CPU

DreamingTooLong

Back then, bitcoin did not have any face value. Back then it was all about leaving a computer running 24 seven searching for bitcoin nonstop. This was called bitcoin mining. At the very beginning, the difficulty to find a bitcoin was easy enough to do it with just a laptop CPU. If your laptop happened to find a bitcoin, you were rewarded with 50 of them at a time. Today it’s not profitable unless you’re running a big farm of computers that are dedicated for this task. Those computers are called ASIC Bitcoin Miners.

WelcomeToMyHammy

This is why you should focus on things that are \*different\* instead of the same as all others. Nerva is a good example (non-poolable, CPU-only, private), along with others like DVC

Soggy_Stargazer

I ran all the calculators, did all the math, then bought a couple of S9's back in 2018 to test. I mined exactly what I projected to mine before difficulty and the inevitable march of technology made everything obsolete. My takeaway? it will never be as good as it was in 2010 when I could solve a block with a core 2 quad CPU. The real lesson: If I had just kept the 2 BTC I spent on mining equipment and DCA'd the roughly $400 a month in electricity into BTC directly, I'd have more BTC than I do now instead of "breaking even" and mining back the BTC I spent on the miners. It was mostly a proof of concept to validate the mining calculators. I did at one point run all the math on what it would take to stand up a mine large enough to solomine at least one block a day. Turns out it wasn't a lot, but it wasn't nothing either (somewhere around 1-2M in capital). I even put together a business case and an investor prospectus but never pulled the trigger.

WelcomeToMyHammy

Those are the biggest ones, and due to their values, they don't have as much upside as many others. Think of them as $1 trillion companies. It's a lot harder for a company to go from $1t->100t (100x) than for one to go from 100k->10m. A lot of cryptos, including those, have lost the original vision and are centralized. It's why others are better in that sense, like Nerva (CPU-only, no pools), where it can't become centralized.

the_rodent_incident

Never trade. Do not trade, under any circumstances. Under threat of gunpoint, do not trade. Just buy and hold. Whatever shit you bought, don't sell it hoping for a lower price, or whatever. You bought shit? Own it, and hold it no matter what. You mined something? Hold it like your life depends on it. If you lived through the era where you could mine stuff using CPU or GPU, hold that mined thing with dear life. Do not trade. Never trade.

brimmen

We’ve been quietly building for the last 2 years. Launch coming soon: • PoW CPU mining randomx • Dual quantum-resistant signatures • Bitcoin-inspired tokenomics More details and mining info dropping soon.

benjaminchodroff

I'm not mining. I just buy bitcoin on the secondary market. If all the world's bitcoin miners were to stop by choice or force except one guy running it on a CPU... the bitcoin difficulty adjustment (calculated every 2016 blocks) would simply make it possible for that one guy to run the entire network putting out new blocks roughly every 10 minutes. If all the world's AI companies stop using GPUs... yeah, who are we kidding 😄 That ain't happening. But I sincerely hope all major countries begin to force companies to use renewable energy or nuclear for everything regardless if it's bitcoin/AI or powering an office. Tarif/tax any country who falls out of line... but something has to be done. Mining the next bitcoin isn't how bitcoin gets value (at least to me!). It's all of us who realize that having a few tiny parts of a bitcoin out of a total supply of 21 million bitcoin is FAR better than other fiat currency ever invented. And as bitcoin was the first to show digitally native scarce assets are possible, all other future cryptocurrency projects may be interesting and hold unique value in what they, but will never be able to be first of an entirely new asset class.

Mr_Eckert

Another interesting fact, the reason he had so much coin to throw around back then was because lazslow was the first (non-Satoshi) person to figure out how to mine with a GPU while everyone else was using CPU's. It was so much relative hashpower on the network that Satoshi first thought it was a malicious attack and fired up some GPU rigs he had prepared for that eventuality to defend the network. He kind of admonished laszlow for doing it and I think laszlow might have done the pizza thing to make amends & give back to the community.

AutoModerator

Post is by: srodland01 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1th0pj8/qubic_doge_mining_pool_hits_new_ath_at_119_ths_4/ Qubic launched its Dogecoin mining pool on April 1 2026. It started small but the hashrate has grown fast since then. The pool reached a new alltime high of 119 TH/s today Check the dashboard here: https://doge.qubic.tools/ Dogecoin network total hashrate sits around 3 PH/s right now. The Qubic pool is about 4% of the full network. ASIC miners run Scrypt to mine DOGE. They also get extra QUBIC rewards on top. Qubic offers about 110% of normal DOGE pool rewards to attract more miners. The mined DOGE gets sold and used to buy back QUBIC. Part of that gets burned which reduces the supply. This creates a revenue stream for the network. CPU and GPU miners keep training AI at the same time. There is no tradeoff between the two. Old ASICs that lost money on normal pools now run here becuase of the extra rewards and low or zero fees in some phases. At 10% of the entire Dogecoin network the pool would mine about 10% of all new DOGE. That equals roughly 1.44 million DOGE per day. At current price around 0.105 dollars that is over 150,000 dollars per day in revenue. This would go to buybacks and burns. How high could it go? It depends on how many more miners join. On Monero the same setup reached over 50% of the network hashrate. Dogecoin is bigger so that would need much more power. Even 10-20% would mean hundreds of TH/s more blocks found and more revenue for buybacks and burns. Anyone mining on this pool? What hardware and hashrate do you run? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Asleep_Onion

I'm going with yes. Everything in this picture is totally random, the CPU heatsink isn't even on there right, the display is nonsensical, the hardware makes no sense for a mining rig, and there's a [video] tag on the post title with no video and no explanation of wtf this thing does. The only thing this machine is mining for is karma.

MaconBacon01

Any decent rig will use an entire breaker's worth of power at 2000w plus. Your apartment will notice the power usage. Just do what I do an get a few Bitaxe miners. You will not make any money but at least you are in the lottery of finding a block solo. Its less than .01% per year chance but they only use 15w each. Bitcoin mining for profit is no longer a DIY thing for regular people and CPU/GPU mining has been gone for a looooong time.

godofpumpkins

GPUs started for graphics but have been misnamed for almost a couple of decades at this point. Most of the “AI revolution” we’ve been experiencing is also powered by GPUs. They now make really beefy ones that dwarf the sort of thing that runs our games. They don’t even connect to displays because the graphics part is irrelevant. Basically a GPU is a massively parallel specialized computer that knows how to perform certain simple mathematical operations over large quantities of data way faster than a general-purpose CPU. That parallelism used to be handy to render textures in your FPS, but it turns out to be really handy to run bajillions of hashes per second for mining (although nobody uses general purpose GPUs anymore for bitcoin mining, now that specialized mining hardware exists) as well as running bajillions of matrix/vector/tensor operations per second to generate AI videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti

LazyTech8315

OP's original statement of GPU > CPU for mining still stands, but if you examine the literal semantics of "infinite" you have a point. That said, I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant literally.

Raven_gif

They've been using gpus and ASICS since before last year. What your stating has nothing to do with if it was CPU only. Been in the game long enough to remember when people were back door gpu mining and creating bot nets via payloads. It's still possible for that matter since gpu mining for delusional people is still a thing.

Pugluvmeme

From Grok: Monero (XMR) is essentially the only realistic option for mining on an old laptop via its CPU. Other major coins like Bitcoin, Kaspa, Litecoin, or most GPU-oriented ones (e.g., Ravencoin, Ethereum Classic) are not viable on typical laptop hardware due to extremely low performance and competition from ASICs or powerful GPUs. blog.tokenmetrics.com

HSuke

There's a trade-off. CPU-only networks are very vulnerable to botnets. The other problem is that it's PoW with a small security budget.

Raven_gif

Monero was almost there. They messed up when it stopped being a CPU only based system. Allowing GPUs and ASICS was a huge mistake.

jgbjj

Thanks for the reply, for the record... I want to be wrong on this... but... a few points. **(1) Forward simulation is the right framing.** You're right that I argued against the wrong attack in my first post. "Reconstruct initial state, forward-simulate, accept the state whose trajectory produces the on-chain nonce" is well-posed. The nonce as validation channel is correct. The cryptographic question is therefore: how large is the search space of consistent initial states, and what's the per-candidate verification cost? That's where we still disagree. **(2) The "12 parameters" list is the wrong state space.** The arithmetic on your list (clocksource × utsname × boot ± 10s × ...) gives 10^(11) to 10^(13.) The arithmetic is correct given those inputs. The problem is the inputs. The kernel pool state at the moment OpenSSL first reads /dev/urandom is the SHA-1 mixing of: * `init_std_data` inputs, which IS your list (boot time, utsname, BIOS clock). * PLUS every `add_interrupt_randomness` call between boot and that read. The second set is what's missing. On 2.6.26, every interrupt handler calls into `add_interrupt_randomness` with timing data. Disk IRQs (`add_disk_randomness`), keyboard IRQs (USB initialization), network IRQs all feed the input pool before OpenSSL's first RAND\_poll. For a Live USB boot, the disk IRQ count between `init_std_data` and bitcoind's first RAND\_bytes is in the thousands. The image (squashfs/iso, hundreds of MB to GBs) gets read from USB to RAM before userspace starts. Each read is one or more IRQs, each timestamped at the kernel's high-res clocksource. That's the timing data that's not in your list. **(3) "P7450 falls back to jiffies because nonstop\_tsc=0" leaves out HPET.** Even when TSC pauses in C-states, `clocksource_select` on 2.6.26 picks HPET as next-best on any machine with HPET (which the P7450 platform has). HPET resolution is \~70 ns. So `add_interrupt_randomness` is reading nanosecond-resolution timestamps for every IRQ, not jiffies-resolution ones. A disk IRQ contributes log2(jitter\_window / 70ns) bits, typically 10-15 bits. Thousands of disk IRQs × 10-15 bits per IRQ = thousands of bits of entropy in the pre-bitcoind pool. That's the floor I was pointing to. Your list omits it entirely. **(4) "Headless bitcoind" is your assumption, not in the post.** Bitcoin 0.3.2 shipped as wxWidgets GUI by default. The post describes restoring a wallet and sending, consistent with GUI usage. The headless variant (`bitcoind`) was uncommon in Aug 2010. Mouse events feeding RAND\_add (`ui.cpp:393-399`) would have run. Even if you grant headless: see (3). Disk IRQs alone account for the entropy floor independently of the GUI. **(5)** `extract_buf` **count doesn't pin the output.** You list "extract\_buf count range: 6x". `extract_buf` outputs `SHA1(pool || count)` then mixes back into the pool. The output depends on the pool state, not just the count. The pool is the 4096-bit buffer that's been XOR-mixed with every interrupt input since boot. Six possible counts × one pool state isn't 6x; it's 6 × (whatever the pool entropy is). And the pool entropy is dominated by IRQ history. **(6) Clocksource argument double-counts.** You say "search space is dominated by clocksource ambiguity at 10^(3) to 10^(4") but also that hardware (which determines clocksource) is in the cooperative-input set. If cooperation pins the laptop model and BIOS revision, the clocksource is determined, not 10^(4-ambiguous.) You can't have it both ways. **(7) "Transaction proves privkey existed -> BDB durability irrelevant" is correct as a framing point but doesn't answer the recovery question.** Granted: the privkey existed in RAM at signing time. The cryptographic question is whether it can be reconstructed from public data + owner cooperation. That's well-posed. My answer is still: probably not, because (2) and (3). **(8) "Minutes on a laptop" doesn't follow from 10****^(13)** **anyway.** Even granting your bound, 10^(13) candidate sessions at \~50 microseconds per candidate (full forward-sim through md\_rand + EC scalar mul + hash160 compare) is 5 x 10^(8) seconds = \~16 years on one CPU. A 100-GPU farm at 1000x = \~2 months. That's not the original post's "minutes on a laptop with cooperation". Either the bound is much lower than 10^(13) or the laptop claim is wrong; both can't hold. **(9) Binary trust. Concession.** Source-only delivery, owner audit, air-gap, no wallet.dat exfiltration, non-published verification questions: that's a reasonable delivery model. SO I will retract the social engineering framing for that specific setup. The remaining question is whether the recovery actually works, which is (2) and (3). The right test for both of us is upstream of any simulator: take a deterministic VM with snapshot.debian.org's Lenny image, install bitcoin-0.3.2 against the actual `libssl0.9.8 0.9.8g-15+lenny*` package, and run it through wallet creation -> send transaction multiple times with your "12 parameters" held constant. If the same parameters reliably produce the same change-key and nonce across reboots of identical VM state, you've demonstrated reproducibility. If they don't, the entropy is in the IRQ events I'm pointing to. Greg's standard from earlier in the thread is the right one. Anyone disputing the math (you, me, anyone reading) can run that VM test directly. I'd find it informative either way; if your model is right and the determinism holds, I want to know. If it doesn't, that's also useful. I'll send source if you DM. Repo will be public after I clean up the experiment runner.

ZedZeroth

Out of interest, can you break down the calculations required for each attempt? I'm just thinking if e.g. the search space is 1e20 and a CPU can do 1e9 calcs per second so ~1e16 (low complexity) attempts per year (perhaps?) then you'd need to buy ~10k CPUs (plus a load of electricity) and leave them running for a year? That's maybe a couple of $million to unlock nearly $1b? How quickly can a CPU actually run the attempts?

EndMammoth5350

I spend some last year just for fun things like motorcycle and CPU

Scared-Metal9294

Or like any real company in manufacturing semiconductors, GPU's CPU's, or data centers

Scared-Incident2601

Des coins CPU mineables encore intéressants en 2026 ?

Scared-Incident2601

Any CPU mineable coins still worth it in 2026?

AutoModerator

Post is by: Bcom_Mod and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/bitcoin_com/comments/1sxmr1k/ive_been_using_a_crypto_news_reader_that_runs_a/ Full disclosure: this is built by [Bitcoin.com](http://Bitcoin.com), so make of that what you will. But the technical implementation is interesting enough that it's worth writing up properly, because "on-device AI" gets thrown around a lot and the details usually disappoint. These don't. The app is a crypto news reader. The part that's worth discussing is the local AI mode. What it does without any network calls, API keys, or cloud routing: * Article summarization. * Q&A against whatever article you're currently reading — you can ask it to explain a concept, dig into a specific claim, or just give you the bear case. * Translation. All inference runs on the phone's CPU or NPU. The stack: Llama 3.2 1B, vanilla and ungated. No HuggingFace account required to pull the model. llama.cpp under the hood, wrapped in a custom Flutter binding. Quantized GGUF. First-run download is one-time, then it's fully offline. Tested down to 4GB RAM Android devices, works on any modern iPhone. The reason this is interesting to me specifically is that I read a lot of crypto news in contexts where I don't want my reading habits leaving the device. Not because I'm doing anything particularly sensitive. It's just that "we use your queries to improve our service" has started meaning something different over the last two years, and the idea of a news reader that knows exactly what articles I'm reading, what questions I'm asking about them, and which topics I'm spending time on feels like more data than I want to hand off to a cloud provider. The local model sidesteps that entirely. Your reading fingerprint doesn't exist anywhere but your phone. The practical upshot for crypto specifically: this is a market that moves on news at all hours, in jurisdictions where certain cloud providers are blocked or throttled, often when you're on a flight or have bad data. Having a model that can summarize and explain an article in full offline. Right now, no metering, no API cost: genuinely useful in a way that "just use ChatGPT" isn't always. [It's on Android for the moment](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bitcoin.bitcoin_news_app), but iOS is in TestFlight. The AI features are free. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

unqualified_redditor

I remember Hal's final post on BitcoinTalk. He recalled his life experience, cryptography, the cypher punks, emailing with Satoshi, getting the miner running, CPU mining, getting ALS, etc. The line that always stood out to me was when described how the mining software would overheat his processor so he didn't run it all the time and regretted not running it more often. This is a guy with the second most bitcoins of anyone ever, writing his final post to his community while dying from ALS and he still regretted not running the miner more. No matter who you are you can suffer bitcoin FOMO. I bet even Satoshi has fomo about all the coins he cannot access. We should all remember this and be a little easier on ourselves about our entry points and whatever we think we should have done differently.

CheeseLordMan

You nailed the core paradox. We’re trying to build a fortress of privacy (blockchain) on a foundation of glass (corporate hardware). It’s like trying to run a secure OS on a CPU with a built-in backdoor. Even if the chain is decentralized, the eyes looking at the screen and the fingers touching the glass are still being tracked by the same for-profit infrastructure you mentioned. We aren't just 'retrofitting' tech; we’re fighting a war where the enemy owns the very ground we're standing on. The 'decentralized' vision remains a fantasy as long as the physical layer is owned by the extractors. wtf indeed.

LuckyWinds

> anywhere from 10x to 1000X cheaper than to run a traditional Supercomputer AI question/computation So how much to crack a single bitcoin public key? > This isnt just a "random" single person tho, he is considered by many a "leader" in the space. No he isn't. I barely know who he is and I've been following this space closely for over a decade. > Its the strongest option though. Again Other options dont address the weakness in BTC security model. I don't know why you think it's the strongest option. I also don't know what you mean by "Other options dont address the weakness in BTC security model." > The people deciding arent the holders. to make an analogy, The people deciding on what upgrades get implemented into lets say Ebay, arent the users, they're the shareholders of Ebay stock. The needs and interests of the Ebay users are vastly different than Ebay stock holders. That's whats happening and been happening here with BTC and its code. It was supposed to be 1 CPU = 1 Vote. those days are long gone now. How is it long gone? I don't understand what you are claiming at all. I think it would be better if you were specific and not using some analogy that doesn't make sense in this context. > It will indeed go from 1 day we couldnt crack it, to one day we can crack it. That's not what I said. I specifically asked "So you think quantum will go from impossible to crack a single public key to being able to crack one in 9 minutes instantly? Like one day researchers will say "Yesterday we couldn't crack a public key, but today we can in 9 minutes" You think the technology will develop in this type of time frame?"

R4ID

>How much does it cost to crack a bitcoin public key? anywhere from 10x to 1000X cheaper than to run a traditional Supercomputer AI question/computation https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.05469 The cost is in the build, not in the energy required to run it. This is why its such a big issue. The first person to figure it out and build it, will profit the most (and it will be a lot of profit) if it is used in this manner. >I don't care what a single person does. >There are crazy people in every industry. This isnt just a "random" single person tho, he is considered by many a "leader" in the space. Im not saying you worship him or anything but there is a very significant portion of the BTC community that does value his words, speach, manner he in which he holds himself. He is the prototypical maxi. >That's not the only option going forward, and for the record I'm against freezing wallets. Its the strongest option though. Again Other options dont address the weakness in BTC security model. >Why would bitcoin need on chain governance to solve this problem? The people deciding arent the holders. to make an analogy, The people deciding on what upgrades get implemented into lets say Ebay, arent the users, they're the shareholders of Ebay stock. The needs and interests of the Ebay users are vastly different than Ebay stock holders. That's whats happening and been happening here with BTC and its code. It was supposed to be 1 CPU = 1 Vote. those days are long gone now. >You didn't answer my question. So I'll ask again. >So you think quantum will go from impossible to crack a single public key to being able to crack one in 9 minutes instantly? Like one day researchers will say "Yesterday we couldn't crack a public key, but today we can in 9 minutes" You think the technology will develop in this type of time frame? It will indeed go from 1 day we couldnt crack it, to one day we can crack it. The duration is going to change as technology improves (just like everything) The 9 minute duration is just the current best estimates for how fast it could crack ECDSA. Quantum will take different durations to crack different encryption methods as some are more susceptible to the method Quantum is utilizing. https://quantumai.google/static/site-assets/downloads/cryptocurrency-whitepaper.pdf Google published it thinks theres a 10% in the first year of gen 1 Quantum Computer that it will crack ECDSA. but it also states that future generations will drastically reduce resources required by almost 20,000X cheaper and total duration could get as low as 9 to 12 minutes. So depending on how fast it progresses (think AI) each gen obviously will be faster, more efficient and stronger at cracking encryption.

alexinboots

It takes a CPU several seconds to perform the derivation which means an optimized C/CUDA reimplementation on a modern 8-GPU rig can test millions per second. Your KDF is not memory-hard so there's nothing to prevent an efficient GPU reimplementation. Your stack is not safe. Do not outsmart yourself.

alexinboots

Your scheme: >One acceptable way MIGHT BE for example to take first 50 characters from the middle of your favorite song There is no "might be" here. Assuming 50 million publicly scrapable songs with 2,000 cleaned characters each (yielding \~1,950 possible 50-character contiguous windows per song), the theoretical maximum entropy of a Krypta passphrase drawn this way is only \~36.5 bits (log₂(50×10⁶ × 1,950) ≈ 97.5 billion candidates); real-world entropy is substantially lower (25–32 bits) once song-popularity bias, duplicate phrases across lyrics, and the exact transcription/capitalization/apostrophe variations flagged in the original paragraph are factored in. The actual KDF (as implemented in krypta\_luajit.lua) is a custom, non-standard construction: it first does a fast SHA-256(passphrase + salt) to seed a 128-bit XorShift PRNG clocked by four 32-bit LFSRs that skip \~every 16th value, then repeatedly generates 32-bit outputs and applies multiple math conditions (whose strictness scales with the user-chosen Difficulty parameter 0–31, each level roughly doubling runtime) until the required number of “good” outputs is reached, finally extracting the 256-bit master key/checksum from 256 specific PRNG bits. **Because this generator is purely CPU-bound, sequential, and not memory-hard, an optimized C/CUDA reimplementation on an 8-GPU modern rig (e.g., RTX 4090/5090 class) could still test roughly 10⁵–10⁶ candidates per second at moderate Difficulty levels that take 1–10 seconds per derivation on a single LuaJIT CPU core—exhausting the entire 36-bit space in minutes to a few hours worst-case and the realistic 25–30 bit space in seconds to minutes—rendering the scheme trivially crackable offline even with the deliberate slowdown.** Roll-your-own crypto is a terrible idea, you should move your corn to a multi-sig cold storage, distribute the keys according to well-know best practices. Get out while you still can.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Impossible_Fox_2847 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1sl62zq/the_ai_boom_isnt_about_appsits_about_chips/ # Semiconductor Stocks With the Highest Growth in 2026 The narrative around artificial intelligence has largely focused on flashy applications—chatbots, copilots, and generative tools. But beneath the surface, the real engine of the AI revolution is far less visible: semiconductors. In 2026, it’s not software companies but chipmakers that are capturing the lion’s share of value from the [AI ](https://moneymint.co.in/)boom. # The Shift From Apps to Infrastructure AI applications are only as powerful as the hardware they run on. Training large language models, running inference at scale, and powering hyperscale data centers all require immense computational power—delivered by advanced semiconductors. This has created a fundamental shift in where value is being generated. Instead of competing over apps, companies are racing to build faster GPUs, more efficient AI accelerators, and cutting-edge manufacturing processes. As a result, semiconductor companies are emerging as the “picks and shovels” of the AI gold rush. # Why Chips Are Driving the AI Economy Several structural factors explain why semiconductors are dominating AI growth in 2026: * **Exploding compute demand:** AI workloads require exponentially more processing power than traditional computing. * **Supply constraints:** Advanced chips (3nm, 5nm) are limited in supply, giving manufacturers pricing power. * **Capital intensity:** Building AI infrastructure requires billions in chip investments, benefiting hardware suppliers directly. * **Ecosystem lock-in:** Software frameworks are often optimized for specific chip architectures, reinforcing dominance. This dynamic is pushing semiconductor revenues and valuations higher than most software peers. # Top Semiconductor Stocks With Highest Growth Potential (2026) # 1. Nvidia (NVDA) – The AI Compute King No company symbolizes the[ AI boom](https://moneymint.co.in/best-semiconductor-stocks-with-highest-growth/) more than **Nvidia**. Its GPUs dominate AI training and inference workloads, controlling a massive share of the data center GPU market. * Expected earnings growth: \~50%+ annually * Core strength: GPU ecosystem (CUDA) * Key driver: Hyperscaler demand (cloud + AI labs) Nvidia’s chips are the backbone of modern AI systems, making it the primary beneficiary of rising AI spending. # 2. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) – The Backbone of AI If Nvidia designs the brains, **TSMC** builds them. As the world’s leading semiconductor foundry, it manufactures chips for Nvidia, AMD, Apple, and others. * Forecast revenue growth: \~30% in 2026 * Dominance in advanced nodes (3nm, 5nm) * High-margin, high-barrier business model TSMC’s strategic position is unmatched—it profits regardless of which chip designer wins. Its leadership in advanced manufacturing gives it a near-monopoly in cutting-edge production. # 3. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) – The Challenger AMD has rapidly emerged as a serious competitor in AI chips, particularly in data centers. * Data center AI growth target: \~80% * Strong partnerships (cloud providers, AI firms) * Competitive GPU and CPU roadmap While still behind Nvidia, AMD is gaining share and benefiting from customers seeking alternatives. # 4. Broadcom (AVGO) – The Custom AI Powerhouse Broadcom plays a different game: custom AI chips and networking infrastructure. * Supplies chips to hyperscalers * Strong growth in AI-specific ASICs * High-margin enterprise relationships Its ability to design tailored chips for large tech companies positions it as a key player in the next phase of AI deployment. # 5. ASML – The Hidden Enabler ASML doesn’t design or manufacture chips—it builds the machines that make them. * Monopoly in EUV lithography * Essential for advanced chip production * Long-term demand tied to AI scaling As chip complexity increases, ASML’s importance only grows, making it a critical “behind-the-scenes” winner. # 6. ON Semiconductor – Emerging AI & Edge Player While traditionally focused on automotive and industrial chips, ON Semiconductor is gaining traction in AI-related markets. * Growth drivers: AI, aerospace, defense * Improving margins and cash flow * Strong pipeline for next-gen chips This makes it an interesting mid-tier growth play. # The Bigger Picture: AI Is an Infrastructure Story Recent market trends reinforce this shift. Semiconductor companies are seeing stronger earnings growth and investor interest compared to software firms, as AI spending flows directly into hardware and infrastructure. Even new players like CoreWeave are gaining traction by focusing on AI infrastructure rather than applications, highlighting where the real value lies. # Key Investment Themes for 2026 Investors looking at semiconductor stocks should focus on: * **Compute dominance (Nvidia, AMD)** * **Manufacturing leadership (TSMC)** * **Supply chain control (ASML)** * **Customization & networking (Broadcom)** * **Emerging AI applications (ON Semiconductor)** Each represents a different layer of the AI stack—and a different way to capture growth. # Conclusion The AI boom isn’t being won at the application layer—it’s being built at the silicon level. Chips are the foundation of every AI breakthrough, and the companies that design, manufacture, and enable them are capturing the most durable and scalable growth. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

mokahless

>I thought BTC mining paid out 50 BTC [...] The fractional BTC wasn’t until mining pools came Pools started in 2010 and were the norm in 2011/2012. Everything about my comment assumes a pool. >when the hash rates went up and difficulty levels rendered PC CPU mining obsolete and GPU I've already responded to a variant of this in your original post: >"not meaningful" CPU mining in 2011/2012 would probably have net at least 0.1BTC after a while or 0.01 after a bit. Not worth it for anyone back then of course, but worth looking back on now . >and dedicated ASIC mining machines were needed later on. ASIC didn't immediately invalidate FPGAs or GPUs. It was a process as the difficulty slowly rose as more and more units came online. So same thing with the CPU to GPU transition. >The powerful mining pools would win the award and distribute the 50 BTC among the pool participants, therefore fractional BTC Satoshis. This, is indeed how a pool works. What's your point?

Serenaded

I mine XMR on my CPUs because I get a free power day per week. Depending on how old the laptop are, even if you use poolhopping/autoswitching to the best profitable pools, you'll make roughly 2-3 cents per 24 hours. (Excluding power costs). Even if you have a current expensive CPU you'd only be able to mine maybe 30 cents per 24 hours at most. It just isn't profitable anymore. At home on the free power day I'm blasting 2 old laptops, an i5-8500, an RTX 4070 and a Ryzen 7600 and I get maybe 50-75 cents per 24 hours from that. With electricity rates it's like 3x worse than just buying crypto.

juan003

I thought BTC mining paid out 50 BTC approximately every 10 minutes back then before the first halving. So approximately 6 lucky nodes per hour or 144 lucky early adopters per day with a 50 BTC payout each! One lucky node solving that hash gets 50 BTC every 10 minutes for mining and processing transactions for the blockchain. The fractional BTC wasn’t until mining pools came about when the hash rates went up and difficulty levels rendered PC CPU mining obsolete and GPU and dedicated ASIC mining machines were needed later on. The powerful mining pools would win the award and distribute the 50 BTC among the pool participants, therefore fractional BTC Satoshis.

EyesFor1

Wrong. The sign or signature of an advanced civilisation can be measured in how much energy it uses. Less energy, a few camp fires or a glowing illuminated town indicate primitive civilisation. A glowing humming planet filled with CPU's, AI data centres, nuclear power plants and off world exploration in search of additional power indicates an advanced civilisation. If we choose to turn energy off we are doomed. Energy consumption and demand will speed up, not slow down.

mokahless

Bruh, "not meaningful" CPU mining in 2011/2012 would probably have net at least 0.1BTC after a while or 0.01 after a bit. Not worth it for anyone back then of course, but worth looking back on now if you were stupid enough to do it then, and you hit an amount that your pool would actually payout. If you clicked "mine" in the default client though, that was about half as efficient as "modern" mining software back then and would have solo mined by default so prolly nothing unless in the window you're talking about.

curious_maxim

There is a practical perspective on quantum computer with 500,000 qubits \[1\] breaking codes faster than crypto-ecosystem could process. Regardless if it takes years, or less. Observation 1. Technical. True, Bitcoin did manage to upgrade both complexity challenge as underlying hardware was upgraded from CPU, to GPU, to FPGA, and then to ASICs. Likely there is someone out there who is figuring out how to get them this quantum machine right now. Transaction fees are still there. Observation 2. Commercial. Typically when you are building business - you are creating a "monopoly" for certain things through public protections: like logos, trademarks, name of the company, and private ones: like customer list, customer relations, know-how, code. Observation 3. Crypto. Bitcoin model is de-facto F1 competition between computers and algorithms on them. Hence, the one who got ahead - gets the prize - fees, and control. Synthesis. The one who gets the prize, generally speaking, can come from anywhere. No need to prove to your customers, no track record. "Just" showing the best engine. Conclusion. That is concerning, and quite atypical to build business in financial sphere on constant assumption to be the best in math, engineering and with best pilot ever \_all\_ the time. PS List of Formula One Grand Prix winners for past 76 years \[2\] \[1\] [https://research.google/blog/safeguarding-cryptocurrency-by-disclosing-quantum-vulnerabilities-responsibly/](https://research.google/blog/safeguarding-cryptocurrency-by-disclosing-quantum-vulnerabilities-responsibly/) \[2\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Formula\_One\_Grand\_Prix\_winners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners)

pop-1988

The RISC-V design is open. Bitmain's R&D is minimal for the X devices. TSMC engineered the silicon. Bitmain only designed the hash board and the box In theory, a non-profit community effort could organize a device similar to the Bitmain devices, with 2 or more CPUs per board and 1 or more boards per box. People could mine at home at whatever power level / noise level they're comfortable with A box like that could be useful for other multi-CPU parallel computing use cases

OrangePillar

Slashdot around 2010. I was a SETI@Home user and I realized I could get paid for those spare CPU cycles.

pop-1988

> ASICs are really loud and annoying Only in bulk. Most of the boxes are bulk miners, because the manufacturers prefer to sell 400 chips in a box instead of 6 on a board. The early ASICs were sold in singles. We can still buy a 4-chip ASIC with no fan, no noise, minimal heat The Monero model is more interesting. RandomX is successful at being CPU-only. So Bitmain engineered a box with 18 cheap RISC-V CPUs - hot and loud, but much cheaper than a Ryzen-9

OkStep5032

Minero is mostly CPU mined. This article is total BS.

NervousNorbert

Looks like a mostly cosmetic update. Mk4 is four years old, is there nothing security-related that needed a refresh? Are both secure elements still fine? (Not being sarcastic, actually wondering). Also NFC is the only performance update? No faster CPU or more memory. Yeah COLDCARD is a proven workhorse and things don't need to be changed for no reason, but a new Mk doesn't come out that often.

Lenin_Lime

It's really not. It's good for creating oxide free connections, like a headphone jack or a CPU socket, as gold doesn't react with oxygen. There is also dental work done with it, but that also fits in with wealth decorative unless we are talking about back teeth then I have no argument there. But no, around 90 percent of gold is simply for wealth and status in gold bars, coins and jewelry.

anon1971wtf

> and increased a barrier to entry which leaves out hobbyists and changed Bitcoin mining to favor large scale commercial operations Which is good. I want miners to go bankrupt if they follow the poisoned chain and for the stakes to grow Satoshi mining alone with CPU - most centralized, least stakes Thousands of professionals who need to pay bills and salaries - most decentralized, highest stakes

dont-be-angry

Yeah which is why we should move to the whole RanxomX CPU mining thing and become anti-ASIC. That'd be fantastic. Then it'd just be whoever has the botnets.

Ourcrypto_news

When margins are razor-thin, big rigs and warehouses aren’t worth it, so network hashrate could shrink to the point where **anyone with spare CPU/GPU cycles can contribute**, scenario A.

HSuke

It will NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER be profitable to mine Bitcoin using CPUs because ASICs are 100000x+ more efficient that CPUs. Think about it. If it's no longer profitable to mine using an ASIC, it will STILL be 100000x less profitable to mine using a CPU.

StockHodI

The algorithm does not use SHA256 but rather Scrypt which is wildly CPU bound. ASIC and GPU can still connect but they will not get 1000x advantages like GPU BTC mining nowadays.

P8j6

Regarding mining, do you plan to develop the algorithm so that it respects 1 CPU=1 VOTE idea and is ASIC-resistant? Or will it be more for framers with cheap electricity?

neoKushan

> All the people that hated Bitcoin on the previous bear market piled in at the top This is a straw man argument and not a very good one. Lots of people hated on Bitcoin, lots of people _still_ hate bitcoin. Lots of people invested in Bitcoin, sometimes a lot of money. There's nothing to indicate it's the same group of people. Sure, there's probably overlap, but this narrative that "All the haters eventually threw their life savings into it" is completely dumb. There's something like 10 **million** members on this subreddit. Sure, a lot are inactive lurkers but even at 10% of that it's still a million people, so of course you're going to get every single opinion over and over. During bear markets, the haters come out. During bull runs, everyone's ITM and happy. Likewise during bear markets, people are happy that it's cheap to buy again. During bull runs, everyone's convinced it's a bubble and going to pop. It happens in every speculative market. Crypto is the most speculative market out there. Pick your strategy, whatever it is, and be happy with it. Arguing with folks on the internet looking for validation is more of a waste of resources than CPU mining coins.

StConvolute

Just look at CPU development. The amount of transistors has increased massively while also shrinking the space required to house them. Once quantum starts running, I suspect we will laugh about the 1.9mil number. 

liquid_at

The thing many people ignore is that Bitcoin developers have absolutely ZERO reasons to ignore quantum threats. They will not wait for 50 years for QC to become powerful enough to break bitcoin. At a fraction of that time, QC would already be powerful enough to be used to protect the blockchain, increasing the cost for QC to break it. All it would really take would be one QC-Resistent factor in the code that can't be broken, to protect the whole. Much like incrasing CPU power made brute-force-attacks easier, but adding a salt to the pass-phrases did counter that, with little resource cost. But sure... Any 2020 crypto project that does not change anything about their codebase for 100 years will likely be dead. Just that it is more likely to die from lack of development than from QC attacks.

RedKe

SOL is solid choice, but why Render when there are like 4-5 similar projects with even greater distributed GPU capacity? Aethir, IO.net, Akash, Bittensor, and more... Distributed compute seems like a cool idea but those buying the tokens are just exit liquidity for the GPU/CPU providers.

SnooMachines7409

Linux has 2000 bits of entropy since a very long time where a lot of thermal noise from the CPU, and other sources feed the PRNG. This project will not find a key in the next 10,000 years even if all globally manufactured GPUs join the race. Also this is theft.

mydanielho

What is Crypto? Technically, it is either mining or creating. Mining is digging by Asic, GPU or CPU, it needs $$$ to get coin. Creating is just a button and get million coins and sell on the market.

SteveW928

You wouldn't even get $1 per month, or year, or likely ever. A CPU or GPU is so insignificantly slow, they won't even register to most mining pools. The only way you'd get paid is if you beat astronomical odds and found a whole block while solo-mining. You might get that much mining other crypto with pools that pay out in Bitcoin (ex: Unmineable), but you wouldn't be directly mining Bitcoin in that case.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Sassy_Allen and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://internetcomputertoday.substack.com/p/the-black-box-subnet-is-here-icp Proposal 140407 has passed, creating the first TEE-enabled subnet. Here is why "hardware-rooted trust" is the missing link for enterprise adoption. The News A massive fundamental upgrade just went live on the Internet Computer. Proposal 140407 has successfully executed, creating the network's first TEE-enabled subnet. Starting with a cluster of 7 nodes, this subnet represents a transition from "software-based security" to "hardware-rooted trust." For the first time, canisters (smart contracts) on this subnet can operate in a state of Full Confidentiality—keeping their internal data hidden not just from the public, but from the very nodes that run the code. What is a TEE (Trusted Execution Environment)? To understand why this matters, you have to understand the "Dirty Little Secret" of traditional cloud and blockchain computing. Normally, when a server processes your data, it has to decrypt it in the CPU's memory (RAM) to work on it. At that specific moment—while the data is "in use"—it is vulnerable. A malicious cloud admin or a compromised node provider could, theoretically, take a "snapshot" of the memory and see your passwords, private keys, or proprietary algorithms in plain text. A TEE changes the rules.Think of a TEE (specifically AMD SEV-SNP technology used here) as a cryptographic black box inside the CPU. * Encryption in Use: Data is decrypted only inside the processor die. * Isolation: Even the operating system and the person owning the hardware cannot peek inside. * Remote Attestation: The network can cryptographically verify that the code running inside is exactly what it claims to be, with no tampering. Why This Changes Everything for ICP The Internet Computer is already unique because it hosts the entire app on-chain. But until now, hosting highly sensitive data (like medical records, institutional trading strategies, or private user messaging) required you to trust the honesty of the decentralized node providers. With TEEs, that trust assumption is removed. You no longer need to trust the Node Provider; you only need to trust the Hardware. Massive Use Cases Unlocked: 1. True Private AI: You can run an AI model on-chain where the user's prompt and the model's weights remain invisible to the node operators. 2. Enterprise Compliance: Corporations that legally cannot put customer data on a public blockchain (due to GDPR or HIPAA) can now use TEE subnets to prove data privacy. What’s Next? Currently, this is a dedicated test environment. It is running with 7 nodes (fewer than the standard 13, because TEEs offer higher individual security) and is "authorized-only" to ensure stability before opening the floodgates. However, the roadmap is clear. As DFINITY developers gather operational experience, we can expect this to roll out as a standard option for developers. Soon, when you deploy a canister, you might simply check a box: "Do you want this to run on a public subnet or a confidential TEE subnet?" The "World Computer" just got its own private wing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

anymonero

Great entry to crypto for people who can't buy any. The only alternative is CPU mining.

Dry-Caterpillar9862

\>chain of digital signatures I wouldn't disagree. Just a fancy way of saying ledger imo. \>Well, maybe not who Just the address. Pseudonymous. Proper security practice should keep you safe. \>Energy and computational power, Satoshi mentioned it in their paper; but it does seem hard to conceptualize. Why would anybody care for energy and computational power in this sense? Those are already spent in the process of maintaining and adding to the blockchain. I'm not fully sure I understand your question. The energy/CPU power is what makes Bitcoin the largest and most secure network in the world. Imagine the top ten fortune 500 companies' IT security, Bitcoin is more secure than all 10 of them combined. I'm very likely understating the difference of security that Bitcoin provides. It's more secure than the NSA/CIA. I'd like to seed a shitcoin that can claim the same. A lot of normies like to try to criticize the Bitcoin network's energy usage. "gLoBaL wArMiNg!!" Bitcoin helps reduce global warming. It helps to make power producing plants more efficient by consuming excess electricity, and shutting down when needed. Latest example was the big snowstorm we had in the US, tons of miners shut down when requested. That's pointed to as a reason why the hashing rate went down recently.

Dry-Caterpillar9862

Alright, I'll try. \> Bitcoin, perhaps even cryptocurrency in general, is simply a chain of digital signatures representing current and previous ownership Bitcoin is a ledger and is not cryptocurrency. I know that's what all the normies think but Bitcoin stands alone by itself and the vast majority of cryptos are worthless scams. The Federal Reserve is essentially a ledger for the dollar between all the US banks and their transactions. I'll reference The Creature From Jekyll Island. \> solution to the trust placed in third parties to ensure the legitimacy and validity of exchange of currency via the internet between two parties, ensuring that money was not double-spent on the internet, which is typically easily avoided with physical cash It's important to know why Bitcoin is so important as a replacement for this role. The banking system requires days to settle transactions while Bitcoin takes under an hour in a trustless manner for way cheaper. It's near instant and nearly free with lightning. \> In this new system, cryptography and hashing are used to create, secure, and document the exchange of Bitcoin via a network of trusted computers, known as nodes, that collectively ensure that documentation is fundamentally unalterable and decentralized by having them collectively hold more CPU than attackers and outpacing attackers by adding new transactions much faster than attackers can keep up Miners create the new blocks with the transactions they choose to include (this would be the CPU power you reference). Nodes are like the enforcers of the security of the network. They scrutinize the new blocks, checking for any discrepancies and reject the ones that don't pass. \> 21 million will ever exist; however, it also is valuable because of its security and transactability as it can be, theoretically, exchanged across borders at any time and by anyone with some form of internet connection Theoretically? It's not theoretical anymore. You can even transact with a ham radio, if you knew how/needed to. Russia and other countries can use Bitcoin to circumvent sanctions. Bitcoin is for everyone, including everyone you don't like. \> I remain skeptical because of the lack of backing as nothing other than the digital signature exists when evaluating value. It's backed by energy and computational power. \> 20% of all the BTC that will ever be created is owned by institutions Blackrock/Fidelity, etc. do not "own" any Bitcoin, they custody for their clients. That 20% number is false. According to River, \~70% of Bitcoin are held by individuals. The rest are categories like Satoshi wallet with 4.6%, estimated lost Bitcoin \~7.5%, etc.

DD-777

Hi, I'm interested in having my understanding of BTC critiqued, and I made a short document that sums up my understanding and thought about BTC. I would appreciate anyone's feedback on this, thanks. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin, perhaps even cryptocurrency in general, is simply a chain of digital signatures representing current and previous ownership – of the Bitcoin token, I assume (Nakamoto, 2008). It was developed as a solution to the trust placed in third parties to ensure the legitimacy and validity of exchange of currency via the internet between two parties, ensuring that money was not double-spent on the internet, which is typically easily avoided with physical cash (Coin Bureau \[CB\], 2023; Nakamoto, 2008). In this new system, cryptography and hashing are used to create, secure, and document the exchange of Bitcoin via a network of trusted computers, known as nodes, that collectively ensure that documentation is fundamentally unalterable and decentralized by having them collectively hold more CPU than attackers and outpacing attackers by adding new transactions much faster than attackers can keep up (Nakamoto, 2008). These are hosted by everyday people, and they ensure that the system remains decentralized, which means nobody holds a high concentration of power. The initial issue with digital currencies, also known as cryptocurrencies, was that there was no way to check if a person had double spent their digital mint (Nakamoto, 2008). Nakamoto’s (2008) solution was a timestamp server that timestamped each transaction; published it publicly in a digital ledger; included the previous transactions timestamp as well; and was confirmed by a network of nodes that hold onto copies of the ledger as well – this is known as the blockchain these days (CB, 2020). These would done through a hash, a form of encryption that changes an input (i.e., transaction timestamps and digital signatures) into a solvable but incredibly difficult slurry of letters and numbers (Investopedia, 2025). Bitcoin, also known as BTC or XTC, is now considered a form of digital gold and protection from inflation (CB, 2023). Its value is derived in large part because of scarcity as only 21 million will ever exist; however, it also is valuable because of its security and transactability as it can be, theoretically, exchanged across borders at any time and by anyone with some form of internet connection (CB, 2023; Kelleher, 2025; Nakamoto, 2008). Furthermore, no government owns it so it cannot be devalued by increased distribution (i.e., the government cannot devalue BTC by making more than 21 million), and the limits of the cryptocurrency inherently make anti-inflationary (Kelleher, 2025). Personal Thoughts BTC has been an exciting topic from a personal standpoint as I see its value as a currency that restores the people’s control of money instead of relying in 3rd party institutions and centralizing control. However, despite its decentralization, security, scarcity, and seemingly agreed upon value in the current year of 2026, I remain skeptical because of the lack of backing as nothing other than the digital signature exists when evaluating value. However, one might argue that it does not matter as, despite the lack of any meaningful backing, 20% of all the BTC that will ever be created is owned by institutions; and cryptocurrency has become a topic of heavy discussion in policy and business (BitcoinTreasuries.net, 2026; CB, 2026). However, here’s the real kicker for me, and this is purely a thought on my part. Now, I’m not going to bother to go look it up, but BTC was created primarily because of disillusionment in third-party financial companies and money after the 2008 crash. It was supposed to replace money and remove third-parties. However, in 2026, BTC is incredibly valued in my opinion because people keep putting money into it. The very thing that BTC was supposed to replace has become its backing. Thus, its value is backed by a constantly devaluing asset, and the only reason that it holds any increasing value is because of a collective effort to increase its value by having people constantly put money into it. Its not a hedge against anything, but its hedge like effect will only exist for the people who cash-in before the rest do.

neo-caridina

Zcash is already asic mined, so I don't see much reason for PoS, unless it's for green reasons or to incentivize hodling. Monero on the other hand I think would benefit from a hybrid model for a more immediate existential reason: to keep CPU farms from being used for selfish or 51% attacks. Monero is not asic but rather lends itself to CPU mining. This is double edged, in that it allows the average joe to mine using their PC, joining millions of other joes in a decentralized egalitarian utopian manner. But CPU mining a relatively nascent cryptocurrency also means 99.9% of the world's CPUs (which are not currently mining Monero) could be commandeered or intentially steered to compete against Monero's honest hashrate. I pulled the 99.9% number out of my ass, but my point is most of the world's CPUs are *not* mining Monero, and malware or malintending state actors could overtake Monero's security budget. I wouldn't put it past a crony government or large surveillance company to take interest in fucking with Monero. Qubic, a fringe experiment, not a state actore, achieved selfish mining and an 18 block reorg.

Inventor-BlueChip710

I agree with some of your points, and I agree that mining centralisation hasn’t “broken” major chains like Bitcoin, nor am I suggesting it’s an existential emergency today. What I’m exploring is the impact of making mining more fair and widely hostable, and how that changes the feasibility of attacks and external influence that exist today, and have occurred in the past, largely because participation is relatively limited and concentrated. Even when miners are economically incentivised to behave honestly, mining infrastructure remains susceptible to regulatory pressure, censorship requirements, energy controls, and pool level coordination. This isn’t a new PoW algorithm or an attempt to outcompete Bitcoin economically. It’s a narrower and, as far as I’m aware, unexplored question: what happens if parallelism itself is removed from traditional PoW as a source of advantage, independent of hardware, and what happens when that enables mass participation of solo nodes? Instead of ASIC resistance or GPU resistance, the system enforces an equal work rate per node (1 hash/sec), effectively making it CPU-proof as well. The goal is to observe whether this materially changes participation, distribution of influence, and network resilience under real conditions. You’re right that incentives push large miners to behave honestly, but incentives don’t eliminate structural asymmetry, they simply make it tolerable. I’m curious whether engineering that asymmetry away meaningfully changes who can participate, how influence is distributed, and how the network evolves. If it turns out this approach doesn’t improve anything in practice, that’s still a useful outcome. That’s why I’m starting with demos and early stress testing rather than claiming it already “solves” decentralisation.

nugymmer

And option B will also badly affect BTC. Neither option is good but option B is IMHO much more fucked as a general idea than option A. Why not go back to CPU mining???!!!

substandard2

The entire crypto market has turned into a pump and dump on repeat. A money printer for whales and investors. Do not expect that to change unless something fundamental changes. I am also an offender and will continue doing so. I have made a pretty good amount of money, but I also used to mine bitcoin back when it was CPU mining.

tshureih

Like someone said earlier, consider it "gambling". I am old enough and throughout my life and career experiences, I can claim that I learned a few things and thus would like to share an opinion based on experience and facts. I remember when I received a forwarded email from a non-technical friend, sometime in 2009, telling me about this project called Bitcoin and how it's the next big thing and will eliminate Banks, etc., which I told him later when we met, it's a scam or fake. At the time, Bitcoin was still mined with CPUs. I later read the White Paper and learned more about Bitcoin. "One CPU one Vote" was the idea, but then GPUs replaced CPUs and now ASICs dominate. The point is, the people who actually make money in BTC are either: 1) Early adopters when each Block reward was 50 BTC 2) Today, you need money to make money -- Starting capital to buy ASICs, warehouse, electricity, etc. Everyone else is gambling. ETH is not usable anymore. The fees alone contradict the whole "cheaper and faster than Banks". Who makes money in the ETH eco-system? "Validator" holders which requires 32 staked ETH (and most validators lose money when fees are low).....same with Solana and all PoS coins. I don't pay attention to meme coins, but there is another in-your-face gambling scam, sadly, under the name and umbrella of Cryptocurrency! Cheers ✌🏽

jawni

It's sad that you think these are gotcha questions, when people settle for this kind of concern trolling, you know they're desperate. >1) What is the number of SOL validators including last 3year trend? ~800 is the current number, largest validator set than any other blockchain of the same age or younger. And even 800 is actually far more than is needed. 100-200 would actually be the sweet spot, assuming ideal geographic stake distribution. It is down from 2500. Why? [Because the delegation program that was started to bootstrap the network has winded down.](https://x.com/SolanaFndn/status/2018338765211926940) * Non-SFDP delegated stake grew ~230% * Foundation stake share fell from 44.4% to ~5.9% * Independent validators increased by 121% Solana has gotten substantially more decentralized over these 3 years, but people generally aren't very good at using any nuance so they typically just look at raw validator numbers, which give you maybe 10% of the data you need to make to have a comprehensive view on decentralization. Beyond that you need to look at client diversity, development diversity, geographic distribution of stake, hosting diversity, nakamoto coefficient and many other factors, including but not limited to the ones in the bullet points. >2) What is the HW spec. for SOL node as of now? * CPU: 12 cores / 24 threads or more, with a base clock speed of 2.8GHz or faster. Must support SHA extensions (AMD Gen 3 or newer, Intel Ice Lake or newer) and AVX2 instructions; AVX512f support is beneficial. * RAM: 256GB or more, with Error Correction Code (ECC) memory recommended. * Storage: PCIe Gen3 x4 NVMe SSD or better.Accounts: 1TB or larger, high Total Bytes Written (TBW) endurance. Ledger: 1TB or larger, high TBW suggested. OS/Snapshots: 500GB or larger. >3) What is the size of SOL blockchain giventhough the vast amount of transactions incl. those non-client one? Validators have no need to store all of it but if they wanted to, it would be 100TB. >4) What is the consensus of SOL PoS - how fairly are block producers chosen giventhough early SOL coin distribution scheme (vesting schedule)? So you're kind of conflating two things here. There is block production and then there is the tokenomics and vesting. The vesting has been done for a while now, so block producers aren't really being chosen in 2026 due to tokens they received half a decade ago. You can watch them in real-time here: https://gui.firedancer.io/ It's pretty clear that many validators produce blocks for Solana and it has little to do with vesting schedules. Even if it did, that would necessarily mean that whichever group that was that invested over 5 years ago, has diamondhanded those coins through all unlocks, which I would think would be a good thing. On the consensus mechanism itself, it uses TowerBFT and Proof of History for now, but soon will deprecate that when Alpenglow is implemented and we'll have Votor and Rotor. Learn more here: https://www.helius.dev/blog/alpenglow

LAOGE1

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. 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.

LAOGE1

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third 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 a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast 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.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Nomski88 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://nerva.one/#roadmap With the recent increase in activity around Nerva, I wanted to share a high-level look at the 2026 roadmap and where the project is heading. The focus going forward is on stability, accessibility, and long-term sustainability rather than short-term hype. Priorities include ongoing maintenance and refinement of the core software, wallet improvements, clearer documentation for new users and miners, and continued support for CPU-only mining to keep the network decentralized and accessible. Nerva has already shown resilience by staying active through multiple market cycles, exchange shutdowns, and long quiet periods. The 2026 roadmap builds on that foundation with an emphasis on steady, transparent progress and keeping the network healthy for the long run. If you’re interested in privacy-focused projects that prioritize durability over rapid iteration, this is shaping up to be an interesting year to follow. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: B_Boy_Breaker and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/Monero/comments/1qttvxu/the_modern_crypto_trap_why_i_believe_xmr_is_the/ **TL;DR:** The "Digital Gold" promise of BTC is failing as physical gold outperforms it in stability. Meanwhile, mining has become a "Big Fish" game for corporations/governments, and KYC exchanges have turned crypto into "Bank 2.0." While most coins are "glass houses" where everyone can track your money, Monero (XMR) is the only one maintaining the original cypherpunk vision of privacy and decentralization—which is exactly why the system is trying to delist it. **----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **Disclaimer:** *I am not a financial adviser. These are my personal thoughts and an honest vision of the current market state. Let’s discuss.* # 1. The Digital Gold Narrative Has Shifted For years, we were told BTC is "Digital Gold." But look at the real-world performance in 2025–2026. **Actual physical gold** recently broke $5,000/oz, acting as a true shield during global instability. Meanwhile, BTC has become a "Wall Street Asset"—highly sensitive to interest rates and ETF flows. It hasn't failed as an investment, but it *has* failed to be the independent, stable alternative to the system we were promised. # 2. The Mining Centralization "Big Fish" The dream of "one CPU, one vote" is dead for most. * **BTC/ASIC Centralization:** Governments and massive industrial mining pools now control the hashrate. The "small miners" who were supposed to be the backbone of the network have been squeezed out because they aren't profitable. * **Market Manipulation:** When a few "Big Fish" (institutions and gov-linked pools) control the supply and the hashrate, they control the price. They eat the small retail investors by manipulating market movements with massive buy/sell walls. # 3. The KYC Iron Curtain The freedom to send and receive money has become a joke. Centralized exchanges (CEXs) have turned crypto into **"Bank 2.0."** * You cannot benefit from your own coins without handing over your ID, location, and a biometric scan. * KYC doesn't just "verify" you; it links your sovereign wealth to a government database, allowing them to freeze or track your assets just like a traditional bank. # 4. The "Glass House" Privacy Lie We were promised privacy, but we got a public ledger where every transaction is a permanent record for the world to see. Blockchain forensics (Chainalysis/Elliptic) have made BTC and other "transparent" coins a surveillance officer's dream. # The Monero Difference: A New Era? This is why I’ve been looking at the few projects that actually kept the promise. * **Monero (XMR) vs. The Delisting War:** In late 2024 and 2025, we saw major exchanges like Kraken and Binance delist XMR in Europe (EEA) due to MiCA regulations. Why? Because Monero **actually works**. It’s the only coin that regulators are truly afraid of because they *can’t* see inside the "Glass House." * **Mining for the People:** While others moved to ASICs, Monero’s **RandomX** keeps mining accessible to regular people with CPUs. With the rise of **P2Pool**, the community is fighting back against the centralization that killed BTC’s independence. * **A Stable Alternative:** Interestingly, assets like **PAX Gold (PAXG)** have shown that people still crave the stability of gold. But while PAXG gives you gold, only **Monero** gives you the "Cash" experience—fungible, private, and peer-to-peer. **Conclusion:** I believe we are entering a new era. The "number go up" phase of centralized crypto is being replaced by a "utility and freedom" phase. Monero isn't just another coin; it’s a possible blueprint for what crypto was always supposed to be before the banks and big fish moved in. **What are your thoughts? Is the "transparency" of the top 10 coins a feature or a fatal flaw?** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: Nomski88 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/NervaCrypto/comments/1qutgcm/another_milestone_reached_nerva_network_hashrate/ Nerva has surpassed yet another milestone by hitting over 400KH/s on the network. This is a huge accomplishment and shows a strong interest in CPU only privacy coins. Just a couple of weeks ago the Nerva network hashrate was hovering around 30-40KH/s with dedicated miners keeping the network alive through market downturns. Nerva has been operating nonstop since 2018 and proves that legacy privacy coins are here to stay! You can view the network hashrate on the Nerva Block Explorer [https://explorer.nerva.one/](https://explorer.nerva.one/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: Nomski88 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://x.com/NervaCurrency/status/2018022893687341104 Nerva is showing a healthy recovery since being relisted on NonKyc. The market cap has surpassed $1 million which marks a huge milestone as the project regains momentum. After exchange shutdowns, lost liquidity, and long quiet stretches, the project didn’t reboot, rebrand, or disappear. The chain kept running, mining continued, and the community stayed small but active. Nerva (XNV) is a CPU-only privacy cryptocurrency launched in 2018, designed to be mined on everyday hardware without ASICs or GPUs. It runs its own blockchain and has continued operating through multiple market cycles. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Bagmasterflash

That is incredibly short sited. Although XMR started with very good privacy other coins have infinite time to develop comparable privacy whereas monero is stunted due to its design limitations. Better luck next time. r/bitcoincashautist, [Jan 13, 2023 at 10:09 AM] Monero achieves great privacy, I give it that, but it has to give up a lot for that, it is a trade-off: - There's no concept of an UTXO, because you can't tell which TXOs are spent and which are not. - Because of that, you can't prune much, and have to keep all TXOs ever made around for forever, and it can't be in some slow archive storage because TXs using ring signatures regularly reference a random pick from ALL historic TXOs so you need those readily accessible. This is the biggest scaling bottleneck IMO. Your blockchain "state" is the whole blockchain, as opposed to Bitcoin where only the UTXO set is the current state. - Wallet scaling, because of key blinding they need to process each TXO and do expensive CPU operations on it to check whether it belongs to them - as opposed to Bitcoin where you only need to do a simple pattern match. - Very limited programmability of (U)TXOs because any spending requires authentication by a key, and for many decentralized applications you can get rid of the keys and have UTXOs be spendable if some other conditions are satisfied. Satoshi gave Bitcoin a scripting system, programs encoded with the UTXOs and executed on spending. This is incompatible with Monero. - Auditability of supply. Breaking a cryptographic primitive used to blind the amounts would allow freely minting amounts without anyone knowing about it. - Long-term it will be broken by quantum computers, not sure whether there are drop-in replacements for all the primitives, and if there are it all gets huge so big impact on scaling. Bitcoin really only needs to do a few things: move from 256-bit to 384-bit hashes and upgrade signature opcodes + some scheme to transition. After '23 P2SH32 upgrade, it will be possible to lock BCH in quantum-proof contracts. Because of all that, I believe there's a natural adoption ceiling, lower than "p2p cash system for the world" win scenario we dream about with Bitcoin Cash. Adoption is hard. Monero has a smaller total addressable market but there it lies its advantage: it's the only player that has a product for those users, it's the best in class. Bitcoin Cash has a bigger total addressable market, but it has to compete against a lot of other coins.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Nomski88 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://nonkyc.io/post/new_listing_nerva_xnv For anyone tracking older privacy-focused coins, Nerva (XNV) just got relisted on the NoKYC exchange. Here’s the announcement from NoKYC: [https://nonkyc.io/post/new\_listing\_nerva\_xnv](https://nonkyc.io/post/new_listing_nerva_xnv) Nerva is a CPU-only privacy chain that’s been around since 2018. It lost previous exchange listings when those platforms ceased operations, but the network and mining have continued quietly. Sharing this as an update for anyone interested in legacy privacy projects — not financial advice or a buy signal. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

pezdal

A watch absolutely can mine bitcoin, just not particularly fast. An Apple Watch, for example, has more processing power and connectivity than the CPU my friend used to solo mine 50 Bitcoin in 2009 or 2010. The probability of a CPU or even a GPU actually doing that again is minuscule. But as part of a mining pool a watch purpose built to mine BTC could absolutely make a few cents a year. This, however, does not appear to be such a device.

Romanizer

You would probably have to run your CPU for 2-3 hours for that, so $1 sounds fair.

Lee911123

He pretty much developed proof of work with gpus, back then you could only mine bitcoin with your CPU. Another fun fact is that he also helped developed the bitcoin wallet client for Mac OS.

TheRealMacresco

Yes. The guy in this picture is also one of the pioneers that found out that GPU's are better for mining than CPU's. 10000 BTC is probably the tip of the iceberg for him. He stated that this transaction helped adoption and he doesn't regret it

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; The Monero Moon (Issue 87) highlights recent developments in the Monero ecosystem, including updates on privacy enhancements, wallet improvements, and community projects. Key updates include the introduction of a spy node ban list to enhance transaction privacy, progress on RandomX v2 for CPU mining, and advancements in privacy upgrades like FCMP++ and CARROT. New tools like MoneroDroid and Monero One aim to improve accessibility, while events like MoneroTopia 2026 and MoneroKon 2026 focus on fostering community engagement and privacy advocacy. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

TheWatchers666

Dunno....I didn't see anything pop up just yet. There were 2 last year worldwide and nothing since. The pool I'm in, and all others inc...just gonna check now and CPU passive mining I do at night....5.6e+4 years...that's 56,000 years of digging 😅

OkEmu7082

Because after the attack the CPU /GPU still have value. If you attack a coin with asic friendly pow, all your asic become useless.

_GOREHOUND_

Okay, I’ll play along… The red one. I’d go back to 2009. Back then you could mine CPU-only. Difficulty was ~1 and the block reward was 50 BTC. CPU: ~1 MH/s Mining: 12 hours/day At difficulty ~1 that works out to roughly ~500 BTC/day on average (expectation, in reality it’s lumpy: you might hit zero for ages, then land a block). Even if you haircut it hard for bad luck, downtime, and difficulty creeping up, say divide by 5, you’re still at ~100 BTC/day in early 2009. One month at that pace: ~3,000 BTC. BOOM!!!

BigCurrentNews

[oilrig. io/](https://oilrig.io/) [https://oilrig.io/](https://oilrig.io/) Start earning OIL tokens in just three simple steps. No expensive hardware required – just your browser and CPU. Buy in Solana Phantom wallet o5XguNKkz71K37BJsAhyMJnatwwbJ9MdixSmDW6pump NFL [youtube.com/watch?v=jFX07LCTrSM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFX07LCTrSM) [youtube.com/watch?v=vZhKi3vZUtw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZhKi3vZUtw) [youtube.com/watch?v=u\_rMoQs18vI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_rMoQs18vI)   Los Angeles Rams vs Chicago Bears Game Highlights | 2025 NFL Season Divisional Round [youtube.com/watch?v=qy3nzv9xps0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy3nzv9xps0) 24 Hour Slovakia FOOD TOUR | Eating TRADITIONAL Slovak STREET FOOD in Bratislava Slovakia

FromThePits

I really appriciate your dedication. Also the estimate on CPU runtime. Thank you. I promised some other redditor to release the xpub early next week, if that is useful to you? He wanted to verify the 0.01 BTC incentive is real. I promise its still there. I just checked. Other than that - the challenge is the challenge. You'll probably waste more electricity than its worth with that PC? Maybe you can team up with someone? Get some more hashing going.

ConsistentMidnight57

Yea but CPU processing isnt the equivalent of the energy of cloud based compute

MinimalGravitas

Where have you got your daft ideas and overconfidence on this from? > Nodes can reject suspicious reorgs No they can't, nodes will always follow the longest chain, which will be the one being mined by the attacker in our scenario as they have over 50% of the hash power. Here is Satoshi explaining why this has to be the case: > *It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.* [https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/6/] ---------------------- > exchanges can pause or raise confirmations That makes no difference to the chain... or anything we are discussing. If an attacker is mining empty blocks and censoring all transactions then there is nothing to be confirmed anyway! > miners can switch pools instantly This also makes no difference to our scenario... if the attacker has over 50% of the mining power then it doesn't matter how other miners distribute their hashpower between pools, they are irrelevant. > hash power can relocate geographically Again, sure they can, but that makes no difference to anything we are discussing. > social coordination can neutralize the attacker The only possible action the social layer can take is to fork Bitcoin onto a new consensus layer so that it is no longer mined by PoW ASICs, as I noted above. This would 'neutralize' all miners, the attacker and all honest miners. It is also worth noting that the only chain to successfully change consensus mechanism (Ethereum) took multiple years to do so, and that is with about 4x as many devs and a well established testing and protocol upgrade pathway. The idea that Bitcoin could successfully coordinate and implement a fork away from mining, while the chain was being attacked, and with a goal that would bankrupt all the mining farms, on a timescale short enough for people to not just give up on the network... seems pretty far fetched. ---------------- > An attacker would need to maintain dominance indefinitely, The scenario we were discussing was a hostile nation state building manufacturing facilities that churned out ASICs faster than than Bitmain etc, so yes the attacker could remain dominant for as long as they like. > while continuing to pay enormous operating costs Firstly, remember that the attacker is collecting all the block rewards, while the 'defenders' block rewards are being reverted with each reorg. Secondly, the operating costs are not the biggest chunk of the attack's cost. Assuming that the attacking nation state didn't just divert energy for the ASICs for free, the cost of electricity would be a few millions of dollars per day, compared to the total cost of ASIC manufacturing and infrastructure which would be tens of billions, the running costs are not significant (which you would know if you had read the Breaking BFT paper I linked to above). ------------------ > It’s like saying there’s a .01% chance it might rain today so pack your umbrella. It is very clear that you don't actually know how Bitcoin works. That's fine, and easily fixed if you are interested. I would suggest reading 'Mastering Bitcoin' by Andreas M. Antonopoulos, which you can do for free at: https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/BOOK.md Another good resource, less technical but perhaps helpful for a beginner is 'Learn Me a Bitcoin. They have a pretty good explanation of a 51% attack, which will really help you undestand what we are talking about here: https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/blockchain/51-attack/ The explanation of why nodes can't reject reorgs I posted above came from the Nakamoto Institute, where they have loads of resources that let you see how bitcoi was first developed and the discussions around how it is designed and why those choices were made: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/ Hopefully you'll find that lot interesting, feel free to come back to this discussion if you need any further misunderstandings cleared up.

pop-1988

You're right, RandomX is portable to RISC-V. Also RISC-V is an open architecture, very cheap to build with. It happened that the big ASIC manufacturer doesn't need to make a RandomX ASIC. They only need to design a 6-CPU RISC-V board, contract a chip foundry to make energy efficient RISC-V chips, put 3 boards in a box, and sell it for 30% of the price of the currently preferred multi-core Ryzen CPU Cheaper to buy, consumes 80% less electricity, isn't an ASIC > All this human ingenuity And the ASIC corp still wins, by not building an ASIC

Aggressive-Fact1156

los primeros mineros de bitcoin, con CPU

DangerHighVoltage111

> Bitcoin is secured by its node network That's bullshit. And the WP quote does not support your statement at all. It supports mine. That you don't even understand that makes you absolutely unfit for any discussion. If you want to know why, ask yourself what Satoshi meant my more CPU power. Or ask if you honestly want to know.

pop-1988

Bitcoin is secured by its node network Security doesn't come from the hashrate. If people expect the mining hashrate to make Bitcoin secure, they shouldn't buy it The Bitcoin white paper explicitly states this qualification **The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes** This isn't a rallying cry to encourage a permanent exponential growth in hash rate. If anything, it could be interpreted indirectly as warning against hoarding In the inverse, it means this ... The security provided by the decentralized node network using the Bitcoin consensus protocol does not protect against an attack by an entity which gains 51% of the hash rate The hoarder crowd believes that by loudly shouting "digital gold" they make Bitcoin change into a hoarding asset by positive thinking, as advocated by the snake oil salesman Reverend Peale. Bitcoin is defined by the software. In all its 17 years, the Bitcoin software has never been changed from an Internet payment method into any of those fantasies - store of value, digital gold, hedge against inflation It's not even scarce

Billkr

There is no way to mine Bitcoin from your phone. PC CPU and GPU mining died years ago. If you want to mine bitcoin, purchase a Bitaxe miner and lottery mine.

digitalr3lapse

They can technically mine sha-256 (btc's algorithm. Here are some stats ai spot out. Reguarless is they are 100% correct... The odds are astronomical. You are MUCH better off playing the lottery "Attempting to solo mine a Bitcoin block with a standard PC CPU is virtually impossible for earning Bitcoin today. It's not about luck but about the extreme difference in computing power between your computer and professional mining setups. To show you why, let's compare the hash rates: · 🔬 Your PC's CPU · Hash Rate Example: 0.0001 GH/s (100 MH/s) · Representative Hardware: Consumer CPU (e.g., Intel Core i7) · 🏭 Entry-Level ASIC Miner (considered minimal for solo mining) · Hash Rate Example: 6 TH/s (6,000 GH/s) · Representative Hardware: Older-generation ASIC (e.g., Antminer S9) · ⚡ Modern ASIC Miner (competitive hardware) · Hash Rate Example: 140 TH/s (140,000 GH/s) · Representative Hardware: Bitmain Antminer S19 XP · 🌐 Total Bitcoin Network · Hash Rate Example: ~500,000,000 TH/s (500 EH/s) · Note: This is the combined power your PC competes against. 🤔 Understanding the Odds and Challenges The chance of finding a block is your hash rate divided by the network's total hash rate. · With a PC CPU: Your probability in any given 10-minute window is astronomically small—effectively zero. It would take billions of years on average. · Even with a single ASIC: A miner with 270 TH/s had a 1-in-30,000 chance per day (roughly once every 82 years on average). · Recent "Luck" Stories: In late 2025, a miner with just 6 TH/s beat 1-in-180-million daily odds to win a block. Another with 270 TH/s had a 1-in-30,000 daily chance. These are considered extreme lottery-level wins.

downtherabbit

What does that even mean. Quantum computing is a THEORY. A lot of quantum mechanics isn't even proven, it is just pretty maths. The closest we will get to "Quantum computing" is figuring out how to store a bit on an electron spinning around a neutron. And to make this useful for computing you would need something that could 'read' that particle to ask if it is a zero or one without changing it from a zero to one. Then you would need another mechanism that changes the way the electron spun from a zero to one. Then you would need to create another standard of defining what an electrons position around a neutron constitutes a one or a zero. Traditional gates with electrical current passing through them wouldn't work. Another option would be to leave our entire binary system behind (for which you would need to throw away UNIX, and create a completely new software and electrical engineering field from the ground up) and use the cosine of the angle of the electron from the neutron to give out a number between 1-360. You could use every group of subsequent four numbers and create an entire new field using base-60 (Sexagesimal) and using every group of subsequent four numbers would be a form of error correction (ECC). So each bit in sexagesimal would be represented by a possibility of four numbers from 1-360. And it would be the same as before, you would need to define what the electrons position around the nucleus correspods to what number. You would need to create a completely new invention that could reliably keep an electron in a certain space or side of the particle (using electromagnetism), and you would need one of these completely new inventions attached to EACH particle. Then you would need a completely new invention that could read the electrons position reliably, whilst corresponding to the input of the other new invention. None of these inventions work. And figuring out how to make them so small that could attach to a single particle without having an impact on other particles around it would require also an entirely new field of technology and physics that doesn't even exist yet. So even if you did all of this. You would have a series of particles running in series that would have to be insulated from all total outside EMF inteference like a faraday cage of sorts which again would require completely new inventions and a new field of science in itself. After all that. You would just have.... a very fast CPU..... And it still wouldn't be able to "speed up" the block speed. It could only be used to increase the hashrate of bitcoin mining. And it still wouldn't break SHA-256 encryption. All faster compute power over the next century is going to do is this. Wont break Bitcoin encyption, and wont break Bitcoin's fundamental code (block rate). It will only increase the hashrate. In short, whoever breaks moore's law and sees a massive improvement in CPU compute power over a very short time without other people having the technology yet will be able to take over the mining pool instantly and take up a large portion of the hashrate, and effectively own all brand new bitcoin. This is the possibility of "QuAnTuM ComPutInG" and the only thing we should be scared of. As this would centralise all new bitcoin to a single entity.

Virtualization_Freak

This is just outright wrong. Blockchain adapts difficulty to match mining throughput, with the goal to average out to 10 minute blocks. Remember the days when BTC was just CPU mined? Still on average 10 minute blocks. Then GPUs, then FPGA, then ASICs. Hash rate kept exploding, but the blocks average the same.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Jealous_Rip7223 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1q1qnwx/please_check_out_the_new_site_and_honest_leave/ I’m excited to announce that I have a new website for you guys: [**https://thecryptosteer.com**](https://thecryptosteer.com/). completely registered business. paypal supported. I’ve put a lot of work, time, and investment into this. If you’d like to support me by supporting you, get yourself access to the premium features (details below). Please leave feedback below — or for a faster response, suggestions, or support, use the contact page on the website. # About the website It includes market data, market graphs, crypto news, crypto guides, and a probability calculator for CPUs, ASICs, and GPUs — designed to be a user-friendly “everything you need” hub to track / learn / explore crypto. It also includes options for tailored newsletters, alerts, and more. Basically: your crypto powerhouse dashboard. No ads currently. No BS. Soon, we’ll also be selling crypto mining hardware in the shop, and my tools that I develop (like the Kali/XMRig Docker image). The Android miner (actually capable of mining at some decent hashes) will also be available for download in the near future from the site. # [The Crypto Steer](https://www.thecrypttosteer.com/) — current promotional period Users who sign up for a premium account within the first two months will get promotional pricing at **$1.99/month** for the premium account. # The first 100 to sign up **The first 100** people to sign up for premium will receive access to the premium plan at **$1.99/month for an entire year**, regardless of price changes. Premium unlocks access to the tools listed below: # CryptoSteer Premium Tools * **Custom Price Alerts** * **CPU Benchmark Test** * **Custom Watchlists** * **Custom Portfolio Tracker and Builder** * **Custom Saved Market Live Graphs** * **Saved News** * **Beta Access to Upcoming Tools** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Romanizer

If you bought in 2009 you would be very famous as you would have been the only person able to do that. And also a bit dumb, as you could just mine thousands per day on your CPU.

0x456

Wen RAM, GPU, CPU RWAs.....?

Littlestan

Gridcoin (GRC) Started off much like Folding@Home where you donated GPU/CPU cycles to projects that actually directly contributed to real life projects and humanist goals. Dev soon enabled ASIC support when they were fresh on the scene and it destroyed the entire narrative of altruistic intent as the blockchain was immediately dominated by the few equipped to go bonkers on it then flood the market. An attempt was made to balance/scale the rewards eventually but not before the damage was done.

musr

I was like, "I absolutely do find this interesting and would like to do it. However, my procrastination wetware dictates that I shelf it for later." After CPU mining is no longer viable. Then GPU, then FPGA, then ASIC (need a farm). Then the dip and the dip after the peak,...