Its got a way to fall yet before the bull returns!

Seems ok to me

Buying hardware is not going to make ROI.  Buy and hold BTC, or cloud mine.

You are extremely unlikely to make ROI on any hardware (unless you have free electricity).

Try using this site to work out ROI:

https://tradeblock.com/mining/

This should give an indication.  Difficulty in unpredictable and you will never know how much is currently on pre order.

This shows the rate of increase of monetary base (number of BTC) and the rate that is increasing.  The price is a function of many more variables than that.

Are we more interested in the impact of inflation/ deflation or the constant argument about the definition?

So if we are up and running again, when will the website be fixed so I can gain referrals?

I dont see the point arguing about it here.  Pyramining will or will not switch, and arguing here will make no difference (unless he puts up a poll)!!!

Regardless of variance, I dont see any advantage of sticking with P2P.  If they paid out 110% or some other benefit, I could understand sticking with them, but I do agree that as they have bad luck, hashrate drops, further reducing the chance of finding a block etc etc all while difficulty is increasing.  I have a lot of BTC still invested and I would be happy with a switch to a larger pool (even one with a fee if needed).

More importantly, if we have already mined approx 5 BTC, where are my pay outs?  My queued deposits were activated more than 2 weeks ago and no payment showing!!

so any update?

Getting back on track, I support a move to one, or several large pools to reduce variance.  I am aware of how variance works, but at this stage in the game, I would prefer regular payments rather than the possibility of 1 per week.

Also, a quick question for Pyramining.  I have several chained accounts.  The top two accounts are chained, with nothing above the top one.  I deposited exactly the same into each account and this was held for new hardware.  Now both accounts have been activated and both have the same allocated hashrate?  Surely the top account should have more as it should have a percentage (either 15% or whatever has been implemented for new deposits) from the account below and the second account should have less (due to giving up 15% or whatever to the account above)?

When you previously stated that things would not change for old accounts and the rules would be published before being enacted, I assumed that the % hashrate being passed up would continue.  Is this not the case?

If there is an issue with our hash rate significantly impacting difficulty of some coins, could you not split the pool and allocate some hashrate to more profitable coins with very low difficulty and the rest to other coins?

I would also like this feature.  Managing coins from  relatively low hash rate miners, over numerous exchanges is proving to be a pain in the a*** and probably not worth the extra hassle.  This feature would keep me on the site.

2 weeks sounds good.

Although, if you are going to implement an auto sell option, you could give the 2 weeks notice, then autosell all remaining coins and credit the balance to relevant accounts.

Is Germany coin on any exchange apart from Cryptorush (as they are obviously having issues at the moment).

I know I asked, but to be fair, I think he said they would start coming online from next week!!

So enough of the complaining!!!!

When are we back in business?  When is the first lot going live??

But flash mining isn't really flash mining!  Some accounts above me have up to 450BTC outstanding.  Even assuming spare hashrate was 30 THash/s (which it isn't) and that difficulty remains constant (which it wont), this 30 THash/s will produce approx 3.5 BTC per day.  Therefore to flash mine 1 single account (this may be a big one, but there are bigger ones I know of), it will still take 128 days plus!

I suggest that any spare or bonus hashrate is distributed evenly over all existing (or old) accounts, in direct proportion to the amount of BTC you have remaining.  This should be easy to implement and manage and should be straightforward to re calibrate when an account gets completed (everyone gets a fraction more power).  I consider myself pretty early into this, but limiting any bonus to a few accounts means that all but the very very first people to invest will see anything back.

And please dont change the bonus structure for any existing accounts (and preferably not for the queued amounts).  We all signed up for the current T&C.  Any new rules, whatever you decide, should only be implemented for deposits made after the rules are published.

agreed.  I also dont believe there will be significant new deposits, even when new infrastructure is installed, so we cant rely on new deposits to pull us out of this one.

I would rather any extra hashing is split across all old accounts, benefiting all and not just a few.  Smaller accounts will not benefit more than larger accounts as they will receive less.  I am not convinced that we will complete old accounts quickly enough to have any real effect and I would rather have a small percentage of something than wait in line for a large percentage of nothing.

There are accounts above mine with hundreds of BTC outstanding.  If all legacy power is directed at those accounts, it just means that those owners will benefit before difficulty increases and others will get nothing, instead of everyone sharing something.

When I joined I understood that difficulty would increase but I accepted that new members would make up for that.  Now, I do not benefit from new members and I think it will be difficult to attract new investors due to ROI time, so if all power is directed at 10 oldest accounts, I will never see anything!

This is a complete change to the original concept and I am not content with only the 10 oldest accounts receiving any hashrate (apart from new deposits).  This part needs a rethink, otherwise 10 individuals (or maybe less if they are owned by the same people) will benefit and no one else will.

If all existing hashrate is applied to oldest 10 accounts until completion, it may be some time before I (or many others) actually see any return as some of the old accounts have a lot of BTC in them.

I am concerned that my accounts will not be old enough to qualify for the 'oldest 10' and difficulty will increase too quickly to ever get to my accounts!

I also have concerns regarding new depositors.  Will an extra 30THash reduce the completion time to a level where you are happy to invest for a 10% return?  ie.  what is reasonable for 10%?  6 months?  a year?  2 years?  If not, how do we attract new investors?

I agree that in the past he has always looked after investors, I am just concerned that as he tries to please everyone, many will lose out.



To highlight my concern, one of my oldest accounts (Mid 2012) has at least 10 active accounts above it and more than 5 inactive.  The active accounts have at least 900 BTC outstanding, and this is just a single thread.  Therefore, even if these are the only accounts before mine, and assuming difficulty does not increase at all, and that all 30 THash is allocated to pay off these accounts, I will need to wait at least 250 days before I see a single satoshi. (30 THash/s generating 3.5BTC perday at present).

Now obviously, there are significantly more than 10 accounts ahead of me, difficulty will continue to rise significantly and all 30 THash will not be allocated to those accounts (it will be allocated to others as well and it wont be 30 THash/s).

Therefore I think he needs to rethink this, otherwise only a few, very old accounts will benefit! A more even split, so we all benefit but to a lesser degree is required.