Gigamining / Teramining

[jamesg]

SCAM BULLSHIT SCAM

You probably profited the most off of BTCST. Those 4 1TH/s mining rigs you ordered from BFL I'm guess were paid with other investors' of BTCST funds that pirate sent you as "interest" payments.

Go finish your bromance with PussyAt40 and stop scamming people.

Your Best Friend,

Smoothie

To all Gigaminers:

Is this how everyone feels?

Best,
gigavps

[puffn]

I think Giga will live up to his obligations. I think he is honest, and won't cheat people. I don't own any because I believe it is overpriced.

[kibblesnbits]

SCAM BULLSHIT SCAM

You probably profited the most off of BTCST. Those 4 1TH/s mining rigs you ordered from BFL I'm guess were paid with other investors' of BTCST funds that pirate sent you as "interest" payments.

Go finish your bromance with PussyAt40 and stop scamming people.

Your Best Friend,

Smoothie

To all Gigaminers:

Is this how everyone feels?

Best,
gigavps

As a bond holder, I'd hope this isn't the case.  The now-infamous Vegas photo drops the credibility down a few notches, which may have resulted in the Giga price tanking.  The price increase also has a few concerned, including myself.  In my research, gigamining seems to be one of the most transparent operations.  From everything I've read and your reputation, I'd like to believe you wouldnt want it to go up in smoke. 

[jbreher]

SCAM BULLSHIT SCAM
blah blah blah

Is this how everyone feels?

Scam? No.

I would of course be happier with 100% PPS @ .25/share upgrade to multiplied shares. And I feel that perhaps it was a bad decision on my part to have purchased 2.5% of all extant GIGAMINING shares, as it may indeed prove to be a losing investment. But scam? No way. As far as I can tell, you are living up to the terms of your 'bond' contract.

From the outside, the changed terms for the upgrade feel kind of 'bait and switchy'. But I understand you are operating in a fluid environment. However, bear in mind that these 'forward looking' statements continue to get factored into the pricing of shares of GIGAMINING on GLBSE.

At this point in time, I am merely hoping against hope that you receive ASIC equipment, and TERAMINING gets operational, by the first wave of ASIC-based difficulty increases. It currently appears to me that this is the only way I will be able to recoup my investment.

[DannyM]

SCAM BULLSHIT SCAM

You probably profited the most off of BTCST. Those 4 1TH/s mining rigs you ordered from BFL I'm guess were paid with other investors' of BTCST funds that pirate sent you as "interest" payments.

Go finish your bromance with PussyAt40 and stop scamming people.

Your Best Friend,

Smoothie

To all Gigaminers:

Is this how everyone feels?

Best,
gigavps

Thank you for offering to give us MORE HASHES than our current contract calls for FREE. I also wish it wasn't remarkable here to do business with someone who ACTUALLY KEEPS HIS SIDE OF THE DEAL, but thank you very much for that as well.

[Namworld]

Thank you for publishing the costs.

I do not feel as strongly as smoothie, but indeed, calculating the 3 FPGA minirig trade in (paid by investors who paid extra for you to have a cut), you're left with 2.5 ASIC rigs to pay to get the full 4 terahash needed to cover 100 mhash per bond (1.5 rig paid by 3 x 15000$ trade in). 30000 USD/ 11 USD per BTC = about 2725 BTC per rig. 2725 BTC per rig x 2.5 = 6812 BTC upgrade costs.

40000 x 0.25 upgrade for 100 mhash each = 10000 BTC versus 6812 BTC upgrade costs. That's a 32% apparent margin, not counting the part paid by investors for the GPU to support all the previous hashing. With .30 to .40 upgrade and 90 mhash per upgrade, we're getting closer to an apparent 50-60% margin.

I'm not making accusation and I'm fully aware you're going past the contract to offer which holds you to pay 5 mhash/s only per bond forever.

I'm saying by just looking at what you're asking versus what you give, this does not seem like a good deal with you having a very, very large margin. (and by what others seems to be saying, some may get the idea you've been put in the red by pirate investments and are passing the bill to the upgrade. With the pirate fiasco, I suppose it's expectable that people will ask for a lot more transparency.)

I suppose most are angry by such claims:

At the network being 200Th the 10% fee would be .2% of the network. At 25 BTC blocks this would generate 7.2 BTC per day and at $10 per BTC that would be $72 per day. Over the course of the month that would be $2,160/mo which is around what I would expect my costs to be around once GPU equipment is used for other things and they are no longer in the equation.

Which doesn't account for the FPGA rigs already paid for that can be traded in and reduce the upgrade price almost in half, and that price increase coincides with pirate's default.

Because one could calculate that trading in the rig paid by investors and paying 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash, Assuming 200 Terahash network (yet to reach), you'd get about 30% cut or $6500/month, more than double the current costs expected. You'd get even much more until the network reach such a point. Adding 0.05 BTC per upgrade and reducing the PPS by 10% is much more than a 10% fee, being added to a already large cut which seems to more than cover the costs of running.

Asking for 0.30 BTC +10% makes an apparent 19% cut when FPGA trade in is not counted in and you're saying 10% might pay the costs once we reach 200 Terahash. But making abstraction of the trade in the calculations is like saying to investors that they never paid for the FPGA/GPUs, to pay for 100% of the ASICs + a cut with the upgrade price to cover expenses. Which would apparently work standalone and not count the trade in. That doesn't sound like an upgrade path at first.

Which is why 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash was well priced for me. When trade in of 3 FPGA rig is counted, you get 10k BTC and only need about 6812 BTC to pay the remaining 2.5 ASIC rigs. You'd have an apparent 32% cut. Which sounds like enough. The 0.30 for 90 mhash does not satisfy me simply because I see no need for it unless you're not counting in the FPGA trade in (if you don't count that which is already paid for by investors, it's not really an upgrade is it?) or something dire happened which would severely reduce income like loss of part of the rig and you haven't disclosed it.

In short:
Unless you can come up with clear numbers, one can only speculate and assume everything is well and the FPGA/GPU can be used to pay for the upgrade in part, giving you a ~30% cut when you ask 0.25 BTC for 100 mhash. Hence, I believe, the questions as to why that 10% + 0.5 BTC extra charge on the upgrade is needed at all. You're saying it's an upgrade and we assume previous equipment is included to pay for the upgrade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps TERAMINING could be costs + fixed percent deducted from 0.25 upgrade fee? (with trade in, 0.25 BTC upgrade would fetch over 5 Terahash).

It would go both ways. If difficulty doesn't raise to 200 Terahash network, more for holders, if more or costs increase, less for holders. It would guarantee costs are covered + income for you. Same about price swings.

[jamesg]

Hi Namworld,

While you feel that a 32% profit is good for the upgrade, let me try to explain why it needs to be higher.

The first and foremost reason is: I assume ALL RISKS except for difficultly changes.

This means I assume risks for things like:

• Mining software crashes
• Pool failures
• Mining Variance (bad luck)
• Facility failures
• Equipment failures
• Power outages
• Network outages
• the list goes on....

Basically anyone holding a Gigamining bond is mining without needing to do, well, anything. They will never need to leave their house at 3am to figure out why the network connection at the data center is down only to be locked out of their house because their wife had their house key (this is a true story and happened last night).

If a mini rig is out of its warranty and something happens to it that renders it useless, I'm on the hook for that, not you.

Also, your calculation of 10k BTC taken in for the upgrade is unrealistic given that there is a FREE upgrade path. I have been able to collect some stats on this and the response so far is around 70% of the bonds reported in will upgrade.

As for the fee, in the beginning when ASIC arrives, the fee will probably pay out more but I am also expecting that the network will quickly move past 200Th 6-8 months after ASIC is initially released. Since the costs to run the equipment will be fixed, any supposed profits from the fee in the beginning must be saved for when the network surpasses 200Th and the fee will no longer cover the costs.

In closing, a 50% fee is more likely "barely enough" to run the bond through the entire 4 years of 25 BTC blocks. Again, I would not have proposed these changes if I thought Teramining would stand the test of time without them. I have done a lot of thinking about this and proposing this change was not something I was looking forward to. The backlash has been swift and intense. My choice is to either makes these changes now or potentially watch Teramining default on it's obligations. I have committed to making Teramining a reality and I plan to stick by my word.

Lastly, I do feel these changes will give Teramining was it needs to be a successful venture for both the holders of the bond and myself.

Best regards,
gigavps

[imsaguy]

their wife had their house key (this is a true story and happened last night).

Give me your bitcoin address so I can dig under the seat cushions to find some coins to buy you a hide-a-key rock.

[odolvlobo]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. gigavps has the right to set the price of the Teramining bonds to whatever price he wants. And he certainly doesn't have to justify the price. If you don't like it, just don't buy them. Or better yet, if you think they are overpriced, then wait until after the IPO and pick them up cheap (like Facebook).

On the other hand, I think that complaints by current bondholders about the change in the terms are justified as it affects the price of gigamining bonds, but that's the  way it goes in the world of investing -- things change and nothing is guaranteed.

[Namworld]

Also, your calculation of 10k BTC taken in for the upgrade is unrealistic given that there is a FREE upgrade path. I have been able to collect some stats on this and the response so far is around 70% of the bonds reported in will upgrade.

Hmm, so assuming everyone would have to pay instead to upgrade like any FPGA miner, less might be required. It's true I was not thinking about the free option. However less mhash means a larger proportion of equipment the FPGA trade in can be applied on. Free upgrade is all in your benefit:

So let's recap assuming let's say 100% upgrade with only 50% paid (not a very good scenario with):

20000 x 90 mhash/s + 20000 x 22.5 mhash/s = 2.25 Terahash/s to buy.

20000 x 0.30 BTC upgrade = 6000 BTC

You have 3 FPGA to trade in (15 000$ discount each) which leaves 45000$ to pay the second half on 3 ASIC rigs. 45000$ / 11$/BTC = 4090 BTC to pay

You have 1890 BTC extra + 0.75 Terahash left for you (0.75 rig x 30000$ = 22500$, 21000$ /11$/BTC = 2045 BTC) = 3935 BTC value

3935 BTC value left / 6000 paid = 65% cut for you

I think you're underweighting the value of the trade in. The more free upgrade, the more the trade in start to weight in.
With more free upgrade:
- you need to give only 1/4th of the paid upgrade (5 mhash -> 22.5 mhash)
- The FPGA trade-in pays for half a ASIC rig (25 000 mhash -> 500 000 mhash). That's a 20x increase (5 mhash -> 100 mhash free)

The more FREE upgrade, the better it is for you. If there was a full paid upgrade (100% paid upgrade), that's the worst scenario for you because of the lesser proportion that is free with the FPGA trade-in.

It's not that we do not understand the risks, the need to replace equipment, to cover power failures, to get up in the middle of the night to fix issues, etc. etc. etc.

It's that the terms are fixed regardless of what the upgrade scenario ends up being. It's not flexible enough.

Depending on how the upgrade goes, you could indeed have barely enough, but it seems more likely you will have a very large margin, especially with less people upgrading/more people taking the free upgrade path. I think your estimates are not accurate.

It's very hard to gauge however.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the fee, in the beginning when ASIC arrives, the fee will probably pay out more but I am also expecting that the network will quickly move past 200Th 6-8 months after ASIC is initially released. Since the costs to run the equipment will be fixed, any supposed profits from the fee in the beginning must be saved for when the network surpasses 200Th and the fee will no longer cover the costs.

In closing, a 50% fee is more likely "barely enough" to run the bond through the entire 4 years of 25 BTC blocks. Again, I would not have proposed these changes if I thought Teramining would stand the test of time without them. I have done a lot of thinking about this and proposing this change was not something I was looking forward to. The backlash has been swift and intense. My choice is to either makes these changes now or potentially watch Teramining default on it's obligations. I have committed to making Teramining a reality and I plan to stick by my word.

TERAMINING upgrade is another offer. It doesn't have to be fixed mhash for those who trade in, you could have a different contract. You could for example take a cut for management (5 - 10%) for guaranteed profit. Then deduct expenses from what's left. Then distribute the remaining. We would get more in the beggining, less once difficulty goes past it and it offloads your risks and guarantees you a profit. We could poll current holders if they'd prefer that scenario and then motion on it so holders can vote if they'd prefer that route. How would that sound to you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's basically my feedback, I'd expect you to most likely end up with a very large margin (probably more than you might be expecting right now it seems), although the opposite might still happen. I wouldn't mind risking to have less with a flexible rate if that means I can have more when it's a possibility. I suppose you could consider me along the crowd that is against fixed mhash rates and prefer to get a % and accept the risk with that.

[Puppet]

The first and foremost reason is: I assume ALL RISKS except for difficultly changes.

Which is the ONLY RISK that really matters, particularly during the asic switch. Its a huge risk. The other risks wouldnt cost  close to 30%.

"Mining software crashes", it would restart automatically, and even if it doesnt, wouldnt account for more than 1%.
"Pool failures" failover pools solve that.
"Mining Variance (bad luck)" average expected loss: 0%.
"Facility failures" : like what, clogged toilet?
"Equipment failures:" you have warranty. Granted, the downtime would cost you, lets be generous and put it at 10% equipment failure and 3 weeks shipping delay and you get 0.5% per year.
"Power outages" If that accounts for even  1%, you should switch utility providers.
"Network outages" see above.

the list goes on....

But the numbers will never add up to anything close to 5%, let alone >30%.

I can understand why you only offer upgrades to existing bondholders; only those duped in to buying your bonds the first time might be stupid enough to double down and be duped again even harder this time.

But is it a scam? No. Not more than selling 8GB USB sticks on ebay for $100. Its just a rip off.

As for the Pirate connection, I will just leave this here:



A solid 10. Pay attention to the date, which is well past Pirate's default announcement. Did you launder his coins for him perhaps?

[Namworld]

The first and foremost reason is: I assume ALL RISKS except for difficultly changes.

Which is the ONLY RISK that really matters, particularly during the asic switch. Its a huge risk. The other risks wouldnt cost  close to 30%.

"Mining software crashes", it would restart automatically, and even if it doesnt, wouldnt account for more than 1%.
"Pool failures" failover pools solve that.
"Mining Variance (bad luck)" average expected loss: 0%.
"Facility failures" : like what, clogged toilet?
"Equipment failures:" you have warranty. Granted, the downtime would cost you, lets be generous and put it at 10% equipment failure and 3 weeks shipping delay and you get 0.5% per year.
"Power outages" If that accounts for even  1%, you should switch utility providers.
"Network outages" see above.

the list goes on....

But the numbers will never add up to anything close to 5%, let alone >30%.

I can understand why you only offer upgrades to existing bondholders; only those duped in to buying your bonds the first time might be stupid enough to double down and be duped again even harder this time.

But is it a scam? No. Not more than selling 8GB USB sticks on ebay for $100. Its just a rip off.

As for the Pirate connection, I will just leave this here:



A solid 10. Pay attention to the date, which is well past Pirate's default announcement. Did you launder his coins for him perhaps?

Those risks indeed do not cost much, but 30-50% cut is to be expect to cover those fees, because the large part of this cut would be to replace equipment past it's guarantee (it's fixed hashing forever, not until equipment breaks down).

The issue is depending on how the upgrade goes, he's likely to get a 60% + cut.

[Puppet]

because the large part of this cut would be to replace equipment past it's guarantee (it's fixed hashing forever, not until equipment breaks down).

Past guarantee both the equipment and the bond would be virtually worthless. The first months of asic mining are all that matter. If your dividends havent paid for your investment after 6 months, they never will.

[Namworld]

He still has to pay for new equipment and pay the hashing forever.

6 month? I disagree, I think the hashing will be worth something for longer than that.

[EskimoBob]

Only guy who makes any money off this adventure is gigavps and probably few lucky trades, that got in before he sweetalked the price up and got out at the peak.
Ones who bought the bond at IPO and still hold it, have lost about 20.6% and they have no way out of this joke.
Now they are getting squeezed for additional coin. If they do not pay up, their investment will be worthless.

!pl GIGAMINING 1.2501

GIGAMINING 1.2501
paid: 0.44317596 BTC.
Last price: 0.55 BTC.
Capital gain: -0.7001 BTC.
Total: -0.25692404 BTC. (-20.6%)

do you see the trend here?
(div payments for last 10 weeks, share price was 1.019-1.02)

Code:

    
0,02245
    0,02225     -0,89%
     0,0201     -9,66%
     0,0193     -3,98%
   0,018875     -2,20%
   0,017525     -7,15%
     0,0173     -1,28%
   0,016075     -7,08%
     0,0156     -2,95%
   0,014425     -7,53%
    0,01385     -3,99%

Share price is 0.55
Sure, pay the guy and you will be waiting for a very long time to get your coin back.
Giga, you sad-sad anecdotes about the keys and expence report brought almost tears to my eyes. You keep whining about how expensive it all is. Sure, but can you show your actual income statements too?

[jamesg]

To all Gigaminers:

I think the final terms will be:

• 22.5% Mh/s per bond (this is 90% of 25Mh/s)
• The cost per bond upgrade will be set at .29 BTC per Gigamining bond

If anyone does not like this deal, you can always take the free upgrade and go buy your own BFL equipment.

The new contract for Teramining is going to be a bit more robust than the current Gigamining contract and will also include:

• A minimum buy back amount. The contract will set a minimum that I can buy back the Teramining bonds for in BTC. I have yet to figure out what this amount should be but with 160k bonds issued, it will be low.

If you have any feedback on these, please post your comments.

Best,
gigavps

EDIT: Removed another stipulation quoted below because it doesn't jive with the perpetual nature of the bond.

[boonies4u]

A solid 10. Pay attention to the date, which is well past Pirate's default announcement. Did you launder his coins for him perhaps?

He probably has a "all business, no drama" rating because he doesn't do shit like this.

• A maximum profit potential. The contract will stipulate that if dividends for Teramining exceed a certain threshold, the contract will be considered completed and all bonds may be recalled without repurchase. I have yet to set the amount for this also. This figure will however be higher than the highest trading price of Gigamining + the cost for upgrading to Teramining to make sure all parties have made BTC on the deal.

That doesn't sound perpetual.

[Bugpowder]

What is the trigger for the timing of the bond exchange?

To all Gigaminers:

I think the final terms will be:

• 22.5% Mh/s per bond (this is 90% of 25Mh/s)
• The cost per bond upgrade will be set at .29 BTC per Gigamining bond

If anyone does not like this deal, you can always take the free upgrade and go buy your own BFL equipment.

The new contract for Teramining is going to be a bit more robust than the current Gigamining contract and will also include:

• A minimum buy back amount. The contract will set a minimum that I can buy back the Teramining bonds for in BTC. I have yet to figure out what this amount should be but with 160k bonds issued, it will be low.
• A maximum profit potential. The contract will stipulate that if dividends for Teramining exceed a certain threshold, the contract will be considered completed and all bonds may be recalled without repurchase. I have yet to set the amount for this also. This figure will however be higher than the highest trading price of Gigamining + the cost for upgrading to Teramining to make sure all parties have made BTC on the deal.

If you have any feedback on these, please post your comments.

Best,
gigavps

[Factory]

The new contract for Teramining is going to be a bit more robust than the current Gigamining contract and will also include:

• A maximum profit potential.

This inclusion stood out to me, as I am sure it does to many others. I do not see this as a justified inclusion and I think the issue would be much more better suited without it.

[jamesg]

The new contract for Teramining is going to be a bit more robust than the current Gigamining contract and will also include:

• A maximum profit potential.

This inclusion stood out to me, as I am sure it does to many others. I do not see this as a justified inclusion and I think the issue would be much more better suited without it.

You are correct. I will remove it.

EDIT:

To be clear, I was not thinking properly this morning when I wrote that. It is my fault, and I have retracted it. Sorry for the confusion.