The average difficulty for the past 3 months was 14% instead of 15% so I guess you were right.
Why didn't you just say his estimations were off by 1% instead of dismissing it as "simply unreal"?
As previously stated I think that a higher rise of difficulty is pretty normal for the past 3 months considering there were many manufacturers waiting for new chips. I am not aware of any new chips coming online between August and December. Also please note that my statement says "nonstop" and we are only measuring the first 3 months right now. Let's see how the numbers will be at the 6 months mark.
And being off by 1% in favor of my statement is much better than being off by 90% which were AM's estimates of chips sold by now. I still find my estimation to be spot on. You can't say the same thing about your dividends estimations.
I will refrain from making any assumption regarding the difficulty because nobody knows what hashing power will be deployed in the future and i don't want to influence people by telling them that difficulty will be X or Y. Everyone should make take their own decision based on what they find fitted for themselves, but i will only say that a nonstop grow of 15%-20% is unsustainable. If you think that it's not worth buying miners then there are many more like you which means that difficulty will grow at a slower rate than 15%-20%. For me it's simple. I will just give you an example. At 100 billion difficulty and 500$ per BTC having 100TH which consumes 100kW would make you around 3k$ per month that's not taking into consideration the cooling that you will need. Also deploying 100 TH means investing A LOT of money. Who would invest A LOT of money just to make a couple thousand per month? Actually if we take into consideration the cooling i think that you are already in the negative values which means the big growth will stop or slow down very much.
Not sure what's the wrong assumption here.
Hope that helps.
I still don't see what's wrong there. I'm stating that at an exchange rate of 500$/BTC and 100 bil difficulty and having 1W/GH miners there won't be any incentive for new miners to join mining which translates into a stop of the difficulty rise. You don't agree with this statement?
Also how about you show me the context of that prediction? I think it was before specs were released because the specs definitely change the prediction. Also the market price of the time of the prediction matters and also the time of the actual price announcement matters. So don't be a journalist which pulls things out of context to give things a different meaning.
Nope it was after specs were released.
Ok after specs, but
what was the market $/Gh back then? I can't remember
when did FC announced the pricing. Any help?
It was after specs and chip pricing. Just before making that prediction you said:
I wasn't talking about chips pricing. I was asking you
when we had the first full system miner price. Because I made my prediction when the market price was under 2$/GH. If the market price was less than 1.5$/GH when AM finally had some full system miners online then my prediction needs adjustment to 1.5$/GH-2$/GH. My prediction was that AM full miners will cost a bit more than the current $/GH when they were available.
But yes I was wrong about it because AM decided they need to use a dumping price in order to get rid of the inefficient chips, but this shouldn't make any AM shareholder happy.
@frisco Noted! Will try to limit it, but I need to think of something else instead of the SP30 because the waiting is so damn hard especially until we see some live hashing.