ASICMINER Speculation Thread

[jimmothy]

Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces nonsense I just made up, no I don't. Do you?

FTFY

And yes we do believe AM can maintain 5+% global hashrate or we wouldn't be investing.

Seriously your calculations are garbage and unrealistic.

[Mabsark]

Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.

What maths lead you to believe that?

You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.

No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.

Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.

For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.

I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.

[Mabsark]

Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces nonsense I just made up, no I don't. Do you?

FTFY

And yes we do believe AM can maintain 5+% global hashrate or we wouldn't be investing.

Seriously your calculations are garbage and unrealistic.

Prove it then.

[jimmothy]

Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.

What maths lead you to believe that?

You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.

No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.

Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.

For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.

I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.

Because every time your bullshit math has been disproven you create more bullshit calculations next week. A week ago you were telling us that am would have 100th/s by april so we should all base our evaluations off that..

As others have said 5% = 0.5/share

AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.

[Mabsark]

Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?

As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.

I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.

I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.

[jimmothy]

Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?

As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.

I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.

I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.

You are saying that as difficulty increases and hashrate stays constant that dividends from mining will decrease. We all know this.

The part that is debatable is how AM will expand. Maybe AM will increase solomining hashrate every week to match difficulty increases. Or maybe AM decides to just sell a shitload of hardware.

If AM sells 20ph and decides to do literally nothing after that then you are right and AM is not worth more than 0.5btc/share

[Mabsark]

Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.

What maths lead you to believe that?

You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.

No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.

Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.

For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.

I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.

Because every time your bullshit math has been disproven you create more bullshit calculations next week. A week ago you were telling us that am would have 100th/s by april so we should all base our evaluations off that..

I was assuming the current hash rate to be 100 Th/s and that new chips would arrive in April in order to show what mining income will drop to before the new chips come online.

As others have said 5% = 0.5/share

AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.

If AM have 20 Ph/s, they do not have the ability to maintain a 5% network share if the network hash rate is 250 Ph/s. That is easy to prove mathematically and I have done so.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the words you are actually reading.

[jimmothy]

Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.

What maths lead you to believe that?

You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.

No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.

Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.

For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.

I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.

Because every time your bullshit math has been disproven you create more bullshit calculations next week. A week ago you were telling us that am would have 100th/s by april so we should all base our evaluations off that..

I was assuming the current hash rate to be 100 Th/s and that new chips would arrive in April in order to show what mining income will drop to before the new chips come online.

As others have said 5% = 0.5/share

AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.

If AM have 20 Ph/s, they do not have the ability to maintain a 5% network share if the network hash rate is 250 Ph/s. That is easy to prove mathematically and I have done so.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the words you are actually reading.

20ph of a 250ph network is more than 5%. Increasing hashrate to match difficulty change means AM can maintain more than 5%.

I now know that you aren't interested in having a discussion and instead just bashing AM so ill do what apparently a large portion of other users have done which is click the yellow ignore button next to your name.

[Mabsark]

Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?

As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.

I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.

I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.

You are saying that as difficulty increases and hashrate stays constant that dividends from mining will decrease. We all know this.

The part that is debatable is how AM will expand. Maybe AM will increase solomining hashrate every week to match difficulty increases. Or maybe AM decides to just sell a shitload of hardware.

If AM sells 20ph and decides to do literally nothing after that then you are right and AM is not worth more than 0.5btc/share

I repeat (without the mistakes this time):

Let say the network hash rate was 250 Ph/s and AM controlled 5% of the network, netting around 2,520 BTC per round. That 5% would represent 12.5 Ph/s. If the network hash rate increases by 20% that round, that would take the network hash rate to 300 Ph/s. In order for AM to maintain their network share, AM would need to add 2.5 Ph/s by the end of that round. In order to maintain their hash rate, the following hash power would need to be brought online by the end of each round:

Round 1 = 2.5 Ph/s
Round 2 = 3 Ph/s
Round 3 = 3.6 Ph/s
Round 4 = 4.32 Ph/s
Round 5 = 5.184 Ph/s
Round 6 = 6.2208 Ph/s

If they got 20 Ph/s, 12.5 Ph/s would be needed to control 5% of the network, leaving 7.5 Ph/s for sales and maintaining the network share until a new batch of chips arrived. The first 3 rounds require more than 9.1 Ph/s to be brought online to maintain 5%.

How is possible to bring 9.5 Ph/s online if there is only 7.5 Ph/s available?

[dmcdad]

So somehow despite AM producing hardware whose specs will be highly competitive with all other hardware produced, and despite a proven track record of being able to actually ship hardware/chips, AM will not capture 5% of the mining business profits. If you believe your "mathematical proof" proves that, then please short away at the stock.

[Mabsark]

So somehow despite AM producing hardware whose specs will be highly competitive with all other hardware produced, and despite a proven track record of being able to actually ship hardware/chips, AM will not capture 5% of the mining business profits. If you believe your "mathematical proof" proves that, then please short away at the stock.

I feel really sorry for people who think that 9.1 Ph/s is less than 7.5 Ph/s.

[Mabsark]

20ph of a 250ph network is more than 5%. Increasing hashrate to match difficulty change means AM can maintain more than 5%.

I now know that you aren't interested in having a discussion and instead just bashing AM so ill do what apparently a large portion of other users have done which is click the yellow ignore button next to your name.

You are showing your reading comprehension problems again. It was dmcdad that brought up the 5% network share. I pointed out that would use 12.5 Ph/s out of AM's 20 Ph/s (maximum) leaving 7.5 Ph/s available. I then demonstrated that AM would require 9.1 Ph/s in order to maintain 5% making it physically impossible to maintain 5% for even 3 rounds.

I'm sorry if such basic maths is too difficult for you to follow. Maybe it will cheer you up to know that in reality, AM will sell a good proportion of that hash rate, probably making it impossible to even gain 5% in the first place.

[dmcdad]

So somehow despite AM producing hardware whose specs will be highly competitive with all other hardware produced, and despite a proven track record of being able to actually ship hardware/chips, AM will not capture 5% of the mining business profits. If you believe your "mathematical proof" proves that, then please short away at the stock.

I feel really sorry for people who think that 9.1 Ph/s is less than 7.5 Ph/s.

Ahh.. yes. Thank you. So clear now. Someday I will come up with grand mathematical proofs of my own now to make grand predictions.

BTW, seen AM price on Havelock lately? I just cannot figure out why that sucker is going in the wrong direction.

[minerpumpkin]

BTW, seen AM price on Havelock lately? I just cannot figure out why that sucker is going in the wrong direction.

Strong demand for 'cheap' shares before potentially positive tape-out news. People feel the shares won't go any lower...

[freedomno1]

The discussion is getting interesting again, with the development and growth potential in AM owning 1/400000 of the next google is a real possibility and the company is in a great position to do so as rival pointed out.

On the other hand I see people focused on the Yield now and the prices of Bitcoin in the short run, both sides have a point and I feel we are nearing a crux point where either the price of Bitcoin will rise faster than the value of an AM share, or we see the opposite and it becomes a safe-haven to keep bitcoins in, during chaotic price rises due to its adoption and the rapid rises and AM with the hash power needed to back the BTC price regardless of the Fiat Rate.

Extending into that we are starting to see investors valuing AM as a great investment to preserve the bitcoins they have as they are predicted to provide a steady stream of dividends into the future, with future batches sustaining their mining presence Gen 3 presently with more batches afterwards and from their previous mining operations they have large capital reserves that can be relied upon to maintain and develop their network presence, seen through their network strategy and outlook.

The crux is the electrical cost per unit we are seeing a significant rise in the mining power and efficient units are becoming increasingly important due to decreasing margins, as a result it makes sense to have batches of low cost/energy hashing units than high end ones with high energy costs for long term mining.

With batches being replaced and resold when difficulty rises mining buildings come in. This is consistent with the trend from hobby miners to commercial industrial mining and they are preparing their cards to play that market. Of course the timing is still critical as new hash enters the market it also increases the difficulty, so releasing the hash to a profitable level requires a low energy cost, as the additional hash from their units and competitors increases the overall difficulty.

In all this is going to be an interesting year.

[BitCsByBit]

Seems like a lot of people are assuming that the Gen 3 will be a success.

It is still too early to make such a call considering that the Gen 2 had to be cancelled due to the under performing chip design.

Even if the Gen 3 chip does perform, there are still 3-4 months before they are implemented in functional miners, and that is a very long time in the Bitcoin world.

[jimmothy]

Seems like a lot of people are assuming that the Gen 3 will be a success.

It is still too early to make such a call considering that the Gen 2 had to be cancelled due to the under performing chip design.

Even if the Gen 3 chip does perform, there are still 3-4 months before they are implemented in functional miners, and that is a very long time in the Bitcoin world.

Could be 2 months till a working product after tape-out. Also I thought gen2 was skipped because gen3 looked so much more promising. Knc is probably the biggest competitor and they will probably ship at the end of q2.

[Lloydie]

Seems like a lot of people are assuming that the Gen 3 will be a success.

It is still too early to make such a call considering that the Gen 2 had to be cancelled due to the under performing chip design.

Even if the Gen 3 chip does perform, there are still 3-4 months before they are implemented in functional miners, and that is a very long time in the Bitcoin world.

If gen 3 is lower cost to run it won't matter when it comes out. It will simply outhash everything out there and make older chips obsolete.

[BitCsByBit]

Seems like a lot of people are assuming that the Gen 3 will be a success.

It is still too early to make such a call considering that the Gen 2 had to be cancelled due to the under performing chip design.

Even if the Gen 3 chip does perform, there are still 3-4 months before they are implemented in functional miners, and that is a very long time in the Bitcoin world.

Could be 2 months till a working product after tape-out. Also I thought gen2 was skipped because gen3 looked so much more promising. Knc is probably the biggest competitor and they will probably ship at the end of q2.

Gen 2 was skipped/cancelled due to the poor performance. Have a look back at friedcat's posts.

[BitCsByBit]

Seems like a lot of people are assuming that the Gen 3 will be a success.

It is still too early to make such a call considering that the Gen 2 had to be cancelled due to the under performing chip design.

Even if the Gen 3 chip does perform, there are still 3-4 months before they are implemented in functional miners, and that is a very long time in the Bitcoin world.

If gen 3 is lower cost to run it won't matter when it comes out. It will simply outhash everything out there and make older chips obsolete.

Yes, fair enough.

But look at what happened to BFL, Avalon, Cointera, HashFast, ActM, and even AsicMiner. Everyone's roadmap was quite different to what they initially planned. The chances of the chip design to under perform or having a big delay is quite likely.