By the way, if Ken had just one 24TH/s miner running we would be in the top 5 rankings for team and user on btcguild, that in itself would be insanely good marketing for this company. So I believe the first 24TH/s miner should be pointed at our btcguild account to raise awareness. EDIT: and according to http://dustcoin.com/ just one 24TH/s miner can pull in about 20 bitcoin per day. Thats a dividend of 1400 Satoshi per share. |
|
|
|
If someone has made a million dollar order they will know exactly when they will get delivery. This isn't some kid ordering a 1k machine on his dads credit card.
Except the site says in November, is this really going to happen? I hope it does, we seriously need to start moving orders and hashing. |
|
|
|
I agree that customers should not be mislead, if that is happening, but what do you think increased the hashrate? Ken has at least one prototype and we have evidence of that now. They exist.
True we do have a prototype (probably) but its not a 24TH/s beast. I think the mining income from the extra hash power represents between 1TH/s and 2TH/s at most. I would have expected our own hashpower to be 100TH/s before we started to send out these miners. But either way if we can get several million dollars from shipped hardware that would be good too. I just want 3% of the network, I have worked out that is my breakeven point and I hope Ken can get us there. |
|
|
|
To make a dent in todays hash rate you need the really big numbers. Now if you or some company or group wanted to invest $1,000,000 into bitcoin mining machines, who would you buy from?
Are there any other companies out there that can can provide over 147 TH/s that can be transported in a transit van and not take three articulated lorries?
Oh I agree, but so far we don't even have one of these machines in existence and the website says that the miners will be sent out after payment. We don't want to start damaging our brand. |
|
|
|
|
Also the store says that the orders will be shipping as soon as payment received. Ken this is deceptive.
Are we even able to ship one miner before the end of November?
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure Ken is not selling himself miners. If he was any profits would have to be taxed meaning we would simply be sending money to the tax office for no reason.
|
|
|
|
thanks guys got it working!
With cgminer or guiminer? |
|
|
|
I wonder what Ken is going to do when customers start bitching about a missed shipping deadline.. I bet he thinks "if BFL got away with it, I will too", and is already kickin back his feet without a care in the world.
First of all every customer has their own deadline when they ordered. Not every customer is expecting their hardware in November. Anyway I am sure Ken has everything under control. |
|
|
|
Most people use laptops with SSD, and cant afford to have a blockchain size of 40 GB or bigger.. that consumes 1/3 or 1/6 of their SSD size.
If we want a truly decentralized network, nobody should be excluded. The solution is therefore to make the blockchain dynamic and small instead of one gigantic mirror on every HDD in the network.
That's a very bold claim, that most people use laptops with SSD. I for one do not know any of them. I agree that the thing to do is to make a lightweight version of the blockchain that would contain only current spendable transaction outputs. But anyone willing to host the full blockchain should have the means to do so. I have a SSD in both my laptops, my brother has SSD's in his laptop, My boss uses SSD's in every laptop issued by our company. SSD's are everywhere. All my friends at uni have SSD's in their laptops, my parents and girlfriends parents that have no idea about computers now have ssd's (Without us being an influence on their purchase) and even desktops are being sold with ssd as default these-days. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, where is the mining address? I believe it still has funds right?
Also does this mean the miners are still running? He must be tending them.
|
|
|
|
With a max of 1mb per block the blockchain should not be able to grow faster than 52GB/year.
That is true, but the max block size will eventually need to be increased if bitcoin is support the growing level of transaction rates. So there are two options 1) cap the transaction rate and thus cap the blockchain growth rate or 2) increase the max block size and deal with an exponential growth in blockchain size. Neither option is ideal, the best way is to design the blockchain in such a way that it is dynamic and old blocks can be easily discarded from the chain but at the same time the account balances remain verifiable. I completely agree with you. 1) make the chain dynamic like you say, but also... 2) we need to be able to distribute nodes. Even if we get the size down the real time transaction amount may become very large (Imagine several thousand tx/sec). In this case a distributed node where you connect into a node cluster depending on your resources. So an average computer that wants to participate can connect to a swarm of 10,000 other similar computers and they all become one node. In this manner us little guys can still verify blocks even they are incomming fast. 3) also I think we need to move away from giant blocks and to smaller faster blocks. The block reward can be split too (Although in the long run this does not matter as tx fees will pay for the network). So imagine that hundreds of 500kb blocks confirm every minute, and as those blocks get old (past depth:1,000) they start to get compressed and merged and eventually deleted (back to your dynamic blockchain idea) |
|
|
|
I am not sure how you even came to the 1.3 Terrabytes total.
Well the growth of the blockchain seems to be following an exponential trend, and if it continues like that it wont be surprising to see it larger than 1 TB by 2017. This is exactly why I've put so much of my effort into developing a new type of mini-blockchain scheme which doesn't require every transaction ever made to be saved forever. With a max of 1mb per block the blockchain should not be able to grow faster than 52GB/year. Although that is still very large. |
|
|
|
I think its better reinvest 100% until we sit at 10% .
50% is fine, no need for 100% Just imagine it takes 8 months at 100% reinvested to get to 10% and then another competitor comes out and delays our 10% goal even more. Also many of us might need access to liquid Bitcoin and the dividend gives us that. |
|
|
|
|
I sort of worked how many chips would be need to gain 3% of the network. 3% of the network is my happy figure because it would bring in 0.0039 btc per share/year and on an open market the shares would be valued around 0.0025 - 0.006 if this was the case (And inside that margin exists my break even point)
To gain 3% of the network I assume we need 19,000 chips hashing at 16GH/s per chip. This results in 300TH/s which will for a short time be 3% of the network. If Ken can reinvest 50% and eASIC allows for a quick turnaround for new chips I see no reason 3% cannot be maintained.
What does everyone think about this?
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this is a dumb question but I am shareholder of ActM on BF and with BF closing down I wonder how this will work in future.
Do you already pay out dividends via the public btc address of the shareholders?
dividends are paid to the bitcoin addresses yes. They are direct shares, even though ken refused to call them that, by definition that is exactly what they are since they are no longer listed on an exchange. You could theoretically sell them in an auction like asicminer shares if ken acted as escrow Ken would not have to act like escrow, friedcat used to refrain from being escrow. You would have someone else act like escrow, and all that happens on Ken's end is that you would prove you own your shares via signing the public address and then authorizing that another address is the new owner. |
|
|
|
Ken stated that he has to manually perform a payment for some of the mining equipment into their wallet.
My reading of that is that they are from the initial prototype chips.
Therefore; since the afternoon of 03Nov13 this new extra equipment has mined 6.8882027BTC
Plus the original 2.8 btc payment That makes 9.6 btc |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
