There is no legitimate business that give investors a 500% return in one year, apart from PONZI SCHEMES ->
Some one bought bitcoin last summer now have a 2000% return in one year, in bitcoin's world everything is possible, that's why such kind of venture exists, Wild Wild West  The point is you cannot project an "expected yearly return" by investing in BTC. On the contrary you can project and advertise an "expected yearly return" for a mining venture, obviously aprox. because there are many uncontrollable variables (it would be much more reliable an estimation for the first 3 months), but the big problem here is that cloudhashing is blatantly lying and advertising utter bullshit that won't happen. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry guys, back to reality - most important question now is: have they already ordered the chips? Do we have an ETA confirmed by the fab?
As titomane said a few posts ago, those fabs do not hurry up for any customer - lead time for the chips will be anything from 8 to 12 weeks, and we need to assume 12 weeks to be on the safe side. I know how that huge businesses work - if they need to delay your order, they do, and you just can't do anything about it. This happened to Avalon too, just check what he said on his conference talk.
If KnC did not place the order for the chips yet, that's something to be worried about.
Please Bitcoinorama use your direct access to them to ask:
- are the chips ordered?
- if yes, what is the ETA confirmed by the fab?
- if not, why? didn't they reach the funding goal they needed for the order? How far away are them to place the order?
|
|
|
|
|
To the winner: congrats for the super cheap Avalon.
|
|
|
|
If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.
If your only reason for posting is for a title, then you're probably part of the problem. No of course its not, but I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the new system; its not representing anything but a random formula that correlates to NOTHING. If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.
I don't get why some of you are so concerned about ranks. I really don't give a sh*t about them. Anyhow, I do acknowledge that many members *do* look at ranks, and for them is much better to have this system. Seriously, if you really care about your rank because you conduct business in here, do you think it's fair that a spammer registered 2 weeks ago has the same rank as a member active in these forums for the last 2 years? I get you are upset because you were "demoted" (LOL) from hero member to a lower rank, but think clearly: if you want to build trust just use the trust system, that's why it's there. You can be a Jr. Member and be trusted because of many successful transactions, so this change shouldn't do any harm to your businesses in here. Now the "ranks" are more accurate, because they represent the seniority of members. And seniority is not achieved by short-term spamming, is achieved by consistent activity over time. I trade a lot and so its vitally important. And although the trust system should be what is used by buyers, 100% its not. Every time I get "I see you're a hero member, I trust you", NOT because I have +250 risked in trust. No buyer actually cares about trust at the moment. All this does is give the old members doing escrow more money. Trust is built with time. People trusting you just for being a "hero" member was a flawed system, and its been addressed. So you think is fair for a spammer registered 2 weeks ago to be able to "avoid" escrow because it has a high post count? That's ridiculous, and BTW you shouldn't base who you trust or not based on their rank, that's ridiculous - and if we want to avoid scams on these forums, nobody should decide who they trust based on post count. I would say that you are angry because you feel that this change is making your businesses a little more difficult - just look at the big picture, think about the forum as a whole, this will give spammers less incentives to spam, and it will make scammer's life more difficult. It's a good change. People will get used to it and will start using "ranks" for seniority, while they will start to use "trust" for considering who they transact with. Much better IMO. |
|
|
|
And then to 50 right?
As I said I believe $50 is going to be the very bottom - and we already touched it the 6th of April. I'd expect revisiting that point during the summer, but nevertheless I acknowledge that every day that passes without breaking $79, this prediction goes further away. Just keep in mind that this game is played mid to long term, and everybody in here is looking at the very short term. I make my investment/trading decisions mid term, most of the times I don't even trade more than once every two weeks. There are times (like two weeks ago) were I feel playful and I do some daytrading, but I treat it much like gamble - as soon as I'm ahead, I quit, and I go back to investing with the vast majority of my position, while I trade only with play money. |
|
|
|
If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.
I don't get why some of you are so concerned about ranks. I really don't give a sh*t about them. Anyhow, I do acknowledge that many members *do* look at ranks, and for them is much better to have this system. Seriously, if you really care about your rank because you conduct business in here, do you think it's fair that a spammer registered 2 weeks ago has the same rank as a member active in these forums for the last 2 years? I get you are upset because you were "demoted" (LOL) from hero member to a lower rank, but think clearly: if you want to build trust just use the trust system, that's why it's there. You can be a Jr. Member and be trusted because of many successful transactions, so this change shouldn't do any harm to your businesses in here. Now the "ranks" are more accurate, because they represent the seniority of members. And seniority is not achieved by short-term spamming, is achieved by consistent activity over time. |
|
|
|
Tipping point approaching, up or down? I'm betting down, I say $100 will be revisited and possibly broken before breaking $120 on the upside. I give it 70/30 odds.  |
|
|
|
This new system is retarded, all it does is demote me significantly for my account not being old. I have high time online, I spend a hell of a lot of time online, I'm active, I contribute. But now I look the same as someone who has posted once every 2 weeks and has 10 posts.... Edit: Not what I meant, see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237597.msg2515986#msg2515986Demoted? You are taking yourself too seriously, man. The new system is sound. People give too much importance to "ranks", and this way scammers cannot quickly spam to reach "hero" status. |
|
|
|
You have nothing to worry if you pay less than 2BTC/GHs (in the case of batch 3 Avalon).
Even with the difficulty rising, you should still have no problem making at least 120BTC in the life span of the machine.
I don't know what other investment can give you that kind of ROI these days.
Mmm... What kind of delay are you considering? If it arrives with difficulty above 35 million it won't break even. That difficulty will arrive in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
Ok, so you were not given a freebie but you are kinda *hoping* for one that may or may not arrive. |
|
|
|
While I won't speculate either way on whether or not these are a good buy, pointing to the likely (much) higher future difficulty is only half of the equation.
A lot of people have already made an absolute killing on bitcoin by mining when others told them they were stupid because it wasn't profitable. A few years ago, when bitcoins cost a couple pennies each, people would run the same numbers and call those that chose to mine incapable of doing basic math.
Don't forget that a lot of people are mining today based on their own assumptions about the future price of cryptocurrency. Sure, the math doesn't look great based on ~$100 per BTC, but what is you assume bitcoin goes mainstream and hits $1000/BTC in a few years? There will only ever be 21 million coins, and it bitcoin becomes say, the internet currency of choice, then $1000 per BTC is quite a low estimate.
Don't forget that the USB miners are priced in BTC. If bitcoin becomes the internet currency of choice and goes to $1,000, then you would have been better keeping the 2BTC that the USB miner costed, instead of spending them to get back 1.5BTC after 2 years. Pretty basic math. I would say more: even if the miner is priced in fiat, I always calculate how many BTC I can buy in that moment with that amount of fiat. I decide then if I believe that the miner will generate more than that: if it's the case, I will buy the miner. If it's not the case, I will just buy the BTC. It seems the only valid logic to me, but I read posts after posts repeating what you just wrote. I really don't get it. Buying a $200 miner when the exchange rate is 1BTC = $100 to get back 0.5BTC is a net loss in my book, regardless of the future exchange rate. |
|
|
|
Pretty little cup forming.
The handle is on the wrong side. The handle is still forming.  I see no handles, only a movement downwards approaching. You need to factor that rpietila sold low and bought high earlier today, that has to mean something  You only see what your fiat wants you to see.  And rpietila is just being rpietila. Mmmm... I always have that doubt. That I'm seeing what my position pushes me to see. But it's not always true. I've been all-in while I was feeling bearish and I was predicting crashes. Now I'm significantly "out" because most of my BTC related funds are tight in mining, so they are unavailable for trading but mining is also a way of being "in", while in "trading" funds I'm 50/50. 50% fiat, 50% on a paper wallet I won't touch no matter what happens. |
|
|
|
I'm the only one feeling younger with this system? And it's a nice feeling  |
|
|
|
|
Domain was registered anonymous.
No names on the site.
Who are you, guys? Care to introduce yourselves to the community?
|
|
|
|
Pretty little cup forming.
The handle is on the wrong side. The handle is still forming. I see no handles, only a movement downwards approaching. You need to factor that rpietila sold low and bought high earlier today, that has to mean something |
|
|
|
Bitcoinorama, no harsh feelings: did you receive a free unit or not?
I guess if they offered it to you they would have asked for you to not disclose the fact, so let's keep it simple for everybody: if they indeed gave you a free unit, just ignore this post. If they didn't, just reply: "no, I was never given or promised a free unit"
I certainly asked them not to ship any early devices to media, bloggers, etc. over real customers, like BFL did. I, like many others, greatly appreciate your report and the time you have invested into it. Can you please answer Rampion's question with a yes or no answer? Did you receive a free or discounted KNC unit of any kind for any reason from any source, or a promise of the same? Your credibility and transparency will be rewarded. Just curious, A.C. ****** He answered not answering. Not everything has to be confirmed in public, he has no obligation for that - just factor everything on the analysis that leads to your own conclusion. I'd like to add that IMO Bitcoinorama posted tons of valuable info for the whole community, and regardless of seeming a little "fanboy" or overenthusiastic at some times the videos and transcriptions are valuable, and both the questions provided by the community and kNC answers have been faithfully transmitted. |
|
|
|
No they won't, and this was obvious from the very beginning.
ASIC being deployed = huge jump in difficulty. Nowadays, if your miner takes more than 45 days to breakeven it will probably never pay itself back. USB miners b/e point was way more than 45 days to b/e from the very beginning, so it was obvious they wouldn't pay for themselves. They have quite an appeal as a novelty product, I would even say that conceptually its a revolutionary product, and that's what people payed for.
Hoping ROI for those was delusional, or pure ignorance.
Nope it was blind greed You can be greedy but if you KNOW you will never get back your money, what's the point? I guess there are also many folks that just wanted to resell them on ebay at a profit, and some of them actually did that. Mining is not a simple business, greed is involved too, so if you are ignorant you may get the math wrong and make an unprofitable purchase just because you didn't understood the math. |
|
|
|
Let's do some math:
~1 GH/s ~= 0.025 BTC per day
1/3rd of 0.025 ~= 0.0075 BTC per day per USB
0.025 * 0.30 == 0.0075
Original cost of 1 USB = 1.99 BTC, let use that figure just to be fair, as this is the lowest price you could/can get it for right now.
At the current diff, it will take each USB 266 days to reach your original investment, not including any electricity that you may have used.
diff is currently jumping 15%-28% each 10 days or so.
Depending on what your cost basis is of your bitcoin, I would say the answer to this question is a resounding no.
15-28% each 10 days the difficulty moves up?!? Are you serious? I thought it was every 4 years. You were very mistaken. Lately difficulty is growing by 15-28% each 10 days. You can pretty much calculate that will double every month and you won't be very far off - and at least you won't be deluded by impossible ROI calculations. Friendly advice: check network difficulty on blockchained.com and bitcoin.sipa.be and never listen to the calculations made by the folks selling the hardware, the bonds, the mining contracts, etc. They need to attract the customer and are almost always misleading as they magically forget to factor the increase in difficulty, or they consider current difficulty speaking of hardware that will be shipped or deployed in X weeks. Just check the latest trend and do the math yourself. |
|
|
|
|
No they won't, and this was obvious from the very beginning.
ASIC being deployed = huge jump in difficulty. Nowadays, if your miner takes more than 45 days to breakeven it will probably never pay itself back. USB miners b/e point was way more than 45 days to b/e from the very beginning, so it was obvious they wouldn't pay for themselves. They have quite an appeal as a novelty product, I would even say that conceptually its a revolutionary product, and that's what people payed for.
Hoping ROI for those was delusional, or pure ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't get the formula: if you post only once per week your activity is lower compared to posting once per day? How is the number of posts included in the activity, apart from having to post at least once every two weeks to be considered active?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
