Bitcoin Mining Dashboard - The Genesis Block

[tgb_jeff]

Update Aug 14 2013: TGB Mining Dashboard 1.1

mining.thegenesisblock.com

In addition to adding new ASIC companies and products that have announced over the last few weeks, such as Bitfury and HashFast, we've added a few features that will make analyzing available options even easier.

• We've made it even easier to share your analysis with custom URLs. After each analysis is performed a URL is created at the top of the payment schedule. Simply click the button next to the URL to copy it and you can send it to other miners or store it for later analysis. Any time someone uses the new URL it will have all of the parameters and results preloaded for them.
• Previously the auto-populated monthly difficulty increase used a 30-day window, which led to some dramatic fluctuations as the 30-day window alternated between 2 and 3 difficulty increases. We are now using the 90-day increase to smooth out that monthly increase estimate.

As a general rule please do not take any auto-populated fields as endorsement of those values. We're trying to get them as accurate as possible, but every field should be customized each user's personal needs.


Original Post July 22 2013: TGB Mining Dashboard 1.0

We’re the team behind The Genesis Block. We just built a Mining Dashboard as a free tool for the bitcoin community and would love your feedback. In short, it helps make a mining investment decision by providing full info on hardware options and providing a monthly payout schedule. You can check it out here: mining.thegenesisblock.com

https://i.imgur.com/pjOOo9l.png

Our team pre-loaded data inputs for available equipment, meaning all you have to do is select the hardware you’re interested in and the date you expect to start mining. The site then provides a month-by-month payout schedule based on operating costs and expected network growth. There’s also a sortable table at the bottom comparing ASIC options all in one place.

Any comments or criticisms are very much welcome. We love building these tools and want to make them as helpful as possible. Full screen shot below:

https://i.imgur.com/nnvutSd.png

[1713856471]

1713856471

[1713856471]

1713856471

[1713856471]

1713856471

[1713856471]

1713856471

[kuusj98]

Wow! Seems awesome, let's have a look then...

Edit: Woot?! An USB Erupter is the most hash/$ and after 3 months only 1$ profit a month IF you get em at 0.89BTC.
That seems a BIT overshot, but we'll see, nice website anyway, it's going to help alot of people.

[tgb_jeff]

Thank you for the feedback. If you look at the MH/$ column, you'll see that the ASICMiner USB Erupter actually has one of the worst MHash/$ at 4.

At the current network difficulty growth rate of 62% per month if the device, shipping, and electricity costs were $0, the USB miner could be expected to return 0.41 BTC. Now add in additional costs like electricity and setup costs, and you can determine what the maximum you would be willing to pay and still make a profit. All of the settings should be tailorable to your individual costs and what your projections of network difficulty will be.

https://i.imgur.com/67IjngV.png

[iikun]

I see you have the Klondikes in the main profitability section but not Bitburners.  Are you planning on adding them soon?  It would be interesting if you could add both stock speed & overclocked version if possible pls.

[tgb_jeff]

I see you have the Klondikes in the main profitability section but not Bitburners.  Are you planning on adding them soon?  It would be interesting if you could add both stock speed & overclocked version if possible pls.

BitBurner only offers the ASIC PCBs, with customer furnished chips. He does not offer the complete sets like the Terrahash set that's listed in the upper section. We had to separate out chips, boards, and chip+board sets in order to allow for fair comparisons. The chips as well as PCB boards available are listed under the complete sets in their own sections.

[miningatnight]

Very nice and clean so far.  Keep up the good work.

[dree12]

I notice you use Mt. Gox prices. While Mt. Gox prices used to be most trustworthy, this is no longer true. It is extremely difficult to get USD out of Mt. Gox; thus, the price on Mt. Gox is inflated because most people convert to BTC in order to withdraw. Using Bitstamp values would be more relevant, as withdrawals from Bitstamp work.

(Note: BTC-E suffers from the opposite problem. It is extremely difficult to get USD in; thus, people deposit BTC more often, so the price is lower than what it should be.)

[Ytterbium]

Don't forget to add avalonclones.com, with their $1900 (~210BTC) 60Ghash Avalon clones, lol.

Also most people on the boards are talking about $/hash, these days not hash/$.  So $17.5/Ghash is considered a good deal, for example.

[iikun]

I see you have the Klondikes in the main profitability section but not Bitburners.  Are you planning on adding them soon?  It would be interesting if you could add both stock speed & overclocked version if possible pls.

BitBurner only offers the ASIC PCBs, with customer furnished chips. He does not offer the complete sets like the Terrahash set that's listed in the upper section. We had to separate out chips, boards, and chip+board sets in order to allow for fair comparisons. The chips as well as PCB boards available are listed under the complete sets in their own sections.

ok sorry, i think i wasn't clear.  I meant the "Market & Hardware Parameters" section dropbox so that the boards' profitability can be calculated.  I don't have any issue with them not being in the Complete Hardware section.
As it is now I can manually input their data to the calculator section but as soon as I click on any button (eg change BTC to USD) the whole calculator resets & I have to input again.

[timmmers]

Any hardware delivered after October isn't going to break even in a year according to that.
Depressing tool if it's anywhere near accurate.

It might be nice to have BTC mined on there somewhere ?

[tgb_jeff]

Very nice and clean so far.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it

Don't forget to add avalonclones.com, with their $1900 (~210BTC) 60Ghash Avalon clones, lol.

Also most people on the boards are talking about $/hash, these days not hash/$.  So $17.5/Ghash is considered a good deal, for example.

Looking into Avalon Clones a bit, there are a few flags that raise questions: they haven't demonstrated a working prototype; there is no personal contact information on the web site; and they said they had two funding rounds so won't need to do pre-orders in their press release, yet are requesting preorders on their product page. We'll continue to watch it for developments, but at this point I dont feel comfortable putting it on our page.

Thanks for the suggestion, I changed the Cost Efficiency column to reflect $/GH.

ok sorry, i think i wasn't clear.  I meant the "Market & Hardware Parameters" section dropbox so that the boards' profitability can be calculated.  I don't have any issue with them not being in the Complete Hardware section.
As it is now I can manually input their data to the calculator section but as soon as I click on any button (eg change BTC to USD) the whole calculator resets & I have to input again.

I see, this was an ease of use decision since the drop down gets more complex as we add in different combinations of chips and boards in addition to the complete sets. I added your suggestion to our to-do list and I'll try and figure out the cleanest way to add this option.

Any hardware delivered after October isn't going to break even in a year according to that.
Depressing tool if it's anywhere near accurate.

It might be nice to have BTC mined on there somewhere ?

Yes, the main question is whether network difficulty increases can maintain the rapid rate we've seen over the last few months. It is probably worth playing with that value a bit to see how it affects any future investments.

You can select the currency in the top right of the Mining Payout Schedule section to reflect BTC mined. It will display both the monthly BTC returned as well as cumulative values.

[Ytterbium]

Looking into Avalon Clones a bit, there are a few flags that raise questions: they haven't demonstrated a working prototype; there is no personal contact information on the web site; and they said they had two funding rounds so won't need to do pre-orders in their press release, yet are requesting preorders on their product page. We'll continue to watch it for developments, but at this point I dont feel comfortable putting it on our page.

They posted a thread about it here.  I don't think they're a scam in the sense of not actually being able to build their clones, but rather in the sense of charging way too much money, hoping to sucker the less savvy into buying mining equipment that will never see a positive ROI unless the price of bitcoin skyrockets again.

Thanks for the suggestion, I changed the Cost Efficiency column to reflect $/GH.

Cool!

[dree12]

Thanks for the suggestion, I changed the Cost Efficiency column to reflect $/GH.

Can you restore the original behaviour, or at least place a warning on this? It's easier to compare two different products by GH/$ than the other way around. For example, one can say Brand A is twice as good as Brand B. With the way it is now, one must make a mental note that 40 is twice as bad as 20, not the other way around. I went to the page, noticed that ASICMiner is way ahead of the competition, and only then noticed something was not right. Luckily, I'm not purchasing hardware right now—but this could snag someone that was.

I think it might be the label, actually. When one sees "Cost Efficiency", one thinks "bigger = more efficient is better". Maybe this can be corrected to "Cost per gigahash".

(Also, it's inconsistent with Power Efficiency. You should probably decide on one way to display the numbers and use it for both. It's confusing otherwise.)

[Kuschelweich]

Good job keeping up with the current hardware prices. Erupters and K1 nano already have their price drops reflected.


My only concern is the profitability calculations I'm getting for 5 K1 nanos are very different from the BitcoinX calculator. Specifically it's saying I'll never make my money back, and actually lose 80 bucks. Where as the other one says I'll at least make some profit. I didn't mess with the difficulty increase predictions on either, as I'm a noob in that regard.

I have both the calculators set up with exactly the same info, except bitcoinx measures difficulty increase different(Profitability decline as a decimal). I also removed any hardware costs to make sure they start with the same total hardware cost. For some reason the difficulty is defaulting to 26M, so I changed it to 31.26M to mirror what bitcoinx has.

This is the info I entered:

• 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
• Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
• 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)

Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit.

Not sure which I should believe? 

[dree12]

Good job keeping up with the current hardware prices. Erupters and K1 nano already have their price drops reflected.


My only concern is the profitability calculations I'm getting for 5 K1 nanos are very different from the BitcoinX calculator. Specifically it's saying I'll never make my money back, and actually lose 80 bucks. Where as the other one says I'll at least make some profit. I didn't mess with the difficulty increase predictions on either, as I'm a noob in that regard.

I have both the calculators set up with exactly the same info, except bitcoinx measures difficulty increase different(Profitability decline as a decimal). I also removed any hardware costs to make sure they start with the same total hardware cost. For some reason the difficulty is defaulting to 26M, so I changed it to 31.26M to mirror what bitcoinx has.

This is the info I entered:

• 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
• Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
• 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)

Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit.

Not sure which I should believe? 

There is a default $100 allocated to shipping and PSU costs. Check to see if those are active. There is also a default pool fee of 2%. Try disabling that.

Finally, set BitcoinX's decline per year to 0.003. It defaults at an unreasonable 0.61.

[Kuschelweich]

Good job keeping up with the current hardware prices. Erupters and K1 nano already have their price drops reflected.


My only concern is the profitability calculations I'm getting for 5 K1 nanos are very different from the BitcoinX calculator. Specifically it's saying I'll never make my money back, and actually lose 80 bucks. Where as the other one says I'll at least make some profit. I didn't mess with the difficulty increase predictions on either, as I'm a noob in that regard.

I have both the calculators set up with exactly the same info, except bitcoinx measures difficulty increase different(Profitability decline as a decimal). I also removed any hardware costs to make sure they start with the same total hardware cost. For some reason the difficulty is defaulting to 26M, so I changed it to 31.26M to mirror what bitcoinx has.

This is the info I entered:

• 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
• Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
• 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)

Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit.

Not sure which I should believe? 

There is a default $100 allocated to shipping and PSU costs. Check to see if those are active. There is also a default pool fee of 2%. Try disabling that.

Finally, set BitcoinX's decline per year to 0.003. It defaults at an unreasonable 0.61.

Thank you for the help. I made sure Misc costs were 0, set shipping at the actual 25 for the correct 275 total, and set the pool fee at 0. Getting a $78 loss now.

I changed the profitability decline at BitcoinX to .003 and it's changed quite a bit. It now says $120 loss after 6 months and staring to lose money after that.

How is the decline represented in the bitcoinx calculator? I thought it was a percentage decrease in decimal form, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Anyway so are these things indeed this bad of an investment? With how well they sell I figured there was at least a small profit margin to be made. Up until yesterday I've seen quite a few people buying them for nearly 1 BTC each  . 

I did some messing with the numbers to see if I could make them profitable, and apparently at about $30 each at stock speeds I could make 20 bucks . At their current price however even if you could overclock them to a very unlikely 450MH/s with liquid cooling you wouldn't see a return .

Thanks

[dree12]

Good job keeping up with the current hardware prices. Erupters and K1 nano already have their price drops reflected.


My only concern is the profitability calculations I'm getting for 5 K1 nanos are very different from the BitcoinX calculator. Specifically it's saying I'll never make my money back, and actually lose 80 bucks. Where as the other one says I'll at least make some profit. I didn't mess with the difficulty increase predictions on either, as I'm a noob in that regard.

I have both the calculators set up with exactly the same info, except bitcoinx measures difficulty increase different(Profitability decline as a decimal). I also removed any hardware costs to make sure they start with the same total hardware cost. For some reason the difficulty is defaulting to 26M, so I changed it to 31.26M to mirror what bitcoinx has.

This is the info I entered:

• 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
• Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
• 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)

Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit.

Not sure which I should believe? 

There is a default $100 allocated to shipping and PSU costs. Check to see if those are active. There is also a default pool fee of 2%. Try disabling that.

Finally, set BitcoinX's decline per year to 0.003. It defaults at an unreasonable 0.61.

Thank you for the help. I made sure Misc costs were 0, set shipping at the actual 25 for the correct 275 total, and set the pool fee at 0. Getting a $78 loss now.

I changed the profitability decline at BitcoinX to .003 and it's changed quite a bit. It now says $120 loss after 6 months and staring to lose money after that.

How is the decline represented in the bitcoinx calculator? I thought it was a percentage decrease in decimal form, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Anyway so are these things indeed this bad of an investment? With how well they sell I figured there was at least a small profit margin to be made. Up until yesterday I've seen quite a few people buying them for nearly 1 BTC each  . 

I did some messing with the numbers to see if I could make them profitable, and apparently at about $30 each at stock speeds I could make 20 bucks . At their current price however even if you could overclock them to a very unlikely 450MH/s with liquid cooling you wouldn't see a return .

Thanks

Difficulty is going up by ~62% per month, so that's a 0.617 profitability after each month. BitcoinX measures in years, and populates the field with monthly data... it doesn't really make sense. So change the number to 0.617¹², which is ~0.0031.

[tgb_jeff]

I think it might be the label, actually. When one sees "Cost Efficiency", one thinks "bigger = more efficient is better". Maybe this can be corrected to "Cost per gigahash".

(Also, it's inconsistent with Power Efficiency. You should probably decide on one way to display the numbers and use it for both. It's confusing otherwise.)

That's a good point. I changed the headings to just show the unitsand reversed the power / GH ratio to match the cost.

This is the info I entered:

• 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
• Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
• 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)

Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit.

Not sure which I should believe? 

Dree seems to have answered your question well, but this raises the point that we need to make it easier to share the inputs. I'll try and get a solution out in a week or so.

[tgb_jeff]

Update Aug 14 2013: TGB Mining Dashboard 1.1

In addition to adding new ASIC companies and products that have announced over the last few weeks, such as Bitfury and Hash Fast, we've added a few features that will make analyzing available options even easier.

• We've made it even easier to share your analysis with custom URLs. After each analysis is performed a URL is created at the top of the payment schedule. Simply click the button next to the URL to copy it and you can send it to other miners or store it for later analysis. Any time someone uses the new URL it will have all of the parameters and results preloaded for them.
• Previously the auto-populated monthly difficulty increase used a 30-day window, which led to some dramatic fluctuations as the 30-day window alternated between 2 and 3 difficulty increases. We are now using the 90-day increase to smooth out that monthly increase estimate.

As a general rule please do not take any auto-populated fields as endorsement of those values. We're trying to get them as accurate as possible, but every field should be customized each user's personal needs.

[roy7]

The only product in the HashFast dropdown when using calculator is "undefined".