Its correct that the advantage of lower process nodes arent so high in cost like it looks on the first view since a chip is way more expensive. But a big factor to keep in mind is that you save a lot money by assembly, you need less miner boards, you need less work to do for the same TH and you need less space. Not to forget the higher speed to bring up TH.
So as long as you dont plan to sell... for mining lower process nodes have some good advantages.
The NRE costs for all 28nm were payed buy customers preorder funds that were willing to dig their own grave. Not an option for Asicminer. I didnt speak about NRE-Costs at all. Only production costs. NRE-Costs are higher of course too and the higher the diff is rising the more impact has it on future chip production. Thats correct. But isnt asicminer already developing 28nm? I though they developed a 40nm or 65nm chip that didnt work good and now work on 28nm. Or was it another process node? Speculation is that 65/55nm node development was unsuccesfull and now they are developing 40nm node (~$200 000 NRE) Are you sure you didnt lost a zero? The numbers i heard were more in $2 Millions... |
|
|
|
Its correct that the advantage of lower process nodes arent so high in cost like it looks on the first view since a chip is way more expensive. But a big factor to keep in mind is that you save a lot money by assembly, you need less miner boards, you need less work to do for the same TH and you need less space. Not to forget the higher speed to bring up TH.
So as long as you dont plan to sell... for mining lower process nodes have some good advantages.
The NRE costs for all 28nm were payed buy customers preorder funds that were willing to dig their own grave. Not an option for Asicminer. I didnt speak about NRE-Costs at all. Only production costs. NRE-Costs are higher of course too and the higher the diff is rising the more impact has it on future chip production. Thats correct. But isnt asicminer already developing 28nm? I though they developed a 40nm or 65nm chip that didnt work good and now work on 28nm. Or was it another process node? |
|
|
|
Interesting points though i believe only point 2 could and should be used. Or has point 3 really a chance of being useful? There is no moral downside in using point 3 too then. The biggest factor probably would be point 2. Not only because your found block would be propagated way faster but you would be informed faster about found blocks from others too. I think here lies the problem. Yesterday i though it might depend on the getwork-proxy... is it still used for solomining? It made only sense using it for poolmining right? If point 2 cant be used really good because of a slow internet connection... means propagating to many good nodes fast, then friedcat should think about getting some more connections. Not because the ping is too low but because the transferable data might be too low. What i wonder is... can it be that a found block is proofed by the wallets after they checked it fully? I mean in case asicminer sends a big block of 500KB to a node then he downloads it, checks it and sees its valid. When after this block data started to download another 25kB block comes in then its downloaded faster and the proof is done faster too. What matters then? The time a block was proofed? If so i think the wallets should note a timestamp when a block was started to download. This way the network could be made more safe so that blocks include transactions. Though this probably wont help much when the wallet only starts to propagate the big block after it proofed it fully. The propagation in total would be very slow then. |
|
|
|
My understanding is that sha256 asics are very simple and basically work in parallel*, so a 130nm design can easily be scaled to a 40nm design by adding more cores.
*I might be wrong about that, but they are connected in some simple way where you can add more cores and not have to tinker too much to make them all work.
This means that for the same sha256 asic design, you should have a performance evolution more or less equivalent to the square of the size reduction from one node to the next (physics permitting - 28nm doing some funky things AFAIK, but 40nm should still be safe).
Actually, the performance increase is even greater than size reduction, because the clock speed is also usually increased. BUT on the other hand, the production cost for the same die area is MUCH higher for smaller nodes. NRE costs are also MUCH higher. Of course, the overall cost per GH/s is still lower, but not that much lower. P.S. Also, developing smaller node design is not only more expensive, but takes much more time. For example, at 130nm you can do a full-chip physical simulation, while for 28nm simulating the whole chip would take eternity, so they usually simulate only small parts of the chip, which increases probability of errors and degradations. The software toolchains are also much more complex and expensive. That's why 130nm chip can only take a few weeks to develop, while 28nm takes several months at best. KnC managed to shortcut this by using a standard-cell design (all other existing Bitcoin ASICs are full-custom), but this means that future 28nm chips will be both more cost-efficient and more energy-efficient than KnC. I think the important thing for AM is "hash density", since deploying new data centers is costly and time consuming. With a 40nm design they could potentially multiply their hashing power by an order of magnitude or more in the same space (cue to the potential need for special cooling solutions). You point out the price per GH/s as being similar, but is that on a per wafer basis, i.e. without the NRE's, or do you somehow extrapolate the production numbers and include them as well? Its correct that the advantage of lower process nodes arent so high in cost like it looks on the first view since a chip is way more expensive. But a big factor to keep in mind is that you save a lot money by assembly, you need less miner boards, you need less work to do for the same TH and you need less space. Not to forget the higher speed to bring up TH. So as long as you dont plan to sell... for mining lower process nodes have some good advantages. |
|
|
|
Waiting for BTC withdrawal stuck in "processing state" with open ticket on WeExchange for 8 days already with no reaction from anybody.
Thats what i dont understand. This is a general problem... why solving tickets when there is a general problem that could solve the problem of many people in one rush? I wonder if the Bitcoins are missing for some reason. Is ukyo known in person by someone? |
|
|
|
|
I can log into weexchange normally without problems. So what is Ukyo doing? He is logging in and posting about some security. One of his last posts he is claiming he is working on support tickets... looks like i have to create a support ticket for a general problem too now.
|
|
|
|
I wonder whats the reason for that. Maybe asicminer is too poorly connected to other wallets? I mean a miner that is connected to as many wallets as possible and those wallets are again connected to as many miners as possible should have an advantage against a miner that is poorly connected because the block that is accepted by most miners wins. When i understand it correctly. So i only see that as an explaination. I doubt a internet connection can be that bad to have such a big effect. We've seen AM's "data center", so who knows what ISPs were chosen. Running services out of mainland china is not as simple as you'd think: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg2733783#msg2733783The latency might be not the best... but still... it shouldnt be way more than 1 or 2 seconds... and i guess informing >50% of the bitcoin network of a new found block takes way longer than a couple seconds. Or am i wrong? Anyway... if a miner is able to connect to thousands of wallets he would raise the propagationspeed very much. No other miner could propagate faster with a block found a second after Asicminer. Thats something friedcat maybe should look into. |
|
|
|
I wonder whats the reason for that. Maybe asicminer is too poorly connected to other wallets? I mean a miner that is connected to as many wallets as possible and those wallets are again connected to as many miners as possible should have an advantage against a miner that is poorly connected because the block that is accepted by most miners wins. When i understand it correctly. So i only see that as an explaination. I doubt a internet connection can be that bad to have such a big effect. |
|
|
|
I wait for my 158BTC since a day now... normally withdraws were processed instantly. Whats wrong?
I think the OP has his hands full on the verification issues. But i think coding takes way more time than releasing bitcoins. And i dont understand why this takes days and not even a comment from him. This stupid noncommunication is something i start to hate in the bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
Nachhaltigkeit ist hier das Stichwort. Kaufe ich mir 10kg Honig, mache mir draus 50L Met, verkaufe 30L und sauf 20L sebst ist das Hobby. Kaufe ich einen Gärautomaten mit Klimatisierung, Abfüllanlage und richte einen Raum dafür her ist es ein Geschäft.
So eine Mininghardware ist nicht wirklich ein Nebenbeiartikel den man mal so kauft. Zumindest nicht, wenn man dazu fast einen Monatslohn hinlegt. Aber die selbe hardware bei einem berufssohn mit 10.000 Euro Taschengeld mtl von Papa könnte 2000 Euro Recheneinheit als Hobby abtun.
Das Finanzamt schaut also ein bischen den Hintergrund der Person an, weil man hier Abwägen muss. Deswegen werden auch hin und wieder Leute beim Finanzamt auffällig die bei Ebay verkloppen, aber kommen am Ende doch wieder als Privatmenschen durch. Oder eben auch nicht. Hier wird nicht auf die reine Anzahl an trades/Zeit geschaut sondern die Nachhaltigkeit, also ob er einfach nur die Reste seiner 30 Jahre Lebenssammlung verkloppt oder aktiv sich neue Ware besorgt um damit sein Taschengeld aufzubessern.
Und diese Abwaägung lässt sich nur schwer in Fakten darlegen. Das Finanzamt darf hier hinterfragen und man muss im zweifel eine dritte Person entscheiden lassen(einen Richter).
Das Problem ist eben die Abwägung. Selbst ebay-Verkäufer wurden von Gerichten ganz unterschiedlich mal als gewerblich mal als nicht gewerblich eingestuft. Ich glaube diese Definiton von gewerblich hat aber noch nicht mal zur umsatzsteuerpflichtigkeit geführt... nur zu mehr Rechten für den Käufer. |
|
|
|
|
Im slowly getting worried. Im already verified too and Ukyo is not writing anymore.
|
|
|
|
Als Privatperson, im kleinen Rahmen, braucht man sich wegen der USt eigentlich noch keine Gedanken machen. Dann ist das ähnlich wie bei ebay... wo man privat auch keine USt einziehen muss. Aber als Unternehmer will ich den Spaß auch nicht machen. Risiko... USt-Nachzahlung könnte ein Problem werden. Keiner der Kunden wird USt an den Unternehmer nachträglich zahlen. Was ich mich frage ist ob die besondere globale und digitale Natur der Bitcoins nicht einen Ausweg bietet. Wenn man ein Auto hat dann kann man es nur im Inland verkaufen oder halt die Grenze passieren wo die USt dann halt an der Grenze behandelt wird. Aber Bitcoins sind anders. Als Privatperson hat man ja schon mal keine USt zu zahlen in entsprechenden Mengen. Und als Unternehmer bräuchte man nur in einem Land angemeldet sein wo es auch keine USt braucht. Es zählt doch der Ort der Leistungserbringung. Oder?
Und Mining? Braucht es für ein Einkommen nicht jemanden der einen bezahlt? Wer soll das bei Bitcoins sein? Alle? Einkommenssteuer ja, aber USt auf verkaufte Bitcoins? Dann verkauft man sie im Ausland oder oder oder.
Ich hab mir das jetzt nicht alles durchdachte. Nur die besonderen Eigenschaften von Bitcoins geben mir zu denken ob das da alles so zutrifft.
Ich würde JEDEM raten, bei ausländischen Anbietern zu verkaufen. Der Grund dafür ist folgender, als Beispiel: Wenn der Miner verkauft, ist er Umsatzsteuerpflichtig, dakommt er nicht drum rum. AUSSER: Er verkauft an jemanden entweder im EU-Land mit UST ID oder seine Rechnung ist NICHT STEUERBAR. Dies ist dann der Fall, wenn er an einen anderen Unternehmer verkauft, der im Ausland sitzt. Ich habe oft Kunden aus dem internationalen Ausland, wo dann steht "Reverse Charge applies, *nicht im Inland steuerbare Leistung nach UstG" Der Grund dafür ist dass das deutsche Gesetz annimmt, dass die Steuer fällig wird, wo auch die entsprechende Leistung erbracht wird. Die Dienstleistung, bspw. wenn ich bei MT GOX verkaufe, findet im Ausland statt. Fraglich ist hiermit nun, ob Bitcoins als physische Waren, die an Ort XYZ gelagert werden können, gesehen werden und ob somit davon ausgegangen werden muss, dass sie "nach Japan" transportiert werden wenn ich sie von einer Adresse zur nächsten kopiere. Die nächste Frage ist, ob der börsenähnliche Verkauf bei Mt Gox als der Verkauf an einen Unternehmergesehen wird. Aus meiner Sicht, da Mt Gox KEINE Börse ist, ist es kein Vermittlungsunternehmen, wie bspw. Bitcoin.de oder wie es heiss. Mt Gox nimmt meine BTC und gibt mir davon Geld. Sie kaufen und lagern meine BTC und verkaufen sie weiter und kassieren dafür eine Gebühr. Anders als ein bspw. Börsenmakler, der nur Provisionen auf Vermittlungen kassiert. Dies wäre aber wohl am Ende mal gerichtlich zu klären. Wenn cih also davon ausgehe, dass dies irgendwo richtig ist, kann ich meine Sachen im Ausland verkaufen und wenn das Finanzamt nachfragt versuchen (!!) auf das Reverse Charge Verfahren zu verweisen. Dies ist insofern nicht ganz so einfach, als dass Mt Gox keine Rechnung ausstellt sondern nur eine Abrechnung. Aus meiner Sicht müsste dies hinkommen, aber es steht auf wackeligem Eis. Beim Verkauf im EU Ausland oder in Deutschland, vor allen Dingen an Privatpersonen, ist es allerdings eher irrelevant. Interessant dabei ist sicher aber auch, dass es, insofern man auch in Deutschland BTC kauft, für einen Unternehmer der vor allem HANDELT, eh nur ein durchlaufender Posten ist... |
|
|
|
Hey finlofs I guess you haven't been round here long. Everything in your rambling post has been gone over time and time again. You are repeating yourself like a mad man. Read page one, then take a chill pill. Alternatively sell your shares the stress is killing you. lol
... i know yall like to point out icebreaker's bad trade he made by turning 120k icedrill shares into a sierra, but at least he turned his "worthless" shares into something. ... You do realize that is Sierra is officially worthless? His best bet was to get it inside of October, which did not happen. http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/854deda93aHis grand investment turned out to be just as good as ours. Except we have ventures like ActiveExchange and future models to potentially profit off of.  Can I ask a legitimate question? How is difficulty rising so fast/hard when the people producing the machines are starting to find it hard to get a decent price per g/h ratio? Who is adding the difficulty? Is there a private company who has some next level generation ASIC? Or is it just a whole bunch of people new to Bitcoin buying miners and not actually realising that they aren't really profitable? I just ask as I'm curious if we will reach a point where people will realise that the difficulty/profitability ratio is not worth it and ditch their mining equipment, thus resulting in a difficulty decrease? They wont ditch since the buying price is the big cost. Power cost wont be the factor for some time. Diff is added because of so much preorders. People dont realize how big diff will be when they will get their miners. And others dont bother about that because they calculate in USD... though they miss that it would be better then to invest in btc only simply. |
|
|
|
A chinese exchange running by chinese persons has to be safe. US-government simply doesnt have a stand to sue them. Its only that nefario probably didnt thought that he can be reached, since he is no chinese.
You don't understand how the game works. If they operate in China in to avoid the regulation of another country then that other country starts seizing the assets of the customers doing business with the foreign operation. They also start seizing assets and fining companies that do business with the offshore entity. Thats maybe right... though problematic with bitcoins... they would need to know who owns which bitcoins. Which means they need infos from the NSA. Of course its easier for securities. |
|
|
|
|
A chinese exchange running by chinese persons has to be safe. US-government simply doesnt have a stand to sue them. Its only that nefario probably didnt thought that he can be reached, since he is no chinese.
|
|
|
|
25,000,000 Act Mining shares, 10 mil are the public ones
Right... didnt notice that... thats a hefty share for the issuer. 3/5 for the issuer and all the money from the shareholders only means 2/5. |
|
|
|
I hope we can show 200th there next week. It would be nice, but it just doesn't matter anymore. The project was funded and priced assuming that 200TH would be a significant chunk of the network, and therefore profitable to invest in. Due to various delays, 200TH is now a drop in the bucket of the rapidly increasing network hash rate which is getting rather close to 4PH. Dude we get it. The network hash rate is increasing exponentially. You do not believe 200TH is enough to give a timely ROI. You have said this over and over again. Constructive posts are what everyone comes here for. Please be constructive or move along. Constructive only could be to raise the TH to the percent of the network it had when it should have been 200Th... though thats probably not possible to achieve. |
|
|
|
|
@NineLives... you mentioned some days ago that you want to pay a PI. Did you do this already? Let me know...
|
|
|
|
Except that i had some serious issues with the dpd courier saying two times, that there was no one around when he was at the house. Even though that there werer more than 2 people around at the house each time.
Post guys seems to be lazy often. I have such things happen to me too sometimes. I dont like that at all. |
|
|
|
When i look at the market... Asicminer is at 0.64BTC and ActiveMining at 0.0008BTC. They both work on 28nm process node if im not mistaken. Both have shown in the past that they can do IPO's though friedcat is the only one that has shown he can bring out ASIC's. Asicminer has 400,000 shares while ActiveMining has 10,000,000 shares. Thats 25 times more. So ActiveMinings Price compared would be 0.02BTC to get the same percent of the company like one asicminer share has. Both have relatively good chances to succeed but only the divs keep asicminer's share price high.
Let's not forget that there are ~ 400K AM shares vs ~ 10M ActM shares. Assuming they ever reach the same market cap it would be 0.64 BTC/share for AM vs 0.0256 BTC/share for ActM. [/quote] I included it. ActiveMining is at 0.0008b and has 25 more shares in total than Asicminer. So in order to have the same percent of Activemining you would have with one asicminer share you would need to spend 0.02BTC in ActiveMining now. Im really unsure if i should hold any of my shares now. Asicminer may drop to even half of its value until friedcat at least is announcing good news or good things happen. ActiveMining only will bring out good news in weeks. And labcoin... seems to be a scam where i lost anyway. Keeping the shares as a gamble is the best thing now.
It certainly seems to me like nothing you can buy right now can make ROI when measured in BTC, in which case the logical buyer should just buy BTC instead.
True. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
