Ya you guys are 6 months ahead or I should say 2 seasons ahead lol

Pyramining is the only one with the right data to see what the effect would/could be, but remember he said by "deposit" not by "account", the big difference here being that those huge accounts are likely multiple deposits not necessarily performed at the same time so the "flash" mining would likely jump around a bit and would hit many people.... but things to consider in the approach taken (I'm trusting pyramining has considered most of these but tabling things I feel should be considered all the same among a minefield of considerations...):

Note: not looking for answers, just hoping these were at minimum a set of considerations

1) What are the largest deposit sizes and how quickly does it taper off to completing deposits daily in any "flash mining" scheme (1, 10, even dispursion, etc.)
2) What is the ratio of FPGA/legacy asic/new asic deposit btc amounts
3) What is the anticipated ratio of hash power for each deposit category before and after changes
4) What is the "estimated recovery time" if we stay the course versus the new plan (albeit this is hard to predict but taking into account difficulty increases continually at current rates + steady BTC rate)
5) What contingency plans/growth plans may be in the works to keep this ship sailing? (renewable "free-ish" electricity to keep difficulty monster at bay for instance, new hardware roll out plans that may be above/beyond just new deposits say perhaps pyramining reinvesting 10% of realized profits to communal mining efforts or some such, alternative uses for legacy hardware such as alt-coin mining which they *may* still prove profitable on, continued account buyback program which nullifies bought back accounts out of the ecosystem, etc.)

I'm not in the earliest investment group by any means, my personal contribution is in excess of 100BTC of which was significantly weighted to FPGA purchases, but these were across several accounts and many many more deposits (not including the pass-through funds I also operate).  I'm hopeful that the changes will stimulate pyramining but it's murky water and hard to see what the outcome will be at this point and pyramining has the most direct non-speculative info of all of us so ultimately I have to have some faith that the plans being worked on are in the best interest of the system pyramining has been dedicated to for so long.

Since it sounds like I was wrong in my assumption, could I encourage you to consider taking that approach?  Older accounts get a share somewhat proportional to what they had before new hardware (maybe add a small bonus like 10% of new deposit power proportioned out to legacy hardware deposits proportionally distributed so they are not left out of the advantages and because I strongly suspect for the near future a high % of new deposits will actually be in the form of nested accounts... so keeping them churning helps stimulate the system), next provide advertised hashrate to new accounts (low cost high hash rate), lastly it sounds as if you will be deploying extra hash rate above and beyond the current sold amounts, while not churning on a new/old deposit use this extra to clean old accounts (to be frank I have no objection to you dedicating the entire whiz bang amount to the 1 oldest deposit in the system and gradually churn it up the chain, heck that's a marketable "feature" to have the opportunity to get "flash" mined for sticking with pyramining for the long haul.)

(pyramining please correct me if I'm wrong...)

My understanding is that, "old" deposits will get a hashrate share according to the terms they joined with (but with the new referall bonus changes), "new" deposits will get a hashrate share according to the new terms, with that all said and done pyramining is bringing on surplus power above and beyond that which was described above .... this surplus power is going to be used to clean up the oldest 10 deposits in the system and work forward to current day deposits (which it will never achieve so long as pyramining stays viable and attracts new investments but I and most should hope that it gets the old/current deposit gap bridged significantly)

sadly not yet, I'm keeping watch on the forums regularly for news.  I don't think anything mallicious is taking place and tend to favor that this may just be due to pyramining working with new hardware vendors etc. but I have not heard anything for some time as to the current status.

Very sales-pitchy but interesting all the same....

http://pro.moneymappress.com/NVXBITCOIN2014/PNVXQ255/

The concept works on fpga's and asics on non-merged mine sha coins.

He could even consider using a multi mining pool, some autoconvert and send BTC to a specified address.  I suspect that might offer the smoothest integration with the system pyramaning has/had?...

Thanks for the offer but I'm not interested.  I want to limit my personal commitment to these small funds I operate and not expand my footprint beyond that.  Good luck all the same!

you can go online for those :-)

Both of nonna's ideas leverage the multiple out feature of transaction by bundling sales and distributions so the speed at which transactions are processed are not really the issue per se ... more how is the fee that nasty mining will pay be collected.

My 2 bitcents...  Charge a low fee to seat sellers only at the time their seat is sold, up to an agreed upon max which will cover a reasonable fee, any excess is returned to nasty mining as part of the distribution, any short coming is paid out of the nasty mining distribution.  A reasonable calculation for this would be to take the average number of seats sold per week (eliminating out lying weeks where there was little trading and weeks where trading was considerably higher than the norm) and then divide the agreed upon fee among that many trades then add a small % on top to help hedge toward the transaction fee being covered by seat sales.  Morale of the story is that a single seat sale should not incur a full transaction fee and hopefully be considerably less.

You might have to monitor and switch to mining sha alts at some point which while lower cost can also be lower difficulty.  There are many choices out there for them but when and which to switch to all depends on value relative to bitcoin and the difference in difficulty.  There are a couple alts which are not setup for merge mining and they may be a good harbor for when BTC and BTC+Merged alts are no longer profitable vs. electricity costs.

Lastly, remember breaking even and even operating at a slight fiat negative may not be such a bad bargain, those who did before the meteoric price rise to $800+ are probably happy now and even if BTC did not rise so much they should feel happy they are helping to secure their investment in the system by keeping hash rate distributed between different pools, solo miners etc. which is a fundamentally necessary job whose fiat equivalent can cost much more money in the form of banking/investment fees etc. and with less direct control of how your investment is being secured.

So looking back at the transaction history...

The last payout was on 2014-01-13 from any account.  Rumor, since there has been no official statement from pyramining to my knowledge is that the existing hardware is now unprofitable so the cluster has been shut down and all new deposits are queued to new hardware.

The tier 3 account has about 0.2 BTC worth of payouts queued in it.
The tier 2 account has about 0.12 BTC worth of payouts queued in it.
The tier 1 account has about 0.25 BTC worth of payouts queued in it.
Total queued is about 0.57 BTC queued for new hardware.  (This will equate to an estimated ~50 GH/s addition to our accounts if the new infrastructure stat is correct)

I can only hope that this new hardware brings these accounts good, since BTC price has risen dramatically since these deposits were made there is still hope that profitability is still possible.  If pyramining goes defunct then well... let's not hope that happens as my investment in these funds as well as my personal investments has a many thousands of dollars in a loss....  Not going to lie here, with pyramining not saying anything in a long time and payouts essentially halted it seems for a couple weeks now I'm concerned for the health of these funds and the solvency of the invested BTC...  All I can suggest is to try and reach out to pyramining directly for info as to the status/future of the pyramining system.  The last official statement I saw was regarding a mid/late January deployment of much better hardware and a significant amount of it but I've seen no update regarding how that plan is proceeding.

Currently that is correct, I will go look and get back to you, admittedly it won't be much because payouts are so slow these days even with significantly reduced payout thresholds.  (And I'm still hashing out a new prospectus for vote on soon to help diversify out of pyramining to more liquid funding options with a speedier ROI)

Ability to chain multiple devices together needing only 1 USB in/out to the mining host and optional hard boards to supply power to multiple boards from fewer power cables like the drill-bit mini-planes and double scrolls.

Couple questions....

1)  Having trouble deciphering the new command line arguments to run the 8 boards with bfgminer, anyone know what they are/mean?

2)  How do I get the latest firmware and correct drivers to run the new bfgminer?  (on Win 7 64 bit .... I did look at the drillbit forums but they are not complete or I misunderstand a step or two in the process)

Thanks!

China is not out permanently, they're just out for now... as this technology sees wider spread adoption (i.e. Overstock.com now accepting, Virgin Galactic accepting - imho, field trial for the rest of the Virgin group companies, etc.) with larger and more entities, they'll want to be back in and don't be surprised that suddenly a wave of bitcoin millionaires show up in China on that day including government officials.

Their motive is currency protection which they can't easily see as manageable in the Bitcoin ecosystem but if they fall out of favor because they are not on the bandwagon then the corrective action is jump on.  Fiat currencies won't be dieing out anytime soon but cryptocurrency is poised to be the global mediator of currencies and as that becomes apparent currencies which do not allow easy ways in and out of it will have their growth hampered (IMHO)

I got an odd payment which has "-1" confirmations the last time I looked but didn't look at the details further I was going to give it some time to hopefully correct itself.

I'm working on a new prospectus for the funds to diversify mining out of just pyramining investments since it has been so slow and not yielding desirable return timelines.  This will likely be up for voting around the upcoming holiday break.  If you have any ideas for inclusion into a new prospectus, please throw some out here.  Financially we have no losses or anything it's just our return rate has been stretched so that I can't award dividends at a desirable rate currently.  If you browse the pyramining accounts you can easily see what assets we are in control of.  The obvious benefit of the slow return is that with the increasing values of LTC the fiat value of the current fund owners has increased significantly.

KNC 28nm efficiency vs Bitfury 55nm efficiency was pretty poor so I'm not so sure it will be a big deal, especially if the hardware is Cointerra (My Theory/Conjecture) which is posting some pretty nice stats thus far.