CPU

Familiar_Drawer6125

I cant find any tool that can check passwords with GPU. I use btcrecover but it use CPU and its very slow 1000 p/s. The GPU option in btcrecover doesnt work for me/my wallet. Any suggestion for gpu tool besides hashcat?

asakura67

100% CPU means 100% fans. I tried this back in 2010 and this was a fucking boing screaming in my chamber.

ArthurBurtonMorgan

Imagine a desktop tower PC from 2008-2009 or so running 100% across both CPU cores 24/7. Fans screaming at full speed incessantly. That’s not tolerable for most people, as most people expect their machines to be whisper quiet the majority of the time.

jeffbeck67

How fake can that be ? MIning was done on CPU back then.

ostracize

First heard about it on Slashdot in 2011. Didn't give it much attention because: 1. Eats up CPU cycles with unlikely benefits (at least protein folding seemed more useful) 2. P2P. Didn't like the idea of randos connecting to me and eating up my precious bandwidth 3. The blockchain was already eating up a fair bit of disk space. Didn't want to give up my hard drive for that 4. It seemed like a more complicated version of a service Paypal was already offering Kept tabs on it over the next few years. I started to recognize the value but Mt. Gox was sketchy AF. Silk Road held appeal to me and didn't seem likely to ever be of use. I was right on both fronts there.

927xks

Check out the original white paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Original website: https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/ "Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without the burdens of going through financial institutions. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcasted on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone." -bitcoin.org, 2009

trimalcus

You can find this post to help on how to get XMR https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/s/nTOOin13JR Also it is easy to mine XMR with a CPU running in the background

daynomate

I needed 1BTC to pay for membership to a newzbin search service. It was $10 ! Naaah I thought. Can’t be assed. Would have taken a month to mine on my CPU (!!) at the time.

Charming-Designer944

Solo mining is not really helping the network, or yourself. The chances of ever hitting a block is far too small on the thinnest edge of nonexistant. Better to join a pool that i ethically in line with your goals so you have a chance of getting your voice heard and helping diversifying the mining and direction of the network. The network needs - transparency in transactions policies - transparency in miner voting procedures - miners taking part in the voting - well connected bitcoin nodes with sufficient RAM and CPU for relaying transactions and blocks - well connected Bitcoin nodes with storage for whole Blockchain to seed new nodes joining the network - public electrum servers - more users running their own electrum servers shielding their wallet privacy It is quite sad that then Bitcoin Core have killed the idea of SPV. While I understand the reasoning, SPV Bloom filters have great potential compared to.Electrum. I much rather had seen the above list include the option to run a SPV enabled node (bloom filters + txindex) but today that is not a viable option for BTC.

Exotic_Jaguar7626

#SickandBullish Come and check out our cult and fun vibe in the Tg channel. Fully transparent and doxxed dev (Josh) almost never sleeps. Some say that when he sleeps, his hands are still writing code and that the CPU of his desktop is cooled by the tears of a Sick Buffalo.

ardyes

The CPU compute can be used for anything really. At one stage it was estimated that QUBIC had more compute than el Capitan the fastest super computer in the world. With that kind of compute it can be outsourced to companies to do whatever work they want. 

snoretech

That is the whole idea. You can't train an AI with ASICs. The purpose is to collect most CPU compute and use it to train QUBIC's own AI and not rely on Nvidia GPUs supply bottlenecks. Everyone can mine with a CPU.

i_be_jeffers

Is it cool to mine Monero on free CPU time? Think it’s posible to take over the network?

Unique_Astronaut_567

Vitalik has already gone against Trumps views multiple times and wants nothing to do with him or his party. Now lets be honest, nobody here is for the tech and were all here to make money. Solana or any other chain will jump to kiss the ring and get the mega pump that Eth should receive. Vitalik is to autistic to play ball and needs to get better at public affairs. BTC has Sailor and Eth needs someone to push the narrative forward. The 5k/10k narrative can be real, but Eth really needs someone that can push that narrative to the public. right now "BTC is digital gold" is the easiest sell. For Eth to hit 5k/10k you need to be able to sell it without explaining blockchains and layer2 solutions to the masses. People invest heavily in Nvidia but can not explain what a GPU does or how it differs from a CPU.

Unique_Astronaut_567

Vitalik has already gone against Trumps views multiple times and wants nothing to do with him or his party. Now lets be honest, nobody here is for the tech and were all here to make money. Solana or any other chain will jump to kiss the ring and get the mega pump that Eth should receive. Vitalik is to autistic to play ball and needs to get better at public affairs. BTC has Sailor and Eth needs someone to push the narrative forward. The 5k/10k narrative can be real, but Eth really needs someone that can push that narrative to the public. right now "BTC is digital gold" is the easiest sell. For Eth to hit 5k/10k you need to be able to sell it without explaining blockchains and layer2 solutions to the masses. People invest heavily in Nvidia but can not explain what a GPU does or how it differs from a CPU.

easily_erased

A) due to its restrictions it doesn't have the kind of futures/derivatives markets of other bluechip alts which tend to lead to manipulation/trend reversion properties B) it is more quantum resistant than other cryptos (even if the threat is overstated). the devs also have a culture of innovation/regular hard forks which could adapt to potential crisis C) mining is much more democratized due to an ASIC-resistant mining algo--anybody can still mine XMR with an average CPU. this relieves some sell pressure as big players aren't selling to fund huge energy intensive operations D) many people see the writing on the wall when it comes to censorship in the West. other cryptos have reasonable privacy features (LTC with MWEB) but Monero is the gold standard. Many bright devs made their way over to XMR from BTC and it fulfills BTC's original ethos in many ways go ahead, buy some XMR 😎 cake wallet makes it super easy to swap from LTC or whatever, no exchange necessary

xnergy5

Exactly. The fact that they’re still far from maxing out CPU utilization shows how much untapped potential there is. Once full utilization kicks in — not even counting future CPU inflow or algo tweaks — 500–800 MH/s is absolutely within reach. Add Tari merge mining and potential GPU deployment, and it's clear this could easily go over 50% of Monero's hashrate. It’s not just about mining rewards anymore. At that scale, the influence extends to consensus and long-term network dynamics. Don’t sleep on this.

nstratz

Is it far fetched? Just make sure you give miners highest revenue versus others. In Qubic this is possible because PoW for the network itself is not needed for its security directly. Qubic is interested in both CPU and GPU computing power. ASICs make no sense because algorithm will change very often. Regular hardwire will win, see it as BOINC but with profits. Anyone can now mine with your (idle) home computer and get some profit.

Strong_Camp2695

Looking at the Qubic discord it seems they chose to mine XMR because its was one of the most complex to try and mine via POW and CfB stated if it was successful they would be able to mine any coin and also because it's heavily CPU mining.  Apprantly there's a planned algorithm change in a month which will significant increase hashrate in favour of CPU mining rather than GPU.  I've seen on X multiple posts over the last week where the hashrate has increased from 40mhs to now 150mhs. Its impressive to say the least and is looking more profitable than mining any other coins. 

arjum-mandal

Using idle CPU time to mine Monero can be seen as efficient resource use but it risks breaching user trust if not transparently disclosed. Even small deviations from a platforms original mission can hurt its credibility. Reaching 51% hash rate on Monero is highly unlikely without massive coordinated infrastructure.

John_Tuba

The man that bought the pizza was Laszlo Hanyecz. Most people today, even Bitcoiners, don’t know that name, but he was the first miner to use a GPU (rather than a CPU).

Bubble_2009C

This man is famous for those two pizza, but this man wrote the first code to mine btc with GPU instead CPU. Good pizza day to everyone

digital__bits

Why is it not decentralized? I can run a mining node from my computer and it doesn't require an ASIC or powerful GPU, just my CPU and I'm contributing to the network. It is cash because it is fungible and works like paper money. No one is going to know my transactions history or any other information.

trimalcus

It can only be mined with CPU. RandomX is Asics resistant and quantum proof in some aspects

PoisonWaffle3

I started mining BTC on my gaming PC (with a mining pool) in 2011. It was profitable to mine on the CPU and on both GPUs, and over a period of about 6 months I had mined about 5 BTC, worth about $2-3 each. Everyone I talked to about it at the time was interested in the blockchain tech itself, and about how it could disrupt the entire finance industry. Sure we were making some money with our gaming PCs, but it was small change and we had no idea how valuable it would become. I ended up spending 6 years in prison (late 2011 to late 2017) so I was forced to HODL for that time. In 2020-2021 I sold a good chunk of my BTC ($30k-60k range) and put it toward building a house. It's crazy that we're in the $110k range now, but it looks like we still have a long ways to go before we hit the top. I wish I'd mined or bought more BTC way back then, but I'm still grateful that I've done as well as I have with it. I'm still a whole coiner 😎

nutinknow

The timing is really good actually. Akash does CPU compute, some others & Nvidia ofc doing GPU compute, so I could see Acurast could pick up a monopoly on mobile compute. Big for local AI inference, key to privacy, also on trend.

ItsAllAMissdirection

It won't be much, the oc will be loud and hot if you do. CPU mining is monero, you could use other coins but that would be the best overall imo GPU, Fark not much there and not for your situation. The PC will be slower to use if you mine and dual mine. Not worth it tbh.

Objective_Hawk_2721

I heard about the wear on Hardware, but isnt it pretty much Limited to the GPU ? Thought thw CPU would be much more resistent to wear Like that

RefrigeratorLow1259

Check out : https://bitvmx.org/ BitVMX is a protocol designed for trustless, bridgeless interactions on the Bitcoin network. It enables a virtual CPU to optimistically execute arbitrary programs, which can be used to facilitate various functionalities, including trustless bridges. Here's a breakdown of how BitVMX relates to trustless bridgeless transfers: * Trustless Bridges: BitVMX is designed to build trust-minimized and permissionless bridges, as seen with the UNION bridge connecting Bitcoin and Rootstock. These bridges aim to eliminate the need for central authorities or intermediaries by using cryptographic proofs and dispute-resolution mechanisms inherent in the BitVMX protocol. * Bridgeless Interactions: The core concept of BitVMX is to enable complex computations and verifications directly on the Bitcoin layer without requiring assets to be moved to another chain. This suggests the possibility of "bridgeless" interactions in the sense that you're not necessarily transferring assets to a separate blockchain to engage in different functionalities. Instead, the logic and verification happen within the Bitcoin ecosystem itself. * How it Works: BitVMX uses a challenge-response system where a "prover" executes a program, and "verifiers" can challenge the result if they suspect it's incorrect. The protocol uses hash chains of program traces to simplify the verification process. In case of a dispute, a specific part of the computation can be checked on-chain. * UNION Bridge Example: The UNION bridge between Bitcoin and Rootstock leverages BitVMX's dispute-resolution model. Users can lock BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain, and an equivalent amount of RBTC (on Rootstock) is released. This allows users to interact with DeFi applications on Rootstock using their Bitcoin, with the process secured by the trustless mechanisms of BitVMX. In summary, BitVMX is a technology that enables the creation of trustless bridges and facilitates trustless interactions within the Bitcoin ecosystem, potentially leading to "bridgeless" functionalities where the need to move assets to other chains is minimized or eliminated for certain use cases. The development and adoption of BitVMX are ongoing, with initiatives like BitVMX FORCE aiming to standardize and enhance its capabilities for the Bitcoin network.

polymath_uk

The first disruptive thing I'd do with a sufficiently powerful quantum CPU is destroy the entire financial system by stealing every penny from everyone's bank account. I'd lose interest in crypto at that point.

ArticMine

>Its not about the bandwidth , more about the blockchain size. keeping decentralization gets difficult with extreme blocksizes. have to balance the trilemma. what say you monerofolk Actually bandwidth is the greatest limitation to scaling extreme blocksizes because unlike flash memory and CPU processing power it is not simple for consumers and small business to purchase additional bandwidth.

castorfromtheva

Setup Umbrel as a dedicated Bitcoin Server with Bitcoin/Lightning only stuff. Don't mix it up with other home server things, but use a different machine for these things. Security-wise it's better to reduce the attack surface, that's why. Other than that Umbrel works quite well and it's really stable. Go with a 2Tbyte SSD for the bitcoin things though. Make sure to have at least 8 gigs of RAM, 16 still better. Also make sure your CPU is at least a generation 6. CPU. I am testing different Bitcoin node suites for some years already. If you have further questions feel free to head back here.

Decent-Vermicelli232

Bitcoin's network will become insecure within 20 years because of it's failed security budget. Transaction fees will not provide enough financial incentive to continue mining and securing the network. Monero on the other hand, with it's energy efficient CPU mining and tail emission, will continue the provide the financial incentive required to secure it's network indefinitely.

johanngr

I can explain it very easily. It is all built on the innovation to control a computer platform by majority vote. Just like your country is controlled by majority vote. "Crypto currency" is only hard to understand because people misrepresent it. In your country, you elect a government that is the central authority for a "block" of 4 years (the alternative is to always have the same central authority, i.e., a king or dictator). In "blockchain", a "central authority" is elected each "block" of N units of time (10 minutes in Bitcoin). The alternative there too is to *always have the same central authority* and this is how all computer platforms so far have worked, i.e., they are equivalent to a "king" or "dictator" in terms of control. The election of the central authority is by a sort of "indirect majority vote", based on how many "votes" you have (how much CPU power in Bitcoin or how much coins in Ethereum, and in the future, how many people-votes you have) you have a probability of being elected the next "block". In nation-state, it is instead the one with the most votes always, but in "blockchain" you instead have a chance of being "elected" even if you just have a small number of all "votes" but it is less likely.

hopefully_human

Monero is a great CPU minable coin but, isn't usually profitable unless u have free electricity. But It is the cheapest way to buy monero and the best way to support the network. Also if ur looking to build a rig for it yesteryears epyc cpus can be gotten for pretty cheap on ebay and for a few hundred dollars u can get a pretty good hash rate.

castorfromtheva

That's a generation 4 CPU. Don't go with that one. It's too slow and too energy hungry.

not420guilty

Monero is mined by CPU so you don’t need any special hardware, any pc will work!

castorfromtheva

Get a used Lenovo Tiny or a Dell Optiplex Micro with a CPU at least generation 6. CPU (smallest would be 6100t), 8 Gigs of RAM, better 16 but not necessary, and a 2 TB SSD. This will make you future proof for at least 5 years and will cost you just around 200 bucks. Umbrel will run very well on this machine, no matter which Bitcoin services (Lightning, Electrum Server, LNbits, own mempool.space, BTCPayServer, or anything else) on top.

achow101

> That’s the slowdown I mean—spam pushes out normal transactions. Ok, that's not the definition of "slowdown" that the developers think of. Instead, we consider "slowdown" to be actual impact on CPU and memory usage that exceeds the average usage of a typical transaction. What you're describing is that the "spam" causes a high fee market, and that's definitely a concern. However, high fee markets, as we have seen with ordinals and many many times long past, resolve themselves eventually when those "spammers" run out of money. Furthermore, if those people want to make their transactions, they can and do directly submit their transcations to miners, bypassing mempools. This is trivially easy to do with things like MARA's Slipstream. When they do this, it actually makes it worse for everyone since direct submission removes information from fee estimation algorithms. Now, instead of being able to see the mempool and see that feerates are high, what you end up doing is making a transaction with a fee that you think is enough, and then finding out when a block is found that it actually wasn't. Lastly, Bitcoin is going to need a fee market eventually. Eventually, the block subsidy is going to be negligible, and miners will have to be sustained by fees. Any way you slice it, there has to be some point in time where the mempool is consistently full and fees generally increase as otherwise mining will stop being profitable and the security of the network goes down. > Without the OP_RETURN limit, a bad actor (say the CIA or someone with money to burn) could put illegal stuff, like child pornography, into the blockchain Even with the OP_RETURN limit, a bad actor can already do this. They can already do this with the inscriptions script construction, and that allows putting up to 4 MB into the blockchain whereas OP_RETURN would be limited to 1 MB. Furthermore, even without inscriptions, it's still possible to do it by creating outputs with fake hashes or fake pubkeys that actually encode the data. > They’re ignoring people who disagree (Samson Mow said there’s “no consensus”) Can you clarify what has actually been done that you think is "ignoring people who disagree"? Having read through the entire mailing list discussion and all of the comments on both PRs, I really don't think that's the case. Certainly there is no consensus, but there's been lively debate and discussion, and no action has actually been taken. Furthermore, several comments stated that they think the options should be preserved, and another PR was opened that does exactly that. That does not seem like ignoring people who disagree. > silencing critics Some of the biggest critics are wizkid057 and luke-jr. Their comments are still visible and readable, and in fact, many people have (tried to) engage them in discussion. And not just them, there's tons of comments in both PRs with debate going back and forth, each side trying to refute the other. I would not say that this is silencing critics. While several comments in the PR were hidden, these were hidden because they do not add to the converstion. Many of these are simply "Concept ACK" or "Concept NACK", which ultimately is not all that useful to the discussion and mainly ends up making it harder to read. Several comments were also hidden because they are off topic or abusive. However, I do not think any comments which left novel criticisms of the PR were actually hidden. > (Giacomo Zucco’s comments got deleted) There have not been many deleted comments. I count 4 deleted comments, and none of them appear to be from him. While I don't have a record of what the comments were, 3 of the comments were from accounts that look like spammers. 1 of the comments was actually from a regular contributor. None of the accounts look like Giacomo's. In fact, I don't think he has participated in the PR discussions at all, unless his Github name is not giacomozucco. > some devs have financial ties to projects with conflicts of interests. Can you cite any evidence for that? AFAIK, this claim seems to stem from the fact that Jameson Lopp is an investor in Citrea, a company that would benefit from this change, but are already planning on deploying their product without it. Jameson commented on the PR, but he is neither the person who opened it, nor the person who started the discussion. He's not even a Core Dev as he doesn't regularly participate in code review or submit PRs. From the perspective of the project, he's just another rando coming by to give their opinion. > They downplay risks (like past spam from Veriblock) I don't recall anyone referring to Veriblock or anyone citing risks from past spam. > and take away our choices (they removed a setting to force us to accept this) You write this as if a decision has been made and the PR merged. But no PR related to OP_RETURN has been merged. Neither Peter Todd's original PR that removes the option, nor Greg Sanders' alternate PR that leaves the option have been merged. In fact, of these 2 PRs, I think the one that's more likely to be merged is the second which leaves the option in, but of course no such merge decision has been made yet. > That's my POV. Tthe main point here is *how* this change is being implemented when it's deeply controversial. My POV is that this has been severely overblown and there's a ton of misinformation going around about what's actually happened. It seems like there's a bunch of influencers going around screaming as if the world is ending who also are getting their information second or third-hand rather than having actually participated in the discussions and reporting what they observed.

Numerous_Ruin_4947

PoS still requires work - just not brute-force hashing. Ethereum validators use electricity and computing resources (CPU, RAM, network bandwidth) to perform cryptographic operations, validate blocks, and maintain uptime - so energy is consumed, and technically, some physical "work" is done. Whether you walk 10 miles or drive 10 miles, you still accomplish the same task: getting from point A to point B. Walking takes much more physical effort, while driving is far more efficient. Similarly, both Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake aim to securely validate transactions and reach consensus - but PoW consumes far more energy to do so, while PoS achieves the same result with significantly less physical effort.

cosmicnag

It was still actually mined using CPU by satoshi and some others, not technically premined like your shitcoin. It was open for anyone else to join in the mining as well, but because the whole thing was new and no premined marketing budget by some shitcoin foundation, most people did not know about it. Its not an emotional reaction out of nowhere, its years of being annoyed by shitcoiners who think their going to zero against bitcoin shitcoin is actually better than the real thing.

Desperate-Barnacle-4

In 2010 the main wallet was bitcoin core. This was also a full node with built-in CPU mining. It created a file called wallet.dat with each address private key. Buy the IDE adapter to usb and make an image of the entire disk. If anything goes wrong seek profession hard disk recovery help. 15-years is a long time and mechanical disks are fragile. [https://www.amazon.co.uk/FIDECO-Adapter-External-Converter-inches-Black/dp/B0919SF9CP](https://www.amazon.co.uk/FIDECO-Adapter-External-Converter-inches-Black/dp/B0919SF9CP) Once you've got the image you could mount it (read-only) on Linux and search for the wallet.dat file. Once you have that file accessing the Bitcoin should be trivial. Add the wallet.dat to a live bitcoin core [https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/](https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/) so it can check the live balance and you can send without messing with private keys. Once the original wallet is empty you could look at the forks. There is like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold etc I don't know about those I guess they have near zero value.

HodlVitality

I got you on a ChatGPT answer if you want. This was good for me too, lots to learn. Public Electrum servers are able to return your balance in milliseconds because they don’t rescan every block on-demand like a vanilla Bitcoin Core wallet does. Instead, they maintain a continuously-updated, pre-built index of every UTXO and transaction history, stored in a high-performance database on fast hardware with tuned caches. Here are the key factors: ⸻ 1. Specialized indexing software • ElectrumX, Esplora/Electrs, and Fulcrum each build and maintain a full “address → UTXO/tx history” index as new blocks arrive. Your wallet’s balance lookup then becomes a simple database query—no full-chain scan needed.  • By contrast, when you point a wallet at a bare Bitcoin Core node (even with txindex=1), the wallet’s RPC rescan must walk every block output and check each script against your keys, which is inherently O(chain-size) and slow. ⸻ 2. High-I/O, low-latency storage • Public servers run on SSDs or NVMe drives (often in RAID), delivering thousands of IOPS so their indexer can write new blocks and serve random reads at lightning speed. Even a modest ElectrumX instance “is I/O-bound … SSD’s are definitely recommended” —and enterprise hosts use NVMe for even higher throughput. • Example (AWS testbed): • Data disk: 1 TB gp2 (3,000 IOPS) for the Electrum index • Bitcoin data: 600 GB gp2 (1,800 IOPS) for bitcoind’s block files • Result: balance queries over a cold cache complete in under 50 ms  ⸻ 3. Sufficient RAM for caching • ElectrumX is typically run with 2 GB+ of cache (CACHE_MB = 2048), and LevelDB’s own block cache (DB_CACHE ≈ 1,200–1,800 MB), so most lookups hit memory rather than disk.   • Even a single-user Electrs instance recommends 16 GB RAM to keep its embedded database hot.  ⸻ 4. Tuned software settings • ElectrumX config tweaks commonly used on public servers: COST_SOFT_LIMIT = 0 COST_HARD_LIMIT = 0 CACHE_MB = 2048 This disables internal rate-limiting and maximizes in-memory caching.  • Fulcrum sets txhash_cache=2000 to keep recent transaction lookups in RAM.  • Esplora (Blockstream’s server) uses a “constant-time caching” schema so addresses above a threshold get fully cached.  ⸻ 5. CPU and concurrency • Indexing a new block is parallelized, and query handling is asynchronous. Single-core speeds matter less once the index is built, but public hosts often use multi-core Xeons or equivalent to absorb spikes in demand.  • Your gaming-PC CPU may be fast, but if it’s paired with a spinning disk or limited DB cache, your wallet’s RPC rescan still bottlenecks on I/O and single-threaded script-matching. ⸻ How to speed up your local setup 1. Use an Electrum-style indexer locally (e.g. run ElectrumX, Electrs or Fulcrum against your node) instead of pointing Electrum directly at bitcoind. 2. Move your data directory to an SSD/NVMe, and give your indexer its own fast volume. 3. Increase DB cache in your server config (CACHE_MB, DB_CACHE) to keep more of the index in RAM. 4. Ensure your Bitcoin Core is started with -txindex=1 (if using ElectrumX/Fulcrum) or -blockfilterindex=1 (with descriptor wallets) so the indexer can pull historic data without re-scanning blocks itself. By adopting the same hardware profile (SSD + ≥16 GB RAM + decent single-core CPU) and software tuning that public hosts use, your local Electrum server will likewise return balance and history queries in milliseconds instead of minutes.

Decent-Vermicelli232

This is false. You are correct that most cryptos, and Bitcoin especially, would become useless, but energy efficient CPU mining would continue off grid. Phones and the wallet software could easily be charged by solar. There are certainty small scale monero miners and node operators that can can continue to function in grid down situations. I am one of them! In a grid down situation, my node and most efficient miner automatically switch over to battery back up power which is supplied by a solar array. My networking equipment is also on battery backup and my internet continues to function. In case my local ISP has a failure, internet connectivity continues with starlink! As for bitcoin being functional for any substantial grid down situation, good luck with that.

devCheckingIn

Does anybody know why the Coinbase Advanced spot trading page frequently (read: daily) does not display properly? At least once a day it will just have the header and the side bar with no chart, no orders section, and no way to buy and sell. Everything is blank except the header and sidebar. And the CPU will be pegged at 100%. Even closing the tab will not fix it, and the CPU will run at 100% forever until the browser is completely closed. This has been going on for months. The DevTools says 429 Too Many Requests, but what does having the tab open looking at the chart from time to time have anything to do with Too Many Requests? You're not allowed to do that? And why the hell is my CPU running at 100%.

trimalcus

FCMP+ update will bring privacy to next level And one of the last pow chain where anyone can mine with its CPU (gupax, P2Pool,...)

semanticweb

Recommended settings for running an algorand node: CPU 8 vCPU, RAM 16GB of RAM, Storage 100 GB NVMe SSD Network Bandwidth 1 Gbps

olduvai_man

The profitability to mine with a CPU or GPU is just one single factor in the security of the network and for the overall health of the project generally.

MachinimaGothic

I checked profitability of coins to mine nowadays, and XMR have some sense only, ofc its not 2017 and its not easy money anymore but still funny that you arent immiedietly on minus. This is why I wonder to which extend its ASIC resistant. I couldnt find any coin which have any sense to mine with CPU or GPU only XMR this says something.

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.