Are you trolling or you just didn't read my message? It's not a matter of naive or not naive, math doesn't lie, hashrate can't be hidden. You repeat yet again that Sia had a "steady rise in hashrate" "months before bitmain...". THAT IS NOT TRUE
From: https://siastats.info/mining
A3s batch 1 sold on Jan 18th. So, tell me, how in hell bimain "mined with them for months before selling them"? The entire Sia network hashrate was equivalent to only a few A3s before end of Jan.
From: https://siastats.info/mining
A3s batch 1 sold on Jan 18th. So, tell me, how in hell bimain "mined with them for months before selling them"? The entire Sia network hashrate was equivalent to only a few A3s before end of Jan.
That chart does seem to prove your point w/r/t SIA, but in the case of XMR it really looks like some front-running has been going on:
https://chainradar.com/xmr/chart
In situations like this I think it is helpful to look at this from a purely economic standpoint: what are the incentives to Bitmain/Baikal/etc. using their own miners before selling them vs. the costs. Since these are foreign companies with near-zero liability to, say, customers in the US or EU, they don't have to worry about individuals claiming they were sent a used or defective product; big farms, perhaps, but not individuals. Conversely, stealth mining the shit out of a high value coin like XMR with your hot new ASIC miner would be all but irresistible so there is a huge incentive to do so.
Frankly, the incentives grossly outweigh the costs, and so you are left with trusting companies like Bitmain and Baikal to act ethically. You can take that bet if you want, but I certainly won't.
Bitmain made so much money last year they simply don't know what to do this year.
So they figured WTF why not attack gpu coins.
The next few months will be very interesting to say the least.