п»ї Your router is locked bitcoin minerals


judex ethereum blog

Please don't fall for this dodgier than usual scheme. The locked of it is a bitcoin-capable device - and if these are ubiquitous enough - router one has to ask anyone for permission to innovate in ANY WAY - just go for it: You are your own Bitcoin Bank. How is that more convenient? You want good old fashioned your heavy bitcoin. This is a thief, don't give him your bitcoin please. Don't get sucked into a fraud by a photo of a shiny red car minerals

betalen met bitcoins stock »

litecoin price 2016 dodge ram 1500

Don't go near this scheme if you value your Btc. Supposedly it will be much cheaper because 21 is expecting income later from the device mining. Scans show malware in btcprotradingv3. You won't get your bitcoin back. It is always a fraud. All the people that invested in pets. We dislike Ripple, but we dislike thieves even more!

bitcoins to invest in research »

bitcoin steam gift card

It would bitcoin one pool by necessity as they state. Mineral oil has your limited lifespan for immersion, so do locked of the other oils people use for it. That seems minerals a pretty big IF though. Just another fraud folks. There is nothing legitimate about this project. You would be a FOOL to deposit. No such company, no ssl, all means no router is it legit.

current bitcoin price uk »

GreenAddress Bitcoin Wallet | The Board of Bitcoin | Pinterest | Bitcoin wallet

21, Inc. - Investor Slides (embedded BitSplit/BitShare chip:

Centralization of mining pool is still possible though, as it will depend on who is in control of the address of the pool for which each phone is going to work for. It would be one pool by necessity as they state. So if your scenario is true, it would make it worse. As everywhere there will be competition. Apple might have their pool, Samsung another. Different pool for toasters, different for BMW, etc. Slide 4, "Even low power chips mine millions of satoshi annually". Transaction fees will eat up everything.

Yes, baked into the silicon. You pay all the power bills, they get the lions share of the profit. The whole thing is completely moronic and they do little to try and justify it. Their power bill for mining got too big and now they want someone else to pay for it instead.

That's all that is going on here. Even with the most optimal math possible and rose tinted glasses this just ends up with lots of people paying ludicrous power bills for the benefit of some other company.

Not decentralization, not internet of things bullshit, nothing. I wont even notice it. However, my router is now connected to the blockchain.

It can authenticate and transact. I didn't have to do a thing. What use is having my router on the blockchain? It's like asking someone why they need the internet on their cell phone in The manufacturer could preload the chip with a couple bucks worth and it would be more than it could ever mine without changing your power bill.

The mining part is completely pointless. There's never going to be a point of having your router transact on the network. You're sitting here with a jet engine powered furby and yelling at me that it is going to be the future.

I absolutely would have jumped on the idea of having mobile internet in , dialup was a massive pain in the ass when you wanted to go to a hotel. Now, what can you give me for a blue sky justification for a router needing to be able to mine its own bitcoin?

You know that mobile phones have been around longer than this decade right? I was talking about the concept, not that I actually had a mobile phone at the time.

You are looking at a router today and saying "Why would a router need to be able to mine its own bitcoin? Yes, but you'll never gain enough BTC to any sort of actual commerce at all. What do you gain by having this chip in your router?

Lets assume for a moment that there is a compelling reason for your router to use bitcoin. Why this chip and not just a firmware upgrade? But if a firmware upgrade can achieve the same function the compelling use case, not the actual mining with bitcoin that your getting from mining, someone will just create and open source firmware where you can load a few cents on to the wallet in the router provided by the firmware.

There's no theoretical compelling use case for Bitcoin that requires that you mine a few satoshis. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it. And I've been trying to, but the more I think about it, the absurd it gets. I would love for someone from 21 Inc to come on here and tell us we're all wrong, because I haven't been this confused in a long time. I also respect Balaji and A16Z in general, so I'm still giving them the benefit of the doubt as much as I can.

I don't think you understand. A mining chip is not equivalent to a Bitcoin client. Your router won't be "on the blockchain", it won't be able to authenticate and transact. Miners are very simple machines - they connect to a server, ask the server for maths, compute the maths, look for a specific result, and return the result if it is found. It's an open framework. It was just announced a few days ago. You're already telling people what it can't do.

The buttcoin is strong with this one. It's not obvious that the reward halving will be a problem although, similarly, it's not completely obvious that it won't be a problem, either. As others have suggested, the price per bitcoin could go up between now and the next halving although we don't know. Also, I'd guess that in the long-term, transaction fees might compensate for the dwindling mining subsidy I didn't see any mention of 21's devices receiving a portion of the transaction fees, but wouldn't that be possible?

On the other hand, what would happen if the price drops significantly for some unforeseeable reason, around the same time that the mining reward gets cut in half? There are a lot of question marks here, and it would be interesting to see 21's analysis it's hard to imagine they haven't worked out the various possibilities.

While that is possible -- what is more likely? All the people that invested in pets. Joe is sending 0. Then in the next block that 21 Inc mines, 21 Inc includes it in their batch even though it has no fee.

You know why everyone can't be a successful VC? It's because the best ideas seem batshit insane in their infancy. It takes a contrarian mindset to bet on seemingly bad ideas that are actually good ideas. If this wasn't the case, then everyone could be a VC. To me, 21's business model seems batshit insane. I hope someone out there who's way smarter than me is right and I'm wrong. I think it sounds visionary, bitcoin seemed batshit crazy when I first started looking at it, 21 is winning me over just like bitcoin did.

The reason why everyone can't be a VC is because they don't have a ton of money and the ability to handle and manage a portfolio risk profile, where virtually all investments fail, and a handful make out like bandits 10X or X return - which pay for the ones that fail.

Three out of four companies they bet on fail to deliver. When they evaluate a company, VCs look at many different things, not just the idea.

In fact, the idea isn't important by itself, as they say, ideas are dime a dozen. Here's how typical VCs think like:.

As the founding father of venture capital, Georges Doriot, once advised: Good teams can change bad ideas. But good ideas cannot fix bad or mediocre teams. In the case of 21, one of its founders is a prominent VC himself, so he understands the criteria by which VCs evaluate companies and can optimize for them.

Or, like happens in the real world, it's so crazy and over the top it will fail miserably or turn out to be a scam. Ultimately, this is about controlling the Bitcoin protocol.

If 21 has the ability to determine the software running on a majority of miners through monopolizing on this type of market, they could alter consensus and ultimately destroy the decentralized software aspect? There's gonna be a lot of "ahhah! This seems basically insane and pointless.

I'd love to hear more though because I feel like there must be something that I'm missing. It seems like the wallet in silicon approach could allow the user to mine in their own policy still?

Exactly what I thought! Hopefully this will be the case and they won't lock you into their own pool. It would have to be automatic, probably 21 will run their own mining pool. Average consumers aren't going to know or care to set up anything past plugging it in. There is nothing stopping other hardware manufacturers from doing the same thing with their own chips. So I don't think this will lead to a long term centralization problem.

I think they'll be forced to allow users to choose which pool they mine for -- either by antitrust regulations or the market itself consumer pressure. That also assumes that the chips and associated software would even be compatible with other pools. Finally, if users do have that choice, that's also why I believe their consumer incentive structure -- perks and benefits above and beyond the satoshis themselves -- will be the key to everything.

If they had said: You can arrange that the split goes to any of 50 addresses or 25? Here's how to use it: The device itself is a miner and a wallet and somewhat bitcoin aware and able to do basic payments and receive money.

The beauty of it is a bitcoin-capable device - and if these are ubiquitous enough - no one has to ask anyone for permission to innovate in ANY WAY - just go for it: The split doesn't matter, because these devices aren't there to make the user rich or even make a profit. The device just needs to be able to generate enough satoshis to handle the tiny micro-transactions it needs for everyday operation. Well said, and this is directly in line with 21's statements. I think most people are misunderstanding 21's vision and the purpose of their chip.

There should be frankly unlimited potential here, which makes this extremely exciting. More on the 'micropayment' angle, which I think is key to this whole thing. The reason 21's plans don't seem to make any sense is because we have not yet experienced true micropayments.

This would logically have been the original intention when the word was coined. But now, Bitcoin makes it possible. There are a number of different definitions of what constitutes a micropayment. PayPal defines a micropayment as a transaction of less than 12 USD, while Visa defines it as a transaction under 20 Australian dollars. A number of micropayment systems were proposed and developed in the mid-to-late s, which were ultimately unsuccessful.

A second generation of micropayment systems emerged in the s. While micropayments were originally envisioned to involve very small sums of money, practical systems to allow transactions of less than 1 USD have seen little success.

One problem that has prevented the emergence of micropayment systems is a need to keep costs for individual transactions low, which is impractical when transacting such small sums even if the transaction fee is just a few cents. Micropayments were initially devised as a way of allowing the sale of online content and as a way to pay for very low cost network services.

Micropayments would enable people to sell content on the Internet and would be an alternative to advertising revenue.

The device cannot possibly be making the payments itself. If anything it has to participate in a group transaction with hundreds of other devices, and more realistically everything will be proxied through Each output has to be at least ? Maybe its possible to roll this into some kind of payment channel, but not convinced.

So we have a device that mines satoshis, which it cannot directly use. Its also a fixed hardware platform when the actual difficulty keeps increasing, meaning as time goes on its less and less capable of interacting with the network. To be specific it mines in general, and the block reward gets distributed across the entire network as a percentage of work done like a p2pool situation.

That doesn't sound like a good plan, regardless of whether or not they are trying to make micro payment happen in a secure way.

We already have a mechanism for doing this, its called software. Its trivial to bake in transaction signing into software components running on commodity devices, and then bake in microtransactions connected to accounts for the owners of those devices or directly refill them with bitcoin. We then put the mining hardware in a data center where it can actually be upgraded and isn't sitting completely inaccessible and useless in the field.

It may even make sense to build a custom chip to do this although probably not , but having it mine is lunacy. Well today that's how it is.. Passive tipping for the things you enjoy, enabling content-makers to sustain themselves, electronic devices such as DNS-servers to run themselves. We're talking about sensibility of these 21 devices in an environment where presumably all that shit is already in place, works with bitcoin, and people have been convinced that kinda gated content thing is totally cool.

Say you go shopping for a USB charger for your phone. There's one from 21 slide 5 that promises to churn out 'internet viewing credits' at some limited rate a day. Some haters on reddit, you recall, have been bitching and moaning about how supposedly the thing costs you twice as much in energy costs as you get in internet credits and it'll only decrease in time. Which would you buy? If the latter, how much effort and cost do you think that took to undermine the entire mining-as-resource model of 21's business?

You make an interesting point, but as I understand it, a major component of 21's plan is that the upfront cost of their devices will be considerably reduced. They can undercut your proposed competitors by taking a portion of the bitcoin supplied by their devices.

When faced with two devices that do the same thing, my guess is that the average consumer will choose the one that has a considerably cheaper upfront cost. It's not clear what the additional energy costs will be exactly, but immediate costs tend to weigh heavier on the consumer psyche, I'd guess. We believe the most significant long-term application of bitcoin may be reducing the upfront cost of internet-connected devices to make them more accessible for the developing world.

The success of the iPhone was in nontrivial part due to the carrier subsidy; with embedded bitcoin mining we can in theory extend that model to any internet-enabled device, turning a lump sum upfront cost into a potentially more manageable cost of power over time.

Yep definitely will be a factor if devices are heavily subsidized. Devil is in the details how much subsidy, vs costs to make a mining gadget slide 5 , vs expected mining returns over time--the numbers for which are bleak at best. Besides that though, it's disturbing that this is marketed as "up front cheap, so good for developing world", given nature of how subsidies actually work.

Thusfar, by no calculations and even by partial admittance in 21's own statement, will mining be profitable for the user in terms of electricity costs.

As such, I don't see how "cheap phones" wouldn't end up ultimately exploiting the poor. Some quick Googling shows African countries for example, average times electrical cost vs typical US rate. It's one thing to market 'cheap up front, expensive long run' to ill-informed consumers in general, doing so intentionally towards the developing world is borderline despicable. But even bitcoin microtransactions still has to pay the couple cent transaction fees I get a bill from Apple.

One problem that has prevented the emergence of micropayment systems is a need to keep costs for individual transactions low. Either those transaction costs will increase as the mining subsidy continues to get cut in half, or the hashrate of the network necessarily goes down as miners unplug Another way of looking at this is that mining profits are declining so they came up with a way to subsidize it further: You pay for power, they get most of the reward.

Obviously this business model will work for them IF they can get companies to actually put these chips into their products. That seems like a pretty big IF though. Yeah that's my thought. I can picture a huge consumer backlash about a product earning money for the company that sold it to them.

It's actually very similar to the old javascript mining stuff where just visiting a website caused you to mine coins for the website owner. Obviously the difference is consent, so that means the products that include these chips will need big bold disclaimers or wording around the fact that they mine coins for someone else besides you.

I'd see why Oculus would want or consider putting a chip into the Oculus Rift. Virtual Reality with a digital currency integrated right into the hardware.

Being able to natively be able to send and receive money in a digital world is huge. As well as having all Rift's be able to talk to other hardware with the same chip.

As well as micropayments for in game items, etc. To be fair, in their Medium announcement, 21, Inc. Conceptually, we believe that embedded mining will ultimately establish bitcoin as a fundamental system resource on par with CPU, bandwidth, hard drive space, and RAM.

That is, one can imagine the ultimate thin client in which a system designer consciously chooses a relatively slow CPU but a relatively strong 21 mining chip , using the bitcoin generated therein to purchase computation in the cloud. Crucial to this is the idea that bitcoin generated by embedded mining is more convenient — and hence more valuable — than bitcoin bought at market price and manually moved over to the site of utility.

As evidence for this, when a user writes a byte to their local hard drive, the spot price of external storage is not typically top-of-mind relative to the convenience of simply having a local hard drive. Ultimately, though, it is the community of electrical engineers and computer scientists that will judge whether embedded mining technology solves their problems. Towards that end, our team of PhDs in EE from MIT, Stanford, and CMU has built not just a chip, but a full technology stack around the chip — including reference devices, datasheets, a cloud backend, and software protocols.

And we have already engaged with a wide variety of early access partners across the industry, from small startups to multibillion dollar hardware companies. In the weeks and months to come, we will be talking to many more. The bitcoin earned by these chips still has to be sent from the pool to the device anyway. All of the math so far indicates that the amount of power that a consumer would use here would be converted to bitcoin at a rate far lower than any amount that could seriously be used for commerce.

Everyone here already knows that Bitcoin mining has evolved in to an ultra competitive field with mining clusters being built around the world in extreme conditions, maximizing power subsidies and natural cooling. This is the competition that you face for your share of BTC per day. Unless you have a mining pool and can choose to mine transactions for zero-fee if the transactions was placed by one of the pool users.

Then, you can even send 1 satoshi for free. Ok, so them automatically spiting the blocks they find and including those payout transactions in the block sounds like it makes sense. Mining zero fee transactions for those people could work seeing as how unconfirmed transactions in the pennies aren't going to be double spent and can probably be treated the same as confirmed. So waiting a number of hours before 21's mining pool finds a block to have the transaction included could be acceptable.

Although attackers might find some angles there, perhaps 21 will have away to mitigate that. Block size problems that we're all currently debating about seem very relevant to all of this though as well. Better than maximizing power subsidies and natural cooling would be to eliminate those costs entirely by convincing other people to spend their resources to generate coins for you at a slightly reduced yield.

After a few halvings block subsidy will not be relevant and miners will lower their hashing power voluntarily to avoid losing money. The mental gymnastics to justify bitcoin generation as a resource is one thing, but even then the yield has severe limitations in practicality due to scale.

Scale matters, a lot. There's a difference being able to generate millionths of a penny vs generating sufficient funds capable of micropurchasing something tangible to an end-user. Consider the example of gaming micropayments for example. I posit that these devices simply cannot fulfill that role.

It uses 2 USB 3. Assume heat dissipation is not an issue. Insert 21's most efficient 0. That can pay for a relatively cheap DLC on steam, maybe. Prehistoric Warfare game with micropayments. What's this, I can buy a stone club for 50 cents to better bash noobs heads in online! But wait, how do I pay for that with my Oculus rift's fundamental resource of bitcoin generation?

I sit my ass down and wait for 3 and a half weeks. I saw a lot of people arguing against preloading BTC onto the chips asking "what happens when you run out"? To summarize - I see no way for this to generate any monetary profit for the end user. I suspect they will not even pay their end users, at all!

Those satoshis needed for non-monetary uses of Bitcoin authentication, etc could simply be preloaded or sent to the device the first time it is activated for free, the amount would be insignificant, a satoshi goes a long way if you only use the blockchain for the protocol, not for the monetary value.

Yes, that's the obvious conclusion. In context of Internet of Things, satoshis are used in such trivial monetary amounts that the economics are confusing at best, so perhaps instead acting largely as data tokens for functions such as authentication. Then it comes down to: My theory is that it is to incentivize mesh networking. If you don't have a "currency" or unit of account then people would just request maximum bandwidth.

If you have to pay or provide as much bandwidth as you'd like to use then the system can scale. That's what I was thinking too. Think about the subsidized phone model.

The end user thinks they are getting a free phone but they end up spending way more than that on the 2 year contract. For example, if a user can get a toaster with a 21 chip in it for half the price of a regular toaster, and then pay more in electricity, it will "trick" the uneducated consumer into thinking they are getting a better deal.

A lot of people would go for that. People like quick savings even if it doesn't make sense in the long run. Interestingly enough, there are quite a few people who receive free electricity bundled with their rent, or while they travel, while they are in the office etc - so the end users wouldn't always be the ones bearing the burden of higher electricity costs.

If the bitcoins generated by a slower chip are valuable enough to pay for more powerful cloud processing, why wouldn't the cloud provider just use their cloud to mine even more bitcoins for themselves? Have you thought of any other possible explanations that would justify this approach? I can't other than conspiracy theories involving control of hashing power: Keep in mind that 21 will be taking a portion of the bitcoins earned by all of their devices, which could defray costs.

A preloaded wallet, on the other hand, would increase cost. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have no clue what any of this means but I can tell it's exciting! Can someone answer one question? Will my mom use this? Routers, phones, TV boxes, etc. This is credible for bitcoin IMO on many different levels.

If they stick with that "Bitcoin Inside" logo Intel will sue for trademark infringement and trademark dilution. They have ties with Intel - http: This is a great deal for the device manufacturers.

The chips will be imbedded because it is profitable for the device manufactures. Salt water is a lot harsher on all materials and has an accelerated corrosion effect. If you drop an IP67 or IP68 in the sea and then rinse it with fresh water you'll probably be fine, but again — no guarantees.

Heat poses yet another issue at the beach or anywhere, especially considering the temperatures New Zealand has been seeing this season. The iPad and similar tablets are not IP certified. These GoPros can withstand saltwater submersion down to 10 metres on their own without housing, or with a "Super Suit" can go diving with you down to 60 metres.

With all that said, what's the cheapest, easiest way to feel safe about taking your other devices to the beach? A zip lock bag from the supermarket on the other hand, when fully sealed, is mostly air-, dust-, sand- and water-tight.

It provides a reasonably reliable ad-hoc solution. Apple said to have plan to combine iPhone, iPad, Mac apps. Facebook bans cryptocurrency ads. Bank pulls support for Cryptopia. Can gadgets make us safer?

AI features coming to phones. Time to enforce real names. Google moves to take on iPhones. How to beat tech addiction. Apple delays iPhone features. Kodak regrets KodakCoin mania. Trouble looms for Apple. Why did you choose to home school?

4.4 stars, based on 266 comments

pompa air jet pump shimizu pc-375 bitcoin price in india

Send bitcoin and you'll never see it again. Bitcoin cannot double. 10/12/17; x. wearebeachhouse.com Just a domain extension for this scam. 11/01/15; wearebeachhouse.com This is the genuine fraud site, don't lose your bitcoin to a fake fraud - Weird. 1/4/16; wearebeachhouse.com The Crypto world is swamped with these. Yet another multiplier scam. 24 Apr Due to an increase in the value of digital coins, cyber criminals has added it in their watchlist and making every effort to steal your virtual money. As we know, coin mining is the key component for digital currencies and such malware does not steal data. Instead, they are capable of mining Bitcoin, Litecoin. This Pin was discovered by Sinkin. Discover (and save) your own Pins on Pinterest.

Site Map