Some related work typically related to the scalability issue of PoW is discussed in this section. The work in [ 30 ] introduced a new protocol to improve blockchain performance by changing the chain data structure to Graph Chain. Their parallel mining mechanism is focused on the selection of leaders among M miners. By solving a puzzle, miners can become leaders, and leaders are assigned duty for a period. The authors suggested that transaction confirmation speed can be increased by allowing more leaders to do PoW mining tasks in parallel.
In [ 31 ], the authors proposed an accelerated process of PoW mining. They built a process that carries out selection of a manager, work distribution, and a reward system. In their method, miners can use the same transaction data same transaction hash but cannot use the same nonce values; thus, no multiple miners can carry out the same mining task. Same as the study in [ 30 ], the focus of [ 31 ] is on miners selection.
The work in [ 32 ] also proposed a parallel mining protocol. In their protocol, each transaction is connected to at least two transactions that are verified, and all miners need to verify any new transactions. Their focus was also on miners but not on the actual mining process. Consensus algorithms [ 33 , 34 ] are decision-making processes for a group, where participants of a group support the decision that is best for everyone.
To overcome the scalability issue of PoW, other consensus mechanisms are also introduced, which are discussed with the help of the comparative analysis provided in Table 1. Each consensus mechanism shown in Table 1 has its strengths and weaknesses and could be used in different types of blockchain systems. But the most common consensus algorithm in public blockchains is PoW, which has time and energy consumption issues associated with it.
In this research, our focus is on scalability of such blockchain systems, which intend to use PoW specially in solo mining. Security is an essential feature in a variety of systems and is very important issue in blockchain-based systems. As our research work is based on consensus mechanism and mining, we focus on the consensus layer attacks and highlight the research work done to mitigate them.
In selfish mining attack [ 65 ], a selfish miner in a mining pool uses selfish strategies to get more rewards than the honest miners. The selfish miner tries to withhold a validated block and stops its broadcasting to mining pool network but continues to mine the next block. In this way, a selfish miner demonstrates more PoW than other miners of the mining pool. Doubles pending [ 15 ] is a digital cash scheme flaw, in which the attacker spends a digital token more than once, as a digital token is associated with a digital file that can be duplicated.
In bribery attack, some miners act rationally and accept bribes from attackers to increase their reward. In block withholding attack, a miner who has mined a block does submit it but abandons it and causes a mining pool and loses all bitcoin rewards. In balance attack [ 26 ], attackers select miners that have the same mining capabilities, and rather than entering into mining competition with other miners, they defer the messages between the selected miners.
Consensus Delay is the time between the block propagation to block storage after the consensus [ 68 ]. In a supply chain system, attackers can use consensus delay attack to interrupt the information propagation and, hence, can easily create a double-spent transaction by refuting the vote of an authorized user [ 13 ]. In Table 2 , we did a comparative analysis of different attacks, which could eventually influence the working of consensus mechanism and mining process.
Our research work could be beneficial in blockchain systems, which avoids the mining pools but rather wants fast solo mining protocols. If a system adopts solo mining, then definitely it will have to bear the consequences of more time and energy consumption. We proposed two parallel commuting based techniques to make the solo mining faster and cheaper in terms of energy consumption. Two main performance indicators of PoW include transaction verification time and energy consumption and both are tackled in our proposed parallel processing-based algorithms.
In our proposed techniques, we did not alter the core working of PoW, but building upon the existing research, we proposed different nonce value selection methods before performing the PoW mining on multiple processes. First of all, the performance of PoW mining as described in Algorithm 1 is tested.
Algorithm 1 is tested on different difficulty levels, and the time taken to compute the nonce value on each difficulty level is computed as shown in 3; then, we compared it with our proposed parallel PoW techniques. We did not change the string in the whole process but varied the difficulty levels to calculate the mining time at each difficulty level for PoW and parallel PoW techniques. Table 3 is generated by implementing Algorithm 1 on the CPU; it contains difficulty levels, nonce values, and time taken in seconds to perform the mining task on constant block data.
As shown in Table 3 , there is a significant amount of change in the nonce values and time taken in seconds as we increase the difficulty levels from 1 to 8. Time is almost constant from difficulty levels 1 to 4 but rapidly changes from difficulty levels 5 to 8, which shows that PoW mining becomes difficult on higher levels of difficulty. To address the time consumption issue as shown in Table 3 , we have introduced two parallel processing-based PoW mining algorithms and done multithreading and multiprocessing in both methods as shown in Figure 2.
The workflow and proposed mechanism of the interleaved approach are shown in Figure 3. The pseudocode of the interleaved approach is given in Algorithm 2. In this approach, we make 8 nonce value ranges as given in Figure 4.
These ranges are given to multiple CPU processes to compute the nonce value. Once a process finds a nonce that satisfies the difficulty level, other processes stop working. The nonce value is then propagated to the blockchain network, and in case of acceptance, the reward is given to the miner. The results of the multiprocessing interleaved approach are given in Table 4. We performed the mining task by giving subarrays to multiple threads to calculate the hash of a given difficulty level.
Once a thread is successful in getting the resultant nonce, the whole process stops. Results computed by the multithreading interleaved approach are given in Table 5. In this proposed approach, the PoW mining process is divided into 8 processes, and each process is assigned nonce values from 1 to 8. If a nonce value does not satisfy the desired difficulty level, it is updated by adding 8 in the previous value, and the mining process is repeated until one of the processes gets the desired nonce value.
Once the solution is found, all other processes stop working, and the nonce value is propagated to the whole network. The workflow and proposed mechanism of parallel proof of work progressive approach are given in Figure 5. The pseudocode of a progressive approach is given in Algorithm 3. In the multiprocessing progressive approach, the PoW mining process is assigned to 8 different processes.
Each process initially assigned the nonce values from 1 to 8, and in the iteration, it updates the nonce value by adding 8 into it. If a process finds a nonce value that satisfies the given difficulty level, all other processes stop working, and the nonce value is propagated to the blockchain network.
Table 6 contains the results of a multiprocessing progressive approach. In the multithreading progressive approach, 8 different threads perform the mining. Table 7 contains the results computed by the multithreading progressive approach. Figure 6 elaborates the process. We generated data set by implementing the PoW and proposed parallel PoW algorithms on different difficulty level and evaluated the proposed algorithms.
Table 3 for PoW and Tables 4 — 7 consist of the nonce values and time consumption at different difficulty levels from 1 to 8. From our findings of Tables 3 — 5 , multiprocessing interleaved approach is the best one. It performs way better than other proposed multithreading and multiprocessing approaches. It takes just 2. In the case of difficulty level 8, results are even better: The multithreading interleaved approach performs better than the multithreading progressive approach, but its performance is not up to the mark as compared to Algorithm 1 -based PoW and multiprocessing progressive approach.
Mining is a complex task, so any multithreading approach will not work better, but if we have a simple problem of finding a solution in any domain, we can improve performance through a multithreading interleaved approach. The multiprocessing progressive approach performs better than Algorithm 1 -based PoW and multithreading progressive approach; this is because processes can perform better on complex tasks.
It can be seen in Table 6 that as the difficulty levels increase the performance of the multiprocessing progressive approach, it becomes better as it takes In the multithreading progressive approach, the time taken for mining is almost similar to Algorithm 1 -based PoW for 1—4 difficulty levels, but the performance of the multithreading progressive approach is not better for higher difficulty levels; this is because the threads work better on simple tasks and in case complex problems performance of multithreading decreases.
We can conclude from CPU processing that the multiprocessing interleaved approach is the best one and reduces the time consumption of the PoW mining process. Comparative analysis of all mentioned techniques is given in Figures 7 — 9. We did the energy consumption comparison of Algorithm 1 -based PoW, multiprocessing progressive, and multiprocessing interleaved approach.
For difficulty levels from 1 to 6, the energy consumption of all three is almost equal, but if we go to higher difficulty levels of 7 and 8, then there is a significant decrease in energy consumption in the proposed techniques. The performance of the multiprocessing progressive approach is 4 times better than PoW for 7 and 8 difficulty levels, and multiprocessing interleaved performed almost 5 times better than traditional PoW in case of energy consumption.
Figure 10 elaborates the energy consumption in the CPU. Time consumption and energy consumption results show that the proposed multiprocessing interleaved approach is the best performing technique on both CPU and GPU. We performed interleaved technique by varying the number of processes and analyzed that GPU produced better results with 32 parallel processes.
Figure 11 shows the PoW and interleaved results, while Figure 12 shows the change in results with the change of the number of processes. We did the experiment with 8, 16, 24, 32, and 40 processes but obtained optimal results with 32 processes. This is because the CPU GPU synchronization in task completion for 32 processes is a perfect match, while in 8, 16, 24, and 40, one of them has to wait for the other to start its assigned tasks.
We picked some high values for nonces to calculate energy consumption at it was almost zero for smaller nonce values. Figure 13 shows the results of the experiment of energy consumption in kWh and the same as CPU, GPU also performing 4 times better in the multiprocessing interleaved approach. Parallel processing is used to solve numerous complex problems and can also be used in blockchain mining to make it faster. PoW mining is a famous blockchain mining protocol and is being used in many blockchain-based systems; however, due to its complex nature, it has time and energy consumption issues.
To improve these issues, we built two parallel processing-based PoW solo mining algorithms, in which multiple processes solve a complex mathematical puzzle on different nonce values. Pool mining can be affected by different types of attacks; hence, in our proposed algorithms, we encourage fast solo mining instead of pool mining. The results indicate that the proposed solo mining algorithms perform much better than sequential PoW mining.
We conclude that if a public blockchain system chooses to adopt solo mining with better performance, our proposed multiprocessing interleaved algorithm could prove to be beneficial. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of , as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles. Journal overview. Special Issues. Academic Editor: Jiwei Huang. Received 30 Mar Revised 29 Jun Accepted 30 Aug Published 31 Oct Abstract Blockchain as a decentralized distributed ledger is revolutionizing the world with a secure design data storage mechanism.
Figure 1. Table 1. Table 2. Blockchain consensus layer attacks and their countermeasures. Broadcast the solution to the Blockchain network Nonce value, the Merkle root, and the Mined Block ;. Algorithm 1. Proof of work mining algorithm as per [ 69 ]. Difficulty level Nonce value Time in seconds 1 9 0.
Table 3. Figure 2. Figure 3. Algorithm 2. Figure 4. Difficulty level Nonce value Time in seconds 1 0. Table 4. Table 5. Figure 5. Algorithm 3. Table 6. Table 7. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Time consumption in CPU sequential PoW vs multiprocessing progressive vs multiprocessing interleaved. Figure Energy consumption in CPU sequential PoW vs multiprocessing progressive vs multiprocessing interleaved. Multiprocessing interleaved performance on different number of GPU processes.
References J. Golosova and A. Longo, L. Nicoletti, A. Padovano, G. Kompara, A. McGhin, K. Choo, C. Liu, and D. Almeida, M. Rodriguez, T. Samaniego, E. Ferruzola, R. Cabezas, and W. Kamilaris, A. Fonts, and F. View at: Google Scholar A. View at: Google Scholar J. Keeler, A. Krzesinski, and P. Gervais, G. Karame, K. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Technology and Cyber Security Incident Reporting Advisory August The Advisory is intended to support a coordinated and integrated approach to OSFI's awareness of, and response to, technology and cyber security incidents.
It has very broad criteria for reporting incidents including cyberattacks, third party breaches, extortion threats, and impacts to financial market settlements. It deals with, among other things, cyber security and technology operations. Cyber Security: "Outcome: A secure technology posture that maintains the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the FRFI's technology assets.
The environment is kept current and supported by robust and sustainable technology operating processes. Both of these OSFI documents may be relevant to, among other things, blockchain based trading systems and decentralized finance.
Obtaining remedies for Internet based wrongs are a continuing exercise of wac a mol. Obtaining effective civil remedies against blockchain hackers is, without doubt, challenging. They act at the speed of the internet, anonymously, almost always reside and act from foreign jurisdictions, and are notorious for covering their tracks including by peeling their stolen crypto assets to obfuscate recoveries. While it is possible to investigate and trace transfers of cryptocurrencies from public blockchains, recovering those assets or tracing those assets once converted into fiat currency can be difficult.
There are however several cases that show that if the attacked party acts quickly there are legal remedies that can be used to try to recover stolen or transferred crypto assets. An example is the U. In this case a Canadian insurance company the Insured Customer was subject to a ransomware attack that encrypted and locked up its computer systems.
It had cyber insurance from an English insurer the "Insurer". Note, I could have chosen fact a fact pattern from other reported cases because the problems in obtaining remedies are very similar, only the alleged criminal behavior is different. In the U. The rest of the funds were converted into a fiat currency. The Insured asked for an order that the hearing be conducted in private and for an anonymity order.
This order was granted. The publicity would have defeated the object of the hearing. The overarching purpose of the application was to assist the applicant in its efforts to recover the If the hearing was held in public there is a strong likelihood that the object of the application would be defeated because it would potentially tip off the persons unknown to enable them to dissipate the bitcoins.
There would also be the risk of further cyber or revenge attacks on both the Insurer and the Insured Customer by persons unknown. The Insurer asked for disclosure orders requiring the operators of the exchange to provide specified information in relation to the crypto currency account owned or controlled by the second defendant. The Insurer relied on the well established Norwich Pharmacal disclosure jurisprudence that permits courts to require innocent intermediaries in this case the exchange that becomes mixed up in a wrongful act to provide information necessary for claimants to pursue their claims such as the identities of their account holders and information about the accounts.
The Insurer also relied on the Bankers Trust jurisprudence which permits orders to be made against financial institutions to disclose confidential documents to support a proprietary claim in fraud or to trace assets or their proceeds that are the subject of a proprietary injunction. The insurer also asked for a worldwide Mareva injunction order to freeze all the assets of the hackers. This part of the motion was adjourned at the request of the Insurer because of uncertainty whether the Bankers Trust and Norwich orders could be made and served against institutions outside of the UK.
In the UK there must be a jurisdictional gateway before service of a claim outside the UK can be ordered. This illustrates, in part, some of the cross jurisdictional challenges of getting civil remedies against rogue foreign persons. The Insurer also sought a proprietary injunction in respect of the bitcoin held at the account of the exchange.
That money was used to purchase bitcoin and the proceeds of that money could be traced into the accounts with Bitfinex and Bitfinex was constructive trustee of those funds on behalf of the Insurer. A central issue was whether bitcoin is "property", as proprietary remedies can only be granted in respect of property.
There are some cases that held that to be property a thing had to be a "chose in possession" or "chose in action". While the issue was not free from doubt, the court concluded that "for the purpose of granting an interim injunction in the form of an interim proprietary injunction that crypto currencies are a form of property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction".
In coming to this conclusion the court relied on Lord Wilberforce's classic definition of property in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth  1 AC as being definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in their nature of assumption by third parties, and having some degree of permanence, and a decision of a Singapore court in B2C2 Limited v Quoine PTC Limited  SGHC I Although as noted above, the court adjourned the request for the Norwich and Bankers Trust order, some of the relief asked for was granted as ancillary relief to the proprietary injunction.
Specifically, the Court ordered that information be provided of the identity and address of the exchange operators and the hackers. This included that the exchange identify the hackers and provide any information they had about them and that the hackers identify themselves. The court was satisfied that that information was necessary to police the proprietary injunction and would also be appropriate to be provided by way of pre-action disclosure in the action.
There was no follow up decision, so it is not clear whether the crypto assets or any of the fiat currencies were actually recovered. Other Commonwealth cases have reach similar results on whether crypto currencies are property. For example, the New Zealand case, Ruscoe v Cryptopia Limited in liquidation  NZHC 8 April , concluded that cryptocurrencies were "property" "within the definition in s 2 of the New Zealand Companies Act and also probably more generally".
The Court also held that these digital assets, being property, are capable of forming the subject matter of a trust. This conclusion was echoed in the more recent U. The court stated it was "satisfied that there is at least a serious issue to be tried that cryptoassets such as bitcoin are property within the common law definition of that term.
The court also made a Bankers Trust order against two cryptocurrency exchanges operating outside of the U. Another recent U. The plaintiff's private key was somehow accessed in breach of confidence and used to fraudulently trade cryptocurrencies at massive undervalues using the plaintiff's trading account. The court, relying on a breach of confidence legal claim, granted a proprietary injunction including against non-UK residents, a worldwide freezing order, and a Bankers Trust disclosure order.
The injunction was based on the "simple proposition that, when property is obtained by fraud, equity imposes a constructive trust on the fraudulent recipient, with the result that the fraudulent recipient holds the legal title on constructive trust for the loser".
Further the court held it had the jurisdiction to make the order against the defendants even though they resided outside of the jurisdiction based on the nuances of the U. Many of the legal remedies discussed in the U. AA v Persons Unknown and other U. The Supreme Court recently confirmed in Google Inc. Equustek Solutions Inc. This includes the following types of orders discussed in the U.
Norwich orders: Norwich orders can be used to compel non-parties to disclose information or documents in their possession required by a claimant. Norwich orders have increasingly been used in the online context by plaintiffs who allege that they are being anonymously defamed or defrauded and seek orders against Internet service providers to disclose the identity of the perpetrator.
Norwich disclosure may be ordered against non-parties who are not themselves guilty of wrongdoing, but who are so involved in the wrongful acts of others that they facilitate the harm. Norwich also supplies a principled rationale for granting injunctions against non-parties who facilitate wrongdoing.
Shapira ,  W. Mareva Injunctions: Mareva injunctions are also available in Canada. They are used to freeze assets in order to prevent their dissipation pending the conclusion of a trial or action. A Mareva injunction can require a defendant not to dissipate his or her assets and often requires the assistance of a non-party such as a financial intermediary which can be ordered to assist if it is just and equitable to do so.
Banks and other financial institutions have, as a result, been bound by Mareva injunctions even when they are not a party to an underlying action. Proprietary Remedies : Some causes of action such as the torts of conversion and detinue, and remedies like tracing orders and constructive trusts depend on digital currencies being "property". It is likely that they will be recognized as such in Canada as they are in the U.
The issue arose in the B. When the defendant failed to return the Ether tokens Copytrack sued the defendant alleging the torts of conversion and detinue and asked for "An order that Copytrack be entitled to trace and recover the While the evidence of what has happened to the Ether tokens since is somewhat murky, this does not detract from the point that they should rightfully be returned to Copytrack".
Copytrack adds to the developing jurisprudence throughout the commonwealth which has recognized digital currencies as being a form of property and in which proprietary remedies have been ordered. There is always a problem of being able to determine the cause of a loss, to be able to trace the transactions to particular sources where crypto assets can be frozen, and to move quickly enough before the digital currencies are traded or converted to fiat currencies and dissipated without a trace.
Tracing assets also gets more complicated when the asset is transferred from one crypto currency to another one, especially when the fraudsters engage in " peeling " to obscure or hide digital currencies obtained illicitly. Tracing the transfers of cryptocurrency assets is something that experts have been able to do.
In the Colonial Pipeline case, the FBI was able to track multiple transfers of bitcoins and identify that approximately Worldwide freezing orders are also not particularly helpful where the fraudsters are anonymous and operate in foreign and non-friendly countries, particularly once stolen crypto currency has been dissipated.
A significant issue in all these cases is whether relief can effectively be obtained where the unknown defendants or innocent intermediaries such as cryptocurrency exchanges have no connections to Canada. Under Canadian law for a court to assume jurisdiction, there must be personal jurisdiction also known as territorial competence over the defendant.
Van Breda , SCC 17, various presumptive connecting factors are applied to determine if there is personal jurisdiction over a person. There is also a framework for identifying new factors. One of the presumptive connecting factors is a tort committed in the jurisdiction. For cases of fraud committed in a Canadian province, the test is likely to me met. For blockchain based cryptocurrencies there is a question as to where the situs of the asset or tort may be.
This has not yet been resolved in Canada. Two U. However, in a complicated case the courts might struggle as did the U. The more challenging issue is when a Canadian court will grant a remedy against a foreign based defendant or innocent third party such as a cryptocurrency exchange. As the Equustek case confirmed, common law courts can make worldwide orders against defendants depending on the cause of action. Orders can also be made against innocent intermediaries who get "mixed up" in the tortious or other wrongful acts of others.
However, Canadian courts are often reluctant to exercise their enforcement jurisdiction outside of Canada. There will also be cases where even if orders are made, or are made on terms that protect foreign entities such as the "Babanaft" Mareva injunction orders , 33 the orders will not be immediately enforceable or be enforced by foreign courts.
The upshot of all of this is that if you or your clients are subject to a loss of crypto assets stored on a public blockchain, or paid out as a ransom in a ransomware attack, there are things you can do to try and recover them, but you must act quickly and with the right team. You will need a good forensic blockchain investigator - some of the leaders in this area are being used repeatedly in these cases.
You will need to move very quickly to obtain a proprietary tracing and constructive trust injunction, Norwich and Bankers Trust disclosure orders, a worldwide Mareva injunction, and an anonymity and evidence sealing order. You will also need to reach out to crypto currency exchanges or other entities that are holding transferred assets to get their cooperation. You will also need foreign counsel ready to help get a Canadian order enforced in foreign jurisdictions.
You will also need to be lucky. This article was first posted on www. Thanks also to Ana Badour for reviewing and providing some comments on a prior draft of this post errors, if any, of course, are all mine. Commercial Court " Ion Sciences ". Saurabh Singh, A. Jake Frankenfield, "Mt.
Singh et al supra ; Orcutt supra ; Amiet supra. These are described in Singh et al supra ; see also: Orcutt supra and Amiet supra. Kearney, Carlos A. As an example, see Netcoins Inc. If the hearing were to be held in public there is a strong likelihood that the object of the application would be defeated.
Ultimately, the applicant contends it is necessary for the court to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for the hearing to be heard in private, as I indicated at the start of the hearing saying I would give reasons in due course. My reasons are given now. First of all, I am satisfied for the purpose of CPR 39 3 that publicity would defeat the object of the hearing.
Alberta Treasury Branches v. Leahy , ABQB Equustek at para 33 citing Aetna Financial Services Ltd. Ion Sciences supra ; Fetch. Hape , SCC B abanaft International v. Bassantne ,  Ch. To view the original article click here. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. All Rights Reserved. Password Passwords are Case Sensitive. Forgot your password? Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles one-article limit removed from the diverse perspectives of 5, leading law, accountancy and advisory firms.
We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation. It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers "Contributors" who contribute Content for free for your use. Learn More Accept. Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq. According to the article: In short, while blockchain technology has been long touted for its security, under certain conditions it can be quite vulnerable.
TechLex Blog. Barry B. On March 15, , the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions "OSFI" released a letter the "Letter" outlining its plan to issue for consultation later this year a culture risk management guideline. Canadian securities regulators continue to use a combination of enforced regulation and enforcement remedies to control the activities of crypto asset trading platforms that permit Canadian clients On March 9, the U. Securities and Exchange Commission SEC proposed rule amendments that, if adopted, would impose significant new cybersecurity-related disclosure obligations on U.
On February 24, , Russian forces initiated a series of deadly attacks on Ukrainian cities, resulting in an ongoing military conflict. Ransomware continues to present an increasing risk to all organizations.
The diff change factor can be disabled by either manually setting it to 0 or clicking a "Use Diff Change" switch found below the graph and in the break-even analysis section. Diff Change value is very large. Future profitability estimates may be inaccurate. Consider making Diff Change smaller or turning off Dynamic Difficulty. Hashrate is the only value you need to input to use this calculator, we do the rest of the work for you!
Hashrate is the speed which you are mining, and is normally clearly displayed by your mining software or in the specifications for mining hardware. Make sure that you have the correct hashrate suffix selected. The Break-Even Analysis feature can help you predict how long it will take to become profitable for a given setup. How is this calculated? Time to break-even is calculated by comparing your hardware cost which you must enter below to your predicted monthly profits and seeing how long until the initial hardware cost is paid off.
The calculator also takes the changing difficulty diff change into account. If the network difficulty is increasing quickly, this will greatly increase your break-even time. The diff change can be excluded from the calculation by toggling the "Use Diff Change" switch.
Why is my break-even time 0 or never? If your break-even time is 0 you have likely forgotten to input your hardware cost below. If it is never, your break-even time has been calculated to be greater than 10 years. This is likely due to a large diff change value which causes your predicted profitability to turn negative in the future.
You could try lowering the diff change for a less agressive prediction or disable it altogether. Recurring costs are fixed costs such as rent or internet. This value, along with power costs are subtracted from your revenue to give profit.
Higher recurring costs mean lower profits and a longer break-even time. The profitability chart can help you visualize your long term mining projections. The chart can operate in one of three views: Total Profits The Total Profits view predicts what your overall profitability will be in the future.
This is calculated by taking your current profits and adding them to each following months profits while factoring in the changing difficulty diff change , the diff change factor can be disabled. This view assumes the price of the coin will stay the same.
If you wish to account for a changing price ie if you think the price will rise in the future , switch to the "Coins Generated" view. Coins Generated This view looks at the number of coins you can expect to generate in the future. Peercoin is one of many altcoins that you can mine. Check out our other calculators to see if another one coin could be more profitable for you. Coins: Peercoin PPC. Block Reward:. Calculations are based on mean values and do not account for difficulty, price and exchange rate fluctuations.
Daily Earnings. Exchange Comparisons. Share this page:. Your experience on this site will be improved by allowing cookies.
In this article, we discuss cryptocurrency like Bitcoin and the underlying See examples of high-profile BGP Hijacking incidents here, here, and here. Figure A BGP hijacking attack, where malicious AS3 wants to in- tercept the traffic between AS1 (miner) and AS2 (mining pool server) by announcing a more. CPU quantum to mimic the top mining pools of Ethereum and through BGP hijacking or ARP spoofing before issuing a Balance.