Would you agree that LC has the potential to control 5% of the network by the end of the year?
You mean, if they do an armed robbery on Cointerra's assembly house? No, not even then. Them getting 400TH or 100000 of their mystery 130nm chips up and running and burning through at least 1.5MW? Then double that every month for a few months? Nah, dont see that happening either. |
|
|
|
|
They used the fpga to simulate 2 hashing cores. The actual asic will have 360 of those (im guessing three dies on a chip, each die with 120 cores), but obviously you cant cram as many cores on an FPGA as on an asic, otherwise we wouldnt need asics. Its just to demonstrate the RTL and software works.
|
|
|
|
Things are looking up. At this rate it will only take 70 years to break even. |
|
|
|
Slides on easic's website claim that the point where custom asic get cheaper than their nextreme structured asic, is volumes above 300K- 900K chips. Thats a large number for one vendor. You do the math, and tell me if you think its bad trade off in todays market. As for ROI; if you mean from a miner perspective, I dont think there will be any with any of these products. Maybe early KnC orders if the do deliver this week and if the other vendors all slip a bit, but even then I wouldnt be too sure. So yeah, grab some popcorn and keep the coins cold  |
|
|
|
should i feel safe using...BitFunder, Havelock, or CoinBr?
Nope, you shouldnt feel safe at all. Now bitfunder, like BTCT has a system so you that even if it closes, you can prove ownership of the assets you own. So if you trust the asset issuer, and you are counting on dividends rather than short term speculation, closing of the exchange wouldnt be a total loss (id just be very wary of keeping lots of coins on there). But the chance that these exchanges will not face the same fate as GLSBE and BTCT seems very slim to me. The question is more when than if IMO. |
|
|
|
Yes, i agree with that. Probably even more than 50x. But one thing is to achieve that in 2 years, another is to have that in 6 months. If the chips were really that efficient the boost on sales would be huge. (and the price would go down dramatically really fast)
No matter the power efficiency, the speed at which the network will grow before approaching an equilibrium between mining profitability and production cost is only limited by the ability of KnC/hashfast/CT/BFL etc to ship miners. They will sell everything they produce for quite some time, for as long as marginal production cost is below perceived profitability. Its only the difficulty level at which that equilibrium is found that is heavily influenced by power efficiency (and to a lesser degree, production cost). Some numbers and charts here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0And perhaps thats a more appropriate thread to continue this discussion should you want to. |
|
|
|
I think that if either cointerra or hashfast where hoping to get 10Gh with a Watt, they would have told us in each way they could.
If they can really achieve 10Gh with a Watt, my investment will be really bad and current prices are really 50x what they will be 6 months from now, meaning, that difficulty will go up another 50x in the next 6 months.
We are heading towards a 50x increase anyway, even at the current projected power efficiency. Though I am also pretty sure it will take longer than 6 months to sell, produce and deploy all that. |
|
|
|
Except... that is a complete lie.
The difficulty would be in excess of where it is now in February if we had shipped in November, so he'd make less than he's making now.
So this spreading of the difficulty increase, is a customer service? One you intend to repeat for Monarch customers? BTW, its nonsense. Yes its true that had you shipped all your preorders as promised, difficulty would have been a lot higher back then. But not as high as it is now, because avalon, asicminer, bitfury and others wouldnt have shipped as much, nor even sold as much. More importantly, more recent customers would have had more accurate picture of the profitability of their miners. And that would have forced lower prices, but surely thats got nothing to do with world record breaking delays, right? |
|
|
|
what a strange day, i was thinking, that bitfunder could be closed first than btct.co.
That may still become true |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like Phinnaeus has a relapse. Someone call 911
|
|
|
|
we are unable to cancel your current order as we have already ordered the hardware that will be required to assemble your unit.
Sounds a lot like BFL to me... |
|
|
|
They will cost about the same as an electrical heater, and earn you about as much |
|
|
|
Ukyo, what steps have you taken/are taking to prevent a similar fate to your exchange?
First the question is what am I preventing? We do not know the story yet. But on a more serious note, I have been working to get some official licensing. But that is for another discussion. Ill be brutally honest. I dont find your replies very convincing or even credible. Whenever you get challenged on this, you try a clever remark or joke, then boast of having three law firms over the world and working on "getting licensing". What licensing? There is no license to trade in unregulated securities that Im aware off. You think silk road could try to get a license to trade illegal drugs ? Never any specifics or even broadly how you think you could possibly overcome pretty clear regulation. Im not betting a penny on bitfunder being around for long, I just hope when it closes the coins dont vanish with it. |
|
|
|
Value can be interpreted in any way shape and form. Craigslist lists items that are worth in value, all private sales. Indeed. tradable contracts issued again anything of value is a security. That can be gold, oil, bread or bitcoins. Im not sure how you can say that something is illegal when it's not even law. The law doesnt mention rembrandt paintings either, you think that makes it legal to steal, vandalize or counterfeit ? Im not sure what "law" you're referring to. I assume the Securities Act of 1933, which does mention "FOREIGN" Currency. Read the context. The foreign currency swap is one of many examples of objects of the contract. But try reading the rest of the phrase too, like this part: ,he term ‘‘security’’ means any note, stock, treasury
stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture,
evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation . Note the absence of the words coal, corn, dollars, oil. And bitcoin. Doesnt mean it doesnt apply. |
|
|
|
Firstly, I doubt his lawyers would say it was "illegal". No precedent. No law on the books regarding bitcoin and securities. The law doesnt need to mention bitcoin. The law doesnt mention dollar or money either, it mentions "value". For something to be considered a security, it has to be a contract thats tradeable for value. That bitcoin has value is both obvious and established by a court (cf Pirate's SEC trial). Further, you would WANT any litigation because if any federal judge said, this is just a virtual game as BTCT stated in their policy blah blah blah then that would be a win for bitcoin. Something the government does NOT want at all. Thats what Pirate tried and failed. As posted earlier: Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States
So Shavers essentially tried to say that Bitcoin is a bauble and that he was taking in digital points and giving out digital points that had no real world value. The prosecutors at the SEC disagree, arguing that Bitcoins “are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.”
..
the judge sided with the SEC, giving Bitcoin his stamp of approval as real world money.http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/07/federal-judge-rules-bitcoin-is-real-money/ |
|
|
|
|
Refuse the package if you dont want it. If you do sign for it, you will still pay.
And yeah, its likely no coincidence, but when did you guys place your orders? Does it fit with Jody's shipping list or where these also sent out of order?
|
|
|
|
Miners have fucked themselves. Thats quite possibly the shortest yet most accurate description of the current mining market Ive read so far So much for electricity savings of the ASICS and decentralization of the network.
"Electricity savings" per GH is of course still true. But if anyone thought migrating from GPUs & FPGA's to ASICs would lower the overal's networks electricity use, then they didnt think it through. Its quite the opposite: since ASICs are so cheap to produce, the bulk of the miners cost would inevitably shift from hardware purchase / write off to electricity. GPU's and FPGA were never going to become as cheap "per watt" as bitcoin asics eventually will, because they are in demand for other applications. As for decentralization, Im not sure we are headed towards a problem in that regard. At least not in the long run, in the short run it might be possible for someone to grab a non trivial % of the network, but since pretty much all those 28nm chips are primarily being sold to miners, Im not too worried. |
|
|
|
|
Have to say Im impressed by the foresight of already having developed your own exchange as "plan C". Ken may not be a marketing genius, but he is showing something here.
|
|
|
|
Let's be clear about one thing here. ALL of us who used the sites knew (or should have known) that the sites were, at best, in a bit of a grey area. Trying to lump all the blame for that on burnside is totally unfair. If he was naive then so was everyone else who acts all surprised now. I'm not surprised nor do I blame him for what losses I'll make - that's the result of MY decision to 'gamble' NOT his decision to allow me to 'gamble'. I'm mainly grateful that he's shutting down in an orderly fashion rather than the cluster-fuck/theft that occurred when GLBSE ended.
Well put, couldnt agree more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
