Topic: Why ASIC's Should Not Be The Future Of Crypto Currencies (Read 11119 times)

This statement is false, 66Gh/s != 60Gh/s, In addition Avalon is scheduled to ship all their units out before Jan 31st.

inaba, pls stop feeding the troll, or ill have to go make popcorn lol

Where can I bet that he will ship at most 1 week later than you or better?

Can you STOP?

How is that twisting the announcement?  That is the number they released, am I suppose to just pull numbers out of my ass?  Fine, the Avalon will use 900w and hash at 800 MH/s, hows that?  What did I twist for bASIC?  Tom still hasn't released numbers and he's suppose to ship in a couple weeks.

No, Avalon is worst case 400 Watts but once they have the real boards and not a prototype board, they will announce the real life power consumption. Stop twisting your competitors announcements (just like you did with the bASIC).

Are you still as sure about that 60 Watts / 60 GH/s just like the performance and power consumption of BFLs first product turned out? How well did that calculated guess work out?

Until you have a working product, you can only make guesses. Will you give people a refund if your product underperforms?

No, AVALON is 400w at 60 GH/s.  Ours is 60w... now, what is 400/60?  Tell everyone, please.

BFL is scheduled to ship end of November, Avalon, sometime in January.  How many days are between December 1st and January 31st?  Tell everyone please?

Now, with your answer, how many days are in a month?  Divide that by the answer you got above.  Tell everyone, please?

Are you really so stupid that you need me to hand hold you through basic math?  I had given you more credit, but I see that credit was misplaced. 

Lol, this is even possible.

Ah, gotcha. You're just making things up, like that 7x performance increase and the 2 months prior shipping date. I guess the reality is Avalon is faster and will ship sooner. Thanks for clearing that up.

Or...  I suggest you look up the term vernacular before you try to educate me with grade school trolling.  I'll give you a freebie, too:  My use of "ancient" isn't technically accurate either.  You might also want to look up hyperbole since you are unfamiliar with both it and "vernacular".  They are useful words that you should have learned in grade school.

Both of these lessons are free of charge, the next one will cost you though.

PS - You should have a period after "magnitude" above. (Something else you should have learned in grade school.)

I suggest you read up on the definition of Orders of magnitude

took you off ignore because this was a good comment.

You point out "now" as the timeframe, I'm talking about 2-5 years out when we have much bigger fish swimming in the bitcoin pond.

You always have to take the whole business model into account. Google should be broke based on this logic, but they are not because the monetize the hell out of advertising and other advantages they can make out of their data and search capabilities. Amazon Kindle is another great example. All it will take is one large company that "needs to have x% no matter the cost" as part of a plan and we will see them going towards mining at a loss.

Of course now that I think about it, the loss might just be for Enterprises if they don't build efficient farms, so the solar powered mining rig might be a gift that just keeps on giving and giving.

ONLY in the case where there is another revenue stream that is directly supported by their continued unprofitable participation in bitcoin mining.

For example, thinking like a multinational bank, it might make millions or billions of dollars a year on fees related to bitcoin utilization, so they can factor that into the overall P%L sheet with both departments included. So while the mining department is like IT (sucking in money and turning it into heat (disclaimer, I work in IT)) at a loss of $4m a year, and you get $44m a year in fees, then you are $40M in the black, and you know that you have enough capacity (5% for a really big bank?) to prevent a double-spend attempt from any of your evil competitors, or ensure that your transactions are confirmed within a certain timeframe without excessive fees. Who cares if the mining is a losing proposition when you are making 10 times as much overall!

I'm not thinking that this makes sense for anyone who does not have something like "maintain X significant percentage of hashrate" as a key component to some other business plan. So independent miners are likely to have to run extremely lean, and it might not even ROI out if you have free power if the big boys start throwing their weight around. It's also not likely to stay that way permanently, the appetite for the loss leader status will run out and they will figure out a way to reduce hashing closer to parity, but it could impact us for several quarters if it happens.

I do think it will overall hit an equilibrium with a modest (5-15%) profit as time goes on, but in the start up phase we are going to see a lot of weird shit as we hit more diverse and larger markets. I'm hoping for at least a couple years before mining gets strange in some way, guessing maybe 5 at the outside.

You had me up till the concept of miners hevily invested in hardware continuing to mine so that bitcoin continues.... I don't see that happening at all. Just like poeple will sell their GPUs when it's not profitable to mine, those who bought into ASIC expecting profits will shut down when there are none also.

I'm shutting down and selling my GPUs tuesday, maybe wednesday.