Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[CYPER]

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?

[1713898221]

1713898221

[1713898221]

1713898221

[1713898221]

1713898221

[mo_mo]

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]

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]

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:

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

[Tehfiend]

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:

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

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]

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:

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

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

[texaslabrat]

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]

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]

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 .

[kaerf]

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

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

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]

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:

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

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]

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."

[FiatKiller]

I ditched FW 9.8.1 because over time the hashrate and WU dropped way too much. Hardware error rate was still 1% lower, but that is not enough to make-up for the first two being down 7-8%. Went back to FW 9.8 no problem.

[The Avenger]

Anyway tip jar's below, don't be shy!! Everyone else has been pretty flakey, bar Roadstress and Bargraphics and a handful of others, hasn't even covered the first set of flights...

[Tehfiend]

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?

What is said was:

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC

We're not comparing investing in BTC to other forms of investments, only investing in BTC via mining or directly.

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."

When you bought the miner you also invested in BTC that you would receive in a predicted future time period. You would have of course also predicted that the exchange rate would be the same or higher at that time if you decided to invest. The same is true when investing directly. You could have decided to hold those BTC until a certain period of time or many of the other investment strategies that people employ. The fact is that you had the option to sell or hold which you don't when investing in a miner pre-order. So yes investing in a miner does help avoid panic selling when you have no solid investment strategy but also prevents you from cashing out when there's a rally such as the time I was waiting for my Batch #2 Avalons and the rate hit $260. It works both ways and your decision to sell at a loss is not related to your BTC ROI on the miner.

[rolling]

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?

What is said was:

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC

We're not comparing investing in BTC to other forms of investments, only investing in BTC via mining or directly.

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."

When you bought the miner you also invested in BTC that you would receive in a predicted future time period. You would have of course also predicted that the exchange rate would be the same or higher at that time if you decided to invest. The same is true when investing directly. You could have decided to hold those BTC until a certain period of time or many of the investment strategies that people employ. The fact is that you had the option to sell or hold which you don't when investing in a miner pre-order. So yes investing in a miner does help panic selling when you have no solid investment strategy but also prevents you from cashing out when there's a rally such as the time I was waiting for my Batch #2 Avalons and the rate hit $260. It works both ways and your decision to sell at a loss is not related to your BTC ROI on the miner.

I am not investing in BTC.  I am investing in any way to make dollars.  I have many investments.  This one happens to have something to do with BTC but what it does is generate dollars.

[Tehfiend]

I am not investing in BTC.  I am investing in any way to make dollars.  I have many investments.  This one happens to have something to do with BTC but what it does is generate dollars.

Wow OK now I think I understand why some people are paying a premium for miners that have no way of having positive BTC ROI.

Any time you "invest" you are trading the value of one thing (USD) for the value of another thing (BTC via mining) with the prediction that the second thing (BTC) will increase relatively (to USD) in value over time. So when you buy a miner you are investing your USD into a predicted amount of BTC you will receive in a future time period. If you don't agree with this basic fact then there's no point in continuing the dialog.

[Biffa]

I am not investing in BTC.  I am investing in any way to make dollars.  I have many investments.  This one happens to have something to do with BTC but what it does is generate dollars.

Wow OK now I think I understand why some people are paying a premium for miners that have no way of having positive BTC ROI.

Any time you "invest" you are trading the value of one thing (USD) for the value of another thing (BTC via mining) with the prediction that the second thing (BTC) will increase relatively (to USD) in value over time. So when you buy a miner you are investing your USD into a predicted amount of BTC you will receive in a future time period. If you don't agree with this basic fact then there's no point in continuing the dialog.

Hang on did you buy a KNC miner? It was priced in US Dollars, not BTC. If you paid in BTC you paid for the dollar value of the BTC at the time of purchase. If you decide to invest your dollars in something that generates BTC you can decide whether that generated income is valuable to you in BTC or in the dollar value of that BTC.

Thats why if you asked for a refund you wouldn't get the refund in the same amount of BTC you converted to pay for it, you would get the refund in the current number of BTC that equals the amount you paid for the device.

I'm investing my cash (because I paid cash, not BTC or BTC converted into cash) in a machine that will create more cash than I invested. I only care about the BTC part of it from a) a conversion medium for cash, and b) a technical whimsy*

*I like technical stuff, in fact I have more money invested in Protein folding research machines than I do in bitcoin machines, and they have zero ROI

I only care about the BTC generated by my miner in as much as its value relative to the fiat I can convert it into eventually.

[Tehfiend]

Hang on did you buy a KNC miner? It was priced in US Dollars, not BTC. If you paid in BTC you paid for the dollar value of the BTC at the time of purchase. If you decide to invest your dollars in something that generates BTC you can decide whether that generated income is valuable to you in BTC or in the dollar value of that BTC.

Yes I did and knew that I was cashing out my BTC for $7000 in USD which I was then then investing in the amount of BTC I predicted the Jupiter to make. It looks like my prediction was off because of the shipping delay and unexpected difficulty increases so I should have just held onto the BTC because my goal was to increase my BTC holdings since I predicted the BTC exchange rate would continue increasing. The fiat profit I made is a small consolation since I would have most likely made much more by NOT buying the Jupiter.

Thats why if you asked for a refund you wouldn't get the refund in the same amount of BTC you converted to pay for it, you would get the refund in the current number of BTC that equals the amount you paid for the device.

I've never asked for a refund and blame my miscalculation on the rising difficulty since I factored in a 1 month shipping delay in my calculations. I am very happy with KNC and do not blame them for the situation and only want people to realize the nature of investing in miners.

I only care about the BTC generated by my miner in as much as its value relative to the fiat I can convert it into eventually.

If you choose not to look at the results of your investment in mining to learn that buying BTC directly would have been a better investment then that is your choice but that is the fact.

[Phoenix1969]

Other than re-upping on Equipment...
 I just don't see any sane reason why a miner would cash his/her bitcoins in right now...
unless you are starving or something...