https://tradeblock.com/mining/a/4a5ef71725Would others agree that those numbers are somewhat in the right range? I lowered the diff from %32 down to %14. Is the max profit of $318 even in the right ball park? Trying to get a grasp on that SP31. And those numbers don't even include a hosting fee either. If it doesn't work for SP31, it won't work with any other miner in the market. The hash-rate growth will slow down. It must. Buy SP31, host at a low cost facility. No, you're very wrong here, the hash rate won't slow down just because you want it to - it almost sounds as if you're desperate? Bitfury got $20m of funding a few months back, exactly what do you think they are going to do with it? Asicminer seem determined to keep pushing their 40nm mistake and no doubt their disciples will keep buying them in their droves. They'll also be quietly building up their own capacity, (one of their little helpers reckons 60PH a month, ho, ho) although they have a lot to learn about power distribution. Bitmain will sell as many units as they can produce, discount them in a month or twos time and people will continue to buy them because they all hope the BTC value will go up and up. You and I both know that anyone who manufactures hardware will also be mining, maybe not directly with customers machines as in the past, but through 'sister' companies or affiliates or simply bulk buyers. Those entities are quite happy to wait 4-6 months to get returns as they get the hardware a lot cheaper and will keep piling the PHashes on. Then you have the companies you really want to be worried about, the ones who have their own asics and no irritating customers to deal with or support. They don't have to worry about bad press, complaints or the opinions of the numerous 'experts' on the forums. So if I was you I'd prepare my business forecasts for 500PH by December and 800PH by June 2014. Or worse. |
|
|
|
As most of you understand, only low power chips will work this winter and only those who have such chips will do profits in near future.
I would like offer a best ever miner design in exchange for such chip. What I mean of 'ideal miner'. Manufacturing costs for miner will be only around 1/5 of overall price. 4/5 of price will be net cost of chips.
Miner will run at high voltage with great efficiency ~95%.
Miner can work with nearly any chips, but I'm searching for best chip ever.
I have prototypes for different current chip manufacturers, so I can provide proof if needed. Also I have a farm for personal use that employ such technology.
PM me if you have great chips to offer, only with working samples.
Good luck with your venture, but I'd imagine that a company with engineers smart enough to make a chip with this level of performance would also have worked out a design for a cost efficient system. Your pricing ratio presumably doesn't include the costs of PSU's? |
|
|
|
However, we can state this: we expect an ongoing development of the hash rate until the point where the mining hardware cannot mine efficiently even for pretty low energy costs including a deprecation.
I have to warn you that you might be wrong here. I am expecting the hash rate development over the point of power cost-bitcoins produced equilibrium. In the future I see mining operations running on red and paying more for power than the bitcoins produced, but earning from other services. So don't be so sure that hashrate deployment will stop so soon. Spot on, because if miners stop mining then no one gets their transactions verified. Yesterday over 3.3 million bitcoins were sent, if you assume that people will be willing to pay 0.1% of the transaction value then assuming that this value of transactions stays the same, at power parity miners would be effectively competing for 3,300 per day, roughly $1.6m as opposed to the current mining reward of about $1.8m. Still a lot to play for though I don't know how the 0.1% would/could be shared out. And I don't think many would object to paying 0.1%, would they? |
|
|
|
Hello,
we have not disclosed detailed information about our expectations of the hashrate development in we will do so only under NDA since these are business related internal information.
However, we can state this: we expect an ongoing development of the hash rate until the point where the mining hardware cannot mine efficiently even for pretty low energy costs including a deprecation. And we expect to break the 1000 PH/s wall within the next 18 months.
BR
Markus
Markus, I don't mean to be rude but asking for an NDA to be signed is .... crazy. No one on this planet can forecast what the hashrate will be or how the BTC value will behave and I'm not sure why you would not want to give out the information. If you want people to consider investing you have to give them the data on which you have made your predictions. otherwise how can they make an objective decision about whether your plan is realistic or not? The more you withhold this data, the more predictions people will make and that is not going to help you one bit. What I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty is that the 1000PH barrier will be broken long before 18 months from now. Don't know if you read about it but Bitfury recently secured $20m of investment and I'm guessing most of that will be going on building hashing capacity, probably based on their new chip and they'll be riding the profitability wave for at least 6 months before yours starts to get online and reinvesting it in the same manner. (as will others) And of course you must not forget that according to their resident clown, Asicminer are going to 'crush' the competition, (I haven't stopped laughing about that comment since I read it) supposedly with 150PH per month deployed according to another one of their disciples. There's not much sign of that yet but you can expect that a lot of their chips will find their way into the system along with ones from all the other vendors. |
|
|
|
|
Here's the FACTS on MPW.
You buy a 'site' on the wafer and it's cost depends on your chip size. You get charged for a standard sized block, for 28nm it's about $9k per square mm, but you need to buy a minimum size usually in multiples of about 10 mm2. This gets you 100 die.
If your chip is 30 mm2 you need to buy 3 sites. You could then buy a further 3 sites and double up the design, ie get 200 die per wafer. It's expensive to do this for production, but not for a trial run: a full mask set will set you back just under $2m depending on how hard you can negotiate. If you need 1000 chips at 30mm2 then your NRE is roughly 3 x 10 x $9k, $270k for a single site and then you can buy 9 additional wafers, each with 100 die for about $15k each. Your total cost is then $405k.
People do get deals though. Depends on how heavily loaded the MPW runs are.
This aside, I have severe doubts about the viability of their business plan, but that does not mean they should be called scammers.
I also have severe doubts that the sheep who follow the Asicminer banner (and their desire to 'distribute the hashrate' by piling thousands of Petahashes into the network) are living in the same reality as others and while AM is clearly not a scam, their business proposition is much. much worse than what Coinbau is offering.
|
|
|
|
THIS IS A SCAM AS OP IS LYING
The OP stated that he is doing MPW, but he present us a full rack of miners.
MPW will only provides tens of chips, which is not enough for build so many miners.
If the OP is capable of doing a full rack of miners, he must be doing a full mask. he would have been able to produce thousands of miners.
Even if OP has taped out the MPW and get back the sample chips, we are pretty sure that he will scam his minority shareholders without any mercy as he are now using untruthful evidence to attract investment.
In a MPW run you can choose to buy extra sites on the die or extra wafers to get more chips. For a limited production run it makes a lot of sense. Do you really have to adopt this tone and attack a third party when you're own knowledge is clearly lacking? Although I have my doubts about the ability of this company to produce a chip with the power consumption they claim and have concerns about the validity of their business plan I certainly wouldn't call them a scam and I think anyone that does so is either incredibly ignorant or simply doesn't want new companies to get a chance to compete. |
|
|
|
This is a forum for this manufacturer so I don't think it's ethical to quote other peoples work, but if you're curious why not ask some of the current 28nm based suppliers to give some data on what their chips run at in sub threshold? I think you might be surprised. The GH/mm2 is a useless metric in my opinion, the only reason used it was because Coinbau did - you can only base analysis on data a manufacturer gives you.
No offence, but isn’t the GH/s/mm² metric not directly related to the production costs of the pure silicon in terms of $/GH? From my understanding, e.g. somebody who is able to realize 0.19 J/GH @ 0.7 GH/s/mm² in 28nm (instead of 1.4 GH/s/mm²) would have to pay roughly twice the $/GH/s price for the ASIC die. With respect to the main competitor 28nm ASICs I see here a design which will have almost the same $/GH/s price in production (if they could really realize this specification), while only consuming half of the energy. Please correct me if I’m wrong. No, you are quite correct but my point (which to be honest I didn't really make clearly) is that a standard design, which this clearly is from the die size, has no chance whatsoever of achieving 0.19J/GH. I think it more likely to be nearly twice that amount, possibly more depending on the 'cell' library they've used. If it was true full custom, it would achieve 0.19 without difficulty, experienced custom guys could get it down a good bit further, probably nearer 0.13 |
|
|
|
Forgot to add, if we take your 'nominal' chip speed as 100GH/s, as per your website, and your GH/mm 2 (  ) as 1.4, then your core chip size would be 70mm 2, or approximately 79 mm 2 die size, yes? Also means the chip has to dissipate 19W, but that's entirely feasible. For that hashrate versus die area in 28nm, it suggests strongly that your chip isn't full custom at all, it's more likely a regular standard cell implementation. 70 mm 2 gives a rough 'equivalent' gate count of around 115M allowing for your control circuit. Divided that by the 450k gate equivalents needed per pipeline means there are, surpirise, surprise 256 pipelines per chip. To get your 100GH/sec it needs to run at 400 MHz, which for 28nm means you're either being ultra conservative in your chip timing, it's a really bad design - which I doubt - or it's running sub threshold which is absolutely fine, of course, but these calculations are based on standard designs. In short, you're asking your investors to pay for the NRE & production of a chip which on the face of it doesn't offer any real advantage over solutions that are available from competitors. Possibly I'm missing something here? Very nice analysis, seams feasible. Sorry, maybe I missed something, but I don't know a competitor who offers 0.19 J/GH at 1.4 GH/mm2. Source? This is a forum for this manufacturer so I don't think it's ethical to quote other peoples work, but if you're curious why not ask some of the current 28nm based suppliers to give some data on what their chips run at in sub threshold? I think you might be surprised. The GH/mm 2 is a useless metric in my opinion, the only reason used it was because Coinbau did - you can only base analysis on data a manufacturer gives you. |
|
|
|
Forgot to add, if we take your 'nominal' chip speed as 100GH/s, as per your website, and your GH/mm 2 ( ) as 1.4, then your core chip size would be 70mm 2, or approximately 79 mm 2 die size, yes? Also means the chip has to dissipate 19W, but that's entirely feasible. For that hashrate versus die area in 28nm, it suggests strongly that your chip isn't full custom at all, it's more likely a regular standard cell implementation. 70 mm 2 gives a rough 'equivalent' gate count of around 115M allowing for your control circuit. Divided that by the 450k gate equivalents needed per pipeline means there are, surpirise, surprise 256 pipelines per chip. To get your 100GH/sec it needs to run at 400 MHz, which for 28nm means you're either being ultra conservative in your chip timing, it's a really bad design - which I doubt - or it's running sub threshold which is absolutely fine, of course, but these calculations are based on standard designs. In short, you're asking your investors to pay for the NRE & production of a chip which on the face of it doesn't offer any real advantage over solutions that are available from competitors. Possibly I'm missing something here? |
|
|
|
Hello all,
There have been some questions concerning our technology and why we are able to realize a power efficiency others can't. It's time to answer them:
Our hashing core is a fully pipelined architecture whereas our key differentiator is a very area efficient custom pipeline implementation which we developed within the last 6 months based on a so called cell based design approach. We combined standard cells with custom optimized complex cells which save area and power.
Our high density core enabled us to realize much more hashing cores on the same silicon area, running at quite low frequencies. The low performance requirements of a single core allow us to apply an ultra-low supply voltage, which is much lower than the standard at this GLOBALFOUNDRIES 28nm process node. Therefore we optimized and re-characterized our in-house standard cell library for such low supply voltages. To ensure that this will work first-time right, we developed the complete concept of this ultra-low voltage design in close cooperation with the GLOBALFOUNDRIES design enablement team here in Dresden, which has detailed knowledge of the selected 28nm technology produced here in Dresden too.
Our unique design achieves in nominal mode 1.4 GH/mm² and 0.19 J/GH. However, similar to other hardware providers, we can change the frequency of the hashing cores in a high performance mode realizing 2.1 GH/mm² at an energy consumption of about 0.29 J/GH.
If there are any questions to be answered, do not hestitate to ask.
Best regards,
Markus
Much though I hate to sound like a party pooper, running in sub threshold mode is nothing new or innovative, it's an idea that's been around for decades and used in many commercial chips. It's the basic principle used in the Bitfury asics. Low energy useage is fine, but it slows your system down considerably. To get the highest hashing speed (and hence earnings) if you're getting cheap energy then it makes much more sense to go faster unless your hardware is very cheap. Your own figures show that for a nominal die size you would need 1.5 times as much area to get the same hashing speed per second in nominal mode versus high performance mode, and so it would take the same amount of energy except you need to buy more die space! |
|
|
|
It is already Easter. 51% or more owned by Bitfury... we are all at risk. Unless you can get hash power in the hands of millions asap then the only hope to spread the network would be China and a variety of fabricators and massive mining farms. How SPTech reacts moving into 2015 will be important if diversity actually happens. "YingFei still takes time playing the role of a miner by managing Bitmain's own 3000 kilowatt solo mine."Psst... SPTech doesn't have a 3000 kilowatt farm. That above is just 1 player in China and 1 mine, there are plenty of others chomping at the bit to get their mines up and powered with the most efficient chips. China is a very competitive playing field within their borders so diversity there, at least for the short term into 2015 is the best option for Bitcoin. I don't think BitFury is trying to kill Bitcoin but they do need the competition. So...... you're saying that there has to be more competition, right? Where do you think thats going to come from? For anyone new to get into this game they'll need a lot of funding and it's difficult to see how they could get it. I think that miners are stuck with what they've got, ie their competitors selling them machines, making large profits on said then using the profit to build more of their own capacity. Its not difficult to see what the end result is going to be. Hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
now, here is a discussion worth having.
Bitcoin is a global money and the more spread that the hashrate spreads, the better - we know it's inevitable that we are going to see the bigger players holding the lions share and what we really want to see and need to see is those bigger players building their mining houses, spread across the world and offering shares/cloud and other community offerings. Spondoolies have already remarked that they are commited to helping spread this as far and wide as possible. I'm a big fan of this IDEA.
Well I never, a turkey votes for xmas to come early. |
|
|
|
|
Very useful information indeed. Thanks for taking the time to share it.
|
|
|
|
|
Why bother re-inventing the wheel, spending probably $3m to get someone to do it for you and missing probably 6-9 months of earnings? It's a no brainer, even with an inefficient solution. With the Bitcoin price rebounding (for now) it looks more and more attractive.....
|
|
|
|
Admins should just close all the unreal threads down keeps the confusion down
Agreed, but let's be honest, we all need a good laugh now and then. Whenever I see a 3 Phase plug now, I start to giggle. |
|
|
|
hello fellas.
myself a IT expert and my friend a expert on programming. builded up an mega bitcoin miner with the next gen asic chips aviable the Nextreme-3!
Miner details :
2250 Nextreme-3 chips @ 20GH each @@ 0,5w per GH
(overclocked and undervoltet!) for the best profit.
total hashrate 45000GH
total WATTS 22500W
(we have connectet it to an industrial power plant, industrial plug included)
the miner ran now like 28houers without an isssue! (2,80 btc already)
we will test it for an week or maybe 2 after everything went smooth we will be building it for the community.
best part is we only spend 14655usd to build it!!!!
more update to come soon!
Very interesting. Mind sharing with us exactly how you produce the low voltage DC to drive the chips? If you've undervolting at, say, 0.5V then you'll need some 45,000 Amps in total. Not quite sure why you felt the need to tell us that the industrial plug is included? |
|
|
|
That's a wise move.
This 'product' is a great opportunity for people to lose their money. At $7999 for 2TH capacity, they will never recover the cost of their contract let alone make any profit - unless Bitcoin increases dramatically in value, and at the end of it they've got no hardware! They could actually buy two of Conterra's Miners (currently at $3499 each) and have 3.2TH, although it's doubtful that they would get any return on those either.
Am I missing something in the equation here? Or does Cointerra think know that their potential customers can't do basic arithmetic?
Fixed that for ya. Thanks. Good to know you've got my back (Jack??) |
|
|
|
I'd actually feel sorry for Hashfast if they published a statement giving a breakdown of how much their directors and senior employees have been paid in the past 9 months - or been given 'loans' and other non-salary benefits - and those amounts were reasonable. Bet we'll never see sight of that. As for offering refund customers chips? The words 'poisoned chalice' spring to mind. Surely if they have a big stock of chips - "tens of thousands" then they could offer them at a knock down price to a Chinese assembler, at $200 each ($1.2 -$1.5/GH as an assembled product) they'd get back a couple of million dollars to help refund their customers and get the company back on the rails. |
|
|
|
|
That's a wise move.
This 'product' is a great opportunity for people to lose their money. At $7999 for 2TH capacity, they will never recover the cost of their contract let alone make any profit - unless Bitcoin increases dramatically in value, and at the end of it they've got no hardware! They could actually buy two of Conterra's Miners (currently at $3499 each) and have 3.2TH, although it's doubtful that they would get any return on those either.
Am I missing something in the equation here? Or do Cointerra think that their potential customers can't do basic arithmetic?
|
|
|
|
im pretty sure there are more efficient way then using air conditioner. Anybody have any idea?
Despite what many people on these forums believe, or would like to believe, the laws of conservation of energy apply to Bitcoin rigs just like everything else. Is doesn't matter if you use water cooling, forced air or immersion baths, if your kit consumes 10kw you have to get rid of that 10kw to an external sink, be it air or water, somehow. The heat stays, no matter what you do to it unless you use thermoelectric devices, and they're not very efficient. If you have a flowing river outside, then it can carry away a lot of heat, but the environmental authorities might have something to say about that, can you imagine the public outcry once they realise how many gWh of power are being used for Bitcoin mining? (Currently load is approximately 720Mw - enough for 50,000 homes.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
