BurtW
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1136
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
 |
February 07, 2014, 01:31:20 PM |
|
Hey, kWh is kW times hours NOT kW per hour (like fingernails on a blackboard to an EE)
Also: 0.415 kW not 0.415 kWh - you multiplied by 24 h later to get kWh
|
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
Gator-hex
|
|
February 07, 2014, 01:47:18 PM
Last edit: February 07, 2014, 03:06:09 PM by Gator-hex |
|
Hey, kWh is kW times hours NOT kW per hour (like fingernails on a blackboard to an EE)
Also: 0.415 kW not 0.415 kWh - you multiplied by 24 h later to get kWh
Splitting hairs, it's still valid to work it out as 0.415 kW per hour before you multiply it by 24hrs. (kWh = kW x 1h) By the way the reason for the bad BTC price seems to be a problem with MtGox. https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20140207.htmlI wonder how they'll explan it on Monday? Hacked? Liquidity? Manipulation? Other? |
|
|
|
chriswilmer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 15, 2014, 04:16:45 AM |
|
Maybe I am just too tired right now to recognize the obvious... but these calculations are assuming a mining reward of 25 BTC per block right? (and ignoring transaction fees I guess)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anddos
|
|
March 15, 2014, 01:18:38 PM |
|
I can see the difficulty becoming way to high regardless if you have 1 TH, theres so many companies now looking to sell bitcoin miners
|
| █
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| | █
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| | █
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
| ☑
|
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1136
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
|
March 16, 2014, 01:26:26 PM
Last edit: March 16, 2014, 08:42:35 PM by BurtW |
|
I have created the following thread using the numbers calculated in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518111.0Question: why is this specification https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=438359.0 (0.2 - 0.35 J/GH) not being taken into account in the OP? Or is it? Perhaps they are quoting power at the chip and you are quoting power (0.8 J/GH) at the wall? |
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
aerobatic
|
|
March 17, 2014, 06:02:51 AM |
|
without fail, every single company that tried to forecast their power consumption has got it wrong (usually at least 20-30% underestimating), so its always best to try it after the chips come back from the fab to see what the actual power consumption is. also, as you say, most power we measure is at the wall... because there are significant losses due to dc/dc power conversion, and ac/dc power conversion, and cooling systems, and host computers, etc... so its best to compare like for like and compare them all at the wall. |
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes (OP)
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
March 17, 2014, 03:09:09 PM |
|
They almost certainly are quoting the chip. We only care about wattage at the wall. Also not sure if that chip has been released yet, it certainly wasn't at the time of the OP. The OP refers to ASICMiner 130nm the linked post was for 40nm. Most companies miss their target numbers. I would look at them with a good dose of skepticism until you see reports of users in the field getting x W/GH AT THE WALL (i.e. killawatt meter of equivalent). |
|
|
|
|
|
Bicknellski
|
|
May 19, 2014, 02:49:37 AM |
|
So it looks pretty safe to say that the network will be less than 250 PH/s using the 28nm technology at the current prices. The replacement cost is calculated based on all hashing power coming from a single design so it shouldn't be taken as likely but more an upper bound. I think there might be an error in the math as well. The cost to reach the "break even point" is based on current cost so I don't find it too useful, because cost will decline significantly. The network will approach a small margin below the break even point. It is only a matter of time. You can consider that the equilibrium point, we have seen it occur in the GPU era for a couple of years. If more efficient hardware is produced then the hashrate will rise, if the exchange rate rises then the hashrate will rise, as mining moves to lower cost areas the hashrate will rise, if the exchange rate falls the hashrate will fall. However the network will approach and stay close to a margin below the break even point. How close? It really depends on miners and what risk they are taking. Are we now entering the "equilibrium point" for the 28nm ASIC era? |
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes (OP)
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
May 19, 2014, 03:29:39 AM |
|
Getting closer. The break even points in the OP are based on $100 exchange rate. At $400 USD per BTC it would be around 100 billion difficulty, at $500 it is 125 billion. Things will get real interesting over the next six months or so.
|
|
|
|
|
ranlo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1007
|
|
May 19, 2014, 04:22:26 AM |
|
interesting or bleak?
With the quickly increasing difficulty and the increasing number of ASIC creators and more efficient ASICs, I'll go with the latter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
World
|
|
June 21, 2014, 01:44:49 PM |
|
|
Supporting people with beautiful creative ideas. Bitcoin is because of the developers,exchanges,merchants,miners,investors,users,machines and blockchain technologies work together.
|
|
|
|
