|
An insurance company would have to charge 100% of the value of the investment every 6 months to even break even in this sort of community.
Investments need to be lower risk for insurance to be viable. Or, the insurance company could only offer insurance on investments it deems to be low enough risk to offer viable interest rates on. But then, if the investment is that low of risk, why would anyone need insurance?
Insurance exists to reduce volatility for a fee. Given that we're all quite used to a great deal of volatility, I just don't see it as particularly useful here. Everything that might be considered a high-risk investment among the Bitcoin community is such high-risk as to not be viable for insurance.
On top of all of this, the insurance co would need quite a substantial (proven) backing of capital.
|
|
|
|
Why does it matter?
Doesn't matter that much but it helps managing expectations and perceptions/perceived value. Something BFL could use some more  I still don't see why... as long as the chips meet the stated specs (gimp-binned or not), buyers should be satisfied. What is the practical difference between a "full working ASIC" chip and "dwarfing a chip down" if they both mine at 3.5 GH/s? Why do you care? |
|
|
|
Mark my words. This is a scam.
Are you a GPU miner about to lose your investment? /ontopic I understand the CPU clocking explanations given, but isn't the manufacturing process something that yields predictable results? Ok, let's say there are some rejection rates of ... 1%? I was expecting the jala to be a full working ASIC chip, the Single to be X working chips and so on. The difference in price between them would be from: (++) additional materials used (i.e. fan, more electronic components, more metal in the case) (--) discount from buying "chips in bulk". Not from dwarfing a chip down. Why does it matter? |
|
|
|
This isn't meant to be a dig against Casascius, because he has shown himself to be an upstanding citizen thus far, but I am just curious why everyone so readily trusts him with long-term storage of their BTC? Supposedly, he doesn't keep the private keys for items he has fulfilled, but you can't know that for certain either. He currently holds over $500,000 worth of BTC that, if he had been keeping the private keys, he could simply take and run. http://casascius.uberbills.com/The reason I am asking this is because I am considering purchasing some coins for gifts this Christmas, but something just feels wrong about giving trust of holding my Bitcoins (or those of the people who trust me) long term to a 3rd person entity. So, why do YOU trust Casascius? |
|
|
|
USB power spec is 1 Watt. To get 3.5GH/s the chip would have to master 3500MH/Joule ... this is possible but unlikely.
2.5W for USB 2.0 Was just going to mention that... 500ma @ 5v = 2.5W Extrapolating that, if we assume that a 3.5GH/s chip will take up half of the electricity of a 5GH/s chip (power consumption goes up exponentially with speed increase), then a single would use, at max: 2.5W x 2 x 8 = 40 watts. Interesting... |
|
|
|
there's nothing wrong with that...
...
Only people losing money will be the ones heavily invested in GPU/FPGA chips.
The cheaper they are, the less attackable the network will be!
The more Singles that are sold, the harder the network is to attack. It also makes it harder for someone to justify a $1300 piece of equipment that only makes 0.15BTC a day because the difficulty is so high. The price is going to have to rise for LOTS of ASICs to be worth it. Let's step back a moment and inspect fundamentals. Bitcoin protocol subsidy fundamentals. Securing the network is all well and good, but without facts it means nothing. Bitcoin protocol provides a subsidy to miners to ensure network security. This subsidy, and how exactly how much of this subsidy equates to profits compared to operating costs is available to miners, will dictate how secure (total network capacity) the network will be. An ASIC vendor, post NRE payoff, has a large profit margin. These vendors can drop ASIC pricing tremendously based on miner profitability targets. Those that adopt ASIC sooner, at a higher price point, may be left with longer ROI periods than those that wait to purchase. ASIC vendors will be in total control of miner ROI. They can drop from 1300 USD / unit to 100 USD / unit until miner subsidy is maximally diluted compared to their cost of production. It's a wonderful business opportunity and an insidious profit extraction from Bitcoin miners. I'm so tired of hearing this argument. If you don't think ASICs will make a profit, then don't buy them. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the "votes" guys, I am flattered. I'd like to nominate Fefox instead. I think he'd do a great job, and I wouldn't have to suffer so much jetlag and an expensive plane ticket from Europe.  He's been mining since the olden days when we were using calculators. Now that's hardcore! |
|
|
|
Why not let bitcoin magazine do a write-up?
Yes, please! |
|
|
|
Oh FFS, really? See, this is the kind of shit that makes me not want to even bother at all.
There is, literally, no pleasing people. In the future, when someone asks "Why doesn't BFL provide YYYY information/pictures/stats/specs/etc?", point them back to this thread. No matter what we provide or do, tinfoil hat people will try to drag it down. There's still people that don't believe the FPGAs exist, I guess it should come as no surprise that no amount of proof will ever be sufficient for some people.
Josh, Don't let Reeses ruin this for the other 99.7% of the forumers that have an open mind, and simply desire information regarding BFL ASICs. There is a hunger for a "peak behind the curtain", so to speak, and your idea to have a couple trusted members evaluate the product and BFL operations is a sound idea despite Reeses objections. +1. Also, grow a thicker skin.  |
|
|
|
even if all the orders were true (for example I cancelled one of mein so I'm sure there are more people like me) and the difficulty will go up by around 20x, we will still break even after half a year of running the BFL single. I think that's still an awesome ROI
Difficulty Factor 57282800.0
Hash Rate (mega-hashes / second) 40000.0
Exchange Rate ($/฿) 12.05005
Coins Dollars
per Day ฿0.70 $8.46
per Week ฿4.92 $59.24
per Month ฿21.35 $257.29
What we should be worried about is a post initial delivery flood of ASICs. Consider this. Approx. 3 small time operations, 2-3 individuals each, outside of BFL contributed to FPGA options for Bitcoin mining. Only two of the small FPGA operations will move to providing ASIC products. These small operations will rely on electronics assembly companies to produce units in rather small batch quantities. With BFL having confirmed 22 employees, purchasing PCB SMT assembly equipment typically found in high volume assembly, we must consider BFL's capital and operating expenses, their need to make a profit and what impact that will have on Bitcoin. Once BFL's capital investments are recouped, e.g. assembly equipment and ASIC NRE, BFL will be free to produce ASIC's at an estimated cost of 10-20 USD, including the PCB and housing. Then we should add on operating expenses such as labor, executive compensation, facilities, etc. With all of this in mind the smart miner should keep in mind that Bitcoin is BFL's only market. That said, with BFL's sole profit center being Bitcoin there is a large incentive for BFL to sell as many ASIC's as possible at whatever cost the market will bare. The Bitcoin mining community may be faced with a harsh reality that BFL would be the only party that would make a profit with certainty. *bear But this is AWESOME! I don't know why people are complaining when we should be celebrating. The closer that BFL and the other ASIC providers can get to selling at cost, the better for the community as a whole. If they sell 1,000 singles at 40 GH/s, we have 40 TH/s of protection. If they sell 100,000 singles at 40 GH/s, we have 4,000 TH/s of protection. The cheaper they are, the less attackable the network will be! |
|
|
|
|
+1 to yochdog, trustworthy guy!
|
|
|
|
And a top hat, yes.
I'm holding you to that. |
|
|
|
|
I think this thread would be an excellent basis for a "FAQ" of Bitcoin for newbies.
- How to delete a wallet
- How to start up the Bitcoin client with -rescan
- Why Bitcoin addresses change
- Etc...
|
|
|
|
I was just going to post that link... makes a lot more sense now. I made the comment in that thread that this is not related. Theymos decided in our shareholder meeting on Friday night/Saturday morning to sell his stake. He doesn't want to be a part of the process of GLBSE becoming legitimate. Alright, fair enough. |
|
|
|
I was just going to post that link... makes a lot more sense now. |
|
|
|
Care to disclose your source(s)?
A raw Pastebin link is no source at all.
Just call the dude up if you don't think it's real. He listed his phone #. Here's a copy/pasta: Subject: Bitcoin Securities Offerings (NY-8834) From: Moustakis, Philip MOUSTAKISP@sec.gov The staff of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an investigation in the above-referenced matter. We are contacting you directly concerning your possible investment in Bitcoin Savings & Trust. If you have information concerning Bitcoin Savings & Trust, we would be interested in speaking with you. I may be contacted by this email address or at the telephone number below. Our principal purpose in requesting information from you is to determine whether there have been violations of the statutes and rules the Commission enforces. However, information provided by members of the public is routinely used by the Commission and other authorities to conduct investigative, enforcement, licensing, and disciplinary proceedings, and to fulfill other statutory responsibilities. The federal securities laws authorize the Commission to conduct investigations and to request information from you, but you are not required to respond. There are no direct sanctions and no direct effects upon you for refusing to provide information to us. However, we would appreciate your cooperation in this matter. This investigation is non-public and should be construed neither as an indication by the Commission or its staff that any violation of law has occurred nor as a reflection upon any person, entity, or security. Thank you. Philip Moustakis ∙ Senior Attorney ∙ Division of Enforcement ∙ United States Securities & Exchange Commission ∙ 3 World Financial Center, Suite 400, New York, NY 10281-1022 ∙ (212) 336-0542 ∙ moustakisp@sec.gov |
|
|
|
Who cares? A presidential candidate releasing their tax return? Who gives a shit. Much more important is why companies like GE don't pay any taxes.
Probably a similar reason why 47M people get paid taxes. |
|
|
|
That's assuming all 7000+ orders have been paid for.
If you were to assume that 20% (a rather high percentage) of the orders were unpaid, refunds, etc, it would be ~$7.88 million received. The only thing you're missing is how much TH/s all of that hardware would come to. |
|
|
|
|
I can definitely see this turning in to a proper Onion story.
|
|
|
|
It's a touch over 92mm^2, you should be able to figure out the other dimension from that. That doesn't sound like it's even an inch high! When was the last time you saw a coffee warmer an inch high? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
