Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces nonsense I just made up, no I don't. Do you?
FTFY And yes we do believe AM can maintain 5+% global hashrate or we wouldn't be investing. Seriously your calculations are garbage and unrealistic. Prove it then. |
|
|
|
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that? You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing. Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button. For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr. I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish. |
|
|
|
I ignored it because, as I said, I don't care what AM's share of the network is. I care what AM's share of the mining profit pool is. Trust me, I fully understand the nature of increased difficulty and how that impacts mining profits.
I think gen3 will (based on its specs) set them on the trajectory for owning 5%+ of that pool for a foreseeable amount of time (again, foreseeable for me is several months). If you agree with that, then that equates to a 54% annual dividend rate. I don't care if that dividend comes from AM selling chips/miners in batches or if it comes over a 12 month period of self mining. If AM shows that it is on a trajectory to get 5% or more of that mining profits for a reasonable amount of time, then it is way undervalued. You don't think they will apparently, even with gen3, which is fine. In a few months we'll see what happens.
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 Th/s. If the network hash rate increases by 20% that round, that would take the network hash rate to 300 Th/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 Th/s would be needed to control 5% of the network, leaving 7 Ph/s for sales and maintaining the network share until a new batch of chips arrived. Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces, no I don't. Do you? |
|
|
|
Why in the world would AM sell 20P (first batch) and then stop manufacturing/selling additional batches? Do you think gen3 AM is going to only be profitable for a single batch or something, or you think it is going to take them several months to cook up another batch?
Note AM is still selling gen1 cubes at a profit, albeit a small and decreasing one.
Also note I don't care what AM share of the network is. I don't care if they don't self mine at all. I care that they maximize profit.
You brought up the selling of 20 Ph/s. I just explained what would happen if they did that. Also, you ignored the important part of my post: Let's say AM got 10% of the network after using all their chips and that the difficulty is increasing 20% per round. Let's also say that it takes 3 months before AM have a new batch of miners which take it back up to 10%. What will AM's share of the network be after 3 months, just before the new miners come online? The reason you should answer this question is because it will show you how the divs will decrease between batches under those circumstances and it will answer your questions from the first paragraph. |
|
|
|
Bargraphics, how soon until you visit Ken and take pictures of progress?
You can already monitor the progress on Eligius. We have 10 24.5 TH miners that are still going through some software debugging or potentially hardware issues. You people are blind as all shit. We're blind? You're the one who keeps claiming roughly 50 Th/s increments are roughly 25 Th/s increments. You're also stupid for not realising that there are numerous ways of adding numbers together to make 50. The fact is, there's zero evidence to support your claim and evidence disproving it in the form of Ken stating that he is still waiting for chips. |
|
|
|
I don't think gen3 will be able to maintain a constant network share, but neither does it have to. I do think that gen3 will put AM on the trajectory to own 5%+ (perhaps much more) of the mining profit pool for the foreseeable future. Foreseeable being several months, which is all that matters -- after that we all need crystal balls in regards to gen4+ hardware.
I repeat: Let's say AM got 10% of the network after using all their chips and that the difficulty is increasing 20% per round. Let's also say that it takes 3 months before AM have a new batch of miners which take it back up to 10%. What will AM's share of the network be after 3 months, just before the new miners come online? Time will tell. You seem quite surprised at the recent AM price increase and are looking for explanations / reasons, but you want to dismiss them all. Do you really think that if, in a few months, AM can sell 20P of miners in a few week period (for just the first deployment of gen3) the stock price is going to be around 0.3 BTC as all those dividends come flowing in every week?
If AM sold 20 Ph/s of chips, what would they mine with? You don't seem to understand that they have a finite amount of hardware which needs to be split between mining and sales. So, in your scenario, they sell 20 Ph/s and gives are great for the first few weeks. Then the sales money is all distributed and the next divs are from mining alone, which would be on gen 1 chips because all the gen 3 chips were sold. As I pointed out earlier in the thread: Looking at the genesis block, the network hash rate will be 132.6 Ph/s on 14th April. If AM had 100 Th/s 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
What do you think the share price would fall to when the divs took a massive nosedive to about 0.000005 BTC and continued to decline at the rate of network growth? |
|
|
|
Do you really think 268PH is reasonable by May?
Doesn't sound reasonable to me based on manufacturers delivering hardware.
We will also be beyond "Prosumer" level devices by that time and into "commercial" or "industrial" designs and power requirements. The number of hobbyist customers will be much less and the number of businesses/industrial miners will grow.
It's one thing to mine at a small loss as a hobbyist, but I don't believe business models will not allow for this loss leading behaviour on such a large scale. Large capital investments in more and more powerful hardware demands annual returns, not losses.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the hash rate was that high. |
|
|
|
There will be over 1.3 million BTC mined over the 12 month period. Actually more since blocks will be found on average every 8 to 9 minutes instead of every 10 minutes. Consumer mining companies thus far have been able to sell hardware at a higher profit than self mining (more profit in selling shovels, etc.), but profit margins will be decreasing. So let's leave 1.3 million BTC as the profit amount.
If AM produces <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost then what share of the 1.3 million BTC pie do you think they will get? Multiply that percentage by 1.3 mil BTC / 400,000 and you get your dividend amount from AM. Say AM captures 5% of the mining profits, that will be 0.1625 BTC, or a 54% total dividend at a share price of 0.30 BTC. If they capture 12% of the mining profits, then that is a 130% dividend.
Can AM really capture 5%+ of the profit over a 12 month period? Maybe, maybe not. But I think if their gen 3 showing meets their goals then they will have the correct trajectory to, at least for the first few months, capture higher than that. No way the share price is going to stay around 0.3 BTC if that happens.
The mistake you are making is that you are assuming that they can maintain network share. That's completely unrealistic for the reasons mentioned previously. Just like AM couldn't maintain network share with gen 1, neither will they be able to so with their next gen chips for the same reason. The difference this time is that the competition is far greater, meaning less profit for AM and less divs for shareholders. Let's say AM got 10% of the network after using all their chips and that the difficulty is increasing 20% per round. Let's also say that it takes 3 months before AM have a new batch of miners which take it back up to 10%. What will AM's share of the network be after 3 months, just before the new miners come online? |
|
|
|
Mabsark you get really shirty and vulgar with anyone who crosses you don't you?
How about less of the name calling huh?
You don't use the word 'probably' because you clearly always know all the facts? I see. Well done.
EDIT - fine Mabby, go complain to the SEC. After a 2year court battle you might get your shares swapped back out for your initial FIAT investment. Meanwhile all the other shares holders who decide not to contest will keep their shares, keep their divs, and will be sitting very pretty. I'm sure that will make perfect sense to you.
Do you have a problem comprehending what you read? I never said I was going to complain to the SEC. I said somebody could lodge a complaint based on the fact that Ken has taken control of peoples shares and withheld dividends for weeks while ignoring peoples pleas for an explanation. That complaint could most certainly be interpreted as legitimate, after all, it is a factual representation of what's going on at the moment. |
|
|
|
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that? You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing. |
|
|
|
Fh8ZsgcYh0VQVwFwMay, 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
The 2P to 20P range is just for the FIRST batch of gen 3 deployment. There will be other batches as well. What is important isn't deployment size or nm mask size, but rather this: There's a limit to how fast they can produce new miners, and that's clearly going to be less than all the rest of the competition together, which means a decrease in network share. There's simply too much competition to be able to maintain their hash rate. Power consumption target estimation is <0.2W per G on low power mode and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost. If one thinks that those numbers will be competitive with what other companies are producing in a few months, then AM will have a good slice of the mining pie (either through mining, sales, or franchising) and will have a value much higher than 0.3 BTC / share. If you think AM will be worth more than 0.3 BTC, show the maths which leads you to believe that. Just because you want it to worth more than 0.3 BTC, that doesn't mean it will be. Unless you want to wait years to make a profit from your investment, AM is a bad investment at 0.3 BTC. Waiting years in the hope of making a profit from mining is simply crazy in this climate. Do you think anyone would buy a miner if they thought it would 10 years to get their money back? |
|
|
|
A lot of people are claiming that ActM are ripping them off ................if they have no access to those shares?
Errr HELLO! The SEC closed down BF! They took our shares off the market! They are probably guiding Ken on this issue hence the delays and his mention of sorting out the legal side of CT. Please keep up Mabsark. So what if the SEC took the shares off the market? Does that mean Ken doesn't need to refund those shareholders and can just keep all the dividends for himself? Of course not. Probably, probably probably! In other words you know fuck all! I have provided a scenario that is actually occurring as we speak. Someone could legitimately make those complaints because they are factual. Ken took everyone's shares and gave them nothing in return and dividends haven't been paid in weeks. People are asking Ken to explain himself and he's simply ignoring them. The the sycophants like yourself come on and start having a go at them for their very valid complaints. How long will it be before these people get sick of being ignored by Ken and report him to the SEC? And NO-ONE but Trolls say Ken has ripped them off. Keep trying Mabsark.......but the days of cheap ACtM shares are OVER.  Plenty of people are complaining and their complaints are legitimate. You just can't accept that fact. Even Kynbe's joined the ranks of "trolls". |
|
|
|
With US investors getting screwed by ActM and the SEC being there to protect US investors, why would the SEC not take action against Ken?
Because they don't prosecute legitimate businesses unless they have deliberately flaunted legislation to scam, defraud, or avoid taxes. The SEC have already shown their colours here. They have troddon softly with cease and desist letters instead of Police raids or InterPol/extradition requests. The Bitcoin economy now has official sanction in the US, no legitimate BTC mining business will be closed down if they follow SEC guidance after direct contact. Ken appears to be doing that. A lot of people are claiming that ActM are ripping them off and Ken seems to be going out of his way to give such claims legitimacy. If someone claims Ken has stolen their shares, could that not be interpreted as true if they have no access to those shares? If someone claimed Ken had stolen their dividends could that not be interpreted as true if Ken hasn't paid divs for weeks? |
|
|
|
For those too lazy to actually do such basic math, using the current share price of 0.32 BTC and dividends of 0.00081605 gives 393 weeks before recovering that 0.32 BTC, which is 7.5 years.
it's not recovering the .32btc, it's doubling the .32 btc in that time. 100% return. You still have the share. no one is expecting the dividend to remain constant, that's why the share price is increasing. The share price increasing is simply idiotic. Divs are going to decrease substantially before the new chips are in use. As I stated earlier: 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
Divs are not going back to previous levels and will start to drop again soon after. Even if we used constant divs from 0.01 BTC per round per share and a share price of 0.32 BTC, it would take 32 rounds to make 100% profit (since you like that terminology better). That's rounds not weeks. There's not a chance AM is going to use all the chips for their mines and the majority of them will be for sale. What that means is that the first few weeks of divs may be higher than expected but will then fall dramatically. If you use a share price of 0.32 BTC, a mining income of 0.01 BTC per round and a 20% increase in difficulty per round, is it even possible to make 100% profit? |
|
|
|
This is already very old. The SEC sent a desist letter to Bitfunder (months ago). He acted and they didn't prosecute Ukyo/Jon.
He would have been a huge scalp if that's what they were after - they are not, they are out to protect US investors.
So clearly they have no intention of prosecuting this industry unless instructions and guidance are ignored.
So nothing to worry about, if there was, ACtM would be shut down already.
With US investors getting screwed by ActM and the SEC being there to protect US investors, why would the SEC not take action against Ken? |
|
|
|
At 0.3 BTC per share and a guaranteed constant yield of 10%, it would take 10 years months to recover the cost.
FTFY True:) Math. It's not just a good idea. Yeah, 100% return in 10 months, no one will ever accept that kind of crappy return. For those too lazy to actually do such basic math, using the current share price of 0.32 BTC and dividends of 0.00081605 gives 393 weeks before recovering that 0.32 BTC, which is 7.5 years. That's assuming constant divs which is completely unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Right. So given that this amount was raised completely in Q4 then we can multiple it by 4 for an accurate share value for the year: 0.00322248.
No, because we don't how much of that is profit and simply multiplying it by 4 would not be accurate. As the network hash rate increases, the profits would fall as the chips became less desirable. Hence my "P.s." Your method for valuation is weak at best. Stick with "no chips = 0.00BTC/share newfagz!". It actually makes more sense. I didn't provide a method for valuation. |
|
|
|
Right. So given that this amount was raised completely in Q4 then we can multiple it by 4 for an accurate share value for the year: 0.00322248.
No, because we don't how much of that is profit and simply multiplying it by 4 would not be accurate. As the network hash rate increases, the profits would fall as the chips became less desirable. |
|
|
|
Weekly Update 1/1/14
Happy New Year!
The new year looks bright for Active Mining as we continue to assemble our miners for quick delivery.
Not a lot of changes from last weeks update:
We are also continuing to develop our Intellihash program and with our 2013 sales at $6,311,788.33 we have a very good share of the market.
We have been working 100% on our core business.
ActiveMining-PR Staff
If the whole of that $6,311,788.33 was distributed to the 10 million shares, each share would get $0.63, which at 800 USD/BTC would be 0.00080562 BTC per share. |
|
|
|
True enough but just as Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results Future Dividends are not quoted before they come out  Shouldn't be long now till we get the weekly amount though and your point is valid difficulty is still rising after all I just don't see why share price would remain stable. Divs are likely to fall by a factor of 60 before the new chips are mining and afterwards are only likely to be around what they was last week. Then they'll fall just as fast as what we're seeing now and the cycle will repeat. At 0.3 BTC per share and a guaranteed constant yield of 10%, it would take 10 years to recover the cost. So, if it would take 10 years with a constant yield, how long would it take with dividends decreasing by 20% each week? If you do the maths, you'll see that a share price of 0.3 BTC is simply unsustainable. Everyone buying in now is going to lose a lot of money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
