Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 04:58:31 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 [995] 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 ... 2138 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com  (Read 3011621 times)
ASIC-K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


Hell?


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:25:09 PM
 #19881

until you are living your life entirely on bitcoin, not making the full btc you spent back means fuck all. Life runs on fiat right now and thats the ROI that actually matters.
1511369911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511369911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511369911
Reply with quote  #2

1511369911
Report to moderator
1511369911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511369911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511369911
Reply with quote  #2

1511369911
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511369911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511369911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511369911
Reply with quote  #2

1511369911
Report to moderator
1511369911
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511369911

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511369911
Reply with quote  #2

1511369911
Report to moderator
CYPER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:30:23 PM
 #19882

Of course its about the $ value

How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?

If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100

You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50

Would you say you have made a ROI?

Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss.

Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad?

It depends on how many coins you spent on it, or on how many coins you could have bought with 7000USD when you paid for the unit.

Most of batch 1 customers bought their units in June, when BTC/USD was at $100, that means aprox. 70 coins per unit.

If a batch 1 Jupiter mines less than 70 coins in its lifetime then yes, batch 1 customers would have been better by buying BTC.

All the above is painfully obvious, and still some deny the obvious.

Do you understand the difference between bad, worse and worst?
Is English your native language?

If this post helped you and you feel generous you know what to do: 1P9tXFy9bVgzrfPGeV7F8np26ZtFdCCWvz
Tigggger
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1051



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:31:48 PM
 #19883

It's going to be damn close to BTC break even by the end of 6 months of hosting. By then I'll have around the same BTC that I would have had purchasing them AND a piece of history (The Jupiters). They may even still be profitable then and continue mining Tongue

And that is the criteria that should be used, glad we agree Smiley

So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad?

It's not bad, but the profit has come from the rising BTC/$ rate not from the Jupiter. Any hardware needs to be valued in the number of BTC it cost and the number it gives you back.

until you are living your life entirely on bitcoin, not making the full btc you spent back means fuck all. Life runs on fiat right now and thats the ROI that actually matters.

And if you keep thinking that way, you'll end up poorer.  Think of it all in $ terms. Imagine it's a $ mining machine. You have $100 in your pocket, I will sell you a machine that makes $1 coins, if you buy it and it only gives you 60 coins it was a bad investment, if it made 120 it was good

Tehfiend
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 473



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:32:16 PM
 #19884

Of course its about the $ value

How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?

If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100

You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50

Would you say you have made a ROI?

Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss.

Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad?

Your investment in BTC would be good but your investment in the miner would be bad since you could have invested in MORE BTC for the same price directly with more flexibility to sell.
CYPER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:33:32 PM
 #19885

It's not bad, but the profit has come from the rising BTC/$ rate not from the Jupiter. Any hardware needs to be valued in the number of BTC it cost and the number it gives you back.

Exactly Wink
And this is why Rampion is wrong, because he is saying it is bad.
No, it is not bad, just worse than buying BTC and keeping them.

If this post helped you and you feel generous you know what to do: 1P9tXFy9bVgzrfPGeV7F8np26ZtFdCCWvz
Tehfiend
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 473



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:35:05 PM
 #19886

It's not bad, but the profit has come from the rising BTC/$ rate not from the Jupiter. Any hardware needs to be valued in the number of BTC it cost and the number it gives you back.

Exactly Wink
And this is why Rampion is wrong, because he is saying it is bad.
No, it is not bad, just worse than buying BTC and keeping them.

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:35:24 PM
 #19887

until you are living your life entirely on bitcoin, not making the full btc you spent back means fuck all. Life runs on fiat right now and thats the ROI that actually matters.

Good point. Guess how you get more fiat? Get more BTC! Don't ever invest in something that gives you less BTC!

Buy & Hold
CYPER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:35:46 PM
 #19888


Your investment in BTC would be good but your investment in the miner would be bad since you could have invested in MORE BTC for the same price directly with more flexibility to sell.

So hypothetically you consider a 7000USD investment, that gets you 100% ROI a bad one?

If this post helped you and you feel generous you know what to do: 1P9tXFy9bVgzrfPGeV7F8np26ZtFdCCWvz
CYPER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:37:10 PM
 #19889

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would you consider a 100% ROI to be bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

If this post helped you and you feel generous you know what to do: 1P9tXFy9bVgzrfPGeV7F8np26ZtFdCCWvz
mo_mo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 194


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:40:16 PM
 #19890

next estimate (9.81 days left until 47.92% growth) that's 755745693
on http://btcinvest.net. every 10 days is way too fast to ROI.
Tehfiend
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 473



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:41:11 PM
 #19891

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.
CYPER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:46:55 PM
 #19892

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote
If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Wink

If this post helped you and you feel generous you know what to do: 1P9tXFy9bVgzrfPGeV7F8np26ZtFdCCWvz
Tehfiend
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 473



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:54:04 PM
 #19893

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote
If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Wink

Oh I didn't realize the debate was over which adjective is more appropriate. Again the decision to invest in a miner was bad, the decision to invest in BTC via mining was good but worse than investing directly.
CYPER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:58:50 PM
 #19894

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote
If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Wink

Oh I didn't realize the debate was over which adjective is more appropriate. Again the decision to invest in a miner was bad, the decision to invest in BTC via mining was good but worse than investing directly.

Now we agree Smiley
Just one note: these statements can be made with 100% certainty now, but not when people made the decisions Wink

If this post helped you and you feel generous you know what to do: 1P9tXFy9bVgzrfPGeV7F8np26ZtFdCCWvz
texaslabrat
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:00:35 PM
 #19895

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

And that over-simplification is why people are pushing back on your "explanation".  Your explanation relies on someone having $7000 cash sitting someplace that could readily be converted into BTC or purchase a miner at equal cost in terms of time-value of money.  Many people purchased a miner with a credit card at or near zero percent interest, where as getting a cash advance would have entailed a 20% or higher interest rate (typical of the cards I've seen, YMMV) in addition to a upfront fee.  In addition, the miner itself retains substantial residual value for quite some time (if the ASICMiner gear is any indication) which is not being added to the equation (capitalization versus straight expensing of equipment for you accountant types out there) which further muddies the water of overall profitability.  Especially when tax considerations are taken into account with same-year full expensing of business-related computer equipment being allowed for small businesses.

So, yes, in hindsight buying BTC would have been a *better* investment if one was to measure the progress of BTC mined as of RIGHT now versus selling bought BTC...but it hardly means that buying a miner was a *bad* investment considering that the miners have yet to reach their full potential of mining production AND they may yet have some to-be-determined residual value even after that which can be re-captured.  While buying BTC will likely prove to have been the most optimal investment unless for some strange reason the diff increases start to level out....the margin of how much better is still very much in question at this point.
11
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:01:56 PM
 #19896

This all debate is sterile.Yes, as an investor with a 5 months perspective buying some BTC would have been more profitable; so WHAT!!! I am just glad after 29 days I just turn positive. For info I got the miners on the 7th and the Jups were getting 1.5 BTC each at that time vs 0.65 now.

What the naysayers should focus on is more on the amount of GH/s that were sold by KNC, Bitfury and other unknows.
The mining companies are not individually responsible of the return IN BTC of their clients but collectively they are. Will they always find another sucker??? time will tell (although the 55nm Avalon chips are not doing that great on Tradehill, don't they?)

The more I think financially about it, the less I want to invest in mining gears again; but God it was fun to wait, fun to see, almost in real time, the progress, specially on sept 30th and the 1st. The experience was phenomenal and I am glad I did it...

PS Call me an idiot but I would have not dare buying USD 14400 worth of bitcoins at the time, so from MY perspective I did very well buying the miners...


Tehfiend
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 473



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:20:38 PM
 #19897

And that over-simplification is why people are pushing back on your "explanation".  Your explanation relies on someone having $7000 cash sitting someplace that could readily be converted into BTC or purchase a miner at equal cost in terms of time-value of money.  Many people purchased a miner with a credit card at or near zero percent interest, where as getting a cash advance would have entailed a 20% or higher interest rate (typical of the cards I've seen, YMMV) in addition to a upfront fee.  In addition, the miner itself retains substantial residual value for quite some time (if the ASICMiner gear is any indication) which is not being added to the equation (capitalization versus straight expensing of equipment for you accountant types out there) which further muddies the water of overall profitability.  Especially when tax considerations are taken into account with same-year full expensing of business-related computer equipment being allowed for small businesses.

True I will give that one to you. People that are using credit to invest in BTC do not have option one. Although if I thought a Jupiter would make 95% or less BTC than I could buy directly, then I would use credit to purchase a TV/etc and sell it for BTC or cash and invest directly in bitcoin so I assume that anybody investing in a miner expects it to make more BTC than they could buy but your point still stands.

So, yes, in hindsight buying BTC would have been a *better* investment if one was to measure the progress of BTC mined as of RIGHT now versus selling bought BTC...but it hardly means that buying a miner was a *bad* investment considering that the miners have yet to reach their full potential of mining production AND they may yet have some to-be-determined residual value even after that which can be re-captured.  While buying BTC will likely prove to have been the most optimal investment unless for some strange reason the diff increases start to level out....the margin of how much better is still very much in question at this point.

I agree that we do not know the total yield of our Jupiters and I think mine might have a positive BTC ROI since it was a day 2 but it's looking worse and worse with every difficulty jump. I'm not sure why everybody keeps talking about hindsite. It's simply a matter of measuring the BTC and fiat ROI to learn how you did. If I make a prediction that it's better to invest in a miner than directly in BTC then I will see if my prediction was accurate or not so I can become a better investor in the future based on empirical evidence and avoid similar miscalculations. People that ignore that information will continue to make the same mistake of investing in less BTC via mining than they could directly (unless of course they are investing borrowed money Wink.
kaerf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 624


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:22:30 PM
 #19898


I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote
If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Wink

I don't think you understand that many people paid in BTC...not fiat. Many people DO NOT cash out to fiat (or buy BTC). If you don't make back the BTC you spent, you've lost something....that is a bad investment.
Tehfiend
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 473



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:31:18 PM
 #19899

PS Call me an idiot but I would have not dare buying USD 14400 worth of bitcoins at the time, so from MY perspective I did very well buying the miners...
I am not implying you are an idiot, I also purchases a Jupiter and still hope it will have positive BTC ROI. What you need to realize is that you DID invest 14400USD in bitcoins. You invested that money in the BTC you predicted those miners to make. If the exchange rate had crashed you would have lost even if the Jupiters made positive BTC ROI. Nobody would buy your Jupiters for much if BTC was trading at $10. Investing in a miner has the ADDED risk of increasing difficulty and shipping delays so it was a higher risk than investing directly which is only effected by the exchange rate.



I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote
If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Wink

I don't think you understand that many people paid in BTC...not fiat. Many people DO NOT cash out to fiat (or buy BTC). If you don't make back the BTC you spent, you've lost something....that is a bad investment.

Exactly, I am in it for the long haul and have only ever invested BTC that I have mined starting with the GPU era and am only interested in increasing my BTC holdings so the exchange rate means very little to me. I understand why people get excited to make a fiat profit but I just want them to realize when it was not because of investing in mining but because they invested in BTC via mining so that they don't continue to purchase miners that ultimately reduce that fiat profit.
rolling
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 452



View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:42:13 PM
 #19900

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?
Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

No, you had an infinite number of choices on how to invest your money.  Why single out buying BTC as the only other alternative to buying a miner?  You could of, just as easily said, buy 7200 lottery tickets or buy shares of Facebook.  Many, many investments could have been better or worse than buying a miner.  Pointing out that buying BTC would have been better is not only obvious sitting here today with BTC at $240 but doesn't prove that buying a miner was a bad idea.

I personally did buy BTC directly as well as buy a miner and I lost my shorts on the direct BTC investment.  Sitting here today, I know I should have just held it but I sold for a loss of ~30%.  When you say "you should have bought BTC instead of a miner", what you are really saying is "you should have bought BTC on the day you bought your miner and used your powers of prediction to delay selling it until today."

Pages: « 1 ... 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 [995] 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 ... 2138 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!