Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 170. (Read 3917058 times)

 That's not what it showed in your first post.


 ...oh and dude?  It shows neither.

I think the chart does look right to me..  it's also pretty interesting.. 

He didn't make the assumption the network will remain at a constant rate for two years,  he is just using 2 years as an example and extrapolating the data over a arbitrary period of 2 years.  He could have picked 6 months or 5 years..  The curves may be condensed or elongated in reality..  no one knows exactly how the network will play out.   Price also plays into this big time as the final cost of electricity is relative..  Put btc at 10k and this chart goes on forever..   

This is about at what network hashrate versus  mining efficiency the entire network has to stop growing..   

For example:  Say in our current situation..  AM gear is at about 0.7 (the orange line)  assuming an electricity price of 0.06KWH,  the gear is unprofitable at the point which the network reaches 850 PH,  WHENEVER that may be,  be it 3 months from now or 2 years from now.   Ie:  If the network was suddenly 850ph tmrw,  the gear is no longer profitable.  On the other hand,  if the network took 5 years to get to 850PH (again forgetting about the block halving / price differences)  the gear would still be profitable until that time..

However gear of greater efficiency say 0.1,  could hang around until 1850PH (still assuming 0.06kwh)  still being profitable.. 

Finally,  if we were to say that mining gear hits an efficiency floor at 0.1 J/GH and electricity is 0.02KWH (there is no such thing as FREE energy) the network will stop growing at approx 2300 PH.

Only the price of Bitcoin (and thus the relative electricty cost) is going to affect these numbers.. 

teek


 

Dude you are thickheaded. Its not a tool to help you predict if you will make a profit from a miner, its tool that predicts where the network hashrate is ultimately headed.

 First of all, it's not my math, it's your math.  You said you did not make the assumption that the network will remain at a constant rate for two years.  Your math shows you did but whether you did so consciously or not is an altogether different argument.

 Secondly, your charts have nothing to do with network growth as you have only made very narrow and fixed assumptions.  So my failure to understand network growth based on your primitive charts is not at issue here.  

Can you please explain how the data is flawed? I've listed a couple points about it, but the general idea is correct. At some point investment in new hardware will cease and the network will reach steady state without a change to the input parameters. Feel free to substitute it with a more accurate model if you'd like, or provide some input on the endgame variables like efficiency or deployed cost per TH/s.

  I am not missing the point of his charts.  He stated it quite clearly in his original post - "It shows the network speed where miners would break even after 2 years using the listed assumed variables. Even  in the current climate and with current efficiency, we are no were near where (industrial) mining  would not be profitable. And the effect of power efficiency is quite dramatic if you consider reasonable electricity cost price ranges (~0.06 / KWh)"

 Perhaps you are reading something into the chart that you shouldn't?  It would be a costly mistake for anyone to purchase a miner because it lies somewhere beneath on of his curves expecting a two year ROI which he has also stated.  It is my intention to make everyone aware that this data is flawed.

 What is your intention? To defend his flawed data or to extrapolate some other non-existent usefulness from it?

The assumptions are just that, feel free to alter them yourself. The graph isnt flawed, you just dont understand what its telling you, even after manually verifying the math.

What you fail to understand is that the network isnt going to keep growing magically if there is no ROI to be had. That graph tells you when there is no more ROI to be had (or at least not within <2 year, which seems a reasonable horizon to me but feel free to change that too). Once you reach that point, who is going to buy or deploy more miners? Few if anyone, and if someone does, others will have to unplug, hence the network hashrate will remain roughly where the chart tells you it will plateau (for your chosen assumptions).

I think you're missing the point of the graph. It's purpose is to illustrate, given certain parameters, what the final steady state network hashrate could end up being. Barring large changes in price or available technology, eventually the network will get to the point that even a large operation in a location with extremely cheap electricity will not be able to break even in X days even without difficulty changing. In that case, investment in mining hardware will slow significantly. It will probably continue to grow as ASICs are useless for anything else and manufacturers will probably sell what they have in stock or in process for whatever they can recover, but without better hardware or an exchange rate swing eventually the network hashrate will stop growing.

The question is, what point will that happen?

 Let's dissect the data where all points converge @1239PH/s network speed and no cost for electricity.

1 TH/s is costing $700 now on your chart and bitcoin is worth $330;

 1239 PH/s = 1239000 TH/s  
Take the reciprocal of this 1/1239000 to find out your share of the block rewards for 1 TH/s and multiply that by the total number of bitcoins produced in a day.

 total bitcoins per day for the entire network (ideal):
 25 per block (reward) x 6 (blocks per hour) x 24 hours per day = 3600

 3600 multiplied by 1/1239000 = 0.0029055690072639225181598062954 Bitcoins per day (ideal)

Now if you make that every single day for the magical number of 730 days you get 2.121065375302663438256658595642 bitcoins
and when we multiply that by the assumed $330 per bitcoin... drumroll please... we get  $699.95157384987893462469733656186 or approximately $700 dollars for our 1 TH/s miner that we paid $700 dollars for 730 days ago!  Which only works for a sustained network hashing rate of 1239 PH/s for a period of 730 days.

 Your graph and your assumptions are flawed.

           ^that is my point

See OoC's blog related to this.
http://organofcorti.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/august-31st-2014-weekly-bitcoin-network.html

1AcAj9... is Bitfury; http://mempool.info/pool/2av0id51pct
So is 1Nd9...

The first transaction date for 1Nd99aNgYWpKkqcqSMgWtdtVDadewAS5F7 is: 2014-08-23 20:16:43

That would coincidence with the estimated Self-Mining start of Asicminer, right? (starting with self mining after first batches of Tube sales)

mmhhh interesting ...

I don't think I was able to follow this line of reasoning, but if the 1Nd99aNgYWpKkqcqSMgWtdtVDadewAS5F7 really belongs to AM, this is big news.

There should have been another board meeting by now.  Someone page Jutarul.

Well, tape-out could have already taken place, for all we know... Or maybe it's any day now, or still may be 1-2 months in the future. I expect FC to wait for an official announcement until physical chips have proven to work and maybe only when they also met consumption specifications!

Lol who's the Robin Hood who threw their 21/21 ask order on the books to trap the bot?  Bravo, very well-mathed.

Also, speaking of addresses, holy smokes:  

https://blockchain.info/tx/a148d24650fc68b46b67c919cce49d2fb4257c345f896d93d15fdf0d8e9ab8fc

And follow to the destination address...the BTC in that transaction (BTC13k) is worth about $4.5 million right now - when are we guessing Gen 4 tape-out will be, again?  The figure is similar to the lump payment made for the production of Gen 3, and it was the first transaction from the multisig wallet to an address other than https://blockchain.info/address/19iVyH1qUxgywY8LJSbpV4VavjZmyuEyxV.

Additionally, anyone else noticing how new transactions from the AM wallet sets start popping up right after large-scale buy runs stop on Bitstamp?  For anyone who's looked into multisig/P2SH transactions, they're generally constrained to the 3-of-3 sig case, and with very few inputs, as isStandard() will reject the transaction as valid but not standard on most mining clients.  Eligius will pick up standard transactions, but then again, Luke also broadcasts his relays.  The transaction above is definitely not standard for P2SH at 7097 bytes (max is 520 bytes, and most of that is taken up by the concatenated pubkey script).  Because the transaction was still included in block 324403 and relayed by 188.165.237.10, is it safe to assume that this block was mined by ASICMINER with the address 1Nd99aNgYWpKkqcqSMgWtdtVDadewAS5F7?

Whoever owns that 1Nd99 address probably also owns the 1AcAj9p6zJn4xLXdvmdiuPCtY7YkBPTAJo address that held a good share of the network for the middle of the year here.  I think this because of this transaction (one of the few sent from 1Nd99): https://blockchain.info/tx/87c1b45c63c4ccf7a85aaed324a872008ef80755c5b3c4eef15627abad482dbd.  Notice that there are inputs sent from both addresses, usually a good indicator that both are under the same entity.

The first Prismas should get delivered soon. Looking forward to read what people think about them.

It makes no such assumption. As long as the network hashrate is at or below the lines on the chart, at any point in time you could buy a miner and end up breaking even after 2 years, of course constrained by the listed assumptions and the curves themselves, nothing else.  If your point is that after 2 years the network may exceed those lines, thats actually part of the point, but it  requires either changing constraints or someone betting > 2 year.

I already strengthened my position, at 0.6, 0.25, and most recently at 0.18...

the last one was the best..., just before a large drop

Me too, hopefully this doesn't backfire...

For any other Security, I wouldn't be so gun ho from being caught up in other mistaken "investments".
But Asicminer from their inception have been different.