) Chain [dApps](https://www.bitcoin.com/dapps/) followed closely, collecting $170 million, while Arbitrum’s ecosystem brought in $73.8 million. Avalanche’s C-Chain rounded out the top five, with its dApps generating $27.68 million in fees.

Numerous_Ruin_4947

Think of Ethereum as a multi-core CPU. And Solana as a single-core CPU. The world is more like a multithreaded application with many different use cases. Why would banks, institutions and companies like Sony want to share the Solana blockchain with degen MEME traders? When Trump released his MEME, Solana choked. There are threads here on Reddit where people complained about their failed transactions. Many banks have now initiated engagement with Ethereum. The oldest bank in America, BNY, just announced they would broadcast some data to Ethereum. European banks have also indicated an interest in Ethereum.

slash_networkboy

Actually, no... I was in tech and was deeply intrigued by the concept. I was the network manager for one of my company's labs at the time so I set up a shared wallet on the server. Ran CPU based mining as that was still a thing on about 40 machines that were otherwise idle over nights as we only worked a day shift in that lab but never turned anything off. I did the "buy a pizza" type thing with friends so didn't have exactly a multiple of 25... but I did mine plenty (compared to today's rewards).

pop-1988

The answer is different for ETH, because its blockchain is many terabytes. A comparison ... https://blog.lopp.net/2021-altcoin-node-sync-tests/ > mass adoption Bitcoin constrains resource usage (mainly RAM requirements, ask if you want this explained) by limiting the size of a block, and the block interval. This incidentally flows to other resources. It's very light on CPU and network, and a single affordable HDD will store almost 200 years of blockchain This constraint triggers the scaling debate. But is there a scaling issue? No. Would there be a scaling issue with mass adoption? Who cares? There has been no sign of mass adoption. The expectation of mass adoption is unrealistic. It's probably a happy coincidence. By carefully constraining resource usage, the node network is cheap to run forever. And the level of actual adoption is well within the constraints for at least 50 more years As you can see in Lopp's other articles about initialization times for Bitcoin nodes, the main unbounded constraint is the linear time increase for initializing a new node. How long is too long? Already, Lopp's 10-hour time is too long for many, and is currently increasing by about 8% per year. For an operator with an HDD, the time is about 60 hours Nothing else has adoption anywhere close to Bitcoin. The "Bitcoin equivalent" blockchains (LTC, DOGE, Monero) have so little usage that they don't even function as spillover options for when Bitcoin is occasionally congested. ETH is bloated from its not-Bitcoin design, an indicator of the folly of arbitrarily discarding Bitcoin constraints. ETH has the remarkable twin features of almost no usage, and a bloated chain making it too expensive to operate a node

fukidiots

Appreciate your well thought out response. So strange how you have these people who think they're schooling me on stuff and they sound like they've just arrived to crypto. "Not your keys... Blah blah blah." Really? I was around for My.Gox. I set up some CPU mining back in 2013, but lost it. I only started investing in 2020. Anyway, I feel similarly to you. Having Bitcoin through an ETF in tax protected accounts has been really helpful for long term applicable wealth. But I always hoped to see my BTC wallet go from .99 to 1. Maybe it will someday when I can pull money out of my Roth and other IRAs.

ThereIsNoGovernance

And it will remain as Satoshi's Shield for eternity, No QC thing will hack anything. If you actually believe QC will out perform classic computers by billions of times, you are: GULLIBLE AF! [The largest number reliably factored by Shor's algorithm is 21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records#Records_for_efforts_by_quantum_computers). Note the keyword RELIABLY, as in repeatable, reproducible consistently without ever failing. They go onto quote several theories and once off factorizations that could not be repeated 'RELIABLY'. That is what I call hot air. And what about that absolute zero temperature quantum CPU? You know one of the things about Absolute zero is NOTHING MOVES. All matter utterly and completely stops at 0 degrees Kelvin ... not even electrons move - so like no electricity. But, apparently, that is the temperature at which these things will be computing at billions times the speed of a classic digital computer. Wow! QC is just noise designed to distract and produce FUD about cryptography, the greatest enemy of the state.

bitusher

This has been discussed many times before , but I'll explain it again >Why isn't Bitcoin's block size increased? The limit was already increased in 2017 from 1 MB to 4 million units of weight or up to 3.7 MB blocks limit . Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant . Some context for beginners to understand scaling capacity in Bitcoin: Satoshi Nakamoto originally set a 1MB blocksize limit on Bitcoin to prevent certain resource attacks and keep Bitcoin decentralized. He suggested some ways we can scale Bitcoin by introducing us to the idea of payment channels and ways to replace unconfirmed transactions (RBF) for a fee market before he disappeared. The first version of Bitcoin released had a version of replacing transactions as well https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L434 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html Over the years there has been many opinions and disputes as to how to scale Bitcoin from keeping the limit as is , to scaling mostly onchain with large blocks, to a multi-layered approach and every variation in between. In 2017 the Bitcoin community finally removed the 1MB after coming to consensus over a path forward. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h 1MB limit was removed and replaced with a larger limit of 4 million units of weight- https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/ghqcqn/bitcoin_bubble_or_revolution/fqa72j1/ Bitcoin is taking the approach of scaling with many solutions at once. With larger blocks, hard drive capacity is the least of our concerns due to – Archival full nodes contain the full blockchain and allow new nodes to bootstrap from them . Pruned nodes can get down to around ~5GB , and have all the same security and privacy benefits of archival nodes but need to initially download the whole blockchain for full validation before deleting it (It actually prunes as it validates) The primary resource concerns in order largest to smallest are: 1) UTXO bloat (increases CPU and more RAM costs) 2) Block propagation latency (causing centralization of mining) 3) Bandwidth costs 4) IBD (Initial Block Download ) Boostrapping new node costs 5) Blockchain storage (largely mitigated by pruning but some full archival nodes still need to exist in a decentralized manner) This means we need to scale conservatively and intelligently. We must scale with every means necessary. Onchain, decentralized payment channels , offchain private channels , optimizations like MAST and schnorr sig aggregation, and possibly sidechains/drivechains/statechains/ fedimint, cashu must be used. Raising the blockweight limits in the future is not completely opposed - https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html >"Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners to produce larger blocks at some cost." But raising the blocksize further than 4 million units also might not be needed as well depending how all the other solutions come to fruition.

ThereIsNoGovernance

Yeah smart stuff like QC!  [The largest number reliably factored by Shor's algorithm is 21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records#Records_for_efforts_by_quantum_computers). Note the keyword RELIABLY, as in repeatable, reproducible consistently without ever failing. They go onto quote several theories and once off factorizations that could not be repeated 'RELIABLY'. That is what I call hot air. And what about that absolute zero temperature quantum CPU? You know one of the things about Absolute zero is NOTHING MOVES. All matter utterly and completely stops at 0 degrees Kelvin ... not even electrons move - so like no electricity. But, apparently, that is the temperature at which these things will be computing at a billion times the speed of a classic digital computer. Wow! Yeah, sorry, ain't movin' my coin to an utterly and completely useless blockchain bloating QC resistant address.

Frogolocalypse

Henceforth be thy lesson : So let's talk about nodes and consensus as defined in the whitepaper and implemented in nodes. Let's start with [the bitcoin white paper](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) : > Satoshi from the Bitcoin white-paper chapter 12 'Conclusion' : The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. **Nodes** work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. **Nodes** can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this **consensus mechanism**. First, you have to understand what 'consensus' actually means : > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_%28computer_science%29 > A fundamental problem in distributed computing and multi-agent systems is to achieve overall system reliability in the presence of a number of faulty processes. This often requires processes to agree on some data value that is needed during computation. Examples of applications of consensus include whether to commit a transaction to a database *(or, for example, committing blocks to a blockchain)*, agreeing on the identity of a leader, state machine replication, and atomic broadcasts. The real world applications include clock synchronization, PageRank, opinion formation, smart power grids, state estimation, control of UAVs, load balancing and others. What does this mean if you are but an intrepid traveler amongst the erstwhile numpty-folk? Nodes are agents in a multi-agent system with [an agreed set of consensus rules](https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/how-does-a-bitcoin-node-verify-a-transaction/), which they and they alone enforce, that ensure that the system functions. Transactions are propagated through the multi-agent network based upon the agreed consensus rules by nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Miners retrieve valid transactions from any of these nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then order the transactions, and perform a hashing function on them until the hashing function returns a value that is suitable to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then pass the new block that they've created to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. The nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, then validate the block to ensure that each of the transactions within the block agree with the consensus rules. Then the node, which is an agent in a multi-agent system, extends the block-chain by attaching the new block to it. They then pass the new block, if it is valid, to other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Then each of these other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, each do the same validation on every block. Nodes accept incoming transactions and validate them. Miners don't. Nodes replicate transactions to other nodes. Miners don't. Miners take transactions from nodes, and order them in a block, and perform a hashing function on them, and it is the only thing they do. Miners pass the new block to the node. The node validates the transactions in the block. Miners don't. The node validates the block. Miners don't. The node extends the blockchain. Miners don't. The node replicates the block to other nodes. Miners don't. It is the validation of the nodes, and their CPU's, that define and police consensus in bitcoin. There is only one function that miners do. They take transactions, put them in a block, and hash them. As soon as a miner produces a block that nodes don't want, it is rejected. Miners work. Nodes validate. So nodes are the proof in proof-of-work. Nodes accept the transactions, validate the transactions (using their CPU), replicate the transactions, maintain the mempools, validate the blocks (using their CPU), extend the blockchain (using their CPU), replicate the blocks, serve the blockchain, and store the blockchain. Nodes even define the PoW algorithm that miners have to employ. If you can't convince these node owners that are using their nodes on a day-to-day basis, to uninstall their node software and install your new node client, especially when that node client decreases their node security and decreases the network security, any change you have is going to go exactly nowhere. So nodes maintain the protocol, not miners. It is thus. It has always been thus. If you can't convince all of those node owners running their node clients to uninstall one client and re-install another, any change you have to consensus is DOA. See for yourself. [Download it.](https://bitcoin.org/en/download) It's currently at 0.20.1 https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node > A full node is a program that fully validates transactions and blocks. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes. Thus endeth thy lesson.

Halo22B

You didn't list your RAM or CPU and which is more pertinent than your connection capability

comesaylorway

You can't mine bitcoin with a CPU. If you aren't mining bitcoin then wrong subreddit.

Shiratori-3

Was an interesting podcast actually. Just listened to it this morning. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3jIL02ivekv4hvKmcz7CPU Paolo Ardoino, the CEO of Tether, rejoins the show for a timely discussion. In this episode: * How is Paolo feeling about political trends in the US today? * Tether is the 7th-largest buyer of USTs at the sovereign level * Paolo’s decision to spend more time in the US * What does Paolo make of the stablecoin bills in Congress? * Does Tether want to eventually come onshore to the US? * Tether is pursuing a Big 4 Audit * The effect of Operation Choke Point 2.0 on Tether * Tether is moving their HQ to El Salvador * Paolo’s thoughts on stablecoins in MiCA * How does Tether get to the figure of 400m global users of the stablecoin? * Tether’s efforts to better understand their userbase and usage modes * Tether’s methodology around balance sheet investing * Is Paolo concerned about crypto-dollarization? * Tether’s relationship with Cantor now that Lutnick is Commerce Secretary * Is Paolo concerned about the emergence of interest-bearing stablecoins?

_Commando_

CPU mining, then GPU mining, then after some time FPGA then ASIC's. What a ride that was.

R009k

Me when my CPU miner kept crashing in 2010.

ebliever

I was an altcoin miner at that time. My mining rig had four 290X's that screamed like little jet engines 24/7. (I burned out 3 of the 4 of them, and 1 of the two 1000W power supplies, in less than a year.) No fires, but I remember a hilarious thread on one mining forum where a whole bunch of us - myself included - admitted that we had each burned out not 1, and not 3, but exactly 2 Kill-a-Watt meters. We commonly used them to monitor how much power our rigs were drawing. The meters would die, we'd complain to Amazon and get a replacement, the replacement would burn out a few weeks later, and at that point we'd read the instructions and discover that you aren't supposed to leave them plugged in long term with a high wattage draw. And then there was the "Often bought with" screen on Amazon for certain motherboards and graphics cards that listed (literally) a milk crate and a specific resistor along with CPU, GPUs and other hardware....

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The article narrates how the author turned a monotonous corporate office day into a Monero cryptocurrency mining experiment. Using their office PC, they set up a Monero mining rig, optimized CPU performance, and managed overheating issues. While the mining effort was not financially lucrative, it served as a productive and engaging way to escape the drudgery of corporate life. The author emphasizes the importance of optimizing settings, monitoring temperatures, and balancing work with personal interests to stay sane in a corporate environment. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Charming-Designer944

While it is interesting to track your node connectivity, then design while very simple in principle is quite resilient in finding reasonably good paths for the data. The connectivity your node have will change a lot over time. It takes time to establish connections to the more stable nodes, and even then it varies a lot what in what connectivity you have as connections come and go. The node connectivity is guided by primary by two rules a) Each node only initiates a handful connections to other peers, selected at random. Most your connections are accepted incoming connections initiated by other nodes and clients looking for peers. b) Each node is limited in the number of connections they accept, normally about 1k, can be configured higher. A long running node is often full and do not accept any new connections. Once connected there is no significant difference in how the connection to the nodes are used. Blocks are downloaded from any of the peers which have newer blocks than your tip. Transactions and new blocks are relayed between all connections via an announce-request pattern. This results in that you will start out with mostly connections to new leaf nodes which are actively looking for peers to connect to, like yourself. And over time you will likely gain some connections to more stable reliable nodes. The majority of your connections as a public node will always be leaf nodes, and is what makes the network resilient as the loss of any of the long term stable nodes does not reduce the total network connectivity by a noticeable amount as the network connectivity is kept in a highly decentralized structure. Speed during an initial block download is mainly limited by your CPU capability to validate the blocks. You download blocks from several peers in parallel, and the network connectivity to each node is usually not a limiting factor. It does not matter much if some nodes are on a high latency low bandwidth connection, those will not be used much during the block download as they get outpaced by nodes with better connectivity. Connectivity when encountering slow responding nodes was recently improved significantly. Once you are up to speed with the blockchain, the nodes with the less latency is also the nodes you will mostly use. These are the ones you will first receive the announces from as new data becomes available in the network, prompting you to request the data from them. And you will then in turn announce the data to your peers and they will in turn download the data from the first node that announces to them. Resulting in that you mostly publish data to the nodes that are on slow links, rarely request anything from them.

damian2000

You could get a feel for it by mining Monero, it can only be mined on a CPU/GPU, ie a PC.

Sector__7

>An aggressive military campaign against Bitcoin mining operations could do just that. Especially if it takes large amounts of hash power off line right after a major difficulty increase. Repeat that multiple times and you can delay that halving. By weeks or months even You know not what you speak as the difficulty is based off of the amount of miners. If enough miners shut down, bitcoin could go back to GPU or even CPU mining. The reason why the difficulty is increasing is mostly due to price and miners wanting to win the reward for that block. >The difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks based on the time it took to find the previous 2016 blocks. At the desired rate of one block each 10 minutes, 2016 blocks would take exactly two weeks to find. If the previous 2016 blocks took more than two weeks to find, the difficulty is reduced. If they took less than two weeks, the difficulty is increased. The change in difficulty is in proportion to the amount of time over or under two weeks the previous 2016 blocks took to find. [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#Can_the_network_difficulty_go_down?](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty#Can_the_network_difficulty_go_down?)

v3r50n

I mined bitcoins on a CPU before Mt. Gox was even created old. 😂

Amphibious333

Bitcoin is not a traditional investment, I don't see how tarrifs would affect Bitcoin. 1 BTC = 1 BTC regardless of what happens. Bitcoin is not a CPU or a GPU, it can't be affected by trade wars, as it's not centralized in a specific country. Bitcoin is traded globally on exchanges.

Erowid2S

To be fair, the hacker had 20% of all ETH. Monero is also a good cryptocurrency that happens not to waste tons of energy and is more decentralized due to the RandomX algorithm forcing users to use normal CPU's. Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy for no good reason.

biba8163

Satoshi always described Bitcoin as analogous to digital gold > The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended > In this sense, it's more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes. As the number of users grows, the value per coin increases. It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value. > As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties: > - boring grey in colour > - not a good conductor of electricity > - not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either > - not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose > and one special, magical property: > - can be transported over a communications channel > It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. > Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. More like a collectible or commodity. > The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. Also, you might want to read about how money works. Vitalik here is referencing "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" which is about the history of money. > "Money always evolves in the following four stages, collectible -> SoV -> MoE -> UoA" - no, no, no! Seriously, read David Graeber's Debt. - Vitalik 2018

Pasukaru0

To expand on the theory a bit more: If everyone stopped mining at the same time, there won't even be a difficulty adjustment. You at least need enough hashrate online to make it to the next difficulty adjustment in a reasonable time frame. A single CPU will not get you there. Say, adjustment just happened and now 90% of hashrate goes poof. The next adjustment will happen in roughly 5 months since new blocks now take ~100 minutes on average. Note that the difficulty adjustment is also capped to a factor between 0.25 - 4.0. So just a single adjustment won't bring us back to the regular 10 minute blocks in the above example.

LankyRep7

I was CPU mining in the end 2009 on an Imac , GPU mining in 2010 with two Radeon 6990's that's 15 years.

ExTremTR

Monero is simply what crypto supposed to be. Faster transactions, almost no fees and privacy based on its core. RandomX algorithm only optimized for CPU's so everyone can support the network (no more ASIC hell!) which makes it more decentralized. Meanwhile all other alts and shıts including the Bitcoin is a joke in terms of daily usage. Bitcoin transactions are horribly slow and often packed with high fees way too far away from replacing current centralized payment systems and more tend to be a crypto asset rather than crypto currency because of its insane volatility. Lightning network is not practical and still not supported by the most of the wallets though.

PirateSKB

>And how many people understand these codes? lol probably zero when it comes to the average person >That's what paid antivirus programs are for, to protect you from infection In theory they should, but i've had viruses in the past where I just ended up wiping the entire drive and reinstalling Windows. I tried Avira, Bitdefender, Avast, etc and they all failed to locate the virus, and it wasn't just a one time incident either. I had a cryptojacker virus that tried to steal my Eth (this was back in like 2018 though, so i'm guessing they're even worse now) and it would change my clipboard eth address when copypasting to another address, i've had a trojan that wiped half my icons on my desktop and maxed out my CPU with its payload, and plenty of other viruses and countless malware that went undetected by antivirus software

muskelongated

True for majority. Completely wrong about XMR & LTC. Although LTC could (and probably should) be substituted with any modern coin with higher TPS and less ancient tech, but whatever. And yes, XMR absolutely is only used "as money" as much as it is because of cyber criminals, PDFs, drug dealers etc. Aka "privacy advocates" when they're typing a post on Reddit. LTC, similar, but less to do with privacy and more to do with it often being the preferred currency among Russian carders, initial access brokers, malware devs and ransomware affiliate reps for whatever reason. Probably just never transitioned away from it from the early days back when LTC was the primary "faster alternative" to BTC. + They don't gaf about "privacy" because the Russian FSB isn't prosecuting them for ransomware attacking an American or European hospital or university. Also, XMR's randomX pairs perfectly with LTC for botnet mining. XMR CPU and LTC GPU seems to be the meta now a days (mostly modified and crypted versions of Unam's old 'silent miner' github project).

Erowid2S

Lightning network is not as private and secure as monero. Plus, monero has higher TPS than bitcoin and it is more energy efficient. Sure you may have created the lightning network but bitcoin's waste of energy is still there and it's still only 7 TPS. That energy could go to something that is actually producing something of value. Monero at least provides privacy, but it's also much more energy efficient by its algorithm. It's also decentralized due to RandomX allowing anyone to mine with any CPU. This is very decentralized and allows almost anyone to mine. Bitcoin would be great if it had a roadmap to stop all the energy waste. Instead, it has a conservative community of fools. Cryptos like ALGO do ridiculous amounts of TPS without requiring so much waste of energy, so I'm not sure why bitcoiners want to stay in the past? Even ethereum abandoned PoW. We might as well port bitcoin over to different blockchains and abandon that nonsense.

pop-1988

> as many of us may know there is an address out there; of presumably Satoshi Nakamoto, who has a significant portion of the circulating supply of BTC Many of us know this is untrue. There are approximately 20,000 50-BTC mining rewards from the CPU mining period which are still unspent. Each has a unique address - more than 20,000 different addresses There is no credible evidence that Satoshi Nakamoto mined more than a few of these > couldn't one just hard fork BTC and send those coins to a burn address instead What if those coins were mined by 20,000 different miners? That's more likely that your "Satoshi owns them all" nonsense Bitcoin Core source code is freely available to read and to change. Bitcoin Core development is open to all contributors. This includes you. You can make your proposed change, compile your version of Core, and offer it to the community. But you forgot something. Bitcoin is not a centralized system. You have no hope of persuading 20,000 separate node operators to adopt your fork

Overkillus

In a fairytale world where we could scale a monolithic synchronously composable L1 infinitely ofc they are superior. But unfortunately there are hard physical limits to how hard you can scale a classic L1 unless you go with Solana like approaches leading to massive centralization. Scaling L1 is more “important” but it is no longer feasible to do so hence sharding approaches offer a more realistic high performance, decentralized future. If I’d have a magic button boosting L1s to million TPS I would press it. Sharding wouldn’t be needed and everything would be awesome. Unfortunately this is not how this works. It was the same for CPU, initially everything was focused on single core performance and everyone cared only about that. Eventually we reached limits of an individual core due to physical properties. To develop further we had to go multi core. It made the system more complex but opened the path for the next tens of years of further progress.

FirstAmendmentIsDead

Yes. The chips are designed to do SHA-256 only, nothing else. It’s not like a regular CPU where you can run any program you want. The design of the asic chips are very specific and specialized for one task only.

Cucuputih

Well, a 64-bit machine can still do SHA-256 because it doesn’t just work with 64-bit numbers. It can handle smaller chunks, like 32-bit, and combine them to process bigger data. SHA-256 breaks things into 32-bit pieces anyway, so the CPU just works through them step by step. Plus, dedicated mining hardware (like GPUs and ASICs) is way better at it since they’re built for this kind of work.

PokeEmEyeballs

GPU based algorithms would function more efficiently and at better scale relative to CPU based algos without compromising any security or scale.  BTC has always used CPU based algorithms and I don’t believe the initial vision included the wide use of mostly centralized data centers that make use of purpose built ASICs to remains profitable, which one could argue goes against the very essence of decentralization. 

Smokester121

Yeah mining would have been easier back then via CPU mining

Charming-Designer944

The download will slow down progressively. The main performance issue in my experience is the UTXO set. It together with the block index cache and other RAM requirements eventually outgrows the RAM you have available on such small computers, limiting the speed of block transaction validation. 16GB is on the border today. Once the blockchain have synced up you can survive with much less RAM, down to a couple GB even, at the cost of a little more disk I/O and slightly slower block validation. Sure, you will not be top speed in accepting new blocks but for most uses some additional seconds for the validation of each new block every 10 minutes is not a problem. One simple option if you do not want to wait for days is to quickly sync up with the network is to prime the download by running the block download on a bigger computer of yours with plenty of RAM (more CPU also helps), then when synced up copy the downloaded blockchain + chainstate over to the smaller computer. But be warned that if you ever need to reindex the blockchain then you get back into the same performance issues from RAM shortage, but you can do the same trick then if needed. As long as you only use computers you trust there is no issue in moving or copying the downloaded & verified blockchain + chainstate to multiple nodes of yours.

ComicCollector69

Any decent Raspberry 5 kit should be good. Make sure whatever one you get comes with an approved power supply as the little guy takes more power than you would expect. Also, look for a model without the fans as if you are only running a node it’s not that CPU intensive. Just make sure you get the 8 GB of ram. For the SSD I went with the “SAMSUNG T7 Portable SSD, 2TB External Solid State Drive” it’s currently on sale at Amazon. All in you are probably looking $200-$250

swohio

One of my roommates mentioned it existing but didn't know much about it. I was looking into and trying to understand how to "mine" it or whatever on my computer (this was still when it was CPU mining, yeah that early) but I had a raid to goto in WoW so I closed that browser tab and logged on for my raid.

AtomicUnity

No problem, I love to help my fellow downtrodden peers who are similarly hurt by the dirty fiat game of currency debasement. Surely, the answer to the dirty fiat game is to spend 1700 kWh per transaction, as the energy is impossible to spend in a better way elsewhere, projects like AlphaFold for example are stupid but Bitcoin is an extremely good use of energy. I enjoy helping my community debank themselves through the centralized cryptocurrency exchanges. You're walking on a magnificent path right now. In 10 years, others will be jealous that you own even 1 sat. Holding and never selling is the way to go. Don't forget to make sure that when you die no one has access to your keys so that you can donate to the scarcity of other holders. Personally, I'm also never selling my Bitcoin. I'm knee deep in debt just to own more BTC. I'm never selling. This is the future of finance. I feel bad for anyone who is still stuck in fiat land. Don't expect to ever understand Bitcoin fully. After 1000 hours you're only scratching the surface. Watch all of Michael Saylor's (⚡) content and Bitcoin podcasts from many others and you will start to gain an inkling of understanding. Bitcoin is a complex innovation, Satoshi clearly has one of the highest IQ's of anyone in history. Never waste your time with useless coins like Monero which have 90 TPS and allow for any CPU to mine it so that just anyone can join in. Bitcoin is better because it requires a $30k asic and your own house which has expensive electrical wiring to even have a small chance of joining in on the profits. PoS coins are also useless because they don't use a bunch of resources. How shit lmao.

__Ken_Adams__

Impossible. Mining "rigs" weren't a thing until around 2011, and the first ***ever*** established bitcoin price was higher than $0.00089. By early 2011, which is about the earliest anyone would have been building "rigs" (majority were still CPU mining), the price was above $0.25. Even if he was GPU mining in the first month it became publicly available (September 2010), bitcoin was above $0.05.

colabus

Gee. I think it was 2009-2010, maybe 2011 - seriously. I was late to the Facebook surge (but also didn’t buy into the social media thing) but I knew Bitcoin was going to be big. Digital currency, etc. But at that time and my age I just didn’t have any way to get any. Mining would have been the answer but I remember running SETI@Home back in the day and never having enough CPU capacity. I never bothered mining and wouldn’t have understood it. I remember running up the wallet software at the time, spent a while downloading the chain. This was back on dial up i think. I layered in many years later. I think if I was just a little older at the time things may have been different. But coulda shoulda, and who knows if I would have sold out. Adult life has a way of shifting your focus, career, paying off house, etc.

PeachScary413

Bruv, do you even understand what sending packets of info around means? The information doesn't travel on a magic carpet into your GPU, it has to go from the network interface buffer into the CPU and the be transfered or DMA:d into a GPU buffer until it can finally be processed... then you have to do the same process all over again in order to send your newly computed data over to another computer. It would most likely be around 10,000,000,000x slower to do it like that then just distributing it locally between your GPUs [https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832](https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832)

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The article discusses the development of cryptocurrency-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) as a new chapter in scaling cryptocurrency networks. It highlights the evolution from CPU to GPU to ASIC mining, which has significantly increased efficiency. However, transaction capacity has not scaled proportionately. The article suggests that a hardware-based approach to building cryptocurrency nodes could improve speed, reliability, and energy efficiency. It proposes changes to Bitcoin's architecture to make it scalable, compressible, extensible, and incentive-compatible, potentially leading to a more efficient network. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Necroscope420

Dude tell me about it. I was a money nerd since the Ron Paul Revolution in 2008 so I knew alllll about the bad money and what the problems were. I saw bitcoin early. Like early early, mine on your CPU and make thousands of BTC a day early. I saw the potential and I still did not even put 100 bucks in. I was too blackpilled. I was utterly convinced there was no way the government would let this get to the point it was out of their control. I was wrong and my possibility of being a millionaire in this lifetime are now back to nearly zero. At least I am buying now, even if I did start 9 years late

Erowid2S

Yeah no I know all of this and I know that the security of the Bitcoin network isn't wholly superior to all other blockchains. You being an engineer means squat; the president has a higher title yet he's a buffoon. It's fallacious to attempt an argument from authority. You assume that Bitcoin is the only safe blockchain for some reason, yet even LTC has never had downtime or any other issues and on top of that, it's faster. Monero also exists, does 90 TPS, is actually private and thus has a use case plus is also truly decentralized (any CPU can mine it) but for some reason you guys die on the Bitcoin hill with its old tech that wastes lots of energy lol.

WunderTech

Oh wow you were so wrong: it's GPU not CPU

landon0605

There isn't anything profitable to mine anymore with a standard GPU/CPU.

Criss_Crossx

I use a spare PC with two graphics cards folding proteins for folding @ home. That system is doing serious work. Relatively efficient with a CPU underclock and GPU undervolt. Far from single digit wattage of course.

liflafthethird

A few months ago I took an old mac mini, installed ubuntu server and run a full node from it. I use an HDD, it took a while to download the whole blockchain, but now that it did, it is running fine, CPU usage is low, disk IO is low. I connected my wallet to my node for privacy reasons. My node runs 24x7 but even a few hrs a day would still be helpful to the network.

slickmoon

I've been in this space from nearly the beginning. Back in 2009 I mined a tiny amount of Bitcoin on my CPU and have drifted in and out over the years before following closely and quietly for the last few cycles. I still think there're genuine use cases for crypto, and the tech (and culture around it) will no doubt continue to evolve long after I've lost interest and patience with it. This current culture is kind of fucked, with fascists and scammers driving a lot of the popular news about it. But just selfishly, I derive a bit of pleasure knowing that these idiots will throw their life savings into coins I have. And that I'll take profit (as I've been doing) and escape the system that punishes people like me with crushing debt for the rest of their life. If fascists lose their life savings for that, it makes life a little bit more bearable. For what it's worth, I'm fully aware there are real world consequences for the people who get caught in the blast radius. The collateral damage isn't built into the tech (not withstanding the lack of sustainability in PoW chains), it's the people who do that.

yatv

why Monero is better than Zcash: * no CEO * no vulnerable corporate presence, anonymous core developers not subject to US/EU regulatory pressure or intimidation * not overly-concerned with compliance, privacy is prioritized in every consideration regardless of the consequences * fully private at protocol level (no optional privacy), all transactions look the same, transparency is strictly opt-in * auto-shielded IP addresses * uses established, well-understood, battle-tested and thus reliable cryptography as opposed to novel, experimental, much less understood and thus potentially flawed cryptography i.e. no "spooky moon math" * modular approach to privacy = no single point of failure * proven track record, 6+ years of sustained darknet usage with 0 users traced, has notably foiled the FBI, Europol & the IRS * no suspected backdoors * no dev tax i.e. "founder's reward/community development fund", conditional donation-based dev funding gives the community more leverage and keeps devs disciplined * wasn't designed to systematically enrich founders & early Zerocoin Electric Coin Company LLC investors, whales either mined or bought their coins like everybody else * not a Bitcoin fork * not transitioning to Proof-of-Stake, PoW has a proven 10+ year track record while consumer-grade CPU mining remains the most anonymous, most permissionless way of acquiring coins * ASIC resistance * tail emission * dynamic blocksize * lower inflation * ever-increasing real-world adoption, actually displacing Bitcoin in OPSEC-critical markets, endorsed by the DNM Bible * growing criminal adoption = infinitely more street cred + law enforcement/regulator hostility = additional battle-hardening * passionate grassroots enthusiasm, considerably more community engagement and activism, has better memes * significantly better reputation, widely admired and respected by non-hodlers, has much more traction on Reddit, 4chan, etc * greater decentralization = much more likely to survive a governmental crackdown on privacy coins * no trademark restrictions, no pandering to the Establishment, has steadfastly remained true to crypto's anti-authoritarian free market cypherpunk ideals [https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#ZcashBlackpill](https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#ZcashBlackpill)

DebianDog

I remember my Dad asking about it because I was in IT and I told him "it was a stupid idea" unless you wanted WoW gold or drugs. Money from CPU cycles LOL.... :(

ResidentResearcher94

Well some people are. Miners went from CPU to GPU now specializes ASICs for efficient processing

StatisticalMan

> Would altering PoW in this way compromise Bitcoin’s decentralization or security? Almost certainly but it is a bit moot Bitcoin is never being altered in such a fundamental way because getting consensus for something like that is defacto impossible. Bitcoin's proof of work has a few specific charcteristics 1) It is scalable from one poorly optimized cpu miner to nearly infinite computing power. 2) The difficulty can be adjusted in a decentralized manner to any level needed. 3) It is random with no known methods to gain an advantage or shortcut. Every hash could be a solution. You could start CPU mining and solve a block on the first hash attempt. It isn't likely but it could happen. 4) It is hard to solve but easily verified. Verification that a few cycles no matter how hard the solution is or how long it took. 5) Any participant can simply start mining without checking into a central authority or being assigned specific work.

armantheparman

I think you're unlucky, that's not normal. Pressing the AI on the matter, it returned no significant concerns. Also, bitcoin nodes are not continuously stressing the CPU. But mining would.

skysi42

He lied to you. In 2009 you could still ask for free BTC to any bitcoin enthusiast and they will sent it to you, there was even still some mainnet faucets online at the time. Or, you could just run your PC for some hours and you would mine a block or two with only your CPU. Each block gave 50BTC, so it was no need to buy a BTC.

OneSmallStepForLambo

That is far enough away where the concept of the whitepaper was in practice, "one-CPU-one-vote". Each user of the network was also a miner, and used regular x86 processors. When difficulty and demand rose, dedicated miners leveraged GPU's, then ASIC's.

Arbiter_89

A couple things (as someone who did limited CPU mining in 2011.) You would not have mined thousands of btc with just your cpu. IIRC, it'd be closer to 1 btc per week and by the end of the year cpu mining would no longer be viable. And during much of that time, you would have been better off just buying the coins when you factor in your electric costs. If you installed it, chances are you would have quit after a week or two. You also would have sold when it reached $100, and if not, you would have sold when it reached $1000, and if not, it would be because you forgot about it and reformatted your HD. The bottom line? You would have to get a lot of things right to step away wealthy; not just install the program.

bencozzy

Just chill mine and stay private I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

privyanoncrypto

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

privyanoncrypto

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

I'm just sticking to CPU minable privacy coins because the governments are not wanting to try and manipulate control or use them Scala XLA and Monero XMR mainly Got to keep the government out of my business they already know too much about us

bencozzy

This is why I'm only dealing in privacy cryptos main CPU minable ones. Fuck the feds! Monero XMR and Scala XLA

North-West-050

I have to agree. I see 2 token ring hubs, two RAID drive enclosure, 4 Ethernet switches and stuff I do not know what. None is turned on, and when was the last time an apartment had a dedicated electric outlet for sensitive equipment (one with red label above it). What I do not see are CPU’s and GPU’s in that pile. Plus the way it is stacked would burn out, no airflow room.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; TEP-2 has been accepted and implemented in the Unchained core, replacing BLS signatures with Ed25519 signatures. This change enhances efficiency, requiring less memory and CPU, and is easier to implement and verify. Ed25519 signatures are supported by various libraries and hardware accelerators, aligning with Unchained's goals of being an efficient and scalable platform. TEP-1, which introduced Unchained Plugins, now uses Ed25519 signatures. New developer toolkits, including the Unchained Client and Sia Schema, have been released to facilitate application development. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Amber_Sam

So you mined shitcoins with a single GPU and CPU in 2018. If it was the whole 2018, you might have mined the 0.07 BTC. There's no chance to mine 27 bitcoin with this setup on NiceHash. That's for sure. Sorry if it sounds too harsh, I'm just trying to keep you in reality.

chickinflickin

Check out r/Etica protocol. It's a L1 Decentralised science and research funding protocol utilising CPU mining. The governance of the Etica Protocol is community-driven. Changes to the protocol, such as updates or improvements, are proposed and voted on by the community, similar to the research proposals. Check it out!

contact

The difficulty rating adjusts based on the network’s hash rate. We used to be able to use our Gaming CPU and GPU for Bitcoin before ASICs came along

privyanoncrypto

Since the governments and mega hedge funds and Uber big corporations and ultra wealthy want to control and manipulate cryptos. This can be seen on public ledgers on chain. I'll only be dealing with CPU minable privacy focused cryptos Scala XLA and Monero XMR. Scala can be mined on Android devices and low end hardware making entry available to most of the world population.

castorfromtheva

I have different node setups running. One of them is Umbrel. Running it for around three years. It's pretty stable even when running software like Electrum Server, Lightning Node an own mempool.space instance, Thunderhub and other things on top of Bitcoin core. It's very easy to setup and really stable, but in terms of configurability not as open as for example RaspiBlitz or manually setting everything oneself. But it's really easy to use and also very good as a fallback option in case other fullnode servers have issues. One thing I'd recommend though is not going with a Raspi4. Either go with a Raspi5 with 8 gigs of RAM.... Or still better decide for a normal x86 architecture. For example Lenovo tiny or Dell optiplex with at least a Gen. 6 CPU like I3-6100T or above. These miniPCs will be around 100 bucks if you get a used one and another 100 bucks for a 2Tbyte which is a great, futureproof setup especially when you decide for 16 gigs of RAM (while depending on how much additional bitcoin related sofware you're gonna run on top, 8 gigs would likely do the trick as well and you can upgrade later). Energy-wise you'll probably pay around 1 to 2 bucks per month when having it run 24/7/365. You can connect a lot of different wallets to your node, even mobile software wallets which in case of transactions on the go will then use your own fullnodes dataset run @yourhome. It's a great feeling to have and in the first place actually *use* an own fullnode as it's honestly the only true way to be sovereign participant within the bitcoin network. If you have further questions, also during setup or running it, feel free to head back. Maybe I can help.

HiddenStoat

Exactly - we are optimising for developer time, ease of future change, and portability, rather than optimsing for CPU and memory usage. The the high cost of developers vs low cost of hardware is just the invisible hand of the market gently pushing us into optimising for the former over the latter.

JLCosta

Yeah man, check it out and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised... They're also only mined using CPU's, and asic resistant so you can literally mine Monero on your phone. XMR is truly the cryptocurrency king.

zweitaktfan

Gridcoin is not profitable, but BOINC can limit the used CPU cores. For heating and i like the idea of distributed computing.

CardAda10000000

I always wanted to mine it but never could. Even when the CPU was enough.

aaj094

There is some reason to believe that profits in AI stocks like Nvidia could see a rotation to crypto following the news around Deepseek implying a lot less use of CPU power than earlier understood.

TheForestsEdge

Pretty much from the start. Stupid me was too stupid to understand. I actually set myself up to mine on a couple of PCs (when CPU mining was still a thing) to see what this was all about. But I lost interest. I started buying at the end of 2020. Now I'm set.

Old-Paramedic-2192

What CPU do you have? Also do you mine Solo or P2P pool?

MrWonderfulPoop

You would really have to try with your choice of coins and look at CPU and network usage.