so if i read last few post correct then, if btc is lets say at like $600 for example. Does this mean we would be getting dividend payouts of like .00001300 per GHS or am i assuming wrong. Once again i am makin up number not saying will be that on the dot lol so please dont cook me alive saying my math is of or blah blah blah haha  No. Bitcoin value on has an effect on the maintenance fee as that is converted from dollars to bitcoin and subtracted by the earnings. The earnings are calculated as follows: The payout rate before fee subtraction is 25 / (difficulty * 4.295) BTC per unit per second. <--no dollars in calculaltion P.S. I won't "cook you alive" about your math but your spell check is off too. |
|
|
|
Not novelty, ofc. I just assumed not all USB's were created equal and this was my way of getting ideas without actively searching Google. Serves me for being lazy  Anybody (everybody) have multiple backups for the same wallet? Sure on every type of media CD, flash drive, tape drive and private keys on paper and stored in a safe. |
|
|
|
though to be totally fair the 'luck' on btcguild has been sweet the past few days..
Yeah I keep expecting them to post a news item begging for their coins back because they screwed up somehow  |
|
|
|
Geez. Tough crowd. You did notice this is in the Beginners and Help section, yes? What are you using it for? |
|
|
|
New dividend payout is 0.00000784. Lower day by day. Any idea why?
Beside the exchange rate affecting the maintenance fee, that's how mining works. If you had 1 GH/s and the network hash rate was 100 Gh/s you would have 1% of the network hash rate. Around 3600 BTC are mined each day, so if you controlled 1% of the network you would receive 1% of that 3600 BTC. Now if the network increased to 200 GH/s you would only control 0.5% of the network hash rate and would receive 0.5% of the 3600 BTC. So, if the network hash rate increases, your payout decreases. That's true only after difficulty adjustment of course. If hashrate grew 100% in one day your own earnings would be unaffected untill diff change, just the blocks would have been mined twice as fast on average. Only if you were the cause of the increase in hashrate. If it's competitors putting more equipment online, then naturally your slice of the pie will get smaller, since odds are now less that you will solve the block. No this isn't true. The odds haven't changed! Finding a block is based on the difficulty and your hashing rate so if the network speed were to double you would still solve the same number of blocks as you were before the doubling BUT instead of 6 blocks per hour, the network would be solving 12. This is why there is a difficulty retarget; in order to get the network solving blocks every 10 minutes again. |
|
|
|
Are we still selling AMHash shares?
I cannot see any availability for new shares on havelock, what happened to AMHash2?
New (primary market) AMHash shares are still being sold on Hashie. -Sahra Hashie - I got an email from your group that indicated AMHash was using immersion cooled units which is why the maintenance fee was so low. Do you have any proof of this? |
|
|
|
Consider zero electricity cost. According to your chart, network would go to inifinty and an individual miner would be willing to pay any price for hardware. Dont you see thats nonsensical?
Yes I do Puppet and I wish you could see how your rudimentary implementation of miner costs into that chart is as well. The chart is only of value to miners currently in service with respect to when to shut them down. Nobody should buy a miner based on either chart. |
|
|
|
The hardware represents an investment. You have to write that off and you cant just ignore that. You cakculate it as if people would buy $10000 prismas today. If i already had a $100000 prisma i wouldnt unplug it as long as it earns more than it costs, but i wouldnt have bought one and no one is going to invest in hardware that cant break even.
I have no disagreement with you on that point. My argument with your original chart is with the implementation of BE for up-front miner cost. |
|
|
|
I would highly recommend against buying any miner at the age of 15 or 16, especially one as power hungry as the SP20. Once your Dad sees your electric bill, he's going to fucking kick your ass bruh!  Just the fact you'll have no ROI in sight for your @$1000 investment should scare you straight. You'll make more money working at Mickey D's at the age of 16, instead of getting your hiney whipped in by big papa. lol ...and after the ass-kicking, you WILL be getting a job! |
|
|
|
If bitcoin stays at US$350, the AMHash mining contract will end when the Network hashing rate hits 750 Ph/s - it would be nice to have a crystal ball so we know when that will be.
I cant tell you when but I can guarantee you that we will hit well beyond those speeds:  Consider ~0.7J/GH is achievable now and 0.5-0.2J/GH just around the corner (0.1 next year if you believe Bitfury, KnC or spondoolies), Also consider that $400/TH is available today, and Spondoolies are talking of <$100/GH next next year Well once again I have to disagree on the validity of your chart so this time I have utilized the portion of your calculation which I am agreeable to and removed what I believe to be the erroneous portion of your calculation. Electricity is used perpetually to run the mining equipment; when electricity costs = value of bitcoins produced, you are no longer making money - I agree with you on that point. However, the 365 BE you refer to is not accurately implemented in your charts as you have not factored in time and more importantly difficulty with respect to time. You have already admitted as much in saying " I cant tell you when..." Here is your representation of network speed with respect to electricity cost only, utilizing a logarithmic x-axis. Obviously this chart is only useful for indicating when it's time to turn off your already-purchased miners (unless you heat your dwelling with electricity). In this model, Bitcoin value is set to US$400 and block reward is 25BTC and zero electricity cost is removed as the graph goes asymptotic:  |
|
|
|
I am a programmer and love programming. It's all I do. My dad wants me to get a job when I turn 16, but I dont want to. I am looking to spend about $1,000 (less if I could) on a miner and I want it to generate about $200 dollars a week on average. I have been looking at the SP20-Jackson miner which would generate about $140 a week and costs $1,190. Anyone have any suggestions on a miner. Thanks in advance!
Is this LukeJr? |
|
|
|
i really dont know what the difficulty rise will be in the future. I really dont remember where i had seen it sometime earlier in the day. I seen a website that had prediction based off current data and showed next rise in 13 days to be at 4.7%. Once again i dont recall the site or even if they was legit or just spitting random numbers
If bitcoin stays at US$350, the AMHash mining contract will end when the Network hashing rate hits 750 Ph/s - it would be nice to have a crystal ball so we know when that will be. |
|
|
|
I'm definitely enjoying the low price and good transparency so far.
I firmly believe it is as close to a gift as you're ever going to get in the bitcoin mining world. I didn't have to buy power supplies and the maintenance costs are still half what my electricity costs would have been (based on 1W/gh efficiency). |
|
|
|
before difficulty change: 0.00000859
after difficulty change: 0.00000817
amhash change ~5%
difficulty change 1.76%
why is amhash almost 3x higher?
Because your comparison is fundamentally flawed and you are comparing apples to oranges. If you use the stated payout formula and plug in the appropriate values, you will see that apples are apples - The payout rate before fee subtraction is 25 / (difficulty * 4.295) BTC per unit per second - the only variable is difficulty. The reason you are seeing oranges at ~5% is that the maintenance fee is converted from US dollars to bitcoin and is subtracted from the payout rate. Recently the bitcoin value went up (which translates to fewer bitcoin subtracted from the payout rate) and then back down (which translates to more bitcoin subtracted from the payout rate). This translates to your observed differential in the dividend. Thank you I know you knew it. You just needed your memory jogged. So difficulty change was < 5% are you warming up to the idea of AMHash yet or is this just the calm before the storm? |
|
|
|
before difficulty change: 0.00000859
after difficulty change: 0.00000817
amhash change ~5%
difficulty change 1.76%
why is amhash almost 3x higher?
Because your comparison is fundamentally flawed and you are comparing apples to oranges. If you use the stated payout formula and plug in the appropriate values, you will see that apples are apples - The payout rate before fee subtraction is 25 / (difficulty * 4.295) BTC per unit per second - the only variable is difficulty. The reason you are seeing oranges at ~5% is that the maintenance fee is converted from US dollars to bitcoin and is subtracted from the payout rate. Recently the bitcoin value went up (which translates to fewer bitcoin subtracted from the payout rate) and then back down (which translates to more bitcoin subtracted from the payout rate). This translates to your observed differential in the dividend. |
|
|
|
before difficulty change: 0.00000859
after difficulty change: 0.00000817
amhash change ~5%
difficulty change 1.76%
why is amhash almost 3x higher?
Variance in pool luck? No. There is no variance here. The payout rate before fee substraction is 25 / (difficulty * 4.295) BTC per unit per second. |
|
|
|
in planning to recycle jupiter parts very soon i am interested in the shell/case material composition. (exact, not guessed)
Aluminum case. |
|
|
|
I will remove the negative trust I gave to kncminer because I got my coins back and it's the right thing to do. I would however advise anyone planning on dealing with KNCminer in the future to proceed with extreme caution.
The negative trust should be left in place, it's there for the original issue, not tangible based on how they respond more than half a year later. The negative trust helps people proceed with caution. IMO. Excellent point. I was looking for validation. Negative trust restored. Also think about all the nonsense you had to go through getting the refund. In any other scenario would you have put up with that? What would your review had been if this were on eBay or Amazon? Keeping it negative is the right choice. More good points! Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Now this is good stuff! Great job Puppet.
|
|
|
|
I will remove the negative trust I gave to kncminer because I got my coins back and it's the right thing to do. I would however advise anyone planning on dealing with KNCminer in the future to proceed with extreme caution.
The negative trust should be left in place, it's there for the original issue, not tangible based on how they respond more than half a year later. The negative trust helps people proceed with caution. IMO. Excellent point. I was looking for validation. Negative trust restored. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
