How many people on this forum are you currently paying to promote your service?

Your payout info kind of proves that. The average daily payout for 1 Gh at this difficulty is 1144 Satoshis yet these guys are paying out 1402 Satoshis while paying 0.26 $/kWh for electricity. Go and plug that electricity cost into a mining calculator and see what it says.

MineThatCloud, for those recent payouts, what was the payout/Gh?

From what I can tell from looking at the website, they're just buying cloud mining off Hashnest and selling it at a higher price.

I doubt it but it wouldn't surprise me.

Oh, and about MineThatCloud, do not invest in that. If that's not a ponzi, then their electricity costs of 0.26 $/kWh ensure it will never be profitable. For example, AMHash's maintenance costs work out to around 0.07 $/kWh.

If you really want to purchase cloud mining contracts, stick to the ASIC manufacturers and keep clear of the obvious ponzis that refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, seem to good to be true, or simply don't make sense.

I'd say it's very likely that picolo and DARKANGEL6415 are involved in the operation of cloudminr in some way as they both are still using the cloudminr sigs despite the campaign ending last year and picolo acts like the official spokeperson. This has been brought to both their attentions and they still have the sigs. Picolo claimed he was still getting paid to use it.

As for DARKANGEL6415, I noticed that he had a very peculiar way of quoting posts that I hadn't come across before and found very annoying. I then came across another 2 people with the same annoying habit - malaimult and darkgamer.

I made the following post:


I checked their latest posts just recently and all three accounts have fixed the way they quote and there's no evidence of malaimult ever seeing that post.

So, when cloudminr goes tits up, picolo, darkangel, darkgamer and malaimult should be prime suspects for further investigation.

Why would that be troubling? Cloud mining gets you a fixed amount of hashing power just like buying a miner gets you a fixed amount of hashing power. If you're running a physical miner then at some point, electricity costs will be greater than mining income. The same is true of cloud mining. If you bought a physical miner and it became unprofitable would you expect the seller to send you a new, more efficient miner free of charge? No, you wouldn't, so why would you expect a cloud mining service provider to upgrade their cloud mining contracts free of charge.


"Cloud mining services" that go pop are not cloud mining services at all - they're ponzis. If you look at the few legitimate services, they all have have a "stop mining clause" for when maintenance fees are greater than mining income. Anyone mining for a profit would turn their miners off under such conditions. It's simply common sense.


There are only 2 legitimate cloud mining services left in the game - ASICMiner's AMHash and BitFury's Bit-x. All the others are ponzis and therefore have no hardware costs to recuperate and no maintenance fees to pay. Hashnest has become unprofitable. Bit-x became unprofitable but they reduced their maintenance fees by 33% to keep themselves in the game.


ASICMiner, BitFury, Bitmain and KNC all offer cloud mining services. None of them offer "forever" payouts. Perhaps you should look at some of the legitimate services from the manufacturers instead of the ponzis.


Both ASICMiner and BitFury run their own cloud mining services and both companies will have ~0.2 J/Gh ASIC very soon. In the coming months, you'll undoubtedly see those ASICs power new cloud mining services. I'll be very surprised if Spondoolies don't get in on the action too.

Cloud mining isn't dead, it's about to explode now that most manufacturers are running their own services.

It's only a 14 day cycle if the difficulty remains static.

What miners are you using?

That could have been someone completely different just using that as their username there. It's not though. It is TradeFortress as the same user made an earlier post here:


So, there's now a definite link between TradeFortress and hashie. Interesting.

17p per kWh is 0.26 $/kWh. On average, at the current difficulty you'll mine 0.00001144 BTC/GH/day. At 0.26 $/kWh, a 0.5 J/Gh miner would cost 0.00001752 BTC/Gh/day to run at a price of 178 $/BTC meaning you would lose 0.00000608 BTC/GH/day. In fact, with a 0.5 J/Gh miner you'd lose money unless the bitcoin price was above 273 $/BTC.

That's 0.26 $/kWh for the Datacenter in the UK. 

They're not cloud mining services, they're ponzis. They'll remain ponzis until they show some evidence of actually being a cloud mining service and they'll keep paying out until they run off with everyone's money. Also, AMHash will only go negative at the current difficulty if the price of bitcoin drops to around $135. They're positioned far better than most other miners.

Ignoring trolls when they're spreading FUD is a bad idea. New users won't necessarily know they're trolls so it's better to correct the FUD.

  It's a mine of the beholder.

Why wouldn't they?


0.00000001 > 0. (Because you're so bad at maths)

$135 at current difficulty. Learn to read too.

What are your maintenance fees?

Also, will you be providing any of the evidence puppet asks for in his Cloudmining 101 thread in order to prove your legitimacy?