In your spreadsheet, on the model assumptions page:
With the starting difficulty you use, (3.02B), the amount mined in 14 days is 2.33 mBTC per GHash/s, not 3.93 mBTC per GHash/s as it is listed in your sheet. With increasing difficulty, the time between difficulty adjustments goes down. With a 14% increase as your model uses, it's 12.28 days between increases. This reduces the amount mined in the initial cycle to 2.04 mBTC per GHash/s.
However, an assumption of a difficulty increase of just 14% is absurd. Since june last year, the difficulty increase has never been lower than 19%, often going over 25% or 30%.
You're painting a far prettier picture than what reality will show. Redo the math.
IncorrectWith the starting difficulty you use, (3.02B), the amount mined in 14 days is 2.33 mBTC per GHash/s, not 3.93 mBTC per GHash/s as it is listed in your sheet. With increasing difficulty, the time between difficulty adjustments goes down. With a 14% increase as your model uses, it's 12.28 days between increases. This reduces the amount mined in the initial cycle to 2.04 mBTC per GHash/s.
However, an assumption of a difficulty increase of just 14% is absurd. Since june last year, the difficulty increase has never been lower than 19%, often going over 25% or 30%.
You're painting a far prettier picture than what reality will show. Redo the math.
Date Difficulty Change Hash Rate
Nov 29 2013 707,408,283 16.07% 5,063,826 GH/s (up from 4,362,847 GH/s last)
I do agree with you that using 14% in a models is way to low, 25-30% is probably a good assumption for the shorter time period and maby 20% is a good number to use then after KnC has send out there new batch and after CoinTerra has delivered most of there TerraMiner IV miners.
Oh, I overlooked that one. Regardless, the main message that 14% is too low an estimate is still correct.
