are there any updates?
Hey! A spy from the company next door!/kidding
Poor form trolling this thread.
Topic: [BTCT.CO] [IPO-cancelled] BTCGARDEN MINER---Eyes to the horizon - page 14. (Read 198202 times)
August 08, 2013, 02:48:44 PM
/kidding
Poor form trolling this thread.
August 08, 2013, 01:15:42 PM
are there any updates?
Hey! A spy from the company next door!/kidding
Hehe! There is no cool logo of btcGarden what can i do..? ;-)
Are you implying the current logo on http://www.btcgarden.com/ is not cool?
You're not wearing it.
August 08, 2013, 01:09:10 PM
are there any updates?
Hey! A spy from the company next door!/kidding
Hehe! There is no cool logo of btcGarden what can i do..? ;-)
Are you implying the current logo on http://www.btcgarden.com/ is not cool?
August 08, 2013, 12:23:57 PM
are there any updates?
Hey! A spy from the company next door!/kidding
Hehe! There is no cool logo of btcGarden what can i do..? ;-)
If they have a logo will you rock both of them?
August 08, 2013, 12:01:45 PM
are there any updates?
Hey! A spy from the company next door!/kidding
Hehe! There is no cool logo of btcGarden what can i do..? ;-)
August 08, 2013, 12:00:46 PM
are there any updates?
No, they're being "lazy" like us Westerners.
August 08, 2013, 11:42:41 AM
are there any updates?
Hey! A spy from the company next door!/kidding
August 08, 2013, 11:40:50 AM
are there any updates?
August 07, 2013, 11:58:44 PM
With substantial rewards, comes substantial risk. These investments attract people with a high risk tolerance, your FUD will have fallen on deaf ears.
I personally have tripled my initial investment via these risky securities over the past 40 days. I plan on tripling again in the next 40... without risk, those kinds of gains wouldn't be possible.
I personally have tripled my initial investment via these risky securities over the past 40 days. I plan on tripling again in the next 40... without risk, those kinds of gains wouldn't be possible.
August 07, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
Meaning the government will likely confiscate anything that remains if they bail with the money and "investors" will get nothing
Where did that come from? The government will return any assets they recover to the investors, that's obviously what they'll do in the Pirateat40 case.
Anyway neither the SEC nor any other branch of the US government has any control over what happens outside of the U.S.
Quote
BTCGARDEN & LABCOIN appear to be in China for that matter so is ASICminer which doesn't engender any more trust either.
Sure, the companies could all run off with the money. It's certainly a risk you run. My only point was comparing BTCGarden, Labcoin and ASICMiner, which are all in China and structured the same way.
August 07, 2013, 11:38:02 PM
Meaning the government will likely confiscate anything that remains if they bail with the money and "investors" will get nothing
Where did that come from? The government will return any assets they recover to the investors, that's obviously what they'll do in the Pirateat40 case.
Anyway neither the SEC nor any other branch of the US government has any control over what happens outside of the U.S.
Quote
BTCGARDEN & LABCOIN appear to be in China for that matter so is ASICminer which doesn't engender any more trust either.
Sure, the companies could all run off with the money. It's certainly a risk you run. My only point was comparing BTCGarden, Labcoin and ASICMiner, which are all in China and structured the same way.
August 07, 2013, 11:27:05 PM
The problem is none of these "investments" are likely to even be legal much less secured by assets in any way shape or form. I don't know about rest of the world but in the US see below.
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/06/Bitcoin.pdf
That means all of these "investments" are unregistered securities and the SEC just had them ruled as such. Meaning the government will likely confiscate anything that remains if they bail with the money and "investors" will get nothing, not even the hardware you paid for with your investment. BTCGARDEN & LABCOIN appear to be in China for that matter so is ASICminer which doesn't engender any more trust either.
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/06/Bitcoin.pdf
That means all of these "investments" are unregistered securities and the SEC just had them ruled as such. Meaning the government will likely confiscate anything that remains if they bail with the money and "investors" will get nothing, not even the hardware you paid for with your investment. BTCGARDEN & LABCOIN appear to be in China for that matter so is ASICminer which doesn't engender any more trust either.
August 07, 2013, 10:54:46 PM
Sigh ... sorry to keep repeating this, but ASICMiner have a high share price because they have mined thousands of coins every week and given that back as profit to shareholders.
So far, LabCoin and BitGarden have produced exactly zero coins between them. Of course their shares are cheaper, its called the real world difference!!
So far, LabCoin and BitGarden have produced exactly zero coins between them. Of course their shares are cheaper, its called the real world difference!!
August 07, 2013, 10:47:21 PM
Welcome to Asicminer. Makes me want to buy some shares.
Labcoin and BTCGarden just IPO'd have the same business model, you can get much cheaper shares in them then ASICMiner. (0.0014 and 0.015 btc/share right now). Of course, there's the question of whether or not their chips will work, and whether or not their devices will function properly. But right now their market caps are about $1.9m and $3.2m, compared to $127m
Does ASICMiner have a 28nm chip in the pipeline? If not, they may have trouble keeping up over the "long" term, depending on how many units KnC, Cointerra and HashFast ship.
August 07, 2013, 08:43:46 PM
That's interesting. Must think a bit more about that. What I meant was that even if one company had over 50% they would find it unprofitable to double spend in the real world situations and risk a huge value decline if it got discovered but instead simply disguise their hash rate and keep on printing money. Getting back to your statement wouldn't it still be profitable to mine even 99% as long as your asset costs and electricity costs were less then fiat value of coins mined?
I suppose it would be, but it would definitely make more sense to just sell chips at that point.
If you have 50% of the network, and double your hash power, you would cause the difficulty to go up 50%. So instead of doubling your revenue, you go from 50% of the network to 66.6% of the network. Only a 16% point increase in your network share, and a 33% increase in profit for twice the cost.
If you have 50% of the network and triple your hash power, you would double the difficulty, and have 75%. That means you tripped your costs, and your share of the network only goes up 25 points, your total profits go up 50%.
On the other hand, if you sell chips you'll be able to make money off people who would have less knowledge about how quickly the network hash-rate will go up.
Welcome to Asicminer. Makes me want to buy some shares.
August 07, 2013, 08:06:42 PM
That's interesting. Must think a bit more about that. What I meant was that even if one company had over 50% they would find it unprofitable to double spend in the real world situations and risk a huge value decline if it got discovered but instead simply disguise their hash rate and keep on printing money. Getting back to your statement wouldn't it still be profitable to mine even 99% as long as your asset costs and electricity costs were less then fiat value of coins mined?
I suppose it would be, but it would definitely make more sense to just sell chips at that point.
...and the chips you sell do what? Sit on the shelf somewhere, or do the buyers, you know... mine with them? [for those who don't get sarcasm the answer is yes. The chips you sell mine & increase difficulty no matter who mines with them. Duh.]
Quote
If you have 50% of the network, and double your hash power, you would cause the difficulty to go up 50%. So instead of doubling your revenue, you go from 50% of the network to 66.6% of the network. Only a 16% point increase in your network share, and a 33% increase in profit for twice the cost.
If you have 50% of the network and triple your hash power, you would double the difficulty, and have 75%. That means you tripped your costs, and your share of the network only goes up 25 points, your total profits go up 50%.
On the other hand, if you sell chips you'll be able to make money off people who would have less knowledge about how quickly the network hash-rate will go up.
If you have 50% of the network and triple your hash power, you would double the difficulty, and have 75%. That means you tripped your costs, and your share of the network only goes up 25 points, your total profits go up 50%.
On the other hand, if you sell chips you'll be able to make money off people who would have less knowledge about how quickly the network hash-rate will go up.
EDIT: Sell chips when mining with them yourself is not profitable. OTOH if it's not profitable for you, it's not profitable for the buyer. Dinowithclawatchin.gif
Thats why you SELL them to people. SELL ..
August 07, 2013, 07:52:16 PM
That's interesting. Must think a bit more about that. What I meant was that even if one company had over 50% they would find it unprofitable to double spend in the real world situations and risk a huge value decline if it got discovered but instead simply disguise their hash rate and keep on printing money. Getting back to your statement wouldn't it still be profitable to mine even 99% as long as your asset costs and electricity costs were less then fiat value of coins mined?
I suppose it would be, but it would definitely make more sense to just sell chips at that point.
...and the chips you sell do what? Sit on the shelf somewhere, or do the buyers, you know... mine with them? [for those who don't get sarcasm the answer is yes. The chips you sell mine & increase difficulty no matter who mines with them. Duh.]
Quote
If you have 50% of the network, and double your hash power, you would cause the difficulty to go up 50%. So instead of doubling your revenue, you go from 50% of the network to 66.6% of the network. Only a 16% point increase in your network share, and a 33% increase in profit for twice the cost.
If you have 50% of the network and triple your hash power, you would double the difficulty, and have 75%. That means you tripped your costs, and your share of the network only goes up 25 points, your total profits go up 50%.
On the other hand, if you sell chips you'll be able to make money off people who would have less knowledge about how quickly the network hash-rate will go up.
If you have 50% of the network and triple your hash power, you would double the difficulty, and have 75%. That means you tripped your costs, and your share of the network only goes up 25 points, your total profits go up 50%.
On the other hand, if you sell chips you'll be able to make money off people who would have less knowledge about how quickly the network hash-rate will go up.
EDIT: Sell chips when mining with them yourself is not profitable. OTOH if it's not profitable for you, it's not profitable for the buyer. Dinowithclawatchin.gif
August 07, 2013, 07:40:41 PM
That's interesting. Must think a bit more about that. What I meant was that even if one company had over 50% they would find it unprofitable to double spend in the real world situations and risk a huge value decline if it got discovered but instead simply disguise their hash rate and keep on printing money. Getting back to your statement wouldn't it still be profitable to mine even 99% as long as your asset costs and electricity costs were less then fiat value of coins mined?
I suppose it would be, but it would definitely make more sense to just sell chips at that point.
If you have 50% of the network, and double your hash power, you would cause the difficulty to go up 50%. So instead of doubling your revenue, you go from 50% of the network to 66.6% of the network. Only a 16% point increase in your network share, and a 33% increase in profit for twice the cost.
If you have 50% of the network and triple your hash power, you would double the difficulty, and have 75%. That means you tripped your costs, and your share of the network only goes up 25 points, your total profits go up 50%.
On the other hand, if you sell chips you'll be able to make money off people who would have less knowledge about how quickly the network hash-rate will go up.
August 07, 2013, 07:32:49 PM
command of chinese language seems more important than anything else at the moment -
谷歌翻译是你的朋友，朋友。无论如何，LABCOIN将拥有BTCGARDEN的归根到底
After all, any one company can only control ~35%-~40% or it becomes self defeating.
Thoughts?
It only becomes self defeating if the community knows about it. Otherwise a single company could mine 99% and as long as they don't double spend you'd be none the wiser.Thoughts?
No, the problem is as you increase your percentage, you decrease the amount of profit you make, because you cause more and more of the difficulty. If you own 99% of the network, then you cause 99% of the difficulty. Adding more capacity would mostly only increase the difficulty without increasing your profits at all.
August 07, 2013, 07:17:02 PM
What worries me the most is the lack of testing before mass production, they skip an entire phase in IC development life cycle.
It may either be an overconfidence or a gamble. I am not a hardware expert and I don't know how simple the design of a SHA256 chip could be, but without testing...really? Even simple HelloWorld programs could go wrong without testing... Does the time saved justify the much elevated risk?
It would be wise to sideline and wait for the result of their test run before buying, they have yet to provide any evidence of their chips working, the enormous risk taken now is more like a gamble than an investment.
It may either be an overconfidence or a gamble. I am not a hardware expert and I don't know how simple the design of a SHA256 chip could be, but without testing...really? Even simple HelloWorld programs could go wrong without testing... Does the time saved justify the much elevated risk?
It would be wise to sideline and wait for the result of their test run before buying, they have yet to provide any evidence of their chips working, the enormous risk taken now is more like a gamble than an investment.
Same with KnC, HashFast and Cointerra. Skipping testing is the new normal. Only Labcoin has a testphase in their plans.
Jump to: