At this point if you don't develop for at least 28nm or smaller then it really is pointless and even at that point you may get your NRE back but your customer base may not achieve ROI.
Let's see a 45nm REAL chip before asking for 28nm..... Maybe but I am starting to think doubtful because of the development time and the NRE associated. Right now the trend seems to be die-shrinking. If it does come, I think it will likely be from the existing ASIC manufacturers who already have R&D sunk in and an existing pipeline. |
|
|
|
|
At this point if you don't develop for at least 28nm or smaller then it really is pointless and even at that point you may get your NRE back but your customer base may not achieve ROI.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for this guide. I have a couple arriving very soon and can't wait to get them online. I'll post any feedback or questions I come up with.
|
|
|
|
I totally forgot about that place, I'm pretty sure there was a forum member that was offering to host ASIC's from there a while ago.
I currently offering hosting here. It sure is cheap. |
|
|
|
Hint: It doesn't look good, to be honest, it is a sad state of affairs.
Doesn't look good for whom? Those without ASIC boxes? That's a given already. I would think the new higher avg hash rates will become the new normal and thus those with the ASIC boxes will do just fine. Not great, but profitable. No, I'm talking potentially not good for 85-90% of all the miners. Right now you should assume basically all hashing for the most part is ASIC. |
|
|
|
|
I am working on an article that will basically make the case they miner has been collectively ruined for most and it will take time for it to play out. D&T did some interesting hash estimates, I started working those thorough then comparing to hardware while looking at projected difficulty for when they will arrive.
Hint: It doesn't look good, to be honest, it is a sad state of affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
Man, the weakest links are getting the pressure in the U.S. Hope you work through the issues Tradehill.
|
|
|
|
Sorry to crash your Batch #2 party, but I thought I'd mention that I still haven't reached break-even in BTC on my Batch #1 unit, but I'm getting close. Received it at the end of June, paid 110BTC. Sympathy is appreciated  Sorry to doubt you but can you please prove you have a Batch #1 unit that was received in June. Unless you really did something to piss Avalon off, it is hard for me to believe this. |
|
|
|
|
Pre-ordered products are non-refundable as is clearly stated at the time of purchase. The reason for this is that pre-order funds are used in the build process which makes it impractical to reverse.
|
|
|
|
|
Paid 225 (3 units)
ROI 3 weeks ago
Power .02/Kwh
Over the operating life of the unit, I will likely Double ROI before power consumers more than its income per month.
|
|
|
|
This is a completely disingenuous market that is predicated on completely ludicrous assumptions. Lets look at a few of them, but this list is by no means comprehensive:
Mining has different market dynamics than you'd like to make people believe. In mining the product is money or a money substitute itself. Thus miners are generally interested in increasing their purchasing power within the money system itself. Put another way: A miner becomes by definition the issuer of the currency and benefits from the ongoing inflation because they get the new money first before the market can price in the inflation or the mining costs are generally lower than the mining revenue. He thus operates CONDITIONAL on the assumption that the purchasing power of the mined asset increases, stays the same or inflates slower than the expected incoming cash flow. If I would expect the mined asset price to fall, I would NOT buy hardware in the first place, but hedge my asset position by selling them for something else. Thus, mining investments are similar to doubling down on an appreciation of the mined asset. The miner accepts a certain degree of risk and capital expenditure for the prospect of getting that capital back. If I expect the capital expenditure to outsize the mining revenue, I wouldn't do the investment in the first place. That simply doesn't make any economic sense. You clearly do not understand the motivations of the vast majority of miners, then. This may be your way of thinking, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, most miners are in it to make a profit in USD (or their local currency) not to "increase their purchasing power within the money system itself." Most miners couldn't give a shit about how much BTC it makes in the end, they just want to know how much USD (or local currency) it makes. Once again, I challenge you: Ask an average miner which they'd rather do: Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x! Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency. Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority. You may be right about what people would choose but I would want the 400 BTC because it is a fixed currency and 400 units gives me much more leverage than 5 units. |
|
|
|
The larger point is that ASICMiner wouldn't be pricing the boards at 420 BTC if they felt they are going to produce 3000 BTC. It just highlight how much BFL failure to deliver has cost those that trusted the company. Nobody paid 3,000 BTC for a mini rig because they believed that it would only produce 500 BTC. They did so because they felt the rig would produce >3000 BTC in revenue. It would have if BFL had "only" been 6 months late.
You may ask why is this relevant? Well because today BFL is offering a "new and improved" product for ~40 BTC and saying "trust us" we will deliver on time. If they don't buyers will lose again and who knows months before they deliver someone else will offer a competing product for 6 BTC.
You do know there are some people hashing away with Mini-rigs right now? I don't think they are complaining too much. They're too busy trying to stash their piles bitcoins somewhere safe, lol. And yes, I do know there are many others still waiting. But sometimes the risk is worth the reward. Other times... not so much. But you certainly won't gain anything if you don't take some risk. And you can minimize risk by hedging (splitting orders between different ASIC vendors and/or buying BTC) and doing research. Is the pile going to be 3,000 BTC big? Isn't that the real question? Does the unit have value for the money spent? -D |
|
|
|
Well ASICMiner just gave mini rig buyers a punch in the gut.
Buy from BFL in August 2012. 1 mini-rig 1.5 TH/s @ 3000 BTC
Buy from ASICMiner in August 2013. 20 Eruptor Blades 1.5 TH/s @ 420 BTC
So buy from ASICMiner a year later, no pre-order stress, product will ship in days, spend 86% less, get the same hashing power and receive it sooner.
Things move fast in the mining world so specs only matter if the company can deliver as advertised when advertised. Those that trusted BFL @ 65nm paid the price, now they want to tell you 28nm will be different.
3000 BTC value in August 2012 in USD: $30,000 420 BTC value in August 2013 in USD: $54,600 So buy from ASICminer a year later, spend 46% more for 1/6th the hashing power @ 3x the power consumption! Sounds like a good deal to me! Not. Now forgive me, perhaps my information is wrong, but aren't the Eruptor Blades 13 GH/s each? If, so, how do you get 1500 GH out of 20 * 13? FUD much? DeathAndTaxes' assessment is accurate. You have to look at the bitcoin price because it accounts for the opportunity cost correctly. Failure to do so leads to forgone profit. Put another way: Not spending 2580 BTC (3000BTC-420BTC) for a minirig equivalent in August 2012 would have earned you ~ $330k. Really, so you're claiming that 20 * 13 = 1500? Wow... But lets go back to the USD assessment. The only way your figures work out is if you have 100% prediction ability or you use hindsight, neither of which are considered acceptable investing methodologies. Once again, your entire premise is flawed. If you (or anyone) were so good at predicting the bitcoin price back then, why are you not a multi-billionaire? If you knew BTC was going to go up, especially as much as it did, why were you not mortgaging the house, selling your mother and pimping out your cats and dogs to buy BTC? You'd be an @#$%@% idiot not to... yet you didn't, why? Hindsight investing is great, except it's a bunch of shit, which is why comparing the price in BTC of anything in August 2012 to something in 2013 is a bunch of shit. |
|
|
|
I'll host it for you once it arrives -D |
|
|
|
First off, regardless of if any of those observations are true, you being a representative of the company would never admit it. Why waste our time there, you are paid to not hold any of those views regardless of validity of lack there of. On the contrary, I started out as a miner and was, while not equally skeptical of BFL in the beginning as some people, indeed quite skeptical. I have been a big open source advocate and support the "community" both in and out side of bitcoin. I am on the side of the miners, not on the side of business. Believe it or not, I advocate the miners perspective inside the company here. However, with that position I also have to weigh that against the best interests of the business and find a balance that both sides can live with (note, I do not say are happy with. As someone said, though I can't recall to whom I should attribute the quote, Twain perhaps and I'm paraphrasing regardless "A successful negotiation is where both parties leave unhappy.") and allow the business to continue to function and grow. I suspect I might be able to anticipate your response to this, but perhaps not... so I'll leave it there for now. Here has been my issued and it ties into and fits with your business model from my perspective. I have been around the block and I know how many dominate players act. It is about trying to corner the ASIC market and be a monopoly. I do hold and still hold that BFL intentionally announced their ASIC line with grossly overstated delivery schedules with mostly the sole reason to chill competition in the space. I support this chilling effect by the fact you not only gave a timeline that was 10 months off the mark but also the specifications you gave made it best in class just like your FPGA line. With the large upfront costs that go into developing an ASIC, if you would of actually delivered on time, it would of greatly reduced any ongoing competition because of BFL ability to raise the difficulty level faster than anyone else so that if you could continue to do that you would push people to develop on increasing more expensive chip sizes. Ok, lets grant your position for a minute as being true and look at it from that perspective. As a business entity acting in it's own best interest, why would a business not do that if it were a way to ensure it's own survival? If that were an effective tactic (and you say it is, so I'll take your word on it), to not use it and allow competition to consume your marketshare would be incredibly stupid. Why would you expect a business to act in a manner that is directly in conflict with it's own continued existence? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The reality is, though, that the timeline and specs that were offered were believed to be true at the time. If I were around at the time, I would have pushed for a more extended timeline with more flexibility, just like I am pushing for the Monarch now. I am not the final say in this company by any means, my word carries weight but it does not carry the day when that day ends. I am an advocate for the miner here within BFL, but I'm also aware of the needs of business, which most, if not all, of the detractors are completely oblivious to or just do not want to acknowledge. You speak of change, and that's great. But the cost of that change is the insolvency at worst or severely deteriorating business. There is no business in this market that can operate in the altruistic manner you appear to want. BFL is not a charity or a non-profit organization, it's a for profit business. Acting against that would be nonsensical and once people finally come to accept and understand that bitcoin is now a business and not some pie-in-the-sky dream of libertarians (much to their chagrin, I'm sure), perhaps the fervor and irrationality may die down a bit, but that day is probably a long way off. But just because the world isn't the way you want the world to be (I'm using the royal "you" here, not you specifically) is not an excuse for you to be an asshat on the internet. It's those people I do not care for or respect. If it is altruistic to ask for companies, especially in underdeveloped markets, to refrain from these tactics then I don't know how to respond. I rest my case. Thank you for taking time to write a thoughtful response and in the bigger picture, you have shown some class here. Thank you for taking a second to step in my shoes and see it from my perspective. Yeah I do have a more idealistic vision than many but until we start holding ourselves to a higher standard, overall it will reduce innovation and shut out start-ups that truly add the most value and creativity over time. Best of luck and I do hope your keep the miner alive in BFL and ignore the ass-hats and lead by example. Cheers, Dalkore |
|
|
|
I'd like to buy some bars, but also interested in rounds and coins. The design does not matter to me. Though for something like a 100g+ bar a CoA would be nice, shouldn't be a problem with Metalor ect.. Ideally I would like 0.999 fine bullion, but I am open to any junk too (pre 1947/1920) or even US junk silver. trust thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237581.msg2513095#msg2513095my eBay: http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/bigtimespaghettiPlease message me, I work in Cambridge so a meetup early morning, lunch time or after working hours is doable there, I can also organise something in London. Recorded delivery is also acceptable. Price? |
|
|
|
Not only should the Bitcoin foundation not do this, they couldn't if they wanted. There is a concept of standing in legal matters. The Bitcoin foundation has suffered no damages, it has no standing to file suit. Period. It would be instantly throw out of court on motion and would make the Foundation a laughing stock in the legal community.
I have never said they should take "legal" action, there are other methods they could use to affect change at BFL (o bviously only if BFL is willing to listen to suggestions). Also I would mention they do have in-house legal counsel (Patrick) and like the EFF could give assistance to members that have suffered damages. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was responding to the OP who stated "Bitcoin Foundation should file a lawsuit against BFL". All good D&T, we can always have a beer or scotch together. I always enjoy your writing. You're a good member of our community. |
|
|
|
The fact that you (apparently) honestly believe that this was some sort of scam from it's inception, with a complicated, methodical and intricate plot to dissemination misinformation and advertising is why no rational answer will satisfy. First off, regardless of if any of those observations are true, you being a representative of the company would never admit it. Why waste our time there, you are paid to not hold any of those views regardless of validity of lack there of.
But let me take just this one comment above. Response: Actually no, I never thought it was a scam. From your FPGA line I knew BFL had the technical competency to develop an ASIC chip. I just want to make that clear, I never have said BFL was a scam and I actually had equipment on order. Here has been my issued and it ties into and fits with your business model from my perspective. I have been around the block and I know how many dominate players act. It is about trying to corner the ASIC market and be a monopoly. I do hold and still hold that BFL intentionally announced their ASIC line with grossly overstated delivery schedules with mostly the sole reason to chill competition in the space. I support this chilling effect by the fact you not only gave a timeline that was 10 months off the mark but also the specifications you gave made it best in class just like your FPGA line. With the large upfront costs that go into developing an ASIC, if you would of actually delivered on time, it would of greatly reduced any ongoing competition because of BFL ability to raise the difficulty level faster than anyone else so that if you could continue to do that you would push people to develop on increasing more expensive chip sizes. You may want to mention that my point is valid by saying, "we have tons of competition now" but I would then point out the feeling many people had last summer when we were sure ASIC would be rolling out in Oct 2012. Only because Avalon decided that they would do it no matter what and with your slipped delivery schedule allowed others to feel they had a chance to develop. I know this directly because I have talked to people involved with ASIC projects, this is first hand knowledge. Every other claim is quite small compared to this one. You may dismiss this but I wouldn't do it to fast. Its real and I know many very level people that hold the same feeling. I am quite rational, ask anyone who has met me in person and if you did you would know it to be true. At the point, I digress and will look for a response either directly or in private. I am tired of talking about BFL, you guys will either change or not and people will either support or not. It doesn't matter at this point, personally I hope you do change for the better because really want to embrace BFL, really. You are part of our community love or hate and that will not change. Thank you for your time Josh. Cheers, Dalkore |
|
|
|
Not only should the Bitcoin foundation not do this, they couldn't if they wanted. There is a concept of standing in legal matters. The Bitcoin foundation has suffered no damages, it has no standing to file suit. Period. It would be instantly throw out of court on motion and would make the Foundation a laughing stock in the legal community.
I have never said they should take "legal" action, there are other methods they could use to affect change at BFL (o bviously only if BFL is willing to listen to suggestions). Also I would mention they do have in-house legal counsel (Patrick) and like the EFF could give assistance to members that have suffered damages. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
