This is mostly for my own amusement. Bump this to tell me how wrong or right I was when summer arrives  So..you're saying a 33x increase by summer? That would require a network hashrate of 726TH/s. Let's take BFL's current preorder rate of 31TH/s...let's say double that for people that haven't put in their orders on the forum. So now 62TH/s. Meh, let's double it again and assume that the other ASIC companies out there have just as many preorders combined to make a similar rate. Now we're up to 124TH/s. This 124TH/s is going to be our base value for Q1 2013...you're predicting that the number of total orders (and overall devices in the wild) would increase 5.85 times within the next 6 months of Q1. The only way that would happen is if the following are met: 1) ASIC devices not only meet their predicted specs, but some exceed them 2) ASIC devices become extremely cheap 3) USD/BTC values skyrocket to new highs and stabilize up there Only if all three of those conditions are met do I think the difficulty would reach that high...mainly since everyone and their grandma who even heard about bitcoin in passing would be trying to make some easy money with cheap ASIC devices. |
|
|
|
I wasn't saying BFL was a con. I am just saying that their release date is too optimistic and predict a more reasonable Q1 2013 release. Don't get your panties in a bunch damn man.
I suppose that's pretty reasonable given they've pushed back from an October "release" to November. I admit I'm a bit tired of the cynical views though. People don't seem to understand how typical business operations run, nor do they understand online business laws. If customers would have known the FTC would have gotten involved with BFL's business operations during the fiasco with the FPGA devices, then I'm sure they would have. And I love getting my granny panties all bunched up!  |
|
|
|
CJGoodings: since you don't believe in BFL, how about you put your money where your mouth is by betting against http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 ? You could double your money if you are right... Relax guys, CJGoodings is just trolling. He signed his account up at the beginning of September and all of his posts have been troll comments. He's just trying to get a rise out of people.  |
|
|
|
Well we don't have actual data for the past week and a half. We deduce hash rate from difficulty. And difficulty was last adjusted 9 days ago.
And will be adjusted again in the next 3 days or so. |
|
|
|
Im pretty sure if BFL had a product to show they would show it to quench the multitude of people calling bs on their release date.
Definitely. BFL is in it for the long con, scamming us of millions of USD and BTCs by establishing a legitimate business and pretending to sell mining hardware. [/sarcasm] Really squid? Really? I suppose obvious troll is obvious...  |
|
|
|
Hmm..could be quite right here. I'm a little rusty on my "Incoherent Babbling to English" translation skills. If only Google Translate could help...
 +1 I actually lol'd on this one |
|
|
|
Once it gets to this new number, how often would it increase from there?
My guess ... it will grow pretty close to around however much ASICs are purchased from each day's mining proceeds. Using this calculation: - 25 BTC/Block X 144 Blocks/Day X Current BTC/USD at the time. So if there is a BTC/USD of $15, that means about $50K USD goes to miners. So if 1 Thash/s costs $30K, then expect mining to increase over the long run at about 1.67 Thash/s per day. That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I suppose it does make sense. The way I thought about it was sort of like this: if, say, after 6 months the hash rate hit 150TH/s difficulty would be around 20,000,000 (+/- 2M). Even if another 1,000 people bought Jalapenos, the rate would only go up to 153.5...resulting in a miniscual 2.33% increase. We're seeing jumps of around, what, 7%+ every difficulty change? That would mean a 10.5TH/s increase from the 150...so either 10 people bought TH/s rigs (which seems likely), 263 bought singles, or 3000 bought Jalapenos..or some mix of those numbers. Either way, it'll require more people to invest in ASICs to make the difficulty move higher than it does now (for obvious reasons). It won't ever plateau out, just increase at rates vastly less than what we're used to seeing instead. |
|
|
|
|
Wait...is there seriously a full page of childish insults between Inaba and CJGoodings?
God I love the internet lol
|
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about this for a bit and now I'm wondering what the general public thinks...
After ASIC devices hit the market, we all agree that difficulty is going to increase. Though there isn't a general consensus as to how much, most people think between 5-10x the current difficulty. My thinking has been this: Once it gets to this new number, how often would it increase from there? Wouldn't the difficulty prove to be more stable while people run ASIC devices compared to GPUs or FPGAs?
|
|
|
|
Hi all, What do we think will happen to the difficulty as the reward drops to 25BTC/block? Will ASIC miners bring it up? Will it drop because mining is suddenly not feasible for FPGA and GPU miners? Personally I think it will drop, then rise back up a few weeks later when ASIC miners come into the game. I want to hear your opinions though. ---Edit: I made a bet for this: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=673For the most part I agree with Stephen Gornick on this one, mainly since it depends on when people get their new devices. If they're mining via ASIC before the split, there probably won't be any change. GPUs would have dropped off by then, and mining with FPGAs and ASICs would still be quite profitable (though half as much). If FPGA and GPU mining are the only contenders at the split, I'd say there would be a drop in difficulty, though probably not by very much. Mining via GPU is barely profitable as is (for normal single/dual cards for the most part) so I imagine they'd drop off after their profits get cut. Anyone with FPGA or substantial GPU investments would keep going, though they wouldn't be making very much any more either. |
|
|
|
I just figure with them missing their previous target, a 0.2% chance that they'll miss their current one is pretty low. But of course there's no way to know this for sure. The 500:1 was really just a random number I thought of in order to prove my point that without knowing the odds of a bet, there's no way to know if it is a good bet or not. I didn't think anyone would accept that bet. With regards to profitability, the 0.2% probability comes from the odds, which are 500:1. If I place a bet saying that an event will occur, and I get 500:1 odds, then if that event happens more often than 0.2% of the time I will be profitable in the long run. Let's say the event happens 0.3% of the time. Then 997 out of 1000 times I will lose 1 unit, and 3 out of 1000 times I will win 500 units. That's an average profit of 3*500-997=503 units per 1000 bets. 2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"
Well, I don't know the probability as such, but I estimate that it's less than 99.8% of them meeting the target. Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?
No. Without knowing the odds there's no way to know if it would be profitable. If, however, the odds are greater than 500:1, I would take the bet, as it would be profitable in the long run (see previous example). All of this actually started from a comment I made regarding the bet on betsofbitcoin, where my point was that without knowing the odds there's no way to know if the bet is good or not. Haha yeah, I get it and all. And at least the loss (if you do indeed lose of course) won't be substantial in your case. Runeks...you're silly |
|
|
|
the cheap ASIC will be distributed all around the world. it will be very decentralized.
Exactly this. Thousands of people are going to be running them. Sure, it won't be every person in the world like it can be now (with using GPU's), but everyone will certainly have a chance to purchase one. Essentially yes. My thought is that at the very beginning, ASIC power will be centralized to a group of people (maybe a couple hundred), but just like with GPUs I'm sure it'll spread extremely quickly over 12 months. The majority of people would invest in a Jalapeno or two at 3.5GH/s (or whatever the equivalent is for other ASIC companies), but the dedicated Bitcoiners would go with Singles...and the rich with Mini Rigs |
|
|
|
What are people who vote "ASICs are already hashing" thinking? The network hash rate has not skyrocketed - it follows the price as usual, indicating no change in technology.
Bitcoincharts.com estimates the next difficulty to be 3071917 (with 471 blocks left). If this happens it will be a 7.3% increase in network hash rate. Where would that extra hashing power come from? I think ASIC burn-in is a good bet. Probably a pretty good assumption since BFL is coming up on their release date. I'm sure there could be other ASIC companies looking to test their chips as well for releases within the next 6 months. |
|
|
|
I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.
Couple of things here.. 1) Is there any math behind this or is it just a random number you thought of? I get that's where the 500:1 odds come in, but I was wondering if there's anything to back up the claim. 2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%" Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game? |
|
|
|
I think you are mistranslating it. He was clearly speaking of past tense, not future tense, so again, we have no idea what he's trying to say.
Hmm..could be quite right here. I'm a little rusty on my "Incoherent Babbling to English" translation skills. If only Google Translate could help... |
|
|
|
I repeat: What the fuck are you talking about? If you need to, please pay someone to translate your mad ramblings into English.
Though I wasn't paid, I have translated his ramblings, poor sentence structure, and grammatical errors to this English version: "Inaba, my good sir, even though your current presumption on the power efficiency of new ASIC products is quite noteworthy, there are doubters within our community based on previous data. I predict you will be crafting a clever response to the accusations of poor power efficiency in previous BFL products. How do you respond?" |
|
|
|
HAHA! I totally forgot about that thread...nice for a good laugh this afternoon |
|
|
|
For the record, this is bullshit. You wanna trade fiat, go trade fiat.
Why trade fiat when there's a nice proven group of suckers here? +1 Seems that way sometimes...there seems to be a solid group of intelligent people here, but then they go and dump their savings into Pirate and expect magic  |
|
|
|
I did some quick figuring,
of the first ~200 order numbers about ~50 were reported. (ignoring dates only paying attention to order numbers ~1650- ~1850)
So assuming that 100% of those 200 order #s were actually turned in to ASIC orders AND reported you'd have a lower limit of 4:1 ratio of order numbers to actual orders...
Of course it's hard to believe that would continue across the entire order list.
However it may serve as a possible lower limit to all this guesstimation.
so 1/4 of ~20x is of course ~5x increase.
So ~5x increase to ~20x seems to be a fairly reasonable possibility.
Thoughts? data?
Inaba has already confirmed that it'll be well under 10x for BFL orders. Predictions on where things will go within 12 months sit at around 10-15x max. My own calculations last month put it around 7x for the first 3 months or so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
