Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2021, 07:08:32 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 [1181] 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3914072 times)
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1018


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 07:41:19 PM
 #23601

The smaller transistors use less power.

Not as a rule. Generally smaller gates can work with lower voltage, and that is what is increases power efficiency, its not a direct result and its increasingly untrue. 20 and 16nm offer next to no voltage drop, other than what can be achieved using finfets (unrelated to feature size).

Quote
Just because the transistor density doubles, that doesn't mean that the power consumption doubles too. For example, you could end up with twice the hash power for the same power consumption with a die shrink.

quite the opposite, just because you can shrink a transistor doesnt mean it will use less, let alone half as much power.  So you cram more on a die, but power density goes up, not exactly a huge advantage for bitcoin asics which already stretch the limits of power delivery, packaging and cooling.
1638688112
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1638688112

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1638688112
Reply with quote  #2

1638688112
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Bonam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 08:00:09 PM
 #23602

I take Puppet's spreadsheet to be a simple demonstration tool, I don't think his intention is to imply it's an accurate model. I would say his assumptions are much more sound than your main premise though. If even with free electricity a miner cannot recover their capital cost, NO ONE WILL BUY MINING EQUIPMENT. Sorry for the caps, but this keeps on coming up and it's a fundamental logic flaw. With free electricity your costs of running equipment are negligible. To say that the capital costs will never be recovered assumes that income approaches 0 as the network hashrate approaches infinity.

Answer one simple question, with the assumption that continued increases in difficulty will mean that even people with free electricity can't recovery their capital costs in equipment, who do you think will be buying the ~250PH/s worth of mining hardware necessary to even double the current hashrate?

People who can get the mining equipment a lot cheaper than it is normally priced for the "consumer". That is, people placing gigantic bulk orders, people with exclusive partnerships with manufacturers, and the manufacturers themselves.
jimmothy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 509



View Profile
October 09, 2014, 08:10:11 PM
 #23603

I take Puppet's spreadsheet to be a simple demonstration tool, I don't think his intention is to imply it's an accurate model. I would say his assumptions are much more sound than your main premise though. If even with free electricity a miner cannot recover their capital cost, NO ONE WILL BUY MINING EQUIPMENT. Sorry for the caps, but this keeps on coming up and it's a fundamental logic flaw. With free electricity your costs of running equipment are negligible. To say that the capital costs will never be recovered assumes that income approaches 0 as the network hashrate approaches infinity.

Answer one simple question, with the assumption that continued increases in difficulty will mean that even people with free electricity can't recovery their capital costs in equipment, who do you think will be buying the ~250PH/s worth of mining hardware necessary to even double the current hashrate?

People who can get the mining equipment a lot cheaper than it is normally priced for the "consumer". That is, people placing gigantic bulk orders, people with exclusive partnerships with manufacturers, and the manufacturers themselves.

Doesn't matter what the J/GH is if you can never recover the capital cost of miners even with free electricity, which is where bitcoin mining stands right now.

So can some people profit from mining or not?
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 08:11:40 PM
 #23604

I take Puppet's spreadsheet to be a simple demonstration tool, I don't think his intention is to imply it's an accurate model. I would say his assumptions are much more sound than your main premise though. If even with free electricity a miner cannot recover their capital cost, NO ONE WILL BUY MINING EQUIPMENT. Sorry for the caps, but this keeps on coming up and it's a fundamental logic flaw. With free electricity your costs of running equipment are negligible. To say that the capital costs will never be recovered assumes that income approaches 0 as the network hashrate approaches infinity.

Answer one simple question, with the assumption that continued increases in difficulty will mean that even people with free electricity can't recovery their capital costs in equipment, who do you think will be buying the ~250PH/s worth of mining hardware necessary to even double the current hashrate?

People who can get the mining equipment a lot cheaper than it is normally priced for the "consumer". That is, people placing gigantic bulk orders, people with exclusive partnerships with manufacturers, and the manufacturers themselves.
What are you going on about? All you're describing is that some larger groups can get equipment cheaper than others, which is no different than some people getting cheaper power than others. Change $330 per TH/s to something else like $200/TH/s, and you're done. All that does is change one variable. In the end, you still end up with the same result; even the manufacturer won't make more equipment as it is not cost effective to do so, and the hashrate will stabilize.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1004


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 08:23:11 PM
 #23605

The smaller transistors use less power.

Not as a rule. Generally smaller gates can work with lower voltage, and that is what is increases power efficiency, its not a direct result and its increasingly untrue. 20 and 16nm offer next to no voltage drop, other than what can be achieved using finfets (unrelated to feature size).

Quote
Just because the transistor density doubles, that doesn't mean that the power consumption doubles too. For example, you could end up with twice the hash power for the same power consumption with a die shrink.

quite the opposite, just because you can shrink a transistor doesnt mean it will use less, let alone half as much power.  So you cram more on a die, but power density goes up, not exactly a huge advantage for bitcoin asics which already stretch the limits of power delivery, packaging and cooling.

Yes, as a rule. What you are saying is simply wrong.

TSMC's 20nm process technology can provide 30 percent higher speed, 1.9 times the density, or 25 percent less power than its 28nm technology.

Comparing with 20SoC technology, 16FF+ provides extra 40% higher speed and 60% power saving.

Also, I didn't say a die shrink would use half the power, I said it could. For example, going from 130nm to 40nm.

Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1018


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 09:52:24 PM
 #23606


You're basically proving my point even with TSMC marketing material. The real gain by their own admission is just transistor density. Note the word "OR". Speed and power improvements are a joke, ask anyone who's actually used their process like nVidia.

Quote

Yes, due to finfet, just like I said. Not because of the shrink.

Quote
Also, I didn't say a die shrink would use half the power, I said it could. For example, going from 130nm to 40nm.

Which only took what, 10 years? 
Bonam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 10:09:37 PM
 #23607

What are you going on about? All you're describing is that some larger groups can get equipment cheaper than others, which is no different than some people getting cheaper power than others. Change $330 per TH/s to something else like $200/TH/s, and you're done. All that does is change one variable. In the end, you still end up with the same result; even the manufacturer won't make more equipment as it is not cost effective to do so, and the hashrate will stabilize.

My original point was that people buying miners are likely to make very little profit if any at all. Implicit in that statement is that this refers to consumers buying these products at "retail" prices. That is the statement I was defending. Which, I agree, is at this point only tangentially related to the discussion that is now going on.

I do agree that manufacturers will not make equipment when it is not cost effective to do so. That much is obvious. But the graph still does not accurately describe this, as, again, implicit in the graph is a technologically static environment, which does not correspond to reality.

As for the discussions about nearing the limits of Moore's Law, or how that corresponds to power efficiency, etc... the thing that people often forget is that the current paradigm of silicon integrated circuits is just one embodiment of the general trend of exponentially accelerating technological progress. There are many aspects of progress that we are just getting started on now: three-dimensional as opposed to two-dimensional elements and ICs, materials other than silicon with better performance, optical computing, quantum computing, etc. As any particular paradigm like just shrinking integrated circuit process size runs out of steam, other ones will pick up the slack. We're not gonna suddenly hit a brick wall where computational power just stands still... at least, not for a very long time, until we start to reach the fundamental physical limits that come from information theory.



Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1004


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
 #23608

You're basically proving my point even with TSMC marketing material. The real gain by their own admission is just transistor density. Note the word "OR". Speed and power improvements are a joke, ask anyone who's actually used their process like nVidia.

I'm not proving your point at all. The only way you could think that is if you completely misunderstood what you just read. The greater transistor density means that you can fit more transistors into the same space. In other words, you can keep the chip the same size and increase processing power and possibly power consumption or you can keep the processing power the same and decrease the power consumption and chip size.

Also, nVidia's argument against 20nm had nothing whatsoever to do with power consumption, it was based on transistor and wafer cost.

Yes, due to finfet, just like I said. Not because of the shrink.

Because of both actually.

Which only took what, 10 years?  

1 year for AM.
explorer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1257



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 12:14:49 AM
 #23609

 
Quote
author=zinodaur link=topic=99497.msg9147280#msg9147280 date=1412897748]
Still nothing about dividends ? ...
when share price explodes up, you will know that divs have been announced.
101111
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 02:43:46 AM
 #23610

Bitfury just raised another $20M, so there's some confidence out there that asic development can still be a profitable.
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1006


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 03:40:49 AM
 #23611

Which only took what, 10 years?  

1 year for AM.

You are lacking reading comprehension.

Bitfury just raised another $20M, so there's some confidence out there that asic development can still be a profitable.

Source?

Rival
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 502



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 03:56:22 AM
 #23612

There is still a tremendous amount of "stupid" money out there just waiting to be plucked. The ability to raise capital has almost nothing to do with the ability to deliver value to consumers.
freedomno1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1070


Learning the troll avoidance button :)


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2014, 04:21:48 AM
 #23613


Bitfury just raised another $20M, so there's some confidence out there that asic development can still be a profitable.

Source?

From the Press Feeds
http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-raises-20-million-asic-development-mining-output/

Or just here I guess

BitFury Raises $20 Million to Power New ASIC Chips, Increase Bitcoin Mining Output
BitFury has raised $20m in additional funding to complete development of its 28nm ASIC chip capable of achieving energy efficiency of 0.2 joules-per-gigahash (J/GH) and first announced in September.
[...]
The funding will seek to power the company’s development of what it hopes will be industry-leading ASIC chips, as well. BitFury announced in September that it is seeking to achieve energy efficiency of 0.2 J/GH by the fourth quarter of 2014, and sub-0.1 J/GH efficiency by mid-2015.
jjdub7
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 502


Futurov


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 06:36:07 AM
 #23614

Still nothing about dividends ? ...

Wait...ASICMINER pays dividends?



 Cheesy

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▀████▀▄
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▄▀▀▄▀
█████████████████████████  ███                    ███  ████████████████████████  ███                    ███  ███████████████████████▄    ▄▄████████████████████▄▄  ▀███▄                 ▄███▀
                           ███                    ███            ███             ███                    ███                       ▀███  ███▀▀                ▀▀███   ▀███▄             ▄███▀
                           ███                    ███            ███             ███                    ███                       ▄███  ███    ▄██████████▄    ███     ▀███▄         ▄███▀
█████████████████████████  ███                    ███            ███             ███                    ███  ███████████████████████▀   ███    ██        ██    ███       ▀███▄     ▄███▀
███                        ███                    ███            ███             ███                    ███  ███               ▀███▄    ███    ▀██████████▀    ███         ▀███▄ ▄███▀
███                        ███▄▄                ▄▄███            ███             ███▄▄                ▄▄███  ███                 ▀███▄  ███▄▄                ▄▄███           ▀█████▀
███                         ▀▀████████████████████▀▀             ███              ▀▀████████████████████▀▀   ███                   ▀███▄ ▀▀████████████████████▀▀              ▀█▀
.

       ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬    F U T U R O V . C O M    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬       
▀▄▀████▀▄▀
▀▄▄▀
▄▄████████████████████████████████▄▄
▄██████████████████████████████████████▄
▄████▀                              ▀████▄
█████      ▄██████████████████▄      █████
█████     ███▀   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▀███     █████
█████     ███   ▐▌      ▐▌   ███     █████
█████     ███▄   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▄███     █████
█████      ▀██████████████████▀      █████
▀████▄                              ▄████▀
▀██████████████████████████████████████▀
▀▀████████████████████████████████▀▀
Website
Telegram Group
Telegram Channel
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
TikTok
Github
►►  Powered by
BOUNTY
DETECTIVE
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1018


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 07:13:38 AM
 #23615


from your link:
BitFury further indicated it would use the funds to increase the capacity of its data centers to 100 megawatts

100MW. Thats ~125PH with todays tech and if he achieves his 0.2J/GH goal later this year, thats 500 PH. Or 1EH next year if he does get it down to 0.1JGH Shocked
Lincoln6Echo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2460
Merit: 1057


Don't use bitcoin.de if you care about privacy!


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
 #23616


from your link:
BitFury further indicated it would use the funds to increase the capacity of its data centers to 100 megawatts

100MW. Thats ~125PH with todays tech and if he achieves his 0.2J/GH goal later this year, thats 500 PH. Or 1EH next year if he does get it down to 0.1JGH Shocked

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1006


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 08:36:47 PM
 #23617

100MW. Thats ~125PH with todays tech and if he achieves his 0.2J/GH goal later this year, thats 500 PH. Or 1EH next year if he does get it down to 0.1JGH Shocked

I wonder if FC will address this issue.

Chris_Sabian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:02:07 PM
 #23618


from your link:
BitFury further indicated it would use the funds to increase the capacity of its data centers to 100 megawatts

100MW. Thats ~125PH with todays tech and if he achieves his 0.2J/GH goal later this year, thats 500 PH. Or 1EH next year if he does get it down to 0.1JGH Shocked

100MW is a huge amount of power.  About 1/100 the size of a coal powerplant.
bitsalame
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510


Preaching the gospel of Satoshi


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:29:19 PM
 #23619

Quote
Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.

I read it like "we are burning cash like crazy, and we don't want to unload bitcoins to pay the utility bill because that would bankrupt us. We had no choice but to beg our investors to pour more money, because otherwise they would be royally fucked as well if they didn't reinvest in us. We pray for an increase in BTC prices, because otherwise we are royally fucked. The 100MW plant is a bluff, but it may not be a total lie if BTC prices goes to the moon. Until then, we are burning more cash... Fingers crossed"
silverfuture
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 948
Merit: 1008


central banking = outdated protocol


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 09:56:44 PM
 #23620

You don't ask for even more investment money unless you have already spent what you had and now are pretty much broke.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NastyFans - The Fan Club for Bitcoin Enthusiasts | MININGCOINS | POOL | ESCROW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pages: « 1 ... 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 [1181] 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 ... 1348 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!