I filled some numbers into mining calculator and it's true that current ASICminer TUBE with gen3 chips will become obsolete in just one month from now? Do we have like 60Ph of these ? ? ?
Oh, you filled in some numbers on a mining calculator did you? What number did you use for the price of the miners? Let me take a quick guess - the retail price? What number did you use for power costs? 0.15 $/kWh? Now, can you tell me the problem with that scenario? |
|
|
|
Looks like Bitmaintech sold, and from the looks of it not going to be good for small miners. No price break and even though product is overpriced I have been asked to be patient. I for one have made my LAST purchase from china. Can not wait till these mega farms kill each other off.
Why do you say that? Bitmain is by far the best for small and large setups. Dollar wise and W/Gh wise Bitmain destroys everyone else. What have you been patient for? B8 shipped 10 days early. Why are you complaining about the only worth while manufacturer??? I was one of the last to order from B8 and it shipped last night. B9 is set to ship the 18th and I have no doubt it will be on time. BITMAIN WINS! Actually, AM Tubes are cheaper per Gh/s than S3s and are always available for immediate delivery. The S3s are more efficient though. I posted the following earlier in the Spondoolies thread to show how crap the SP20s are: Let's assume a static network hash rate of 300 Ph/s, power costs of 0.1 USD/kWh and an exchange price of 500 USD/BTC. SP20 costs 2.64 USD/day, SP35 costs 8.4 USD/day, S3+ B9 costs 0.86 USD/day, and AM Tube costs 2.16 USD/day. SP20 at 1700 Gh/s would mine 0.0204 BTC/day or 10.2 USD/day, SP35 at 6000 Gh/s would mine 0.072 BTC/day or 36 USD/day, S3+ B9 at 453 Gh/s would mine 0.005436 BTC/day or 2.72 USD/day, and AM Tube at 800 Gh/s would mine 0.0096 BTC/day or 4.8 USD/day. SP20 would make 7.56 USD/day profit, SP35 would make 27.6 USD/day profit, S3+ B9 would make 1.858 USD/day profit, and AM Tube would make 2.64 USD/day profit. SP20 costs 1,500 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 199 days to break even, SP35 costs 4,035 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 147 days to break even, S3+ B9 costs 320 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 173 days to break even, and AM Tube costs 500 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 190 days to break even. With the SP35s not being shipped till November and the SP20s being shit value, it basically comes down to how long you have to wait for the S3s. If the wait is too long, you'd be better off getting an AM Tube. |
|
|
|
Meh! FC announced plans for 0.2 J/Gh back in January for gen 3. Power Consumption: 0.2J/GHash low voltage, 0.35J/GHash rated voltage
Things don't always go according to plan though. The flaws were identified and fixed for gen 4 and given the die shrink, gen 4 should be able to go lower than 0.2J/Gh in a low power mode. 6) What is the progress on gen4?
It is 28nm and has two major improvements: the first one is to fix the design errors we had with 40nm (which made our silicon data two times worse than simulated data). We believe that 0.35W/G at rated speed of 400MHz would be achievable in 40nm if no mistakes were made before. The second one is the technology improvement from 40nm to 28nm in terms of density, speed and power. We are on the stage of evaluating the final design choices by running the physical design flow on different settings. So, if gen4 works as well as FC expects it shouldn't really have any problem competing with BitFury's new chips in terms of efficiency. |
|
|
|
Once again it has to be pointed out to you that you don't know the difference between fact and fiction. You have no evidence whatsoever to claim that Tubes are not selling. If they wasn't selling, how could they be on batch 3? I got the information directly from FC: 1. Due to the relatively lower interest from individual miners as well as OEM producers, the self mining has re-started from middle of July. No, you took info posted by FC and twisted it into something totally different to suit your purpose. FC did not state that Tubes were not selling at all. Tubes hadn't even been announced at that point you raving lunatic. Also do you know how many units were sold in each batch? Being on batch 3 means nothing in terms of numbers. When you will have some sold units numbers then please come back again and let us know. For example SP-Tech sold 1k SP30 units in August. Have the Tubes passed the 1k units in those 3 batches? We/You don't know so stop assuming things if I'm not allowed to do it.
I'm not the one claiming to have such knowledge, you are. All I know is that Tubes are quite obviously selling since they're on the third batch. Canary must have sold at least 100 though based on the bitcoin address and the price in his group buy thread. Edit: Also the lack of activity in the AM Tube thread shows how unpopular are these miners. Let's compare:
- AM Tube thread has 472 replies and it's 1 month and 1 week old;
- S4 thread has 144 replies in just 2 days
It shows no such thing. You don't need to post a comment in that thread to buy a Tube. This is the type of shitty trolling you keep doing on AM threads, spouting off about how crappy AM is doing and how great Spondoolies are while just happening to have an Spondoolies link in your sig. In other words, you are spreading bullshit about your competition in their threads while simultaneously promoting Spondoolies. Please show me where I said how crappy AM is doing AND IN THE SAME TIME how great SP-Tech is doing. I have tried numerous times to have a normal talk about AM plans, but nobody wanted to reply to me with solid arguments. Do you remember this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=715480.0 ? I invite you there to explain to me how will AM self-deploy ~30PH/s. I couldn't be arsed digging through all your past nonsense - you post too much. Why don't you take the hint and just stop posting shite in the AM thread. Nobody wants you there, nobody values your opinion and everyone thinks you are a Spondoolies shill and a troll. Guy, this is the main reason AM shareholders don't like Spondoolies, you have a pathological liar acting as your PR who keeps trolling the AM thread. RoadStress does not know the difference between a fact and an opinion and keeps trying to pass off bullshit as facts. If you keep paying him to do this shit, then don't be surprised if this thread gets filled with AM banners. RoadStress is a liability to your company and if you didn't agree with the shit he's doing you would cut him loose for being such an embarrassment.
They are not paying me to troll your thread don't worry. I do it for personal pleasure just like I did with scammer Ken Slaughter. I notice a ship full of blind shareholders going down and I try to present my legitimate issues to them. Instead of being rational they keep telling me that I'm trolling them. I'm fine with that, but that will not stop me. As for the pathological liar...ok. Please show me proofs of lies, but please do not repeat the same mistake as jimmothy who presented as lies some future predictions, instead of facts. Well at least you've finally admitted you just troll AM threads. Why were you pretending earlier in this post then to want honest conversation with AM shareholders. Another fucking lie! You just cant help yourself, hence the pathological liar. Do you know when you post those opinions you have which are based on flawed info and you try to pass them off as facts. That's called lying. |
|
|
|
I believe gen 4 will be better because FC said that AM had identified the problem with gen 3 and had fixed it for gen 4.
And how many new problems will pop up in developing gen 4 that were not in gen 3? The smaller the process you go to, the more issues there are to think about and contend with, and the more unforeseen problems can pop up. How are any of us supposed to know that? AM sold more than that in chips alone before April, so it it's a pretty solid assumption that they've sold more than that in chips and miner since April too. They've also been mining for a couple of months too now, and we've seen fairly large sums of BTC being shifted around known AM addresses.
How do you know they sold more than 6Ph/s chips in April? Do you have a proof or are you pulling the numbers out of your...belly? Also do you know the speed of the self mine or it's out of thin air again? Last that I know Am had 200Th/s on BTCGuid. Haven't saw any other official number yet. It is proven by the financial reports released from 27th of May. FC also said in the follow up QA that most of those sales occurred before May. Based on the data we have (4,450,477 USD from chip sales, 0.5$/G on average from chip sales and 10 Gh/s per chip), AM basically sold around 9 Ph/s worth of chips in April. No, none of us know how much hashing power the mine has. You already know that so why are you asking? |
|
|
|
Will that change the maths though? No, of course it won't. Also, I'm not advertising any miners so I don't know what you're talking about there.
I wasn't advertising any miners either when I was raising legitimate questions/issue about AM sales and self mining, yet you and the other angry AM shareholders were stating that I am just trying to promote SP-Tech products even if I never mentioned any product name in my raised issues. Math isn't lying, but sales are a good proof that even with your math the products(Tubes) aren't selling. Once again it has to be pointed out to you that you don't know the difference between fact and fiction. You have no evidence whatsoever to claim that Tubes are not selling. If they wasn't selling, how could they be on batch 3? This is the type of shitty trolling you keep doing on AM threads, spouting off about how crappy AM is doing and how great Spondoolies are while just happening to have an Spondoolies link in your sig. In other words, you are spreading bullshit about your competition in their threads while simultaneously promoting Spondoolies. Guy, this is the main reason AM shareholders don't like Spondoolies, you have a pathological liar acting as your PR who keeps trolling the AM thread. RoadStress does not know the difference between a fact and an opinion and keeps trying to pass off bullshit as facts. If you keep paying him to do this shit, then don't be surprised if this thread gets filled with AM banners. RoadStress is a liability to your company and if you didn't agree with the shit he's doing you would cut him loose for being such an embarrassment. |
|
|
|
I should know. I paid 4 BTC for AM shares a year or so ago .....
Didn't you lose all your AM shares when your havelock account got hacked, or did I get people mixed up? He sure did, well remembered. Just a warning - I've just had my havelock account hacked and all my AM1 shares stolen, and money withdrawn from account.
I had both 2FA enabled, and login from my own country, Thailand. The thief managed to bypass both of those somehow.
I'm devastated right now - I have asked havelock if they can do anything about it ....
That is why price has gone down at havelock - someone sold my 150 shares and then withdrawn the bitcoins.
All withdrawn to: 18jURpZJjcpdp8Utdf9tePVY4VGK84DmUy
Looks like he's trying to back back in on the cheap.  Didn't AM already convert their Bitcoin hodlings to fiat - we're already winning Where has FC ever said that AM has converted its bitcoin holdings to fiat? Lol, how do you think they pay for mask and chips? Do you think the fabs and data centres take bitcoin or something? |
|
|
|
Again, relying on hope ..... AM didn't predict these problems with Gen3 did they? They told us how amazingly power efficient the chips would be. Why do you believe, and that's believe, and not hope, Gen4 will be any different. Not even talking about Gen2 that disappeared without even being made without an explanation.
I believe gen 4 will be better because FC said that AM had identified the problem with gen 3 and had fixed it for gen 4. You know the bitcoin price could easily decline from where it is now right? You don't have to believe all the bitcoiners that we are going to $3000 soon.
Bitcoiners? Are you not a bitcoiner? If you thought the price was going to keep dropping, it would be logical to sell all your AM shares and all your bitcoin too. But here you are. Its a quintessential human quality, hope. People make a lot of money off it  All I'm saying is for every optimistic circumstance there is the opposite. I should know. I paid 4 BTC for AM shares a year or so ago ..... And I told you back then those prices were idiotic and AM wasn't worth anywhere near that much. I told you that competition would exist in the future that didn't exist then. I told you that AM's advantage at that time was simply because they were first onto the field and that in the future they wouldn't be able to sell miners anywhere near the price they were going for back then due to competition. Most people here called me a troll and continued hyping the shares. It's funny that now all that has come to pass, you're spreading doom and gloom and I'm saying things are actually better than they appear to be. AM should have easily sold enough product to pay for gen 4 (it would only take around 6 Ph/s of chips at 0.5 $/G). AM sold more than that in chips alone before April, so it it's a pretty solid assumption that they've sold more than that in chips and miner since April too. They've also been mining for a couple of months too now, and we've seen fairly large sums of BTC being shifted around known AM addresses. AM are not in anywhere near as bad as a position as people here are assuming. |
|
|
|
When will you state your AM affiliation in your signature? It is fair for everyone to know, just like they see in my signature my affiliation to SP-Tech.
When I participate in the signature campaign and get paid to do so. Will that change the maths though? But you also get paid in form of dividends to advertise AM products so I think it's fair for everyone to know that you are an AM shareholder. I am not getting a direct pay for having an affiliate link in my signature. I only get paid if/when someone purchases a product using my affiliated link. Otherwise I don't get paid, while you get paid for anyone purchasing any AM product. Will that change the maths though? No, of course it won't. Also, I'm not advertising any miners so I don't know what you're talking about there. |
|
|
|
Well, I have to admit that I'm currently waiting for the S4 specs and price be revealed. Although there is no valid point in investing in mining now with difficulty going through the roof (network hash rate has already spiked to above 260 PH/s, currently sitting at 250.5 PH/s) and BTC price in the cellar, I'm prepared to purchase my very first mining gear, because winter is coming and my plan is to let the miners assist in heating the house.
SP-T has really something going here, but unfortunately the long delivery times, high price and especially the high shipping costs speak against the purchase of a SP20 or SP35. Considering the total purchase price Bitmaintech offers a better $/GH rate, and although SP-T had a better W/GH rate so far, it may be beaten by a S4 with underclocked/undervolted ASICS.
$/GH and W/GH both have to be right, which is why those Tubes with W/GH way off can not even be considered.
I'm not giving up on SP-T, but something has to happen, because it's just not working that way. We need some innovation to bring W/GH below 0.5 and price + delivery times down, which may be impossible right now, but I have hopes for 2015.
Let's assume a static network hash rate of 300 Ph/s, power costs of 0.1 USD/kWh and an exchange price of 500 USD/BTC. SP20 costs 2.64 USD/day, SP35 costs 8.4 USD/day, S3+ B9 costs 0.86 USD/day, and AM Tube costs 2.16 USD/day. SP20 at 1700 Gh/s would mine 0.0204 BTC/day or 10.2 USD/day, SP35 at 6000 Gh/s would mine 0.072 BTC/day or 36 USD/day, S3+ B9 at 453 Gh/s would mine 0.005436 BTC/day or 2.72 USD/day, and AM Tube at 800 Gh/s would mine 0.0096 BTC/day or 4.8 USD/day. SP20 would make 7.56 USD/day profit, SP35 would make 27.6 USD/day profit, S3+ B9 would make 1.858 USD/day profit, and AM Tube would make 2.64 USD/day profit. SP20 costs 1,500 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 199 days to break even, SP35 costs 4,035 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 147 days to break even, S3+ B9 costs 320 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 173 days to break even, and AM Tube costs 500 USD inc. PSU + shipping, it would take 190 days to break even. The network isn't static though and AM Tubes are the only miners in stock. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. |
|
|
|
When will you state your AM affiliation in your signature? It is fair for everyone to know, just like they see in my signature my affiliation to SP-Tech.
When I participate in the signature campaign and get paid to do so. Will that change the maths though? SP20: $1,190.00 + $300 PSU for 1.7 Th/s = 0.88 USD per Gh/s SP35: $3,920.00 for 6Th/s = 0.65 USD per Gh/s S3+ B9: 0.58 BTC @ 453 USD/BTC + $50 PSU for 453 Gh/s = 0.69 USD per Gh/s Tube: 0.889 BTC @ 453 USD/BTC + $100 PSU for 800 Gh/s = 0.63 USD per Gh/s 10 x Tube: 7.9 BTC @ 453 USD/BTC + 10 x $100 PSU for 8 Th/s = 0.57 USD per Gh/s Given that you don't try to refute my argument that the SP20 provides terrible value, do you agree with that statement? Really you only need an EVGA 1300W PSU and they are around $180 Which would take it down to 0.81 USD per Gh/s and makes it: 24.62% more expensive per Gh/s than SP35, 17.39% more expensive per Gh/s than S3+ B9, 28.57% more expensive per Gh/s than a Tube, and 42.11% more expensive per Gh/s than a 10 Tube set. In other words, it still provides crap value and that's without the shipping fee. |
|
|
|
When will you state your AM affiliation in your signature? It is fair for everyone to know, just like they see in my signature my affiliation to SP-Tech.
When I participate in the signature campaign and get paid to do so. Will that change the maths though? SP20: $1,190.00 + $300 PSU for 1.7 Th/s = 0.88 USD per Gh/s SP35: $3,920.00 for 6Th/s = 0.65 USD per Gh/s S3+ B9: 0.58 BTC @ 453 USD/BTC + $50 PSU for 453 Gh/s = 0.69 USD per Gh/s Tube: 0.889 BTC @ 453 USD/BTC + $100 PSU for 800 Gh/s = 0.63 USD per Gh/s 10 x Tube: 7.9 BTC @ 453 USD/BTC + 10 x $100 PSU for 8 Th/s = 0.57 USD per Gh/s Given that you don't try to refute my argument that the SP20 provides terrible value, do you agree with that statement? |
|
|
|
Why is the SP20 less efficient than the SP35?
I thought they used the same ASICs?
SP20 1100W / 1700 GH/s = 0.65J/GH
SP35 3500W / 6000 GH/s = 0.58J/GH
It's also 35% more expensive per Gh/s too. SP20: $1,190.00 + $300 PSU for 1.7 Th/s = 0.88 USD per Gh/s SP35: $3,920.00 for 6Th/s = 0.65 USD per Gh/s The above prices don't even include the $115 shipping fee. Face it, the SP20s are terribly priced. S3s and Tubes offer far better value. |
|
|
|
Now apparently when you have a board member stating it is of considerably less significance than the other factors he gave.
So, let me get this straight, what you're saying is that the concerns posted by Jutarul are less important than the concerns posted by Jutarul.  I suggest you pay more attention in the future to what you're reading and writing as that comment just makes no sense whatsoever. If he decided he didn't want to be a board member tomorrow and sold on the exchange, it would send the price through the floor, making shareholders more resentful, which (in a company with normal capital structure) may be enough to call a board meeting and replace the CEO.
How many times does it need repeating that the exchange price is irrelevant. It's based on a small fraction of AM shares and the sentiment of day traders. If it fell to 0 in such circumstances, I certainly wouldn't be resentful. Pretty much everyone would be buying up incredibly cheap shares and the price would quickly get back to its original level before the sell off. |
|
|
|
Yep - although looking again at RockMiner's timeline, I'm guessing they're all the same chip. Gen3 (BE200) or earlier? For everything they have?
RockMiner was created specifically to build BE200 miners for sale and self mining. The CEO used to be an AM gen 1 reseller before that. There should be two types of BE200 though, a.k.a. gen 3 and gen 3.1, but there was never any real info released about it (what a surprise) so I'm not sure what he actual differences are between the revisions. |
|
|
|
The quantity of gen3, despite the failings in the design's efficiency, allowed enough of a margin on the project to stay in the fight for the top chip producer. Gen4 needs to be able to beat that efficiency mark and still make the large-scale quantity orders that we saw with gen3.
Can anyone give info on which of AM's chips are in current mining hardware from hardware partners (namely RockMiner)?
Whether gen 4 is good or bad, large quantities of chips will be produced regardless in order to cover the costs. As for which of AM's chips are in current hardware, BE200 is in all of them as that's the only chip they're currently making and selling. I don't think that was what you meant to ask though as the answer was simply too obvious. Did you want to know what hardware is BE200 based? I really don't see why there is such concern for Gen4. From Jutarul's statement it appears the current concerns are with the size of the network, the cost of maintaining what they presently have or will have and the price of BTC.
When would they not be concerns? |
|
|
|
People were saying the same about gen 3 a few hundred pages back.
So what? Gen 3 may not be as efficient as some other chips, but it's certainly competitive based on price and is certainly not a complete disaster. So, I'm not sure what point are you actually trying to make. AM Tubes actually have a pretty good value (a combination of efficiency and cost) per volume despite BE200 not being the most efficient ASIC. The price and size offset the efficiency. |
|
|
|
The tag clearly says "BtcSmart - Multiply your money" and yet you link that to AM? Are you really that stupid or do you just think everyone else here is? And what happens if gen4 misses efficiency specs like gen3 did? ASICMINER is dead in the water.
If AM miss the specs but the chip is still competitive then there won't be a problem. If gen 4 fails to be competitive though then yeah, AM is pretty much dead in the water. |
|
|
|
We're obviously receiving 10 BTC every 58 hours now in the mining address. Combined with the recent difficulty change this perfectly accounts for the 270 TH/s on BTCGuild. I don't know if lophie even reads my posts, or just skims them over and picks out some figures and combines them arbitrarily, but this just adds up perfectly . I also just can hope that we've got mining income from other sources, since this is very meager. My bets are on gen 4 as of now. There's nothing obvious about that and until proven to be a fact, it's just speculation. Reading the last few pages here, people are starting to cross the line into RoadStress territory where fact and fiction are the same things. All this information from the past week is just rumour and speculation. Nothing more. You can treat this info as factual if you want but you'll only be disappointed if it turns out to be bullshit. |
|
|
|
Given the overall network increases, and 2 months of deployment so far, I have to conclude that it can't be done on gen 3 hardware. They are counting on the first batch of gen 4 to make the difference ("before the end of the year"). Not great news, but keeping the carrot dangling a little farther out. Any other interpretations?
How much hashing power have AM deployed in the past 2 months then? Given you've drawn a conclusion based on that data, obviously you have actual numbers to base your calculations on. So, how much have they brought online in the past 2 months? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
