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

[skuser]

Ooops, so my idea of analyzing ghash.io blocks will be useless if he left the pool...

Sure you can. Blockchain shows all the transactions, so you can just do the math for anything up until yesterday. Or you can even include yesterday as there is a delay between mining > blocks maturing > ghash paying out > dividends. Not sure how much but at least one day, probably more.

Im still pretty amazed cryptx live stats went to zero, there is no announcement, and no one seems to care...

OK but you'll have to navigate me a bit. Here https://blockchain.info/blocks/GHash.IO I can see only last 4 days and I didn't find any other way to get older data containing info about origin. How are blocks identified to be able to tell they are from some pool?

[Puppet]

Use peta's address:
https://blockchain.info/address/1PETAmNrgdzx3FwzJPNuhx18JVKdGtwWt6

Any incoming transaction there is from mining, they all trace back to a pool, usually ghash.io.

[skuser]

Use peta's address:
https://blockchain.info/address/1PETAmNrgdzx3FwzJPNuhx18JVKdGtwWt6

Any incoming transaction there is from mining, they all trace back to a pool, usually ghash.io.

I am starting to think something stinks at ghash.io

Ghash.io mining address is this one:

https://blockchain.info/address/1CjPR7Z5ZSyWk6WtXvSFgkptmpoi4UM9BC?offset=0&filter=2

(Filtered only incoming transactions)

Data can be easily exported to see number of blocks mined per day so last few days are as follows:
12/8/2014   19
12/7/2014   19
12/6/2014   25
12/5/2014   29
12/4/2014   27
12/3/2014   12
12/2/2014   16
12/1/2014   19
11/30/2014   18
11/29/2014   21
11/28/2014   20
11/27/2014   23
11/26/2014   24


At 50 PH/s they should mine appr. 25-26 blocks per day, but they have days when they mine a half of them??? If this was standard variance this should be visible on whole network hashrate which isn't. Also if this was a variance they would have to have much better days also to opposite side (like 40+ days)

This is hard to understand considering the fact KNcminer claims here https://www.kncminer.com/categories/cloud-mining that they have 'Statistically stable output with KnC:s 10+PH/s Clear Sky Pool (PPS).'
Also amhash and hashnest have very low fluctuations with much smaller hashrate (like few percents)

So ghash.io has either some other unsigned address where they mine or or they have something wrong in pool setup which causes them mine on average 20% less. (That wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't such huge variance).


If we do get back to initial question if ghash.io sends what he has to to Peta address, between 11/9-12/8 they mined 675 blocks=16875BTC of which about 1.1/51 should have go to Peta - it's about 380BTC but the real hashrate for each mined block at ghash.io is impossible to get, if ghash.io has 54PH, the sum should go down to 360BTC but still 30BTC more than what I see at Peta address at that period.


The unstable performance of ghash.io raises much important questions though...

[Puppet]

A few points:
-Im fairly sure ghash uses more than one mining address. Any incoming payment to 1Peta prior to yesterday would have come from ghash, try tracing them back.
-be careful basing your math on an assumption of a constant combined hashrate for ghash. It might fluctuate significantly. Either way, with 15% of the network, variance is going to be non trivial even with a stable hashrate.
- KnC take the bad luck risk on to them, its a PPS pool. It doesnt mean they dont have variance, its just not visible to its users..
- AMhash doesnt run its own pool, I believe they mine on both ghash and discus fish. Similarly I recall antminer dividing its hashrate between its own pool and external pools to reduce variance.

[skuser]

1. I was too fast on computation of average mined blocks, they mined 675 blocks in 29 days, it's 23 on average. So about 10% lower than expected, not 20%.

As for the ghash.io payment address  they have more payment addresses but only one where they mine, if you login to ghash.io you can check live mined blocks and compare it to blockchain.info and you won't see different initial mining address than posted. But I checked randomly only few of blocks. Also payment addresses to Peta lead back to this one.

As for variance, as it is a Poisson process the variance could be theroetically high on any side, however the higher number of events should appear on average, the lower probability of extreme data. Or in other words, the probability you find only 1 block per day with 10 PH (on average you should find 5) is much higher (about 5%) than that you will find 10 or less blocks with 50 PH (it's only 0.31%). So yes variance plays great role but finding only 12 blocks is out of variance probability (about 0.14% - or once in  two years). They had probably some problems with pool that day.

[SpanishSoldier]

Use peta's address:
https://blockchain.info/address/1PETAmNrgdzx3FwzJPNuhx18JVKdGtwWt6

Any incoming transaction there is from mining, they all trace back to a pool, usually ghash.io.

I am starting to think something stinks at ghash.io

Ghash.io mining address is this one:

https://blockchain.info/address/1CjPR7Z5ZSyWk6WtXvSFgkptmpoi4UM9BC?offset=0&filter=2

(Filtered only incoming transactions)

Data can be easily exported to see number of blocks mined per day so last few days are as follows:
12/8/2014   19
12/7/2014   19
12/6/2014   25
12/5/2014   29
12/4/2014   27
12/3/2014   12
12/2/2014   16
12/1/2014   19
11/30/2014   18
11/29/2014   21
11/28/2014   20
11/27/2014   23
11/26/2014   24


At 50 PH/s they should mine appr. 25-26 blocks per day, but they have days when they mine a half of them??? If this was standard variance this should be visible on whole network hashrate which isn't. Also if this was a variance they would have to have much better days also to opposite side (like 40+ days)

This is hard to understand considering the fact KNcminer claims here https://www.kncminer.com/categories/cloud-mining that they have 'Statistically stable output with KnC:s 10+PH/s Clear Sky Pool (PPS).'
Also amhash and hashnest have very low fluctuations with much smaller hashrate (like few percents)

So ghash.io has either some other unsigned address where they mine or or they have something wrong in pool setup which causes them mine on average 20% less. (That wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't such huge variance).


If we do get back to initial question if ghash.io sends what he has to to Peta address, between 11/9-12/8 they mined 675 blocks=16875BTC of which about 1.1/51 should have go to Peta - it's about 380BTC but the real hashrate for each mined block at ghash.io is impossible to get, if ghash.io has 54PH, the sum should go down to 360BTC but still 30BTC more than what I see at Peta address at that period.


The unstable performance of ghash.io raises much important questions though...

I think 13 days data set is not enough to test mining luck of a pool. While mining at CloudMining.website, which is engaged into pool switching, I'm also experiencing high fluctuation from the throughput derived at www.cloudmining.website/calculator.php. For a better analysis please take a data set of at least 3 months.

[nwfella]

So either ghash is having terrible luck, not paying out correctly or cryptx is not pointing all its hashrate at the pool.
So I checked its stats, and WTF ?

http://www.petamine.co/stats/

I guess they are moving to another pool and didnt feel the need to tell anyone?
Either way, until yesterday the chart does still show the full ~1150TH at ghash, so for now Im gonna blame either ghash or bad luck at ghash and assume thats why cryptx is moving to another pool. But it would be wise to follow this up and ask him to comment.

Ooops, so my idea of analyzing ghash.io blocks will be useless if he left the pool...

Apparently they have left ghash.io in favor of Slush ()
CryptX announcement from today on havelockinvestments:

December 11th, 2014 - Dear unit holders,

We switched pools from ghash.io to Slush pool as we have slightly improved performance there and the pool also has a better historical variance compared to ghash.io (although this is no guarantee for future variance). The switch hasn't caused any mining downtime and we have already received the first payouts. Payouts occur after 100 confirmations of finding a block. We are still working on the stats page as we need to alter our code to match the API of Slush pool.

Team CryptX

[DebitMe]

So either ghash is having terrible luck, not paying out correctly or cryptx is not pointing all its hashrate at the pool.
So I checked its stats, and WTF ?

http://www.petamine.co/stats/

I guess they are moving to another pool and didnt feel the need to tell anyone?
Either way, until yesterday the chart does still show the full ~1150TH at ghash, so for now Im gonna blame either ghash or bad luck at ghash and assume thats why cryptx is moving to another pool. But it would be wise to follow this up and ask him to comment.

Ooops, so my idea of analyzing ghash.io blocks will be useless if he left the pool...

Apparently they have left ghash.io in favor of Slush ()
CryptX announcement from today on havelockinvestments:

December 11th, 2014 - Dear unit holders,

We switched pools from ghash.io to Slush pool as we have slightly improved performance there and the pool also has a better historical variance compared to ghash.io (although this is no guarantee for future variance). The switch hasn't caused any mining downtime and we have already received the first payouts. Payouts occur after 100 confirmations of finding a block. We are still working on the stats page as we need to alter our code to match the API of Slush pool.

Team CryptX

Slightly improved performance?  Each share represents 1 GH/s, and they should be at 1150 GH/s no matter the pool, any improved performance of units are going straight into their pockets, or is the contract changing and they are paying more out to people than 1 GH/s?

[stompysteve]

So either ghash is having terrible luck, not paying out correctly or cryptx is not pointing all its hashrate at the pool.
So I checked its stats, and WTF ?

http://www.petamine.co/stats/

I guess they are moving to another pool and didnt feel the need to tell anyone?
Either way, until yesterday the chart does still show the full ~1150TH at ghash, so for now Im gonna blame either ghash or bad luck at ghash and assume thats why cryptx is moving to another pool. But it would be wise to follow this up and ask him to comment.

Ooops, so my idea of analyzing ghash.io blocks will be useless if he left the pool...

Apparently they have left ghash.io in favor of Slush ()
CryptX announcement from today on havelockinvestments:

December 11th, 2014 - Dear unit holders,

We switched pools from ghash.io to Slush pool as we have slightly improved performance there and the pool also has a better historical variance compared to ghash.io (although this is no guarantee for future variance). The switch hasn't caused any mining downtime and we have already received the first payouts. Payouts occur after 100 confirmations of finding a block. We are still working on the stats page as we need to alter our code to match the API of Slush pool.

Team CryptX

Slightly improved performance?  Each share represents 1 GH/s, and they should be at 1150 GH/s no matter the pool, any improved performance of units are going straight into their pockets, or is the contract changing and they are paying more out to people than 1 GH/s?

its not a fixed 1GH like AMhash is setup, on unlucky days you get lower payments on lucky days you should get more then 1GH would normally mine

although it still doesnt add on on cryptxs side

[Puppet]

Slightly improved performance?  Each share represents 1 GH/s, and they should be at 1150 GH/s no matter the pool, any improved performance of units are going straight into their pockets, or is the contract changing and they are paying more out to people than 1 GH/s?

Different pools use different difficulty settings etc that may influence performance, even if only marginally (except in cases like p2pool). Id be surprised if the 3% (?) fee slush charges made up for that, and Id be even more surprised if variability would drop when switching to a pool that only has 3% of the network, but hey, at least its a trusted pool.

Maybe someone can explain cryptx that he can divide his hashrate over multiple pools to reduce variability (and ensure no pool becomes dominant).

[skuser]

Anyway this is good news from transparency point of view because slush's pool has much better public stats. For example it would be nice if cryptx could setup some identifiable username so we can follow the stats here:
https://beta.mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/hall-of-fame/

[DebitMe]

So either ghash is having terrible luck, not paying out correctly or cryptx is not pointing all its hashrate at the pool.
So I checked its stats, and WTF ?

http://www.petamine.co/stats/

I guess they are moving to another pool and didnt feel the need to tell anyone?
Either way, until yesterday the chart does still show the full ~1150TH at ghash, so for now Im gonna blame either ghash or bad luck at ghash and assume thats why cryptx is moving to another pool. But it would be wise to follow this up and ask him to comment.

Ooops, so my idea of analyzing ghash.io blocks will be useless if he left the pool...

Apparently they have left ghash.io in favor of Slush ()
CryptX announcement from today on havelockinvestments:

December 11th, 2014 - Dear unit holders,

We switched pools from ghash.io to Slush pool as we have slightly improved performance there and the pool also has a better historical variance compared to ghash.io (although this is no guarantee for future variance). The switch hasn't caused any mining downtime and we have already received the first payouts. Payouts occur after 100 confirmations of finding a block. We are still working on the stats page as we need to alter our code to match the API of Slush pool.

Team CryptX

Slightly improved performance?  Each share represents 1 GH/s, and they should be at 1150 GH/s no matter the pool, any improved performance of units are going straight into their pockets, or is the contract changing and they are paying more out to people than 1 GH/s?

its not a fixed 1GH like AMhash is setup, on unlucky days you get lower payments on lucky days you should get more then 1GH would normally mine

although it still doesnt add on on cryptxs side

No it isn't a fixed 1 GH/s, but if they were mining with 1150 GH/s like they are supposed to be on Cex.io and so is AmHash, then the payouts should be rather similar, minus the maintenance fees difference.  1 GH/s on the pool will mine what 1 GH/s mines each day at the same pool, doesn't matter which company that 1 GH/s is for.  So, they should be mining with 1150 GH/s, it shouldn't matter about any "improved efficiency" as you should still be seeing 1 GH/s worth of mining each day.

I guess they need to better explain what they mean by, "improved efficiency".  Because it certainly shouldn't/couldn't mean that the rigs are running faster, as the only reason for the switch then would be to line their pockets even more.

[skuser]

Actually moving to slush will worsen the variance results. For example yesterday the pool found only 1 block, which means 2.4 BTC for Peta. Just daily maintenance fees are at about 9 BTC. Even weekly period for dividend payout is not enough to get smooth results. Last 4 days earnings are at BTC 33.4, so no dividend to be expected for another few days...
The main problem of Peta are high fees, so it is difficult to catch for those satoshis remaining for dividend payout...

[skuser]

And last comment for a while:
Considering 2% pool fee at slush's pool, looking into Peta dividends received and the pool stats
https://blockchain.info/address/1PETAmNrgdzx3FwzJPNuhx18JVKdGtwWt6
https://beta.mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/blocks/?page=1

it's visible PETA has only 9-9.5% of pool hashrate share (income from block at about 2.3-2.4BTC instead of ca 2.6-2.7)which is currently at 10.5PH. Seems that PETA is in reality mining at about 100THs lower level than it should. That would point to user user_960703 in pool stats - mining at about 1.03 PHs. That would explain current dividend 'problems'.

[DebitMe]

And last comment for a while:
Considering 2% pool fee at slush's pool, looking into Peta dividends received and the pool stats
https://blockchain.info/address/1PETAmNrgdzx3FwzJPNuhx18JVKdGtwWt6
https://beta.mining.bitcoin.cz/stats/blocks/?page=1

it's visible PETA has only 9-9.5% of pool hashrate share (income from block at about 2.3-2.4BTC instead of ca 2.6-2.7)which is currently at 10.5PH. Seems that PETA is in reality mining at about 100THs lower level than it should. That would point to user user_960703 in pool stats - mining at about 1.03 PHs. That would explain current dividend 'problems'.

I am unfamiliar with p2pool, but is it possible to see individual statistics unlike on Cex?  that would also explain why they didn't switch, as it would have been apparent that each share was not 1 gh/s after all.

[Puppet]

keep calm & collect dividends!

Hows that been working out for ya lately?

[flyingplows]

how do you think is it still worth to invest in here a little or is it way too late ? 

[Puppet]

Too late? Be happy you're late.
RIght now, expected divs are as close to zero as to be zero for practical purposes.
Some might want to gamble on BTC appreciating (lowering fees) and difficulty remaining flatish for at least some time. IN that case you could make a profit, price per GH is low,  but understand that if btc stays where it is, and/or next gen asics come online next month, net value of these shares will be ~0.

So if you want to gamble on a BTC appreciating, Id say: buy some BTC.

[nwfella]

how do you think is it still worth to invest in here a little or is it way too late ? 

Avoid this asset at all costs.  Far better out there with far less unscrupulous behavior.

[ajw7989]

how do you think is it still worth to invest in here a little or is it way too late ? 

Avoid this asset at all costs.  Far better out there with far less unscrupulous behavior.

I agree I was with Petamine a month or so ago for a short period and made a small profit but the payouts are so unpredictable its hard to calculate a good buy and sell point. There are so much better options out there even on havelock AMHASH is a much better play.