People are still buying at $727, though all indications show that value is falling, headed back to around $350... why would they NOT buy at 50% to 25% off the last known high-value? They don't have to buy all of them, just mine.

Remember, every coin sold by someone, was purchased by someone-else.

Well, if no higher prices later... then no point in holding then, is there. Thus, selling.

Everyone assumes higher prices later, which, eventually will come from most lows. If not on an exchange, then off the exchange. If not now, then in a year from now, or 100. It is inevitable that higher prices will come, eventually. It is never a loss unless you accept less, and cash-out permanently, or everyone throws bitcoin wallets away.

When BTC falls, and if it does not rise, you use your BTC to buy any rising alt-coin. So it is never a loss, even when it seems like one. Remember, we are buying others prior debt, present debt, and future debt, with a dollar that is constantly falling in value. (Miners and power and time.)

We have to assume... or convince others to assume. Everything is speculation. You "assume" that when you put money in the bank, that you can get it out. (Only about 15% of those with money in the bank can actually do that. After that, you get another "note", a voucher for future withdraws. More virtual-credit, for the virtual-credit we all call a dollar or "bank note". Until they can print more, or borrow it from China. So ironic!)

You also assume that when you wake, everything on the dollar-menu will be a dollar. (Well, now it is "A dollar or more", as the dollar continues to lose value. But I anticipated that fall, and assumed the price would rise as my dollar value fell, and it did. But that is like guessing that a quarter will land on heads or tails... eventually it will land on its side, and you lose.)

This is why I was interested in seeing charts for the above stated situations. Loss or gain, but at the moment, the last five years have been mostly gains. My biggest fear is that this turns into something like an actual dollar, which would just result in yearly loss after loss after loss... but predictable and steady loss.

If the difficulty gets any higher, they are going to have to build more nuclear plants to power and cool the super-computers to process the transactions and mine for coins! That alone will add value to the coin! Not to mention the cost to reverse global-warming from trillions of miners! Paid for in BTC.  

But that is speculation too. We might have cheaper stuff to mine with, that is more efficient and cooler, or hit an ice-age again. It is due... has been over 400 years since the last mini-ice-age, one is due again. (Happens in periods of global-warming, which is a natural planetary occurrence.)

I keep looking at the "mining calculator" pages, but they all assume you cash-out what you earn, as you earn it. They don't take into consideration that most of us are mining now, and holding, then cashing out later, at the higher prices.

Would be interesting to make one of these charts or calculators. Anyone up to the task?

P.S. I am Scrooge... I gave everyone plenty of time, now I need to cash-out.

One of mine is this...

Now the price is high at $735, compared to the point at which it last dropped, from a cash-out. (Also near the end of a 7-day plateau.)

There is no real volume in the sales, so this is an obvious "pump", which happens to get more listings below, to "cash-out" for a better deal. Thus, a cash-out is nearing... a big one.

Sell your coins now, and buy more back after the price drops. From the looks of it, in my opinion, this looks like another $16-$20million dollar cash-out... so buy back around $400-$350/BTC. It should rise back up to about $550 in a few hours, or $650 in a day or two. (People start pulling away, when they see it falling, so he will continue until around that low.)

Scrooge doesn't take Christmas day off... he works 24/7/365 around the world.

A password-password! Why didn't I think of that before! Going to patent this now!

That is as redundant as sha-256ing a sha256ed password. You just created exponentially more encryption collisions to breach your own security, not halved them. (As one might think would be the effect.)

If "DOG" is the password, but encrypted it is "CAT", and double-encrypted it is "FISH"...

Now "FISH" can be found by finding any collision that "DOG" has, which also results in "CAT", which will then result in "FISH". Plus, the collision of "PICKLE", "FROG", "MILKY", which also have matching results for "CAT" which results in "FISH", because they are a collision of a collision. (Plus they have their own large number of collisions for each one of those too.) Thus, exponential answers.

Same with just a simple password that is encrypted. It has collisions, so you can guess the password or the collision, and get in. As opposed to just having a password as an actual password, where there is only ever one solution. (Though, it would have to be a good password, which is larger than any "secure" hash-value. Poof, instant thievery stumped, they will be searching for collisions where collisions never exist.)

P.S. "Great minds think alike"... No one ever said they think correctly.

And to think, everyone has a huge dictionary of pre-found hashes, and possible collisions, sitting right on the bitcoin chain, and all the other alt-chains. Tons of "password results". And uber-computers finding more every day.

So when a wallet-address has a collision, both the original person, and the new person have access to the funds. Start creating tons of addresses, and HOPE there is a collision! Free BTC! No password needed. The network will validate the collision address, just as easily as the original address. Since, by formula, they result in the same answer.

Well, technically it wasn't a crash, it was just a series of cash-outs... But, all the same in the end. They were willing to accept less value, and the people they got the coins from, got them at a great comparative value to the market-price that followed. A crash would be if all the "buy-offers" suddenly drop to $90, and a giant gap appears, forcing people to have to sell for less. A cash-out is when they sell for a major loss, giving to those who offered less per coin. In the panic of seeing it fall, a bunch more people lose, because they think it is crashing. The price takes longer to rise, because those who just got a deal are now selling for less than others on top, because they just got them cheap, from the guy who cashed-out.

Welcome to the club. (Nice cards to start with.)

Still I see the short-term trend is up, between the multi-million-dollar cash-outs. Which is the situations I am taking advantage of, at the moment. It will rise again after the holidays, when people have extra money from income-tax returns. (All those who invested last year, at $250, and saw it rise to $1220, will have no hesitation about investing this year. Even if they thought they lost-out, because last-year $250 fell down to $90, and they sold in a panic.)

Though, I don't expect that the next spike will be much higher than $6000, as that is the apparent volume growth trend. (Pure speculation there.) The higher it goes, like gold, the less the reward and the harder it is to rise to the same exponential value of previous years. Alt-coins are the silver, to BTC being gold. They are lower value, traded less, used less, but seem to offer 2x to 3x the losses and gains, in BTC, than BTC offers itself directly. As you noticed too. Though, I don't think I would invest in Doge coin, knowing what I know about it. lol. (Not long-term.)

I was curious if anyone has done a side by side "speculative" and "historic" comparison of the following...

Mining BTC, with "standard" and "next-gen" hardware. (Including operation and purchase losses.)
VS.
Investing directly, by just buying coins, at various levels. (Including worst-case "top-peak" values.)
VS.
Simple trading, using realistic gains/losses, and difficulty. (Including small and large volumes.)

I do all three. Though I mine with cards that could only be used until the ASIC's arrived, which now mine scrypt-coins, to exchange for BTC.

This is what I have noticed...
My greatest return was from cross-trading alt-coins, which were traded after being mined, then ultimately cashed-out for BTC, near the top-peak. These are now being traded, to increase value and/or volume, for when the tides switch again, to a rising market.

My expenses from mining, including hardware (considered to be 100% loss, as I plan to run it until it all dies), was a rather large investment. Even though it was, and still is, hardware that is "best" for mining scrypt-coins.

Looking back, if I simply invested that money directly in BTC, it would have been about 100x greater. Now I have used those funds to purchase "next-gen" hardware ASIC's, and I am starting to wonder if I should have just kept the money to reinvest directly, Via trades.

The problem I see, with trading, is the growing volume becomes harder and harder to trade. Along with the generous, but still expensive, two-way trade-fee eating some of that reward. I could trade 2-20 BTC without issues, but now it is growing into thousands to trade, so losses become greater. (You have to wait forever for someone to snag-it, or attempt to pump/manipulate, to get a decent volume at the price you want to trade. Which does not always work when someone with opposing plans and higher volumes, knocks your efforts down a few notches.)

So, for the others who do this... what type of returns do you get? (Gains and/or Losses)

As per my findings, I may surrender to simply buying BTC directly, at (perceptive) lows. Then hope the highs I see (short-term), are the highs of the moment, and flip for an extra chance at a slightly higher return. (Which I realize actually impedes the growth of the initial investment potential, but it also helps limit the market from exploding out of control, which has as much of a negative impact, as it does for positive impact.)

Obviously, I would only use money that I still feel I can confidently risk the potential associated losses with the gains.

The value of the coin is irrelevant, as long as everyone agrees it has value and can be exchanged. (Agrees to "a value", for an exchange.)

But I agree, for me, that the current value people are asking for is too high. If you believe that too, feel free to give me your coins for half the price they say it is worth. I will take all you have to offer, up to $30,000,000 worth.

Money is nothing more than credit, backed by nothing more than a promise from a bank, that promise is, "I will be happy to take this from you, and give you less than you gave me, after I tell your government that you are in possession of these funds."

They will also happily give your money to some stranger, in the hope that the stranger gives them back more than the bank let them borrow. Thus, extending the promise of, "I will be happy to take more of this from you, then what we had originally given you." (Slightly modified, but it is still the same promise.)

The future of BTC is also over-rated, since BTC is not the only digital-coin with the same "limited" individual attributes. So, the illusion that digital-coins are limited in quantity, is just that. Only the specific coins are limited, but just like a bank, endless coins can be created by just making another coin to split the value or hide the value. So in that aspect, BTC is a failure. (That was one of the many issues/flaws with the coin from the beginning.)

Will it replace money? No, just as credit-cards and ATM cards have not replaced money. Because you can easily launder money, and hide it, and keep its transactions anonymous. BTC transactions are not anonymous, only the individuals identity of ownership is anonymous. It is not the same thing. You can actually send physical money anonymously, and no-one would ever know you sent it to anyone, or who sent it, other than you. Well, the person who gets it, would know they got it, and might record it, but they would not know who it came from. As opposed to sending a BTC, which records the send and the receive.

Loved reading what you wrote, all of you. Great perceptions.

BTC (digital-coins), with limited production, have a purpose in society. To that, BTC is a 100% winner. Even with all the short-falls. Every currency has a short-fall. So it is right up on par with the rest.

Depends which "The bible", you are talking about, there are thousands and thousands of "The bibles"...

I will assume you are talking about the generic one the "Christians" use, who are most noted for calling their version of "A bible", "The Bible". (I will also assume it includes "Old Testament", and the "New Testament", which is a series of "Things they disagreed with, from the original testaments, and were compelled to change to suit the needs of obtaining more followers/believers.")

To worship "money", is a sin. (This includes any possession that can be bartered, like bitcoins.)

The standard thing that is asked, to show you are not worshiping the thing in question, is to give it away to the church, so it can be given to someone-else. (Someone, who I might add, apparently does worship it, and is wanton/needy for it. But only after they have accumulated enough abundance of your non-worshiped funds, to pay their own bills. It is an expensive operation to run a religious business and convince more people to believe that they need to give them more money.)

Though, I believe you can just randomly give away your money, but that won't get you a tax-write-off, without a legal receipt. Gods are picky about that. Says so in the IRS documentation.

If the thing in question, which is being used as money, does not say, "In God We Trust"... The church may not accept it. Though, they always make exceptions to every rule. Even the first set of ten-commandments, which was actually destroyed, because people just were not able to obey those rules. Though, the second set of ten-commandments were just odd, so you may not even know those. I don't think they actually publish that "new commandments", anymore. They just lead you to believe the first ten, that were actually destroyed, are the current ones. Because they reinforce that you should not worship things like money. (To worship is to "Use and desire selfishly". You shouldn't use what you earn, or desire to be paid, and should always give it away to someone who does worship it, and will use it, and desires it more than you. That's just the rules... Well, the first set, which was destroyed.)

But I digress... BTC is the devil, it hit $666USD several times this month, as proof... near Jesus's birthday... who wasn't even born in winter... but, seems like a great time to celebrate his birthday, so it was changed. He was given gold on his birthday, but I am sure he gave it away.

Don't use BTC or you support the devil. Give it all to me, and I will dispose of it for you, freeing you from potential hell-fire! Use the address in my signature to liberate yourself!

I use "1" as my password on everything... Easy to remember and no-one ever guesses it... they always start hacking at 4 letters/symbols or more...

Great, now I have to change all my passwords!

You'll never guess the one I use next! It's not "2"... don't even try it! I was born at night, but it wasn't last night... It's another number!

This security tip has been provided, without liability, by a security expert from wallmart. Keeping your credit-cards as safe as your mail, since day 1.

Don't forget to donate!

Using magic from the Lord of the rings! Hold your bitcoin and rub it while clicking your heels three times, and repeat the magic words. "Rize Dragun! Rize Dragun!"

Wait, what are watts?

It's a type-o, should say 1.2THs @ 600 KWatts... JK.

How the hell can I heat my house with only 600Watts... Now I need to buy four miners to stay warm all winter!

Yay, an official troll... He may post official troll posts... The new forum mascot! (Your post count should be much larger, or you are not an official troll-poster!)

Had to chime-in to say that. Ok, back on topic now.

P.S. Happy holidays.

Thanks gmaxwell, I think they might have just wanted to wait until they had more "reporting miners", before attempting to re-post a more "official" thread.

Like all other threads in this forum, derailment has occurred, without moderation. There should be special "moderator-tools", or priorities, designated for "business owners". Even if only the ability to "SPOILER" troll-posts, and off-topic posts, until a real moderator can remove them. (If left, they would remain as spoilers that have to be "expanded" to be seen.)

Sorry, but I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in your post... "Report OP's abuse"... "Fixed OP's abuse"... "Left reported troll-posts and off-topic posts." (Seems ironic, as that seems like abuse of mod-ability. That is not intended to nit-pick, just an observation.)

As to the question about "Do I think they will send me a machine with the ABILITY to reach 1.2THs, and run NOMINALLY near that speed, while remaining NOMINALLY around 600Watts at the wall."

Yes, I do believe the unit will produce up to 1.2THs, running around 600Watts. With the ability to run slower, down to ?? speed, which will consume around 300Watts. If it ends-up consuming more wattage at the wall, I honestly wouldn't care. If it can be modified to run faster, with more power, that is just a bonus. (However, that may also require physically modifications to the voltage-regulators they designed the board with, as I am sure they will be limited to stay under 600Watts, for safety. So you don't kill the provided power-supply or overheat the chips with those standard heat-sinks.)

The only real major statistic that most are actually concerned with, is the 1.2THs potential. Since that is what they are paying for, the speed. Operating at 1200Watts would still put this unit on par with any other comparable unit out there, except the 20nm designs.

Is it possible, yes. Is it plausible, yes. Is it true, that has yet to be determined by consumers. Do I believe it will be EXACTLY those specs, within all acceptable reason, yes. Do I believe it is a flat-out informed lie, no. Do I think I will get 60 chips, no, I stated it could be done with 44-48, which I believe is realistic by looking at the designs. I think that answers all your questions, again... So please stop asking the same question over and over. You could have PMed me. I thought you wanted an actual explanation, to ease your mind, to share with the public. I was wrong for thinking that.

Worst case scenerio, as per specs... I can see the "boards" consuming 600Watts, with the rest consuming about 20Watts for the controller and fans, prior to the PSU. With a horrid 80% efficiency, that would put it at a 750Watts at the wall, roughly. Which is what a 600Watt PSU pulls at the wall, to create 600Watts of output, when it is only 80% efficient. The PSU I see them using looks like a 90% efficient PSU, which would put the wall power at around 670Watts.

That, to me, would just be an oversight, or a play on words. When the website says "Consumed wattage at the wall is 600Watts." Then we can talk about lies, if it does not come close to that value. However, they don't say that, and there is no proof otherwise to confirm that the ESTIMATED specs are incorrect. (Pre-order = Nothing to test yet, thus, ESTIMATED or as reported by the MFG.)

1.2THs = 1200GHs

The spec-sheet says...
(20GHs @ 0.35W/GH = 7W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/20GHs = 60 Chips
60 * 7W = 420W

If 20GHs is the "MINERS nominal speed", then that does hit the target, with room to spare, for any electronics.

(25GHs @ 0.6W/GH = 15W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/25GHs = 48 Chips
48 * 15W = 720W

Nominal is "Near that range", for the chip. It is not ONLY that SPECIFIC value. You are as dense as they come when it comes to electronics and cars. Sorry, but you really need to stop investing in BTC if that is your greatest level of understanding. Actually, invest more, I could use some more easy money.

The chips don't have only 3 absolute levels of operation, they are showing you the RANGE, just as they do with cars. Driving on the road, or in a lab is irrelevant to the actual car you purchase. It is only expected to get NEAR that range, compared to the range of a SIMILAR vehicle with that same values, and get more than the other cars with lower values.

You are missing the whole point that the chips nominal value, and what the miners nominal operation, are NOT THE SAME. You don't drive your car at 120MPH, for hours, in a closed loop, or on the streets. Just as you don't only drive it 25MPH in that same situation. Your CARS NOMINAL value is not the MOTORS NOMINAL values. Depends on the transmission, how fat you are, if you live in the mountains, whether you got the turbo-intake, whether you got aluminum rims... I guarantee that a 4-cylinder and a 12-cylinder version of the same CAR will both do 120MPH... One just dies faster and takes longer and consumes more fuel, but its the same CAR. But that same engine in another CAR, will not have the same NOMINAL output, for the CAR. Though the engines NOMINAL output is exactly the same.

Anyways, it is clear that I am wasting my voice on the deaf. Consider me trolled by a troll. I am tired of teaching children how the world works for today.

I could care less about 5% off anything. I make more in a day then 5% off this unit would ever save me. Because I "know how the world works". lol. My mistake for thinking you wanted to know too. Since you keep asking, getting the answers, and then ask again. Something in your brain isn't functioning properly. Get your money back on that software, or pay for the upgrades, you need them.

I was referring to my specific orders... not his. Does he have full technicolor ability?

P.S. The cake is a lie!

So, as stated before, and the others have proven... Estimated values, are just estimates, even by a "regulatory board". (Regulatory boards use closed-loops, which are "perfect world" constants.) Saying it gets 34MPG and then it actually gets 42MPG would also be a "lie", so that german car defense is moot, and untrue BS. (I am sure a few cars are under-estimated, but not all german cars even have that information.)

The chips "nominal", and the "miners nominal" are/may not be the same. By your same analogy, you are not running the chip directly off the wall. It is part of a system, and the "system", is what determines the value it wants as nominal/normal. If you buy an overclocked unit, then the chip is not run at nominal speeds, though the oc-unit is running at a nominal level, for the unit. My GPU chips nominal use, by the MFG is 200W, the company that used the chip, runs it nominal {normal-stock} at about 225W. (It is an over-clockers card, pre-clocked.) Other versions of the card, cheap ones with poor regulators, nominally run about 180W to be "safe".

But anyways, you are complaining about a few watts, on specs that were an estimate, for a machine that didn't exist at the time, and is just being "made" now. Is that how you buy cars... You bitch about not getting 45MPG, because you only got 38MPG. And you have refused a good deal on a car, because you KNOW it will never get that MPG, at the speeds you want to drive it at.

Any-ways, now there is not much left for people to do, but nit-pick on the details. "Omg, it's blue in the picture and you sent me a red one!" By the way, nothing BFL said was even close to specs, and KNC is still ball-park, as were the Avalons, and every other created ASIC. Though, once delivered, they corrected the values a little. Avalons still crash at the rated speeds. Needing constant resetting.

I don't know why you can't fathom that ~600W is the estimated power for 1.2THs operation, and that ~300W is obviously the MINIMUM the unit runs at, at ???GHs. (That low is not stated. Why you would ever think that they are saying 300W @ 1.2THs is beyond my comprehension. That is not what it says.)

I just showed you that 1.2THs can be done at 420W, with plenty of room to spare, with those specific chips. "At the wall". My whole computer runs off 38W "at the wall", that is a 4GHz, quad-core, 8GB ram, 4 fans, and every component on the mother-board. (That is minus my 7x180W GPU's.) I am sure the rest of their system will consume less than that, which is still under 600W total.

My computer miners run from 800W - 1800W and get 4.4MHs (At the 1800W level they get the 4.4MHs, not at 800W, they only get about 3.0Mhs.) * This is a scrypt speeds, not sha-356 speeds. I make more money than a 120GHs sha-256 ASIC.
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/?sha256HashRate=120000.00&sha256Power=300.00&sha256PowerCost=0.1500&scryptHashRate=4400.00&scryptPower=1800.00&scryptPowerCost=0.1500&sha256Check=true&scryptCheck=true

Thus, why the 2x 1.2THs miner is the only viable option for the future. For me. (Time to retire my four scrypt miners, that cost me about $780 a month to operate, to replace them with something that only costs me about $128 a month to operate. I honestly don't care if it ends-up costing double that, in the end, in power.)
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/?sha256HashRate=2400000.00&sha256Power=1200.00&sha256PowerCost=0.1500&scryptHashRate=17600.00&scryptPower=7200.00&scryptPowerCost=0.1500&sha256Check=true&scryptCheck=true

1.2THs = 1200GHs

The spec-sheet says...
(20GHs @ 0.35W/GH = 7W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/20GHs = 60 Chips
60 * 7W = 420W

Respectively... On the top-end...
(40Ghs @ 1.0W/GH = 40W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/40GHs = 30 Chips
30 * 40W = 1200W


With the above two stated setups... The lower one would operate at less than 300W, but not 300W while at 1.2THs speeds.

(20Ghs @ 0.35W/GH = 7W) = 1 Chip
600GHs/20GHs = 30 Chips
30 * 7W = 210W

This same 30 chips can do 1.2THs, but not at 600W. (40 chips possibly, between the two numbers.)

300W/7W = ~44 chips (low)
which would be 44*20Ghs=880GHs on the low 300W

600W/13.6W = ~44 chips (below nominal)
which would be 44*28GHs=1232GHs (1.2THs) on below nominal About 600W
Again, I assume this LIMIT is due to the PSU ability, and heat-dissipation ability. Not a limit of the chip itself. (If 44 is what is used.)

11 boards of 4 chips = 44
8 boards of 6 chips = 48
6 boards of 8 chips = 48
Or mixed, one with 4  or 6 chips, to even it out. For the 48-chip odd arrangements.

Thus, like I said... like every MFG does... They state perfect-world estimated ranges. 40MPG Hwy - 32MPG City, but it never gets that, ever... Thus 300-600W, and the "max speed" may only be 1.2THs. They never said what the low speed is.

They didn't even confirm that the A1 chip is what is being used. (That is what we assume.)

It isn't a LIE, if no-one has it yet. "Specs subject to change". Even then, it isn't a LIE, it is an error. If that is what they were told, then that is what they repeated, as specs. My video cards say 250W, but I have them running at 135W, and have pushed them over 290W. Yet the specs still say "consumes 250W". Which is not "at the wall".

But I agree that the specs seem under-estimated, possibly. (The other components are all low-power, except the PSU and fans. They run off USB-power, so they have to be low wattage.) Another thing they forget to think about, is European power is 240v, which is half the amps, and more efficient than American power at 120v. That will add 15-25% inefficiency to the PSU alone, even a platinum PSU, which is only rated at 90% efficient at 240V, with an 85% load. (Which, by the way, is a LIE, because PSU's never get that efficient. )

One more month, or two... and we will see the results, in full technicolor detail.

You want a full report on the 1.2THs miner. Once I get it, I will do a full unboxing, tear-down, power-evaluation, and show yield reports at various "modified" levels.

This would include any "future potential", of the miner, as I am sure power/speed will simply be limited by the included power-supply and case-design's thermal-dissipation potential.

Some of this information, I am sure, can be used for the other miners as-well. Since they will be using similar/same hardware inside.

I still wish that other guy would follow-up with more posts of the smaller machine, if that is the same board that will be used in the THs models. (Which I would also like answered, if it can be answered, by AMT. Along with updating the website for the specific chip that is being used, and the quantity of chips for the miners. Knowing it is 28nm is as descriptive as saying "Car has wheels and engine." )

http://bitmine.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CoinCraft-A1.pdf

1.2THs = 1200GHs

The spec-sheet says...
(20GHs @ 0.35W/GH = 7W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/20GHs = 60 Chips
60 * 7W = 420W

Respectively... On the top-end...
(40Ghs @ 1.0W/GH = 40W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/40GHs = 30 Chips
30 * 40W = 1200W

So... By the specs, they are not wrong by saying the chips can run as low as 420W, and SPEEDS up to 1.2THs. (Seeing as the number of chips is not stated, and power/speed/cooling may be the final determining factor of the shipped unit.)

Now, "at the wall", 420W may be close to 600W. (But that is not specified, as there is no regulations for listing rated power, in any country. Unless you explicitly register for a power-rating by an external regulatory board.)

But I digress... Provided they use the "more chips" option, or the "nominal chip option"... There is plenty of room to "adjust to taste", for growth in the future.

Also note, 1.2THs, I am sure, is the "peak speed", not the "nominal average speed". But, by now, you should know that. Nothing runs in peak speed 100% of the time. There are too many factors that interfere with that limit. (Collision, heat, errors, new-block-resetting, time-to-setup-jobs, time-to-reply-results, stale-submits, usb traffic, cpu-busy, idle-wake-state-delays, thread response times.)

Plus, "new-specs" are always "estimated", based on "design-specs", provided by the MFG. Real-world adjustments usually follow. I am sure they have a kill-a-watt handy to measure wattage, "At the wall". Which is what normal people consider to be "consumed watts", since that is what we pay for. But, until they do that... expect the numbers to be slightly off, respectfully.

I hope it comes with the "more chips" option... then I just have to add a huge PSU to get double speed, up to 2.4THs in the future. Ok, that and some kick-ass cooling! Submerged in water, like that chinese miner does... or move to the artic, and use natural cooling, like the other miner guy did.

When calculating, is there anything which shows...

Mine now, cash-in 1 year from now, at the 10x value of the coin? Because that is a major speculation that matters more.

If you MINE now, and CASH-OUT now... You will be tooth and nail on profit.

However...

If you earn 1BTC this month, and 0.9BTC next month, and 0.4BTC... etc... down to 0.01BTC a year later...

If cashed-out at the time you made them, they would be $600, $300, $150, $20, $1... etc...

If cashed-out a year later, or at another "spike", it is as if you made $1200 the whole time, for every coin. Thus, the NOW price is useless, without offering the... "What if I held until ____ date".

Eg, I mined GENERIC-COIN all summer. Only got about 5000 and then the price and diff dropped. I made 50000 in a month. When BTC rose, so did the other coin. When I cashed-out, all those coins had the same "NOW" value of "NOW", not yesterday, and the day before, and the week before...

In any event, buying coins directly, rewarded greater returns than mining. No matter which way I did the math in the end. Mining also depletes the value, where as, purchasing coins adds instant value. (Which is appropriate, since mining the coin is the initial "loss" which is where all coins get the starting "value".)

Trust me, any of the new machines will be worth the investment. Not the best investment option, but they will be worth the investment.

Seems like a lot of DIY work, and power-hungry. Can't find any place that sells them, or any specs other than the forums, which shows 100Ghs-300Ghs (overclocked to near-death, and the 300Ghs seems to be two units, not one. So, 200GHs OCed to 300GHs? With 500-800+ Watts of power consumption.). Though, they are still erupter-blades, just on custom boards. Needs power-supply, lots of configuration to get it just to function, and I see mention of failures with no mention of "reimbursement".

However, that does seem like a viable alternative to the wait. I prefer to wait. As tempting as those look at the moment, to me. (They do look tempting.)

You know someone selling 1.2Ths miners NOW for $6000... Oh, you are talking about Erupter-Blades that are $6000 for only 100Ghs... (0.1Ths)... Let me get on that right away... I want to pay $6000 * 12 = $72,000 for something that will only earn an expected return of $12,000 a year, at best. It would only take me 28 years to get a ROI on that purchase now. (Since each year it earns less and less.)

I know you are not talking about bitmine.ch providing these miners now... they say delivery expected in "MAY". (If you buy 1000, like AMT is doing, I am sure they deliver faster. But for single purchases, expect it in May. Priority goes to the guys with big money, buying 1000's of boards.)

Um, ROI is not $0 until the miner power-use/cost is less than yield of BTC. I don't think those miners will be $0 ROI for years to come. (They don't mention ROI time, or initial purchase investment, so I assume that is not in the agreement. It reads as "operating ROI", which I am sure they will clarify, when that time comes.)

Even a Radeon 7970 video-card still makes more BTC than power it consumes, via alt-coins value in BTC. (Actually more than most of these GHs ASICs at times.)

I am only getting an ASIC to fill the gap of all the new coins coming-out for sha-256, which are only worth mining with the latest ASICs.

To the other comment about KNC... KNC has stopped taking orders, and they still are not delivering anything for three to four months, from now. (Another month or two, and they may start taking orders again, so AMT is your only choice, besides BFL. For small orders of single units with this power.)

BFL, KNC, Avalon... (Were/are still preorder for new things)
X-Box One (Was Preorder)
Playstation 4 (Was Preorder)
Grand Theft Auto V (Was Preorder)
Assassin's Creed IV (Was Preorder)
Insert most new things here (Will start as preorder)

That was to the guy who implied "preorders were just AMT's way of doing things".