astutiumRob: diff will be 149M at least for domestic customers (which we expect to be the majority of our customer base.) Next diff is estimated to be only 180M per allchains.info, very far from the 298M people were quoting. Also the average worldwide electricity price is $0.10/kWh. It makes sense to pick this one as the default. And again we expect our auction to naturally attract those with lower than average rates.
Don't even try to defend the ROI. It's just not there. These will not break even at the current bid prices unless you have nearly free power.
http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/cf8f2331e7Please realize you make an incorrect statement out of literal
rounding errors.
Demonstration: change your analysis' power cost to $0.085/kWh (still very close to the worldwide's average, 15% below it, hardly what I would call "nearly free power"), and change the monthly difficulty increase from 100% to 95% (just to demonstrate you are playing with rounding errors) and ROI is achieved in Jan 2014:
http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/5ce6d144b8Therefore you cannot claim "ROI is just not there", just as one cannot claim "insanely great profits are there" (with a 19 BTC price and ~100% monthly diff increases). Which is why I am taking the middle-ground position of "ROI will approximately be achieved (either slight losses or slight profits) in this hypothetical scenario".
Also, as others pointed out, I am not claiming a ROI in all scenarios. Fundamentally, neither I, nor you, know future monthly diff increases:
- They could be 50% in which case great profits will be made.
- They could be 100% in which case ROI will approximately be achieved.
- They could be 150% in which case losses will happen.
I'm on your side on this, but since you are correcting technical errors, I am too.
To put this in some perspective, the study of economics is my hobby. Particularly the Austrian school, but in this case we're talking general accounting. I've made this point several times, and been called a troll for it. I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely irritated by the misuse of a
well understood accounting term.
There are three ways that a hypothetical buyer would not make ROI on this.
1. The unit is DOA (which you have contingencies in place for.)
2. The buyer puts it in their trophy collection and never mines with it.
3. The buyer doesn't use it, gets a refund, and goes on their merry way.
ROI stands for Return
ON Investment. Not Return
OF Investment. If it mines
at all, you make a ROI. This is not an ambiguity or a hedge, this is what the term means. ROI is a moving target. Now if you, or the hypothetical buyer, says "it will not make ROI in X timeframe, they MIGHT have an argument, based solely on the above three conditions. What the majority of the people on this forum MEAN, seems to be breakeven, which is an entirely different subject. This isn't picking nits, this is what the term means.
ROI can be positive, negative, or breakeven, but if it makes you one satoshi, you have achieved ROI.
I find this misuse egregious for the same reason I find the religious argument "it's just a theory" to be egregious. At least in that case, there are two different meanings to the term. In the case of ROI, there is not.