Quote from: BurtW on July 01, 2014, 10:51:50 PM

Quote from: philipma1957 on July 01, 2014, 10:39:17 PM

Quote from: BurtW on July 01, 2014, 10:09:11 PM

Quote from: Mined on July 01, 2014, 09:17:52 PM

Thanks for putting this together. I'm confident that J/gh will decrease enough to mitigate this, but the possibility that all mining hardware producers fail at making a more efficient miner is highly improbable (especially because there are so many now) but not impossible!

I am curious about your statement. How much more room do you think there is in this number? At 28nm everyone is getting about 0.8 J/GH. Going from 55nm to 28nm only reduced the consumption from 0.9 J/GH to 0.8 J/GH. Lets say we can make 18nm chips. The best case I would see is 0.5 J/GH and it would probably be higher.

In other words I don't see any way to get another order of magnitude change in this number - only smaller incremental improvements at this point.

Running the numbers at 0.5 J/GH is not a whole lot different than 0.8 J/GH and 0.5 J/GH may be a total pipe dream.

so lets say in 6 months the network drops to .5 J/GH and the that is close to the brick wall. what would you predict price on JAN.1 2015 ?

Since I used 1 J/GH you just divide all the posted energy and cost numbers by 2 if you want to assume 0.5 J/GH. So about $1,174.66
per BTC.

Thanks for the info. For the sake of argument lets say .5J /GH and If coins halved to 12.5 per block on Jan 1 2015 (I know they do not) you would use $2,549.32 correct?