At the moment, shipment date is the most important factor for an ASIC mining device. I have more trust that Tom will start shiping in 4-6 weeks than that his competitor will ship in 2-4 weeks.
My current expectation is that no customer will mine at 50 BTC per block and that bASIC will be the first device to hit the market.
Tom, is your estimated shipment date for the first batch (week after Thanksgiving) still valid?
Topic: High Efficiency FPGA & ASIC Bitcoin Mining Devices https://BTCFPGA.com - page 38. (Read 218473 times)
October 19, 2012, 04:28:14 AM
October 19, 2012, 04:15:05 AM
Power usage is *everything* when it comes to ASIC. If you think it's not, you have no grasp on the economics of mining.
Please explain your economics of mining. By my calculations power usage at this order of magnitude is pretty much irrelevant compared to price.Take a BFL Single, 60 Ghash/s, 60 W. The miner costs 1299 USD and will use 1.44 kW/day. 14.4 cents a day at 0.10 USD/kWh. You can run this miner 24/7 for almost 25 years before you have spent the same amount for power to run the device that you paid for the device itself! There may even be better miners to buy at a lower price in 2037, making it obsolete before the owner has spent more on power to run it than on the device itself. If the device is still working. (How long is your warranty and what is the expected lifetime of a BFL Single, btw?) Hardly anyone will ever pay more for the power to run the miner through it's lifetime than they did for the miner itself.
My simple math shows that power usage is almost irrelevant for an ASIC miner. Price per Ghash produced throughout the miners lifetime will almost certainly always be dominated by the initial investment, not power consumption. Price per Ghash/s is the important factor.
Is my math wrong?
October 19, 2012, 04:09:22 AM
Trolling from Inaba aside.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
+1
October 19, 2012, 04:06:56 AM
Cablepair, I suggest you to accept the bet.
-he will troll your thread anyway
-you simply have to release some very generic specs (like 1000W +- 99.995% per GH/s)
-it's simple money for you
-he will troll your thread anyway
-you simply have to release some very generic specs (like 1000W +- 99.995% per GH/s)
-it's simple money for you
October 19, 2012, 02:56:15 AM
Trolling from Inaba aside.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
+1
October 19, 2012, 02:43:47 AM
Wow, Tom! I appreciate your generous offer of free money and I am absolutely delighted to take that bet from you with regards to the accuracy of our respective power estimates (I'll even send you a condolences cake with the proceeds).
However there's a few caveats, which I'm sure you'll agree do not alter the intent of the bet at all:
I will wager that what I've said is true about BFL's power efficiency if you wager that what you've said about your power efficiency is true as well. You've said that your power will be "competitive." To commence this bet, you will need to define "competitive." How many factor increase in power consumption is considered "competitive" against ours? Twice the power usage? Three times? Four? Is that still "competitive?" What happens if you're 6x as power hungry as our device? Do you lose the bet then? I want to know what you mean by competitive, and until you define that, well... I can't bet on it.
Honestly though, after you calling me out in your thread, calling me a liar about our power... I want to know why you aren't being honest and open about what you expect your power to be. It's simply not credible to say you don't know what your estimates are. Even if you really have no idea at all, how can you then promise it'll be competitive?
Also, the last caveat is that I will not stay out of your thread. You've been... shall we say... less than truthful about a number of things in your thread and I will be here to call BS when it's required. But you define competitive and release the stipulation that I stay out of your thread and you've got a bet, cowboy! I will absolutely wager 1000 BTC against your 1000 BTC any day of the week.
However there's a few caveats, which I'm sure you'll agree do not alter the intent of the bet at all:
I will wager that what I've said is true about BFL's power efficiency if you wager that what you've said about your power efficiency is true as well. You've said that your power will be "competitive." To commence this bet, you will need to define "competitive." How many factor increase in power consumption is considered "competitive" against ours? Twice the power usage? Three times? Four? Is that still "competitive?" What happens if you're 6x as power hungry as our device? Do you lose the bet then? I want to know what you mean by competitive, and until you define that, well... I can't bet on it.
Honestly though, after you calling me out in your thread, calling me a liar about our power... I want to know why you aren't being honest and open about what you expect your power to be. It's simply not credible to say you don't know what your estimates are. Even if you really have no idea at all, how can you then promise it'll be competitive?
Also, the last caveat is that I will not stay out of your thread. You've been... shall we say... less than truthful about a number of things in your thread and I will be here to call BS when it's required. But you define competitive and release the stipulation that I stay out of your thread and you've got a bet, cowboy! I will absolutely wager 1000 BTC against your 1000 BTC any day of the week.
Let me put it this way. You refuse an easy 1000 BTC win (per your words) because you disagree on minor details like voluntarily leaving this thread? Wow.
October 19, 2012, 02:24:40 AM
Trolling from Inaba aside.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
Tom's transparency and track record with the MMQ made it an easy choice for me.
When BFL FPGA Singles hit the market I was considering to order a few but hesitated as my GPU's were making me quite a nice profit,
after hearing about the extremly long shipping time at the beginning I decided against it.
Now with ASIC's hitting the market it was an all-in or GTFO decision for me.
Suffice to say, bASIC's were the clear choice.
Better track record, active involvment of the community, supreme customer service and a friendly go-to guy.
I couldn't care less about power consumption up there, I personally expect Tom will ship before or atleast at the same time with BFL
and as someone mentioned, with ASIC's launching time is what counts.
just my 2 satoshis,
have a nice day, props to you Tom, even tough this thread gets derailed and trolled every so often, you're representing a business in a forum how it should be done.
October 19, 2012, 02:05:56 AM
I would award inaba a "premium troller" tag.
October 19, 2012, 01:03:42 AM
1) When BFL's line of ASIC's hit the wild they must not consume more than 1.1 watt of electricity per 1Gh/s of Bitcoin mining speed, and according to everything you are telling us 1.1 watts per 1Gh/s is the most electricity they will use.
2) You will no longer post in my thread, if you post in my thread again you automatically lose the bet.
2) You will no longer post in my thread, if you post in my thread again you automatically lose the bet.
Now things get interesting.
I would recommend to set an end date when the BFL ASICs have to be delivered (this year in larger quantity?). If they hit the wild in two years this 1.1W/GH/s might be no problem anymore.
Josh, it's your turn - words or money?
BTW two weeks until BFL mass shipments (end of Oct / beginning of Nov), so the first devices are already on your table. That should be save money. Or it's not that save which means no device on the table and no mass shippments within two weeks...
October 19, 2012, 12:47:37 AM
1) When BFL's line of ASIC's hit the wild they must not consume more than 1.1 watt of electricity per 1Gh/s of Bitcoin mining speed, and according to everything you are telling us 1.1 watts per 1Gh/s is the most electricity they will use.
2) You will no longer post in my thread, if you post in my thread again you automatically lose the bet.
2) You will no longer post in my thread, if you post in my thread again you automatically lose the bet.
Now things get interesting.
I would recommend to set an end date when the BFL ASICs have to be delivered (this year in larger quantity?). If they hit the wild in two years this 1.1W/GH/s might be no problem anymore.
Josh, it's your turn - words or money?
BTW two weeks until BFL mass shipments (end of Oct / beginning of Nov), so the first devices are already on your table. That should be save money. Or it's not that save which means no device on the table and no mass shippments within two weeks...
October 19, 2012, 12:37:24 AM
For the time being at least power consumption is most definitely NOT the most important aspect to consider when shopping for an ASIC device. Arrival date is. If you receive your ASIC just 30 days later than anticipated your most profitable mining opportunity will likely be lost and it will not matter if your device consumes 50% of the power of a competing product that shipped on schedule.
This I can agree with!
Power usage is *everything* when it comes to ASIC.
Make up your mind.
Fact is that fixed cost and cost of operation (power efficiency) are both factors for ROI. The most important aspect is that the device is capable of achieving break-even. Early asics will have a better mining efficiency due to lower difficulty. Also, ASICS with low power efficiency can be sold off after the break-even point to people with low or no power costs. There will certainly be a market for that.
October 19, 2012, 12:30:16 AM
How do you get that out of what I said? CPU->GPU->FPGA->ASIC->
?
Well, I don't intend to mine with first gen hardware for very long. I thought most users would be replacing the first gen hardware by selling it off to other interested parties. Buying up newer hardware would then be relatively cheap when going from first to second gen. ?Of course this would likely create a Gray Market that wouldn't involve any of the ASIC manufacturers.
I see there is still plenty of ideas to be innovated through. Perhaps multi-core ASIC chips with more than one viable cryptocurrency.
------------------------------
From what you've said though, it almost sounds like you think most of your customer base would stay with first gen devices for the duration of it's useful life. Sure, denying others easy access to discounted hardware through a Gray Market would probably be profitable. (Both for miners and ASIC vendors)
But....there is no guarantee you would keep your prices high enough to prevent new miners from entering into the fray. (Like the "Little Single SC")
I guess we may have to ask you to give the community a heads up when you decide to do the next round of "price chopping"?
-------------------------------
By the way,
Can I get you "on the record" stating that the "Little Single SC" wasn't derived from re-flashing of 40GH/s spec'ed hardware? I have this notion that you might have underclocked hardware from the original 40GH/s spec to make the Little Single SC series.
I would like to know if this untrue or not.
Do all "Little Single SC" come with 4 or 8 chips? (Or is it mixed lots?)
October 19, 2012, 12:24:40 AM
For the time being at least power consumption is most definitely NOT the most important aspect to consider when shopping for an ASIC device. Arrival date is. If you receive your ASIC just 30 days later than anticipated your most profitable mining opportunity will likely be lost and it will not matter if your device consumes 50% of the power of a competing product that shipped on schedule.
This I can agree with!
Power usage is *everything* when it comes to ASIC.
Make up your mind.
October 19, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
For the time being at least power consumption is most definitely NOT the most important aspect to consider when shopping for an ASIC device. Arrival date is. If you receive your ASIC just 30 days later than anticipated your most profitable mining opportunity will likely be lost and it will not matter if your device consumes 50% of the power of a competing product that shipped on schedule.
This I can agree with!
October 19, 2012, 12:08:10 AM
For the time being at least power consumption is most definitely NOT the most important aspect to consider when shopping for an ASIC device. Arrival date is. If you receive your ASIC just 30 days later than anticipated your most profitable mining opportunity will likely be lost and it will not matter if your device consumes 50% of the power of a competing product that shipped on schedule.
October 19, 2012, 12:07:44 AM
How do you get that out of what I said? CPU->GPU->FPGA->ASIC->???????
October 19, 2012, 12:01:43 AM
Ok Inaba.
When your fixed cost is extremely low and your initial capital outlay is high, that fixed cost becomes largely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter anyway, because you're deluded if you think any ASIC which will ship in the next couple months will be competitive with future products in three years.
Try doing an Internal Rate of Return and plug in your expected device power usage and then do one with power doubled. You'll see that when all factors are considered, electricity is largely an irrelevant cost.
When your fixed cost is extremely low and your initial capital outlay is high, that fixed cost becomes largely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter anyway, because you're deluded if you think any ASIC which will ship in the next couple months will be competitive with future products in three years.
Try doing an Internal Rate of Return and plug in your expected device power usage and then do one with power doubled. You'll see that when all factors are considered, electricity is largely an irrelevant cost.
See, that is the thing you don't seem to understand: If the device is profitable, it's still competitive. There's nothing to "upgrade" to after ASIC, so as long as it's profitable, it will be mining. Ergo, the power is the single most important aspect of an ASIC mining device.
October 18, 2012, 11:46:06 PM
Ok Inaba.
When your fixed cost is extremely low and your initial capital outlay is high, that fixed cost becomes largely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter anyway, because you're deluded if you think any ASIC which will ship in the next couple months will be competitive with future products in three years.
Try doing an Internal Rate of Return and plug in your expected device power usage and then do one with power doubled. You'll see that when all factors are considered, electricity is largely an irrelevant cost.
When your fixed cost is extremely low and your initial capital outlay is high, that fixed cost becomes largely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter anyway, because you're deluded if you think any ASIC which will ship in the next couple months will be competitive with future products in three years.
Try doing an Internal Rate of Return and plug in your expected device power usage and then do one with power doubled. You'll see that when all factors are considered, electricity is largely an irrelevant cost.
See, that is the thing you don't seem to understand: If the device is profitable, it's still competitive. There's nothing to "upgrade" to after ASIC, so as long as it's profitable, it will be mining. Ergo, the power is the single most important aspect of an ASIC mining device.
October 18, 2012, 11:43:26 PM
Wow, Tom! I appreciate your generous offer of free money and I am absolutely delighted to take that bet from you with regards to the accuracy of our respective power estimates (I'll even send you a condolences cake with the proceeds).
However there's a few caveats, which I'm sure you'll agree do not alter the intent of the bet at all:
I will wager that what I've said is true about BFL's power efficiency if you wager that what you've said about your power efficiency is true as well. You've said that your power will be "competitive." To commence this bet, you will need to define "competitive." How many factor increase in power consumption is considered "competitive" against ours? Twice the power usage? Three times? Four? Is that still "competitive?" What happens if you're 6x as power hungry as our device? Do you lose the bet then? I want to know what you mean by competitive, and until you define that, well... I can't bet on it.
Honestly though, after you calling me out in your thread, calling me a liar about our power... I want to know why you aren't being honest and open about what you expect your power to be. It's simply not credible to say you don't know what your estimates are. Even if you really have no idea at all, how can you then promise it'll be competitive?
Also, the last caveat is that I will not stay out of your thread. You've been... shall we say... less than truthful about a number of things in your thread and I will be here to call BS when it's required. But you define competitive and release the stipulation that I stay out of your thread and you've got a bet, cowboy! I will absolutely wager 1000 BTC against your 1000 BTC any day of the week.
However there's a few caveats, which I'm sure you'll agree do not alter the intent of the bet at all:
I will wager that what I've said is true about BFL's power efficiency if you wager that what you've said about your power efficiency is true as well. You've said that your power will be "competitive." To commence this bet, you will need to define "competitive." How many factor increase in power consumption is considered "competitive" against ours? Twice the power usage? Three times? Four? Is that still "competitive?" What happens if you're 6x as power hungry as our device? Do you lose the bet then? I want to know what you mean by competitive, and until you define that, well... I can't bet on it.
Honestly though, after you calling me out in your thread, calling me a liar about our power... I want to know why you aren't being honest and open about what you expect your power to be. It's simply not credible to say you don't know what your estimates are. Even if you really have no idea at all, how can you then promise it'll be competitive?
Also, the last caveat is that I will not stay out of your thread. You've been... shall we say... less than truthful about a number of things in your thread and I will be here to call BS when it's required. But you define competitive and release the stipulation that I stay out of your thread and you've got a bet, cowboy! I will absolutely wager 1000 BTC against your 1000 BTC any day of the week.
October 18, 2012, 11:19:39 PM
After a year of quietly mining on 2x5770's, I decided to pre-order a 54GH/s one today with the BTC I mined! Looking forward to following this thread after not following bitcoin for over 10 months.
Jump to: