How much will hosting on WA DC be for 6 months for a single SP30?
The cost will be $1,740 if there won't be an additional deposit month needed which i don't think there will be needed if paying for all 6 months. There is also a setup fee required... Forgot. Add $100 for the setup fee!
|
|
|
How much will hosting on WA DC be for 6 months for a single SP30?
The cost will be $1,740 if there won't be an additional deposit month needed which i don't think there will be needed if paying for all 6 months.
|
|
|
Does Bitcoin Debitcard change the TA?
|
|
|
Never said there is no demand. There is demand for sure. I don't argue that. I was just asking at what price do you see those chips being sold to miners when they are assembled? Until now nobody answered that even if i seem to get replied a lot.
In that case, I misunderstood you - my apologies. A while back, FC said the chips would be priced between $0.49 and $0.99 per GH. The price of a plug-in-ready miner is anyone's guess, depends who builds it. If they sell chips for those prices then the end price will be higher than 1$/GH for sure and we are back to my posts/questions again. If you expect 109 PH deployed that translates to 109M$ worth of equipment sold to the miners. I just don't see that happen in such a short time.
|
|
|
I just can't wait for another US company and their marketing schemes and wordings. Until now all failed.
|
|
|
And this is not a Group Buy either...
|
|
|
A bit overwhelmed with emails. I am in this deal - but I did not get any e-mail. I checked my spam folder and everything. No e-mail. Should I have received something by now?! E-mail should be there by now, but i asked SP-Tech to resend you the e-mail just to be sure. Double check Junk/Spam folder too.
|
|
|
Having chips but not mounted on boards and either deployed or sold means that 0 hashrate will go online. What are the buyers of the chips doing with the chips if nobody is buying them? Start deploying their massive farms?
AFAICT, you are arguing that there is no demand for these chips from miners. Yet, AM appears to have received the payment for them: this fact unambiguously proves that there is demand for these chips! Can you tell me again how you concluded that there is no demand? Or, in case I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, please repeat it more clearly. Never said there is no demand. There is demand for sure. I don't argue that. I was just asking at what price do you see those chips being sold to miners when they are assembled? Until now nobody answered that even if i seem to get replied a lot.
|
|
|
My point is that it is largely irrelevant at this point from the point of view of AM: AM appears to have collected payments for the chips already, and so the buyers of the chips are the ones taking the risk.
Anyway, my calculations show that this hardware will produce a (significant) positive return, and where there is positive return I believe there will be buyers!
Having chips but not mounted on boards and either deployed or sold means that 0 hashrate will go online. What are the buyers of the chips doing with the chips if nobody is buying them? Start deploying their massive farms? Your argumentation has become pathetic. I am still waiting for some kind of good and well-argumented replies not posts who bring nothing to the discussion. I see none until now.
|
|
|
My point is that it is largely irrelevant at this point from the point of view of AM: AM appears to have collected payments for the chips already, and so the buyers of the chips are the ones taking the risk.
Anyway, my calculations show that this hardware will produce a (significant) positive return, and where there is positive return I believe there will be buyers!
Having chips but not mounted on boards and either deployed or sold means that 0 hashrate will go online. What are the buyers of the chips doing with the chips if nobody is buying them? Start deploying their massive farms?
|
|
|
And after that? I see that there isn't a big grey spike like the last 2 difficulty jumps. I think we are having a temporary cap at 60000 TH/s.
you think, cap at 1000000 Th/s or 1000 Ph/s I said temporary cap.
|
|
|
I don't understand how can you think that we will have 109PH deployed by AM by the end of June. Who will invest so much money?
I don't think the lack of interest in your group-buy accurately reflects the market conditions faced by AM. I assume the chips are already paid for by large AM customers because: (1) the delivery dates suggests that the chips are already ordered (2) fabs are not known for giving generous credit lines (3) I don't believe AM has ~$21.8 million in spare cash lying around (109PH@$0.20/GH wafer cost) to build stock. So to answer the question of "who", suffice to say there appear to be large buyers out there. My group buy has nothing to do with it. Since you haven't red the post that i pointed to i will ask here too. What's the expected $/GH for this numbers? Assuming 1$/GH at system level, that would mean that 50PH=50M$. With the current exchange rate and with the current market i simply don't think that will happen. A lot of people in the Hardware forum are screaming that mining isn't worth anymore, but yet you expect 109M$ pouring in a matter of 2 months. I don't see that happen.
|
|
|
And after that? I see that there isn't a big grey spike like the last 2 difficulty jumps. I think we are having a temporary cap at 60000 TH/s.
|
|
|
...Unless AM manages to produce (and produce for shareholders) borderline immediately their next line is likely going to be about as useful as the cubes.
This is to inform that friedcat met with the board today and provided some updates. Specific Updates ================
Submitted Questions: 1) What is the status, size, and expected delivery of the next batch of chips? What about the one after that? re 1) This month: 850k, next month: 3.35m (order size), June: 6.7m (order size), assuming each chip is 10G.
10.9 million chips @ ~10G = 109 PH/s by June's end. Note: Only ~3 PH/s is scheduled to be retained for self-mining, the rest is to be sold or franchised to interested parties. Still no answer to my reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg6334999#msg6334999 I don't understand how can you think that we will have 109PH deployed by AM by the end of June. Who will invest so much money?
|
|
|
And the Bitfury chip was supposed to be 5Gh.... it's no more of a win than anyone elses has been.
Bitfury was a single-man operation working out of a garage somewhere in Ukraine doing his first silicon. It was already full-custom while the competitor all-star-teams did standard-cell. Maybe it doesn't rate as a big win but could rate as a lowest loss. Certainly the guy gets a medal for testicular fortitude. For me he deserves a medal too and all the respect for the big balls. Why are all you guys refunding?
Which company is trust able and can deliver asic SCRYPT miners this summer other than knc I dont want to risk with knc as they sound shady as hell. Please suggest minimum 150mhs.
People are refunding Neptunes, not Titans. You can't refund Titans.
|
|
|
Could we get a video of the fan noise. Start video, turn unit own, struggle to hear you talk over noise That should be possible -- I now have some more numbers to present: Mode (Web UI) | Performance | In/Out Temp | Power (Wall) ------------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------- Idle | 0 Gh/s | N/A | 35 W 1.00Th / ~720W / ~quiet / 1,39 GH/s/W | 1139 Gh/s | 29 °C / 67 °C | 780- 820 W 1.35Th / ~1100W / ~quiet / 1,23 GH/s/W | 1341 Gh/s | 29 °C / 82 °C | 1150-1200 W 1.43Th / ~1350W / normal / 1,06 GH/s/W | 1412 Gh/s | 29 °C / 79 °C | 1340-1380 W 1.47Th / ~1370W / turbo fans / 1,07 GH/s/W | 1456 Gh/s | 29 °C / 76 °C | 1380 W ------------------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+---------------
The power measurements were done on a 230 V circuit. The numbers for every mode except "turbo" and "idle" fluctuated, so I included the lowest and highest reading. The "average" power draw is somewhere in between. In normal mode, the unit hits the advertised 1.4 TH/s exactly. "Turbo" mode does not give much more performance (about 3,1%), but decreases the temperature by 3°C. The lowest performance mode also gives the lowest temperature, whereas the other quiet mode gives the highest temperature (3°C more than "normal") and a 5% reduction in performance compared to the standard mode. So, as the "quiet" mode does not deserve its name (I would rather call the mode "efficient", as that is what is is - more energy-efficient than standard/turbo) - my recommendation is to either run this unit using the (slowest) 1Th-setting, which will give the best performance per Watt and also a low temperature. Otherwise, one should choose "turbo" mode over "normal" mode because you get both a lower temperature and a bit better performance at only marginal increased power consumption. Thank you for the review too. I was using the Normal mode until now. Will give the Turbo mode a chance too.
|
|
|
Difficulty will change next week and looks like it will be huge.
i think no more than 25% which is not that huge. there are still units which are not delivered yet, real diff jump will happen next 3 weeks time. this will be painfull 25% out of the biggest difficulty yet is something From what i see on BitcoinWisdom it seems that we haven't reached or passed over 60k TH/s so the next difficulty jump after this one might be a very small one. Time will tell.
|
|
|
I still can't grasp my head around KnC's latest sales decisions. Why would you sell now a controller board when just a few months ago everyone would have given everything for them? Same for the upgrade boards. Unless they plan to unload their whole datacenter jupiters to replace them with neptunes. I can't think of any other reason right now. You answered your own question, everyone wanted them, Including KnC. They ran out of space adding modules to peoples hosted miners to run on the side for themselves and then kept all the control boards for themselves and set up a large data center, probably using November boards, which will be dismantled and sent out to the original hosting customers before KNC deploy their 20nm product in the data center, which the probably own a large % of due to refunds, but it's okay because the mining facility paid for that. The number of people that wanted them back a few months ago was very small compared to the number of boards they needed for the DC so i don't like this argument. If they were selling controller and upgrade boards only for their previous customers i don't see how that could impact them so much. Edit: I'm not familiar with what paperwork has to be filled when making a refund for an order that was filled with tax authorities last year. Anyone care to share some details about it? Edit2: On 11 April i made my request and they told me 7-10 business days in the e-mail. If we don't count the Easter Bank holidays then on 29 i'm at the 10th day. Here is the history: 11 April: "Thank you for the update. Your refund will be processed shortly. " 17 April: "The refund process usually takes between 7-10 business days. Our finance department are extremely busy at the moment but we hope that you will be refunded shortly. It seems that mining 300k-500k$ per day can't get you a good finance department.
|
|
|
Ken should never have sold any units to customers until everything was properly in place. Pre-orders have been a disaster both PR wise and complaints that put the company under the microscope.
Even now, things are not in place properly - stop selling products. Just get the mining ramped up, then get the whole order, dispatch, customer services up and running properly before selling any more products to consumers.
Easy for you to say. Hard to do with the bitcoin difficulty going up 15% every 10-14 days. So , Basically the difficulty rise is only for you and not for the pre-paid customers ? Even after knowing it so precisely that 15% is going up every 14 days , you are still not ready to ship and making your customers wait for 25 days ....? Exactly. He has his investors wait for their financial report for 24 days now too.
|
|
|
|