Topic: ASICMINER Speculation Thread - page 50. (Read 808847 times)
So somehow despite AM producing hardware whose specs will be highly competitive with all other hardware produced, and despite a proven track record of being able to actually ship hardware/chips, AM will not capture 5% of the mining business profits. If you believe your "mathematical proof" proves that, then please short away at the stock.
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?
As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.
I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.
You are saying that as difficulty increases and hashrate stays constant that dividends from mining will decrease. We all know this.
The part that is debatable is how AM will expand. Maybe AM will increase solomining hashrate every week to match difficulty increases. Or maybe AM decides to just sell a shitload of hardware.
If AM sells 20ph and decides to do literally nothing after that then you are right and AM is not worth more than 0.5btc/share
I repeat (without the mistakes this time):
Let say the network hash rate was 250 Ph/s and AM controlled 5% of the network, netting around 2,520 BTC per round. That 5% would represent 12.5 Ph/s. If the network hash rate increases by 20% that round, that would take the network hash rate to 300 Ph/s. In order for AM to maintain their network share, AM would need to add 2.5 Ph/s by the end of that round. In order to maintain their hash rate, the following hash power would need to be brought online by the end of each round:
Round 1 = 2.5 Ph/s
Round 2 = 3 Ph/s
Round 3 = 3.6 Ph/s
Round 4 = 4.32 Ph/s
Round 5 = 5.184 Ph/s
Round 6 = 6.2208 Ph/s
If they got 20 Ph/s, 12.5 Ph/s would be needed to control 5% of the network, leaving 7.5 Ph/s for sales and maintaining the network share until a new batch of chips arrived. The first 3 rounds require more than 9.1 Ph/s to be brought online to maintain 5%.
How is possible to bring 9.5 Ph/s online if there is only 7.5 Ph/s available?
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that?
You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.
Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.
For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.
I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.
Because every time your bullshit math has been disproven you create more bullshit calculations next week. A week ago you were telling us that am would have 100th/s by april so we should all base our evaluations off that..
I was assuming the current hash rate to be 100 Th/s and that new chips would arrive in April in order to show what mining income will drop to before the new chips come online.
As others have said 5% = 0.5/share
AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.
AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.
If AM have 20 Ph/s, they do not have the ability to maintain a 5% network share if the network hash rate is 250 Ph/s. That is easy to prove mathematically and I have done so.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the words you are actually reading.
20ph of a 250ph network is more than 5%. Increasing hashrate to match difficulty change means AM can maintain more than 5%.
I now know that you aren't interested in having a discussion and instead just bashing AM so ill do what apparently a large portion of other users have done which is click the yellow ignore button next to your name.
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that?
You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.
Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.
For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.
I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.
Because every time your bullshit math has been disproven you create more bullshit calculations next week. A week ago you were telling us that am would have 100th/s by april so we should all base our evaluations off that..
I was assuming the current hash rate to be 100 Th/s and that new chips would arrive in April in order to show what mining income will drop to before the new chips come online.
As others have said 5% = 0.5/share
AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.
AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.
If AM have 20 Ph/s, they do not have the ability to maintain a 5% network share if the network hash rate is 250 Ph/s. That is easy to prove mathematically and I have done so.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the words you are actually reading.
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?
As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.
I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.
You are saying that as difficulty increases and hashrate stays constant that dividends from mining will decrease. We all know this.
The part that is debatable is how AM will expand. Maybe AM will increase solomining hashrate every week to match difficulty increases. Or maybe AM decides to just sell a shitload of hardware.
If AM sells 20ph and decides to do literally nothing after that then you are right and AM is not worth more than 0.5btc/share
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?
As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.I've no idea what you tried to say with those first 2 sentences.
I've shown you mathematical proof that if the network hashrate was 250 Ph/s and AM had 5% of it, then they could not possibly maintain that 5% network share for several months if they only had 20 Ph/s (batch 1 is supposed to be between 2 Ph/s and 20 Ph/s.
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that?
You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.
Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.
For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.
I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.
Because every time your bullshit math has been disproven you create more bullshit calculations next week. A week ago you were telling us that am would have 100th/s by april so we should all base our evaluations off that..
As others have said 5% = 0.5/share
AM has the ability to maintain the hashrate because its chips (according to software estimations) will compete with everything else being sold in 2014. No amount of calculations will "prove" AM's ability to maintain the network either way. Nobody knows the future difficulty/hardware sales/competition but out of all the competition AM and KNC are looking like the most probable asic arms race winners.
Quote from: Mabsark
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces nonsense I just made up, no I don't. Do you?
FTFY
And yes we do believe AM can maintain 5+% global hashrate or we wouldn't be investing.
Seriously your calculations are garbage and unrealistic.
Prove it then.
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that?
You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.
Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.
For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.
I've shown my maths, why won't you show yours? If you think my maths is bullshit and my assumptions are false, then show them to be so. Anyone can claim any old rubbish.
Quote from: Mabsark
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces nonsense I just made up, no I don't. Do you?
FTFY
And yes we do believe AM can maintain 5+% global hashrate or we wouldn't be investing.
Seriously your calculations are garbage and unrealistic.
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months?
As I've said several times now, I do NOT care about AM hash share. I care about how much of the BTC mining profit share AM has. Do I think they will have 5% of that? No, based on the specs of their gen3 and past track record of actually getting hardware to market, I think they will have more than 5%.I ignored it because, as I said, I don't care what AM's share of the network is. I care what AM's share of the mining profit pool is. Trust me, I fully understand the nature of increased difficulty and how that impacts mining profits.
I think gen3 will (based on its specs) set them on the trajectory for owning 5%+ of that pool for a foreseeable amount of time (again, foreseeable for me is several months). If you agree with that, then that equates to a 54% annual dividend rate. I don't care if that dividend comes from AM selling chips/miners in batches or if it comes over a 12 month period of self mining. If AM shows that it is on a trajectory to get 5% or more of that mining profits for a reasonable amount of time, then it is way undervalued. You don't think they will apparently, even with gen3, which is fine. In a few months we'll see what happens.
I think gen3 will (based on its specs) set them on the trajectory for owning 5%+ of that pool for a foreseeable amount of time (again, foreseeable for me is several months). If you agree with that, then that equates to a 54% annual dividend rate. I don't care if that dividend comes from AM selling chips/miners in batches or if it comes over a 12 month period of self mining. If AM shows that it is on a trajectory to get 5% or more of that mining profits for a reasonable amount of time, then it is way undervalued. You don't think they will apparently, even with gen3, which is fine. In a few months we'll see what happens.
Let say the network hash rate was 250 PH/s and AM controlled 5% of the network, netting around 2,520 BTC per round. That 5% would represent 12.5 Th/s. If the network hash rate increases by 20% that round, that would take the network hash rate to 300 Th/s. In order for AM to maintain their network share, AM would need to add 2.5 Ph/s by the end of that round. In order to maintain their hash rate, the following hash power would need to be brought online by the end of each round:
Round 1 = 2.5 Ph/s
Round 2 = 3 Ph/s
Round 3 = 3.6 Ph/s
Round 4 = 4.32 Ph/s
Round 5 = 5.184 Ph/s
Round 6 = 6.2208 Ph/s
If they got 20 Ph/s, 12.5 Th/s would be needed to control 5% of the network, leaving 7 Ph/s for sales and maintaining the network share until a new batch of chips arrived.
Do I agree that AM can maintain 5% for several months? Based on the available information and the maths it produces, no I don't. Do you?
Years? If AM pulls through with <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost in the next few months (and if that is competitive with other companies, which I think it will be) then share price will be over 0.5 BTC in months, not years.
What maths lead you to believe that?
You seem to be viewing AM as a pure mining dividend play, which it isn't. AM != cex.io.
No, I just understand that AM cannot compete against everyone else combined. The overall result of that is a declining network share, regardless of the fact that the hash rate might actually be increasing.
Why do you come to this thread so often with bullshit math and false assumptions attempting to create fud? I can understand now why you have a yellow ignore button.
For anyone who is interested in a serious evaluation ignore mabsark and do your own calculations. Mine led me to believe that if AM can achieve 10%, as was the previous goal, each share would be worth at least 1btc a piece at 30% apr.
I ignored it because, as I said, I don't care what AM's share of the network is. I care what AM's share of the mining profit pool is. Trust me, I fully understand the nature of increased difficulty and how that impacts mining profits.
I think gen3 will (based on its specs) set them on the trajectory for owning 5%+ of that pool for a foreseeable amount of time (again, foreseeable for me is several months). If you agree with that, then that equates to a 54% annual dividend rate. I don't care if that dividend comes from AM selling chips/miners in batches or if it comes over a 12 month period of self mining. If AM shows that it is on a trajectory to get 5% or more of that mining profits for a reasonable amount of time, then it is way undervalued. You don't think they will apparently, even with gen3, which is fine. In a few months we'll see what happens.
I think gen3 will (based on its specs) set them on the trajectory for owning 5%+ of that pool for a foreseeable amount of time (again, foreseeable for me is several months). If you agree with that, then that equates to a 54% annual dividend rate. I don't care if that dividend comes from AM selling chips/miners in batches or if it comes over a 12 month period of self mining. If AM shows that it is on a trajectory to get 5% or more of that mining profits for a reasonable amount of time, then it is way undervalued. You don't think they will apparently, even with gen3, which is fine. In a few months we'll see what happens.
Why in the world would AM sell 20P (first batch) and then stop manufacturing/selling additional batches? Do you think gen3 AM is going to only be profitable for a single batch or something, or you think it is going to take them several months to cook up another batch?
Note AM is still selling gen1 cubes at a profit, albeit a small and decreasing one.
Also note I don't care what AM share of the network is. I don't care if they don't self mine at all. I care that they maximize profit.
Note AM is still selling gen1 cubes at a profit, albeit a small and decreasing one.
Also note I don't care what AM share of the network is. I don't care if they don't self mine at all. I care that they maximize profit.
You brought up the selling of 20 Ph/s. I just explained what would happen if they did that. Also, you ignored the important part of my post:
Let's say AM got 10% of the network after using all their chips and that the difficulty is increasing 20% per round. Let's also say that it takes 3 months before AM have a new batch of miners which take it back up to 10%. What will AM's share of the network be after 3 months, just before the new miners come online?
The reason you should answer this question is because it will show you how the divs will decrease between batches under those circumstances and it will answer your questions from the first paragraph.
Why in the world would AM sell 20P (first batch) and then stop manufacturing/selling additional batches? Do you think gen3 AM is going to only be profitable for a single batch or something, or you think it is going to take them several months to cook up another batch?
Note AM is still selling gen1 cubes at a profit, albeit a small and decreasing one.
Also note I don't care what AM share of the network is. I don't care if they don't self mine at all. I care that they maximize profit.
Note AM is still selling gen1 cubes at a profit, albeit a small and decreasing one.
Also note I don't care what AM share of the network is. I don't care if they don't self mine at all. I care that they maximize profit.
I don't think gen3 will be able to maintain a constant network share, but neither does it have to. I do think that gen3 will put AM on the trajectory to own 5%+ (perhaps much more) of the mining profit pool for the foreseeable future. Foreseeable being several months, which is all that matters -- after that we all need crystal balls in regards to gen4+ hardware.
I repeat:
Let's say AM got 10% of the network after using all their chips and that the difficulty is increasing 20% per round. Let's also say that it takes 3 months before AM have a new batch of miners which take it back up to 10%. What will AM's share of the network be after 3 months, just before the new miners come online?
Time will tell. You seem quite surprised at the recent AM price increase and are looking for explanations / reasons, but you want to dismiss them all. Do you really think that if, in a few months, AM can sell 20P of miners in a few week period (for just the first deployment of gen3) the stock price is going to be around 0.3 BTC as all those dividends come flowing in every week?
If AM sold 20 Ph/s of chips, what would they mine with? You don't seem to understand that they have a finite amount of hardware which needs to be split between mining and sales. So, in your scenario, they sell 20 Ph/s and gives are great for the first few weeks. Then the sales money is all distributed and the next divs are from mining alone, which would be on gen 1 chips because all the gen 3 chips were sold. As I pointed out earlier in the thread:
Looking at the genesis block, the network hash rate will be 132.6 Ph/s on 14th April. If AM had 100 Th/s at that time then:
* AM would have 0.1 * 100 / 132.6 = 0.075% of the network hash rate.
* With 50,400 BTC mined per round, AM would get 37.8 BTC per round.
* With 37.8 BTC mined per round by AM, that would equate to 0.0000945 BTC per round per share
* AM would have 0.1 * 100 / 132.6 = 0.075% of the network hash rate.
* With 50,400 BTC mined per round, AM would get 37.8 BTC per round.
* With 37.8 BTC mined per round by AM, that would equate to 0.0000945 BTC per round per share
What do you think the share price would fall to when the divs took a massive nosedive to about 0.000005 BTC and continued to decline at the rate of network growth?
Do you really think 268PH is reasonable by May?
Doesn't sound reasonable to me based on manufacturers delivering hardware.
We will also be beyond "Prosumer" level devices by that time and into "commercial" or "industrial" designs and power requirements. The number of hobbyist customers will be much less and the number of businesses/industrial miners will grow.
It's one thing to mine at a small loss as a hobbyist, but I don't believe business models will not allow for this loss leading behaviour on such a large scale. Large capital investments in more and more powerful hardware demands annual returns, not losses.
Doesn't sound reasonable to me based on manufacturers delivering hardware.
We will also be beyond "Prosumer" level devices by that time and into "commercial" or "industrial" designs and power requirements. The number of hobbyist customers will be much less and the number of businesses/industrial miners will grow.
It's one thing to mine at a small loss as a hobbyist, but I don't believe business models will not allow for this loss leading behaviour on such a large scale. Large capital investments in more and more powerful hardware demands annual returns, not losses.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the hash rate was that high.
I don't think gen3 will be able to maintain a constant network share, but neither does it have to. I do think that gen3 will put AM on the trajectory to own 5%+ (perhaps much more) of the mining profit pool for the foreseeable future. Foreseeable being several months, which is all that matters -- after that we all need crystal balls in regards to gen4+ hardware.
Time will tell. You seem quite surprised at the recent AM price increase and are looking for explanations / reasons, but you want to dismiss them all. Do you really think that if, in a few months, AM can sell 20P of miners in a few week period (for just the first deployment of gen3) the stock price is going to be around 0.3 BTC as all those dividends come flowing in every week?
Time will tell. You seem quite surprised at the recent AM price increase and are looking for explanations / reasons, but you want to dismiss them all. Do you really think that if, in a few months, AM can sell 20P of miners in a few week period (for just the first deployment of gen3) the stock price is going to be around 0.3 BTC as all those dividends come flowing in every week?
There will be over 1.3 million BTC mined over the 12 month period. Actually more since blocks will be found on average every 8 to 9 minutes instead of every 10 minutes. Consumer mining companies thus far have been able to sell hardware at a higher profit than self mining (more profit in selling shovels, etc.), but profit margins will be decreasing. So let's leave 1.3 million BTC as the profit amount.
If AM produces <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost then what share of the 1.3 million BTC pie do you think they will get? Multiply that percentage by 1.3 mil BTC / 400,000 and you get your dividend amount from AM. Say AM captures 5% of the mining profits, that will be 0.1625 BTC, or a 54% total dividend at a share price of 0.30 BTC. If they capture 12% of the mining profits, then that is a 130% dividend.
Can AM really capture 5%+ of the profit over a 12 month period? Maybe, maybe not. But I think if their gen 3 showing meets their goals then they will have the correct trajectory to, at least for the first few months, capture higher than that. No way the share price is going to stay around 0.3 BTC if that happens.
If AM produces <0.2W per G and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost then what share of the 1.3 million BTC pie do you think they will get? Multiply that percentage by 1.3 mil BTC / 400,000 and you get your dividend amount from AM. Say AM captures 5% of the mining profits, that will be 0.1625 BTC, or a 54% total dividend at a share price of 0.30 BTC. If they capture 12% of the mining profits, then that is a 130% dividend.
Can AM really capture 5%+ of the profit over a 12 month period? Maybe, maybe not. But I think if their gen 3 showing meets their goals then they will have the correct trajectory to, at least for the first few months, capture higher than that. No way the share price is going to stay around 0.3 BTC if that happens.
The mistake you are making is that you are assuming that they can maintain network share. That's completely unrealistic for the reasons mentioned previously. Just like AM couldn't maintain network share with gen 1, neither will they be able to so with their next gen chips for the same reason. The difference this time is that the competition is far greater, meaning less profit for AM and less divs for shareholders.
Let's say AM got 10% of the network after using all their chips and that the difficulty is increasing 20% per round. Let's also say that it takes 3 months before AM have a new batch of miners which take it back up to 10%. What will AM's share of the network be after 3 months, just before the new miners come online?
Jump to: