|
81
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 28, 2014, 09:52:50 PM
|
|
Quick question to the general populace:
Anybody know what Cryptx originally paid for the first batch of A2 Innosilicon miners that came online directly after the IPO? I didn't find anywhere where Cryptx mentioned it (naturally), so instead I'm trying to find information / pricing from group buys that happened early / mid May (and possibly a few weeks earlier than that). Based on what I've seen so far, I've estimated $10,000 each, but I may be a bit off if there were other deals going on at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [Havelock] HASH - Mining Equipment Sales, Contracts, and More
|
on: August 28, 2014, 12:36:42 PM
|
Anyone have a summary of what exactly happened with this IPO? I tried reading this thread but ended up with a headache.
I can see a semi-decent amount of shares sold in the end. Now the price has crashed. People bought then dumped..?
645 shares were sold on Havelock during the offering ( BTC14.19). Once the Havelock IPO ended, I believe all previous shares (from their first offering on LitecoinTalk) were converted over, though someone correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
|
84
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 25, 2014, 10:57:59 PM
|
If the machines and everything needs longer time and thought, then what would help the share price, which the savings being sat in a pot is not doing right now, is full payouts, and crazy high dividend would help the share price massively.
Right, but that's exactly what I'm getting at; there's zero information to support the claim that a temporary high dividend would sudden cause the share price to spike. And why would it? That's what I'm trying to draw out of you, the why in all of this. When you take away the reinvestment, you're literally taking away the support for the fund. It is impossible (rationally speaking) for the share price to do anything but drop as dividends dwindle to BTC0.0. The baffling notion behind all of this is that we actually have a working example of what happens when you dump the reinvestment for 100% dividends. As many have noticed, PETA's share price has not gone 'to the moon'. I do, however, agree with the latter statement...they (or apparently 'we' given how this has been going so far) need to work out a new strategy, which includes replacing inefficient equipment before it's completely worthless. The only way we can do that is if we have something to replace it with. And the only way we can purchase new, faster, more efficient equipment before selling the old, semi-worthless stuff is with...you guessed it...a reinvestment fund.  I suppose that's the one point I'm trying to drive home in all this, and something I'm not sure many people are grasping -- Funding from revenue set aside for future purchases is what governs the direction of the mining farm (or in PETA's case, loans from investors too). It determines how quickly you can grow. It determines what hardware you can purchase. It determines the quantities and bulk discounts on hardware. If you don't have enough of it, taking advantage of new hardware purchases becomes difficult. If you don't have any of it, it becomes impossible. |
|
|
|
|
85
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 25, 2014, 08:19:43 PM
|
We should go with option 3 for 2 weeks and then revert to re-investment and updating machines over time. Thats the only logical way forward I see.
So...you're opting to empty your savings account for that fleeting moment where you think you've done well...and then start up your savings again? Why not just maintain the savings in the first place? Besides, that's unfortunately not one of Cryptx's options. Once the savings account is emptied, it's not being opened again. Reinvestment is a lost cause.
I see you've never run your own mining farm before... No but I've seen CryptX running one. And I don't want them to run it anymore. And with that, just because Cryptx is running the farm improperly doesn't mean reinvestment isn't necessary (I assure you, it is). Don't focus on the team because that will just lead to endless frustration, impairing rational decision making in the process. As an ex-farm operator, my advice is to focus on the fund's assets instead. Right now they're operating somewhere around 46-47 A2 Innosilicon miners. At 4U each, and consuming ~750W, we can assume they have enough space for 4-6 full server racks (42-44U each) depending on additional equipment, and can support more than 35,250Wh in continuous power. Combined with ~$45,000 in cash, there's quite a bit to work with here, and a lot can be done to turn this around. The question at this point is how? The way I think about it is to imagine yourself standing in a datacenter staring at the racks of miners. The reality is that you're in a good position to do quite well for yourself, so with the cash in your hand, what's the best way to grow / update the current operation? There's always a miner that's bigger, better, faster, cheaper, cooler, and/or more efficient out there (either on the market or under development), you just have to find it. |
|
|
|
|
87
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 25, 2014, 04:40:30 PM
|
rough calculations:
we double the hashing power
we double the fees
we double the dividends.
looking at the las div, still looks pretty bad
Not entirely true. Purchasing energy efficient equipment (at least more so than the previous A2 purchases) doesn't double their expenses. Think of it like purchasing a 1TH/s @ 500W miner and adding it to your existing 1TH/s @ 1000W miner. Suddenly you have twice the hashing power, but only 50% more energy use. Speaking of fees though...anyone else notice that the fees have been increasing little by little over the weeks even though no new equipment has been added? Last I checked, energy use is typically stable when you have a constant amount of hardware running 24/7...considering the prospectus clearly states a fixed expense of $0.25/kWh. im not sure i understand the hashlet, you can change the algo in it and mine different coins
Well...it doesn't seem like many people realize what it is, myself included, so this could be all wrong. But to me, it sounds like they have some hardware (much like cex.io does) and they sell you the output of the hardware (a certain amount of mining power). But, they can change out the hardware in the future with more cost efficient hardware, and in turn, pass the power savings onto you. You could also change to different hardware possibly and mine a different algo. They seem to be trying to package the hashlet as a brand new piece of hardware, but I am not thinking it is. They probably just have a couple of large data centers with a lot of hardware in them and then they sell it to you and can switch out new machines in the future once they are invented. From what I've been able to gather, I think you're right. I actually purchased a 1MH/s Hashlet from them yesterday as a test, and so far it seems to be going well (hashing on their ZenPool). I also noticed that the price has gone up...yesterday I spent $15.99 per 1MH/s, and today it's $19.99. Promotional period perhaps? In any case, I'd proceed with caution until we know more about it. Blindly investing BTC90 into "the cloud" doesn't sound like the smartest idea at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
88
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 24, 2014, 03:22:39 PM
|
I mean, after loosing everyone's trust, we really want to attempt buying other machines and letting them profit for ever? let's get what we can and see. With the current dividends, I could make more by day trading... They'll be profiting regardless of what happens to investors. That's the way they've set it up. Dumping the reinvestment fund kills any chance of this fund expanding and puts us in the same position as PETA, and that hurts us, not Cryptx. They'll pull in fees and hosting costs until the hardware can't mine enough to cover those expenses. At least now that they're looking into the GAWMiners there's a chance for growth. With the current reinvestment fund (and at the current BTC/USD price of ~$500), we can purchase 62 54MH/s miners, adding 3,348MH/s to the current ~4,000MH/s we're working with. How is that a bad thing? |
|
|
|
|
90
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Just need some experienced users advice.
|
on: August 22, 2014, 01:40:58 PM
|
That S2 is overpriced. Get a few S3s for less money and higher hashrate.
This ^ But along with cheaper and faster, the S3 also uses less energy. While free electricity is nice, be sure to take into account the heat and noise. From what I've heard, the S3s aren't so bad in this regard, but it's still something to be aware of. |
|
|
|
|
92
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: The decreasing rate of performance jumps from 68nm to 16nm?
|
on: August 20, 2014, 09:33:43 PM
|
what do you guys think about the rest though?
While I do lack a deep knowledge of chip architecture, I do know that shrinking from one die size to another doesn't automatically make the processor more efficient. That's something that's refined over time through updates to the chips, PCBs, and firmware / software. CoinTerra and KnC chips were 28nm, for example, but their wattage varied (~1.2-1.3W and 1-1.1W per GH, respectively). The newer KnC Neptune chips are built on a 20nm process, yet they use nearly half the energy as their previous 28nm chips. As I think back (and someone correct me on this if I'm mistaken), I thought there was a time when ASICMiner's 110nm process ended up being just as, or more, efficient than BFL's 65nm (though that's not saying much I suppose). Anyway, I'll just leave this here: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/broadwell-is-coming-a-look-at-intels-low-power-core-m-and-its-14nm-process/ |
|
|
|
|
93
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Miners are about to get squeezed big time unless the price of BTC jumps soon
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:06:07 PM
|
At what point will revenue and expenses cancel each other out? Around $288 per Bitcoin, or a difficulty of ~32-33B.
Mid October is crunch time. Between now and then, it looks like the amount of BTC generated by a miner will halve. Stated differently, a miner in production today will produce half of the BTC it will ever produce (going forward from today) in the next 60 days. Unless difficulty increases start averaging under 16% Quite right, though probably even sooner than that. The jump today will bring us to almost 24B, and seeing what's been shipping from KnC (and Spondoolies eventually) I bet we'll hit the aforementioned 33B in the first couple weeks of September. Mining [will be] over as a money making exercise for anyone other than data centres at a difficulty of about 809..
Not quite sure on the math behind this one...I presume you mean 80E9 (80B) and not 134,217,728,000,000,000  And even a difficulty of 80B isn't so bad. 1GH/s (at 2W per GH/s, $0.15 per kWh) would generate about BTC0.000006 ($0.0028) per day. So long as the price per Bitcoin is greater than $1209, you'll be making a profit  |
|
|
|
|
94
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Miners are about to get squeezed big time unless the price of BTC jumps soon
|
on: August 19, 2014, 01:07:10 AM
|
Same stuff I have posted elsewhere. According to my calculations, even with a sub 10 cent/kwh electric rate you are not making money at these difficulties if BTC is below 650, 650 being about break even after 3-4 months. And thats assuming (big assumption) that you did not overpay for the hardware (another set of calculations).
And what calculations did you do to come up with that? Even with inefficient hardware (2W per GH/s) and an energy cost of $0.15 per kWh, each GH/s would cost $0.0072 per day. At the current difficulty (19.7B), each GH/s would generate somewhere around BTC0.000025, or $0.01175 at the current exchange rate of ~$470. A gross profit of $0.00455 per GH/s. At what point will revenue and expenses cancel each other out? Around $288 per Bitcoin, or a difficulty of ~32-33B. Either way, I agree with what's been said...small time mining is mostly dying, and instead being left up to the big manufacturers / wholesalers with deep pockets, vast swathes of chips, and industrial grade (cheap) energy. When thinking long term, there's no way we can compete. |
|
|
|
|
95
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Beginning to think it would have been better if BTC stayed in the sub $20 range.
|
on: August 19, 2014, 12:38:18 AM
|
Even though I currently mine with 3TH+ (large for a home operation, but no mining farm by any means) I am beginning to think that it was not good for BTC to go big time so quickly.
While it's an interesting thought experiment, I think we'd still be in the same situation we are today, just on a different scale. So long as your any generated mining revenue outweighs the associated costs, the network will grow, regardless of whether the price per Bitcoin is $1 or $10,000. The only difference are the players; finding out you can make $1 a day after expenses by toying around with some neat crypto-machines is more of a niche / hobby market...whereas finding out you can make $10,000 a day would draw in the really big players. Personally, I don't care what the price of Bitcoin is so long as it's stable. I'd love to spend what I have, but the fact that it's $470 today and could be $1,000 tomorrow doesn't help me do anything except horde. What's the mean useful life of a mining rig now, from delivery to useless scrap that eats more in power than it produces in coins? Six months? Less?
Hard to say since it depends on electricity and/or hosting costs, but even an inefficient CoinTerra rig (1.6TH/s version) is still profitable at nearly BTC0.04 per day (~$20) at this difficulty, and with $7.20 in power costs ($0.15 per kWh). It stops being profitable somewhere around a difficulty of 50B. |
|
|
|
|
96
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 17, 2014, 04:08:23 PM
|
I reckon no3 then 4 is best. And 4 should be that we soon get rid of inefficient machines and get the best, and re-invest to mine the best coin. Whether thats BTC or what. I dont know the figures or coins well enough - but thats what it comes to - the NUMBERS.
But no3 or 4 should sort the share price?
Serious question: What's your reasoning behind option #3? I ask because I can't fathom a situation where that option has any other benefit than dispersing the reinvestment fund as a dividend...and the cons being a drop in share price and a complete halt on future growth (e.g. fund closure after XX weeks/months). #4 appears to be the best choice given it keeps us where we are today (and continues the reinvestment fund), but the reality is that none of the options present a reasonable long-term solution. |
|
|
|
|
97
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 15, 2014, 09:30:35 PM
|
We would like to propose some ideas / options for the Scrypt-X project. We will issue a first voting round between 4 possible options. A second voting round will be held between the two most favorable/supported options.
Options:
1. Purchase of 23 Scrypt Miners (A2 Innosilicon Terraminers, hashrate of ~85-90Mh/s)
Total hashrate: 2,000 Mh/s
Overall hashrate of Scrypt-X will increase by 50 percent to a total of 6,000 Mh/s
Deployment is possible immediately after the second voting round
Total price $45,977 or $1,999 per miner
2. Convert every Scrypt-X unit to 5 PetaMine units. The Scrypt-X project will cease to exist.
3. One time dividend of 90.5 BTC. The Scrypt-X project will continue with a weekly 100% dividend payout.
4. Keep the reinvestment funds for future opportunities. The Scrypt-X project remains like it is today.
Where's the "None of the above", or "Vote Write-In" option? #1 -- A2 chips are inefficient at this point, and there are vastly better deals out there, as alexius89 has helpfully pointed out. #2 -- PETA is a dead fund (though most people haven't figured it out yet). Halting reinvestment is a death sentence in mining, and it's incredibly clear which direction PETA is headed. It wouldn't matter if they converted the shares 10 to 1 when they'll be worth nothing in the end anyway. #3 -- Essentially a cop-out, the result of which would bring us onto the same page as PETA. Dividends will temporarily increase, followed by a plummet in share price, and an eventual decline to BTC0.0 #4 -- The most logical choice if they were to take the fund seriously, and this ignores the need for new hardware, but given they've put it to a vote... In all honesty, I'm quite disappointed in the supposed professionalism this team was to display. They have the money and space for equipment, but lack the managerial or strategic foresight to aptly run a company. |
|
|
|
|
98
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] BTM leasing inventory fund
|
on: August 09, 2014, 11:34:16 PM
|
|
Honestly, I'm quite surprised this thread has made it to 2 pages. Normally something lacking in any real information just gets ignored in these parts...
Anyway, this has been dead in the water since day #1. The prospectus lacks any and all realistic financial information that investors would need to even start their due diligence process. I presume someone with prior management experience would already recognize the lack of information provided, so I must assume there's something else going on here. If legitimate funding routes (the Angel and Venture Capitalists you've referred to) aren't willing to go the full way to get you started, I have a hunch there are some serious flaws in your business model.
From what I've read so far, there is absolutely no incentive for someone to invest a single Satoshi in this. It just doesn't make any sense.
Regardless, I do want to see more Bitcoin ATMs around the States. Best of luck to your team.
|
|
|
|
|
99
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: What type of capital investment would be needed to set up a mining farm?
|
on: August 07, 2014, 02:01:01 AM
|
I have a 14 x 20 space and I'm thinking of setting up a btc mining farm. What kind of rigs and systems do I need to pull this off. At current btc prices I would like to haul in a net profit of 50 k per year. This would be under a legit business as I could write off costs.
In Canada if that matters.
Thanks
280m 2 is a fairly substantial amount of space (at least I'm presuming it's in meters since you mentioned you're in Canada). Since you seem to have that covered, your next objectives are to secure power and cooling / ventilation. What is your average cost per kWh? What is the cost to own the space (either rent or mortgage)? A net income of $50k per year would mean roughly BTC80-90 at current prices. Let's assume your ongoing operational expenses (energy, cooling equipment, rent, internet, miscellaneous maintenance) amount to the same amount...meaning in 12 months you've generated BTC180 ( BTC90 for expenses, BTC90 net profit...all assuming a stable BTC/USD or CAD price). For an entire year, the Bitcoin network of miners will generate roughly BTC1,314,900 until the next block reduction in ~2016. To generate a revenue of BTC180 over the course of 12 months, you will need enough equipment to constantly maintain 0.0137% of the network, or approximately 19.18TH/s at the current network rate (~140PH/s). This would mean 45 BitMain S3 miners to start, increasing your amount of hardware over time to compensate for the difficulty increases. This is just a very brief overview of course, and the caveats in this game are plentiful. |
|
|
|
|
100
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX
|
on: August 06, 2014, 04:40:59 PM
|
Dear CryptX Team,
as you might already read in the SCRYPT Thread there is a lot discussion regarding the way you manage the Project. You as the Hoster/Share issuer are responsible for your investors so please do not ignore us. Happy Investors will spread positive word of mouth anywhere which results in a Win situation for you too.
With that official mail we would like to get your attention concerning our situation which is currently not reallly good.
Suggestions were made as follows:
(1) let the Shareholder decide which Hardware should be bought witht he reinvestment Fund
(2) write at least one update per week in the BTC-talk Thread. Further plans, current LTC rate, how many LTC were mined...etc.. pp
(3) a Possible BUY BACK until IPO Price (perhaps also IPO price - 10%) with the current Reinvestment Fund.
(4) Choosing of a more profitable Multi Pool than now (nice-hash e.g.)
Thanks in advance
Cheers That is the Mail i wanted to send. Please correct anything if there is something wrong. (grammer, content) and also feel free to add other suggestions. I will send the Email in the next 2 days. Thanks I've got a qualm with #1 and #3, though nothing major (and I'm happy to hear counter-arguments). For #1, letting shareholders decide which hardware should be purchased isn't necessarily helpful. We can choose the fastest hardware on the market, but if Cryptx can't get a discount on them, then what's the point? Instead, I'd push for more of a combined effort, where Cryptx mentions who their primary partners are, and from there we can see if anyone else can beat their 'value' per MH/s (including price, efficiency, and speed). For #3, a buyback using the reinvestment fund kills any chance this fund has of growing (how are we going to purchase hardware if all the money was spent on buybacks). This would just result in a [very] short-term gain as dividends would be higher (given there are less outstanding shares). Other than that, I like the basic underlying content, but I think it should be fleshed out quite a bit more. I reworded the message a bit, but the overall substance is more or less the same: Dear CryptX Team, There has been quite a bit of discussion on the BitcoinTalk forums regarding Scrypt-X and its potential. Unfortunately we, the investors, are finding it difficult to have our voices heard as it doesn't appear you frequent the forums any longer. Given the volatile nature of some active members, this is understandable, but we’d still love for you to communicate with us nonetheless. I trust you’re already aware of the unparalleled value active communication and professionalism can add to a developing asset. As a bonus, contented investors are more than willing to market your funds and skills; a positive situation for all involved parties. We just need a reason to go this route. With this in mind, we wanted to bring your attention to several suggestions that have been posed so far, and with your guidance may help revive Scrypt-X to the growing asset it once was. (1) Communicate with investors at least once a week on the current status of the fund, including any upcoming plans or ideas to help expand the mining capacity. Doing this will bring some much needed insight to both current and potential investors. This doesn't have to be on the BitcoinTalk forums either. If a dedicated, active, and informative blog can be created on the Cryptx website, we’d be more than overjoyed with the update. (2) Include more detail in the financial statements, such as which coins were mined, what was their conversion rate to Bitcoin, how much electricity was used during the last period, etc. The more detail that can be provided, the better. There may be cases where investors know where to exchange coins for a lower fee. (3) Select a multi-mining pool that is more profitable, if one is available. It may be best to utilize a website such as PoolPicker ( http://poolpicker.eu/text?algo=scrypt) to determine which pool provides the best payout per MH/s. (4) List hardware manufacturers that have offered discounted prices (if possible) and include details on the hardware that would be purchased. In some cases, investors may know of another manufacturer who can provide better hardware for a similar price, or the same hardware at a greater discount. This also allows the manufacturers to see what their competitors are offering. Increased competition will help drive better deals in the future. As always, we appreciate your willingness to hear our concerns, and we hope our suggestions can generate a positive effect on the overall health of Scrypt-X. Thanks in advance |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
