Did you ever think there was no strong correlation and Ixcoin prices simply went higher because a few deluded fools bought 3% of the coins ea in a short period of time?  Eventually their money ran out, demand crashed and the price goes lower.  I mean on some days you boasted how you were 30% to 50% of the sales volume.   What did you think was going to happen to the price when you stopped buying? New coins are being minted everyday.  You don't think merge miners are also buying more ixCoin on the market.   So when merge miners sell 13,000 IXC today who is going to buy them.  Who is going to buy the 13,000 mined tomorrow, and the 13,000 mined the next day.

Name a merchant who uses Bitcoin.
Name a service provider/processor who uses Bitcoin.
Name a recent mainstream news article involving Bitcoin.
Name 5 people/psuedonyms (might require some research hint: github) who have contributed an updated to Bitcoin source code in last 30 days.

Name a merchant who uses Ixcoin.
Name a service provider/processor who uses Ixcoin.
Name a recent mainstream news article involving Ixcoin.
Name 5 people/psuedonyms (might require some research hint: github) who have contributed an updated to Ixcoin source code in last 30 days.

The price is about 10x higher than where the fundamentals would put it.   There is always hope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool

Yeah the sustained output seems to be significantly lower than 400 per day.   A longer term loo, reading between the lines of their shipping updates it looks like KNC Batch 1 is known to be ~3085 units (~ 1PH/s).  More details:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283820.msg3405759#msg3405759  

On 10/23 KNC indicated they were less than 1 good day (~400 units) from complete but as of today not all orders have shipped but lets assume every single Sept/Oct customers receive their units by the end of this week.  That is 5 weeks of shipping and 3000 maybe 3500 unit shipped in Batch 1 or 600 to 700 per week.

So while they had some peak days obviously something kept them from full capacity.   Still I would guess they learned a lot and Batch 2 (3,4,5,6,7,8) should ship in higher throughput but I doubt that is the limiting factor, customer demand will be.  As diff goes higher, the demand to fill all this massive capacity is not materializing.  Say KNC (and HF and Cointerra) can all ship 1,000 units combined per day.  Lets fast forward to January.   Lets also assume between all 3 vendors and product lines the average hashpower per unit is 1 TH/s.   That's 1 PH/s per day, 30 PH/s per month.  Even at $5 per GH/s we are talking sustained sales of $5M per day, $150M per month.   Anyone think miners are going to be buying $150M worth of new hardware, every month, month after month with no end in sight.  All major vendors have available unsold capacity in the later month batches, the days of Avalon Batch 1 selling out in 5 hours are over.  

US dollar hyperinflation.  1 LTC = $1,000 but that only buys you a loaf of bread.

Under the scenario you described you are better off purchasing the non MPP option.   However imagine a scenario where the growth of the difficulty growth slows down.

So 40% per adjustment today, 30% a month from now, 25% the next month, etc.   What curve will look like is unknown.  However given there are real world economics in play (limited BTC availability, electrical costs, future miners estimating the profitability of new hardware purchases) as difficulty goes up the future prospects go down and that will have a cooling effect on future sales.   I don't think the curve will bend before 10 PH/s because likely there is already that much hashpower in preorders but will it bend around 10 PH/s? 20 PH/s? 100 PH/s? or never bend all the way up to 111,000 PH/s (and miners will spend 1000% of BTC reward in electricity as some using genesis block calculator seem to think)?  I have no idea however it is very likely the curve will bend at some point and if it does bend it likely will be after the first 90 days. 

A rounding error compared to the power of transistor density.  For the last 70 years the overhwelming majority of computing power increase from the Intel 4004 to Intel Xeon Phi has been the transistor count increasing or more importantly the transistor count at constant cost.  It has increased from 2300 to 5 billion.   That is an almost hard to comprehend 2,300,000x "bonus" to performance.  Yeah along the years there have been marchitecture improvements but if we relied on them alone we would be lucky to Intel 386 level computing power (at current prices).  Of course if you are willing to pay 1000x the price you might get 486 level computing power.

My point is there is no guarantee that computing power will grow exponentially per unit of cost beyond 2020 to 2030 (depends on which timeline you think is most probable).  We may see computing grow significantly slower something more in line with other industries where a 5% to 8% year over year performance gain is considered a solid showing. 

However we are running into a hard barrier in the next 10 to 16 years depending on how persimistic you are.  Even before that transistor density is probably going to under perform Moore's law.  Intel's roadmap for 7nm has been revised backwards three times from 2018 to late 2020.  Even keeping that revised roadmap will fall short of Moore's law (Intel would need mass production of 7nm devices by 2017 to say above Moore's law curve).   The rest of the industry continues to fall further and further behind Intel as well.  At one point the foundries were only 6-8 months behind, then it became 12 months, 18 months now they are almost an entire process node behind.   The cost and complexity continues to increase exponentially and despite that the curve is slipping.


Hardly the technological singularity where growth compounds and the curvre steepens instead we are seeing the curve flatten out.  No doubt something will EVENTUALLY come after the integrated circuit, given enough demand and money but it may be years or decades before it becomes economical and fast enough to continue the upward trend.   BTW Moore's law deals with transistor density not performance directly (although performance has closely followed transistor density).  

Moore's law is probably the worst argument you can use to support your claim. It has been going on strong for over 4 decades now so if Moore's law was going to cause this technological unemployment shouldn't we have seen it already.  Ironically going forward we probably will hit the limit within the next 10 to 20 years and fall below the transistor growth rate predicted by Moore's law.   That isn't to say we won't find novel ways to get more performance but the days of "die shrink and double performance" are coming to a close.  Even before 3.5nm (Intel's economical limit) the process node upgrade trend is already slipping so one of these upgrades will be later than expected and cause a miss.   

Sad.  I was going to suggest waula but it appears they removed their Bitcoin payment option.   How pedestrian Waula.

Well there isn't enough info available to know for sure,  but Batch 1 has been delayed (at least until 15 Nov) and nothing has been said about Batch 2.   If due to Batch 1 delay, Batch 2 ships at the same time or right after Batch 1 then getting a Sierra is far superior.  On the other hand if Batch 1 delay means a 2-3 week delay for Batch 2 then it is looking pretty grim.  I will point out that more than one batch 1 customers have tried to have their orders upgraded to Batch 2 Sierras (paying the difference in cost) given the delay.   Also a lot depends on how quickly it takes for a batch to be shipped.   If the first Batch 1 ships on day X and the last one ships on day x+5 that is great (as you will be at the end) on the other hand if the last unit doesn't ship until X+30 well that is not as good.

Short version:  Nobody other than HF can tell you for sure and even then there may be factors beyond their control.   If I was forced to pick one over the other right this second (based on the limited infor available) ... I would pick Batch 2 Sierra.  Please understand that is just the better "bet" given limited information it may turn out that Batch 1 is better.  Be sure to use a mining calculator before making any purchase from ANY vendor.

Can you get detailed clarification on the pcb photo question?  Either something is missing or something was lost in communication because that doesn't make much sense.  TSMC is the foundry they make wafers nothing more.  CIARA is an assembly and distribution company they wouldn't own the right to any PCB or prevent photos from being taken.

I am not saying you are wrong just that #4 as stated doesn't make any sense.

Some questions.

1) When does Hashfast anticipate first shipment of batch 1?

2) When Hashfast begins shipping Batch 1 how long do they anticipate it will take to ship all Batch 1 orders?

3) Should customers be concerned they indicated at 2 week delay but now seem to be pushing the "31 DEC" date heavily?

4) When does Hashfast anticipate first shipment of batch 2?  If date can't be provided aproximate time after #2 will work.

2) When Hashfast begins shipping Batch 2 how long do they anticipate it will take to ship all Batch 2 orders?

Silver as a commodity currency came about because it is impractical to make (with 1800s era technology) small gold coins.   1 gram of gold was roughly a day's wage in 1840.  Imagine there was no silver or copper based currency.  So you work a day and your employer gives you a gram coin.   Now what.  Your hungry and want a meal it will cost 1/20th of a gram of gold.   Does anyone make 1/20th of gram gold coins?  Are you going to break out your magnifying glass and knife to cut your 1 gram coin into 20 pieces.

Bitcoin isn't gold, Bitcoin doesn't suffer from the limitation of physical size.   It is just as easy to spend 1/20th of a BTC as it is 1 BTC unlike spending 1 gram of gold or 1/20th a gram of gold. 

Luck, improved firmware, you rig was underperforming on the prior difficulty period.  In the long run your reward for a given amount of hashpower is 1:1 inversely tied to difficulty.

I won't be using oil.   Fluorinert.

I would strongly recommend NOT exporting because of this and other potential problems.
Make a paper wallet with a brand new address.  Send the coins from your wallet to the new address (as a normal transaction).

To answer your direct question there is no warning.

Your revenue is based on difficulty.  Until difficulty adjusts of course you will make the same revenue.  If difficulty adjusts up 50% then you will make 1/1.50 = 66% of what you were making before.

This.  timeservers are in UTC time.  Local machine adjusts it by applying the offset for the timezone selected.  By guess is OP has wrong timezone set.  If you sync to the timeserver and it makes the time "wrong" there is no other possibility.

To OP what timezone are you in? 
What time zone does your computer show?
What operating system?

Or selling at a price that ensures they will profit and their "customers" (suckers) have no possible hope of doing so.

The greater fool theory.   This is totally worthless garbage but you MIGHT (key word you might not) be able to pawn it off on someone even dumber than you to make a profit.

IIRC it was gmaxwell? (or maybe I am just getting him confused with another hardcore cryptographer) who edumacated me when I was looking into how an altcoin could improve tx efficiency last summer.


This is just my opinion but Satoshi probably wasn't that great of a cryptographer.  There are a lot of questionable decisions made in the early protocol that we are essentially stuck with today.   The use of uncompressed keys is one example.  Had Bitcoin been explicitly defined to use compressed keys the code would not only be simpler it would have made everything more compact.  Another example would be not requiring a canonical signature format.  This has created a whole host of potential bugs and security issues that simply wouldn't exist if the protocol had been more explicit from day one.

Of course today trying to implement a change would be tough.   However if altcoins were about innovation and not just pump and dump scams tightening up the protocol could pay real dividends.  Then again I don't expect much of any innovation from altcoins.