Old BFL buyers vs new asicminer prices

[ninjarobot]

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

So you are basically saying that the vast majority of miners are complete idiots?

[1715036008]

1715036008

[Xian01]

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

So you are basically saying that the vast majority of miners are complete idiots?

 Effectively, yes.

 He's also ACTUALLY said that we're all "monumental assholes", on top of the implication we are all complete idiots, so it's hard to take him as someone who has a healthy rooting in reality.

[notlist3d]

This is a completely disingenuous market that is predicated on completely ludicrous assumptions.  Lets look at a few of them, but this list is by no means comprehensive:

Mining has different market dynamics than you'd like to make people believe. In mining the product is money or a money substitute itself. Thus miners are generally interested in increasing their purchasing power within the money system itself.

Put another way: A miner becomes by definition the issuer of the currency and benefits from the ongoing inflation because they get the new money first before the market can price in the inflation or the mining costs are generally lower than the mining revenue. He thus operates CONDITIONAL on the assumption that the purchasing power of the mined asset increases, stays the same or inflates slower than the expected incoming cash flow. If I would expect the mined asset price to fall, I would NOT buy hardware in the first place, but hedge my asset position by selling them for something else.

Thus, mining investments are similar to doubling down on an appreciation of the mined asset. The miner accepts a certain degree of risk and capital expenditure for the prospect of getting that capital back. If I expect the capital expenditure to outsize the mining revenue, I wouldn't do the investment in the first place. That simply doesn't make any economic sense.

You clearly do not understand the motivations of the vast majority of miners, then.  This may be your way of thinking, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, most miners are in it to make a profit in USD (or their local currency) not to "increase their purchasing power within the money system itself."  Most miners couldn't give a shit about how much BTC it makes in the end, they just want to know how much USD (or local currency) it makes.

Once again, I challenge you:

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

Do you agree no matter motive, you cant obtain it without receiving a product to mine?  

And Josh i love your posts as a follower of the forum.  I like that you have your products made in KC..... makes it easy just use a dolly to move products to you hosting center.  

But have you thought about changing aspects of your sourcing and production?  If you cant make a product without getting close to a year back log, maybe find a third party to build and ship to you.  Or become a chip company and focus on providing chips for others to use in their product.

Or you could always focus on getting someone really good at image rendering and announce a PCI-E card that no one has anything close to and charge customers to upgrade at a chance of getting something meaningful.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Or you could always focus on getting someone really good at image rendering and announce a PCI-E card that no one has anything close to and charge customers to upgrade at a chance of getting something meaningful.

Cointerra beats Monarch in every respect.  Delivery date, price, and efficiency.  Not saying one should buy it trying to project ROI% for Dec with some much hashpower being sold (consensus guestimate - >6 TH by end of year).  However there is no reason anyone should pick Monarch over Cointerra. 

Or become a chip company and focus on providing chips for others to use in their product.

In the long run I think the successful ones will.   Look at Bitfury.  They sell no boards to the public instead they wholesale chips and rely on three major OEM (US, EU, Russia).  Think of how well that allows them to focus on the core task of chips, chips, chips.  Given their 55nm design has higher efficiency (J/GH and GH/mm2) than some 28nm designs it seems to be working.  If I was a ASIC company I would be worried about what a 28nm die shrink will look like.

Even AMD doesn't make graphics cards.  They make GPUs for a dozen or so OEMs which make graphics cards.

[notlist3d]

Or become a chip company and focus on providing chips for others to use in their product.

In the long run I think the successful ones will.   Look at Bitfury.  They sell no boards to the public instead they wholesale chips and rely on three major OEM (US, EU, Russia).  Think of how well that allows them to focus on the core task of chips, chips, chips.  Given their 55nm design has higher efficiency (J/GH and GH/mm2) than some 28nm designs it seems to be working.  If I was a ASIC company I would be worried about what a 28nm die shrink will look like.

Even AMD doesn't make graphics cards.  They make GPUs for a dozen or so OEMs which make graphics cards.

I think if they did it right its a option to.  They just have had a really horrible run at time frames.  I'm all for progress if they could ship massive amounts of quality chips would be great.  

I don't envy BFL though even if they had the best chip plan, with past record will be hard to get community to accept it or invest.  They really would have to buy with their own money then sell from stock they have.  Once stock runs out mark as out till they get next batch.  Any pre-order i dont think will provide them with many customers.

[Dalkore]

Well ASICMiner just gave mini rig buyers a punch in the gut.  

Buy from BFL in August 2012. 1 mini-rig 1.5 TH/s @ 3000 BTC
Buy from ASICMiner in August 2013.  20 Eruptor Blades 1.5 TH/s @ 420 BTC
So buy from ASICMiner a year later, no pre-order stress, product will ship in days, spend 86% less, get the same hashing power and receive it sooner.

Things move fast in the mining world so specs only matter if the company can deliver as advertised when advertised.  Those that trusted BFL @ 65nm paid the price, now they want to tell you 28nm will be different.

3000 BTC value in August 2012 in USD: $30,000
420 BTC value in August 2013 in USD: $54,600

So buy from ASICminer a year later, spend 46% more for 1/6th the hashing power @ 3x the power consumption!  Sounds like a good deal to me!  Not.

Now forgive me, perhaps my information is wrong, but aren't the Eruptor Blades 13 GH/s each?  If, so, how do you get 1500 GH out of 20 * 13?  

FUD much?

DeathAndTaxes' assessment is accurate. You have to look at the bitcoin price because it accounts for the opportunity cost correctly. Failure to do so leads to forgone profit.

Put another way: Not spending 2580 BTC (3000BTC-420BTC) for a minirig equivalent in August 2012 would have earned you ~ $330k.

Really, so you're claiming that 20 * 13 = 1500?  Wow...

But lets go back to the USD assessment.  The only way your figures work out is if you have 100% prediction ability or you use hindsight, neither of which are considered acceptable investing methodologies.  

Once again, your entire premise is flawed.  If you (or anyone) were so good at predicting the bitcoin price back then, why are you not a multi-billionaire?  If you knew BTC was going to go up, especially as much as it did, why were you not mortgaging the house, selling your mother and pimping out your cats and dogs to buy BTC?  You'd be an @#$%@% idiot not to... yet you didn't, why?  

Hindsight investing is great, except it's a bunch of shit, which is why comparing the price in BTC of anything in August 2012 to something in 2013 is a bunch of shit.

I still think you are forgetting what happened before you arrival.    Let us not forget the advanced announcement that was pre-order only and at the time was only Bitcoin that was accepted.  Being that your specs (June 2012) crushed everything out there by a large margin, you really forced the hand of many MINERS to run and throw coins at BFL to get their spot then proceeded to be 10+ months late while you had all their pre-order coins that if I am correct, you should not of needed because of the venture capitalist that invested in you.  If the investment was the real deal then you could of just asked for a deposit like 10% and was not refundable.  

You are not going to win this argument Josh.  You never had the moral or ethical high-ground so you in fact are just defended a bad position.  I really feel bad for you to be honest.  

[Dalkore]

The larger point is that ASICMiner wouldn't be pricing the boards at 420 BTC if they felt they are going to produce 3000 BTC.  It just highlight how much BFL failure to deliver has cost those that trusted the company.  Nobody paid 3,000 BTC for a mini rig because they believed that it would only produce 500 BTC.  They did so because they felt the rig would produce >3000 BTC in revenue.  It would have if BFL had "only" been 6 months late. 

You may ask why is this relevant?  Well because today BFL is offering a "new and improved" product for ~40 BTC and saying "trust us" we will deliver on time.  If they don't buyers will lose again and who knows months before they deliver someone else will offer a competing product for 6 BTC.

You do know there are some people hashing away with Mini-rigs right now?  I don't think they are complaining too much.  They're too busy trying to stash their piles bitcoins somewhere safe, lol.

And yes, I do know there are many others still waiting.  But sometimes the risk is worth the reward.  Other times... not so much.  But you certainly won't gain anything if you don't take some risk.  And you can minimize risk by hedging (splitting orders between different ASIC vendors and/or buying BTC) and doing research.

Is the pile going to be 3,000 BTC big?  Isn't that the real question?   Does the unit have value for the money spent?

-D

[Dalkore]

This is a completely disingenuous market that is predicated on completely ludicrous assumptions.  Lets look at a few of them, but this list is by no means comprehensive:

Mining has different market dynamics than you'd like to make people believe. In mining the product is money or a money substitute itself. Thus miners are generally interested in increasing their purchasing power within the money system itself.

Put another way: A miner becomes by definition the issuer of the currency and benefits from the ongoing inflation because they get the new money first before the market can price in the inflation or the mining costs are generally lower than the mining revenue. He thus operates CONDITIONAL on the assumption that the purchasing power of the mined asset increases, stays the same or inflates slower than the expected incoming cash flow. If I would expect the mined asset price to fall, I would NOT buy hardware in the first place, but hedge my asset position by selling them for something else.

Thus, mining investments are similar to doubling down on an appreciation of the mined asset. The miner accepts a certain degree of risk and capital expenditure for the prospect of getting that capital back. If I expect the capital expenditure to outsize the mining revenue, I wouldn't do the investment in the first place. That simply doesn't make any economic sense.

You clearly do not understand the motivations of the vast majority of miners, then.  This may be your way of thinking, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, most miners are in it to make a profit in USD (or their local currency) not to "increase their purchasing power within the money system itself."  Most miners couldn't give a shit about how much BTC it makes in the end, they just want to know how much USD (or local currency) it makes.

Once again, I challenge you:

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

You may be right about what people would choose but I would want the 400 BTC because it is a fixed currency and 400 units gives me much more leverage than 5 units.   

[User705]

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

So you are basically saying that the vast majority of miners are complete idiots?

 Effectively, yes.

 He's also ACTUALLY said that we're all "monumental assholes", on top of the implication we are all complete idiots, so it's hard to take him as someone who has a healthy rooting in reality.

Oh no he has an excellent rooting in reality.  It's just that his reality is to maximize the dollars that go into his pockets.  It's a classic snake oil salesman / religious zealot tactics.  Those that question the miracle are put down as idiots and non-believers.  Once you realize that the snake oil is fake you can never go back so you will never be his customer ever again.  Insulting you only increases the possible sales to actual customers.  He will make any plausible sounding statements like the one above to draw in the people who are miscalculating or are not realizing the exchange rate effects on a limited currency.  And the beauty is that the deflationary aspect of bitcoin keeps on helping out.  Those that are or potentially will be his customers look at the above and go "why yes that sounds right" so he must be also right that those putting him down are idiots.  Let me just get some bitcoins quick to send to him and I am set for life mining $5000 per month without work.

[k9quaint]

Heh, what a tool.

 Are you completely incapable of having discourse without resorting to insults when a counterpoint does not fit your narrative ?

 There is no need for that final snipe.

 Evolve, Josh.

To be fair, Josh has to argue that receiving less than you paid is good, and that waiting a really long time for your stuff is also good.
Don't give him too hard a time, it is a very difficult position to defend.

You and I had a similar discussion a while back, so let me ask again the question (slightly modified) you never answered:  Can you show that the BTC you had last June and every BTC you earned from then until now was never spent, or IF spent, that you ended up with more BTC from having spent it?

Actually, yes I could. However, I only need to show the opportunity cost of turning over my BTC to another party. That third party gets the chance to benefit from the rise in BTC exchange rate. I have zero chance to benefit from an exchange rate rise if I do not have my BTC. Whoever took my BTC has a higher than zero chance, therefore they are in a better position to capitalize on any rise in exchange rates.

We don't need to talk about exchange rates though. We can just take Josh's example: Give me 400 BTC now (worth $52,000) and I will promise you 200 BTC at some point in the future such that the USD value of that 200 BTC is more than $70,000. In other words, give me $52,000 of BTC now, and I will give you $70,000 of BTC back at some point in the future if the exchange rate goes above $350/BTC.

[01BTC10]

Heh, what a tool.

 Are you completely incapable of having discourse without resorting to insults when a counterpoint does not fit your narrative ?

 There is no need for that final snipe.

 Evolve, Josh.

To be fair, Josh has to argue that receiving less than you paid is good, and that waiting a really long time for your stuff is also good.
Don't give him too hard a time, it is a very difficult position to defend.

You and I had a similar discussion a while back, so let me ask again the question (slightly modified) you never answered:  Can you show that the BTC you had last June and every BTC you earned from then until now was never spent, or IF spent, that you ended up with more BTC from having spent it?

Actually, yes I could. However, I only need to show the opportunity cost of turning over my BTC to another party. That third party gets the chance to benefit from the rise in BTC exchange rate. I have zero chance to benefit from an exchange rate rise if I do not have my BTC. Whoever took my BTC has a higher than zero chance, therefore they are in a better position to capitalize on any rise in exchange rates.

We don't need to talk about exchange rates though. We can just take Josh's example: Give me 400 BTC now (worth $52,000) and I will promise you 200 BTC at some point in the future such that the USD value of that 200 BTC is more than $70,000. In other words, give me $52,000 of BTC now, and I will give you $70,000 of BTC back at some point in the future if the exchange rate goes above $350/BTC.

[bcp19]

Heh, what a tool.

 Are you completely incapable of having discourse without resorting to insults when a counterpoint does not fit your narrative ?

 There is no need for that final snipe.

 Evolve, Josh.

To be fair, Josh has to argue that receiving less than you paid is good, and that waiting a really long time for your stuff is also good.
Don't give him too hard a time, it is a very difficult position to defend.

You and I had a similar discussion a while back, so let me ask again the question (slightly modified) you never answered:  Can you show that the BTC you had last June and every BTC you earned from then until now was never spent, or IF spent, that you ended up with more BTC from having spent it?

Actually, yes I could. However, I only need to show the opportunity cost of turning over my BTC to another party. That third party gets the chance to benefit from the rise in BTC exchange rate. I have zero chance to benefit from an exchange rate rise if I do not have my BTC. Whoever took my BTC has a higher than zero chance, therefore they are in a better position to capitalize on any rise in exchange rates.

We don't need to talk about exchange rates though. We can just take Josh's example: Give me 400 BTC now (worth $52,000) and I will promise you 200 BTC at some point in the future such that the USD value of that 200 BTC is more than $70,000. In other words, give me $52,000 of BTC now, and I will give you $70,000 of BTC back at some point in the future if the exchange rate goes above $350/BTC.

While I understand the economics involved, I was just asking a straight line question which you answered, and I commend you for your forebearance.  The patience needed is not something everyone has.

[Yecchi]

Effectively, yes.
 He's also ACTUALLY said that we're all "monumental assholes", on top of the implication we are all complete idiots, so it's hard to take him as someone who has a healthy rooting in reality.

No, it's quite clear that he has a firm grip on it to me.

[YipYip]

Effectively, yes.
 He's also ACTUALLY said that we're all "monumental assholes", on top of the implication we are all complete idiots, so it's hard to take him as someone who has a healthy rooting in reality.

No, it's quite clear that he has a firm grip on it to me.

Actually I agree with Yecchi ...He has a firm Pathological view of the world & Humans....

[Silvas]

This is a completely disingenuous market that is predicated on completely ludicrous assumptions.  Lets look at a few of them, but this list is by no means comprehensive:

Mining has different market dynamics than you'd like to make people believe. In mining the product is money or a money substitute itself. Thus miners are generally interested in increasing their purchasing power within the money system itself.

Put another way: A miner becomes by definition the issuer of the currency and benefits from the ongoing inflation because they get the new money first before the market can price in the inflation or the mining costs are generally lower than the mining revenue. He thus operates CONDITIONAL on the assumption that the purchasing power of the mined asset increases, stays the same or inflates slower than the expected incoming cash flow. If I would expect the mined asset price to fall, I would NOT buy hardware in the first place, but hedge my asset position by selling them for something else.

Thus, mining investments are similar to doubling down on an appreciation of the mined asset. The miner accepts a certain degree of risk and capital expenditure for the prospect of getting that capital back. If I expect the capital expenditure to outsize the mining revenue, I wouldn't do the investment in the first place. That simply doesn't make any economic sense.

You clearly do not understand the motivations of the vast majority of miners, then.  This may be your way of thinking, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, most miners are in it to make a profit in USD (or their local currency) not to "increase their purchasing power within the money system itself."  Most miners couldn't give a shit about how much BTC it makes in the end, they just want to know how much USD (or local currency) it makes.

Once again, I challenge you:

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

Actually, anyone who takes the 10 BTC widget that generates 5 BTC valued at $200 each is a short sighted fucking moron, chasing short term gains over long term advantage. Edit: not necessarily a moron, the possibility exists that their strategy is short term gains on purpose.  To each their own.
Simply put:
5 BTC valued at $200 each = $1000, but for each $1 BTC goes up in the future they only gain $5 of value, and has a LOT of room for downward price movement.
400 BTC valued at $200 each = $800, $200 less at the time of calculation, but for each $1 BTC goes up in the future they gain $400 of value, and very little room for downward price movement.

You may well be right, and most miners may well choose the 5 BTC/$200 value, but they're fucking retarded likely cheating themselves if they do.
The 400 BTC/$2 value has far more upside potential and reward, and less downside risk.  It's the obvious choice if profit is the motivator.

[Bicknellski]

It's the obvious choice if profit is the motivator.

You would think right?

[bcp19]

This is a completely disingenuous market that is predicated on completely ludicrous assumptions.  Lets look at a few of them, but this list is by no means comprehensive:

Mining has different market dynamics than you'd like to make people believe. In mining the product is money or a money substitute itself. Thus miners are generally interested in increasing their purchasing power within the money system itself.

Put another way: A miner becomes by definition the issuer of the currency and benefits from the ongoing inflation because they get the new money first before the market can price in the inflation or the mining costs are generally lower than the mining revenue. He thus operates CONDITIONAL on the assumption that the purchasing power of the mined asset increases, stays the same or inflates slower than the expected incoming cash flow. If I would expect the mined asset price to fall, I would NOT buy hardware in the first place, but hedge my asset position by selling them for something else.

Thus, mining investments are similar to doubling down on an appreciation of the mined asset. The miner accepts a certain degree of risk and capital expenditure for the prospect of getting that capital back. If I expect the capital expenditure to outsize the mining revenue, I wouldn't do the investment in the first place. That simply doesn't make any economic sense.

You clearly do not understand the motivations of the vast majority of miners, then.  This may be your way of thinking, but I assure you beyond any shadow of a doubt, most miners are in it to make a profit in USD (or their local currency) not to "increase their purchasing power within the money system itself."  Most miners couldn't give a shit about how much BTC it makes in the end, they just want to know how much USD (or local currency) it makes.

Once again, I challenge you:

Ask an average miner which they'd rather do:

Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 400 BTC, valued at $2 each or
Purchase a widget that costs 10 BTC and will generate 5 BTC, valued at $200 each

Invariably, the answer will be the second option, even though that person could have increased their BTC holdings by 40x!  Very few people want BTC for BTC sake, they want BTC for what value it provides in their local currency.  Again, you may be different, but you are in a very tiny, miniscule minority.

Actually, anyone who takes the 10 BTC widget that generates 5 BTC valued at $200 each is a short sighted fucking moron, chasing short term gains over long term advantage. Edit: not necessarily a moron, the possibility exists that their strategy is short term gains on purpose.  To each their own.
Simply put:
5 BTC valued at $200 each = $1000, but for each $1 BTC goes up in the future they only gain $5 of value, and has a LOT of room for downward price movement.
400 BTC valued at $200 each = $800, $200 less at the time of calculation, but for each $1 BTC goes up in the future they gain $400 of value, and very little room for downward price movement.

You may well be right, and most miners may well choose the 5 BTC/$200 value, but they're fucking retarded likely cheating themselves if they do.
The 400 BTC/$2 value has far more upside potential and reward, and less downside risk.  It's the obvious choice if profit is the motivator.

While the numbers are exaggerated, a widget that costs a small amount compared to what it would bring in has already been created.  It's called an ASIC.  At the time pre-orders were taken, the smallest unit cost less than 30BTC, and if ONLY 1 was made and there was NO competition, it would have brought in more than 400BTC in 12 months.  Therein lies the rub... there will be competition and no one will make just one.

If we step into fantasy world though, we now have every unit capable of making such incredible returns... the ~4600 BTC for every mini-rig becomes 61,333.  The network increase since those preorders is now at over 600TH.  That's 400 minirigs.  That would mean 24,533,200 BTC would have been produced in a single year and if we went to Inaba's farcical numbers that would be well over 72million.  In less than 4 months at todays rate the entire BTC supply would have been exhausted.

THIS is the problem with your "I'd take the 400 BTC!" and the reason why the difficulty is so high today... since EVERYONE wanted the 400 BTC... no one can have it.

[Frizz23]

K9 once again demonstrates his inability ...

It's inabaility. i-na-ba-i-li-ty.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Inaba

 

[k9quaint]

While the numbers are exaggerated, a widget that costs a small amount compared to what it would bring in has already been created.  It's called an ASIC.  At the time pre-orders were taken, the smallest unit cost less than 30BTC, and if ONLY 1 was made and there was NO competition, it would have brought in more than 400BTC in 12 months.  Therein lies the rub... there will be competition and no one will make just one.

Thus everyone projected how much competition BFL would have between October of 2012 and January of 2013. The proejction was zero, they were the only vendor planning to ship. Then it was a simple matter of when you ordered your BFL product as to when you would get it.  Instead, BFL was 3rd (out of 3) to deliver. Both ASICMiner and Avalon batch 1 deployed first, thus reaping large rewards.

If we step into fantasy world though, we now have every unit capable of making such incredible returns... the ~4600 BTC for every mini-rig becomes 61,333.  The network increase since those preorders is now at over 600TH.  That's 400 minirigs.  That would mean 24,533,200 BTC would have been produced in a single year and if we went to Inaba's farcical numbers that would be well over 72million.  In less than 4 months at todays rate the entire BTC supply would have been exhausted.

No, most people here realize that mining is a zero sum game and that they are competing with all other miners. There are lots of noobs drawn in by the April bubble who probably can't find their ass with both hands. I am sure they have no idea about how mining works, but thankfully most of them are not on these forums.

THIS is the problem with your "I'd take the 400 BTC!" and the reason why the difficulty is so high today... since EVERYONE wanted the 400 BTC... no one can have it.

Only early adopters have a shot at it, thus all of BFL land went from the catbird seat to negative return. Once the hash rate reaches equilibrium, you cannot generate much more than the worth of the device. There are still some efficiencies to be found with over/under clocking etc.

[Xian01]

If you are MAD at BFL, then...

 Dude, cut this shit out already. It's juvenile behavior. Be better than that.