TR Forums

How long should it take an RX480 to produce 0.2 Ethereum? I've been mining for nanopool for a week and my account balance is still zero.

When setting up claymore, do you enter your coinbase/geth address as the place to receive your payments? I set up a coinbase account also, but the Ethereum wallet there is different than the address you get by entering in cmd "geth attach, eth.coinbase". If I was supposed to enter my coinbase wallet code and not my geth address would I basically sacrifice all the mining I've done over the past week if I change it now?

DPete27 wrote:

How long should it take an RX480 to produce 0.2 Ethereum? I've been mining for nanopool for a week and my account balance is still zero.

When setting up claymore, do you enter your coinbase/geth address as the place to receive your payments? I set up a coinbase account also, but the Ethereum wallet there is different than the address you get by entering in cmd "geth attach, eth.coinbase". If I was supposed to enter my coinbase wallet code and not my geth address would I basically sacrifice all the mining I've done over the past week if I change it now?

Add your wallet to the end of this link to check how much you have earned and hash info... if you are mining with nanopool.org I use the Mist Ethereum Wallet (GUI for geth)
https://eth.nanopool.org/account/EthereumWalletAddress

Ugh... me in 2009: "Bitcoin? That looks really stupid. Who would waste their electricity doing that?"

Me in 2013 when BTC hit $1200: "OMFG, I could have retired at age 41."

Hindsight and all that...

I'm trying out Nicehash for mining on my GTX1080 and i7-6700k and according to my current pace and workload mix, I will "earn" $98 and pay $13 in electricity to generate it in a month. From what I can tell I should have a BTC deposit in my Coinbase wallet in a couple of weeks at which point I'll probably try to buy a game off steam or something from Newegg to make it "real" for me. I'm not looking to get rich by any means but for a curiosity that I can turn into actual things of value (with a higher electric bill to match) it's interesting to me. Who knows, if I can fund hardware upgrades at a fraction of the cost (that can then also generate on their own potentially) or the occasional fun game I think it makes sense. Or, maybe the market will crash and I'll be out what I put into it, which I don't intend to be anything I'm not willing to lose.

nope

electricity here is about 25 cents/kw.hr.

I will save my RX480 my occasional gaming.

I'm still mining with NiceHash, but I think I'll only do it up to the next payout and then I'll decide where to go from there. If nothing else, it at least lets the GPU do something for me while I'm out.

kvndoom wrote:

Ugh... me in 2009: "Bitcoin? That looks really stupid. Who would waste their electricity doing that?"

Me in 2013 when BTC hit $1200: "OMFG, I could have retired at age 41."

Hindsight and all that...

You can't beat yourself up about stuff like that. If I'd gone to work for (or even just bought some stock in) Microsoft when I got out of college I could've probably retired years ago.

Yes it's a fundamental feature of investing that there are some tens of thousands of missed opportunities, and equally as many disastrous money pits. It's easy to call them hindsight, but many a people have lost a lot of money actually trying to"make calls". Also Bitcoin was a huge risk of failure several times during exploits and other such problems. I doubt that anyone would have put a meaningful amount of money in them early and left it there to date. It almost would have been negligent to do so.

Pulled the plug on my mining this morning. With the value of Ethereum dropping every day and the difficulty increasing it's just not worth it IMO. I figured it takes my RX480 10 days to generate 0.1 Ethereum now (IIRC the difficulty has roughly doubled in the last 1.5 months). I really wanted to get one 0.2 ETH payout from nanopool before I quit, even though I started late. But I figured what am I going to do with $20? Especially since it would require me to set up a secondary paypal account (don't trust the system) and all the BS that comes with cashing in ETH for USD.

0.15 ETH/month * $185 = $28 before I subtract electricity ~86kWh * $0.14 = $12 so I'd only net $16/month or so. And it'll be worse next week, and worse the week after that.

DPete27 wrote:

Pulled the plug on my mining this morning. With the value of Ethereum dropping every day and the difficulty increasing it's just not worth it IMO. I figured it takes my RX480 10 days to generate 0.1 Ethereum now (IIRC the difficulty has roughly doubled in the last 1.5 months). I really wanted to get one 0.2 ETH payout from nanopool before I quit, even though I started late. But I figured what am I going to do with $20? Especially since it would require me to set up a secondary paypal account (don't trust the system) and all the BS that comes with cashing in ETH for USD.

0.15 ETH/month * $185 = $28 before I subtract electricity ~86kWh * $0.14 = $12 so I'd only net $16/month or so. And it'll be worse next week, and worse the week after that.

Yeah, oh well. Really wish the sale of my RX 480 would have stuck. I'll take my $112 in "profit" from the restocking fee and the $20 I've made off of actually mining and call it a mining career.

Better sell them quick then DPete. Used mining cards are starting to flood craigslist here... one person alone has a half-dozen R9 380's selling for $150 each, which is already undercutting ebay by a good margin.

What's casually mineable nowadays with CPU or low-end GPU?
Not looking for big gains, just a way to convert electricity to cryptobucks.

Damned miners are destroying the planet...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-mini ... 17809.html

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Damned miners are destroying the planet...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-mini ... 17809.html

I guess that's one way for Trump to revitalize the coal industry.

Kougar wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Damned miners are destroying the planet...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-mini ... 17809.html

I guess that's one way for Trump to revitalize the coal industry.

Coal-powered currency -- the wave of the future!

just brew it! wrote:

Kougar wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Damned miners are destroying the planet...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-mini ... 17809.html

I guess that's one way for Trump to revitalize the coal industry.

Coal-powered currency -- the wave of the future!

How else do you think China is powering its massive investment in Bitcoin mining?

just brew it! wrote:

Kougar wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Damned miners are destroying the planet...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-mini ... 17809.html

I guess that's one way for Trump to revitalize the coal industry.

Coal-powered currency -- the wave of the future!

Actually there is already a "Waves" currency...
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/waves/
best to catch the "wave" now... ;D

Nothing wrong with coal if this tech works...
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_a ... _makes_zer

meerkt wrote:

What's casually mineable nowadays with CPU or low-end GPU?
Not looking for big gains, just a way to convert electricity to cryptobucks.

Cryptonight (XMR) can be mined with CPU or GPU and is profitable... Ryzen is pretty good at it as is most AMD cards especially VEGAs.

Ethereum is probably the most mined and profitable at this moment due to its price increase this month.

Any TR members who mined Litecoin a few years ago should REALLY look hard for their Litecoin wallets. Litecoin is at $360 right now.

freebird wrote:

Nothing wrong with coal if this tech works...
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_a ... _makes_zer

Coal would still be problematic, even if the tech works:

1. As described, that tech only captures the CO2 produced by burning the coal, it does not address the issue of where and how to store it. IOW, it doesn't solve the CO2 issue; it just makes it "someone else's problem".

2. It requires large amounts of pure oxygen to feed the combustion process. Producing pure oxygen is energy intensive (typically done by cryogenic distillation of air).

3. Mining and transporting of coal causes significant emissions and environmental damage, no matter how the coal is ultimately used.

4. Regardless of how it is burned, using coal as fuel produces a non-trivial amount of toxic waste, due to impurities in the coal (e.g. mercury). This also needs to be disposed of in a safe manner.

DPete27 wrote:

Any TR members who mined Litecoin a few years ago should REALLY look hard for their Litecoin wallets. Litecoin is at $360 right now.

Yes, but did you ever wonder why?

If you read the various exchange forums/subreddits it's obvious: everyone is talking about using LTC to move funds out/around the exchanges, because they can't withdraw cash/BTC reliably or effectively.

This is not a good thing.

Glorious wrote:

Yes, but did you ever wonder why?

If you read the various exchange forums/subreddits it's obvious: everyone is talking about using LTC to move funds out/around the exchanges, because they can't withdraw cash/BTC reliably or effectively.

This is not a good thing.

This isn't particularly shocking. LTC from the start has been pitched as silver to BTC's gold and I do believe anyone whose been looking at it for awhile saw this day coming. As for whether its good or bad that depends on perspective and time frame.

mudcore wrote:

This isn't particularly shocking. LTC from the start has been pitched as silver to BTC's gold and I do believe anyone whose been looking at it for awhile saw this day coming. As for whether its good or bad that depends on perspective and time frame.

Yes, incoherently: Bimetallism was about using silver as an inflationary component. Since the value proposition of both LTC and BTC is based on deflation (as argued by even you: "People see value in a decentralized currency/store-of-value. There's also a finite amount of them.") this is contradictory.

And since the biggest problem behind the usability of bitcoin is the volatility and extreme price, the analogy is weak on both sides: silver has always been more volatile than gold, and LTC is now experiencing massive volatility/price increase.

Glorious wrote:

Yes, incoherently: Bimetallism was about using silver as an inflationary component. Since the value proposition of both LTC and BTC is based on deflation (as argued by even you: "People see value in a decentralized currency/store-of-value. There's also a finite amount of them.") this is contradictory.

And since the biggest problem behind the usability of bitcoin is the volatility and extreme price, the analogy is weak on both sides: silver has always been more volatile than gold, and LTC is now experiencing massive volatility/price increase.

I thought you were talking about how the transaction times were the biggest issue, hence "everyone is talking about using LTC to move funds out/around the exchanges,". Because of the times it takes to get in/out of BTC there is definitely a use case for LTC as the medium to transfer the value, which is where a (good faith) interpretation of the analogy comes into (your statement above just made me roll my eyes, I'm pretty sure you get the idea even if you don't like the analogy because you take it so literally).

The price volatility is frankly these coins biggest feature right now. Its what is driving interest. This will become a problem if it continues forever but this idea that Bitcoin or Litecoin need to be immediately put to use for day to day transactions is weak.

mudcore wrote:

The price volatility is frankly these coins biggest feature right now. Its what is driving interest. This will become a problem if it continues forever but this idea that Bitcoin or Litecoin need to be immediately put to use for day to day transactions is weak.

So IOW it's just a vehicle for gambling/speculation, and we'll figure out if it is actually practical as a way of moving money around later.

Glorious wrote:

This is not a good thing.

I had a whole response typed up, but I deleted it. Please don't derail another thread.
Mods may want to just move the last few comments to a separate thread where haters can argue why nobody should invest in crypto.

just brew it! wrote:

So IOW it's just a vehicle for gambling/speculation, and we'll figure out if it is actually practical as a way of moving money around later.

If you're using it to speculate then sure, I guess that's what it is for you. It already widely used as a means for moving money around, how is that in dispute? It just isn't to the point where most can use it for that purpose. "Why isn't it mature already?" is basically all I see you getting at. Chances of this same cycle happening, like it has already, a few more times are high before we even begin puberty.

DPete27 wrote:

Mods may want to just move the last few comments to a separate thread where haters can argue why nobody should invest in crypto.

First: Don't be backseating.
Second: Read the comments from mods in this thread as to crypto and sanity.
Third: I don't call buying a Powerball ticket when the jackpot is large an "investment".

mudcore wrote:

I thought you were talking about how the transaction times were the biggest issue, hence "everyone is talking about using LTC to move funds out/around the exchanges,".

BTC mempool was ginormous just 4-5 days ago(over 200k transactions for like 24 hours at least), which is like quadruple what it is now.

The price of LTC wasn't.

mudcore wrote:

Because of the times it takes to get in/out of BTC there is definitely a use case for LTC as the medium to transfer the value, which is where a (good faith) interpretation of the analogy comes into

Then why is BTC valuable? I can't even use it to realize my "gains"

That's crazy before we get into how the issue might be based more in artificial limitations on BTC withdrawal by the exchanges as opposed to the actual transaction backlog. Because, my friend, that is what the evidence suggests, hence my red flag.

mudcore wrote:

(your statement above just made me roll my eyes, I'm pretty sure you get the idea even if you don't like the analogy because you take it so literally).

Well, deal with it. I roll my eyes when people say "Bitcoin's silver" without having the first idea what in the heck that even means.

For one thing, it's backwards: there is more LTC than BTC, but in reality there is more order of magnitude more gold available than silver. Gold is also more liquid than silver: I can't drive 5 miles in any direction without seeing a a "WE BUY GOLD advert" and if you show at those places with silver, they're going to balk.

I mean, it's gibberish, sorry.

mudcore wrote:

The price volatility is frankly these coins biggest feature right now. Its what is driving interest. This will become a problem if it continues forever but this idea that Bitcoin or Litecoin need to be immediately put to use for day to day transactions is weak.

You are right, they are infinitely better suited for a speculative bubble that is 100% zero-sum in overall utility because it offers NO OTHER UTILITY.

I mean, this is insane: LTC or BTC will be better suited for day to day transactions when?

Oh right: those day-dreams of yours when you are provided, ex nihilo, millions in purchasing power parity which everyone else just idiotically accepts as a fait accompali.

Why? I don't know, complicated reasons that are never proffered and I can't even begin to ascribe to your position because it's so ridiculous.

Fine.
The reason LTC is surging is because Charlie Lee appeared on a few TV shows in the past few days to talk about LTC. This brought publicity and understanding of LTC to a large number of "new" crypto investors who likely had no idea what LTC even was before then. We're talking about people that invested in BTC because it was all over the news when it hit 10k. Charlie Lee actually did a good job catering to the audience that LTC is faster, lower transaction fees, unit price is cheaper than BTC (weak argument, but it works), etc etc and described it's place as the transacted currency (cash) to Bitcoin's gold. Of course, there are "stalwart" crypto investors that joined in to amplify this pump, but that's how markets work.

I can't say whether LTC deserves to have a $18B market cap or not. I do worry that this particular run may go (at least partway) back down as fast as it went up.