Sendmany as above, if you send out payments less often than people can sign up for them you'll need to go through and add up the outputs to each unique address to eliminate doubles.

Allowing patrons to save up sendouts (possibly even offering a small bonus (1 satoshi per saved deposit per day, cap of 100 satoshis per day per account) across several payout periods can reduce bitdust outputs and make coins easier for patrons to spend and lower transaction costs to you (and you should be paying something for transactions, even if it's less than the default client might otherwise pay). BUT make sure that coins get sent out eventually if someone quits attending the site, after a week or two probably (maybe halving the tiny saving bonuses for auto-withdrawals).

If you need any other help feel free to PM me

All the companies that have tried to deploy ASICs so far have run into road blocks and had to scramble to fix things. Pyramining seems to be moving along pretty steadily and has hit a few snags but same as the rest will get there when they get there. The original launch schedule was pretty ambitious and has so far been pretty close still, which is good news for everyone so far  .

@Pyramining, would mininng to a deposit address be a problem?

While the thread is long, it has all the answers you're looking for.

tl;dr-
-Pyramining is currently mining on slower FPGA units
-A large amount of incoming investments have been shifted to ASIC preorders

+1. Same wait for ASICs as you'd get from anyone else. They're coming in due time but everyone will still have to wait

I'd be up for buying in on another preorder round, not sure if you want to keep it at 10 BTC given the huge rise in price since the last promotion or lower it, that might also depend on whether or not you can make the process of crediting the bonus automatic or not.

Do you know what your lead time on new units is? Any bulk sizes you'd be looking to stick to as a minimum?

Thanks for pulling the asset creation fee increase considering.

Any thoughts on how the new rules will apply to or impact pass-through funds?

I imagine moving the people taking advantage of the bonus wouldn't mind getting first dibs, but given the planned allotment (FIFO) that may not be easiest thing to switch to outright, just sending out the 1 TH/s bonus at first might work better short term.

Although everything changes depending on how much equipment you get in the first large ASIC run (ignoring the prototype). Any guesses as to what the first full-scale run will net in terms of speed?
Edit: Completely misunderstood this, my bad

DadoSovr is correct, there is no way to cash out early. There are sometimes people willing to buy your remaining pyramining deposits, but I don't know what the effective fee on this is. This wouldn't be a service of pyramining (though he will need to help changing the payout address of the account) but of a third party.

When you get the full reward you lose the hasing power from that deposit. Each deposit works separately.

Payouts happen anytime you accumulate ~1 BTC of reward (slightly higher to account for the 0.5% fee) unless the cashout would leave you with less that 1 BTC in rewards left, then you accumulate everything and get the final payment all at once.

So depositing 3.5 BTC you'd get
*1 BTC
*1 BTC
*1.5 BTC

Hashing power from completed deposits is kept in the system but spread out to everyone. So even with money being redeposited (which would just buy new hashing power) everyone is better off. In fact redepositing to a new account would raise the hash rate even more than just the account completing. It still doesn't offer any real metric in the long run though.

It would be interesting to see different stats on completion across the whole site though. Total across all deposits ever, total across deposits opened since n months ago, and total across all open accounts. I'd imagine this would require enough work to implement though that I wouldn't expect it to come while ASICs are being prepped at the very least.

There's a few things that contribute to this, and buying FPGA power at this point is a little bit of a poor looking investment. Right now everything is running on FPGA power, that is a slower technology than the ASICs that some people are lucky enough to be mining on. As well there's a lot of money put into waiting on ASICs (See Asic preallocated power = 2 TH/s). Once Pyramining finishes developing ASICs (or as has been previously mentioned purchases units from another vendor if they're able to get them out shipped before development is finished). The large recent rise in BTC/fiat means you can buy more GPU per BTC right now than you could previously (such as when most purchases were made). When you buy into pyramining you also have to support the whole group, everyone gets the same hashing rate per BTC, so donating now means you can buy more MH/s per BTC, but that gets spread out over every other account too (This is why each BTC buys ~45MH/s but you'd still end up with ~10MH/s).

So pretty much everything is working against pyramining until the technology gap to ASICs is closed (or a lot of people buy in at the currently unadventurous rates, but I wouldn't expect it). The only upside I see is that accounts are still closing and their hashing power being redistributed to everyone else. I believe when ASIC preordering opened on pyramining there were ~30 completed accounts and now there are now about twice as many, but this is likely a small drop in the bucket.

I think the confusion is confusing how income is used in the explanation (money per time) with bonus (net payout). Since normally income is often thought of as net gain.

I wasn't aware of the magnitude, that is a bit more than I had expected. Good luck.

That is not the case.

Deposits of A (1) > B (1) > C (1) > D (100)
Would lead to rewards of A (1.15) > B (1.2) > C (11.1) > D (110)

Hashing speed bonus goes up multiple levels. Bonus rewards ONLY go up ONE level.

What is the bounty amount? Also have you tried a different cvs reader (like google docs) that might have different controls or locale awareness.

Failing that I might be able to take a look this weekend.

Are you sure it wasn't just a bot error, part of the fee, or other typically little piece of the puzzle that may have just been amplified?

Snipping out some quotes for sanity's sake.
The income that goes up is in terms of income received, they get 30% of what you would have made. The total amounts everyone gets is still the same though. Higher level accounts just get their payout faster. If you have 100 MH/s of equivalent speed, you earn 70MH/s worth and 30MH/s gets paid to your sponsors (or their sponsors, or further up the chain). Everyone still makes the same final amount based on the earlier formula. Accounts with sponsors who haven't received their full return just effectively earn more slowly.

So for a (relatively) short explanation:
* Deposit 1 BTC in A (A)
-- A will get 1.05 BTC (1 + 5%) back as an original member (you can not join at the top level any longer)
* A gets a referral, B, who deposits 1 BTC (A > B)
-- B will get 1.1 BTC (1 + 10%)
-- A's Bonus will increase according to the above formula (the simple version is 10% of the referrals deposit in BTC)
-- A will get an additional 0.1 (based on the higher bonus) for a total of 1.15 (1 + 5% original bonus + 10% of B)
-- A gets rewarded faster based on getting 30% of B's income (as hashing speed), but the total rewards are unchanged
* A gets another referral C for 1 BTC (A > B, A > C)
-- C gets 1.1
-- A gets an additional 0.1 for a total of 1.25
-- B doesn't change
-- A goes even faster
* B gets a referral for 0.5 BTC (A > B > D, A > C)
-- A doesn't change (only the immediate sponsor gets a higher reward)
-- B gets an additional 0.05
-- B goes faster
-- A goes faster
-- No changes to C



So you can effectively mine faster with referrals, and of course your total reward goes up too. Your sponsor(s) all the way up the chain (to A in the example) that haven't received their full bonus get to borrow some of your hashing power, but you still make just as much.

As for the best scheme for investing your own coin, scaling up exponentially is the best scheme I've come up with 0.1 > 1 > 10. Small deposits with larger referrals get you close to 20% overall bonus. I would also suggest having everything come out to your own wallet and manually reinvesting with pyramining instead of using the payout from one directly into another. It allows you to get out quicker if you want to and you can pick the account it goes to.

If anyone found this particularly fun or just wants to be my referral, click here (or PM me for a fresh one).

For clarity, 10% bonus goes to the referral. The 30% HASHING speed is distributed to accounts above you that aren't yet completed. If they get their complete reward (and don't add more funds) then it no longer transfers up. If the one of them finishes their "cut" of your hashing power goes up the chain if ANY accounts up the chain haven't completed yet.

Everyone will freak out, everything will turn out fine, and everything will go back to normal and people that follow up on the shock stories will find out that bitcoin is perfectly stable and is made to deal with this sort of thing.

Picking a group of people to manage or authenticate the blockchain is both not feasible, and not a workable idea. A voluntary model akin to what casascius suggested might work. But it would also rely on a voluntary model, for emphasis, a strictly voluntary model.

That all there, I think if several miners got together they could do this. Particularly a large pool could commit to one side of the chain and would effectively suggest where other miners should concentrate effort to keep their blocks valid. A large number of miners committing to a single chain could easily accrue majority of hashing power and make sure that everything heads in one direction.

In this case miners are suggested to switch back to 0.7 to mine on the more stable branch, merchants are suggested to avoid taking new money to prevent the transaction later being made invalid by a malicious party trying to double spend, and anyone else doesn't depend on the which blockchain "wins" at all and is advised to twiddle their thumbs, not panic, and wait as the world turns and things eventually smooth out.

Nope, nothing is ending. The only problem is that there's a fork and someone trying to be malicious could attempt to spend on both networks and wait for the chain to resolve in their favor. Anyone behaving in good faith (most people) will end up on the right blockchain no matter which one they are currently on (as all valid tx's get pushed to each chain). Only malicious parties tx's will be a problem.

On the technical side this is caused by the database in 0.7 only accepting so many tx's in one block. The offending block had ~1700 tx's. The current Dev recommendation is that anyone depending on being on the "right" chain (merchants, miners, pools, etc). Anyone else can keep their version and will eventually end up on the right side of everything. The fork was not caused by an attack. The offending block is not invalid on either chain (except by an implicit database commit restriction). It will get over reported the wrong way and people will freak out and then everything will return to normal.

As a quick note, how would this impact DRIP purchases when they can't be immediately fulfilled? I'd assume placed on the orderbook for someone else to pay the higher fee on?