quick comparison between bASIC and Cognitive:
bASIC mining - 51625 outstanding shares -
Total hashrate: 925 Gh/s now
Hashrate/share: 180 Mh/s now
Price: 0.73BTC
Cognitive - 10420 outstanding shares
Total hashrate: 393 Gh/s now, 813 Gh/s when BFL delivers.
Hashrate/share: 377 Mh/s now, 780 Mh/s later.
Price: 0.75BTC
What did I miss?
Couple of additional differences: BM pays out 70% vs Cog 50% in Dividends BM also has over 1000 BTC in reserves Both funds look very promising at this point though and the owners have been actively adding to their hashing power. It's funny that BM has over 1000 BTC in their "growth fund", but they are still issuing new shares for hardware purchasing. What is the point of having idle fund sitting there, and issue more shares to dilute people's holding? Diluting the company 3.25% to double the hash rate is far cheaper than spending coin. Basic math (or in bitcoin terms, maths) |
|
|
|
Just run an extension cord to the neighbor  lol Methinks they might object, but it can't hurt to ask.  I have the Avalons offline. I'm going to see about relocating them and I'll either upgrade service or look into renting something commercial with a lot more room for expansion. As the main feed is unfortunately aluminum it's getting pretty toasty so I cannot just drop in a larger main. Well I could, but it'd be unwise. Think you should look into renting a solar powered bat cave. Nice cheap, friendly energy and constant temp year round. ;-) Cuz Michigan has so many caves? |
|
|
|
It was interesting to follow the discussion about this. It is true that the share price seems rather high considering the hash power it represents right now. Compared to some perpetual mining bonds, it is true. However, companies like Cognitive intend to stay ahead of the pack in the long run. If they can do that and at the same time the dollar price of bitcoin goes up, the this a is really good long-term investment.
Ultimately the whole success of the bitcoin economy depends on whether bitcoin becomes widely accepted and as a result whether there is a steady flow of dollars into bitcoins. If, as we all hope, this happens, those who can keep up the pace will win big time.
Isn't the share price of Basic Mining even more outrageous considering the amount of shares out there? Or am I missing something? I think, you are right. Their hash power per share is 3-4 times less than that of Cognitive. At the same time the share price is similar. Is it? BM is currently 445G/h with another 500 in transit, I'm not sure where Cog is currently, is it 83 and 160ish after the 2nd avalon arrives this weekend? BM has 5x more shares outstanding so unless I am way off on Cog's current hashrate..... |
|
|
|
366 is a lot of shares relative to what usually trades - I'd have to speculate that it's the mini-rig seller taking a bit of cash out.
agree If the 366 shares are bought, then sold higher by the new big shareholder, it clearly shows that he's willing to drive the market price up. So it's rather good news I would say. But it might be someone else too. Someone wants in when someone else wants out. We'll see. Looking forward to hearing from creativex I see nothing but stupidity on the orderbook with people fighting their way to the bottom a day before the dividend will double |
|
|
|
why don't you just remotely administer the rig from the datacenter? point it at your pool
you already are running out of infrastructure for machines as is correct? Hi stslimited. The only limiting factor has predictably been power and cooling. I've been addressing the problem of power by running several new circuits over the past week and I've added two additional AC units to cool our mining gear. I believe we have the infrastructure in place to handle this expansion. I'm told the minirig in it's current form has dual 1500w PSUs which should not be a problem. Keeping it cool is my only concern, but additional cooling can be added quickly if necessary. Cheers. Something to consider if you are in an area with cool/cold winters is running the AC during these times, to have the compressor modified to stop the fan at times, if they run 24/7 they will freeze in the winter |
|
|
|
why don't you just remotely administer the rig from the datacenter? point it at your pool
you already are running out of infrastructure for machines as is correct?
His 20% stake in the company is to pay the costs of running the equipment, if he feels he can self host for less than a data center, I see nothing wrong. I know I pay $1,000/mo per cabinet and 20A of juice in several data centers. |
|
|
|
Travelling today, so will be unavailable. I'm going to try to calculate today's dividend earlier than usual and queue it up, but I may end up just paying PPS and squaring it with tomorrow's divvy.
Cheers.
Bring some new miners as gift from the travels as usual ! Yessir. With this addition, does it make sense to continue with the GPU's? I know they have to be shut down sooner or later, and with a major jump in hashing power, it might be an opportune time so it won't be missed, plus I doubt you need to fry eggs today |
|
|
|
OK, OK. I was just playing devil's advocate to get the discussion going. Besides, it looks like Avalon's handling of refunds is even less timely, responsive, and transparent than their hardware division. People have been waiting 20 days with no confirmation much less refunds.  Yes, their communication is lacking...well it stinks quite frankly. Still they've been the best source of reasonably priced efficient hardware for the past several months. Cheers. Have you compared with the new pricing on the 10G asicminer blades? How do they stack up? On the face they still seem a bit higher but what do I know. |
|
|
|
**Important News Posted**Third Avalon Obtained. Dear virtual shareholders, bASIC-MINING is pleased to announce the further expansion of it's ASIC mining hardware with the acquisition of a third 3 module Avalon unit. The newly obtained batch 1 unit is now mining and will begin adding to mining revenue on Tuesday July 9. Cheers, CreativeX https://btct.co/security/BASIC-MINING Awesome find! The GPU that are offline, time to sell? |
|
|
|
You fat fingered sheet two cell A7  |
|
|
|
Yah I don't care what the div is, I would much rather see this hold at 5 BTC to show some stability before the next rally, or else people live in a constant state of bubble feeling, which is no good for liquidity and good news/plans ATM.
THIS NOT THIS If bubble is this prevalent on everyone's mind, it probably is not a bubble. It is when people think it can do no wrong and the sky is the limit I will start to worry. |
|
|
|
I don't remember seeing a solution to staging. But the point is, the current COG.F holders have had those funds allocated for the Avalon chips, so in fairness if you raise more funds for another order, you would need to offer shares under a different ticker so no commingling happens when shares issue in CONGITIVE, as well as the market has placed a higher value to current COG.F warrants, I would imagine for time value as arrival of the Avalon chips will be sooner than an order placed today or near future.
I think you have a misunderstanding of how Cognitive and COG.F relate to one another. The funds raised by COG.F have already been used to order Avalon chips. Cognitive currently has extra funds, which should be used to purchase mining hardware very soon. Additionally, Cognitive has shares which have been on the market for a long time, at a price above what Cognitive has been previously traded at. We are now talking about what we should do with the funds raised from these shares in the event that they do sell. Sorry for the confusion, does that make things clearer? --Garrett Yes, perfectly, I was not aware treasury shares were still being offered. |
|
|
|
Have those shares been pulled from the market last I checked they were still listed at .62 which we are approaching.
The shares Cognitive currently has for sale are not the same ones that have to be redeemed as COG.F shares. In previous posts I remember specifying that if those shares sell, then more will be issued to cover the COG.F transfers. Although, you do bring up a good point: What should we do with the funds from the shares currently for sale? They were originally intended for purchasing Avalon units, so if they sell I think we should try to buy another Avalon pre-order from someone. I don't remember seeing a solution to staging. But the point is, the current COG.F holders have had those funds allocated for the Avalon chips, so in fairness if you raise more funds for another order, you would need to offer shares under a different ticker so no commingling happens when shares issue in CONGITIVE, as well as the market has placed a higher value to current COG.F warrants, I would imagine for time value as arrival of the Avalon chips will be sooner than an order placed today or near future. |
|
|
|
What should I sell them for? I have 12 of them.
Do you have 12 or 120 after the split? |
|
|
|
The 10x stock split is complete. Please price future orders accordingly. Cheers. Any possibility to split adjust the chart and 7/30 averages? |
|
|
|
anyone have any guess as to what the price will do after the shares split? I'm thinking it wouldn't be impossible for them to reach .5 btc/share after the split. Maybe it's just wishful thinking  I can't really see them going down too much though after a split like that The split will have no effect whatsoever, if you have 1 share before valued at BTC2 you would have 10 after valued at BTC0.2 for the same total value of BTC2 This is a non-event. |
|
|
|
I've been considering the motion to include more high quality mining assets. Of course we will stay away from PMBs. But the language of the motion will need to be correct to make sure of this.
I think the number one thing that helps mining assets maintain there value is the inclusion of some kind of reinvestment or growth.
Give me your thoughts on a motion to remove the clause "where the equipment is owned by shareholders" and instead use "where the asset includes a growth/reinvestment fund for the purchase of new equipment on an ongoing basis."
I want to get the wording correct. Let me know what you think.
I don't see anything wrong with the change. We are a small group overall, and tend to discuss ideas and if this change gives the ability to further diversify the holdings.... While we are talking about motions. What about our own stock split. MiningCo.ETF has always been a "higher" priced fund. But is 1+ BTC too high? Would you vote for a split? What ratio? 2:1? 4:1? 10:1?
I think asking burnside if anything is easier, should help make the choice. I think the lower entry price will only help attract new funds and make a well balanced basket for others without the need to put too much into something. When I bought into the fund, USD/BTC was around $20 and the fund under BTC0.60 still, now the BTC value to the dollar has risen 5 fold and the fund also doubled in BTC value, so 10:1 would keep it in reach for more, but also maybe set the NAV to a more extended fraction, say 4 places to the right, which is about 1 cent in USD I'm sure I might have ideas as others also contribute. |
|
|
|
Sure, I'm trolling, but can you explain why 1 BTC controlled by creativex is worth 5 BTC? What's your logic? Where does 5x factor come from?
30% of mining income is rolled back into the company for further expansion, so this is not a set hashrate with declining income, but future protection for tech advances. Sometimes you see Mr Market being irrational, but fighting the market is rarely a recipe for success. Ask Mr Bakewell how that worked out for him. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
