|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
 |
July 13, 2013, 05:19:37 PM |
|
Yes, ujka, and I am glad you're here to add balance  If we were still with FPGA and GPU we would have still probably seen an 8-12% rise in the next year right? It's never been lower than that. Why is it out of bounds to think that we could have 15-20%? The numbers are really high, but if the chips keep improving difficulty is bound to skyrocket. We should see at least one more improvement in the technology available for sale by the time a year is done, and likely more. I'm sure there are people planning the next step, or even the step after that, right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ujka
|
|
July 13, 2013, 06:00:15 PM |
|
Yes, ujka, and I am glad you're here to add balance If we were still with FPGA and GPU we would have still probably seen an 8-12% rise in the next year right? It's never been lower than that. Don't think so. We are now at the 200TH/s hashrate and the 'bitcoin price/difficulty' ratio is so low that GPU mining is stopping. FPGA can maybe go some more, but not up to 6200TH/s (that's what 8% constant increase is). My point is, miners will not add new hashpower, and spend thousands of $ on overpriced hardware, if it's not profitable. At some point they will stop buying. Hardware price must go down, or bitcoin price must go up. Significantly. Let's look at hardware needed, in the form of KnC 400Gh (still only on paper, but most profitable) for:
8%: 15 000 miners, and $100 000 000
15%: 230 000 miners, and $1 600 000 000
20%: 1 400 000 miners, and $10 000 000 000
40%: 1 000 000 000 miners, and $7 600 000 000 000
Why is it out of bounds to think that we could have 15-20%? The numbers are really high, but if the chips keep improving difficulty is bound to skyrocket. We should see at least one more improvement in the technology available for sale by the time a year is done, and likely more. I'm sure there are people planning the next step, or even the step after that, right now.
I expect at least one more improvement in the technology in a year, too. But by then, the network will also 'grow' and that new technology again will not have such a big impact.  I expected some 'Woouu' for collecting all that data and making those charts. It really took some time. |
|
|
|
|
statdude
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 13, 2013, 08:17:00 PM |
|
I get annoyed. 15% constant rise gives 99 668 TH/s in a year! (dec 2014) (100 PH/s) 20% constant rise gives 570 660 TH/s !!! (570 PH/s) 40% constant rise gives 317 100 041 TH/s !!!!!!!!! (317 100 PH/s) ASIC is a new technology, but it does not have the same impact as the GPUs back then. And it will not evolve that quick to make such an impact. 15% 20% 40% Nice, when did GPU come online? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ujka
|
|
July 13, 2013, 09:08:14 PM
Last edit: July 13, 2013, 09:39:14 PM by ujka |
|
When I talk about 'not that big impact' on the network I mean this:
- back when GPU era started, network total hashrate was 10GH, hashing speed of a decent GPU card 300MH. 33 GPU cards easily doubled network hashrate!
- start of ASIC era: network was at 20 000GH, for doubling that we needed 300 Avalons @66GH
At what price? (one GPU card ~$300, one Avalon $1500).
Continuing:
GPUs were accessible, and price in the range a new miner could afford.
ASICs? Preordering games, overpriced (only for big wallets), limited quantities (batches), not delivered...
|
|
|
|
|
|
ujka
|
|
July 13, 2013, 10:18:54 PM |
|
If we were still with FPGA and GPU we would have still probably seen an 8-12% rise in the next year right? It's never been lower than that.
Without ASICs, 8% constant increase from feb. 5th, gives 200TH in Jan. 2014. At $100/btc GPU miners will stop mining, hashrate drops or stays at that level with more efficient FPGAs. Increase in 2014 - none, or few % up or down, depends on btc price, energy cost... Equilibri, says one forum member here. |
|
|
|
|
|
jimmy3dita
|
|
July 13, 2013, 11:54:14 PM |
|
If we give an over-optimistic figure of 1W per Gigahash/s, the break even of any ASiC -at current btc prices- cannot sustain such increases, free energy isn't scalable
|
Acquista il mio libro "Investire Bitcoin": clicca qui |
|
|
|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
|
July 14, 2013, 12:41:20 AM
Last edit: July 14, 2013, 01:49:01 AM by FCTaiChi |
|
If we were still with FPGA and GPU we would have still probably seen an 8-12% rise in the next year right? It's never been lower than that.
Without ASICs, 8% constant increase from feb. 5th, gives 200TH in Jan. 2014. At $100/btc GPU miners will stop mining, hashrate drops or stays at that level with more efficient FPGAs. Increase in 2014 - none, or few % up or down, depends on btc price, energy cost... Equilibri, says one forum member here. I meant if there was no spike upward from ASICs at all, we would still see growth in the next couple years from FPGA. At the current prices of ASICs we could have about 15% growth in the year and there would still be a return for those getting their miners ASAP. Prices could go down considerably now that the startup costs have been paid. There are some companies that sell miners like crazy even though they have negative ROI. Like you say, though, the deciding factor will be if there is profit to be made. With current tech we could average up to 25% before the new chip designs are unprofitable. A good part will depend on the companies. Are there a couple groups nobody knows about working on a design that they will use for their selves? Will all the companies currently using the first generation ASIC designs go to gen 2 or 3? They will have to, to remain competitive. I agree this won't be like the big spikes of the past. But it will be a well maintained plateau. There are a lot of companies heavily invested in bringing ASICs online. Even if bitcoin tanks and they wont even make their return, they'll still be plugged in by someone, as long as the energy cost vs price and a possibility of future markets exist. edit - I realized the first sentence is not fully stated, and runs into the next idea. I was comparing the rate of growth at the end of a cycle of technology still being fairly high, and that you would expect the new tech to have a significant impact. |
|
|
|
|
tom99
|
|
July 14, 2013, 08:36:48 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
|
July 14, 2013, 09:06:43 PM |
|
Ok, rather than try to figure out what it will be I think I will show what people have requested and they can pick. If the range is not large enough tell me why and most likely I'll be glad to accommodate. I'm starting quite large though, please have a reason.
|
|
|
|
|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
|
July 15, 2013, 09:45:22 PM |
|
Ok I changed the link for BitFury to the one you posted. Also added the Oct. model. |
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
July 15, 2013, 09:58:36 PM |
|
Yes, ujka, and I am glad you're here to add balance If we were still with FPGA and GPU we would have still probably seen an 8-12% rise in the next year right? It's never been lower than that. Why is it out of bounds to think that we could have 15-20%? The numbers are really high, but if the chips keep improving difficulty is bound to skyrocket. We should see at least one more improvement in the technology available for sale by the time a year is done, and likely more. I'm sure there are people planning the next step, or even the step after that, right now. We've gone from ASICS of 130nm (ASICMiner) to 28nm (KnC/AMC) in less than a year. That is a 400% increase in efficiency. To keep that up, we'd need to reach ~6nm in 2014, which is at least 10 years ahead of us. I'm sure Intel would buy up anyone capable of going sub 14nm in an instant, as that's where they are planning to go. Costs also increase exponentially. AM got up on just a few hundred thousand dollars, and their insane growth (~40x) is only barely able to keep up with Bitcoin price increases. As an investment opportunity, the cost, risks, and potential for Bitcoin price increase makes large scale investments less feasible. Even in a perfect world, where we'd match Intel's current process of 20nm and used Bitfury's efficiency, we're nowhere near financially capable of maintaining a perpetual proportional growth. Of course, in Bitcoin, anything beyond three months ahead or behind is left for our grandparents or grandchildren, so I'm not really expecting anyone to be rational about this. .b |
|
|
|
|
furuknap
|
|
July 15, 2013, 10:07:29 PM |
|
I expected some 'Woouu' for collecting all that data and making those charts. It really took some time.
Woouu, whatever it means, you deserve it for being a rational voice in all the "Bitcoin mining is dead, because everyone is doing it so everyone will lose money forever!" herd-stampeding. I think you're too pesimistic, though. I'd easily see 3.2PH by the end of the year. Keep growth up after that, assuming the herd for once is right, will be insanely expensive and only idiots with huge wallets and completely lacking functional brains will invest. There aren't that many of them available. Keep in mind, a lot of the growth we're seeing now has been incoming for over a year. It's not like a couple of weeks of preorders will suddenly be delivered in a few days, and with the attitude now shifting towards 'this will not make money', the willingness to invest will decrease to where mining again becomes profitable, and we'll be back to where we are now. It's a very nice balance, sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other. Never will it lean continuously towards one direction over time. .b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schrankwand
|
|
July 16, 2013, 12:24:33 PM |
|
You should Bitcoin bet on this.
A few rational scenarios and... we would be done. Average Hashrate from December 15 to december 22 (Christmas time and it is winter, colder, good for mining equipment).
|
|
|
|
|
|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:01:58 PM |
|
Seems likely it will be 1 Million. At just 8% difficulty hits 1M in February. 10% hits it just before the year is out. |
|
|
|
|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
|
July 23, 2013, 08:28:24 PM |
|
Ok every column in every table has a new equation that makes it so I neither have to change any individual cell data, nor will I make a mistake doing so. This naturally fixed a few errors. I'm much happier at the current state.
Little Fury added. They should have more for sale soon.
Tables for all companies on the list added, just putting up individual pages with links now.
|
|
|
|
|
noah tall
|
|
July 25, 2013, 02:55:16 PM |
|
The members of the Cooperative have decided the lower the price of our K1 Nano's to $49.99 per unit. NEW
No special lot prices will be available just one price.
Those interested in larger lots of 1000+ can be discussed but available only in October. We are still waiting on Avalon Chips as is everyone else. Fingers crossed our earlier chips arrive soon.
50 bucks! The website is here: https://bigpicturemining.com/ |
|
|
|
|
FCTaiChi (OP)
|
|
July 29, 2013, 05:24:11 AM |
|
Page for each company is up. These will be updated with extras, like multiple pricing scenarios on many models.
Big Picture Mining added
|
|
|
|
|
Bicknellski
|
|
July 29, 2013, 05:49:04 AM |
|
BPMC
Chips included.
Heat Sink Included.
Given overclocking to 350 Mh/s pretty much given with current components. (Hardware component changes might improve this beyond 350+ Mh/s for our K1 models.
Price fluctuates from $49.99 USD set price against the MtGox price.
Current MtGox Price $99.34 / BTC or BTC 0.50 per K1 Unit.
Please revise your table accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
