|
I really hope ASICMiner succeeds: we need more competition in the distribution of hashrate, but I just don't see them pulling if off.
|
|
|
|
One issue I never see discussed is the role of the "Institutional investor". That is to say, there are a fair number of funds out there that may (or may not) hold AM shares in their portfolios. It is a bluechip stock in the bitcoin world after all, even with low dividends.
I cannot really state with any certainty what effect they may have, but I would assume it is non-zero.
There is no such thing as a blue chip company in the bitcoin world; and even if there were, ASICMiner certainly wouldn't be one (cf. 2nd gen fiasco, current reliability of earnings). |
|
|
|
|
Could someone clarify this for me: I've encrypted my wallet using BitcoinQT's built in feature. The password has ~150bits of entropy - can I safely store my encrypted wallet.dat in the cloud?
|
|
|
|
BFL 2.0 - in before "2 more weeks." Feeling bad for you guys  |
|
|
|
So no one's getting their rig delivered before 31st December - good luck getting your refunds, guys. |
|
|
|
|
Another mining company over promising and under delivering. Who'd a guessed.
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck breaking even with these chips, guys: the numbers aren't with you.
|
|
|
|
Has anybody done the math (assuming plausible difficulty increases, electricity price, etc) to determine a theoretical break even price for these?
I think paying break even is reasonable given the strong demand for better mining gear, offset by the massive risks of BTC price volatility and skyrocketing difficulty.
Getting people to pay above break even is a recipe for failure, as many other posters have alluded to. To buy or not to buy should be an economically rational decision....
It doesn't make sense to put your capital at risk merely to break even. |
|
|
|
How much profit will one make buying these at 4btc each. i think they will loose guaranteed  udontsay.jpg - anyone paying more than 0.5btc is a fool. |
|
|
|
High risk, low reward. A classic ASIC investment.
+1 |
|
|
|
How long does the verification take? I'm waiting now for over 3,5 weeks...
Fewer than 24 hours for me in the UK. |
|
|
|
And it would cost a lot less than $18k to buy 120BTC; plus there's no risk/hassle/work involved. Bitfury August delivery is definitely positive.
bitfury august was >2x the current price, 400GH at $18k (or was it 19k dont remember exactly), they took delivery at the very end of august. Not factor in the bitcoin/usd price increase as you never should for roi calculations, please enlighten on that hardware is "definitely positive" Ok, let me try that: I don't have any of this Bitfury full-kit 400GHs units so can't testify first hand (if someone has them please confirm or deny), but let's say they started mining Sept. 1st to be on the safe side, although some did few days earlier. According to reverse mining calculations it already earned close to 80 BTC, maybe few BTC more or less. 400GHs will mine around around 35-40BTC more before network difficulty reduces mining income to satoshies, so it will return around 120 BTC mining in profitable conditions. Bitfury is energy efficient, so it will continue to grind over electricity costs even in double-digit PHs conditions. Don't need to calculate that in fiat, although they were paid in fiat and not in BTC, but it looks to me that whoever invested in that at the beginning of July is looking at his wallet and smiling to the current ASIC buyers. |
|
|
|
As many as humanly possible! They were (are) selling for more than they could ever mine. You're saying the initial blades only cost $15 to manufacture? Surely ASICMiner would have made a lot more, given their selling price.
well, they did make 10's of thousands of btc. How much should they have made? |
|
|
|
You're saying the initial blades only cost $15 to manufacture? Surely ASICMiner would have made a lot more, given their selling price. You can't be serious
I am serious. That's what people were paying for them. Any ideas what was the total cost for those "blades"? 3 USD per Gh? initial batches were estimated around $1.50/GH. I don't know about the latest batch. |
|
|
|
And how much time, energy and wealth do you think is wasted guarding banks, ATMs and gold reserves? Orders of magnitude more than it would take to secure the bitcoin network. I just think it's silly to complain about energy waste of bitcoin mining when it would actually save energy if gold and paper fiat currency were replaced by bitcoin.
Stating that as fact doesnt make for one. If only US dollar would be replaced by bitcoin, how much would 1 bitcoin be worth? Lets assume very conservatively there are only 10 trillion dollar. Divided by 21 million bitcoin gives ~$500K per btc. So hypothetically, how much energy would be consumed by the bitcoin network once it would have stabilized? As much as it would earn in mining. Per year we would mine ~1.3M BTC or $657,000,000,000 worth of bitcoins. Assume $0.15/KWH that works to 4,380,000,000,000 KWh or 4,380 TWh Thats 5x more than the US produces in nuclear power. and almost exactly equals the total electricity production in the US (4300 TWh). Funny coincidence. Yeah, lets replace the dollar with bitcoin to save the environment |
|
|
|
Just use www.allchains.info - it has the most reliable method. Currently predicts 243,000,000 for next adjustment. |
|
|
|
|
The risk-adjusted return on miners has been absolutely dire since at least April of this year; this is still the case today. I am glad that miners are securing the network even at a loss, though.
|
|
|
|
| Brand | BTC/GH | W/GH | | KnC | 0,06 | 1 | | BFSB | 0,14 | 1 | | BEUSB | 0,21 | 7 | | BFL | 0,35 | 5 |
If you buy any of these with fiat you will probably get your money back if BTC price increases. BTC is not chasing hardware any longer though. How many times must it be explained that fiat appreciation is irrelevant with regards to ROI... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
