Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 168. (Read 3917058 times)

If these things are real  Asicminer needs to get the first ones O_o

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

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

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"

100MW is a huge amount of power.  About 1/100 the size of a coal powerplant.

I wonder if FC will address this issue.

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

Wait...ASICMINER pays dividends?



 

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

Or just here I guess

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.

You are lacking reading comprehension.


Source?

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

 when share price explodes up, you will know that divs have been announced.

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.


Because of both actually.


1 year for AM.

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.

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.


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


Which only took what, 10 years? 

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.

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.

So can some people profit from mining or not?