Yes it did hit 5 BTC, but my argument was not that it wouldn't hit 5 BTC, it was that all the upcoming competition would force AM to sell hardware at lower prices and decrease AM's network share as well. This would obviously cause divs to decrease which in turn would cause the share price to decrease.

So, was my argument wrong?


Of course it didn't hold up, Labcoin was a scam. If it was legit though, the shares would have easily sold for 10x IPO.


As far as I can remember I never claimed Labcoin would hit 1 BTC, so I'll you you to quote me on that one. No, in fact don't bother, because it's completely irrelevant. You are just trying to distract people from my actual argument.

Sure, you can use crazy numbers in your equation if you want to get some specific result, but people will challenge the validity of those numbers. Is that what you think I've been doing with my arguments here? I told you were my numbers came from:

* the genesis block for network hash rate,
* friedcat for gen 3 hash rate, and
* previous manufacturers time frames for time from tape out to receiving sample chips.

What numbers are you claiming I'm selectively picking?

Just because the maths gives results you don't want to see, doesn't mean those are wrong.

You said that 6 months ago as well when you were claiming shares were worth at least 5 BTC and I explained why such prices were insane. Was I just trying to push the price down then as well? Looking back now, would you still claim my argument was flawed.

My arguments were perfectly valid back then, even though you couldn't or wilfully refused to understand them. The arguments I recently made are also perfectly valid.

Also, why would me telling people to do the maths themselves push the price down? Wouldn't that only be the case if the maths showed that the shares were overpriced?

Well, before the delays were announced, I had normal production starting in Feb. That wasn't a best or worse case scenario, it was a realistic one.

People just seem to ignore the facts when they are invested.

Some AM shareholders have been telling people that the new chips will be available in January. Seems like the most logical reason for the rise to me.

Certain AM shareholders have been telling people that gen 3 chips will be out this month. There's going to be a lot of disappointed come Feb.

Like I said, you should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately telling lies. Wait...are you saying you didn't know that tape out does not mean having miners in hand?

You actually think that AM will have gen 3 miners this month?

I'm not buying that at all.

Good, I don't want people blindly following my advice. I want them to take my arguments on board, think about them, do the maths themselves, then use their results to counter my arguments if we disagree.

My message is not "Everyone, listen to me!", it's "Stop listening to others and do the maths yourself!"

Yes, I was wrong about Labcoin and yes I was wrong about the how much the hash rate would increase by. I never claimed to be infallible, I've probably been wrong millions of times in my life. So what? Have you never been wrong? Who here hasn't been wrong before?

Also, how many people here predicted that the hash rate would be this high. Not many.

Does any of that invalidate the arguments I've put forth? No, of course not. Go through my history as much as you want and put up everything I've been wrong about, I'm sure that will distract people from the actual argument I made.

I too can sling mud.


For shame SmiGuel. You deliberately lied to people you were trying to flog your shares to by telling them that gen3 would be coming in January. That's proper scummy, especially considering that some people may think you are officially involved with AM because you do the charts.

So people, it's up to you, you can listen to a proven liar trying to flog overpriced shares or you can do the maths yourself.

Yes, I stated on many occasions that Labcoin would be very profitable if it wasn't a scam. And it would have been. Unfortunately for a lot of people, it was a scam. How is that relevant? My arguments are based on the available data. Simple as that.


Pretty much everyone called me a troll back when shares were going for 4+ BTC, ignored my arguments, told everyone else to ignore my argument and put me on their ignore list, then carried on buying shares at 4+ BTC. Those people lost shit loads of money. The arguments I made were completely obvious yet most people could not help deluding themselves. Take a look at the argument yourself and tell me if you think it was obvious. Those people lost money because they ignored the facts and listened to people blinded by greed.

I'm not telling people to take my word as gospel, I'm telling people - as I always do - to do the maths themselves.

Really pankkake? Remember when shares where going for 4+ BTC and I said this:


To which you replied:


and,


Remind me how that turned out again. You guys are all blinded by greed again and you're all going to get burned again. I've shown you guys the numbers, if you don't believe those numbers, then use your own values and do the maths yourselves. Look at the facts.

Edit: I urge everyone to go back to page 20 of the speculation thread. The argument I made back then was blatantly obvious to me, yet I could count the number of people who understood that on one hand. People delude themselves into believing nonsense simply because they want that nonsense to be true. Unfortunately, reality does not work like that.

If AM had 20 Ph/s in their mines and the network hash rate was 250 Ph/s (as predicted by genesisblock), then it isn't possible for AM even get 10% of the network. That would require 25 Ph/s. Once their chips are all used up, it's all downhill until new chips arrive.

Clearly, you didn't even bother reading what I said.

Those mining scenarios are neither wrong nor elaborate. It's a simple scenario I created because people seem to be expecting AM to just recapture 10% of the network with their new chips. I was highlighting the fact that even if AM didn't sell any hardware, they couldn't even maintain a 5% share for more than two rounds under those conditions.


No, I'm not. Friedcat has claimed the first batch will between 2 and 20 Ph/s. How long will it take to produce a new batch of miners? What will be the size of that batch? What will the network hash rate be when the miner start to come online, etc.

This is the same mistake people made when they were buying shares for 4+ BTC. The 2nd batch of chips will be nowhere near as profitable as the 1st batch.

Like I said,


The problem here though, is that people will be expecting profits like those from gen 1 chips. That's clearly not going to be the case though. As I pointed out months ago when shares were trading at 4+ BTC, AM had a monopoly at the time which is why they could charge outrageous prices for their hardware. As soon as competition came out, the profits from hardware sales plummeted. Everyone thought I was mad back then for saying that but that's exactly what happened.

This time around, AM don't have a monopoly and there's a lot of competition. We don't really know anything about AM's new chips but they won't have as high a hash rate as the 28nm chips. They may have lower power consumption but that doesn't really matter that much for individuals buying a mining rig or two.

So, AM will be releasing new chips into a highly competitive market and they're unlikely to take the performance (Gh/s) crown. Why should people buy AM hardware if they can get better performance elsewhere? The answer has to be because AM is cheaper per hash.

Lets say that AM got 20 Ph/s and sold the lot in one go and distributed the profits as divs. What would those divs have to be like to make you think a share price of 0.4 BTC was good value?

What a surprise, people clearly haven't done the maths on this one.

Looking at the genesis block, the network hash rate will be 132.6 Ph/s on 14th April. If AM had 100 Th/s (gen1 mines) at that time then:

* AM would have 0.1 * 100 / 132.6 = 0.075% of the network hash rate.
* With 50,400 BTC mined per round, AM would get 37.8 BTC per round.
* With 37.8 BTC mined per round by AM, that would equate to 0.0000945 BTC per round per share

That's what divs will fall to before the new chips come online. If we then plug in the numbers for AM's proposed batch size of 2-20 Ph/s and assume that this is put together by 14th May, using genesis block again gives the network hash rate to be 263.8 Ph/s. This gives the following:

* 2 Ph/s would represent 0.76% of the network, which is worth 383.04 BTC per round and 0.0009576 BTC per round per share.
* 20 Ph/s would represent 7.58% of the network, which is worth 3820.32 BTC per round or 0.0095508 BTC per round per share.

Let say the network hash rate was 250 Ph/s (based on genesisblock) and AM controlled 5% of the network. That 5% would represent 12.5 Ph/s. If the network hash rate increases by 20% that round, that would take the network hash rate to 300 Ph/s. In order for AM to maintain their network share, AM would need to add 2.5 Ph/s by the end of that round. In order to maintain their hash rate, the following extra hash power would need to be brought online by the end of each round:

Round 1 = 2.5 Ph/s
Round 2 = 3 Ph/s
Round 3 = 3.6 Ph/s
Round 4 = 4.32 Ph/s
Round 5 = 5.184 Ph/s
Round 6 = 6.2208 Ph/s

If AM had 20 Ph/s (max batch size according to AM), 12.5 Ph/s would be needed to control 5% of the network, leaving 7.5 Ph/s for sales and maintaining the network share until a new batch of chips arrived. The first 3 rounds require more than 9.1 Ph/s to be brought online to maintain 5%.

If the network hash rate is around 250 Ph/s and AM's batch1 is 20 PH/s then it can't maintain network share beyond 2 rounds even if it didn't sell a single chip. In reality, AM will sell a good portion of their chips.

Now, if you are reading this comment, and you come to the conclusion that AM is a good buy at above IPO price, the perhaps you could show us the maths which lead to that conclusion. All the numbers I'm seeing tell me to avoid AM.

This reminds me of when people where paying 4+ BTC per share. Some of us pointed out back then that such prices where insane because the maths didn't support it and the same is happening now. People are assuming AM will bring their new chips online, capture significant network share, maintain that network share and still sell a large chunk of hardware. That's just not possible tough based on the numbers being reported.

Do the maths, people.

They all went a bit mental and got banned from here.

You are showing your reading comprehension problems again. It was dmcdad that brought up the 5% network share. I pointed out that would use 12.5 Ph/s out of AM's 20 Ph/s (maximum) leaving 7.5 Ph/s available. I then demonstrated that AM would require 9.1 Ph/s in order to maintain 5% making it physically impossible to maintain 5% for even 3 rounds.

I'm sorry if such basic maths is too difficult for you to follow. Maybe it will cheer you up to know that in reality, AM will sell a good proportion of that hash rate, probably making it impossible to even gain 5% in the first place.

I feel really sorry for people who think that 9.1 Ph/s is less than 7.5 Ph/s.

I repeat (without the mistakes this time):

Let say the network hash rate was 250 Ph/s and AM controlled 5% of the network, netting around 2,520 BTC per round. That 5% would represent 12.5 Ph/s. If the network hash rate increases by 20% that round, that would take the network hash rate to 300 Ph/s. In order for AM to maintain their network share, AM would need to add 2.5 Ph/s by the end of that round. In order to maintain their hash rate, the following hash power would need to be brought online by the end of each round:

Round 1 = 2.5 Ph/s
Round 2 = 3 Ph/s
Round 3 = 3.6 Ph/s
Round 4 = 4.32 Ph/s
Round 5 = 5.184 Ph/s
Round 6 = 6.2208 Ph/s

If they got 20 Ph/s, 12.5 Ph/s would be needed to control 5% of the network, leaving 7.5 Ph/s for sales and maintaining the network share until a new batch of chips arrived. The first 3 rounds require more than 9.1 Ph/s to be brought online to maintain 5%.

How is possible to bring 9.5 Ph/s online if there is only 7.5 Ph/s available?

I was assuming the current hash rate to be 100 Th/s and that new chips would arrive in April in order to show what mining income will drop to before the new chips come online.


If AM have 20 Ph/s, they do not have the ability to maintain a 5% network share if the network hash rate is 250 Ph/s. That is easy to prove mathematically and I have done so.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the words you are actually reading.

I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.

I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.