Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 577. (Read 3917468 times)
November 24, 2013, 01:37:07 PM
Seems to me that, unless the information takes more time to penetrate than I imagine, share price won't go (much?) below the current ~0.4 price point. Unless some people only wake up when dividends become extinct.
November 24, 2013, 01:34:36 PM
404 Bitcoin in ASICMiner mining address. How many did it have last week?
November 24, 2013, 12:23:06 PM
FC said 9000 cubes, and they are charging at least 1 btc for each cube, so yeah, 9000 btc for the total is possible. That also means that at least ~3000 btc worth of cubes have been sold already.
3000 btc is .0075 per share.
Incorrect.3000 btc is .0075 per share.
Incorrect on what? Could you explain where and how that we are incorrect?
You seem to assume 100% profit (i.e. you don't deduce anything for the cost of hardware/shipping/etc).
But yes, 3000/400000=0.0075
November 24, 2013, 11:37:30 AM
FC said 9000 cubes, and they are charging at least 1 btc for each cube, so yeah, 9000 btc for the total is possible. That also means that at least ~3000 btc worth of cubes have been sold already.
3000 btc is .0075 per share.
Incorrect.3000 btc is .0075 per share.
Incorrect on what? Could you explain where and how that we are incorrect?
November 24, 2013, 11:15:55 AM
FC said 9000 cubes, and they are charging at least 1 btc for each cube, so yeah, 9000 btc for the total is possible. That also means that at least ~3000 btc worth of cubes have been sold already.
3000 btc is .0075 per share.
Incorrect. 3000 btc is .0075 per share.
November 24, 2013, 10:18:06 AM
ASICminer shares distribution 20/11/2013
5000+ shares - 11 addresses
1000+ shares - 19 addresses
500+ shares - 18 addresses
200+ shares - 52 addresses
100+ shares - 67 addresses
50+ shares - 102 addresses
50- shares - 908 addresses
EDIT :
File:AM_shareholders_list_112013_simple.xlsx
Size:58 KB
Download:
Be free to play with this ... and share your findings
5000+ shares - 11 addresses
1000+ shares - 19 addresses
500+ shares - 18 addresses
200+ shares - 52 addresses
100+ shares - 67 addresses
50+ shares - 102 addresses
50- shares - 908 addresses
EDIT :
File:AM_shareholders_list_112013_simple.xlsx
Size:58 KB
Download:
Code:
https://mega.co.nz/#!uNdzyZrK!O_D5LTagLuis0vjUw3cm9AWe6tYQia4Zh3R9SccbUBw
Be free to play with this ... and share your findings
November 24, 2013, 08:26:47 AM
Who cares if 28 or 40? The most important is 0.2W/GH, isn't it?
Yes, and by the way, the generation 3 is between 28nm~33nm
Source?
November 24, 2013, 07:50:41 AM
I couldn't agree more.
Actually, at that point, you should inverse care, if that makes sense. A few months ago people where all worked up about "28 nm" without absolutely any interest in actual performance characteristics. And probably without understanding anything about chip development - and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't fool yourself. What's happening now with the recent and coming deliveries shows it was misguided.
Actually, at that point, you should inverse care, if that makes sense. A few months ago people where all worked up about "28 nm" without absolutely any interest in actual performance characteristics. And probably without understanding anything about chip development - and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't fool yourself. What's happening now with the recent and coming deliveries shows it was misguided.
True words, George Costanza!
November 24, 2013, 12:10:58 AM
Who cares if 28 or 40? The most important is 0.2W/GH, isn't it?
Yes, and by the way, the generation 3 is between 28nm~33nm
lol, what the heck does that mean? Does it "quiver" somehow?
Sorry, I agree. This thread is getting really pathethic. People just writing any old nonsense.
Now that friedcat is hiring someone to do public relations work, if you really care what nm AM is using for Gen3, why not just wait until AM tell us.
Personally, I don't care. Cost/GH is what matters, then power consumption. What goes on inside the box / cube / hypercube, who gives a monkey? Clearly the people buying cubes out in 24 hrs don't.
November 23, 2013, 11:16:24 PM
Who cares if 28 or 40? The most important is 0.2W/GH, isn't it?
Yes, and by the way, the generation 3 is between 28nm~33nm
November 23, 2013, 10:03:42 PM
This is going to work out perfect. Dividends will dry up almost completely well before Gen3 is ready. Share prices will tend to zero, and I can pick up 100 more shares under a bitcoin in total 
Yes, I don't think anyone else has pointed that out yet, though I suspect a few cannier people have realized it.
No new chips until realistically April next year means the dividends are going to be in the doldrums for a long time, even if they pay out all profits in full.
I held out some hope that AM was a lot further down the track with the next gen chip, and I was prepared to have a little flutter. But history has shown that for better or worse AM's share price tends to rise and fall with the dividend. With the new chip a long way off even long-term bulls must realize that the share price is going to tank in the meantime.
If I could short AM now I would.
Shhhhhhhhh.....
....Gen 3 is coming out soon! TO DA MOON!
November 23, 2013, 09:15:03 PM
This is going to work out perfect. Dividends will dry up almost completely well before Gen3 is ready. Share prices will tend to zero, and I can pick up 100 more shares under a bitcoin in total
Yes, I don't think anyone else has pointed that out yet, though I suspect a few cannier people have realized it.
No new chips until realistically April next year means the dividends are going to be in the doldrums for a long time, even if they pay out all profits in full.
I held out some hope that AM was a lot further down the track with the next gen chip, and I was prepared to have a little flutter. But history has shown that for better or worse AM's share price tends to rise and fall with the dividend. With the new chip a long way off even long-term bulls must realize that the share price is going to tank in the meantime.
If I could short AM now I would.
November 23, 2013, 09:09:12 PM
CoinTerra [...]
A March batch miner with 2 TH has a retail price of $5999, that's $2.9995 per GH.
Though the price is probably not really comparable.
A March batch miner with 2 TH has a retail price of $5999, that's $2.9995 per GH.
Though the price is probably not really comparable.
That's not comparable because this is the price based on the final machine to be bought. Nobody knows exactly the chip cost of competitors AFAIK, I guess this is very sensitive info.
November 23, 2013, 09:04:26 PM
@jimmothy: Man, I didn't want to sound rude, honest appologize if I did. I'm just disappointed in general by the lack of any relevant (ie, based on something tangible) discussions recently.
The answers to be quoted are in the last 6 pages, it would take me the same time to find and quote them for you than for you to find them directly
The answers to be quoted are in the last 6 pages, it would take me the same time to find and quote them for you than for you to find them directly
I have seen a few comparisons of watt/gh but none comparing the chip cost/gh.
November 23, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
@jimmothy: Man, I didn't want to sound rude, honest appologize if I did. I'm just disappointed in general by the lack of any relevant (ie, based on something tangible) discussions recently.
The answers to be quoted are in the last 6 pages, it would take me the same time to find and quote them for you than for you to find them directly
The answers to be quoted are in the last 6 pages, it would take me the same time to find and quote them for you than for you to find them directly
November 23, 2013, 08:57:08 PM
Wow indeed the friedcat post never mentions 28 nm... and yet I started thinking it was.
What is up with this thread lately?
What is up with this thread lately?
Who cares if 28 or 40? The most important is 0.2W/GH, isn't it?
Actually efficiency might not be the biggest concern yet (cheap electricity, or selling instead of mining). Price per GH matters more.How does next gen price per gh compare to the competition?
Very same question asked 6 pages ago:
"<0.2W per G on low power mode and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost. "
Can someone let us know how this fares against the best competition around at the moment? thx
(and several answers following, I'm sure you can find them among the crap)Can someone let us know how this fares against the best competition around at the moment? thx
So now we even loop for ever? Seriously! Do you need me to elaborate further?
instead of quoting the info I already know why not the quote that explains how it compares? Yes please do elaborate more.
November 23, 2013, 08:54:44 PM
Wow indeed the friedcat post never mentions 28 nm... and yet I started thinking it was.
What is up with this thread lately?
What is up with this thread lately?
Who cares if 28 or 40? The most important is 0.2W/GH, isn't it?
Actually efficiency might not be the biggest concern yet (cheap electricity, or selling instead of mining). Price per GH matters more.How does next gen price per gh compare to the competition?
Very same question asked 6 pages ago:
"<0.2W per G on low power mode and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost. "
Can someone let us know how this fares against the best competition around at the moment? thx
(and several answers following, I'm sure you can find them among the crap)Can someone let us know how this fares against the best competition around at the moment? thx
So now we even loop for ever? Seriously! Do you need me to elaborate further?
November 23, 2013, 08:53:17 PM
Lot of made-up stuff recently!
Care to elaborate instead of a pointless rant? As far as I know the only misinformation floating around was that gen3 would be 28nm. Friedcat had not made it clear what size each gen was and 28nm is seen as the gold standard so I can see why many thought it would be next gen. All it takes is one person to point out that 28nm was never in fact mentioned like pankakke did and the confusion is instantly cleared.
November 23, 2013, 08:47:16 PM
Wow indeed the friedcat post never mentions 28 nm... and yet I started thinking it was.
What is up with this thread lately?
What is up with this thread lately?
Who cares if 28 or 40? The most important is 0.2W/GH, isn't it?
Actually efficiency might not be the biggest concern yet (cheap electricity, or selling instead of mining). Price per GH matters more.How does next gen price per gh compare to the competition?
November 23, 2013, 07:27:21 PM
It was clear gen2 was 55 or 65, and was abandoned. The next one developed is 40nm, that was also clear. 28 was never mentioned, if some of you are misleaded it's just because...
Lot of made-up stuff recently! This thread was reasonably thoughtful usually (compared to others at least...), but in the last weeks it seems the price as attracted a bunch of new investors that feel the need to write everything with such a strong self-confidence despite the fact that they pretty much have nothing to say or worse, they have BS to say. When you don't have anything constructive to say, you know you can just keep silent, too?
I could as well just click the "ignore" buttons repeatedly as I'm sure others did here recently, but I wanted to say it instead because really, it's a pitty for this thread.
Lot of made-up stuff recently! This thread was reasonably thoughtful usually (compared to others at least...), but in the last weeks it seems the price as attracted a bunch of new investors that feel the need to write everything with such a strong self-confidence despite the fact that they pretty much have nothing to say or worse, they have BS to say. When you don't have anything constructive to say, you know you can just keep silent, too?
I could as well just click the "ignore" buttons repeatedly as I'm sure others did here recently, but I wanted to say it instead because really, it's a pitty for this thread.
Jump to: