PB Mining -- 5 year mining contracts!

[petahashminer]

i bought some ghs at 0.0017 btc/ghs too, but now the price is again 0.0019 btc/ghs ,

why is the price is so volatile? cannot understand it..

[1714237872]

1714237872

[1714237872]

1714237872

[1714237872]

1714237872

[1714237872]

1714237872

[1714237872]

1714237872

[1714237872]

1714237872

[dimiro]

0.0017 / GHs not bad   Just bought 1 BTC worth

Not my ref, ahhh

[Mike18feb]

i bought some ghs at 0.0017 btc/ghs too, but now the price is again 0.0019 btc/ghs ,

why is the price is so volatile? cannot understand it..

Indeed. It's a bit annoying.

[byt411]

i bought some ghs at 0.0017 btc/ghs too, but now the price is again 0.0019 btc/ghs ,

why is the price is so volatile? cannot understand it..

Indeed. It's a bit annoying.

You might as well ask, why is the bitcoin price so volatile?
Mining Equipment is sold in USD, and I would expect the ghs price to change due to that.

[MrTeal]

What a strange setup, I didn't realize PBMining is listed as having 1% of the network. I can't imagine they're doing that in Saskatchewan; even for large industrial customer with their own 72kV transformers they're probably still looking at 7c/kWh or more.

[Mike18feb]

You might as well ask, why is the bitcoin price so volatile?
Mining Equipment is sold in USD, and I would expect the ghs price to change due to that.

Volatile price? 0.0017BTC while Bitcoin is worth 320 versus 0.0019BTC while bitcoin is worth 325...
Thats the sort of annoying thing I mean

[Flep182]

You might as well ask, why is the bitcoin price so volatile?
Mining Equipment is sold in USD, and I would expect the ghs price to change due to that.

Volatile price? 0.0017BTC while Bitcoin is worth 320 versus 0.0019BTC while bitcoin is worth 325...
Thats the sort of annoying thing I mean

Have you checked the predicted next difficulty? There hasn't been such a "small" raise in all history bitcoinwisdom shows: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

[Mike18feb]

I dont see what that has got do with it. In the past prices were lowered after a steep difficulty raise, though the last months price adjustments have barely happened due to difficulty. Doesn't make sense that all of a sudden there's a raise in price before a difficulty adjustment.

[Flep182]

I dont see what that has got do with it. In the past prices were lowered after a steep difficulty raise, though the last months price adjustments have barely happened due to difficulty. Doesn't make sense that all of a sudden there's a raise in price before a difficulty adjustment.

But it can still be a factor in a price change. Could also very well be that they lowered the price first and then started selling too fast

[Mike18feb]

Of course it can be a factor, but if a difficulty jump of 15% or 20% does nothing for the price, then I don't see why price should be raised when there's a pending adjustment of 2% while Bitcoin price is going up so there's more revenue from the same price anyway.
PBM could also be looking out of the Window and see it rains, so, add 10% to the price. It can be a factor, but it doesn't make much sense. Also doesn't make sense to change price like twice per day. People get annoyed. I get annoyed

[MrTeal]

That is completely normal and has already been pointed out before.    As you can see they are always small amounts.

Can you prove some payments originate from mining?

Seems you either try your hardest to hide the mining or you're not mining.

I know you've got a much better coin mixer since April but what's the point when you openly admit paying out directly from customer payments?

Don't you realize that with such a shady business model you're limiting your customer base to naive investonomers and gamblers?

I have a (serious) question for you. If a company thought that mining was a losing proposition and essentially wanted the short the market, they could sell mining power and provide the equivalent returns without actually investing in hardware.
If they sell X GH/s for 5 years for a certain price, and return the equivalent 100% PPS for those X GH/s over that time, is it a problem if they never actually place X GH/s on the network?

[jimmothy]

That is completely normal and has already been pointed out before.    As you can see they are always small amounts.

Can you prove some payments originate from mining?

Seems you either try your hardest to hide the mining or you're not mining.

I know you've got a much better coin mixer since April but what's the point when you openly admit paying out directly from customer payments?

Don't you realize that with such a shady business model you're limiting your customer base to naive investonomers and gamblers?

I have a (serious) question for you. If a company thought that mining was a losing proposition and essentially wanted the short the market, they could sell mining power and provide the equivalent returns without actually investing in hardware.
If they sell X GH/s for 5 years for a certain price, and return the equivalent 100% PPS for those X GH/s over that time, is it a problem if they never actually place X GH/s on the network?

You don't have the right to think mining is a losing proposition and sell mining bonds that will fail if your predictions are wrong.

It's a problem in the same way any ponzi is a problem which is that there is no source of revenue (other than new investments) and thus no possibility of real profit. (ponzi operators/early adopters surely have the chance to profit from other users payments)

For example say a mining operation of 1PH costs 1000btc. With a real mining operation there is a chance that that 1PH earns 1500btc (500 btc profit) but with a ponzi there is no chance they payout more than the original 1000btc. (Depending on the ponzi operators cut it could be much less than)

Cloudmining ponzi schemes are just like the BDD (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=430137.0) except for the fact that the BDD makes it very clear what happens when the reserve fund runs dry. (The game ends/payments stop/everyone goes home happy)

Sure a ponzi scheme can try to accurately predict exactly how much btc each GH will mine over the next 5 years but if they are wrong then everyone will end up scammed. If they are right then everyone will end up with a loss, but not scammed at least.

It's a loss/bigger loss situation for customers but a win/win for the ponzi operators.

[MrTeal]

That is completely normal and has already been pointed out before.    As you can see they are always small amounts.

Can you prove some payments originate from mining?

Seems you either try your hardest to hide the mining or you're not mining.

I know you've got a much better coin mixer since April but what's the point when you openly admit paying out directly from customer payments?

Don't you realize that with such a shady business model you're limiting your customer base to naive investonomers and gamblers?

I have a (serious) question for you. If a company thought that mining was a losing proposition and essentially wanted the short the market, they could sell mining power and provide the equivalent returns without actually investing in hardware.
If they sell X GH/s for 5 years for a certain price, and return the equivalent 100% PPS for those X GH/s over that time, is it a problem if they never actually place X GH/s on the network?

You don't have the right to think mining is a losing proposition and sell mining bonds that will fail if your predictions are wrong.

Ah, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm asking. You're assuming that the mining company will just cut and run, and you're obviously correct in that's what has historically happened and what will likely continue to happen here. I'm asking more of a conceptual question. Similarly to borrowing and shorting a stock where if you are wrong you take a loss, I'm asking about a similar thing in the mining space. If the "mining company" sells a futures contract that they will provide dividends based on X GH/s for Y years in exchange for Z BTC, is there really any difference between that and a mining bond that actually buys the hardware if they do stick to the terms of the contract?

As long as the intent is communicated, I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference. You're still relying on the integrity of the party you're dealing with. It's just risk in the opposite direction; if mining goes really well a mining company might stick around and pay out, but if it goes poorly they'll just cut and run. Here, if mining goes poorly the company makes a profit but if it goes well they lose money and possibly cut and run.

Of course, my proposed company is an ideal that is making an educated gamble and has the resources to absorb the loss if they're wrong. I'm not saying that's the case with what is going on here.

[5ick3uffalo]

I dont see what that has got do with it. In the past prices were lowered after a steep difficulty raise, though the last months price adjustments have barely happened due to difficulty. Doesn't make sense that all of a sudden there's a raise in price before a difficulty adjustment.

Could also very well be that they lowered the price first and then started selling too fast

Think so, too.

0.0017 was not long time and think many took the change while btc was as low as 275-280$ to buy GHs.

because someone dumping 30,000 btc with a huge discount:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uX_bB_4VJk#t=21

a hell of a deal wished had more rl funds avaibable that time, only managed to buy 2 btc  

[guitarplinker]

What a strange setup, I didn't realize PBMining is listed as having 1% of the network. I can't imagine they're doing that in Saskatchewan; even for large industrial customer with their own 72kV transformers they're probably still looking at 7c/kWh or more.

Where are you seeing that they are listed as 1% of the network? On their website?

[MrTeal]

What a strange setup, I didn't realize PBMining is listed as having 1% of the network. I can't imagine they're doing that in Saskatchewan; even for large industrial customer with their own 72kV transformers they're probably still looking at 7c/kWh or more.

Where are you seeing that they are listed as 1% of the network? On their website?

Yeah. It said they had 2.51PH/s, which is actually a little more than 1% of the current ~230PH/s network.

[PilotofBTC]

With BTC blocks taking 40+ minutes at this time is there a possibility of the difficulty going down?

(yes, waiting for 1 confirm today for a deposit, so I needed something to do).

[bennynjetz]

With BTC blocks taking 40+ minutes at this time is there a possibility of the difficulty going down?

(yes, waiting for 1 confirm today for a deposit, so I needed something to do).

There has been a LOT of buzz lately regarding difficulty going down. Many many factors are contributing to this, so it would take me all day to get into that (just Google it and see what I mean). If you have a home mining farm, you will definitely benefit from it. Cloud miners will see a nice return as well.

Getting back to the initial purpose of the PB Mining post started a while back, I have been with PB since March of this year, and I have YET to encounter a single problem with them. Payouts are certainly in line with what they should be. Actually, back in June, I identically matched my PB hash rate with my home mining farm hash rate, and the payout was almost identical down to the satoshi. I was super impressed with that! Now that I have maxed out all of the circuits in my house and cannot tack on any more miners, I have beefed up my hash rate with PB and we are still trucking along like a monster! Nothing but accolades for PB ALL THE WAY!!

[bennynjetz]

With BTC blocks taking 40+ minutes at this time is there a possibility of the difficulty going down?

(yes, waiting for 1 confirm today for a deposit, so I needed something to do).

There has been a LOT of buzz lately regarding difficulty going down. Many many factors are contributing to this, so it would take me all day to get into that (just Google it and see what I mean). If you have a home mining farm, you will definitely benefit from it. Cloud miners will see a nice return as well.

Getting back to the initial purpose of the PB Mining post started a while back, I have been with PB since March of this year, and I have YET to encounter a single problem with them. Payouts are certainly in line with what they should be. Actually, back in June, I identically matched my PB hash rate with my home mining farm hash rate, and the payout was almost identical down to the satoshi. I was super impressed with that! Now that I have maxed out all of the circuits in my house and cannot tack on any more miners, I have beefed up my hash rate with PB and we are still trucking along like a monster! Nothing but accolades for PB ALL THE WAY!!

By the way, I too am a convert from CEX.io. I do have Ghash as a back up mining pool with my Antminers, but that's the extent of my relationship with CEX.io at present.

[jimmothy]

That is completely normal and has already been pointed out before.    As you can see they are always small amounts.

Can you prove some payments originate from mining?

Seems you either try your hardest to hide the mining or you're not mining.

I know you've got a much better coin mixer since April but what's the point when you openly admit paying out directly from customer payments?

Don't you realize that with such a shady business model you're limiting your customer base to naive investonomers and gamblers?

I have a (serious) question for you. If a company thought that mining was a losing proposition and essentially wanted the short the market, they could sell mining power and provide the equivalent returns without actually investing in hardware.
If they sell X GH/s for 5 years for a certain price, and return the equivalent 100% PPS for those X GH/s over that time, is it a problem if they never actually place X GH/s on the network?

You don't have the right to think mining is a losing proposition and sell mining bonds that will fail if your predictions are wrong.

Ah, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm asking. You're assuming that the mining company will just cut and run, and you're obviously correct in that's what has historically happened and what will likely continue to happen here. I'm asking more of a conceptual question. Similarly to borrowing and shorting a stock where if you are wrong you take a loss, I'm asking about a similar thing in the mining space. If the "mining company" sells a futures contract that they will provide dividends based on X GH/s for Y years in exchange for Z BTC, is there really any difference between that and a mining bond that actually buys the hardware if they do stick to the terms of the contract?

As long as the intent is communicated, I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference. You're still relying on the integrity of the party you're dealing with. It's just risk in the opposite direction; if mining goes really well a mining company might stick around and pay out, but if it goes poorly they'll just cut and run. Here, if mining goes poorly the company makes a profit but if it goes well they lose money and possibly cut and run.

Of course, my proposed company is an ideal that is making an educated gamble and has the resources to absorb the loss if they're wrong. I'm not saying that's the case with what is going on here.

Now I get what you're asking.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with derivatives/futures/gambling games like you described as long as they are completely transparent and clear about their rules/operation.

BDD is a perfect example where they will completely stop payments once the reserve runs dry and everyone will be fine with it because that's just how the game works and the shares are priced with that in mind.

I have a problem with a ponzi pretending to mine and then unexpectedly disappearing as soon as the reserve fund runs low. For all we know pbmining could only have a week or two worth of payments left in the reserve fund and new customers would never know about it. (until 2 weeks later when their "investment" stops paying)

Personally I'm not a fan of financial instruments(like your ideal company) that have potential for massive losses and require trust that the loser will pay out, but as long as the rules/risks are clear I have no problem with it.