physalis


September 06, 2013, 03:10:43 PM 

Pretty sure you've made a big mistake in daily BTC outcome of both 6T and 44T. Should be around 27 and 198 respectively.
Would you mind showing your work? I'd like to see where I went wrong, if I did Current net hash rate is around 800T, and there's 3600 BTC a day. 4T is 0.5% of the total hash rate, thus 3600 * 0.005 = 18. So 6T is 27. There is way more than 3600 BTC a day, because we don't have a confirmation time of 10 minutes. And that will continue for the foreseeable future, as long as we have an increasing difficulty. All the mining calculators and calculations like your's don't factor that in, so they are always underestimating.





Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Ytterbium


September 06, 2013, 03:16:30 PM 

Pretty sure you've made a big mistake in daily BTC outcome of both 6T and 44T. Should be around 27 and 198 respectively.
Would you mind showing your work? I'd like to see where I went wrong, if I did Current net hash rate is around 800T, and there's 3600 BTC a day. 4T is 0.5% of the total hash rate, thus 3600 * 0.005 = 18. So 6T is 27. There is way more than 3600 BTC a day, because we don't have a confirmation time of 10 minutes. And that will continue for the foreseeable future, as long as we have an increasing difficulty. All the mining calculators and calculations like your's don't factor that in, so they are always underestimating. That's actually not that relevant, since you only "benefit" from increasing difficulty if you can keep up with it. So you while it's true coins are generated more quickly then they should be, it's also true that it means you, personally, make less money then you would if it was static.




physalis


September 06, 2013, 03:49:04 PM 

That's actually not that relevant, since you only "benefit" from increasing difficulty if you can keep up with it. So you while it's true coins are generated more quickly then they should be, it's also true that it means you, personally, make less money then you would if it was static.
Agreed, if we're talking about a fix hashrate. But people in this context often calculate like "If you have x.x% share of the network, you'll make X BTC per month". If you're just taking "25 BTC/10min total for the network", that is wrong and your calculated profit will be too low.




foxykah


September 06, 2013, 03:51:40 PM 

I made a little calculation, which excludes difficulty, and calculates the minimum div/share at a given LC hash rate, and a given total network hashrate, And I need confirmation on the validity of this. So:
Difficulty is the "tool" of the network to adjust the speed of block generation. This upward hashrate trend forces difficulty to rise in order to slow down block generation from 7min/block to 10min/block. This rougly means that whatever may come, block generation won't be slower than 10 min/block (@ this current upward total hashrate trend). Therefore we can calculate the lowest div/share of LC if we know: the hashrate of LC, and the total hashrate. The simplified, diffexcluded formula is this:
Total LC mining profit = LC hashrate/Total Hashrate * 144 (a day is 1440 min long, so 144 blocks a day) * 30 (number of days of the month) * 25 (block reward excluding transaction fees)
And dividing this by 10million comes the div/share/month. This formula does not care about the fact, that the LC hashrate/total hashrate ratio does not necessarily equal with the LC mined blocks/ total mined blocks ratio, but as far as I know it is pessimistic enough to let us exclude that fact too.
So the concept is: Block generation is fixed 10 mins (which is the longest possible generation time in an upward hashrate trend), and the LC mined blocks/ total mined blocks ratio equals with the LC hashrate / total hashrate ratio.
What do you think? Is this formula a valid way to calculate the worst div possible @ a given LC and total hashrate?

Good things come to those who wait.



Rival


September 06, 2013, 03:53:25 PM 

I made a little calculation, which excludes difficulty, and calculates the minimum div/share at a given LC hash rate, and a given total network hashrate, And I need confirmation on the validity of this. So:
Difficulty is the "tool" of the network to adjust the speed of block generation. This upward hashrate trend forces difficulty to rise in order to slow down block generation from 7min/block to 10min/block. This rougly means that whatever may come, block generation won't be slower than 10 min/block (@ this current upward total hashrate trend). Therefore we can calculate the lowest div/share of LC if we know: the hashrate of LC, and the total hashrate. The simplified, diffexcluded formula is this:
Total LC mining profit = LC hashrate/Total Hashrate * 144 (a day is 1440 min long, so 144 blocks a day) * 30 (number of days of the month) * 25 (block reward excluding transaction fees)
And dividing this by 10million comes the div/share/month. This formula does not care about the fact, that the LC hashrate/total hashrate ratio does not necessarily equal with the LC mined blocks/ total mined blocks ratio, but as far as I know it is pessimistic enough to let us exclude that fact too.
So the concept is: Block generation is fixed 10 mins (which is the longest possible generation time in an upward hashrate trend), and the LC mined blocks/ total mined blocks ratio equals with the LC hashrate / total hashrate ratio.
What do you think? Is this formula a valid way to calculate the worst div possible @ a given LC and total hashrate?
Expenses are not included and are nontrivial.




foxykah


September 06, 2013, 03:56:31 PM 

I made a little calculation, which excludes difficulty, and calculates the minimum div/share at a given LC hash rate, and a given total network hashrate, And I need confirmation on the validity of this. So:
Difficulty is the "tool" of the network to adjust the speed of block generation. This upward hashrate trend forces difficulty to rise in order to slow down block generation from 7min/block to 10min/block. This rougly means that whatever may come, block generation won't be slower than 10 min/block (@ this current upward total hashrate trend). Therefore we can calculate the lowest div/share of LC if we know: the hashrate of LC, and the total hashrate. The simplified, diffexcluded formula is this:
Total LC mining profit = LC hashrate/Total Hashrate * 144 (a day is 1440 min long, so 144 blocks a day) * 30 (number of days of the month) * 25 (block reward excluding transaction fees)
And dividing this by 10million comes the div/share/month. This formula does not care about the fact, that the LC hashrate/total hashrate ratio does not necessarily equal with the LC mined blocks/ total mined blocks ratio, but as far as I know it is pessimistic enough to let us exclude that fact too.
So the concept is: Block generation is fixed 10 mins (which is the longest possible generation time in an upward hashrate trend), and the LC mined blocks/ total mined blocks ratio equals with the LC hashrate / total hashrate ratio.
What do you think? Is this formula a valid way to calculate the worst div possible @ a given LC and total hashrate?
Expenses are not included and are nontrivial. Well, f*ck...I forgot that part. Do I need to multiply the whole div/share part with 0.8? EDIT: According to the stockholder agreement, 7080% of the abovecalculated total profit will be paid out in divs monthly, so a multiplication with 0.7 is good for calculating worst divs.

Good things come to those who wait.



Ytterbium


September 06, 2013, 04:03:48 PM 

That's actually not that relevant, since you only "benefit" from increasing difficulty if you can keep up with it. So you while it's true coins are generated more quickly then they should be, it's also true that it means you, personally, make less money then you would if it was static.
Agreed, if we're talking about a fix hashrate. But people in this context often calculate like "If you have x.x% share of the network, you'll make X BTC per month". If you're just taking "25 BTC/10min total for the network", that is wrong and your calculated profit will be too low. Yeah, but the problem is if you try to model difficulty, you need to model it both ways  both the reduction in block time, as well as the exponentially increasing amount you have to spend on hardware per unit of time to keep up with that. At some point, the network growth will have to slow down as production becomes saturated. At that point, you actually do get the 3600btc/x amount. So, makes the most sense to model it that way.




N_S


September 06, 2013, 04:11:28 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?




Ytterbium


September 06, 2013, 04:12:28 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
Not for me.




N_S


September 06, 2013, 04:18:41 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
Not for me. This is what I get:




wickedgoodtrader


September 06, 2013, 04:21:23 PM 

Yeah, but the problem is if you try to model difficulty, you need to model it both ways  both the reduction in block time, as well as the exponentially increasing amount you have to spend on hardware per unit of time to keep up with that. At some point, the network growth will have to slow down as production becomes saturated. At that point, you actually do get the 3600btc/x amount.
So, makes the most sense to model it that way. [/quote]
I would say the saturation point is NOW. Do you people realize hashing as gone up almost 300% in just one month? The real money to be made in the asic boom is gone. Anybody investing in companies now expecting price increases relative to the way AM went is living in a dreamland.




physalis


September 06, 2013, 04:25:38 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
Not for me. This is what I get: Doesn't look like that for me




jeffhuys


September 06, 2013, 04:27:09 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
Not for me. This is what I get: Doesn't look like that for me Not here either.




Ytterbium


September 06, 2013, 04:29:26 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
Not for me. This is what I get: *shrug*  looks fine to me. Did you remove it from your watchlist or something?




Ytterbium


September 06, 2013, 04:32:03 PM 

I would say the saturation point is NOW. Do you people realize hashing as gone up almost 300% in just one month? The real money to be made in the asic boom is gone. Anybody investing in companies now expecting price increases relative to the way AM went is living in a dreamland.
We're not even close. Maybe 1015PH. With four cointerra chips per board, you would only need 500 boards to get 1PH. Easily doable.




Rival


September 06, 2013, 04:36:58 PM 

I would say the saturation point is NOW. Do you people realize hashing as gone up almost 300% in just one month? The real money to be made in the asic boom is gone. Anybody investing in companies now expecting price increases relative to the way AM went is living in a dreamland.
We're not even close. Maybe 1015PH. With four cointerra chips per board, you would only need 500 boards to get 1PH. Easily doable. You could do it with one board if you use unicorns and fairy dust.




Ytterbium


September 06, 2013, 04:44:28 PM 

I would say the saturation point is NOW. Do you people realize hashing as gone up almost 300% in just one month? The real money to be made in the asic boom is gone. Anybody investing in companies now expecting price increases relative to the way AM went is living in a dreamland.
We're not even close. Maybe 1015PH. With four cointerra chips per board, you would only need 500 boards to get 1PH. Easily doable. You could do it with one board if you use unicorns and fairy dust. You mean one board with 4 chips, or one board with 2,000 chips? I'm not sure if understand why it would be difficult to do 4 chips on one board. 2,000 would obviously be more of a challenge. You would need to explore some... alternative... fabrication techniques.




twentyseventy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


September 06, 2013, 04:44:51 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
Not for me. This is what I get: *shrug*  looks fine to me. Did you remove it from your watchlist or something? Have you ignored 'TheSwede75'? All of MPOEPR's topics show up like that to me, since I have him on Ignore




physalis


September 06, 2013, 04:45:08 PM 

I would say the saturation point is NOW. Do you people realize hashing as gone up almost 300% in just one month? The real money to be made in the asic boom is gone. Anybody investing in companies now expecting price increases relative to the way AM went is living in a dreamland.
We're not even close. Maybe 1015PH. With four cointerra chips per board, you would only need 500 boards to get 1PH. Easily doable. You could do it with one board if you use unicorns and fairy dust. Doing that would have a bad effect on $/GH though. That shit is expensive.




kokojie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1000


September 06, 2013, 04:46:19 PM 

Slightly offtopic, but is this thread showing up as grayedout on the Securities page?
That's because "TheSwede75" is on your ignore list, he's also on mine.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6



