High Efficiency FPGA & ASIC Bitcoin Mining Devices https://BTCFPGA.com

[Isokivi]

Haha, I knew Tom did not have the confidence in his product to back up the bet!  Thanks for confirming it, Tom!

Seriously... I hope atleast your eployer realizes that you are hurting their reputation with this. Consider me a potential customer who's (once again) shocked and appalled by the way BFL appears to be conducting buisness.

[Inaba]

I did not decline the bet.  We'll see if Tom has enough confidence in his hardware to make the bet.  My guess is he'll chicken out and take the excuse of "You won't stay out of my thread" to back out of the bet.  But maybe he'll surprise me.

You are wrong! The bet was not about bASIC power requirement, ONLY about BFL's claim. Don't mix things...

I agree. Take the damn bet for 1000BTC about whether BFL can deliver their claimed efficiency. If you're so confident, then it should be easy money for you! However, you're antagonizing him with all this nit-picking of dictionary terminology, which is just going to screw you (by not getting the 1000BTC bet).

He's calling you out on your claims. Take the bet, and prove him wrong. Then, if you want to nitpick about his terms and "competitiveness", make a separate bet in another thread.

^This. So much this.

Tom doesn't want to provide a specific power figure on the possibility that it'll be wrong. Surely after claiming that the FPGA single would draw 20W, BFL understands that simulation figures have a habit of getting revised one way or another?
We know the thing can be powered by Molex, so surely that gives you some idea.

Besides, you're really going to turn down what should be an easy twelve grand because Tom won't pull some wattage numbers out of thin air?

I'm not asking him to give wattage numbers or a power estimate, I am asking him to define competitive.  What the hell, are you completely incapable of reading?  

Again, here's the bet I'm willing to make:

1.  BFL products will ship with a power usage at 1.1w per GH or less.
2. Tom defines "competitive."
3. Tom does not require that I stay out of his thread as a condition of the bet.

That's it.  Tom has already declined because he knows if he defines competitive one of two things happen:

A) People realize his definition of "competitive" and their definition are grossly different.
B) He has to admit that his power usage is not going to be competitive.

That's really the only reason he is declining the bet at this point, because it forces him into a position of admitting something he doesn't want to admit yet, because his precious pre-orders will dry up like a bone in a desert.

[miter_myles]

Umm.. you already declined, so just stfu, kthx!

[creativex]

We're gonna need some troll repellent over here...

[cedivad]

Who would be interested in a crow-founded bet against Inaba?

[AmDD]

I did not decline the bet.  We'll see if Tom has enough confidence in his hardware to make the bet.  My guess is he'll chicken out and take the excuse of "You won't stay out of my thread" to back out of the bet.  But maybe he'll surprise me.

You are wrong! The bet was not about bASIC power requirement, ONLY about BFL's claim. Don't mix things...

I agree. Take the damn bet for 1000BTC about whether BFL can deliver their claimed efficiency. If you're so confident, then it should be easy money for you! However, you're antagonizing him with all this nit-picking of dictionary terminology, which is just going to screw you (by not getting the 1000BTC bet).

He's calling you out on your claims. Take the bet, and prove him wrong. Then, if you want to nitpick about his terms and "competitiveness", make a separate bet in another thread.

^This. So much this.

Tom doesn't want to provide a specific power figure on the possibility that it'll be wrong. Surely after claiming that the FPGA single would draw 20W, BFL understands that simulation figures have a habit of getting revised one way or another?
We know the thing can be powered by Molex, so surely that gives you some idea.

Besides, you're really going to turn down what should be an easy twelve grand because Tom won't pull some wattage numbers out of thin air?

I'm not asking him to give wattage numbers or a power estimate, I am asking him to define competitive.  What the hell, are you completely incapable of reading? 

Again, here's the bet I'm willing to make:

1.  BFL products will ship with a power usage at 1.1w per GH or less.
2. Tom defines "competitive."
3. Tom does not require that I stay out of his thread as a condition of the bet.

That's it.  Tom has already declined because he knows if he defines competitive one of two things happen:

A) People realize his definition of "competitive" and their definition are grossly different.
B) He has to admit that his power usage is not going to be competitive.

That's really the only reason he is declining the bet at this point, because it forces him into a position of admitting something he doesn't want to admit yet, because his precious pre-orders will dry up like a bone in a desert.

Just incase you are incapable of reading here is the bet Tom is willing to make...

1) When BFL's line of ASIC's hit the wild they must not consume more than 1.1 watt of electricity per 1Gh/s of Bitcoin mining speed, and according to everything you are telling us 1.1 watts per 1Gh/s is the most electricity they will use.

2) You will no longer post in my thread, if you post in my thread again you automatically lose the bet.

Its simple, 2 things... but you cant handle it.

Every word you type here does two things. It shows how much of a douche you really are and puts another strike against BFL. I never spole a bad word about them and I was not around for the issues in the past but after the way you act around here I will never buy from them! You may remember this quote...

BFL is the clear technical leader in the FPGA and upcoming ASIC mining space.  As a direct result, the company has grown very quickly over the past year.  Unfortunately, its customer service, which was initially very good, did not scale fast enough, which caused customer relations and transparency to suffer. BFL is eager to improve and one of my top responsibilities in this new position is to focus on that specific issue.  I am, have always been and will always be committed to good customer service and transparency when it comes to bitcoin in general and the daily operations of related activities.  This is where I will be focusing much of my initial attention, specifically to take the pressure off of everyone involved so that they can focus on the other important factors, such as getting the hardware delivered on time!

Might I just say you are one hell of an employee! I hope you get a raise for all you have done, infact is it possible for your boss to see this thread? has he/she been watching?

[cypherdoc]

and you guys thought i was off topic 

[Inaba]

The ball is in Toms court at this point.  If he doesn't even have the confidence in his hardware to define "competitive" then there's not really that much more to be said.  The fact that he's unwilling to back his own words with his actions speaks volumes as to his integrity.

I'm putting up 1000 BTC against BFL hardware @ 1.1w / GH against your "competitive" definition.  That's it.  Simple.  Define "competitive" and you can win $12,000. 

[Starlightbreaker]

I did not decline the bet.  We'll see if Tom has enough confidence in his hardware to make the bet.  My guess is he'll chicken out and take the excuse of "You won't stay out of my thread" to back out of the bet.  But maybe he'll surprise me.

You are wrong! The bet was not about bASIC power requirement, ONLY about BFL's claim. Don't mix things...

I agree. Take the damn bet for 1000BTC about whether BFL can deliver their claimed efficiency. If you're so confident, then it should be easy money for you! However, you're antagonizing him with all this nit-picking of dictionary terminology, which is just going to screw you (by not getting the 1000BTC bet).

He's calling you out on your claims. Take the bet, and prove him wrong. Then, if you want to nitpick about his terms and "competitiveness", make a separate bet in another thread.

^This. So much this.

Tom doesn't want to provide a specific power figure on the possibility that it'll be wrong. Surely after claiming that the FPGA single would draw 20W, BFL understands that simulation figures have a habit of getting revised one way or another?
We know the thing can be powered by Molex, so surely that gives you some idea.

Besides, you're really going to turn down what should be an easy twelve grand because Tom won't pull some wattage numbers out of thin air?

I'm not asking him to give wattage numbers or a power estimate, I am asking him to define competitive.  What the hell, are you completely incapable of reading?  

Again, here's the bet I'm willing to make:

1.  BFL products will ship with a power usage at 1.1w per GH or less.
2. Tom defines "competitive."
3. Tom does not require that I stay out of his thread as a condition of the bet.

That's it.  Tom has already declined because he knows if he defines competitive one of two things happen:

A) People realize his definition of "competitive" and their definition are grossly different.
B) He has to admit that his power usage is not going to be competitive.

That's really the only reason he is declining the bet at this point, because it forces him into a position of admitting something he doesn't want to admit yet, because his precious pre-orders will dry up like a bone in a desert.

ITT, we have a living example for the term "thundercunt"

[crazyates]

I'm putting up 1000 BTC against BFL hardware @ 1.1w / GH against your "competitive" definition.

That was not the original deal. If you had stuck to the original deal, you could have had Tom's 1000BTC. Instead, you argued and turned it about him instead of about BFL, and now you'll never see those coins.

[sturle]

I'm putting up 1000 BTC against BFL hardware @ 1.1w / GH against your "competitive" definition.  That's it.  Simple.  Define "competitive" and you can win $12,000. 

Why this obsession with wattage per Ghash/s?  It is of no importance whatsoever, as long as they play roughly in the same league.  This whole discussion is pointless.  There are two important factors that determine profitability, assuming both are reasonably stable.  Price per Ghash/s and delivery date.

[cedivad]

I'm putting up 1000 BTC against BFL hardware @ 1.1w / GH against your "competitive" definition.  That's it.  Simple.  Define "competitive" and you can win $12,000. 

Why this obsession with wattage per Ghash/s?  It is of no importance whatsoever, as long as they play roughly in the same league.  This whole discussion is pointless.  There are two important factors that determine profitability, assuming both are reasonably stable.  Price per Ghash/s and delivery date.

Shhh!!!
It's a secret!

[mezzomix]

Tom, I think Josh will never agree to your bet and that alone is a clear statement about the status of the BFL ASIC products for me. Sometimes he reminds me to MNW. Just ignore him, stay away from BFL threads/comparisons and concentrate on your bASIC product.

Back to bASIC - do you think your estimated ship date for the bASICs is still valid?

[Luke-Jr]

Power usage is *everything* when it comes to ASIC.  If you think it's not, you have no grasp on the economics of mining.

Please explain your economics of mining.  By my calculations power usage at this order of magnitude is pretty much irrelevant compared to price.

Take a BFL Single, 60 Ghash/s, 60 W.  The miner costs 1299 USD and will use 1.44 kW/day.  14.4 cents a day at 0.10 USD/kWh.  You can run this miner 24/7 for almost 25 years before you have spent the same amount for power to run the device that you paid for the device itself!  There may even be better miners to buy at a lower price in 2037, making it obsolete before the owner has spent more on power to run it than on the device itself.  If the device is still working.  (How long is your warranty and what is the expected lifetime of a BFL Single, btw?)  Hardly anyone will ever pay more for the power to run the miner through it's lifetime than they did for the miner itself.

My simple math shows that power usage is almost irrelevant for an ASIC miner.  Price per Ghash produced throughout the miners lifetime will almost certainly always be dominated by the initial investment, not power consumption.  Price per Ghash/s is the important factor.

Is my math wrong?

No, just your assumptions on difficulty. I don't expect any of these 60 GH range ASIC products to make even $1000 in 2013 alone. By design, difficulty will always bring the cost-to-mine very close to power costs. When it catches up, power costs will be all that matters. Until then, delivery dates before it adjusts are the key importance.

[MrTeal]

Power usage is *everything* when it comes to ASIC.  If you think it's not, you have no grasp on the economics of mining.

Please explain your economics of mining.  By my calculations power usage at this order of magnitude is pretty much irrelevant compared to price.

Take a BFL Single, 60 Ghash/s, 60 W.  The miner costs 1299 USD and will use 1.44 kW/day.  14.4 cents a day at 0.10 USD/kWh.  You can run this miner 24/7 for almost 25 years before you have spent the same amount for power to run the device that you paid for the device itself!  There may even be better miners to buy at a lower price in 2037, making it obsolete before the owner has spent more on power to run it than on the device itself.  If the device is still working.  (How long is your warranty and what is the expected lifetime of a BFL Single, btw?)  Hardly anyone will ever pay more for the power to run the miner through it's lifetime than they did for the miner itself.

My simple math shows that power usage is almost irrelevant for an ASIC miner.  Price per Ghash produced throughout the miners lifetime will almost certainly always be dominated by the initial investment, not power consumption.  Price per Ghash/s is the important factor.

Is my math wrong?

No, just your assumptions on difficulty. I don't expect any of these 60 GH range ASIC products to make even $1000 in 2013 alone. By design, difficulty will always bring the cost-to-mine very close to power costs. When it catches up, power costs will be all that matters. Until then, delivery dates before it adjusts are the key importance.

Only if there is enough capital in the system to purchase the equipment needed to get the hashrate that high. With GPUs, for something like a 6970 you might spend $200 on the card and at 150W and $.15/kWhr you would spend about $200/yr on power. For something like a BFL Single, your initial cost is $600 and you would spend $105 on power for a year. With an ASIC Single, your cost is $1300 and $79 on power for a year.

At $12/BTC and 25BTC/block, to get to the point where mining income is twice the power cost for a BFL Single would require 6.1PH/s. That's 4067 Minirigs worth of hashing power, or $122M worth of hardware. At current prices, that's about the value of all the remaining bitcoins left to be mined.

[gmaxwell]

No, just your assumptions on difficulty. I don't expect any of these 60 GH range ASIC products to make even $1000 in 2013 alone. By design, difficulty will always bring the cost-to-mine very close to power costs. When it catches up, power costs will be all that matters. Until then, delivery dates before it adjusts are the key importance.

Agreed.

The people who have the view that the power doesn't matter only have it because they have high profitability expectations.  The people saying that power is all that matters are expecting very long payoff horizons due to difficulty increases.  I think the latter view is safer and also more correct, especially if you're not counting on being very early in your deployment.

Which I think results is another interesting bit to take away from the discussion:   BFL is apparently not expecting their customers purchases to pay for themselves for quite a long time.   This is fine by me, as it's also what I expect— and I mine for fun and to support Bitcoin, and not because I'm expecting to make a a lot of funds doing it... but if you were thinking otherwise you might want to carefully review your expectations.

Of course, at the moment— there is still the potential of getting ASIC based miners before they are widely deployed and the difficulty catches up, so thats a competitive factor thats hard to reason about.  Though you can probably count on it not happening for you if you're last on a long preorder backlog…

[Epoch]

No, just your assumptions on difficulty. I don't expect any of these 60 GH range ASIC products to make even $1000 in 2013 alone. By design, difficulty will always bring the cost-to-mine very close to power costs. When it catches up, power costs will be all that matters. Until then, delivery dates before it adjusts are the key importance.

Agreed.

The people who have the view that the power doesn't matter only have it because they have high profitability expectations.  The people saying that power is all that matters are expecting very long payoff horizons due to difficulty increases.  I think the latter view is safer and also more correct, especially if you're not counting on being very early in your deployment.

Which I think results is another interesting bit to take away from the discussion:   BFL is apparently not expecting their customers purchases to pay for themselves for quite a long time.   This is fine by me, as it's also what I expect— an I mine for fun and to support Bitcoin... but if you were thinking otherwise you might want to carefully review your expectations.

Although I generally try to take a conservative approach, in this particular case I would tend more towards the former idea: that power is not likely to play a significant role immediately (or more accurately, it is only PART of the equation). Rather, it is the ROI - Return On Investment - that matters. ROI takes into account both net income (from mining) and expenses (capital cost and running cost).

Consider this: I a purchased a mining device 6 months ago for $600 that generates $3/day and costs $0.25/day to operate. Assuming these numbers don't change over time, I can expect an ROI of about 220 days. Not bad.

Now consider a hypothetical device identical to the one above, except that it uses TWICE the power. Thus costing me $0.50/day to operate. Now instead of an ROI of 220 days I can expect an ROI of 240 days. A 10% increase. Is this significant? I would argue that it is not; there is little difference between 220 days and 240 days. Both are equally reasonable.

Let's take this further: if my running costs (electricity) ever became a SIGNIFICANT percentage of the mining income, I would stop mining altogether. I imagine many other miners would as well. For instance, back to my original device making $3/day and costing $0.25/day to operate : if difficulty went up so high to reduce my mining income to, say, $1/day, I would be unlikely to purchase another one. The ROI at that point would become too long (800 days) and it would not be worth buying such a device. Especially in an unstable and risky ecosystem as bitcoin.

So I don't believe that difficulty will ever rise to a level where running costs become a very significant percentage of the gross income; the ROI would simply become too long and many people would stop mining (or, perhaps more pragmatically, people would become increasingly unlikely to invest in new mining hardware, thus capping difficulty).

[mdude77]

Not too long ago Josh "Inaba" must have figured out that BFL was a losing venture, and secretly resigned.  He then went to Tom and said, hey, can I work for you?

Tom said, sure.  Here's your first task.  Go into my forum and troll away.  Make it look like you're attacking me, but in reality you're discrediting BFL and making bASIC look good.

Only thing that makes sense really.

M

[chrcoe01]

wow I haven't checked this thread in awhile, it's getting crazy! 

[dani]

wow I haven't checked this thread in awhile, it's getting crazy!