People funded their BitFunder accounts to buy ASICMINER. There will soon be a correction, and in my opinion people will be looking elsewhere to put their money instead of sending it back to their BTC wallets. Once BFL, AMC, and the likes start taking off, there will be no way for ASICMINER to sustain their returns.
The returns will decrease only because of difficulty increase right? But wouldn't ASICMINER still have the highest returns for the foreseeable future? The dividends will decrease due to a number of reasons. - decreased share of the network hash rate due to the increased share from the competition,
- decreased hardware sales due to needing the hashing power for the mining operation,
- decreased income from hardware sales due to the competition offering better value.
|
|
|
|
We have started just a nice discussion here. I have been thinking about that model used here - constant network growth on each retarget. I don't think it's possible even for a year. I created a chart with data from this year and +12% on each reatrget up to december 2014. That's exponential growth up to 26,000 Thash by the end of next year (dec 2014)! Just make a chart with all that data and you will see that sharp exponential growth. I don't see how all that hash power can be added in a year. I see something like linear growth up to 3,000 or maybe 5,000 Thash in that time. EDIT: uploaded a (stacked) chart https://www.dropbox.com/s/5o66n1h13eccdmb/hashrate12.pngEDIT2: and another speculation, 3PH next year: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rage8ununtfowom/hashrate-3P.pngI pointed this out to some person in a different thread. I think he was using a a fixed 30% increase, and one of the increases he had calculated meant adding 2 million Th/s. Basically, there's a maximum hash rate that each company can bring online per time period and the sum of those values corresponds to the maximum change in difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
I'm hashing at around 300 Mh/s on my HD6870 and making about 10 mBTC per day. My electricity costs 12.9p per kWh (0.2USD), so my daily profit is currently about 3.35 mBTC. I'll keep mining on it though until my April Jalapeno arrives and investing the 0.01 BTC into mining stocks. I'm already making more from those stocks than I am from mining.
|
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation. Please provide ways to solve this problem.  My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price. Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually. Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way. I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling. If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits. Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated. +1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed. He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically. Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors? Investors... most of the people in here are speculators that just wanna see the high price of AMC maintained. The fact is that his original plan only called for the funding necessary raised by selling shares at .0005. If AMC is ready to raise more money quickly, all he needs to do is stick with his plan. No need for illusory BF features. Selling shares to pay for hardware is part of the original plan. From the description on BitFunder: As of the time of this writing, up to 40,000,000 will be released over time to the public on a varying time scale as capital is required to complete the project. |
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation. Please provide ways to solve this problem. My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price. Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually. Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way. I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling. If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits. Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated. +1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed. He does not need to sell them privately, it ends up the same as putting them on open market at the correct price. So what if the flippers bail out and undercut him for a day, it'll iron itself out if he prices them realistically. Well, if he needed the money to buy hardware, it would mean he would have to sell more shares than intended in order to purchase that hardware. That would mean less hardware could be bought, which means a lower percentage of the network hash rate, which leads to lower mining profits, which leads to lower dividends. How is that good for long term investors? |
|
|
|
Guys, the problem is pretty simple actually. AMC needs to sell more shares, as it only sold 5M out of the initial 15M. --> AMC tries to sell more shares, at market price. --> AMC keeps being undercut. --> AMC thus, doesn't sell anything, or very little. --> AMC doesn't get the additional funds it needs, at the time it needs. --> AMC dies of starvation. Please provide ways to solve this problem. My solution is a primary/secondary market like everyone else is doing outside bitcoin. If Ken wants to sell @ .0008, but people undercut him, it means there is not enough demand for the share at that price. Then he needs to lower the price, it's quite simple actually. Any way of distorting the market by selling behind closed doors, will eventually affect the share price and shareholders in a negative way. I don't want to be a part of "what will be ken's next move" - speculation game once again. And that is what it will become if we have closed market selling. If someone wanted to buy 1 millions shares at 0.0008 BTC then there would obviously be demand. As Vbs points out, Ken selling share privately is a good thing for AMC and it's investors and is a bad thing ONLY for flippers. It doesn't surprise me that some people would be against that, as it would cut into their profits. Flippers do not care whether or not AMC succeeds and likewise, I don't care in the slightest if selling shares privately cuts flippers profits. Some people on these forums treat the market like some religious people treat their god. The market is not infallible, in fact, it's quite easily manipulated. +1 for Ken selling shares privately if needed. |
|
|
|
|
I gave the bitparking pool a try to see if the merged mining would slightly increase my income. I'm only mining with 300 Mh/s so every little bit helps.
So, I start mining only to realise that there's a minimum withdrawal of 0.05 BTC which took me about a week to mine. I then withdrew my BTC to my wallet and sent the altcoins to vircurex to exchange for BTC as advised by bitparking. I sold the altcoin for about 0.00393 BTC and go to withdraw them only to be told about the 0.01 BTC withdrawal fee.
Are you fucking kidding me! I went 5 days without payment, payment which I would normally be buying shares with, only to lose money at the end of it! You may as well shove that 0.00393 BTC up your tight little arse because I'm never going to see 1 Satoshi of it.
I'm now going back to my usual pool which doesn't have such limits and doesn't conspire with some shitty exchange to steal my slummy.
|
|
|
|
What 12th miner? There's only 15 listed and you said 4 of them were purchased privately. Where's this 12th one coming from?
the privately bought miners are counted in the 12, so technically we can still buy 4 more.. At the top of the post all bought miners are shown (private and group). So far 5 miners were bought by us (the private buys) and 6 by the group totalling 11. Thanks for clearing that up. |
|
|
|
Allright! Numbers are updated.. Only three shares left on miner 11.. We're going to try to get the 12th miner as well.. Because our own funds are nearly depleted we will have to sell almost all 120 shares before we are able to buy it. That means we can't add any extra reservation unless they are payed tonight unfortunately.. KNC pre-order closes in 4:30 hours, so it will be exiting  What 12th miner? There's only 15 listed and you said 4 of them were purchased privately. Where's this 12th one coming from? |
|
|
|
Confused about KNCMiner numbers though. It offers less GH/$ than MetaBank, and delivers later, but for some reason the ROI is like 5x higher? Maybe it's explained in the 8 pages that I don't want to read, if so, I apologize.
KnC may be offering less in Gh/$, but is promising much more of those Gh (350,000)! And that's what counts in this race - more Gh in the start (first months) means early 'break even' and better ROI. Sorry, but that post doesn't make any sense. It isnt total hash rate that determines break even, but a mix of cost per hash rate, date released, and power cost and looking at those, bitfury should do better. It is true that the to ROI is in bitcoins (which is s little strange, you should change it to percent of origional investment) which would naturally benefit larger products, but bitfury still shouldnt be negative. Made sense to me. The more hashing power you have while the difficulty is low the better your machine will do. The problem is that I had the power cost from the old FPGA still on there. So yeah, you're right they shouldn't have had a negative, it was just an extremely high power cost. I wasn't able to find the power cost estimate on the new machine so I foolishly forgot to change the stats I had. At the moment I have it listed as a 500w machine, but it could be even less with these chips. Thanks for keeping me on track again guys Power consumption is 0.7W per Gh/s |
|
|
|
Klondike and possibly the Bonanza... we shall see what the 55nm Avalon can do. Stoked!  What 55nm Avalon? |
|
|
|
|
There's around 1000 Th/s set to be brought online:
Avalon chips = 250 Th/s
Avalon systems = 100 Th/s
ASICminer = 250 Th/s
BFL = 300 Th/s
BitFury = 200 Th/s
KnC = 200 Th/s
Those estimates are based on the following:
ASIMINER said they initially bought 50 TH/s. They recently said they've got 200 Th/s incoming.
The Avalon systems number is based on the 3 batches and the number for the chips is based on the amount of BTC in the chip account.
The BFL number is from the 75,000 chips @ 4 Gh/s.
The BitFury number comes from 100TH.
The KnC number comes from the 500 pre-orders, assuming all Jupiters and a bit extra
I'd say it'll be around the end of the year when the network hash rate hits 1000 TH/s. The companies making devices simply can't make them quick enough to get over a 1000 Th/s out by Autumn.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a 7 Gh/s BFL, AMC shares, TAT.ASICMINER shares, TAT.VIRTUALMINE shares and a 2.8 Gh/s share of a Jupiter. Why put all your eggs in one basket?
|
|
|
|
Avalon chips = 250 Th/s
Avalon systems = 100 Th/s
ASICminer = 250 Th/s
BFL = 300 Th/s
BitFury = 200 Th/s
KnC = 200 Th/s
Are these estimates based on the orders for these or do they also include what these companies might produce to mine for themselves? Those estimates are based on the follwing: ASIMINER said they initially bought 50 TH/s. They recently said they've got 200 Th/s incoming. The Avalon systems number is based on the 3 batches and the number for the chips is based on the amount of BTC in the chip account. The BFL number is from the 75,000 chips @ 4 Gh/s. The BitFury number comes from 100TH. The KnC number comes from the 500 pre-orders, assuming all Jupiters and a bit extra. |
|
|
|
I've put together the following spreadsheet to show the income over specific periods per Gh/s. It also shows the income per day for various devices at specific difficulties. Here's the spreadsheet.For those trying to predict the difficulty, there's about 1000 Th/s due to be online by the end of the year, which breaks down to the following: Avalon chips = 250 Th/s Avalon systems = 100 Th/s ASICminer = 250 Th/s BFL = 300 Th/s BitFury = 200 Th/s KnC = 200 Th/s I'd expect a 50-60% difficulty increase for the next round. |
|
|
|
|
If you browse the custom hardware sub, you'll notice a lot of posts for group buys. It seems to me like it'd be better to give these posts their own section.
|
|
|
|
We're open for suggestions and improvements!
Hi, I have one suggestion - now there's possibility to set difficulty increase rate in percent. I think that the difficulty will rise in linear fashion now - the ASIC manufacturers have a constant rate of releasing new devices that depends on their manufacturing capabilities (it doesn't matter if they manufacture them for the customers or for themselves), so the total hashrate will rise linearly (on average). There will be changes in that increase rate - if one of these ASIC companies opens new manufacturing facilities. But it will be still close to linear. So it would be nice to set daily increase rate (like 1,000,000 increase in difficulty per day). Calculator could suggest the value basing on, say, 7-days average. P. I made a few calculations like that the other day. I've copied them below. I'll make the following assumptions: I start mining at the very start of a new difficulty round. The starting difficulty is based on a network hashrate of 500 Th/s. The network hash rate increases by 100 TH/s each new difficulty round. This gives us the following data for a 5 Gh/s device: Network Hash Rate = 500 Th/s, Difficulty = 69849193.0961609, BTC/round = 0.50475000 Network Hash Rate = 600 Th/s, Difficulty = 83819031.7153931, BTC/round = 0.42062500 Network Hash Rate = 700 Th/s, Difficulty = 97788870.3346252, BTC/round = 0.36053571 Network Hash Rate = 800 Th/s, Difficulty = 111758708.953857, BTC/round = 0.31546875 Network Hash Rate = 900 Th/s, Difficulty = 125728547.57309, BTC/round = 0.28041667 Network Hash Rate = 1000 Th/s, Difficulty = 139698386.192322, BTC/round = 0.25237500 That gives a total of 2.13417113 BTC for the 6 difficulty rounds. Since I ordered in April when BTC was at it's high, I'll recoup the cost for the device and make a profit after 4 rounds. With the network hash rate at 1900 Th/s, I'd be making about the same as what I get now from my 300 Mh/s, which is still profitable. |
|
|
|
Is my info right here for bitfury?
I'll update the spreadsheet...
That's the old BitFury FPGA I believe, not the BitFury ASIC. Ahhh ok, for some reason I'm having a hard time navigating the page, my fault. Do these statistics look right to you? It's not listed on the BitFury website. The info you're after comes form Metabank.ru who will be developing systems based on the BitFury ASICs sold to them by 100TH. Here's the info for your chart. Seller: Metabank Model: Bitfury ASIC Gh/BTC: 5.963 (with USD/BTC @ 107.34) Mh: 120,000 Total Cost: $2160 USD |
|
|
|
Is my info right here for bitfury?
I'll update the spreadsheet...
That's the old BitFury FPGA I believe, not the BitFury ASIC. |
|
|
|
I dont know.. looks scammy
Why? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
