On November 1st you had 21 customers. Today you have 32 customers. That's an average of 1.5 customers per month. Impressive. Here's a tip: If you want more suckers I mean customers for your totally legit mining business, you might want to make your business look less like a blatant ponzi. So I just checked their weekly payout and now they are paying to 56 addresses. How amazing is it that immediately after being called out, they mysteriously acquire more customers in the next week than they had acquired over the past 7 months? This scam really is a joke. It almost seems like the ponzi operator isn't even trying. The shill accounts are so obvious, the ponzi is so transparent, and the excuses are so laughable that I'm starting to think this might just be a social experiment to see how naive/gullible some bitcoiners really are. |
|
|
|
If there was inverse "premium" applied to VERY large purchases, it might blunt the impact of large mines. For example:
Buy 1 miner, it costs X.
Buy 5-50 miners and each one costs .95X.
Buy 1000 miners and they each cost 1.2X
I don't think this could actually work, but it would discourage massive mining farms and/or purchases.
Just a random thought.
It should theoretically already work like that.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scaleEdit: After thinking about it further, I really doubt any manufacturer has reached the point where increasing production would decrease the price per unit. Compared to the entire electronics industry, the materials required to produce bitcoin miners are pretty much negligible. (I estimate ~10k bitcoin miners produced per week) Another thought, wouldn't your inverse premium idea just disincentivize decentralization? After all, the manufacturers are the main threat to decentralization, not the people with 1-10MW farms. |
|
|
|
Inefficient/expensive miner in everything = bad idea
Please share how do you imagine a decentralized network. The network seems pretty decentralized already. No single entity is anywhere near 51%. To further decentralization, manufacturers could offer their customers decent rates without outrageous markups. When mining returns decline to non-astronomical levels it might make more sense to focus on sales than self-mining for manufacturers. That could create a situation where access to cheap electricity is more important than access to the cheapest hardware which would allow medium/large scale operations to thrive. I don't see how gimmicks/schemes can further decentralization in any meaningful way. Especially not a scheme that automatically gives a single entity 75% of the hashrate of each device distributed. (assuming they at least give users control over their 25%) |
|
|
|
You cut off the most important part of that quote which is "KnCMiner's stated goal at this node is to increase the efficiency in the mining farms six to eight times when deploying this new mining platform Solar in the 'old' 28 nm farms" I'd think if KNC managed to achieve any impressive specs they would have come out immediately boasting them instead of a "goal". |
|
|
|
IOT = good idea* Inefficient/expensive miner in everything = bad idea *specifically non-21 inc related ideas. Everything I've heard from 21 inc seems like a poorly thought out solution to a nonexistent problem. Thats funny jimmothy. I think IOT is a bad idea and micro-mining is a good idea. IOT is a bad idea because there are significant security issues with existing software and hardware infrastructure that need fixed before we start putting more 'things' on the internet. As an illustration of this thesis, visit DARPA's Cyber Grand Challenge at http://www.cybergrandchallenge.com where they begin by explaining: With the coming advent of the Internet of Things, data insecurity is on track to become physical insecurity. The same code that powers today’s networked computers – code that is routinely compromised by attackers – is making its way into our vehicles, our smart homes, our augmented reality, and our connected culture. This future requires fundamentally new thinking about how networked devices will be defended. Your opinions are contradictory. If IOT devices are insecure, so are microminers (since they are just IOT + bloatware miners). The IOT however isn't the backbone for a multibillion dollar transaction network, so a hack, although might cause inconveniences, is not really a big deal. On the other hand a hack of 21 inc's army of microminers could be catastrophic. I think we can all agree that a hacker is infinitely more likely to attempt a 51% attack than a company who has invested tens of millions into bitcoin/mining. Micro-mining is a good idea because it will decentralize the network, disenfranchise big players like KNC and enfranchise people who don't currently participate. Firstly, 21 inc's plan won't be decentralized. They've already said all the miners will be using their pool. Most likely all btc will be stored on their servers to avoid dust clogging up the blockchain. Secondly, you keep pretending that micromining will somehow remain competitive. Rebranding home mining as "micromining" and unnecessarily adding costs/inefficiencies/gimmicks doesn't magically make it more profitable. As an illustration of how seriously people take this thesis, you need look no further than the amount of money 21 inc. has raised and the quality of their investors. CueCat raised $180 million from equally high profile investors/companies and the end result was "fails to solve a problem which never existed". Sounds exactly like 21 inc. |
|
|
|
IOT = good idea* Inefficient/expensive miner in everything = bad idea *specifically non-21 inc related ideas. Everything I've heard from 21 inc seems like a poorly thought out solution to a nonexistent problem. |
|
|
|
They should make a product for commercial applications too. You can do some decent mining in that setup vs. home. Lots of buildings replacing older lights...
A lot of industrial buildings don't have heat installed but instead use large space heaters, this seems like something that could be replaced by these a bit but it would need a way to spread the heat around. Can we stop pretending this makes any sense financially? I think just about everyone is in agreement that these things will never be competitive and are purely a novelty item for hobbyists/beginners. |
|
|
|
Can you think of a single benefit that comes from combining a light bulb and a miner?
Let's say home miners have two options (both using the same chips):
Option 1: 60W, 200 GH/s lightbulbs for $80 each (0.3 W/gh and $0.4/gh)
Option 2: 400W, 2000 GH/s blade style miner for $500 (0.2 W/gh and $0.25/gh)
In what scenario would it make sense to go with option 1?
quiet comfortable longterm solomining? Solomining with cheaper and more efficient hardware is still a better option. Honestly the spread of heat and no noise seem to be a pretty good positive.
There's no reason a home miner can't be practically dead silent. I replaced the fans on my SP20 and BTCgarden miners and they were so quiet you couldn't here them from more than a few feet away. One that mines gives heat (and hopefully app controlled) would be pretty neat.
A regular miner already gives off heat and can be remotely controlled. Adding a light bulb doesn't change this. If your goal is to recycle heat (i.e. save money), then it would definitely make sense to go with the cheaper and more efficient miner (option 2). |
|
|
|
I am thinking for heating your room honestly during the winter, the ceiling fan should bring the heat down to you and keep it warm and during warm months you can turn off the mining and use just for light. It could be a very nice especially for a bedroom in winter.
Can you think of a single benefit that comes from combining a light bulb and a miner? Let's say home miners have two options (both using the same chips): Option 1: 60W, 200 GH/s lightbulbs for $80 each (0.3 W/gh and $0.4/gh) Option 2: 400W, 2000 GH/s blade style miner for $500 (0.2 W/gh and $0.25/gh) In what scenario would it make sense to go with option 1? |
|
|
|
"Have the light come on when you get home!"
switch by the door DONE. Do you realize how much energy you could be saving by not having to lift up your arm a few times per day? This is a game changer. |
|
|
|
|
You guys realize this is a joke right? Bitfury is obviously taking a stab at 21 inc and their absurd "miner in everything connected to a wall outlet" plan.
|
|
|
|
You just indirectly accepted the fact that they are actually mining.
No I didn't. Because, with 21 base customer and 1.5 customer growth per month, a Ponzi can not sustain for seven months.
They didn't have 21 customers within a week of launch. If that was the case then they would have acquired more than 11 customers in the following 7 months. Most likely they just set up 21 fake accounts so they could create their "proof of payment" page. What they probably didn't realize is that they were really just providing weekly proof that zero of the payouts came from actual mining. Once again, you have been caught red handed for blatant lying.  I'd ask you to remind me of the other times I've "been caught red handed for blatant lying" but I already know that your definition of those words doesn't match the actual definition so I won't bother. I'm honestly not sure why I'm even wasting my time responding to a ponzi operator. It's obvious that with 11 customers in 7 months nobody takes this scam seriously. |
|
|
|
How do you plan on mining without wifi?
And I agree a hardware wallet would be a waste of money, just like this entire idea. Well I assumed that a standard LAN plug would be cheaper to user and less prone to hacking than wi-fi. The idea isn't bad at all. The implementation on the other hand can be wrong or bad. Here's a list of things I really doubt: - someone would waste the time/effort to hack a 21 inc device holding fractions of a dollar - an ethernet port + cable would be less expensive than wifi - people want extra cables running though their house - people want a phone charger that has to be within X feet of their router for it to function From my point of view the opex is non-existential. The capex is very low and we still don't know who will pay for it.
The opex is clearly stated to be 25% of mining earnings. If they plan to give users enough btc to cover electricity costs then it will be 50-100% by time they start mining. At this point I can easily ignore the 35$ USB charging hubs. I don't like them so much, but the routers and mining cores into regular chips seem a very good idea with minimal capex. I actually agree with you on this one. I wouldn't say putting mining cores in regular chips is a great idea, but it's definitely not absurd like putting chips in a toaster/phone charger/microwave/etc. Again wrong. How on earth can you compare the capex of these 2 situations? Any large player that wants to deploy much hashrate must invest into a good datacenter and into all the required infrastructure which means power and cooling. That adds up fast in terms of capex while having "miner in everything connected to a wall outlet" makes those datacenter costs obsolete.
How much do you think that a 100MW datacenter would cost to be ready for miners deployment? I think that the costs to have 500MW ready for miners are less than the costs directed towards "miners to all" program.. Based on my research, I'd say ~$60/kw for a Bitfury style "hashing center". (including everything but the miners) Step 3 from their plan indicates 0 capex  Which is as misleading as their "zero opex" claim. Qualcomm isn't just going to give them silicon space for free. Well I don't have all the answers, but I'm not rejecting everything from the start just like you do. The problem here is that you are completely ignoring/rejecting this while I'm simply stating that there is always this possibility. We are not business man so it's a bit hard for us to think of such services, but I am 100% sure that there is at least one "various service that derives from mining". Back in the '80s or '90s the services derived from the Internet were very small and look at today's situation. There are tons of services that derive from the Internet which were something unimaginable in the '80s or '90s. The same can be applied to Bitcoin.
I'm open to the possibility that 21 inc does this in a successful/non-scammy way. I completely reject your theory that miners will continue to mine past the point that revenue < opex and that there is some mystical service that can somehow make unprofitable mining profitable. Your analogy doesn't really make sense because internet providers have always had massive profit margins not negative ones. Friendly bet of 0.1 BTC that we will not see any class action lawsuits in the first year after these devices are being put up on the market? Maybe if we get any solid info on the hardware/plan, but not now as it's all conjecture based on rumors. |
|
|
|
Well I don't see wi-fi as being mandatory and also a hardware wallet in every usb charging device would be a waste of money. I don't know what tthe $35 capex means. We'll have to see.
How do you plan on mining without wifi? And I agree a hardware wallet would be a waste of money, just like this entire idea. Building it now wouldn't make any sense, but deploying hashrate in millions of households makes much more economical sense. You and s1gs3gv keep asserting this but you never provide any evidence to back it up. Let's see some math that suggests it makes more sense to go with the plan with double the capex and opex. The only way I can see it making sense economically is if they rip off their customers. Mining must be decentralized with having miners in every home, otherwise we will be in a constant fear of an attack. If one party can afford cost efficient medium/large scale operations then it means that some other malicious party can also do it and that's obviously a bad thing.
The major flaw in your logic is the fact that these devices will not be controlled by the people whose electricity they are stealing. They will all be controlled by 21 inc, mining on 21 inc's pool. If mining is so decentralized that we have a miner in every household then no malicious party can join this. If KnC (a company that exists since 2013) can afford a 100MW datacenter then I am sure that Goldman Sachs can easily deploy 10x 100MW datacenters if they really wanted to do damage. You've got this completely backwards. I'm sure you know that the only way to combat a 51% attack (other than a hard fork) is to add more hashrate. If the capex for a cost effective datacenter is half the capex of their "miner in everything connected to a wall outlet" plan, then they can deploy twice as much hashrate if they go with the cost effective datacenter. Wrong! There can be a situation where everyone or most of them can mine at a loss. They can mine at a loss as long as they can get the money from other various services that derive from mining. It's like paying for Internet. Nobody has a direct revenue from paying their internet subscription, but they can generate money from various services that are possible with the help of the Internet.
What "various services that derive from mining" do you speak of? I can't wait to here this one. I am sorry, but nobody cares about an added yearly cost of 20$. Maybe some people in Africa will care, but other than that nobody cares. Also $20/year seems a pretty big amount. My view is that this cost will be lower than 20$/year.
You really don't think people would care when they figure out their $2 phone charger actually cost them $60 over the past 3 years? Then they figure out their toaster, xbox, refrigerator, and electricity meter cost them another few hundred dollars? I think we could be seeing some class action lawsuits if 21 inc isn't careful about how they market this scheme. |
|
|
|
There's just no reason to keep adding hashrate once the mining revenues are less than operating expenses.
The times they are a changing jimmothy ! They really aren't. Mining has shifted from home miners to more cost efficient medium/large scale operations over a year ago. Most people saw this coming but it seems a few are still latching on to the dream of having a miner in every home. As the fiat value of bitcoin converges on the cost of production profitability will trend to zero and people who might consider mining will find more profitable use for their assets. Additionally, as block rewards halve and halve, its unlikely that the transaction fees will cover mining costs. I don't think you fully grasp economics or game theory. 1st of all, transaction fees are already 0.5% of the block reward. As time goes on and bitcoin grows, so will the sum of transaction fees. (I expect the value of transaction fees in 10 years to be far greater than the value of block rewards today) 2nd, there will never be a situation where EVERYONE is mining at a loss. If bitcoin is unprofitable for everyone, it will just drain money from the mining companies until one or more of them drop out, which will in turn decrease the difficulty and make it profitable once again for the most cost efficient operations. I use the term 'large scale' because i suspect in jimmothy's example the large scale operations are the most efficient and therefore likely to be the 'last man standing' in the mining world, pre micro mining.
We've already passed the home mining stage. Rebranding home mining as "micro mining" doesn't suddenly make it viable again. 21 inc or another company will find a way to add value to micro-mining such that the retail user won't mind the small increase in operational costs of the devices so yes that might be one way in which the network is subsidized. Instead of asserting this as fact, how about explaining why? You haven't really provided any arguments as to why this will work other than that it's technically possible. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it makes sense to do it. Outside of bitcoinland, nobody cares about earning 10 cents worth of internet money which they can spend to block 5 ads. They will however care about their appliances wasting $20 worth of electricity per year. But I think if bitcoin actually succeeds we'll see 'equal access' provisions enacted similar to those for phone, electricity etc and the subsidy will more likely, or additionally, take the form of actual small recurring charges on a utility bill, perhaps payable in satoshi Smiley
And the block chain and network will become effectively a public utility just like electricity, water and gas and provide equal access to the financial system for the world community. Can I try whatever you're smoking? Must be some good shit. |
|
|
|
Personally, I'd conjecture that at some point in the not too distant future bitcoin mining in any way, shape or form is unlikely to be profitable (as measured by the fiat value of the coin produced) and maintenance of the network will become an obligation of the state for the sake of 'the public good' and will likely be subsidized by taxes or fees on our utility bills similar to those which already exist for different reasons.
If we reach that point I think I'd dump 99-100% of my bitcoin holdings because it would be clear that bitcoin is a failure. (Or in need of some drastic core changes like switching to POS) However I don't think that will ever happen because there's never been a point in bitcoin mining history where mining wasn't profitable for the most cost efficient operations. There's just no reason to keep adding hashrate once the mining revenues are less than operating expenses. |
|
|
|
On November 1st you had 21 customers. Today you have 32 customers. That's an average of 1.5 customers per month. Impressive. Here's a tip: If you want more suckers I mean customers for your totally legit mining business, you might want to make your business look less like a blatant ponzi. |
|
|
|
Qualcomm will never do this unless they want to destroy their name brand in the name of a retarded experiment where their users can earn fractions of a penny over the lifetime of their several hundred dollar devices. Qualcomm has absolutely nothing to lose. Bitcoin mining is an embarrassingly parallel job and it's very easy to add some hashing cores to any existing chip with no added cost to the manufacturer (except the design cost) or to the customer. The hundred dollar devices aren't hundred dollar devices because of the added bitcoin mining functionality. It's their normal cost. And I'm assuming you are referring to the gaming consoles because the routers or the printers aren't that expensive. The people buying those devices will not care about how much will the device earn in its lifetime. This was repeated for several times in this topic. You're right, Qualcomm has absolutely nothing to lose.* *Besides millions of dollars, months of wasted time, and their reputationThat's not how I understand it. According to the slides here: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL it looks like the $35 includes a: $10 controller, $5 wifi connector, $5 hardware wallet, $5 case, $2 charger, $8 chip. (numbers obviously made up but you get the point) It doesn't say the $35 is a single chip unlike the $8. Well you got me here. I studied the slides again and I see no mention of a kit that has a controller, wifi connector, hardware wallet and so on. Please show me or explain me how did you got to that break-down. How could a "usb charging hub" miner work without all of those components? What else could the $35 capex mean for the USB charger? You got it wrong again We both know how big is the bitcoin mining market or at least have some idea. We know the estimate of how many players are, how much money do they have and how much are the willing to invest/spend at these prices. If you take them and put them in direct conflict of interests with the masses it's clear that the masses will win. If only 10% of s1gs3gv's prediction will materialize then those that you are talking about have no chance. His prediction is " .05w/ghs. So, ten watts would be 200ghs per meter and 250 million electricity meters would be get you, umm … 50 ehs (exa-hashes/second)". Let's say we have only 25 million households for a whooping 5 EH/s. There is no direct competitor for those hashrates. Right now we are mining at 50Ph/s and we all know the hassle to get to this point. Pseudo-economics at it's finest. You've completely ignored the main point which is that there will never be a scenario where it makes sense to double your capex and opex without increasing revenue. Saying "well if they sold 10 billion toasters using chips that use 0.001 w/gh they would have 100 zetahash" doesn't make their plan any more economically viable. Do you think big mines can expand that much? I don't think so because it will be very hard to gather all the money and to setup the power requirements while having this decentralized mining power is very easy to setup and to maintain. 5 EH/s at 0.05 w/gh is 250 MW. KNC had plans to build a 100 MW datacenter and Bitfury built a 20 MW datacenter from scratch and had running within weeks. Do you think 21 inc could install millions of miners in electricity meters/usb hubs/xboxes within a few weeks? I don't. |
|
|
|
How can I obtaine shares of 21 inc ? thank you
Unfortunately you can't, but there is an alternative that will yield similar results. Just make sure your money is in cash form, find the nearest toilet, insert money, and flush. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
