Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 723. (Read 3917468 times)

You must have missed the part where I said "or if difficulty increases much, much more". Obviously there's a stopping point, it's just not in the near future. Plenty of profit to be made from moderately efficient chips in the mean time.

Electricity costs were not even remotely a concern to friedcat from the beginning. You can get contracts with local power companies and pay significantly less. It's already very cheap there. friedcat has also stated he does not intend to franchise outside of China.


friedcat seems to think they can bring on 1PH themselves not even including franchisers, so obviously they found something. When I was on the board I offered 2 MW/h to friedcat and he told me it wouldn't be worth it to ship, they had no problems finding their own sources of power. This was back in October of last year.

My current prediction: AM owns 9% of the network in total (included: franchising). That's pretty strong.

Yes I found out when searching for it. But when scanning blocks for fees it's not really possible to see what has been refunded, so I wanted to point out that this doesn't include that fee.

I for one still have faith in Friedcat & co. Let Vycid and the other bears scare people into selling their shares. I will be picking them up all the way.

the 200 btc had been refunded

Here are some stats for the past ~1000 blocks, for those interested. The 200 BTC fee ASICMiner picked up is not included in these stats.


Looks like ASICMiner has fixed their connectivity issue and then some.

Very nice, thanks. I hope you are right and the number of coins will rise

hope i didn't calculate wrong, its not very accurate, it's just to get a first impression:

with 1 TH/s you can generate ~5.78 BTC a day at current difficulty, the input on this address seems to be something around 31 BTC/day for the last two and a half days

all in all, if i'm not wrong, that makes more than 5.3 TH/s

Can someone calculate hashrate from inputs in this address http://blockchain.info/address/1H8NU2ZbJCiyYHBWiUgX3wDFqUgKEqvsXw ?

These coins originate in ozcoin, so it's probably franchising

I hope you're right 

yay!!! say hello 3+

anyone noticed the Asicminer's mining wallet address received 191 bitcoins  and 70 bitcoins
see here: https://blockchain.info/zh-cn/tx/c6f0bbcd7b0b3b17beb0f11d366234734c1dab3ef04c7f83c96e14b613c8a303
and here:https://blockchain.info/zh-cn/tx/5375b5b7fbf2f45d27bf3b7d0ce2069116926798e384621494a5baa03609bf22

I guess the FC franchising business is already on the way. 

But, just personal guess, we need to wait offical message from FC.

Increasing implied prices would be an incentive to hoard, and would attract hoarders. It is already an observable phenomenon. They re-enforce each other in a feedback loop.


Yes, I simply restated it with the current dynamic as an example.

Adoption does not mean that people will store their life savings in bitcoin. It may simply mean that they use bitcoin financial services to conduct transactions when necessary, thus increasing the demand for money in circulation and thus increase the implied price.

Probably an outcome of Gresham's law.

A deflationary currency is designed to be hoarded, but it does not follow that coins will never be spent. Day-to-day transactions will still occur and will still require currency to perform those transactions. Assuming higher future adoption rates as the currency matures, it will increase pressure to both hoard and to spend. The question that needs to be addressed is whether hoarding and spending will both increase at comparable rates creating an equilibrium.

I would suggest that both working in tandem will continue to drive prices up in the long term. Working against this is the creation of new coins. I have not run any in-depth calculations on this but my gut tells me that adoption is currently creating a demand for coins to hoard and coins to spend that exceeds what is being provided by the current pool and the coins being created. If continued adoption rates keep their growth slopes then astronomical btc values are inevitable. If the rate of adoption reaches critical mass and goes exponential and becomes widespread, I think even the wildest projections will look puny. But that is a big pile of ifs stacked on a shaky foundation to begin with.

Edit: Currently btc are being hoarded and fiat is being spent. This is an important dynamic to understand.

This doesn't make sense. We are already seeing the 130nm chips being too power hungry, of course it's only a matter of time before the 55nm chips use too much power as well.

Mind you, I'm not talking about power costs, I'm talking about finding locations with enough incoming power to actually run the miners.

The network is currently around 700 TH/s. ASICMiner is at ~40 TH/s. For ASICMiner to regain 10% of the network, they'd have to add 34 TH/s. At an efficiency of 8W/GH that's 272kW, and that's just to bring up the network share up to 10%.

I'm no data center expert, but from reading previous posts in this thread it was my impression that this posed a problem.

Here are the stats from the last 70 blocks:


The network can adjust. There is no reason that all miners will stop simultaneously. The unprofitable ones will stop and the others will continue. So this might cause a fall in the network hashrate, that's entirely possible. But saying that all miners will chose to stop mining at once is unwarranted.

reminds me of all the fallacies of the value proposition of bitcoin. E.g. bitcoin is not about lowering transaction fees or enabling micro transactions - it's about limiting censorship and exposing the middle man to a true free market economy for transaction processing. If bitcoin is the only way to get money across borders, you'll gladly pay a 10% premium. Expect the transaction fees to go up dramatically as the free world around you crumbles. Bitcoin is build for zero-trust environments and that's where it's utility lies.

Another fallacy is the need for bitcoin to increase in price for it to gain utility. bitcoin transactions "conduct" wealth. Higher bitcoin prices merely increase it's conductance. However, the rapid settlement ability of bitcoin (1 hour) allows deals to go through sequential settlement cycles, effectively compensating for a lower bitcoin price. If a bank transaction of 10 million $ needs 3 days to get processed, you can achieve the same thing with let's say 20 bitcoin transactions, leading to a factor of 20 in bitcoin price flexibility.

What does that all have to do with ASICMINER? ASICMINER is a facilitator for mining technology and is operating in the mining industry. If bitcoin becomes the preferred global censorship proof payment system it set out to be, then you SHOULD expect transaction fees to become significant and SHOULD NOT necessarily expect bitcoin price to increase ad infinitum. The only scenario where bitcoin prices should go through the roof is if it achieves safe haven status, which is a tough one for a 4 year old money scheme. This means that the expected long term yield in bitcoin from mining will be more than the its subsidy.

A big problem with that line of thinking is the overall prevailing view of the community, where many holders think/hope that the value of a single bitcoin could grow to $1000, $10000 or even $1,000,000 (ok, that last one isnt voiced that often, but ive see more than a couple people chime in in agreement when that number was raised; so long as people have hopes and even expectations of that sort of growth, theyre not going to spend their coins, which means theyre not available for making transaction fees off of.

Until we start seeing concrete proof that transaction fees are growing, speculating that they'll achieve any level (3-5 BTC/Block, 30-50 BTC/block) is just that - speculation. It's as useful as attempting to figure out your mining returns if difficulty would just stay flat for months on end.

Yes, the total earned from transaction fees may  be growing, but thats not the number to be looking at - we need to look at the transaction fees per block, and by that metric, theyre not climbing at all.

This is a major stumbling point to the fixed cap nature of bitcoin; the compensation that miners earn right now is from Bitcoins that are magically created out of thin air, once miners are forced to rely on fees and only fees to pay for energy consumption, as things look right now, and projecting from the trends we see in transaction fees per block (dangerous, yes, but it's data linked to reality rather than hope), absent a HUGE increase in BTC prices, there will be no reason for miners to mine, save for being a loss generating public service. Which brings about the earlier point, if BTC is to survive longer term, either transaction volume needs to increase greatly or the value of each BTC needs to - since most people are counting on the second and not spending their BTC, that becomes the only real hope for its survival.