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

[Puppet]

Puppet, why are you using this account to post on peta? Did you get your threads mixed up?

Yeah why would I? DIdnt you just say a few days ago,  I got all my peta orders filled, so why would I try to talk the price down then?
I already told you I only use one single account, but if you are going to spread lies about me, at least try to be consistent mr "Long Term investor".

[dhenson]

Puppet, why are you using this account to post on peta? Did you get your threads mixed up?

Yeah why would I? DIdnt you just say a few days ago,  I got all my peta orders filled, so why would I try to talk the price down then?
I already told you I only use one single account, but if you are going to spread lies about me, at least try to be consistent mr "Long Term investor".

/yawn

You say 'Long Term Investor' like it's some kind of slam.  I believed in the project and invested the first day shares were offered on btct, when I saw them make changes that I didn't agree with, I said so and sold my shares.  Are you saying that I should have held through the 75% drop?

[Puppet]

You say 'Long Term Investor' like it's some kind of slam.  I believed in the project and invested the first day shares were offered on btct, when I saw them make changes that I didn't agree with, I said so and sold my shares.  Are you saying that I should have held through the 75% drop?

No I am saying you are a hypocrite. You claim I post with a hidden agenda, when its clear to anyone I could not possibly have one, since you cant short PETA. You claim I post with several accounts, when I only have one, and dont see any point in using more.

OTOH, you clearly did have a hidden agenda and a double tongue. You claimed to be a long term investor, in reality the reason you wanted me to shut up and you posted FUD about me, is so you could sell your shares before the ship sunk completely. Having me opening other people's eyes is not what you wanted.

BTW, a long term investor would be after dividends, and not care about a 75% drop.  If you really believed it be a sound investment, you'd have bought more, instead of dumping.

[dhenson]

You say 'Long Term Investor' like it's some kind of slam.  I believed in the project and invested the first day shares were offered on btct, when I saw them make changes that I didn't agree with, I said so and sold my shares.  Are you saying that I should have held through the 75% drop?

No I am saying you are a hypocrite. You claim I post with a hidden agenda, when its clear to anyone I could not possibly have one, since you cant short PETA. You claim I post with several accounts, when I only have one, and dont see any point in using more.

OTOH, you clearly did have a hidden agenda and a double tongue. You claimed to be a long term investor, in reality the reason you wanted me to shut up and you posted FUD about me, is so you could sell your shares before the ship sunk completely. Having me opening other people's eyes is not what you wanted.

BTW, a long term investor would be after dividends, and not care about a 75% drop.

I think you may need to look up the definition of the term 'hypocrite'.  In your example, I myself would have to be using multiple accounts in order to qualify as one.

I was a long term investor having purchased on day one, your statement about holding for divs when the stock is cratering is just stupid.  Obviously when investing in a security like this, the stock price + divs are both a factor.  If the stock price is tanking without any bid pressure or positive outlook, it obviously doesn't make sense to hold. 

Your statement doesn't even make sense.

[Puppet]

I think you may need to look up the definition of the term 'hypocrite'.  In your example, I myself would have to be using multiple accounts in order to qualify as one.

Accusing me of having a hidden agenda, while actually it wasnt me, but you that had a hidden agenda, doesnt qualify according to your dictionary?

I was a long term investor having purchased on day one, your statement about holding for divs when the stock is cratering is just stupid.  

Far from. NAV of a mining share like PETA is solely based on future dividends. Share price was always going to approach zero at some point, the only question was how long it would take and how much divs would be paid out before it happened. Either future dividends would be (far) below share price, which is the point I proved over and over, in which case, peta was a bad long term investment. Or I was wrong as you claimed and then future divs would match or exceed share price, in which case, a smart investor would hold on to his shares even if the price tanked. In fact, he would buy more.

You tried to ridicule my assumptions and math, questioned my motives and integrity, in reality its clear you actually agreed with the numbers and were not investing long term, just trying to flip some shares at a profit to a bigger fool, cex.io style. Hence, you are the hypocrite who was trying to mislead other investors. And the fool for having lost however much you lost.

[tragor]

New daily dividend, the highest of the week @ 0.00002200, brings this week to almost BTC0.0019 when compared to oldShares.

https://i.imgur.com/UFIPreB.jpg?1

[Anotheranonlol]

did some quick back of the napkin calculations: Still half a sleep so triple checking advised.. do own due diligence bla bla..

max mean diff increases over the course of the operations life that could be sustained to yield a positive ROI (over current 1 day VWAP)

With 0.25 KwH fees, max mean diff increase is ≤11%

With 0.20 KwH fees, max mean diff increase is ≤13%

With 0.15 KwH fees, max mean diff increase is ≤15%

With 0.10 KwH fees, max mean diff increase is ≤19%

Assumptions
* Static btc/USD exchange rate
* hardware liquidation at a rate of 0.30 USD/ GH

Breakeven dates (from current 1 day VWAP) + average final earnings per share

Using 10% per diff adjustment
-----------------------
0.25 kWh: 207 days --  avg total at end 0.0030
0.20 kWh: 160 days --  avg total at end  0.003387
0.15 kWh: 160 days --  avg total at end  0.003918
0.10 kWH: 108 days  -- avg total at end 0.00455

Using 7% per diff adjustment
-----------------------
0.25 kWh: 132 days --  avg total at end 0.00395
0.20 kWh: 110 days --  avg total at end  0.00460
0.15 kWh: 98 days --  avg total at end  0.005365
0.10 kWH: 86 days  -- avg total at end 0.00627

Again, same assumptions as before.. simple to avoid too many variables (if BTC/USD rises, proportional expenditure on fee's goes down.. but then also interest towards mining goes up, and this also affects prices of hardware)

So in short, assuming no changes to existing operation in pipeline; As an exist or prospecting shareholder; it makes sense to purchase/keep hold of shares till windup if you believe the following condition met 1) difficulty remains below average of ~11% AND/OR cryptx lowers management fees, which would serve to allow a greater margin for diff increases & lengthen the time the operation can continue running profitably for- Of course that last decision is in cryptx's hands.

[crino]

Yesterday we didn't receive the weekly update. Why?

[pedrog]

Yesterday we didn't receive the weekly update. Why?

I guess there's nothing new to report...

[bober182]

https://www.betmoose.com/bet/petamine-will-implement-p2pool-after-august-16th-619

[Anotheranonlol]

https://www.betmoose.com/bet/petamine-will-implement-p2pool-after-august-16th-619

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

[RoadStress]

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

[Anotheranonlol]

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

block solving is inhomogenous poisson process and you are gonna get noise and variance anyway..p2pool 7 + 30 day luck is good, but wind can change & on long enough timescale it's not prudent to focus on short term statistics unless you like to gamble, graph i posted is monte-carlo simulation smoothed with 10m trials

Solo mining with 0.01% of the hashrate, 50% chance to get < 32 BTC, 10% chance of > 65 BTC and beleive it or not 5% chance of getting 0..

instead if the same miner joined a pool that controls 0.1% of total net hashrate (they have 10% of that pools workers)  90% chance of earning > 26BTC, 50% chance of earning > 35BTC  10% of earning > 44BTC

  as you can see above p2pool like setup has a higher chance of higher earnings, it also has higher chance of lower earnings. whereas variance is reduced on a larger pool meaning less chance of low earnings, less chance of high but more predictable overall and therefore more suitable for investors wanting stable returns.  

[rdyoung]

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

block solving is inhomogenous poisson process and you are gonna get noise and variance anyway..p2pool 7 + 30 day luck is good, but wind can change & on long enough timescale it's not prudent to focus on short term statistics unless you like to gamble, graph i posted is monte-carlo simulation smoothed with 10m trials

Solo mining with 0.01% of the hashrate, 50% chance to get < 32 BTC, 10% chance of > 65 BTC and beleive it or not 5% chance of getting 0..

instead if the same miner joined a pool that controls 0.1% of total net hashrate (they have 10% of that pools workers)  90% chance of earning > 26BTC, 50% chance of earning > 35BTC  10% of earning > 44BTC

  as you can see above p2pool like setup has a higher chance of higher earnings, it also has higher chance of lower earnings. whereas variance is reduced on a larger pool meaning less chance of low earnings, less chance of high but more predictable overall and therefore more suitable for investors wanting stable returns.  

Your math has some serious issues.

It is NOT prudent to solo mine unless you have 1%+ of the network. While peta has that at the moment, they wont in short order.

You should educate yourself on p2pool before you dismiss it with scary charts that mean absolutely nothing.
P2Pool was designed to be more efficient than standard mining. How? Instead of getting a fresh bite of the apple every 10 minutes, every share you submit is eligible to be part of a block. I am feeling generous so I will copy/pasta an earlier post of mine on the subject.
P2Pool has broken the 1phs barrier, add to that the "luck" being good at the moment, and it should act like a gravity well pulling more hashrate towards it and for the time being the luck and therefore the earnings.

Found this thread on p2pool. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0

I think this covers it. From that thread.

What matters for good P2Pool results: low latencies

On average a miner on a classic pool needs to react to a new coinbase every 10 minutes. Every 10 minutes a miner on any pool can submit a share based on a block that isn't the last one anymore. This is wasted effort: it doesn't help generate the next block in the chain and the pool suffers from this. Most pools reject such work and ignore it when they compute miners' rewards.

Miners are often separated from their pools by long-distance networks with tens or hundreds of milliseconds of latency. This means that every 10 minutes a miner on a normal pool is wasting its efforts for at least tens or hundreds of milliseconds. This is why there are rejects even on properly tuned classic setups: for 10ms of latency between miner and pool on average you should expect 0.01/(60*10) = 0.0016%:

Latency   Expected rejects
10ms   0.0016%
100ms   0.016%
1s   0.16%

Conclusion: on a traditional pool, relatively high latencies aren't such a big deal.

On P2Pool, the tracking of the proof of work is implemented by a sharechain which mirrors several properties of the Bitcoin blockchain:

    A share is a proof of work with a given difficulty
    A share uses the previous share in its input to make a sharechain like blocks do to build the blockchain
    It builds on a block template given by a Bitcoin node: a share hitting the Bitcoin difficulty can become a block too
    It's difficulty is dynamically adjusted to maintain a fixed average rate of share generation (one every 30 seconds)


The last point means that having a low latency is more important for a P2Pool miner than a miner on a traditional pool. Pay attention to the fact that a share being submitted too late to enter the sharechain can still produce a block so it's not wasted work (high reject rates are not a problem for global income on P2Pool unlike rejects on traditional pools). This said as the rejected share isn't in the sharechain it won't count as a proof of work for the purpose of distributing the pool's income.

[rdyoung]

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

What makes no sense? The "luck" I posted for p2pool? Or what anon is saying about not moving to p2pool?
The luck is simply a measure of how profitable p2pool has been versus standard mining. Over the long long term by design it will be more profitable.
However, that being said, it would be prudent to be ready to switch back to a standard pool the minute that the 90 day "luck drops below 100% so that potential earnings aren't being lost.

[RoadStress]

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

What makes no sense? The "luck" I posted for p2pool? Or what anon is saying about not moving to p2pool?
The luck is simply a measure of how profitable p2pool has been versus standard mining. Over the long long term by design it will be more profitable.
However, that being said, it would be prudent to be ready to switch back to a standard pool the minute that the 90 day "luck drops below 100% so that potential earnings aren't being lost.

I was being sarcastic. I agree with your last line.

[Anotheranonlol]

Your math has some serious issues.

It is NOT prudent to solo mine unless you have 1%+ of the network. While peta has that at the moment, they wont in short order.

You should educate yourself on p2pool before you dismiss it with scary charts that mean absolutely nothing.
P2Pool was designed to be more efficient than standard mining. How? Instead of getting a fresh bite of the apple every 10 minutes, every share you submit is eligible to be part of a block. I am feeling generous so I will copy/pasta an earlier post of mine on the subject.
P2Pool has broken the 1phs barrier, add to that the "luck" being good at the moment, and it should act like a gravity well pulling more hashrate towards it and for the time being the luck and therefore the earnings.

The math there is correct. The chart isn't supposed to be scary. It's just a representation of simulations.
Doesn't mean you will earn more or less on a smaller pool, just that you have a higher chance for both.. This is common knowledge.

About the chips in use in Peta's miners - BitFury BF864C55 I was told they do not play 100% well with p2pool. (not talking about the simple jobconnect fix) Some other issue with restart/job cancellation and fast new work, I can't confirm that and have never tested personally but maybe that is a reason to delay a move also.

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

What makes no sense? The "luck" I posted for p2pool? Or what anon is saying about not moving to p2pool?
The luck is simply a measure of how profitable p2pool has been versus standard mining. Over the long long term by design it will be more profitable.
However, that being said, it would be prudent to be ready to switch back to a standard pool the minute that the 90 day "luck drops below 100% so that potential earnings aren't being lost.

He was implying because the retrospective luck of p2pool globally is good (past week, month and 3 month intervals)
it makes sense to immediately switch..because we too will enjoy this luck in future.

I like to use bitcoin per gigashare approach a la organofcorti, and ghash is doing reasonably well, most importantly not a lot of variance.

[oma5]

Amazing how the dividends keep decreasing!

[rdyoung]

Your math has some serious issues.

It is NOT prudent to solo mine unless you have 1%+ of the network. While peta has that at the moment, they wont in short order.

You should educate yourself on p2pool before you dismiss it with scary charts that mean absolutely nothing.
P2Pool was designed to be more efficient than standard mining. How? Instead of getting a fresh bite of the apple every 10 minutes, every share you submit is eligible to be part of a block. I am feeling generous so I will copy/pasta an earlier post of mine on the subject.
P2Pool has broken the 1phs barrier, add to that the "luck" being good at the moment, and it should act like a gravity well pulling more hashrate towards it and for the time being the luck and therefore the earnings.

The math there is correct. The chart isn't supposed to be scary. It's just a representation of simulations.
Doesn't mean you will earn more or less on a smaller pool, just that you have a higher chance for both.. This is common knowledge.

About the chips in use in Peta's miners - BitFury BF864C55 I was told they do not play 100% well with p2pool. (not talking about the simple jobconnect fix) Some other issue with restart/job cancellation and fast new work, I can't confirm that and have never tested personally but maybe that is a reason to delay a move also.

Makes no sense to move to p2pool, aside from trying to capitalise short term on the ghash '51% attack" hype. which has largely faded away, and besides been widely misinterpreted..

Pool Luck(?) (7 days, 30 days, 90 days): 134.5%140.9%109.1%

Totally makes no sense.

What makes no sense? The "luck" I posted for p2pool? Or what anon is saying about not moving to p2pool?
The luck is simply a measure of how profitable p2pool has been versus standard mining. Over the long long term by design it will be more profitable.
However, that being said, it would be prudent to be ready to switch back to a standard pool the minute that the 90 day "luck drops below 100% so that potential earnings aren't being lost.

He was implying because the retrospective luck of p2pool globally is good (past week, month and 3 month intervals)
it makes sense to immediately switch..because we too will enjoy this luck in future.

I like to use bitcoin per gigashare approach a la organofcorti, and ghash is doing reasonably well, most importantly not a lot of variance.

Yes, ghash is doing well, but better can be done. If they still have grandiose plans/ideas, I would rather see petamine/cryptx as a competitor/equal to ghash rather than riding their coattails.
P2Pool is somewhere that cryptx/petamine can really shine, yes, p2pool apparently doesn't play well with bitfury hardware, BUT, cryptx could devote some serious developer time to it and make a serious contribution to p2pool in the process. As others have stated being THE LARGEST mining operation on p2pool would put petamine squarely in the spotlight it might also spark some renewed interest in p2pool. P2Pool does have some scalability issues at the moment, from what I have read it would not work as efficiently if a significant % of the network switched over, but again this is something that peta could help fix.

[NotLambchop]

...
The math there is correct. The chart isn't supposed to be scary. It's just a representation of simulations. ...

Lol.