Avalon, Bitfury, and ASICMiner may launch chips using a smaller process in 2014 but 28nm is cheaper than 20nm.  Who would want to buy MORE expensive chips.  I think people just assume 20nm = cheaper than 28nm (or x < y using any two process nodes).  That isn't true.  Take a look at NVidia's chart for each process there is a date where the smaller process became more cost effective then the older one.  That doesn't occur the day the process is available.   In 2015 20nm will be EXPENSIVE more expensive than the more mature 28nm tech.  The only place where it will make sense is products where power usage & heat are more important than raw computing power.  Can you think of any products made by Apple that might fall into that category?

KNC said "2nd gen" they never said it would be a smaller process.  That is just an assumption being made.  If 20nm is more expensive per transistor and requires NRE why would KNC be launching 20nm tech?  Their customers want to pay more for less hashing power and have to wait for development relative to the highly available (in 2014) 28nm tech?

Avalon & ASCIMiner will likely launch 55nm or better versions in late 2013.  If they don't they might as well get out of the business because they will have no customers by 2014.  Bitfury is kinda an unknown.  For 55nm their tech is pretty friggin good, it has higher efficiency (MH/W and MH/mm^2) then KNC 28nm chip (based on pre-announced specs by both companies). It may simply not be worth the NRE to jump to 28nm if they can compete at 55nm.

Of course they can, it is right in the photo of the address label and available from any online shipping outlet, no guide necessary.

I think you are confusing "what is technically possible" with what is ECONOMICAL.   The price per transistor for 20nm is projected to be HIGHER than 28nm through 2014 (and possibly 2015).  That means same design, same efficiency, die shrinked down will be MORE EXPENSIVE (MH/$) than 28nm.  That is before you consider the new multi million dollar 20nm NRE which will have to be ammortized over the initial chips.


Once again since this doesn't seem to sink in (look at NVidia chart).  New tech generally has a HIGHER cost per transistor for a couple years.  That means Avalon dumping millions into 20/16nm would be an idiotic move.  It would allow them to produce chips which cost them more (MH/$) than it cost their 28nm counterparts.

Bitcoin tech will move to 20nm when the cost per transistor is CHEAPER than 28nm.  The bad news (see NVidia slide) is that there have been two trends in the last decade.  The first is that the TIME since process node is available until it is mature enough that is is CHEAPER is taking longer and longer with each process node shrink.  It initially was 1 years then became 2 and now is looking more like 3 to 4.  The second bad news is that even when mature each node is showing a smaller and smaller gain on the prior node.  Look at the difference between 80nm and 55 nm lines around 2011, now compare it to 40nm and 28nm around 2013.  Now look at the future proposed price improvements.

A 20nm chip would have to be significantly cheaper per MH/$ in raw cost so that it can absorb the increased NRE cost and the increased risk.  Just because 20nm is "available" doesn't mean those conditions apply.  2015 is conservative.  It might be 2017 or 2018 before those conditions apply.

Exactly.  I am not saying 20nm is impossible but for it to make sense with Bitcoin it would have to have a lower cost per transistor than 28nm that isn't projected to happen until 2015 or later.  Even when the cost per transistor reaches parity with 28nm you still have the issue or a brand new NRE.  The cost will need to decline substantially so that even with NRE 20nm is cheaper to make than 28nm.   That isn't happening in 2014, maybe 2016.

20nm being "available" means nothing if it can't be priced under 28nm miner tech.  Nobody is going to pay a premium on new miners when ROI% are stretched out to 2+ years due to massive over capacity just to be cutting edge.  Proven, highly available, "good enough", and cheap 28nm will be the name of the game for 2014.

Not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing but given no Bitcoin ASIC company is on the same scale as Apple and Apple isn't looking at volume 20nm shipments until end of 2014 it kinda shows how far out 20nm is right now.

Um you do realize bitfury is making (and selling) their own chip.
They designed their own ASIC and are using those to build out their own mining farm and sell to customers via pre-orders.

So there is bitfury the ASIC and bitfury the private mining farm using the bitfury ASIC.  There are also at least 4 resellers selling rigs based on the bitfury chip.

Ouch.  The break even difficulty and hashrate would be 1/3rd of what is listed. 

The economic brick wall is 28nm.  20nm is beyond rediculously expensive for anyone who doesn't know their own fab (Intel, Samsung).  Nobody is predicting high availability or decent prices of 20nm wagers from any foundry in 2014 either. Nobody (not even Intel) is using 14nm yet, the technical challenges of 10nm haven't even been addresses.   Still even if 20/14/10nm is techincally available what matters in mining is the cost per hash and Bitcoin mining is almost perfectly parallel.  This means a 20nm chip is going to cost MORE than a 28nm one (everything else being the same) until the cost per transistor is lower on 20nm then 28nm.   Usually that takes 2-4 years from process start and it is taking longer and the end benefits are getting smaller (higher NRE, more delays, more complexity, more yield issues, and overall a shrinking gain on the prior process node).  So 20nm SHA-2 ASICs probably won't make sense even in 2015 or 2016 and 14nm isn't even on the map yet (2020?+).



That means for the convieable future 28nm is as good as it gets.  There may be more efficient 28nm designs but that would mean a brand new NRE cost and it would have to be a lot better to make sense (i.e. a company's new chip would need to be so much cheaper (MH/$ and MH/W) that even after a share of the NRE it added it is still a better deal that then existing design).  It remains to be seen if that will happen.  Regardless once everyone is on 28nm and shipping in volume, the market will become highly saturated and mining margins will be a small percentage over electrical cost of the most efficient miners.  Have a less efficient miner, have higher than normal electrical costs, paying for expensive datacenter space expect it to only be a question of how long before your net operating margin goes negative.  Really no different than GPU mining.  Those with excessive electrical costs or poorly though out rigs could only profit marginally when the price/difficulty was high and when it tanked they had to idle or mine at a loss.

It is useful to know what the electrical break even difficulty of a device in estimating future hashrate growth of the network.  A miner is unlikely to continue to mine for any extended period of time at a negative operating margin.  The break even difficulty is the point where the electricity consumed by the mining equipment equals the value of the coins mined.  At the break even point it will cost the miner the same amount to mine a coin as it would to purchase it.  The hardware cost is not considered in the electrical break even point as once purchased the hardware is a sunk cost and the miner is very likely to continue mining as long as it shows a positive operating margin  (electricity < value of BTC).  Just because the difficulty is below the break even point doesn't guarantee the miner a positive return.

The electrical break even point is based on three factors:
a) the current exchange rate (USD per BTC)
b) the price the miner pays for power (USD per kWh)
c) the efficiency of the mining hardware (J/GH)https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/smflogo.gif

Electrical break even point by hardware efficiency
Based on $100 BTC:USD exchange rate and $0.10 per kWh electrical power rate

Update (05/25/2014):  I no longer have the time to research every new ASIC device.   I have not seen a device that is significantly more efficient than 0.8 J/GH (at full clock) when measured at the wall and multiple devices have real world efficiency within +/-20% of that spec so it is a good place to start estimating difficulty. Remember miners are paying for full power consumption not just the power of the raw chip.  The at the wall measurement is the only thing that matters.   More efficient designs may eventually emerge but the low hanging fruit is now gone.  If less than a year efficient of best device went from >8 J/GH to <0.8 J/GH.   We aren't going to see a 1000% improvement in efficient in the next year.  Even a 0.4 J/GH device (at the wall) would be an impressive improvement but only represents a doubling of the break even point.

To calculate the break even difficulty at a different exchange and/or power rate use the following formula:
Examples:

Why J not W?
Because J (Joule) is a measure of energy and W (Watt) is a measure of power.  One Joule per second is one watt.  You can't compare watts (energy over time) to a timeless value like Gigahash.  Efficiency can be measured either in W per GH/s or J/GH bu not W/GH.  It would be like saying a car gets 30 MPH per gallon or the spot price of gold is $1500 per ounce second.  You can safely assume is someone writes W/GH they mean J/GH (or W per GH/s).  I put this here because I have already gotten "corrections" by PM.  Simple version: W per GH/s or J/GH are correct, W/GH is not.


Why did you make this?
I find it silly people have projections with difficulty going to 1 trillion or more (I think the highest I have seen is 200 trillion). At a mere 300 billion difficulty all current and proposed mining devices would be operated at a significant loss (assuming $100 exchange rate & $0.10 electrical rate).  So at 1 trillion in difficulty even a Cointera rig would be converting $4 in electricity into $1 in Bitcoins.  Anyone think that is likely?   Significantly higher difficulty is going to require either more efficient hardware, a higher exchange rate, or the average cost of power for the network to decline.


Notes:

[1]  Numbers used are from mining hardware comparison where available or based on benchmarks reported by owners/manufacturer.  For apples to apples comparison all units are based on wattage at the wall (including all system power and inefficiencies).   For devices where total wattage at the wall is unavailable it has been estimated.   For unreleased devices ("specs") the efficiency reported by manufacturer is used.  

[2] Cointerra did not provide system efficiency "at the wall" however did indicate that chip wattage would be better than 0.55 J/GH, based on that I project the at wall efficiency to be ~0.7 J/GH.  Updated to 0.6 J/GH at the chip and 0.75 J/GH at the wall based on official statement.  This is based on the following assumptions.  Chip power: 0.60 W per GH/s * 2000 GH/s = 1200W @ 0.785 VDC.  DC to DC board PSU 90% efficient 1200W/0.9 = 1333W @ 12VDC.  Balance of system controller & cooling/fans = 50W @ 12 VDC.  Total system DC wattage 1383W @ 12VDC.  ATX PSU 90% efficient 13832/0.9 = 1537W @ 120VAC.  1537W / 2000 GH/s = ~0.8 J/GH.

[3] Updated to 1.1 J/GH (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=170332.msg3307091#msg3307091). 455W @ 1 VDC running at 502 GH/s.  Assume 90% DC to DC conversion and 90% AC power supply efficiency results in estimated 560W at the wall.    

[4] The Monarch card is reported by BFL to use 350W.  It is not clearly indicated if this is 350W at the chip or the card but I will assume the 350W is the total 12VDC wattage for entire card (to include one or more ASIC processors, host interface, card fan, and DC to DC board PSU.  The balance of system is provided by the user so some assumptions are necessary to estimate efficiency at the wall.  To be used in a PCIe slot the card requires a "traditional motherboard" with one or more PCIe slot, 100W min is assumed for system and fans.  Total DC wattage for single card system is 450W DC.  Assuming a 90% efficient ATX PSU 450W DC/0.9 = 500W @ 120V AC.  500W/600GH/s = ~0.8 J/GH.  Actual wattage may be significantly higher depending on the components selected by the user.  

[5] Given BFL's delivery track record and after the fact changes I don't feel comfortable making any prediction.  I would recommend users be very conservative and pad the delivery timeframes provided by BFL.

[6] Due to multiple configurations power efficiency varies by number of modules, batch version, and PSU efficiency.  The following efficiencies have been reported 9.4 J/GH (66 GH/s @ 620W), 8.8 J/GH (85 GH/s @ 750W), 8.5 J/GH (82 GH/s @ 700W).

[7] Based on reported efficiency at the wall of less than 350W and nominal performance of greater than 400 GH/s of the BabyJet with single hashing board.  

stamps.com was just an example.  One can use USPS website as well.

I think there may be some confusion.  I looked up the consdenders made by dudadiesel and they are liquid to liquid.



In open batch immersion cooling the primary working liquid (Novec or Flourinert) boils and the gas rises.  It isn't piped anywhere it just rises until it contacts the "cold" (cooler than boiling  point) condenser which causes it to condense, and "rain" back into the batch as a liquid.   I guess I am missing something or you misunderstood.

Not sure what the secret is?  I used the same address the OP provided as an example and got the exact same price with the same "E-DelCon" tracking.  I guess the "secret" is to use any "click to ship" software available from any vendor and just select the mail service you want.

The claim that it provides delivery confirmation anywhere in the world is false.  Not all international post offices return delivery data to USPS for 1st class mail.  USPS can only report what they receive from the destination post office.

http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immc2_022.htm

Delivery confirmation on first class packages are available for 14 countries, not "anywhere".  There is no secret you just use click and ship software (like stamp.com, or USPS website) and select first class package as the mail service if you are sending to one of the 14 countries.  If you aren't well you need to find other options because contrary to OP claims there is no delivery confirmation to countries not on the list in the link.

If the price of coins doesn't go back up then any future coins (bought or mined) share the same lower value.  Mining isn't better (or worse) in that respect.
All that matters is value of miner in BTC vs amount of net BTC mined (gross BTC mined - electrical costs) over the lifetime of the rig.

If you buy a 10 BTC rig and it generates a lifetime revenue of <10 BTC you are worse off than if you just bought coins.  As others pointed out in the thread there are non-ecnonical reasons why some may choose to mine at a small loss (anonymity, help decentralize the network, hobbyist/experimentation, etc) but that doesn't change the black and white of a loss vs profit.

Denial is a powerful thing.  Customers who contact FTC or Attorney General have a reasonable chance of getting their money back.  It is a pretty open and shut case.  Under UCC a "sale" is when customer is shipped the product in exchange for payment (or promise to pay -aka purchase order).   For customers which haven't received any goods no "sale" has occured.  BFL is perfectly within their right to state "all sales are final" however it is meaningless since sales haven't occurred. 

 Those that do it early are more likely to recover funds as initially it is in BFL interest to make the refund to close the case with FTC as they have no leg to stand on.  As more and more requests pile up though BFL won't have an option as they will reach a point where the amount requested to be refunded is more than they can pay.  So act early and decisively.  Of course that requires the customer to accept reality that they already are a victim looking at a significant loss and their only realistic option to make a recovery is via legal action.  Like I said denial is a hard thing and BFL has that card perfectly. If in Oct 2012 they told people most customer won't get their gear until Oct 2013 the pot would have boiled over,  instead they just stringed customers along making promises that they knew were false, to give customers enough hope that they didn't pursue other options.

They have sold 93% of their initial run in about two weeks.  It seems likely the remaining 7% will sell before the launch without any change in policy.  Why would they change now?  Between that an IceDrill and the first batch they have enough revenue to cover all costs from tape out up through final shipping even without a single satoshi in more sales.  So what point would there be to change things now?  To convince you (who wouldn't buy anyways)?  


Rocket run isn't that hard to believe.  Foundries love the 300% to 500% markup.  Bitcoin is a perfect (although unconventional) use of a rocket run.  Bitcoin miners have such a depreciating value of time combined with the fact that the raw silicon is a small portion of retail prices there really is no reason not to pay the markup.  If we guesstimate a high $10,000 per wafer (small run 28nm non-preferential pricing) that works out to $0.14 per mm^2 *.    Simple and dirty a 361mm^2 (19x19) chip has a raw silicon cost on the order of $50.  So even if they are forced to take a 500% markup (likely less) for a rocket run that means an only $200 in additional cost per rig ($1000 if the max MPP is paid out).  Unless you think the balance of the system cost $5000 or more there is enough gross margin to cover that markup. 

Honestly for Bitcoin miners, there is no reason NOT to use a rocket run and no real reason for foundry to deny it unless they simply have no clients they can bump.


* Not all of the wafer is usable due to square chips on a round wafer.  The actual cost would be marginally higher (maybe 10%).  If someone cares enough there are formulas to cacluate the exact number of chips which will fit in a wafer of a given size.  However this is good enough for now.

Someone can be the founder, and CEO, and employee and investor.

The only time an investor NEVER cares about share price is if they will never sell or buy.  Has Friedcat signed any contract indicating his shares can never be sold and he can never purchase more shares on the market.  If so then he cares about share price.  If something happens in his personal life and he needs to raise a lot of fiat his shares are a significant source of wealth which can be partially liquidated. 

Now he may not be worried about the share price declining in the short term but all intelligent investors care about their return and that includes capital gains.

This.  Preorder = risk.  Risk is the potential for profit.  I thing people are going to be terribly disapointed once companies have units in stock for immediate delivery.  Look at ASICMiner as an example.  I mean once built a company can do the same math a consumer can.  Future cashflow can be reduced to net present value.  If a company has a miner and it has a net present value of 50 BTC why would they sell it for less than 50 BTC?  They could simply use it to mine and generate >50 BTC.  Now if a company runs out of space, or power they may sell excess capacity for slightly less than net present value to increase demand but they days of massive "potential" profits are over.  100%, 200%, 300% gains per year.  Never going to happen with in stock miners.  Maybe 10% or 20% if you buy at the right time, have the right climate (cooling costs), and the low electrical costs.

Once again look at ASICMiner blade prices.  This is the same equipment used by ASICMiner.  People complain the prices are so high that all the potential profit is gone.  As the CEO of ASICMiner why would you see it for less?  If they (using their own projections on difficulty growth) project a blade will earn X BTC (discounted for risk & time value of money) it makes no sense to sell it for significantly less than X.  Shareholders would simply be subsidizing the profits of the buyers.  As a CEO looking to maximize the return for shareholder it doesn't really matter where the revenue comes from (sales or mining) the goal is to maximize revenue.

That being said some companies (BFL) have taken this to an asinine extreme so some backlack is inevitable but like you I really don't think most people appreciate what "in stock" prices are going to mean.  Another way to look at it is imagine you have a rig (or rigs) which produce 2 TH/s.  What would YOU sell it for?

Find your power company website and look up their schedules of rates.   Usually the schedule will specify the terms. 

That is unusual and has nothing to do with economics.  You can thank your politicians for trying to force a green lifestyle.  In just about anywhere else in the world you pay less the more you consume.  If you think about it, it makes sense.  The power plant has to be built even if you use less, the transmission lines need to be maintained even if you use less.   Larger customers are cheaper.

In VA (roughly)
summer
first 800 KW $0.08
above 800 KW $0.09

winter
first 800 KW $0.08
above 800 KW $0.07