You don't ask for even more investment money unless you have already spent what you had and now are pretty much broke.
Thats nonsense. In one of my previous startups we would regularly issue shares to VCs even though we had more money in the bank than we knew what to do with. There are countless reasons to get investor funds, not in the least if investors are willing to pay more for a share of the business than you think its worth. Or if you want cash up front and off load (part of) the risk. |
|
|
|
100MW is a huge amount of power. About 1/100 the size of a coal powerplant.
More like one entire powerplant. |
|
|
|
Not much point warning people who do not know this site by posting warnings on this site or is there ?  |
|
|
|
If you lost your money, don't say you weren't warned.
Im more and more convinced warning doesnt help. There are a probably two types of people who invest in this: - people who know this is a scam, but will invest anyway as they expect to be able to pull out their money before the collapse. In reality this rarely works and Id call those people co-conspirators as they keep the scam going for longer than it would otherwise, will usually try to lure other investors (referral links etc) and pretend its not a scam. Net effect is that they deliberately try to steal from other clueless investors - People who have been warned over and over, yet keep falling for it each and every time. In so far they dont belong to the above category, I can only assume they are really stupid enough to believe if you invest in enough scams opportunities, you will ultimately profit. Why would anyone, EVER want to pay more than that, ad even advertize it as an investment opportunity if they weren't a scammer? Because "bitcoin". |
|
|
|
from your link: BitFury further indicated it would use the funds to increase the capacity of its data centers to 100 megawatts100MW. Thats ~125PH with todays tech and if he achieves his 0.2J/GH goal later this year, thats 500 PH. Or 1EH next year if he does get it down to 0.1JGH  |
|
|
|
You're basically proving my point even with TSMC marketing material. The real gain by their own admission is just transistor density. Note the word "OR". Speed and power improvements are a joke, ask anyone who's actually used their process like nVidia. Yes, due to finfet, just like I said. Not because of the shrink. Also, I didn't say a die shrink would use half the power, I said it could. For example, going from 130nm to 40nm.
Which only took what, 10 years? |
|
|
|
The smaller transistors use less power. Not as a rule. Generally smaller gates can work with lower voltage, and that is what is increases power efficiency, its not a direct result and its increasingly untrue. 20 and 16nm offer next to no voltage drop, other than what can be achieved using finfets (unrelated to feature size). Just because the transistor density doubles, that doesn't mean that the power consumption doubles too. For example, you could end up with twice the hash power for the same power consumption with a die shrink.
quite the opposite, just because you can shrink a transistor doesnt mean it will use less, let alone half as much power. So you cram more on a die, but power density goes up, not exactly a huge advantage for bitcoin asics which already stretch the limits of power delivery, packaging and cooling. |
|
|
|
|
Moore's law states that transistor density doubles every 18 months. Something which no longer is true, but even it where, for bitcoin transistor density is almost irrelevant at this point; so what if you can cram twice as many cores in a chip, if it consume twice as much power you havent really gained much. You reduced the silicon cost per GH, but thats arguably one of the least important metrics right now. Moore's law says nothing about compute efficiency, and I think its fair to say the industry is heading in to a brick wall in that regard too.
Thats not to say I dont expect improvements over where we are now, there is probably still a lot to be had from improving power delivery and riding down the schmoo plot from high voltage/highest performance per mm˛ to low voltage/highest power efficiency, but thats pretty much going to be a one time deal.
|
|
|
|
Many Ponzi schemes share common characteristics. Look for these warning signs:
- High investment returns with little or no risk. Every investment carries some degree of risk, and investments yielding higher returns typically involve more risk. Be highly suspicious of any "guaranteed" investment opportunity.
Check
- Overly consistent returns. Investment values tend to go up and down over time, especially those offering potentially high returns. Be suspect of an investment that continues to generate regular, positive returns regardless of overall market conditions.
Check
- Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC or with state regulators. Registration is important because it provides investors with access to key information about the company's management, products, services, and finances.
Check
- Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms to be licensed or registered. Most Ponzi schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms.
Check
- Secretive and/or complex strategies. Avoiding investments you do not understand, or for which you cannot get complete information, is a good rule of thumb.
Check
- Issues with paperwork. Do not accept excuses regarding why you cannot review information about an investment in writing. Also, account statement errors and inconsistencies may be signs that funds are not being invested as promised.
Check
- Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you do not receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out your investment. Keep in mind that Ponzi scheme promoters routinely encourage participants to "roll over" investments and sometimes promise returns offering even higher returns on the amount rolled over.
Check
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm |
|
|
|
I do not agree - if they are using bitcoind, they need to have downloaded blocks with income transactions to be able to send that money out.
You wouldnt be implying they are sending out bitcoins that other customers deposited, right? I mean, thats how a ponzi works . Or put differently, ask yourself how they can "trade" with no problems, but cant send out bitcoins to investors. Anyway, its a moot point. bitcoin trader is a glaringly obvious ponzi and it wont take long for everyone to see that. They are just stalling, they will soon come up with other excuses and delays but the money isnt there, it never existed. |
|
|
|
|
THe chart was posted for those smart enough to understand what it means; if you're not among those, feel free to ignore it, just like I will be ignoring you.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude you are thickheaded. Its not a tool to help you predict if you will make a profit from a miner, its tool that predicts where the network hashrate is ultimately headed.
|
|
|
|
You have begun with the incorrect assumption that your bitcoin miner will hash at a constant percentage of the network hashing rate for 730 days. I fail to see the usefulness of your graphs.
It makes no such assumption. As long as the network hashrate is at or below the lines on the chart, at any point in time you could buy a miner and end up breaking even after 2 years, of course constrained by the listed assumptions and the curves themselves, nothing else. If your point is that after 2 years the network may exceed those lines, thats actually part of the point, but it requires either changing constraints or someone betting > 2 year. Let's dissect the data where all points converge @1239PH/s network speed and no cost for electricity. 1 TH/s is costing $700 now on your chart and bitcoin is worth $330; 1239 PH/s = 1239000 TH/s Take the reciprocal of this 1/1239000 to find out your share of the block rewards for 1 TH/s and multiply that by the total number of bitcoins produced in a day. total bitcoins per day for the entire network (ideal): 25 per block (reward) x 6 (blocks per hour) x 24 hours per day = 3600 3600 multiplied by 1/1239000 = 0.0029055690072639225181598062954 Bitcoins per day (ideal) Now if you make that every single day for the magical number of 730 days you get 2.121065375302663438256658595642 bitcoins and when we multiply that by the assumed $330 per bitcoin... drumroll please... we get $699.95157384987893462469733656186 or approximately $700 dollars for our 1 TH/s miner that we paid $700 dollars for 730 days ago! Which only works for a sustained network hashing rate of 1239 PH/s for a period of 730 days. Your graph and your assumptions are flawed.
^that is my point The assumptions are just that, feel free to alter them yourself. The graph isnt flawed, you just dont understand what its telling you, even after manually verifying the math. What you fail to understand is that the network isnt going to keep growing magically if there is no ROI to be had. That graph tells you when there is no more ROI to be had (or at least not within <2 year, which seems a reasonable horizon to me but feel free to change that too). Once you reach that point, who is going to buy or deploy more miners? Few if anyone, and if someone does, others will have to unplug, hence the network hashrate will remain roughly where the chart tells you it will plateau (for your chosen assumptions). |
|
|
|
You have begun with the incorrect assumption that your bitcoin miner will hash at a constant percentage of the network hashing rate for 730 days. I fail to see the usefulness of your graphs.
It makes no such assumption. As long as the network hashrate is at or below the lines on the chart, at any point in time you could buy a miner and end up breaking even after 2 years, of course constrained by the listed assumptions and the curves themselves, nothing else. If your point is that after 2 years the network may exceed those lines, thats actually part of the point, but it requires either changing constraints or someone betting > 2 year. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like we will soon have another "I was only a PR guy" defense. TheSwede anyone?
|
|
|
|
So the graphs are done assuming a static difficulty for 2 years. Then of course it looks like you can make a profit, duh. It doesnt assume any difficulty, it calculates the difficulty at which point (industrial scale) miners stop being profitable with the listed assumptions. |
|
|
|
But only AM is selling at ~$330/TH. Spondoolies is advertising $650/TH ... for a pre-order. And my understanding is that other producers are even more expensive?
Its not because they are asking that much to individual miners and their costs are anything like that. Even so, if we were to calculate with $700/TH, we get this:  |
|
|
|
Doesn't matter what the J/GH is if you can never recover the capital cost of miners even with free electricity, which is where bitcoin mining stands right now.
You couldnt be more wrong. Here is a chart for you:  It shows the network speed where miners would break even after 2 years using the listed assumed variables. Even in the current climate and with current efficiency, we are no were near where (industrial) mining would not be profitable. And the effect of power efficiency is quite dramatic if you consider reasonable electricity cost price ranges (~0.06 / KWh) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
