Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on August 26, 2013, 07:40:55 PM

Quote from: Rebelution on August 26, 2013, 06:54:56 PM

Haha, I love that the guy who wants to "noob proof" the statistics can't understand why the LIFETIME AVERAGE's growth has slowed to a crawl.

The growth rate wouldn't slow to a crawl at ~30TH/s (and even turn negative) if the network was operating consistently at 50 TH/s over the last couple months. A lifetime average asymptotically approaches the short term average. In other words for it to flat line at 30 TH/s instead of 50 TH/s means the network isn't operating (finding blocks) like a 50 TH/s network. You don't find the fact that shareholders own a 50 TH/s network which operates like a 30 TH/s network to be useful? There is a difference between the lifetime average being 30 TH/s and still showing strong growth towards (but never reaching) 50 TH/s and one where the lifetime average stagnated at 30 TH/s and even dipped below its peak.

Please graph a set of points there are a significant number of recent data points at 50 anythings and the lifetime average does not aproach it.

The bolded part is a terrible interpretation of the data. For the most part your statements and logic is correct, but your conclusions are terrible.

Your asymptotic theory is correct, if AM operated at 50 TH/s for a LONG time period, the lifetime average would asymptotically approach 50 TH/s. Just to be clear LIFETIME AVERAGE = (Estimated Hash Rate Based on Blocks Found for the AM's lifetime)/(AM's lifetime)

And just so you don't embarrass yourself further, I will try to help you understand with an example:

AM operates at 30 TH/s for 11 months. AM then operates at 1,000 TH/s for 1 month. AM's lifetime average is then 1330/12 = 110.8. Now for investing purposes, should you treat AM as a 110.8 TH/s or a 1,000 TH/s operation? I hope you can see that you should view AM as a 1,000 TH/s operation. Hope this example helps clear up your misunderstandings.