Part 5:  Calculation of the reward split between ET and a user

Now let's calculate how the split works out between ET and the user.

From his FAQ, you can get the commision rate he charges: 12 MH/s chip. http://www.tricone-mining.com/faq.html.  To calculate the split we only need to find the net gain in hashing from the use of his bitstream.  The gross change is the difference between the bitstream previously running on the board and ET's.  Since we don't have any actual reports in the wild, I'll use his typical number of 270 MH/s.  My Ztex boards on average run 228 MH/s, so subtraction gives us the reward value of 42 MH/s.  This gives us a split of 28.5% to ET.

But that is the gross value.  To get the real reward split it it necessary to account for the user's costs that will increase as a result of the bitstream.  This would be higher power consumption, reduced hardware lifespan, extra labor managing the signature system, additional downtime and possibly additional space.  All of these items are difficult to quantify, and likely to be highly variable across different users, so I'm going to focus only on two items: additional power costs and downtime.  The increased power consumption has been noted by ET already.  Lacking concrete numbers in the field I am estimating the increase to be 20%, and baseline power costs to be 10% of the earnings generated by the board.  So the additional power is the equivalent of 2% of the hash rate.

As I discussed before, the additional downtime from ET's server can be brutal on returns.  If you need to restart your boards locally due to a server interruption and you are out drinking sleeping, that 8 hours of lost time is 5% for the week.  Let that happen twice and ET's share of the net reward will be 125%.  For practicality, I will take an optimistic view and assume 98% uptime.

This results in a net reward of 31.2 MH/s and ET's share is 38.5%.  Not exactly the 5% some folks have been assuming from the headlines!

Please read what I wrote:

Yes, I got one person so far, yourself.

So, who are you really?  Looks like you created a special account to come and espouse your particular point of view.

Why

I really don't understand ... I still think he should sell bitstream outright like say if you have 10 FPGAs one price and for 100 FPGAs another price and for just 1 or 2 another price like antivirus licenses etc.

This whole taking a cut and his own servers is junk for miners. DDos his servers before diff change and everybody wins though as most FPGAs are then neutered

Depends if he actually wants to get paid fair market value for his time. I'm an associate Engineer and my company charges out my time at over $100/hr. How long do you think Tyrell spent on this bitstream?

I still wonder about the accuracy of the 1000-1500 FPGA numbers. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but do those figures include the various privately licensed production runs that have been done around here? I'm sure Antirack isn't the only one to have done this, and I'm not even sure how many devices his run includes.

I was estimating 1000-1500 in small farms which would actually use the ET bitstream. Larger farms are more likely to get a bitfury bitstream

This is exactly why, when I first read of the share commission model, that I felt that greed was the sole motivator of this work.  Maybe this was a snap reaction that warranted further deliberation.  Whether ET gets what he wants, much greater or much less I really have no clue.

I do know that I always dislike perpetual relationships where I have no negotiating power and, most importantly, no idea how much I will eventually pay for a product or service.

seems there's gotta be some sort of reasonably fair compensation method we could all agree on... though i've no idea what it is. upfront pricing is disagreeable to some, this commission idea disagreeable to some... hmm. this just struck me as i type this.

what if the commision system was intentionall shut off say, a year from now (or whatever) after appropriate compensation had been given? ET gets the compensation he feels apropriate, we get another small increase in hash, and no one pays upfront either.

I can't understand the harsh criticism from people here on him his concept.
It's actually simply perfect for everyone involved.

Fact is - no other concept is better for him and his "customers"

- Donations? Most people don't donate - fact - and even if some do - those are usually rather small amounts
- Selling the bitstream? (some) people will resell it to recover their "investment" and sooner or later it will be "free"
- Further, he couldn't make a difference in terms of pricing for one or a hundred fpgas in use at that customer (it wouldn't be a fair system)

He created it - it's his property - it's his decision what to do with it... Simple as that.
He did what was fairest to everyone - and puts everyone including himself in a winning position.
You don't need to pay upfront, you get more performance out of your existing hardware - and he gets a 20% cut of that additional performance. Don't like it ? Don't use it !

Same goes for server down times, higher stress on the hardware, higher power consumption... and so on - nobody forces you to use Elden's system

"of course we don't just want to sell it to you outright - we want to be able to license it to you"