Yes, that’s a more accurate way to put it.
Buying the coin instead of mining is profitable too. I’d just prefer mining to it for the reasons I’ve given.
Well if you want to be that way, then you don’ t understand basic communication skills.
Where the “only” goes matters. If I had said “Assumes I mine Ethereum for only one year.” then the year is in question, but it’s not because I intentionally put only before Ethereum because I don’t believe I’ll be mining Ethereum for a year, and definitely don’t believe I will be mining it for more than that.
But my estimation of my earnings was provoked by you wanting a specific number, so I used the only logical one which I thought you’d prefer, the earnings based on Ethereum’s current price. Which I think is not the right way to estimate these things, but you wanted a number.
It’s like you want to be technically correct while ignoring what the actual context is.
That’s my problem. Everything you use to define future profitability assumes the current situation’s numbers remain the same going forward. That my income will drop by the same percentage each month (it won’t), my hardware will devalue the same each month (it won’t), etc etc.
“But that’s what you gave me.” … And what else should I have given you?
I gave you what I figured you’d want, even though I think doing it that way is not useful for actually figuring out future profitability.
So basically: Mining Hardware + (electricity * months mining) has to be less than (coin price * coins mined per month) each month.
And I’m assuming you are using these to produce those graphs along with estimated reduction in income per month and hardware devaluation.
What I’m seeing is that it is awfully close. It isn’t presuming all variables remain the same, but they won’t.
Effort to change is not worth what is gained through change in this situation.