Didn't you see friedcat's post about exponential new equipment being manufactured in September and October?
Yes. Which has nothing to do with why the existing 50 TH/s network hasn't been able to operate consistently at 50 TH/s.
Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 753. (Read 3917635 times)
August 26, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
Yes. Which has nothing to do with why the existing 50 TH/s network hasn't been able to operate consistently at 50 TH/s.
August 26, 2013, 03:38:50 PM
all this stuff is good!
keeping the price of shares low,
cant wait to get more btc to reinvest more,
or even when the bigger dividends start dropping,
hope the price will still stay lower so we can reinvest even more!
fc can easily take the whole network, thats the whole idea of why he started to sell the hardware, to distrubute network security, also to make some profits on hw sales, and also so 1 entity would not control soo much network power...
i think we are in a good place right now, we could get the price of shares to come even lower, but they already pretty low
would be amazing to see them even lower though!!!
keeping the price of shares low,
cant wait to get more btc to reinvest more,
or even when the bigger dividends start dropping,
hope the price will still stay lower so we can reinvest even more!
fc can easily take the whole network, thats the whole idea of why he started to sell the hardware, to distrubute network security, also to make some profits on hw sales, and also so 1 entity would not control soo much network power...
i think we are in a good place right now, we could get the price of shares to come even lower, but they already pretty low
would be amazing to see them even lower though!!! 
August 26, 2013, 03:37:10 PM
AM operates at 30 TH/s for 11 months. AM then operates at 1,000 TH/s for 1 month. AM's lifetime average is then 1330/12 = 110.8. Now for investing purposes, should you treat AM as a 110.8 TH/s or a 1,000 TH/s operation? I hope you can see that you should view AM as a 1,000 TH/s operation. Hope this example helps clear up your misunderstandings.
Well it depends. In your example it operated for 1,000 TH/s for a month and that would be reflect in the slope of the lifetime average.
Day 330 - LTA 30.0 TH/s
Day 331 - LTA 32.9 TH/s
Day 332 - LTA 35.8 TH/s
...
Day 339 - LTA 55.7 TH/s
...
Day 360 - LTA 110.8 TH/s
On the other hand if it operated at 1,000 TH/s for a few hours and then fall back towards 300 TH/s over the course of weeks and then despite recovering from the low it showed difficulty breaking even 500 TH/s. If that was combined with a lack of information from the operator then no I wouldn't consider it a risk free assumption that 1,000 TH/s can be maintained. Before I get accused of FUD I don't think this is likely however it certainly is possible in the sharp decline and lackluster recovery some equipment was damaged and without more hardware the network will NEVER reach its prior peak.
Didn't you see friedcat's post about exponential new equipment being manufactured in September and October?
August 26, 2013, 03:13:13 PM
AM operates at 30 TH/s for 11 months. AM then operates at 1,000 TH/s for 1 month. AM's lifetime average is then 1330/12 = 110.8. Now for investing purposes, should you treat AM as a 110.8 TH/s or a 1,000 TH/s operation? I hope you can see that you should view AM as a 1,000 TH/s operation. Hope this example helps clear up your misunderstandings.
Well it depends. In your example it operated for 1,000 TH/s for a month and that would be reflect in the slope of the lifetime average.
Day 330 - LTA 30.0 TH/s
Day 331 - LTA 32.9 TH/s
Day 332 - LTA 35.8 TH/s
...
Day 339 - LTA 55.7 TH/s
...
Day 360 - LTA 110.8 TH/s
On the other hand if it operated at 1,000 TH/s for a few hours and then fall back towards 300 TH/s over the course of weeks and then despite recovering from the low it showed difficulty breaking even 500 TH/s. If that was combined with a lack of information from the operator then no I wouldn't consider it a risk free assumption that 1,000 TH/s can be maintained. Before I get accused of FUD I don't think this is likely however it certainly is possible in the sharp decline and lackluster recovery some equipment was damaged and without more hardware the network will NEVER reach its prior peak.
August 26, 2013, 03:10:11 PM
Haha, I love that the guy who wants to "noob proof" the statistics can't understand why the LIFETIME AVERAGE's growth has slowed to a crawl.
The growth rate wouldn't slow to a crawl at ~30TH/s (and even turn negative) if the network was operating consistently at 50 TH/s over the last couple months. A lifetime average asymptotically approaches the short term average. In other words for it to flat line at 30 TH/s instead of 50 TH/s means the network isn't operating (finding blocks) like a 50 TH/s network. You don't find the fact that shareholders own a 50 TH/s network which operates like a 30 TH/s network to be useful? There is a difference between the lifetime average being 30 TH/s and still showing strong growth towards (but never reaching) 50 TH/s and one where the lifetime average stagnated at 30 TH/s and even dipped below its peak.
Please graph a set of points there are a significant number of recent data points at 50 anythings and the lifetime average does not aproach it.
The bolded part is a terrible interpretation of the data. For the most part your statements and logic is correct, but your conclusions are terrible.
Your asymptotic theory is correct, if AM operated at 50 TH/s for a LONG time period, the lifetime average would asymptotically approach 50 TH/s. Just to be clear LIFETIME AVERAGE = (Estimated Hash Rate Based on Blocks Found for the AM's lifetime)/(AM's lifetime)
And just so you don't embarrass yourself further, I will try to help you understand with an example:
AM operates at 30 TH/s for 11 months. AM then operates at 1,000 TH/s for 1 month. AM's lifetime average is then 1330/12 = 110.8. Now for investing purposes, should you treat AM as a 110.8 TH/s or a 1,000 TH/s operation? I hope you can see that you should view AM as a 1,000 TH/s operation. Hope this example helps clear up your misunderstandings.
August 26, 2013, 02:58:23 PM
DeathAndTaxes, as you can see from the graphs the solo rate started out at 8 TH/s, increased to about 30 TH/s halfway through, and has been at ~40-50 TH/s for the last third of the whole period. I'm not talking about an infinite period of 50 TH/s, I'm talking about right now. The hashrate most likely has dropped, as can be seen from the 7-day graph, but probably not down to 30 TH/s.
That is kinda the whole point. The network peaked out (7 day average) at 47 TH/s and then had a long slow decline over the next 10 days down into the low 30s and since then has had trouble breaking past even 40 TH/s and has yet to reach its prior peak. We aren't talking about a one or two day blip but rather the better part of a month where we know the hardware exists yet the network has significantly underperformed the theoretical output.
If you build out a 50 TH/s (theoretical) network and the lifetime average flatlines around 30 TH/s over a signifcant period of time that is a problem. I have confidence freidcat will fix the problem but it doesn't make magically make it not a problem. The lack of growth in the lifetime average towards the theoretical potential of the network (50 TH/s) is telling you the network is "sick". It either gets fixed (I am confident it will) or shares price will reflect that reduced output.
The lifetime average records what miners have been paid on to date. It covers all inefficiencies, luck, time delay in hardware, outages, oprhans, etc. When it shows ~30 TH/s another way of looking at it is to date the shareholders have enjoyed a 30 TH/s effective network. That may change in the future but the lack of growth is troubling.
August 26, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
DeathAndTaxes, as you can see from the graphs the solo rate started out at 8 TH/s, increased to about 30 TH/s halfway through, and has been at ~40-50 TH/s for the last third of the whole period. I'm not talking about an infinite period of 50 TH/s, I'm talking about right now. The hashrate most likely has dropped, as can be seen from the 7-day graph, but probably not down to 30 TH/s.
August 26, 2013, 02:40:55 PM
Haha, I love that the guy who wants to "noob proof" the statistics can't understand why the LIFETIME AVERAGE's growth has slowed to a crawl.
The growth rate wouldn't slow to a crawl at ~30TH/s (and even turn negative) if the network was operating consistently at 50 TH/s over the last couple months. A lifetime average asymptotically approaches the short term average. In other words for it to flat line at 30 TH/s instead of 50 TH/s means the network isn't operating (finding blocks) like a 50 TH/s network. You don't find the fact that shareholders own a 50 TH/s network which operates like a 30 TH/s network to be useful? There is a difference between the lifetime average being 30 TH/s and still showing strong growth towards (but never reaching) 50 TH/s and one where the lifetime average stagnated at 30 TH/s and even dipped below its peak.
Please graph a set of points there are a significant number of recent data points at 50 anythings and the lifetime average does not aproach it.
August 26, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
An all-time average will always slow to a crawl. The longer the period is the less of an impact newly found blocks will have. I included it in my chart in the beginning, when there wasn't enough data for a 7-day average, I'm thinking of removing it now because it isn't very useful.Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
It shouldn't be slowing to a crawl at ~30TH/s when the farm is capable of 50 TH/s. If for the prior month the network operated at exactly 50 TH/s the lifetime rate would asymptotically approach (but never reach) 50 TH/s. When it is going horizontal at 30 TH/s after months of climbing and actually declined (so each day has enough of an effect to reduce the lifetime average) that indicates something is keeping the farm from reaching its theoretical performance. Downtime, outages, orphans, etc, something.
In other words the dividends are based on an effective 30 TH/s farm not a 50 TH/s one. The shares can't pay more dividends (excluding hardware sales) then what are earned and all luck aside the network has to date operated as a 30 TH/s one not a 50 TH/s one.
Note I have faith in friedcat and am still long but to say it has no value is silly. One would expect it to asymptotically approach 50 TH/s. The fact that is hasn't (at least to date) provides insight into the long running efficiency of the network.
August 26, 2013, 02:13:08 PM
my god what is with all the hashrate anxiety. Is this a shackeout of week hands scenario?
August 26, 2013, 01:54:56 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
Haha, I love that the guy who wants to "noob proof" the statistics can't understand why the LIFETIME AVERAGE's growth has slowed to a crawl.
Why not just leave the data and let people draw their own conclusions?
August 26, 2013, 01:24:30 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
An all-time average will always slow to a crawl. The longer the period is the less of an impact newly found blocks will have. I included it in my chart in the beginning, when there wasn't enough data for a 7-day average, I'm thinking of removing it now because it isn't very useful. Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
August 26, 2013, 01:17:00 PM
yeah, I think that Smiguel should just change the counters to 12, 24, 48 and 72(96) hours. We would have less headbangers ITT
3D and 7D averages can be found here in the upper chart www.asicminercharts.com
August 26, 2013, 01:15:41 PM
Unless it drops to zero for 6 hours. There is actually useful and actionable information to be gleaned in such events.
To "noob proof" it maybe just 1 day hashrate and provide the time since last block. I am too lazy to do the math but given that Bitcoin is a poisson distribution one can provide a 95% confidence interval as a sanity check "WARNING time since last block exceeds 95% confidence interval for 50 TH/s".
August 26, 2013, 01:06:58 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
+1
EXACTLY
guys, the 6 hour and 12 hour estimates are almost worthless, just ignore them. They will get your hopes up and/or become your worst nightmares if you let them.
36 hour is better, 48 is even better than that.
Correct, you need to look at 3+ days really, to get a good sense.
Unless it drops to zero for 6 hours. There is actually useful and actionable information to be gleaned in such events.
August 26, 2013, 01:02:41 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
+1
EXACTLY
guys, the 6 hour and 12 hour estimates are almost worthless, just ignore them. They will get your hopes up and/or become your worst nightmares if you let them.
36 hour is better, 48 is even better than that.
Correct, you need to look at 3+ days really, to get a good sense.
August 26, 2013, 12:54:43 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
+1
EXACTLY
guys, the 6 hour and 12 hour estimates are almost worthless, just ignore them. They will get your hopes up and/or become your worst nightmares if you let them.
36 hour is better, 48 is even better than that.
yeah, I think that Smiguel should just change the counters to 12, 24, 48 and 72(96) hours. We would have less headbangers ITT
August 26, 2013, 12:39:14 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining".
ASICMiner historial hashrate average (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined over the last couple weeks. You only get paid on what is actually mined.
+1
EXACTLY
guys, the 6 hour and 12 hour estimates are almost worthless, just ignore them. They will get your hopes up and/or become your worst nightmares if you let them.
36 hour is better, 48 is even better than that.
August 26, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
I think the term is "reversion to the mean".
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
Honestly not sure why the author chose these timeframes because they do nothing but add confusion. A 30 day, 7 day, and 1 day graph would be more useful. Maybe add in a "since last dividend" and "since start of mining" column.
ASICMiner's historical hashrate (all blocks over all time since the start of mining) has only averaged ~30 TH/s. This lifetime average has flatlined (growth slowed to a crawl) over the last couple weeks. Not sure why but, you only get paid on what is actually mined.
August 26, 2013, 12:27:08 PM
hash rate falling!* 
* it's not, don't freak out, this is just to show how fickle that 6-12 hour estimate is.
* it's not, don't freak out, this is just to show how fickle that 6-12 hour estimate is.
Jump to: