HashFast launches sales of the Baby Jet

[-Redacted-]

Another 1/2 trillion difficulty projection via the genesis block calculator?  Yawn...  Sure.   Whatever.  I especially like the ones with difficulty projected to exceed 200 trillion.  Never going to happen.    

Even 1/2 trillion difficulty is wrong - people will just continue paying $2k electric bills to mine coins worth $124, right ??   Not likely, Nem...

[1715106485]

1715106485

[1715106485]

1715106485

[1715106485]

1715106485

[1715106485]

1715106485

[1715106485]

1715106485

[amer]

Another 1/2 trillion difficulty projection via the genesis block calculator?  Yawn...  Sure.   Whatever.  I especially like the ones with difficulty projected to exceed 200 trillion.  Never going to happen.    

Even 1/2 trillion difficulty is wrong - people will just continue paying $2k electric bills to mine coins worth $124, right ??   Not likely, Nem...

Unfortunately TGB doesn't provide the ability to do anything except constant growth rate and we have been at a monthly hash rate increase of 80% for the last 6 months.

Don't get me wrong, I also agree that the hash rate increase will taper, but I don't think projecting 80% is ludicrous.

[Nemesis]

I will just leave this here so you can see for your self.
http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/179c8de46b

Difficulty of 442 Billion.  That seems realistic to you?  Really?

442 billion * 2^32 =  1.89 x10^21 hashes per block.
25 BTC per block = 7.59 x10^10 GH per BTC.

Let be optimistic and assume the average miner has 1 J/GH efficiency and $0.10 per kWh electrical rate.
7.59x10^10 GH/s * 1 J/GH = 7.59 x10 J = 21,039 kWh = $2,103.90 per BTC in electrical cost (plus another up to $1K in cooling cost).
Even if BTC went up to $500 ea would you spend $2,000 in electricity to make a $500 worth of BTC?

Its not a wise investment at this point.

It may not, but you just look silly showing "projections" of the network going to >3,000 PH/s.  If it isn't a wise investment ... then don't buy it.

Did i mention NOV 2014? LOL dont be a dick. I only mention June 2014 for a reason. Its totally realistic to me that difficulty is very close in June.

Let me guess, you decided to jump on HF after missing Avalon ship? Your GPUs farm are getting dusty?

TGB dashboard only keep the same increase rate for the whole time interval. I only look at the most reasonable time frame. I suspect June 2014, the difficulty wont be rising and reach equilibrium (where your mining profit is just above avg electricity cost)

[sobani]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

I like what you have been doing so far (in fact, you have been a reason for my BJ order). But assuming a steady network HR... Who are you and what did you do to cypherdoc?

Anyway, a 100 BJ are mining solo should indeed get more BTC than 100 BJ mining for a pool. However, most people have just 1 BJ and after taking a gamble on BTC in general and HF specifically don't also want to gamble on the roulette table know as block finding. People like me who rather have 12.25 BTC than 50% chance of 25 BTC.

[cypherdoc]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

I like what you have been doing so far (in fact, you have been a reason for my BJ order). But assuming a steady network HR... Who are you and what did you do to cypherdoc?

Anyway, a 100 BJ are mining solo should indeed get more BTC than 100 BJ mining for a pool. However, most people have just 1 BJ and after taking a gamble on BTC in general and HF specifically don't also want to gamble on the roulette table know as block finding. People like me who rather have 12.25 BTC than 50% chance of 25 BTC.

clearly i specifically stated "steady" network HR to make it unquestionable that the expected yield from pooled vs solo mining would be the same given an equal orphan rate and no fees from pools.  in a rising HR environment, which is what we have now, it's not as clear.  still, given this environment, my personal experience soloing has worked better for me than pooling.

[sobani]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

I like what you have been doing so far (in fact, you have been a reason for my BJ order). But assuming a steady network HR... Who are you and what did you do to cypherdoc?

Anyway, a 100 BJ are mining solo should indeed get more BTC than 100 BJ mining for a pool. However, most people have just 1 BJ and after taking a gamble on BTC in general and HF specifically don't also want to gamble on the roulette table know as block finding. People like me who rather have 12.25 BTC than 50% chance of 25 BTC.

clearly i specifically stated "steady" network HR to make it unquestionable that the expected yield from pooled vs solo mining would be the same given an equal orphan rate and no fees from pools.  in a rising HR environment, which is what we have now, it's not as clear.  still, given this environment, my personal experience soloing has worked better for me than pooling.

You're right, I totally read your post wrong. 

But to answer your original question: Yes even with a steady network HR, the reduced variance of pooled mining can yield more BTC than solo mining for a long while. I have too little knowledge about probabilities, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a greater than 10% chance pooled mining will yield more than solo mining over a year with a single BJ.

In your case you ordered 8 BJ's (right?) so you are closer to having a private 'pool' than most of us. I can't explain your current ownage of pools though. My best bet would be luck, but I don't know how much latency and downtime will affect the results.

And in the end using a pool also gives ease of mind and stability. Both which can be valued higher than more profit. After all T-Bonds still get bought, even though they have a negative inflation adjusted return.

[cypherdoc]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

I like what you have been doing so far (in fact, you have been a reason for my BJ order). But assuming a steady network HR... Who are you and what did you do to cypherdoc?

Anyway, a 100 BJ are mining solo should indeed get more BTC than 100 BJ mining for a pool. However, most people have just 1 BJ and after taking a gamble on BTC in general and HF specifically don't also want to gamble on the roulette table know as block finding. People like me who rather have 12.25 BTC than 50% chance of 25 BTC.

clearly i specifically stated "steady" network HR to make it unquestionable that the expected yield from pooled vs solo mining would be the same given an equal orphan rate and no fees from pools.  in a rising HR environment, which is what we have now, it's not as clear.  still, given this environment, my personal experience soloing has worked better for me than pooling.

You're right, I totally read your post wrong. 

But to answer your original question: Yes even with a steady network HR, the reduced variance of pooled mining can yield more BTC than solo mining for a long while. I have too little knowledge about probabilities, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a greater than 10% chance pooled mining will yield more than solo mining over a year with a single BJ.

In your case you ordered 8 BJ's (right?) so you are closer to having a private 'pool' than most of us. I can't explain your current ownage of pools though. My best bet would be luck, but I don't know how much latency and downtime will affect the results.

And in the end using a pool also gives ease of mind and stability. Both which can be valued higher than more profit. After all T-Bonds still get bought, even though they have a negative inflation adjusted return.

actually, in the ideal situation, with no fees, downtime, and equal orphan rates, the yield should be exactly equal.  your % hashing power of the network is the same whether you mine solo or in a pool.  variance plays no factor except psychologically.

in actuality, however, fees degrade the pool performance at its minimum.  but then if you factor in the other inefficiencies of latency, downtime, or whatever, the scale tips in favor of solo mining, imho.

actually, i have 10 BJ's on order.

[joshv06]

I have 10 BJ's on order.

I have more BJ's than you. I have 12. Wooh. 12 BJ's.

[Ytterbium]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

Oh god this is ridiculous.  If you solo mine you may get "lucky", and get a better payout.  You might also be unlucky and get a worse payout.  Unless you have TH/s the amount you earn will be dominated by your luck, not your hashrate.

Your "Personal experience" is irrelevant.  It could change at any moment.

[JWU42]

On solo mining...

At the 3 main pools I have used the last year (50BTC, HHTT, GigaVPS) I would have been far better off - 100's of BTC better off had I been solo mining.  This is taking into account my payouts versus the blocks found.

Again, this is N=1, but don't have the stomach at today's hashrates to solo unless I had >10 Th/s (~1% of network hashrate).

Now back on topic 

[Ytterbium]

On solo mining...

At the 3 main pools I have used the last year (50BTC, HHTT, GigaVPS) I would have been far better off - 100's of BTC better off had I been solo mining.  This is taking into account my payouts versus the blocks found.

Again, this is N=1, but don't have the stomach at today's hashrates to solo unless I had >10 Th/s (~1% of network hashrate).

Now back on topic 

Well, you would have been hashing completely different block headers.  I found two blocks on BTCGuild right away with my B2 Avalon, but since then I haven't found any. I've gotten more then 50BTC out of it, that's for sure.

[cypherdoc]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

Oh god this is ridiculous.  If you solo mine you may get "lucky", and get a better payout.  You might also be unlucky and get a worse payout.  Unless you have TH/s the amount you earn will be dominated by your luck, not your hashrate.

Your "Personal experience" is irrelevant.  It could change at any moment.

there is no such thing as "luck" when mining.  it is all statistically based.

[Morblias]

are you trying to imply that with a steady network HR the reduced variance of pooled mining will yield you more BTC than solo mining?

Oh god this is ridiculous.  If you solo mine you may get "lucky", and get a better payout.  You might also be unlucky and get a worse payout.  Unless you have TH/s the amount you earn will be dominated by your luck, not your hashrate.

Your "Personal experience" is irrelevant.  It could change at any moment.

there is no such thing as "luck" when mining.  it is all statistically based.

lol. Then explain to me why if I was solo mining since I got my asics I would have only earned 50 BTC right now vs the 140 BTC I have earned in a pool? I will give you a hint: my luck is shit.

[creativex]

there is no such thing as "luck" when mining.  it is all statistically based.

dafuq.

So if two miners with equal hashing power begin solo mining at exactly the same instant they'll always have the same earnings? ...or will one be moar "statistically relevant" over time?

[cypherdoc]

idiots.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/594/solo-mining-vs-pool-mining-for-users-with-high-computing-power

"Theoretically, with a zero percent pool fee, solo mining and pooled mining should, over the long term, produce precisely the same revenue."-David Schwartz

[-Redacted-]

The problem being, of course, "long term".  Long term in probability means that you need to go to out to 5-sigma.  So, if you mine on both for around 4,096 years, they should both produce approximately the same income at the end of that period.  If not, then your assumption can be said to be incorrect - otherwise you have shown that it holds true to a 5-sigma certainty level. 

[creativex]

There are a lot of problems with cyphershill's recent posts. That's why he ignored any of the valid questions and instead called everyone idiots and posted something that had nothing to do with anything. If you solo rather than pool mine for the next 10.5 days and find nothing then you were very plainly better off mining in a pool while difficulty was lower. This is not a complicated concept to grasp.

cyphershill ignored.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The problem being, of course, "long term".  Long term in probability means that you need to go to out to 5-sigma.  So, if you mine on both for around 4,096 years, they should both produce approximately the same income at the end of that period.  If not, then your assumption can be said to be incorrect - otherwise you have shown that it holds true to a 5-sigma certainty level. 

Well you can build a 95% confidence interval on a much shorter period of time.  The larger % of the network you control the faster you will reach the "long run".

For example if you have 0.1% of the network (based on current difficulty not actual network speed) you will on average find 4.32 blocks per month.  You have only a 37% chance of of not finding at least 4 blocks (vs 4.32) and only a 19% chance of not finding at least 3 blocks.  The chance of finding no blocks is ~1%. 

Over a longer interval (say 90 days) the odds of not finding at least 16 blocks (vs 17.28 expected) is 37% and not finding at least 12 blocks is 7%.  The chance of finding no blocks is <0.1%.

It all comes down to the risk appetite of the miner and their percentage of the total network hashrate (nominal hashrate is irrelevant).   I stopped solo mining when my share of the network fell below 0.5%.

[DeathAndTaxes]

There are a lot of problems with cyphershill's recent posts. That's why he ignored any of the valid questions and instead called everyone idiots and posted something that had nothing to do with anything. If you solo rather than pool mine for the next 10.5 days and find nothing then you were very plainly better off mining in a pool while difficulty was lower. This is not a complicated concept to grasp.

If you solo mine and find more than the expected number of blocks in the next 10.5 days then you are very plainly better of mining solo while the difficulty was lower.

I think you guys are just talking past each other.

solo mining vs pool mining doesn't change the expected outcome.  Pool mining reduces variance but there is a point of diminishing returns.  Psychological reasons aside most miners don't need to remove daily volatility they just need to keep monthly volatility in check.  Why monthly?  Because the power bill comes monthly.  Depending on how much risk you are willing to take you can have a pretty high confidence with 0.1% to 1% of the network.  More than 1% really no reason to use a pool (at least no volatility reason) and below 0.1% it doesn't make much sense even for those willing to take a lot of risk (unless you just like gambling).  Between those two it really comes down to miner preference.

[cypherdoc]

I ordered a Baby Jet Upgrade. Thanks for giving first round buyers a deal. Please come through first with the 28nm ASICs.

Good choice.

Even if they aren't, you're still talking about a chip that is 16x more efficient than KNC's. In the long run we should win out.

And Cointerra hasn't even taped out yet.

And both of them are using Global Foundries as opposed to TSMC.

HF is still on track to get chips by October 17 and that is by TSMC's estimate, not HF's.

KNC is scheduled to ship October 15. any delays and we have a chance. Even if they aren't, we're not that far behind.