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

[tsm13]

What is your take on DTMA & DTMB? (a couple of other mining funds soon to be offered on Havelock)

As a technology it makes great sense, miners can extend the life of their hardware and eke more mining roi. Big miners will move to this technology, but do they hold a patent to it. Whats to stop someone doing the same thing, will they start undercutting to meet the competition. Who will bear this cost, public or private money etc etc

 I'm going to take my own advise and pretend in my head to buy some ipo shares, stick the same amount into a btc wallet and come back in 6 months time and see who wins! If I lose I'll buy-in, If I win who knows 

[electerium]

One more thing, particularly for newbies who intend to hold peta long term. This here is why I am not surprised by the current situation:



source and discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0

You can add 50% to those numbers because of the BTC price rise since I made that post, and <$1000/TH hardware has already been announced. Therefore, a 600+ PH bitcoin network is already a given, its just a matter of how fast we can get there. Im also quite confident the cost will drop far below that.

Now see how much peta mine would earn in that network. Hint: its a huge negative number.

\

seriously, this is an amazing graph, excellent work

this is probably the most important calculator i've ever seen on btc talk

[nwfella]

Well on a slightly more positive note at least there appears to be quite a bit more Buy structure on havelock for peta.

[Korbman]

Puppet,

I am starting to think that all BTC mining operations are like a dog chasing its tail in terms of turning a profit. Let's assume that difficulty will go up as you say and that PETA will not make a profit. Do you think that all Bitcoin mining operations will also end up in the same situation?

[...]

I don't mean to encroach on the question posed to Puppet, but I can answer this from experience.

Yes, developing and maintaining a mining operation is a exactly like a dog chasing its tail. It's a cycle of finding better hardware to temporarily outpace difficulty...which ultimately increases the difficulty...which leads you back to finding more efficient / large quantities of hardware. It doesn't matter how large or how small the farm is, this same cycle will have an effect on all participants in one capacity or another.

This cycle is so vicious that there will be a period of time when only miners with unlimited, free energy will profit.

Heck, it hasn't even been two years since ASICs have been released and we're already pushing into "4th Generation Chips" territory. The product lifecycle we're working with is insane!

[altoidmintz]

Puppet,

I am starting to think that all BTC mining operations are like a dog chasing its tail in terms of turning a profit. Let's assume that difficulty will go up as you say and that PETA will not make a profit. Do you think that all Bitcoin mining operations will also end up in the same situation?

[...]

I don't mean to encroach on the question posed to Puppet, but I can answer this from experience.

Yes, developing and maintaining a mining operation is a exactly like a dog chasing its tail. It's a cycle of finding better hardware to temporarily outpace difficulty...which ultimately increases the difficulty...which leads you back to finding more efficient / large quantities of hardware. It doesn't matter how large or how small the farm is, this same cycle will have an effect on all participants in one capacity or another.

This cycle is so vicious that there will be a period of time when only miners with unlimited, free energy will profit.

Heck, it hasn't even been two years since ASICs have been released and we're already pushing into "4th Generation Chips" territory. The product lifecycle we're working with is insane!

Korb do you think if we re-adjust the div share to be a smaller %, perhaps ~ 10%, it is still to late? Or would we be able to recover with such a strategy in your opinion?

Puppet, feel free to chime in on that as well.

[Puppet]

Puppet,

I am starting to think that all BTC mining operations are like a dog chasing its tail in terms of turning a profit. Let's assume that difficulty will go up as you say and that PETA will not make a profit. Do you think that all Bitcoin mining operations will also end up in the same situation?

All mining operations that pay market price for their hardware, yes. Mining operations that pay marginal production cost, or very close to it, thats quite a different story. Their overall costs per TH are at least 5x lower. Most of those would be quite profitable. But they are not sharing their profits, they are only sharing their costs by selling (overpriced) hardware.

What is your take on DTMA & DTMB? (a couple of other mining funds soon to be offered on Havelock)

Do you foresee them being a success given their 6 month window till deployment?

I shared some initial thoughts here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310783.msg7376002#msg7376002

Havent looked more closely than that yet.

[EdoBcn]

Is there any repository with the shareprice by Dividend date?

[EdoBcn]

Is there any repository with the shareprice by Dividend date?

(also, what happened to the mined coins in the two weeks of IPO, May 23rd and May 30th???)

[_biO_]

(also, what happened to the mined coins in the two weeks of IPO, May 23rd and May 30th???)

Used to finance the new hardware.

[skuser]

BTW, you how do you get to 337 BTC for this friday? At current difficulty, which has been in effect since last week, 1150TH would yield 300.7 BTC, and some crumbs from namecoins.

You're right, I forgot to take into account recent diff change, so the result is even worse. Table fixed.

[Puppet]

You're right, I forgot to take into account recent diff change, so the result is even worse. Table fixed.

So it looks increasingly likely the loan will in fact, never get paid off.  Cryptx isnt going to like that, he doesnt want to lose money on this himself, so here is a prediction: friday he will suggest further witholding dividends to accelerate paying off the loan  "speed up "reinvestments". That way he gets his money back, he gets to pocket another round of hardware purchase kickbacks and increases his exuberant hosting fees.  Clueless shareholders will rejoice even though the final result of this is that they  will not even come close to  the best case return I projected.

Alternatively, although it ammounts to pretty much the same: cryptx will announce a new security and offer existing shareholders a paid "upgrade". Just another way to get more BTC from the suckers since his mining gear is rapidly running out of steam.

[Scottbit]

All mining operations that pay market price for their hardware, yes. Mining operations that pay marginal production cost, or very close to it, thats quite a different story. Their overall costs per TH are at least 5x lower. Most of those would be quite profitable. But they are not sharing their profits, they are only sharing their costs by selling (overpriced) hardware.

This is so true. Costs can be much lower on just a small batch order. Can't imaging what price are paid by projects that buy dozen miners - peanuts in regard to market price

[altoidmintz]

He says, "No reinvestment..." which is out of step with reality to begin with!
...

No its full reality for the next ~3 months. If the current network growth keeps up, its gonna be reality for longer, potentially for forever.
...

...
so here is a prediction: friday he will suggest further witholding dividends to accelerate paying off the loan  "speed up "reinvestments". That way he gets his money back, he gets to pocket another round of hardware purchase kickbacks and increases his exuberant hosting fees.  Clueless shareholders will rejoice even though the final result of this is that they  will not even come close to  the best case return I projected.

Alternatively, although it ammounts to pretty much the same: cryptx will announce a new security and offer existing shareholders a paid "upgrade". Just another way to get more BTC from the suckers since his mining gear is rapidly running out of steam.

LOL!!!

Contradiction. Just as I called. Yes, this is turning out the way I called. CryptX has to and will do something along the lines of reinvestment. Contrary to Puppet's insulting insinuation that CryptX will do something deceptive, however, I think CryptX will do something beneficial. On the grounds that he has continued doing so in the past. Usually when he is quiet for a while he speaks with a new and better plan than even expected.

Now, will someone please answer my question. Puppet sort of answered it, but not really:

Korb do you think if we re-adjust the div share to be a smaller %, perhaps ~ 10%, it is still to late? Or would we be able to recover with such a strategy in your opinion?

Puppet, feel free to chime in on that as well.

[Korbman]

I don't mean to encroach on the question posed to Puppet, but I can answer this from experience.

Yes, developing and maintaining a mining operation is a exactly like a dog chasing its tail. It's a cycle of finding better hardware to temporarily outpace difficulty...which ultimately increases the difficulty...which leads you back to finding more efficient / large quantities of hardware. It doesn't matter how large or how small the farm is, this same cycle will have an effect on all participants in one capacity or another.

This cycle is so vicious that there will be a period of time when only miners with unlimited, free energy will profit.

Heck, it hasn't even been two years since ASICs have been released and we're already pushing into "4th Generation Chips" territory. The product lifecycle we're working with is insane!

Korb do you think if we re-adjust the div share to be a smaller %, perhaps ~ 10%, it is still to late? Or would we be able to recover with such a strategy in your opinion?

Puppet, feel free to chime in on that as well.

It's hard to say. The goal is to reinvest at the same (or greater) pace as difficulty; if difficulty increases by 10%, then increase your hashrate by 10% or more. Now the question becomes "what does it cost to increase by 10%?"...to which the answer will vary based on access to hardware, cost of that hardware, and payment methods (BTC or Fiat).

Keeping it simple, let's say PETA generates BTC1.0 of revenue during 2016 blocks. If difficulty goes up 10%, it may cost PETA BTC0.5 in hardware purchases to increase their hashrate by the same amount to maintain that revenue stream of BTC1.0. 50% profit, 50% reinvestment.

That's also why I wanted to emphasize my previous point about active communication and voting. The PETA operators have the most comprehensive understanding of their current assets, expenses, and sources for hardware...which should make them the only people who can properly calculate reinvestment rates. If reinvesting 90% of their revenue into new hardware keeps them floating, then by all means do it. But if voters think that 50% is better for the company (when it's not), then you slowly start entering the downward spiral of never being able to catch up to difficulty increases because the funding isn't there.


EDIT:

Now, will someone please answer my question. Puppet sort of answered it, but not really:

Patience. I'm not on all day every day lol

EDIT 2:
I'd also like to point out that Puppet is correct, regardless of what others would like to believe. So long as commercially available hardware isn't able to achieve a positive return on its own (meaning spend BTC1 on hardware, mine back BTC1.1 for example), then no amount of reinvestment will help. Spending 100% of revenue on unprofitable miners won't magically make them profitable.

[Puppet]

LOL!!!

Contradiction. Just as I called.

No contradiction whatsoever. For the next ~3 months or potentially forever, here wont be a spare satoshi available for (re)investments from the current mining revenue at the current dividend split ratio.  That cryptx may "re"-invest with new funds from investors or by taking what little dividend potential is left to investors, is no contradiction, its just further proof that the concept does not and can not work.   If it did work, dividends would grow and/or there would be plenty room for reinvestment. Instead you have neither;  you have rapidly evaporating dividends that will amount to  barely ~20% of the total investment and still no reinvestments without fresh capital (or eating the remaining capital).

Usually when he is quiet for a while he speaks with a new and better plan than even expected.

Ah yes, the magical white rabbit that will turn 8 BTC/TH hardware profitable somehow. Im holding my breath. Most people here are totally deluded about how "good" his previous idea's were and blind to their results. Werent you all cheering when he "offered" that loan? What good is that doing now? Its eating half your dividends and leaving even less on the table than there would have been otherwise.  Its only helping cryptx reap in more fees.

Now, will someone please answer my question. Puppet sort of answered it, but not really:

I already did a bazillion times. Like here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310783.msg7347749#msg7347749

and here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310783.msg7411291#msg7411291

[NotLambchop]

...
I think CryptX will do something beneficial. On the grounds that he has continued doing so in the past. Usually when he is quiet for a while he speaks with a new and better plan than even expected.

Hope  
                     is always the last thing to die.

[runam0k]

...

...

Right on cue, in quick succession.  All we need now is jonsi's valuable input.

[KarmaShark]

Is there any investment vehicle to short PETA? If investors of PETA are not able to see what is happening here when they are being blatantly told and still refuse logic, can we get a way to make money off of them at least? The ability to short the majority of Havelocks offerings would be a money maker based on YTD returns.

[altoidmintz]

...

Now, will someone please answer my question. Puppet sort of answered it, but not really:

I already did a bazillion times. Like here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310783.msg7347749#msg7347749

and here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310783.msg7411291#msg7411291

Great! Yes. That is what I meant when I said, "Puppet sort of answered it but not really..."

Specifically, the point you make:

A 100% reinvestement strategy will not pay out a satoshi in dividends ever but will also not be able to increase the hashrate at the same pace as the network; the mining revenue as % of investment is simply lower than the difficulty growth, so your share of the network and therefore,  share value will simply slide over a long time until approaches zero and thus you end up with ~0% ROI.  Its like buying a unprofitable miner and using all your revenue to buy more unprofitable miners.

THIS is where you lose me. In short, I don't believe this and would like to hear the case for it.

If a reinvestment strat was expected to ~0% ROI why would any rational actor ever do it?

Are all miners irrational or are your numbers off?

What do you do with ASIC and the historic cases which refute this claim?

[NotLambchop]

...
What do you do with ASIC and the historic cases which refute this claim?

Which ones are those?