He as another employee (no, not me) who can pay divs. And who is working on it now.
grnbrg.
Yeahh !!! Double dividends this week !  Rahhh joking...  lol |
|
|
|
as long as the boards aren't moved much.
Yup, I'm thinking thermal cycling and vibration would have you with a continually diminishing contact patch as oxidation works it's way in though. Just spot weld it.  |
|
|
|
Will LR be able to purchase at or near cost?
CoinSeed and LR are just buying from Dave in large volumes. I'm sure they got a good price, but as long as they're not buying BitFury itself or starting some kind of chip-making collaboration, there is no reason to assume they will get it at cost. I'm guessing that's then just BitFury chips bought from Dave. And they have another partner to build the boards at a reduced the cost. Makes me more curious about the prior claim of a project to design & produce a new ASIC chip. |
|
|
|
The more hashrate that Labrat brings online for Coinseed, the more our earnings will be diluted. Sounds great to me. /s
I doubt the news is so shallow that it means he will be working for CoinSeed as a side job. If LR helps CoinSeed bring on hardware, I suspect he will be doing so for LRM's benefit - quid pro quo. Besides, it's possible that CoinSeed's CEO has a vested interest in LRM. Ifso, maybe LR will ask Kauffman if he (or CoinSeed as a company) would disclose any significant interest or not in LRM's success. I believe LR is smart and clearly enough desires LRM to succeed. So, I suspect he has a reasonable agreement worked out. Again, it's nice news... but still the only question I think is of importance is to what extent it will actually benefit LRM. So far, that seems a bit uncertain - still waiting for any more details from LR. It's not just the cheap electricity, because that electricity rate can be - if I'm not mistaken - attained independent of CoinSeed. |
|
|
|
So, as you can see, this is simple math, but it speaks volumes. I trust you have run the numbers for other mining outfits - I'm wondering if any mining op could really have been expected to maintain its network hash rate or otherwise keep up with the exponential increase in difficulty over the last year. How have others done? That and although everyone hates it, USD to BTC rate does play a large role. The higher the USD to BTC price, that longer old tech can run at a profit and it also brings in bigger players that might create chips or buy up hashrate themselves. Staying relevant in this industry is not only about the money you have but about the connections as well and Lab Rat is indeed making those connections while growing his farm into one of the largest out there. While this large leap will help bring additional dividends to shareholders it is exciting to know that this seems to only be the beginning and that with these connections and cheap hosting each future deal will only be that much better. I agree that the new network LR has developed with Kauffman seems promising, but understanding the actual extent of any benefit needs amplification. LR apparently has more to put out regarding some concerns on the board. Until then, I'd rather wait & see before making any other assessments. The best thing about this is that it tells me, when making the assumptions (1) this hardware is as great as described in comparison to any other hardware, and (2) that LR can get it at very cheap prices with fast turn around, that things can only improve. But let's see what the finer details are before we run with those assumptions. Because neither of these assumptions have been verified. For example, is this hardware better than KNC's 28nm hardware which has apparently shipped? Will LR be able to purchase at or near cost? Though, I suspect there is a good chance that that possible in price to performance. Even if the hardware is marginally inferior to KNC.... If LR can get hardware at cost, then LR can file for rock star status, imo.  |
|
|
|
So, as you can see, this is simple math, but it speaks volumes. I trust you have run the numbers for other mining outfits - I'm wondering if any mining op could really have been expected to maintain its network hash rate or otherwise keep up with the exponential increase in difficulty over the last year. How have others done? I haven't done so. But I doubt any have done better than LRM. Better or worse, it wouldn't matter as an investment. All one can do it seems is hope difficulty slows down dramatically, and/or that LR can get a lot more hardware really really cheap. And I suspect that there is a fair chance that LR will have access to near cost hardware or at least very reduced prices. Otherwise, what's the point for the news. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to propose using a term to specifically identify & communicate how well LRM is performing: "PAR HASHRATE"
Simply put, it's the initial guaranteed hashrate times the difficulty change (as a multiple) since initial bond issuance. This can be done per bond, or for LRM as a whole.
Example using current figures:
Initial [expected] hashrate: 100MH per bond
Initial difficulty: 31,256,961
Current Difficulty: 2,193,847,870
Difficulty Change Mutiple: x 70.187
From this we calculate that the current par bond hashrate is: 100MH/bond x 70.187 = 7018.7 MH/bond (or ~7GH/bond).
How does this compare to current actual performance?
Current actual hashrate: ~(25,000GH x 0.75)/60,000bonds; or about 312.5 MH per bond
That means LRM is operating at (312.5/7018.7) x 100% = 4.4% of par!
With approximately ~60,000 bonds, LRM's total hashrate should be approximately (60,000 bonds * 7GH/bond)/0.75 = 560 TH
So, as you can see, this is simple math, but it speaks volumes. The network has been absolutely crushing bond holders, and LRM as a whole. And it explains why bond price is not recovering. I'd like to see some commensurate numbers in the other direction. 156TH soon would be a nice start to a recovery.
NOTE: One caveat to keep in mind is that the par value would lag a bit due to lag in new hardware development & shipping delays. For example, it took two months to come to 100MH/bond from initial bond issue. And some initial hardware purchases are still not received (e.g. the BFL Monarchs). Among maybe a few bugs or so that have hopefully been ironed out. That said, 95.6% below par still seems pretty concerning.
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of Debbie Downers!
Nice news Lab Rat and great wins for your peeps.
There are plenty of unanswered questions and concerns but this is the kind of announcement that indicates the continuing growth of LRM and the huge effort you've put into this project.
I for one am happy to wait and see how things play out.
If you can throw us a bone here and there that's bonus.
Many Wow.
I think you might have considered me as one of the Debbie Downers. Being notably negative is not my intention, but to ask serious questions as an interested party (in this case already w/ built-up expectations). But if I was or even seemed unappreciative, I apologize and was wrong. So, I deleted the post that might have come off that way. And to be clear on a related note, I appreciate all the hard work Zach (LabRat) does for LRM. And even if LRM were to ultimately fail, I would appreciate his work and think no less of him at all. He's human and will at least have tried - c'est la vie - and I've had my share of failures. The news is good, yet I still have some questions. I'll defer some to later and hope LabRat gives more details in the next day or two. Especially looking for: (1) Distinguishing whether this is the new ASIC chip project he was referring to or not. (2) How the hardware price/performance will compared to Cointerra 28nm... if it's manufactured for private use, that will be a huge plus. (3) Whether this hardware will be available exclusively to CoinSeed & LRM...or be sold retail to any miners. (4) What kind of benefit LRM will have - e.g. will LRM be able to acquire hardware at near cost? (5) And whether Kauffman of CoinSeed has any vested interest in LRM as a bond holder. Hopefully he does.  |
|
|
|
Thanks LR for your hard work and many successes in this ultra-competitive field!
Nevertheless, I'd like to play devil's advocate for a minute and cool the optimism around this announcement.
First, LR has announced a coming BitFury deal for 100-200 TH/s well over a month ago, in mid-December, so this isn't really news.
There are only two aspects to this which are new: the new boards and the collaboration with CoinSeed.
As for the former, the new boards may be somewhat better but I wouldn't call this a game-changer.
As for the latter, I'm still not sure how much we have to gain from economies of scale by working with CoinSeed. What percentage of the planned CoinSeed mine will belong to LRM? If it's a large percentage, than we gain little from economies of scale by collaborating. If it's small, than it might be in our best interest to compete with CoinSeed, by using LR's existing relationship with Dave to try and obtain as much gear as possible before CoinSeed comes online (which would probably be a gradual process). Just hypothesizing...
So, the only question that really matters about this BitFury deal is when will the gear arrive and start hashing. This question has yet to be answered, even though the deal has been tentatively announced over a month ago. Since the difficulty is still rising at a double-exponential rate, and will probably continue doing so in the near future, we are not-too-many-months away from the point at which 156 TH/s will yield just about the same dividends that we're getting now.
By the way, is this what LR meant by "ASIC project"? Or is that a separate thing? Because putting the same 55nm BitFury chips on a new board doesn't fit my definition of an "ASIC project"... Are we going to be involved in making our own chips?
+1 sounds good, but more info and clarification is needed BTW: I do not think those are BitFury chips - at least not the original one. They have BioInfoBank stamped on them, and they are hashing at apparently 10GH/chip. However, they certainly look like BitFury chips. If they are BitFury, as the news article suggested, then does this really count as a new ASIC project with LRM partnering in it's development? |
|
|
|
...there will be news today.
Sweet! Here's to hoping for not another "weekend". He's said he's coordinating an information release with other players. *And* there's the conference in Miami this weekend. So I'm guessing at very least, he'll have all the principle people in one place, and it's an excellent venue for an announcement. grnbrg. This is possibly the most intriguing comment to date from you grnbrg... imo. |
|
|
|
I also seem to remember something about an exchange for trading getting set up soon...
I suspect I know the reason why there are still no automated trading platform... In the very same day 50% of bond holders will sell all and leave I'm curious why everyone would sell right before a period of massive growth? We should be in the x4-x8 range February and probably another x5-x10 in March/April. Seems like an unlikely time to sell.  SHHH Some of us WANT to buy in further... If that's you... then you should add your name to the BID side here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320578.0 |
|
|
|
I also seem to remember something about an exchange for trading getting set up soon...
Yeah, a trading solution is still an ongoing unresolved issue. |
|
|
|
Verified Gox account here. Currently waiting over 36 hours with no blockchain confirmation on my bitcoin withdraw.
It'll probably come. It appears to be a pretty common issue. |
|
|
|
I will say one thing as this is a side note to the actual release. Power costs are far UNDER $0.02/kWh for LRM starting in March so LRM is not going anywhere for a very very very long time.
From that.... then I'm guessing your moving operations to the northwest... will be about time. Or out of the US... Iceland was on the table a few month ago or??? I recall LR's comment on that, but I've got serious doubts about that. Can you find any Iceland government press releases that offer new businesses free electricity? LR mentioned < $.02/kWh above. There is supposedly a location in the northwest (Oregon or Washington) that has 1.5 cent/kWh for industrial accounts. That fits the profile precisely. |
|
|
|
I will say one thing as this is a side note to the actual release. Power costs are far UNDER $0.02/kWh for LRM starting in March so LRM is not going anywhere for a very very very long time.
From that.... then I'm guessing your moving operations to the northwest... will be about time. |
|
|
|
LRM should be hashing at ~250TH to simply be on par and indicating a sustainable trend.
The equipment coming should be in that range, plus the ASIC project. I would propose we are reasonably on target for sustainability. (Ok, will be on target based on what is planned for the future.) Reaching near 250 TH (the approximate par level for current difficulty) isn't expected for maybe two or two-and-a-half more months from now, according to LRM webpage. |
|
|
|
|
Well, anyone correct me on this, but my math shows some no so encouraging results for LRM over time. With bond holders buying in with an anticipated initial target hashrate of 100MH/bond. At 50,000 bonds then, that comes out to about LRM hashing at 6500GH. Currently, LRM is a little less than 400% above that value.... but.... Difficulty is has increased 4400% since inception.
LRM should be hashing at ~250TH to simply be on par and indicating a sustainable trend.
|
|
|
|
Just a thought: It seems to me a better chart of labrat mining performance - in contrast to the dual hashrate & difficulty chart - would be a graph of the cumulative daily delta of the percentage changes of hashrate and difficulty since inception. It seems this would account for the area under the curves and give a better idea on the trend of LRM decay or growth.
Spreadsheets, I love spreadsheets. (is that weird?) I have difficulty and hashrate data from the beginning if someone would like to do the percentages, other than that I can get around to them when I have a moment. Thanks. I think the tricky part with my suggestion will be figuring out where to start measuring hashrate growth. Theoretically, LRM could have bought simply one USB miner, and just bought maybe two USB miners a month later and growth would beat difficulty. But that would be deceptive... So, somehow factoring in original invested funds seems important. Perhaps, the way to do this is to use a starting theoretical hashrate (i.e. what amount of hardware could have been purchased and placed in hand immediately). So, you would see a major percentage drop from the start until most hardware eventually came online. Some of that hardware has yet to come online (e.g. BFL Monarchs). Oh boy, then there's a potential issue of accumulating percentage increases with percentage decreases - i.e. a 10% increase doesn't cancel out a 10% decrease. Maybe, I'm making this too difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
