[HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit)

[hephaist0s]

Fantastic progress. Any word from Bitmine?

We always wait to release information until the moment we have 100% confirmation. Thank you for the patience.

And the solidity of the information you provide is much appreciated. Watching this project develop over the past ~6 months has been a pleasure.

[michaelGedi]

START DATE INSURANCE

PETA-MINE start of deployment is scheduled early January, 2014. The CryptX management team is well aware of the importance of timing the mine’s deployment. It is also aware of the very poor track record of meeting time schedules in the Bitcoin mining space and recognize that potential sources of such delays include chip failure, PCB failure, or chip delivery problems. CryptX will protect PETA-MINE shareholders against such delays by adding 20% additional hash power for each 30 days the company exceeds its target deployment date.

For example, if CryptX ultimately deploys the mine after mid January, 2014, an additional 30 TH/s of power will be added to the PETA-MINE completely free of charge to shareholders, and each share will be entitled to 2.88 GH/s of hash power. If the company starts deployment after mid February, 2014, it will add an additional 20% on top of the previous 20%. In that case, each share would be entitled to 3.45 GH/s of hash power.

EDIT: The deployment of the PETA-MINE has started the 13th of February. This means each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/s of hash power.

I've emboldened the vague/conflicting phrases of this section.

• "Exceeds its target deployment date": depending on the definition of 'deployment', one could definitely say that deployment date has been exceeded. Is the mine technically 'deployed' if only a fraction of it is operational?
• "Ultimately deploys the mine": this language, as above, certainly implies that 'deployment' is an ultimate, final, one-time event, not the beginning of a process.
• "Starts deployment": this statement conflicts with the two phrases above. It would be acceptable if there were definite and different terms specified for each month, but this is given as an example (grouped in the same paragraph with the example for January, see phrase above).

I think it would be hard to deny that the mine has not been deployed as of mid-February.

"the mine" has not been "ultimately" deployed, the mine STARTED to be deployed. While there is some grey area in the wording, it can be argued either way. Of course peoples interests will differ on this. I think once the target 2.88 is met, we can discuss a little how the extra units from Cointerra might be used... they could, after all, be considered a bonus or "compensation" for missing the 2.88 target... unfortunately a timeframe for ultimate deployment is not laid out.

[trek27]

START DATE INSURANCE

PETA-MINE start of deployment is scheduled early January, 2014. The CryptX management team is well aware of the importance of timing the mine’s deployment. It is also aware of the very poor track record of meeting time schedules in the Bitcoin mining space and recognize that potential sources of such delays include chip failure, PCB failure, or chip delivery problems. CryptX will protect PETA-MINE shareholders against such delays by adding 20% additional hash power for each 30 days the company exceeds its target deployment date.

For example, if CryptX ultimately deploys the mine after mid January, 2014, an additional 30 TH/s of power will be added to the PETA-MINE completely free of charge to shareholders, and each share will be entitled to 2.88 GH/s of hash power. If the company starts deployment after mid February, 2014, it will add an additional 20% on top of the previous 20%. In that case, each share would be entitled to 3.45 GH/s of hash power.

EDIT: The deployment of the PETA-MINE has started the 13th of February. This means each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/s of hash power.

I've emboldened the vague/conflicting phrases of this section.

• "Exceeds its target deployment date": depending on the definition of 'deployment', one could definitely say that deployment date has been exceeded. Is the mine technically 'deployed' if only a fraction of it is operational?
• "Ultimately deploys the mine": this language, as above, certainly implies that 'deployment' is an ultimate, final, one-time event, not the beginning of a process.
• "Starts deployment": this statement conflicts with the two phrases above. It would be acceptable if there were definite and different terms specified for each month, but this is given as an example (grouped in the same paragraph with the example for January, see phrase above).

I think it would be hard to deny that the mine has not been deployed as of mid-February.

Most probably from strictly formal point of view everything is OK - 'starts deployment' refers to mid-February and first miners were deployed on 13th Feb.
IMHO this issue (2,88 or 3,45 at the start) is not 'make or break' factor for this project - but smart reinvestment is. So, let's hope CryptX delivers at the next stage.

[XliptTit]

this isnt nice, of course cryptsy can argue that the operation started to be deployed within the time frame but it isnt honest, I wouldnt do that. Are we going to receive the dividend like if we were hasing at full power since 14 february? If not you are acting  with "bad faith"(I dont know how you say that in english).I am holding this share till prices hit a fair value then I am leaving

The insurance was at place to protect us, the shareholder, and when it is just going to do that you use an interpretation that beneficts you.

[spartan82]

We are not even hashing at 2.88gh/share let alone 3.5 so our dividends will not be anywhere near that amount. My view is that we will receive what we are hashing at (divided by) total shares (minus) maintenance/electricity fees (minus) reinvestment percentage. In other words a very very small div payout until we start hashing at 2.88gh/share and then IF after that we get our compensation 20% that will obviously happen when we are hashing with that extra power. So right now the ROI percentage will be ridiculously low

[MonkeyBear68]

this isnt nice, of course cryptsy can argue that the operation started to be deployed within the time frame but it isnt honest, I wouldnt do that. Are we going to receive the dividend like if we were hasing at full power since 14 february? If not you are acting  with "bad faith"(I dont know how you say that in english).I am holding this share till prices hit a fair value then I am leaving

The insurance was at place to protect us, the shareholder, and when it is just going to do that you use an interpretation that beneficts you.

Thank you for making this point. I know exactly what you are trying to say. Since the mine has started deployment and each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/sec, then Friday's per share dividend should be based on what 2.88 GH/sec would provide at current difficulties. IMHO it is NOT fair for CryptX to deny the 20% increase based on starting prior to mid-February and then provide dividend payouts based on the small fraction of mining power currently implemented.

In the prospectus it clearly says that each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/sec. For the investors this means:

1) If CryptX has declared that the mine has been deployed and started, then this Friday's dividends should be based on 2.88 GH/sec.

2) If CryptX does not declare the mine as deployed and started, then dividends are not due this Friday, but the 20% extra should apply giving each share 3.45 GH/sec.

In my opinion CryptX cannot have it both ways and claim the mine has been deployed and started and then proceed to pay a dividend per share any less than what 2.88 GH/sec would generate at current difficulty levels.

[spartan82]

this isnt nice, of course cryptsy can argue that the operation started to be deployed within the time frame but it isnt honest, I wouldnt do that. Are we going to receive the dividend like if we were hasing at full power since 14 february? If not you are acting  with "bad faith"(I dont know how you say that in english).I am holding this share till prices hit a fair value then I am leaving

The insurance was at place to protect us, the shareholder, and when it is just going to do that you use an interpretation that beneficts you.

Thank you for making this point. I know exactly what you are trying to say. Since the mine has started deployment and each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/sec, then Friday's per share dividend should be based on what 2.88 GH/sec would provide at current difficulties. IMHO it is NOT fair for CryptX to deny the 20% increase based on starting prior to mid-February and then provide dividend payouts based on the small fraction of mining power currently implemented.

In the prospectus it clearly says that each share is entitled to 2.88 GH/sec. For the investors this means:

1) If CryptX has declared that the mine has been deployed and started, then this Friday's dividends should be based on 2.88 GH/sec.

2) If CryptX does not declare the mine as deployed and started, then dividends are not due this Friday, but the 20% extra should apply giving each share 3.45 GH/sec.

In my opinion CryptX cannot have it both ways and claim the mine has been deployed and started and then proceed to pay a dividend per share any less than what 2.88 GH/sec would generate at current difficulty levels.

You make some very valid points there and I hope for all our sakes that you are right with all of that and cryptx follows suit accordingly

[dhenson]

In my opinion, the 20% bonus should apply to the portion of the Cointerra order that was not delivered by mid February.  This isn't a binary issue, all or nothing.  I'm sure the math isn't beyond Cryptx to figure out.

The fact that Cryptx isn't talking about it isn't proof that he's out to screw us.  He simply waits until the deals are confirmed before relaying the information to shareholders.

[millenium]

From Peta mine site:

The PETA-MINE is a hosted mining project with an initial capacity of 288,000 GH/s or 288 TH/s of hashing power.

The PETA-MINE will deploy with an initial capacity of 288,000 GH/s.

CryptX will protect PETA-MINE shareholders against such delays by adding 20% additional hash power for each 30 days the company exceeds its target deployment date.

CryptX missed the target of the initial capacity at mid feb, Peta mine are not deploying with the promised initial capacity.

[Foebar]

tired of this stuff, sold all shares.



12 hours               27.32 Th/s   274795120
3 hours               27.24 Th/s   68508480
22.5 minutes   26.64 Th/s           8374176
256 seconds   1,723.59 Gh/s   102734
128 seconds   3,006.51 Gh/s   89601

[runam0k]

Looks fine to me.

Code:

12 hours      27.32 Th/s 
3 hours       27.25 Th/s 
22.5 minutes  28.10 Th/s 
256 seconds   23.21 Th/s 
128 seconds   28.07 Th/s 

[mikemikemike]

tired of this stuff, sold all shares.



12 hours               27.32 Th/s   274795120
3 hours               27.24 Th/s   68508480
22.5 minutes   26.64 Th/s           8374176
256 seconds   1,723.59 Gh/s   102734
128 seconds   3,006.51 Gh/s   89601

ahaha. this is great. anymore people wanna bail? i'll happily buy upto 1000 shares at 0.065. PM ME

[ujka]

tired of this stuff, sold all shares.

12 hours               27.32 Th/s   274795120
3 hours               27.24 Th/s   68508480
22.5 minutes   26.64 Th/s           8374176
256 seconds   1,723.59 Gh/s   102734
128 seconds   3,006.51 Gh/s   89601

Don't understand. Tired of what? 256 seconds average? Or the fact we are at 21.feb, and hashing only at 27th?

[Foebar]

Tired of only mining at 26 Th/s

No real date for the rest of the hardware arriving.

Seeing that cryptx is trying to hide between some lines in the contract for the +20% increase.
Also expecting that they won't apply the 35% invest before they reach the 220 Th/s.
They will fall behind fast.

They can prolong the full deploy without any increase , because the start (don't make me laugh) happened on Feb 13th.

I will mine with my own cloud / hardware Gh/s and reinvest myself, will be more profitable in the long run.

[ujka]

They already paid for 340 th of hardware.
Delivery is the problem, with cointerra and bitmine late for months.

[Foebar]

Correct, but what is there for assurance that we can mine with more than 30Th/s for the upcomming months = nothing

If cointerra can't deliver, Cryptx will mine under target for the upcomming weeks without an increase of Gh/s per share.

Diff will increase further and with new hardware comming into play on the global network, 300 Th/s won't cut it anymore with +80000 shares

Bye bye dividends

I hope I'm wrong , but for me it's a bad signal updating the main site and stating the 2,88Gh/s per share and not updating this forum post.

[ujka]

That's  correct. If cointerra or/and bitmine don't deliver, there will be no gear to mine.
And what do you suggest CryptX is to be doing? Ask money back from cointerra and bitmine and ordering from...?

Edit
For now, all our 'eggs' are with cointerra and bitmine. And they dissapointed.
CryptX can only take a loan, and order gear from someone else. But delivery again can take months.

[Foebar]

That's  correct. If cointerra or/and bitmine don't deliver, there will be no gear to mine.
And what do you suggest CryptX is to be doing? Ask money back from cointerra and bitmine and ordering from...?

Edit
For now, all our 'eggs' are with cointerra and bitmine. And they dissapointed.
CryptX can only take a loan, and order gear from someone else. But delivery again can take months.

They've allready taken a loan from us, the initial investors, by adapting the playing terms, they are also dissapointing.

We are in bed with Cryptx, not cointerra and bitmine, otherwise we've could have ordered there directly.

That's why I'm taking my money out of it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion in this, and I wish them all good luck with BTC mining.

[ujka]

You got the point here, playing around with the terms of contract is disappointing.
For now, I will still wait some more days. Thanks for your wishes. 

[EdoBcn]

I'll join the "thanks for the best wishes" team.

Do we know if we are getting the shares paid today? Is this still the plan (even with the low amount of BTC mined until now)?