AMHash1: Cost-Effective Mining Contract - page 100.

newIndia

legendary

Activity: 2226

Merit: 1052

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Swimmer63 on January 07, 2015, 02:42:44 PM

Quote from: alevlaslo on January 07, 2015, 04:27:05 AM

Hello! Thank you Bitman and Rockminer behind the clouds! Equipment should be in a dedicated hangars, our including (the cloud), and not to overload electrical outlets in the apartment houses, especially in suburban houses, where one miner to another person will not be able to allocate power just to stay

Huh?

Just a poorly programmed bot. Or google translate gone wrong.

Russian using Google translate. Check post history.

DARKANGEL6415

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

ADAMANT — the most secure and anonymous messenger

i will say google translate gone wrong haha, in any case come on we need some price to be stable

Swimmer63

legendary

Activity: 1593

Merit: 1004

Quote from: alevlaslo on January 07, 2015, 04:27:05 AM

Hello! Thank you Bitman and Rockminer behind the clouds! Equipment should be in a dedicated hangars, our including (the cloud), and not to overload electrical outlets in the apartment houses, especially in suburban houses, where one miner to another person will not be able to allocate power just to stay

Huh?

alevlaslo

hero member

Activity: 1988

Merit: 593

Hello! Thank you Bitman and Rockminer behind the clouds! Equipment should be in a dedicated hangars, our including (the cloud), and not to overload electrical outlets in the apartment houses, especially in suburban houses, where one miner to another person will not be able to allocate power just to stay

sharky101

member

Activity: 108

Merit: 10

So with another exchange being hacked. Can we please innovate to remove the unnecessary counterparty risk of using havelock.

Issue a counterparty asset or bitshares asset... centralization will eventually bite AM and ASICMiner.

A counterparty/bitshares asset could issue dividends directly to customer. An asset such as a counterparty AMHASH could be traded in a decentralised manor on the Counterparty DEX or on a whole range crypto exchanges like poloniex etc.

I know the developers of Counterparty and Bitshares would be more than happy to aid you in this process. And why not get some press whilst doing it, 'hey coindesk, we've decided to re-evaluate our business and go completely decentralised.'

LEAD THE MARKET

galdur

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

I´m waiting for cheaper shares but apparently the AmHash market figures

that the diff. increase will correct and BTC will stay stable or improve.

AirWolf

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Havelock robbed me 170BTC

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 09:17:02 AM

Quote from: AirWolf on January 06, 2015, 09:08:47 AM

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:23:26 AM

Doesnt make any sense at all. It would be far cheaper to run with just a fraction of the hardware than running it for a fraction of the time, and its even better to run everything underclocked, ie at higher efficiency, all the time. Idle hardware is not a sensible business plan.

Then your opinion follows mine, just in another sense the action is the same, i spoke about "throttle", you spoke about "clocking", the net effect is of the same type. However, your assertion is more accurate than mine and has a little more sense.

But is not that my observation has no sense at all, keep the discussion amicable...

Nothing I said would result in variable hashrate throughout a difficulty period, which was your observation, so no, we are not saying the same thing.

Evidence suggests otherwise:

DARKANGEL6415

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

ADAMANT — the most secure and anonymous messenger

Quote from: ajw7989 on January 05, 2015, 07:48:58 PM

Quote from: galdur on January 05, 2015, 07:45:22 PM

Quote from: DARKANGEL6415 on January 05, 2015, 07:37:22 PM

all i know is i see the price of the amhash shares going down and down. For a moment there i thought it would always or atleast for a longer time be near the initial ipo price but noy was i wrong Undecided

Well, the price of the shares has to adjust to the tanking yield.

If you want to see the price go up we need the price of btc to go up which in turn will allow payouts to increase.

well i had seen this a was really excited told my self maybe this news will be good for Bitcoin as California is one of the heavier populated wealthier states in the USA. So i expected good news maybe help price = better payouts but i see that not the case http://bitcoinpeak.com/ab-129-california-legally-approves-the-use-of-bitcoin-cryptocoinsnews = Still good news on this read i would say now if can only get Nevada to accept it as legal especially in Las Vegas Grin

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: AirWolf on January 06, 2015, 09:08:47 AM

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:23:26 AM

Doesnt make any sense at all. It would be far cheaper to run with just a fraction of the hardware than running it for a fraction of the time, and its even better to run everything underclocked, ie at higher efficiency, all the time. Idle hardware is not a sensible business plan.

Then your opinion follows mine, just in another sense the action is the same, i spoke about "throttle", you spoke about "clocking", the net effect is of the same type. However, your assertion is more accurate than mine and has a little more sense.

But is not that my observation has no sense at all, keep the discussion amicable...

Nothing I said would result in variable hashrate throughout a difficulty period, which was your observation, so no, we are not saying the same thing.

galdur

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

http://i.snag.gy/2izhc.jpg

http://snag.gy/d9lBk.jpg

AirWolf

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Havelock robbed me 170BTC

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:23:26 AM

Doesnt make any sense at all. It would be far cheaper to run with just a fraction of the hardware than running it for a fraction of the time, and its even better to run everything underclocked, ie at higher efficiency, all the time. Idle hardware is not a sensible business plan.

Then your opinion follows mine, just in another sense the action is the same, i spoke about "throttle", you spoke about "clocking", the net effect is of the same type. However, your assertion is more accurate than mine and has a little more sense.

But is not that my observation has no sense at all, keep the discussion amicable...

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: elasticband on January 06, 2015, 08:35:32 AM

I actually don't belief someone with bitmain premining expertise would produce a batch, take it offline, sell and ship it without having a whole new production run ready to fill his shelves.

I see your point, but just boxing units and refilling takes some time and may not be done 100% efficiently. We are talking about 1000's of units.
Then again, antpool seems to be back at 15%. Yesterday IIRC I saw it at ~5% 24hr average, could just have been bad luck.

ANyway, if you look at this chart:
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-lin-10k.png

Its fairly nonsensical to conclude the recent downward "trend" is not just randomness. Lets see in a few days.

elasticband

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:28:51 AM

Quote from: elasticband on January 06, 2015, 08:26:14 AM

last difficulty movements were downward, why?

It could be statistical noise. But there is also another reason you have overlooked: bitmain shipping their S5s that have been 'burning in ' for a while.

I actually don't belief someone with bitmain premining expertise would produce a batch, take it offline, sell and ship it without having a whole new production run ready to fill his shelves. I don't doubt that the s5's have been used, but i doubt bitmian would sit with empty shelves long enough to impact difficulty. if anything they are adding to the increase.

galdur

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:28:51 AM

Quote from: elasticband on January 06, 2015, 08:26:14 AM

last difficulty movements were downward, why?

It could be statistical noise. But there is also another reason you have overlooked: bitmain shipping their S5s that have been 'burning in ' for a while.

Even the wildest bubbles tend to have an occasional plateau for consolidation.

HarmonLi

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Honest 80s business!

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:23:26 AM

Doesnt make any sense at all. It would be far cheaper to run with just a fraction of the hardware than running it for a fraction of the time, and its even better to run everything underclocked, ie at higher efficiency, all the time. Idle hardware is not a sensible business plan.

Yeah, in this case it only makes sense that they have pointed their hashing power towards another coin or used it otherwise. Still I don't think that it is feasible for every miner to be run at a reduced speed/consumption.

galdur

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Don´t forget this guy

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: elasticband on January 06, 2015, 08:26:14 AM

last difficulty movements were downward, why?

It could be statistical noise. But there is also another reason you have overlooked: bitmain shipping their S5s that have been 'burning in ' for a while.

elasticband

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom

last difficulty movements were downward, why?

1. bitcoin price is decreasing and hashrate is increasing - false, hashrate was decreasing but the price was going down
2. a portion of the network moved away to mine some new scaamcoin - true

difficulty is moving upward.

1. bitcoin price is increasing and hashrate is increasing - false price is decreasing
2. a portion of the network moved back from scam coin and created and increase in difficulty - possible

will difficulty continue to move upward?
1. no
2. yes

i guess i am in 2 minds regarding the outcome

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Doesnt make any sense at all. It would be far cheaper to run with just a fraction of the hardware than running it for a fraction of the time, and its even better to run everything underclocked, ie at higher efficiency, all the time. Idle hardware is not a sensible business plan.

AirWolf

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Havelock robbed me 170BTC

Quote from: galdur on January 06, 2015, 08:07:42 AM

Quote from: Puppet on January 06, 2015, 08:00:34 AM

Quote from: alevlaslo on January 06, 2015, 07:45:07 AM

Fair rate to calculate very easily - day dividends multiply by 100 Wink

even 100 is too much IMO. If for simplicity sake we assume divs will go down linearly, then your math would mean divs halt in 200 days - just to break even, and more than that for any profit. In reality this is likely much sooner considering 0.1-0.2W/GH hardware that will come online in Q1.

Moreover, even if difficuly goes up linearly, divs go down faster than that because of the fixed fees.

Yeah, at this point preservation of capital is a more important concern

than return on investment if you want to play this mining game.

From my observation of the difficulty evolution, it looks like some major mines have the strategy of running the mine at full throttle half the time between difficulty adjusting periods in order to maximize yield and not letting the diff go up as much as it could, which makes sense as a long term business policy, and then the other half they shutdown or throttle down a lot, this will not only mitigates the impact on the diff, but also saves power and maintenance cost.

Would someone care to analyze the integrity of this argument?

Topic: AMHash1: Cost-Effective Mining Contract - page 100. (Read 304259 times)