DataTank Mining: 1.2MW 3M Novec Immersion Cooled 2PH Mining Container

[btchedge]

So whaddaya'all think, a blue chip like NEOBEE, or not quite?

Having been in communication with these guys a bit I can say that they are definitely not NEO & BEE types. These guys definitely know what they are doing and they have proven that they can deliver since they have already done so. Unlike many offerings, their technical skills and abilities are pretty well proven.

The hard part will be execution and scaling the business. It's great to see experts bringing innovation to market that all miners will have access to. I am cautiously optimistic, and look forward to watching this come together.

[1715371161]

1715371161

[jjdub7]

Interesting!!  I'd love it if friedcat could confirm/deny any statement/sentence in the OP...

Following thread. Looking forward to this, and looking forward to there being validation of this operation.

I, too, await confirmation from FC - you'd figure something of this nature would have warranted a release with joint statements from DT and AM?

[VJain]

Interesting!!  I'd love it if friedcat could confirm/deny any statement/sentence in the OP...

Following thread. Looking forward to this, and looking forward to there being validation of this operation.

I, too, await confirmation from FC - you'd figure something of this nature would have warranted a release with joint statements from DT and AM?

Jutarul posted above that he confirms the involvement (He's a board member of AM)

[psahx]

Very interesting!

Subscribed

[fluffypony]

So whaddaya'all think, a blue chip like NEOBEE, or not quite?

Having been in communication with these guys a bit I can say that they are definitely not NEO & BEE types. These guys definitely know what they are doing and they have proven that they can deliver since they have already done so. Unlike many offerings, their technical skills and abilities are pretty well proven.

The hard part will be execution and scaling the business. It's great to see experts bringing innovation to market that all miners will have access to. I am cautiously optimistic, and look forward to watching this come together.

Let's not confuse "technical ability" with "ability to successfully operate a business that is Bitcoin-profitable" or even "ability to not realise you have many millions of Dollars worth of Bitcoin in a 150kb file and could disappear without a trace".

I like where this offering is going, but the 1 page "business strategy" is worthless. Given how reliant this company is on paying backend costs in fiat, they would need to present a great deal of business acumen coupled with a really solid and detailed strategy to demonstrate a glimmer of hope that investing in this will be more profitable than just holding your Bitcoin over the same period. Additionally, don't confuse the possibility of them being fiat profitable with them being Bitcoin profitable - the chance of the former may be very high indeed, but just like very nearly every mining operation that has ever existed, the chance of the latter is slim to none.

There's also minimal information as to who the operators are and whether they have a credible and long-standing WoT presence (far from infallible, but at least a step in the right direction). Why is this important? Well, for one thing, shutting down a business is trivial, abandoning it doubly so. Being an identifiable and amicable person means nothing (see: Neo&Bee). Having a registered business means nothing (see: AMC/VMC and many others). Trust is a product of provable engagements over time, coupled with an ongoing demonstration of business acumen by the operator(s) (which could be done, for example, by said operator(s) being involved in discussions of other businesses, and by providing advice and/or criticism they demonstrate that they at least have the knowledge to do better). Thus far there is little evidence of either of that here.

I'm certainly not calling this a scam, but I am saying that the counterparty risk is massive and disproportional, and there is little evidence that this will make you more Bitcoin than you invest (although it may very well end up being fiat profitable).

[jimmothy]

just like very nearly every mining operation that has ever existed, the chance of the latter is slim to none

Source? There are plenty of mining operations that made money. In fact it was pretty hard to not reach a positive ROI by now with most asics.

There's also minimal information as to who the operators are and whether they have a credible and long-standing WoT presence (far from infallible, but at least a step in the right direction). Why is this important? Well, for one thing, shutting down a business is trivial, abandoning it doubly so. Being an identifiable and amicable person means nothing (see: Neo&Bee). Having a registered business means nothing (see: AMC/VMC and many others). Trust is a product of provable engagements over time, coupled with an ongoing demonstration of business acumen by the operator(s) (which could be done, for example, by said operator(s) being involved in discussions of other businesses, and by providing advice and/or criticism they demonstrate that they at least have the knowledge to do better). Thus far there is little evidence of either of that here.

They have something better than WOT. Real names and real business experience. This is not some people with no history/reputation showing up asking for money.

And WOT is the most useless system ever. Do you honestly think it prevents any scams?

[fluffypony]

just like very nearly every mining operation that has ever existed, the chance of the latter is slim to none

Source? There are plenty of mining operations that made money. In fact it was pretty hard to not reach a positive ROI by now with most asics.

I'll turn that around and ask you to list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested.

There's also minimal information as to who the operators are and whether they have a credible and long-standing WoT presence (far from infallible, but at least a step in the right direction). Why is this important? Well, for one thing, shutting down a business is trivial, abandoning it doubly so. Being an identifiable and amicable person means nothing (see: Neo&Bee). Having a registered business means nothing (see: AMC/VMC and many others). Trust is a product of provable engagements over time, coupled with an ongoing demonstration of business acumen by the operator(s) (which could be done, for example, by said operator(s) being involved in discussions of other businesses, and by providing advice and/or criticism they demonstrate that they at least have the knowledge to do better). Thus far there is little evidence of either of that here.

They have something better than WOT. Real names and real business experience. This is not some people with no history/reputation showing up asking for money.

And WOT is the most useless system ever. Do you honestly think it prevents any scams?

We had/have real names and real business experience for AMC/VMC (Kenneth Slaughter), for Neo&Bee (Danny Brewster), for BTCQuick (Jerrod Brunce), for Hashfast (Eduardo DeCastro), for BASIC mining (Eric Corlew). Heck, we even had KLYE's real name. Your belief that a real life identity or a lack of a criminal record means anything whatsoever is laughable at best.

The WoT does not prevent scams. It is qualitative, not quantitative. There are people I personally know and have established trust with who have a negative WoT rating (due to Sybil attacks). With something like a Bitcoin asset, the WoT provides a level of historicity wherein someone's relationships and dealings over time are detailed and available for inspection. Additionally, given the qualitative nature of the WoT, it allows me to see who in my Level 1 or Level 2 trust group the asset operator has had dealings and engagements with before. That opens it up for conversation, as I can talk to those people who I already trust (directly or indirectly) and find out about their dealings with the person. Red flags show up very quickly. Thus, the WoT is not too dissimilar to what LinkedIn is trying to do for business relationships, except that the rating system allows a level of detail that LinkedIn does not, and it is free to use and observe (where any vaguely useful use of LinkedIn requires a substantial monthly payment).

I understand that the concept of trust within a trustless system may be difficult to grasp if you have little technical knowledge of cryptography or have not spent sufficient time establishing and dealing with individuals and businesses in countries other than your own (which, unsurprisingly, requires a very WoT-like approach to figuring out whether a business and/or operator is legitimate and a known entity). I would suggest familiarising yourself with the former rather than the latter, and an excellent start is Practical Cryptography by Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier (ISBN: 978-0-471-22357-3).

[jimmothy]

I'll turn that around and ask you to list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested.

Petamine, asicminer, 100th mine, and most people who bought bfl hardware, AM hardware, knc hardware, bitmain hardware, a1 clones, avalon hardware, bitfury hardware.

requires a very WoT-like approach to figuring out whether a business and/or operator is legitimate and a known entity)

Yes trust is needed. The whole internet is a web of trust.

I'd love to know who in the bitcoin securities world has more trust than this team and Friedcat.

[fluffypony]

I'll turn that around and ask you to list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested.

Petamine, asicminer, 100th mine, and most people who bought bfl hardware, AM hardware, knc hardware, bitmain hardware, a1 clones, avalon hardware, bitfury hardware.

Jimmy, my boy, you clearly didn't read what I stated. I said you should "list 3 mining operations that were Bitcoin profitable. To simplify, you can just list the asset, what the IPO share price was, and what BTC dividends to date would have been for 1 BTC invested."

Buying mining hardware is NOT investing in an asset. Additionally, ASICminer is NOT a mining operation alone and is thus excluded from this list.

I look forward to your  report on what Petamine and 100th have paid in dividends to date for an initial 1 BTC investment in each.

requires a very WoT-like approach to figuring out whether a business and/or operator is legitimate and a known entity)

Yes trust is needed. The whole internet is a web of trust.

I'd love to know who in the bitcoin securities world has more trust than this team and Friedcat.

Friedcat != this team, conflating the two is disingenuous.

[jimmothy]

I look forward to your  report on what Petamine and 100th have paid in dividends to date for an initial 1 BTC investment in each.

I think you can do the research.

It's quite obvious that mining was profitable for the majority who partook in it. And most people pay ~$0.15/kwh compared to this offering at $0.025.

Friedcat != this team, conflating the two is disingenuous.

Yes but this team has been and will be working directly with AM. To say they are not trustworthy is to say FC is not trustworthy. They are also partners with 3m.

Heres some more web of trust: http://www.allied-control.com/about-us/partners

[Trinibits]

Interesting 

[fluffypony]

I look forward to your  report on what Petamine and 100th have paid in dividends to date for an initial 1 BTC investment in each.

I think you can do the research.

It's quite obvious that mining was profitable for the majority who partook in it. And most people pay ~$0.15/kwh compared to this offering at $0.025.

You argued that mining assets have been profitable, so the onus is on you to prove that. Again, the issue is not whether mining itself has been profitable, it is whether a mining asset has been profitable in a Bitcoin sense.

Friedcat != this team, conflating the two is disingenuous.

Yes but this team has been and will be working directly with AM. To say they are not trustworthy is to say FC is not trustworthy. They are also partners with 3m.

friedcat has not posted a GPG clearsigned message in this thread confirming his involvement, so that argument is fallacious. Additionally, "working directly with" a known entity is a nonsensical argument. Danny Brewster was "working directly with" Andreas Antonopoulos, that didn't make Danny trustworthy at all. If you are going to argue something you really should consider using fact instead of allusion, guesswork, and implication.

Honestly, Jimmy, your attempts at salvaging this conversation are just making more and more clear how little you understand about management, business, Bitcoin, and/or trustless systems. That is not an ad hominem attack, it is a statement of fact. I do not, unfortunately, have the time to continue a discussion with someone who not only lacks the grounding for it, but lacks the self-awareness and intelligence to realise such.

[jimmothy]

You argued that mining assets have been profitable, so the onus is on you to prove that. Again, the issue is not whether mining itself has been profitable, it is whether a mining asset has been profitable in a Bitcoin sense.

No it's on you to do the most basic research about mining. You never said a mining asset you said operation. Although both have been profitable in btc.

friedcat has not posted a GPG clearsigned message in this thread confirming his involvement, so that argument is fallacious.

Ah I see your from the cult of bitcoin-assets correct?

Why would FC randomly start using those useless digital signatures?

Additionally, "working directly with" a known entity is a nonsensical argument. Danny Brewster was "working directly with" Andreas Antonopoulos, that didn't make Danny trustworthy at all. If you are going to argue something you really should consider using fact instead of allusion, guesswork, and implication.

Not even close. Andreas has no trust other than being a vocal advocate of bitcoin.

AM, 3m and allied control are real businesses ran by real people. Please let me know of someone in the bitcoin world with a better reputation than those 3.

Honestly, Jimmy, your attempts at salvaging this conversation are just making more and more clear how little you understand about management, business, Bitcoin, and/or trustless systems.

Your inability to do the most basic research on bitcoin mining before adding your opinion is making is clear how full of shit you are.

And gpg/wot is a joke of a system which is perpetuated by scammers.

It's also a bit ironic someone with so many customer complaints is giving advice to a company which has received zero.

[angelete]

I look forward to your  report on what Petamine and 100th have paid in dividends to date for an initial 1 BTC investment in each.

I think you can do the research.

It's quite obvious that mining was profitable for the majority who partook in it. And most people pay ~$0.15/kwh compared to this offering at $0.025.

You argued that mining assets have been profitable, so the onus is on you to prove that. Again, the issue is not whether mining itself has been profitable, it is whether a mining asset has been profitable in a Bitcoin sense.

Friedcat != this team, conflating the two is disingenuous.

Yes but this team has been and will be working directly with AM. To say they are not trustworthy is to say FC is not trustworthy. They are also partners with 3m.

friedcat has not posted a GPG clearsigned message in this thread confirming his involvement, so that argument is fallacious. Additionally, "working directly with" a known entity is a nonsensical argument. Danny Brewster was "working directly with" Andreas Antonopoulos, that didn't make Danny trustworthy at all. If you are going to argue something you really should consider using fact instead of allusion, guesswork, and implication.

Honestly, Jimmy, your attempts at salvaging this conversation are just making more and more clear how little you understand about management, business, Bitcoin, and/or trustless systems. That is not an ad hominem attack, it is a statement of fact. I do not, unfortunately, have the time to continue a discussion with someone who not only lacks the grounding for it, but lacks the self-awareness and intelligence to realise such.

https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=PETA

(Initial) Public Offerings 2013-12-09 ฿0.05 Price/Unit
Current Value - ฿0.0690 Price/Unit
Sum of dividends -  ฿0.01262327 so far

I would say it has been profitable so far, isn't it?
In addition, I would say B.MINE, B.SHELL and KCIM are also being profitable

[DataTankMining]

Thank you for your support and feedback.

I noticed you expect each 1.2mw container to house 2PH. Does this mean that asics have been tested at 0.6w/gh?

ASICs have been tested at various efficiencies including ~0.6W/G. Better cooling also changes power consumption (some chips 33% less at 65C vs. 85C).

I would like to reiterate that the center point of the business plan is not to buy into chips and hardware designs too early. The money that hat buys 1GH today might buy 2GH in a few weeks. It also allows more time to develop and produce mature boards. One of our engineers will participate in the open source board design too. Alternatively, we may use a board design by somebody else if it proves to be more efficient.
At the long term, it may make sense to use totally different hardware or currencies altogether. DataTank Mining is not just about the first deployment, all that should count for investors is capacity and performance, not brand or type of chip.

So it's quite possible that they will be releasing "shares" in multiple batches, for less and for less and again for less

We cannot release units of capacity for less than it costs to build, there is no profit in the build cost and we are passing through real expenses. In fact, we can build systems cheaper if we run them by ourselves, we don't require bells and whistles on our own systems, or glossy paint.

We earn by deploying 20% of identical capacity along public unit holders, and hence we will make sure that whatever we deploy is most profitable - our own income depends on it.

There's also minimal information as to who the operators are and whether they have a credible.

Our own team will build and operate the DataTank systems. We are also looking for external partners for later phases, depending how the market develops.

We are also in contact with some of the more successful mines to explore synergies for the future. A reliable operation needs reliable people and we are truly open when it comes to partnerships.

[Korbman]

In addition, I would say B.MINE, B.SHELL and KCIM are also being profitable

Quick off topic note here, but I figured I should address it:
KCIM has not been profitable, that's why we're closing. We don't have the resources to continually expand to meet our minimum hashing requirements.

As for B.MINE / B.SELL, those are derivatives and not tied to any actual hardware.

[angelete]

In addition, I would say B.MINE, B.SHELL and KCIM are also being profitable

Quick off topic note here, but I figured I should address it:
KCIM has not been profitable, that's why we're closing. We don't have the resources to continually expand to meet our minimum hashing requirements.

As for B.MINE / B.SELL, those are derivatives and not tied to any actual hardware.

OK, I've only put those whose yield is higher than 100% according to Havelock, so I don't really understand what yield means.

Thanks for clarifying

[friedcat]

We are approve of this message.

We have been in close partnership with allied-control from the last year.

[JimmyJazz]

Are you selling these containers?

Could I get one delivered to Europe for example?

[webbrowser]

Given that the container, immersion cooling, etc. are all based on existing technology within allied-control, and that two sites with low electricity costs and no legal problems have already been identified, why would it take so long (3-6m) to deploy containers?  Surely the deployment time can be shortened and have less variance?

DataTank Mining is NOT allied control, right?  Or is it the same?

Based on the forecast in pg 15 of the prospectus, deployment in 3 months would mean that DTMA will not reach ROI.  6m would be worse of course.  Has anyone done figures that are more promising?

Along that reasoning, a deployment in 3-6 months had better not use AM BE200 chips else it will not ROI.  Hopefully there will be a better chip by then.  Spongebobtech?  AM BE300 (4th gen)?

When a better chip becomes available after DTMA starts operations, what is the procedure for swapping to the new chip and how would it be funded?

How would DataTank Mining's interests be aligned with shareholders'?  As far as I can tell, once the container has been sold, DTM just makes a tiny cut of electricity bills, so your only incentive is to keep the container operating?