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. This is not a bitcoin IPO so please don't compare it to one  |
|
|
|
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. That'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. Also the slides show those costs as being CapEx so these are the costs that 21inc has. We don't know yet if they plan to share that with Qualcomm or any of their partners or if it will be transferred to the customers either fully or partially. The $/gh is not important for the customer, but 21 inc. If 21 inc can breaks even with double the $/gh, then their competitors have doubled their money by that point. (assuming they have equivalent chips)
The w/gh is important to 21 inc but only if their plan is not to steal electricity from ignorant users. If they intend on giving their users at least enough btc to cover electricity costs then they are essentially just paying residential rates for electricity while their competitors are paying industrial rates.
I think Jtoomim is right when he said this isn't their real business plan. This is just their plan to suck in the VC money from people who can't/won't do the math so they can produce Intel 14nm chips to put in a massive 20MW datacenter.
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. 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. Big mines will hash only for companies that have hashing power needs for their services. As for their plan to be a lie, well everything is possible. It can be, but judging by the names involved into this project I would like to think that they aren't that stupid to not be able to do the math. They got too far and too big by having damn good math skills, but yes everything is possible in bitcoinland. This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with.
Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use?
I see this as being a different type of advertising/giveaways. And they are creating services/features for bitcoin and they plan to make the masses use them. Their plan is to allow customers to remove ads or to add mobile data to their cell phones with their mines satoshis. They haven't specified if this will be denominated in fiat or if it will be some sort of token based economy like give me 10 satoshis and you have no ads for 1 day which would be totally awesome and groundbreaking. It's not much, but it is a start and it's the most than anyone has ever tried until now. |
|
|
|
Man... that last line aquires a whole new meaning in retrospect.
Those were the fun times! Now we live in the boring times. selling ~550 shares of ASICMINER for 0.055 BTC
Will buy them for 0.0055 BTC after you explain me how do we transfer the ownership. |
|
|
|
Considering their partnership with Qualcomm
We do not know the terms of that partnership. 21.co may use Qualcomm parts and/or expertise, rather than the other way around. Doesn't Qualcomm have a project for self-configuring public wifi routers? That may require some automatic micropayment system, so their interest in 21.co may be about that, rather than mining per se. Who said that Qualcomm is interested in the mining? This is not only about the mining. And yes, in order to integrate and use the micropayment system Qualcomm will put hashing cores into their chips and will try to get people used with the micropayment system so they can use it. Phone chargers sell for ~$2 on Aliexpress so I'd guess they are made for ~$1. No sane company is going to add ~$20 worth of components and an $8 chip.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
You are way off the track. Their plan is to use 35$ chips for USB charging hubs which are more expensive than regular phone chargers. The 8$ chip will be used in routers, gaming consoles etc. They will remain competitive by using the approach of many consumers paying the price who will not care about the double $/gh or the double $/kwh because the amounts are very small for them. We are talking about a few dollars, not about thousands. The difference from utorrent is that the consumers will know while those idiots put it hidden. The claim that the intent is to steal power from the consumers is not mine; it is being made by several people in the forums. I still haven't seen confirmed basic data about the chip: power consumption and hashes/sec.
Someone on reddit who seems familiar with chip design claims that the 21.co chip is 500 mm^2 in area (~22 x 22 mm), which means it cannot be integrated in CPUs etc. If several people claim one thing it doesn't automatically makes it correct! I find that claim to be very stupid. They will not steal the power. The consumers will know about this and it will be done with their consent while they will receive something back. It's like saying that Facebook is stealing our privacy. Yeah right, but we tolerate it and we like it. So that's why I think that this is a stupid claim. There are far more important things to worry about than this stupid steal of power of the stupid ROI from the mining. I've thought this for a while now. However, I focused on devices that are constantly plugged in, and connected to the internet (obv). Any sort of firewall/router/switch/AP could have a 10W chip in them, and no one would ever know. Well, some people would find out, but most consumers wouldn't know the difference.
They will know! It's very easy to monitor the traffic and to see what is going on especially if we are talking about routers. I say it will be done with consent.
They must have mined a lot of bitcoins; but have they kept them, or have they sold them already? They must have sold some of them to pay their bills. If they kept the rest as bitcoins, they must be in very bad financial shape, like other entities that did so (such as the Bitcoin Foundation).
When you get investments "far north" of 116M$ I am sure that you don't need to sell bitcoins to pay for the power. Especially if your plan is to boost bitcoin. |
|
|
|
At alt listers please fill in the info. like the top ten listers. thanks
I will do it in a couple of hours. Do we need to send coins from that address too? Posted: 12m6b5EuGJBRmu588UoypR9HW3CHwfC1GH |
|
|
|
When all costs are considered, electricity from an on-board battery is a lot more expensive than electricity from a wall outlet, and absurdly more valuable for the owner of the device. Therefore, placing miners on mobile devices like smarthphones, tablets, or laptops makes no economic sense.
If I got it right from the picture that I've posted the plan is to directly integrate hashing cores in the chips inside the phone. Considering their partnership with Qualcomm I'm thinking that they can put some hashing cores directly inside the Qualcomm 3G chip so that everything that chip is activated and the phone has internet connection it will also do some hashes. They are not idiots and they will weight the power consumption to be suited to cell phone usage otherwise they are killing their own business. I don't know why everyone is thinking that they will put gazzilions of GH/s with huge power consumption? That would be very retard and nobody would use their devices. |
|
|
|
At alt listers please fill in the info. like the top ten listers. thanks
I will do it in a couple of hours. Do we need to send coins from that address too? |
|
|
|
Do they think all the companies that pioneered mining chips are a bunch of idiots?
Do y'all think Andreessen/Horowitz, Intel and Qualcomm are a bunch of idiots ? They central question here is what do they know that we don't. At this point, I haven't heard any arguments that dissuade me from believing that 21's plans will enable widespread adoption of bitcoin. Whether that adoption results in BTC price improvement remains an open question. That seems to be the trend around here. |
|
|
|
Ok, not 2.5, but 2.3
Currently the most efficient miners are at around 0.5W/GH.
You do realize that might be the power consumption at chip level right? It might be at wall too, but we don't know. |
|
|
|
Unless they make open pool choices, they become number 1. If they don't make open pool choices, they then have to convince everyone to spend that extra $8 initial and $1 per month in exchange for almost exactly nothing in return.
$1 a month might not sound like much, but put another way, who would "subscribe to the bitcoin network" for $12 a year? That doesn't sound like something that can be sold en-mass. They are not advertising it as that. They are betting on the incentive to get rid of ads or buying extra mobile data for their phones and the micropayments. Pay attention please. That's great, for the phone where you get a ringtone out of it. What about everything else? What gimmick do they feed you to double the power consumption on your new wireless router? Do you really think that they plan to sell routers that have double power requirements? I think that you are very wrong. It will be hard to design cases for those routers. They will want to keep this simple so they will add just a few extra W to them. |
|
|
|
The more interesting thing was the 0.22 w/GH 22nm chip, 2.5 times more efficient than the latest generation miners.
If they already have that and are running them they're making good profit.
Another statement pulled out of the ass. you might want to reconsider this comment http://www.coindesk.com/21-intel-bitcoin-mining-strategy/For example, 21 indicated it had been processing bitcoin transactions with what it called the "only chip" built at computing giant Intel’s foundry, touting close relationship with US computing giant Intel.
Intel factories, the documents suggested, were responsible for at least two generations of 21 bitcoin mining chips, a 0.57 w/GH 22nm FinFET chip (codenamed CyrusOne) and a 0.22 w/GH 22nm chip (codenamed Brownfield). I was referring about the 2.5 times more efficient. Sorry for the confusion. |
|
|
|
The more interesting thing was the 0.22 w/GH 22nm chip, 2.5 times more efficient than the latest generation miners.
If they already have that and are running them they're making good profit.
Another statement pulled out of the ass. |
|
|
|
|
I will take: +2.76% to +3.00%
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
If your chips are not revolutionary performers, how does this lead to decentralisation? Those chips spread across 100,000s of devices in the best case still have to compete against the rest of the network running concentrated data centres of the same chips which were deployed for less and have lower electricity costs. Those centralised data centres are going to be able to run harder, longer and more numerously to those devices. And think about it, if you manage to get this into 100,000 products with a 50GH chip, even that is just 5PH. 5. Bitfury has been building ~20PH facilities from scratch for years. So in the best case these decentralised devices (assuming 100% up time) can compete with 1/4 of a single Bitfury facility, or 1.5% of current network capacity.
While its a noble effort, I'm not sure its a shrewd business decision. That said, maybe they have totally different numbers which paint a different story.
If the chips are not revolutionary performers then this will not happen. End of story. But let's not focus on that. If I know that revolutionary performers will come sooner or later I think we can move on from this subject and discuss how will we manage the fact that 21 inc will suck all the newly created coins. Edit: But the extra 8$ for a router will be worth it. If that's their expense and nothing for the consumer then it's damn good!
The consumer still has to pay for the electricity to mine, and only gets a portion of the revenue in return. IIRC it was suggested 25% to the consumer, 75% to them and locked at the chip level. So, mining would be 4x more difficult to operate at 'break even'. That would lead to non critical devices (USB chargers etc) simply being unplugged when not being used. Not this topic again. A 10W increase in power consumption (which I find it huge for small devices) means ~1$/month. NOBODY cares about that. This is a pointless subject. My take is this:
There seems to be two models:
...
If they can get routers that will consume a maximum of 10W per household for bitcoin mining then it's over for number 1. |
|
|
|
I'm suprised they picked a usb charging plug. I really want to see some ROI math on their equipment.
I'm not expecting ROI on any of those but I could be wrong.
It's the best device after a router. The cell phone thing will be done in Phase 3 so no need to worry about that for now. Why are you expecting ROI? This is not about ROI. It's about decentralization. Unless I get it wrong. It would cost 35$ extra to get the device? If yes then it's not worth it. But the extra 8$ for a router will be worth it. If that's their expense and nothing for the consumer then it's damn good! |
|
|
|
Well hopefully we are able to get into the settings and mine on our own pools under our terms or this may end up seriously bad for the network.
Now this is a subject that we should focus on and be prepared for. If they go live with ASICs in routers we will see a major increase in hashrate. How do we handle that? Also how do we handle the fact that 21inc will have most of the freshly generated coins? I'm assuming that consumers will NOT hold their satoshis directly. Their share will go to 21inc and they will have some sort of credit. Having the consumers directly hold the satoshis from the stars makes it very complicated and bad things will definately happen. |
|
|
|
Then what about a whole home heating system made out of asics?
Too complicated for a result that isn't that impressive. Edit:  Taken from http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL |
|
|
|
Thanks vanderghast for putting what I said into different words You're welcome  . Someone had to kill the power usage argument dead. Kept popping up every half hour. Yes that is one dumb argument. I think they will underclock it on these devices, they know battery sensitive devices can't have standard mining chips. We will see .05 w/ghash while only only maybe producing 20ghash or less on these devices, but it will add up if they have 10,000 phones out there.
10k? Maybe millions  |
|
|
|
Thanks vanderghast for putting what I said into different words |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
