Welcome to SiaMining! We're the first public mining pool for.

Even if you don’t have top of the line graphics hardware, you still may be able to earn a significant amount of money mining Siacoin. I mine with an NVIDIA GTX 970, which was released almost three years ago. It generates ~2,000 Siacoin per week. At current Siacoin prices ($6.72 USD per thousand Siacoin), this is equivalent to a weekly revenue of ~$13 USD. This is not bad, considering I don’t need to put in any work after the initial setup.

• Pure Pay-Per-Share – Least possible variance and no penalty for orphaned blocks. • Native Stratum Support – We're the first Sia pool to support a! • Variable Difficulty – Improves network efficiency and provides more accurate miner statistics. • Long Polling Support – Minimize your stale shares, no matter what protocol you use!

• No Account Setup – Simply use your wallet address as the username for easy payouts. • Worker Support – Accurate and detailed statistics of each worker. • Quick Payouts – Daily payments with a low threshold of 500 SC, or up to every 6 hours when over 1000 SC. No waiting on block confirmations! • No Hidden Fees – All payouts are free of charge.

Start Mining Now! Read our getting started guide. Once you've started mining, you can check your stats by entering your Siacoin address below. Go How PPS Rewards Work Every valid share you submit to the pool is instantly credited to your account, at the current Pay-Per-Share rate.

Unlike PPLNS, the pool always pays for your work, even if the pool has not solved enough blocks to cover your earnings or the pool is waiting on blocks to mature. Even in the case of orphaned blocks, a PPS pool pays for shares submitted mining the orphaned block.

The PPS fee covers this, so that the pool can take on the risk of bad luck. Therefore you don't have to deal with variance and orphaned blocks!

I noticed a lot of fears surrounding the Obelisk announcement. While we have yet to release the full details, some important discussion has come up related to PoW vs. PoS, and what it means to embrace ASICs instead of using an ASIC resistant algorithm. I will be publishing a full blog post on why we are pursuing ASICs tomorrow, however I wanted to open a thread today where we can talk about the things that people have the most questions about. This is not a thread about Obelisk, it is about ASICs and PoW in the abstract - why would a coin choose ASICs? Why not Proof of Stake? Why not pursue fair mining and hope for GPUs?

Does this mean that Sia mining will now be centralized? I will be answering the most upvoted questions throughout the day. The Sia dev team feels very strongly that ASICs are the right move, that PoW is the right move, and we have felt this way since the coin was created - one of the core reasons we chose blake2b over other hashing algorithms is that it is very easy to design ASICs for blake2b based coins. We knew the jump to ASICs would happen eventually, and we wanted it to happen while the coin was small.

We somewhat missed that boat because we grew 100x in 3 months (ASICs take 9-12 to produce), but we still believe that ASICs should happen sooner rather than later. If this is confusing to you, you should tell us why! I am more than happy to put your concerns to rest.

An ASIC economy is not something that can be stopped. The economics make sense to build ASICs. One thing that we could have done (and did NOT consider) was just build these ASICs and never sell them to anyone else. We could have a 100% hashrate monopoly over Sia if we wanted. That's very lucrative for us, the coin rewards are very high. (well, we'd have a monopoly until some third party started making ASICs).

Gulden NLG Mining How To Get Started on this page. That opportunity is not exclusive to us though, anyone can go ahead and take advantage of this opportunity because mining is decentralized. You don't need our permission to build your own ASICs and mine with them. So the simplest benefit is that we know that the first person to launch ASICs will be able to give them to the community as a whole, instead of setting up a monopoly like Bitmain has over Bitcoin and Litecoin. You didn't answer the question at all.

The question was What are the benefits (and disadvantages) of switching to asic instead of gpu mining? Stating that asics are inevitable isn't answering the question at all.

So, please, do tell. What are the benefits of switching fro gpu to asic? You said you were worried that the dual mining eth miners could execute a 51% attack.

How does moving to asic stop that. Just because the network hash rate goes up does not inherently mean that the mining will be more decentralized. Sure you cut off ethminers but you invite the miners with deep enough pockets to easily concentrate the hashrate.

Also, do you really think manually combing through asic orders will help prevent a concentration of the hash rate? Manually approving orders may prevent at best a small percentage of people trying to game the system. You also stated that you chose the algorithm because of its friendliness to asics. Let's pretend that you pull off your order auditing with a high level of effectiveness.

How will you control hashrate concentration once 3rd parties are involved? Lastly, stating that you could have built these asics for yourself but that you're not doing that and you're doing the noble thing of selling them to the community is a poor way to make a case for asic adoption. Owning 100% of the hash rate would make this coin worthless.

In truth, there's more money to be had selling these unit than hoarding them. You said you were worried that the dual mining eth miners could execute a 51% attack. How does moving to asic stop that. It's worse than just having dual miners attack you.

GPUs can switch algorithms very easily, which means if you own a large mining pool on Ethereum you can re-point your hashrate to mine any coin at any time. That means that, if you own a large Ethereum cluster, you can point that cluster at any altcoin and immediately have a 51% attack with no warning. There are several ethereum mining operators out there today with enough hashpower to outright 51% attack the Sia network.

Or the Monero network. Or the Zcash network, etc. If you have a GPU mined coin that's not Ethereum, you are vulnerable to instant 51% attacks (and they can switch back immediately after performing whatever double spend or theft they were after) by existing Ethereum pools. This costs the pools money, on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. That's not much when we're talking about attacking a system worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

All the money that they lose is the money that they would have made from mining Ethereum for that short period, because as soon as the attack ends they can go right back to mining Ethereum. All that is needed for this to happen is that an Ethereum mining operator controls more hashrate than your entire cryptocurrency combined. If your cryptocurrency is GPU powered, that just means that they need to control more financial value in hardware than your whole cryptocurrency. Given that the Ethereum block reward is hundreds of millions of dollars per month, this doesn't even take a high percentage pool in most cases.

5% hashrate of Ethereum is enough to 51% almost every other GPU altcoin. But if you have ASICs that are 10x - 100x as powerful as GPUs, an Ethereum pool is going to need to have 10x - 100x the dollars in hardware to perform the same attack, because their Ethereum mining GPUs aren't going to be as effective against the ASIC network. I don't think most people realize that most altcoins are sitting ducks to 51% attacks right now. But that is the reality of GPU PoW. And the incentives to keep the price high don't exist, because if the Sia price crashes due to 51% attack or whatever, the Ethereum pool miners just go back to mining ethereum.

There's no long term incentives preventing them from attacking the network. It's a serious security problem. Also, do you really think manually combing through asic orders will help prevent a concentration of the hash rate? Manually approving orders may prevent at best a small percentage of people trying to game the system. It's the best that we can do.

Our choices are between being openly vulnerable to 51% attacks by large Ethereum mining pools, or risk having high mining centralization (which is already present in most GPU mined coins anyway) where at least if the coin price goes down the miners lose a lot of money - that hardware is worthless if it can't mine Sia. So we are still stuck in a centralized situation, but it's much less likely that a single person can 51% attack the network and even if 3-5 people together are enough to pull off a 51% attack, doing so will dramatically reduce the value of a substantial amount of hardware (millions of dollars worth) that they outright own.

The incentives are far better, and the security model is far better when you are forced to have specialized hardware to mine on a network. How will you control hashrate concentration once 3rd parties are involved? It's a decentralized network, the most we can do is make sure the mining gets started in as fair of a way as possible, and then try to maintain a competitive advantage when selling chips. I think people will always be willing to pay a small premium for Nebulous chips, because they trust the distribution, so even if another company can edge us out in a few ways we should be able to continue selling chips and keep the network more decentralized than what we see in Bitcoin and Litecoin.

But maybe not. I still feel very much that the situation and Bitcoin and Litecoin is far preferable than the situation in Sia today - there is not just one person who can 51% attack the Sia network, there are multiple, and they can each do it individually, and they don't even lose money if the price of the siacoin drops.

That's not good incentive structure, and it's something we can fix with Sia specific ASICs.