...

[Este Nuno]

If you buy Cex.io shares on a big dip and then sell them on a big up shot, could you make money that way? It seems like it's just another way to gamble with your btc, no?

[Harley997]

The way I see it, if a cloud mining service can make more money mining then what they're charging, then they'd just mine.  Having me pay them to mine for me seems like I'm losing out.

If they can sell their GH for BTC and buy more GH for those BTC they might make more money than if they just mine them self.

Please provide an example of how that might work. I think you will discover that it only works if the customer loses money.

If it cost them .01 BTC to make/buy 10 GH/s worth of mining equipment but can sell that equipment on cex.io for .07 BTC then they just made .06 BTC, they then use that .07 BTC to build/buy 70 GH/s and sell that for .49 BTC, and so on and so forth. The only difference is that the amounts are much greater (I am not sure about the profit margins though).

[odolvlobo]

The way I see it, if a cloud mining service can make more money mining then what they're charging, then they'd just mine.  Having me pay them to mine for me seems like I'm losing out.

If they can sell their GH for BTC and buy more GH for those BTC they might make more money than if they just mine them self.

Please provide an example of how that might work. I think you will discover that it only works if the customer loses money.

If it cost them .01 BTC to make/buy 10 GH/s worth of mining equipment but can sell that equipment on cex.io for .07 BTC then they just made .06 BTC, they then use that .07 BTC to build/buy 70 GH/s and sell that for .49 BTC, and so on and so forth. The only difference is that the amounts are much greater (I am not sure about the profit margins though).

Suppose they can use the equipment to mine 0.08 BTC instead. Then why sell it 0.07 BTC? They make less money. And if they sell it for 0.07 BTC because it can only mine 0.06 BTC, then the customer loses.

[validium]

I'd rather invest in a HYIP (very risky, but don't gamble more than what your willing to lose) at the of the day i will get my share. Cloud mining is not profitable and most professional bitcoiners know this.

it's true. it's a terrible investment. i can see why people get duped into it, since they don't want to buy/build/operate their own rigs. but they must not do the math....

New people to the bit coin world are particularly susceptible. I know I made the same mistake when I got in. Luckily my math inclined wife helped me break down the numbers and realize they were not a good deal.

I also fell for it

[zwickl]

I'd rather invest in a HYIP (very risky, but don't gamble more than what your willing to lose) at the of the day i will get my share. Cloud mining is not profitable and most professional bitcoiners know this.

As it's hardly profitable to have your own rig right now, how could it be profitable to rent one. That said, the margin would be so small that it is just a waste of money and time imo.

it's true. it's a terrible investment. i can see why people get duped into it, since they don't want to buy/build/operate their own rigs. but they must not do the math....

New people to the bit coin world are particularly susceptible. I know I made the same mistake when I got in. Luckily my math inclined wife helped me break down the numbers and realize they were not a good deal.

In the end the smartest move seems buy & hold. Very boring for a beginner (like me) as bitcoin is mistakingly seen as a easy money making heaven.

[validium]

The main point of them providing cloud mining service is for them to profit not the customer

It goes like this:
First they buy hardware and mine for temselves while its profitable. Once it gets to barely profitable they offer it to market on ridiculous price. They sell their hardware for GOOD money so they earn twice. For that money they buy mor hardware and cicrle starts again.
In adiditon to that, they dont need to care about hardware economics asthey take BTC for electirc bill, and they will keep it going on as long as you are willing to pay the bill. They take some extra too so they profit on that too.
It's win / win / win situation for them.

^^ sums its up
Theres is not that much difference between cloud mining companies and ponzis

[Yakamoto]

Ok I'm gonna say that I "fell" for this too, but I did the math, and I'm making money...

I have honestly tried my hardest to find places where I lose my money, but the math says I am going up, consistently. Now I do also trade the hashes, but still. I've been holding a few hashes recently as the price is on an up trend, and I'm getting really nice ROIs.

Someone explain why it is such a bad investment though? I read the thread, but am I THAT different from everyone else in their experiences?

I checked everything; I'm making money. So I don't see what the problem is.

[joshraban76]

The question is, where could it profitable for cloud mining instead of cex.io ?

I don't think PBmining is legit and I don't the contract issue.

[ejinte]

The way I see it, if a cloud mining service can make more money mining then what they're charging, then they'd just mine.  Having me pay them to mine for me seems like I'm losing out.

If they can sell their GH for BTC and buy more GH for those BTC they might make more money than if they just mine them self.

Please provide an example of how that might work. I think you will discover that it only works if the customer loses money.

If it cost them .01 BTC to make/buy 10 GH/s worth of mining equipment but can sell that equipment on cex.io for .07 BTC then they just made .06 BTC, they then use that .07 BTC to build/buy 70 GH/s and sell that for .49 BTC, and so on and so forth. The only difference is that the amounts are much greater (I am not sure about the profit margins though).

Suppose they can use the equipment to mine 0.08 BTC instead. Then why sell it 0.07 BTC? They make less money. And if they sell it for 0.07 BTC because it can only mine 0.06 BTC, then the customer loses.

Example: They buy 1GH of mining power for 1BTC.
Instead of waiting for the 1GH to generate 1BTC they sell it for 1.2BTC.
Then they use that 1.2BTC to buy another 1.2GH of mining power.
They sell that 1.2GH for 1.5BTC.
That 1.5BTC they buy another 1.5GH.
Now they got 0.5BTC and 1.5GH of mining power. They sell that 1.5GH, buy more GH and it goes on. Hope you understand me.

[odolvlobo]

The way I see it, if a cloud mining service can make more money mining then what they're charging, then they'd just mine.  Having me pay them to mine for me seems like I'm losing out.

If they can sell their GH for BTC and buy more GH for those BTC they might make more money than if they just mine them self.

Please provide an example of how that might work. I think you will discover that it only works if the customer loses money.

If it cost them .01 BTC to make/buy 10 GH/s worth of mining equipment but can sell that equipment on cex.io for .07 BTC then they just made .06 BTC, they then use that .07 BTC to build/buy 70 GH/s and sell that for .49 BTC, and so on and so forth. The only difference is that the amounts are much greater (I am not sure about the profit margins though).

Suppose they can use the equipment to mine 0.08 BTC instead. Then why sell it 0.07 BTC? They make less money. And if they sell it for 0.07 BTC because it can only mine 0.06 BTC, then the customer loses.

Example: They buy 1GH of mining power for 1BTC.
Instead of waiting for the 1GH to generate 1BTC they sell it for 1.2BTC.
Then they use that 1.2BTC to buy another 1.2GH of mining power.
They sell that 1.2GH for 1.5BTC.
That 1.5BTC they buy another 1.5GH.
Now they got 0.5BTC and 1.5GH of mining power. They sell that 1.5GH, buy more GH and it goes on. Hope you understand me.

I understand you, but you are ignoring the people they sell the GH/s to. Show me how the customers make money in your scenario and I'll show you why cex.io is losing money.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

The way I see it, if a cloud mining service can make more money mining then what they're charging, then they'd just mine.  Having me pay them to mine for me seems like I'm losing out.

If they can sell their GH for BTC and buy more GH for those BTC they might make more money than if they just mine them self.

Please provide an example of how that might work. I think you will discover that it only works if the customer loses money.

If it cost them .01 BTC to make/buy 10 GH/s worth of mining equipment but can sell that equipment on cex.io for .07 BTC then they just made .06 BTC, they then use that .07 BTC to build/buy 70 GH/s and sell that for .49 BTC, and so on and so forth. The only difference is that the amounts are much greater (I am not sure about the profit margins though).

Suppose they can use the equipment to mine 0.08 BTC instead. Then why sell it 0.07 BTC? They make less money. And if they sell it for 0.07 BTC because it can only mine 0.06 BTC, then the customer loses.

Example: They buy 1GH of mining power for 1BTC.
Instead of waiting for the 1GH to generate 1BTC they sell it for 1.2BTC.
Then they use that 1.2BTC to buy another 1.2GH of mining power.
They sell that 1.2GH for 1.5BTC.
That 1.5BTC they buy another 1.5GH.
Now they got 0.5BTC and 1.5GH of mining power. They sell that 1.5GH, buy more GH and it goes on. Hope you understand me.

How are they able to buy the GH/s for less then they can sell it for over and over again? Wouldn't they need to wait for the price to move in their favor?

[ejinte]

The way I see it, if a cloud mining service can make more money mining then what they're charging, then they'd just mine.  Having me pay them to mine for me seems like I'm losing out.

If they can sell their GH for BTC and buy more GH for those BTC they might make more money than if they just mine them self.

Please provide an example of how that might work. I think you will discover that it only works if the customer loses money.

If it cost them .01 BTC to make/buy 10 GH/s worth of mining equipment but can sell that equipment on cex.io for .07 BTC then they just made .06 BTC, they then use that .07 BTC to build/buy 70 GH/s and sell that for .49 BTC, and so on and so forth. The only difference is that the amounts are much greater (I am not sure about the profit margins though).

Suppose they can use the equipment to mine 0.08 BTC instead. Then why sell it 0.07 BTC? They make less money. And if they sell it for 0.07 BTC because it can only mine 0.06 BTC, then the customer loses.

Example: They buy 1GH of mining power for 1BTC.
Instead of waiting for the 1GH to generate 1BTC they sell it for 1.2BTC.
Then they use that 1.2BTC to buy another 1.2GH of mining power.
They sell that 1.2GH for 1.5BTC.
That 1.5BTC they buy another 1.5GH.
Now they got 0.5BTC and 1.5GH of mining power. They sell that 1.5GH, buy more GH and it goes on. Hope you understand me.

I understand you, but you are ignoring the people they sell the GH/s to. Show me how the customers make money in your scenario and I'll show you why cex.io is losing money.

Say they buy it for 1GH/1BTC and sell it for 1.2BTC/1GH. It's simple

[odolvlobo]

Example: They buy 1GH of mining power for 1BTC.
Instead of waiting for the 1GH to generate 1BTC they sell it for 1.2BTC.
Then they use that 1.2BTC to buy another 1.2GH of mining power.
They sell that 1.2GH for 1.5BTC.
That 1.5BTC they buy another 1.5GH.
Now they got 0.5BTC and 1.5GH of mining power. They sell that 1.5GH, buy more GH and it goes on. Hope you understand me.

I understand you, but you are ignoring the people they sell the GH/s to. Show me how the customers make money in your scenario and I'll show you why cex.io is losing money.

Say they buy it for 1GH/1BTC and sell it for 1.2BTC/1GH. It's simple

Well, they can't buy it for 1 BTC if cex.io is selling it for 1.2 BTC in your example.

Anyway, I don't know how to make the point any clearer: If 1 GH/s can mine X BTC, then it doesn't make sense for cex.io to sell it for less than X, and it doesn't make sense for a customer to buy it for more than X.

[ejinte]

Example: They buy 1GH of mining power for 1BTC.
Instead of waiting for the 1GH to generate 1BTC they sell it for 1.2BTC.
Then they use that 1.2BTC to buy another 1.2GH of mining power.
They sell that 1.2GH for 1.5BTC.
That 1.5BTC they buy another 1.5GH.
Now they got 0.5BTC and 1.5GH of mining power. They sell that 1.5GH, buy more GH and it goes on. Hope you understand me.

I understand you, but you are ignoring the people they sell the GH/s to. Show me how the customers make money in your scenario and I'll show you why cex.io is losing money.

Say they buy it for 1GH/1BTC and sell it for 1.2BTC/1GH. It's simple

Well, they can't buy it for 1 BTC if cex.io is selling it for 1.2 BTC in your example.

Anyway, I don't know how to make the point any clearer: If 1 GH/s can mine X BTC, then it doesn't make sense for cex.io to sell it for less than X, and it doesn't make sense for a customer to buy it for more than X.

It does since they will get their BTC back quicker instead of waiting for it to be mined so they can buy more GH quicker and sell again.

[Gavin Andresen]

I haven't been paying to the whole "cloud hashing" thing, but it seems to me a great cover for an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme.

1. Take investors BTC, "buy" gigahashes of mining.
2. Pay them back for a while using new investor's BTC.
3. Once you've got enough investors, take the BTC and run.
  (maybe claim "oops, sorry, got hacked")

I'm not saying CEX.IO is a tarted-up Ponzi scheme. I have no idea.

I'm just asking how everybody who is giving them money knows that they aren't a Ponzi. Or aren't selling the same hardware twice or three times, operating a kind of 'fractional reserve' system (that will eventually fall apart).

Excuse me in advance if this has been discussed and I'm just missing something (e.g. a variation on Greg Maxwell's exchange auditing scheme might work: e.g. "they publish all the blocks found and an auditable merkle tree of all customers and how much hashing power each has").

[ejinte]

I haven't been paying to the whole "cloud hashing" thing, but it seems to me a great cover for an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme.

1. Take investors BTC, "buy" gigahashes of mining.
2. Pay them back for a while using new investor's BTC.
3. Once you've got enough investors, take the BTC and run.
  (maybe claim "oops, sorry, got hacked")

I'm not saying CEX.IO is a tarted-up Ponzi scheme. I have no idea.

I'm just asking how everybody who is giving them money knows that they aren't a Ponzi. Or aren't selling the same hardware twice or three times, operating a kind of 'fractional reserve' system (that will eventually fall apart).

Excuse me in advance if this has been discussed and I'm just missing something (e.g. a variation on Greg Maxwell's exchange auditing scheme might work: e.g. "they publish all the blocks found and an auditable merkle tree of all customers and how much hashing power each has").

You're right it is, there is one ongoing scam going on right now called cryptory. Looking at the website it looks great, have a look yourself; https://www.cryptory.com/
However it's a scam  and a quick look in their thread here confirms it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=633822.0

However many of this cloud hashing services have been running for a long time and aren't a scam. Like cex.io, e-pickaxe and PBmining. They've been running for so long time that if their weren't legit the best time for them to run away with the money has already passed.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

I haven't been paying to the whole "cloud hashing" thing, but it seems to me a great cover for an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme.

1. Take investors BTC, "buy" gigahashes of mining.
2. Pay them back for a while using new investor's BTC.
3. Once you've got enough investors, take the BTC and run.
  (maybe claim "oops, sorry, got hacked")

I'm not saying CEX.IO is a tarted-up Ponzi scheme. I have no idea.

I'm just asking how everybody who is giving them money knows that they aren't a Ponzi. Or aren't selling the same hardware twice or three times, operating a kind of 'fractional reserve' system (that will eventually fall apart).

Excuse me in advance if this has been discussed and I'm just missing something (e.g. a variation on Greg Maxwell's exchange auditing scheme might work: e.g. "they publish all the blocks found and an auditable merkle tree of all customers and how much hashing power each has").

They wouldn't even need to use the new investor's BTC as the percentage of BTC repaid every week/month is very small. What could easily happen is:

1. Take investor's BTC to buy mining capacity
2. Use 5% of the BTC to repay investors over several weeks
3. Run away with stolen BTC

Even if they are not doing this, providers are vastly overcharging for mining capacity. They usually charge separate electric charges from the original "purchase" and sell the capacity for much more then manufacturers sell to the public. For you to possibly every make a ROI on cloud hashing the rate that difficulty increases would need to decrease dramatically 

[Yakamoto]

I haven't been paying to the whole "cloud hashing" thing, but it seems to me a great cover for an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme.

1. Take investors BTC, "buy" gigahashes of mining.
2. Pay them back for a while using new investor's BTC.
3. Once you've got enough investors, take the BTC and run.
  (maybe claim "oops, sorry, got hacked")

I'm not saying CEX.IO is a tarted-up Ponzi scheme. I have no idea.

I'm just asking how everybody who is giving them money knows that they aren't a Ponzi. Or aren't selling the same hardware twice or three times, operating a kind of 'fractional reserve' system (that will eventually fall apart).

Excuse me in advance if this has been discussed and I'm just missing something (e.g. a variation on Greg Maxwell's exchange auditing scheme might work: e.g. "they publish all the blocks found and an auditable merkle tree of all customers and how much hashing power each has").

Well, I'd say that stealing the BTC would be profitable right now; they've got about 600 BTC active in trading, I'm expecting more like 1,200 BTC in wallets.

I too have no idea, but they've been around a long time, and I decently confident they're at least somewhat legitimate.

I guess we'll see.

[AdamSmith]

I haven't been paying to the whole "cloud hashing" thing, but it seems to me a great cover for an old-fashioned Ponzi scheme.

1. Take investors BTC, "buy" gigahashes of mining.
2. Pay them back for a while using new investor's BTC.
3. Once you've got enough investors, take the BTC and run.
  (maybe claim "oops, sorry, got hacked")

I'm not saying CEX.IO is a tarted-up Ponzi scheme. I have no idea.

I'm just asking how everybody who is giving them money knows that they aren't a Ponzi. Or aren't selling the same hardware twice or three times, operating a kind of 'fractional reserve' system (that will eventually fall apart).

Excuse me in advance if this has been discussed and I'm just missing something (e.g. a variation on Greg Maxwell's exchange auditing scheme might work: e.g. "they publish all the blocks found and an auditable merkle tree of all customers and how much hashing power each has").

Well, I'd say that stealing the BTC would be profitable right now; they've got about 600 BTC active in trading, I'm expecting more like 1,200 BTC in wallets.

I too have no idea, but they've been around a long time, and I decently confident they're at least somewhat legitimate.

I guess we'll see.

They will remain honest while the profit is still great.

[doenerlover]

Mining is only profitable for hardware sellers - always.