http://www.pyramining.com/ - Discussion thread (no advertising here)

[gweedo]

New rules (draft):

• The hashing power is distributed proportionally to the power bought with each deposit, and it does not get averaged anymore. Deposits will get their real hashing power instead of being a part of the whole pool.
• The hashing power left (completed accounts) is distributed to the 10 oldest and still active deposits as a bonus, to speed up completion.
• The % of mined coins distributed to upper levels (sponsors) is changed. Before it was 15% to 1st level, 7.5% to second level and 7.5% to third level. It will become: 5% first level, 2.5% second level, 2.5% third level.

Kinda not happy since I will end up with less mining power and probably not get the full reward I was offered for a while. But if you think this is the best business decision I can accept it. I think what would be better is start new accounts off with this, and leave the old accounts the other way because then we can accept this new TOS or still enjoy the old TOS.

I believe he is referring to newly active deposits. Current deposits should keep the old rules.
The way I read this, and the way I believe it should be is that the older deposits split at least some of the excess hardware he brings online to get them out of the way. I have deposits going back to july of last year, and I am willing to wait for those older than me to get their due before I get paid.

So in short, here is my suggestion.
We have 5.9ths in queue and 30+ coming online. Take 10ths and split it among the oldest deposits, by 10, or whatever # makes sense for the size of the earliest accounts and leave the rest for new deposits.

Also pyramining can you put on our profiles when we login if we have an old account? I think one of my accounts should just be able to make that oldest account, i just don't know based on the information I can see.

If this is for new accounts then I think it is fair.

[1714235376]

1714235376

[pyramining]

New rules apply to new accounts only, except for the bonus payments to the 10 oldest deposits that will be delivered to the absolute oldest active deposits.

[cozie]

pyramining can you please check your pm?

thank you

[Monkey1]

I am still not clear how these rules will affect my accounts.  I have several accounts with varying balances and bonuses (but I assume that I am not in the oldest 10).

If the new rules only apply to new deposits, does this include the queued amounts, or will it be implemented after the queue has cleared?

In short:

Will I see any benefit from the 6THash or so that is queued?

Will I now lose the 15% from referrals that I have accumulated and have it replaced by 5%?

The bonus payment seems to only come from completed accounts (which will be the oldest/ smallest and so add the smallest amount of hashing power).  This also reduces the 'bonus' everyone else gets when an account is completed and the hashing power is distributed to the rest (unless I misunderstand the concept).


I am open to a change in rules for new accounts, but I have a significant amount of BTC invested here and I am concerned that because I was an early adopted, I will now be disadvantaged.

The whole point in changing the rules is to attract more investors, but will anyone try and recruit others for a 5%/2.5%/2.5% bonus scheme?  Just a thought!

[seot]

I am still not clear how these rules will affect my accounts.  I have several accounts with varying balances and bonuses (but I assume that I am not in the oldest 10).

If the new rules only apply to new deposits, does this include the queued amounts, or will it be implemented after the queue has cleared?

In short:

Will I see any benefit from the 6THash or so that is queued?

Will I now lose the 15% from referrals that I have accumulated and have it replaced by 5%?

The bonus payment seems to only come from completed accounts (which will be the oldest/ smallest and so add the smallest amount of hashing power).  This also reduces the 'bonus' everyone else gets when an account is completed and the hashing power is distributed to the rest (unless I misunderstand the concept).


I am open to a change in rules for new accounts, but I have a significant amount of BTC invested here and I am concerned that because I was an early adopted, I will now be disadvantaged.

The whole point in changing the rules is to attract more investors, but will anyone try and recruit others for a 5%/2.5%/2.5% bonus scheme?  Just a thought!

 

New rules (draft):

• The hashing power is distributed proportionally to the power bought with each deposit, and it does not get averaged anymore. Deposits will get their real hashing power instead of being a part of the whole pool.
• The hashing power left (completed accounts) is distributed to the 10 oldest and still active deposits as a bonus, to speed up completion.
• The % of mined coins distributed to upper levels (sponsors) is changed. Before it was 15% to 1st level, 7.5% to second level and 7.5% to third level. It will become: 5% first level, 2.5% second level, 2.5% third level.

I am not sure, but what I understand is....new rules will be applied to new accounts and deposits and as new rule the hashing power left will be distributed to the 10 oldest deposits until completion. After these deposits are completed, the hashing power left will once more be distributed to the oldest deposits and so on  until old deposits are all completed. What about queued  deposits??...I don´t know but I am sure we will not be disadvantaged Monkey1

[rdyoung]

I am still not clear how these rules will affect my accounts.  I have several accounts with varying balances and bonuses (but I assume that I am not in the oldest 10).

If the new rules only apply to new deposits, does this include the queued amounts, or will it be implemented after the queue has cleared?

In short:

Will I see any benefit from the 6THash or so that is queued?

Will I now lose the 15% from referrals that I have accumulated and have it replaced by 5%?

The bonus payment seems to only come from completed accounts (which will be the oldest/ smallest and so add the smallest amount of hashing power).  This also reduces the 'bonus' everyone else gets when an account is completed and the hashing power is distributed to the rest (unless I misunderstand the concept).


I am open to a change in rules for new accounts, but I have a significant amount of BTC invested here and I am concerned that because I was an early adopted, I will now be disadvantaged.

The whole point in changing the rules is to attract more investors, but will anyone try and recruit others for a 5%/2.5%/2.5% bonus scheme?  Just a thought!

What I am curious to see is how fresh deposits in old accounts will work.
I too agree that it is unlikely that pyra will leave the older accounts out in the cold, but it will interesting to see how the new and old rules will work together.

As for the referral structure, the 5/2.5/2.5 will get the accounts paid out a little faster as there is less being given to the upline.
He doesn't appear to be changing the 10% total of referred accounts though, which is nice.

[pyromaniac]

I have a very old account, so I will not get any benefits from upgrade. But my payout address is located at exchange, so I can't use function "sign message" in wallet. How can I sell my account?

[Monkey1]

If all existing hashrate is applied to oldest 10 accounts until completion, it may be some time before I (or many others) actually see any return as some of the old accounts have a lot of BTC in them.

I am concerned that my accounts will not be old enough to qualify for the 'oldest 10' and difficulty will increase too quickly to ever get to my accounts!

I also have concerns regarding new depositors.  Will an extra 30THash reduce the completion time to a level where you are happy to invest for a 10% return?  ie.  what is reasonable for 10%?  6 months?  a year?  2 years?  If not, how do we attract new investors?

I agree that in the past he has always looked after investors, I am just concerned that as he tries to please everyone, many will lose out.



To highlight my concern, one of my oldest accounts (Mid 2012) has at least 10 active accounts above it and more than 5 inactive.  The active accounts have at least 900 BTC outstanding, and this is just a single thread.  Therefore, even if these are the only accounts before mine, and assuming difficulty does not increase at all, and that all 30 THash is allocated to pay off these accounts, I will need to wait at least 250 days before I see a single satoshi. (30 THash/s generating 3.5BTC perday at present).

Now obviously, there are significantly more than 10 accounts ahead of me, difficulty will continue to rise significantly and all 30 THash will not be allocated to those accounts (it will be allocated to others as well and it wont be 30 THash/s).

Therefore I think he needs to rethink this, otherwise only a few, very old accounts will benefit! A more even split, so we all benefit but to a lesser degree is required.

[rdyoung]

If all existing hashrate is applied to oldest 10 accounts until completion, it may be some time before I (or many others) actually see any return as some of the old accounts have a lot of BTC in them.

I am concerned that my accounts will not be old enough to qualify for the 'oldest 10' and difficulty will increase too quickly to ever get to my accounts!

I also have concerns regarding new depositors.  Will an extra 30THash reduce the completion time to a level where you are happy to invest for a 10% return?  ie.  what is reasonable for 10%?  6 months?  a year?  2 years?  If not, how do we attract new investors?

I agree that in the past he has always looked after investors, I am just concerned that as he tries to please everyone, many will lose out.

Now deposits will get the hashrate they paid for.
I did the math @ 118.7ghs/btc. Without difficulty increase it will take 111 days to break even. Even if it takes 5 months to break even new deposits will be fine.

What I am curious to see is the combination of old accounts + new deposits. I have .27btc I think in pending deposits with my chained accounts. All of the accts were setup July of last year, so they aren't from the beginning of time, but they are from the 1st gen asic deployment. It will be interesting to see how the system handles them.

I am not sure, but I am thinking that the old accounts are going to get a serious boost. My stays on the right say a hash rate that is magnitudes greater than what my profile stays says. This happened last time so that's why I am not sure.

[Monkey1]

There are accounts above mine with hundreds of BTC outstanding.  If all legacy power is directed at those accounts, it just means that those owners will benefit before difficulty increases and others will get nothing, instead of everyone sharing something.

When I joined I understood that difficulty would increase but I accepted that new members would make up for that.  Now, I do not benefit from new members and I think it will be difficult to attract new investors due to ROI time, so if all power is directed at 10 oldest accounts, I will never see anything!

This is a complete change to the original concept and I am not content with only the 10 oldest accounts receiving any hashrate (apart from new deposits).  This part needs a rethink, otherwise 10 individuals (or maybe less if they are owned by the same people) will benefit and no one else will.

[rdyoung]

There are accounts above mine with hundreds of BTC outstanding.  If all legacy power is directed at those accounts, it just means that those owners will benefit before difficulty increases and others will get nothing, instead of everyone sharing something.

When I joined I understood that difficulty would increase but I accepted that new members would make up for that.  Now, I do not benefit from new members and I think it will be difficult to attract new investors due to ROI time, so if all power is directed at 10 oldest accounts, I will never see anything!

This is a complete change to the original concept and I am not content with only the 10 oldest accounts receiving any hashrate (apart from new deposits).  This part needs a rethink, otherwise 10 individuals (or maybe less if they are owned by the same people) will benefit and no one else will.

I agree 100%. Thats why I think it would be right and fair to allocate some small amount of the new hashpower to older accounts.  I have posted 10ths but even 1ths would be more than enough. If he is basing it on deposits, then we all have an even chance of seeing it work for us.

Eventually the difficulty will level off, and we will all see a benefit eventually even if it takes a year or so.

Let's wait until he gets the new hardware online and the new rules programmed in, and then we can see what needs to change and push him to do so.

[pyra-proxy]

There are accounts above mine with hundreds of BTC outstanding.  If all legacy power is directed at those accounts, it just means that those owners will benefit before difficulty increases and others will get nothing, instead of everyone sharing something.

When I joined I understood that difficulty would increase but I accepted that new members would make up for that.  Now, I do not benefit from new members and I think it will be difficult to attract new investors due to ROI time, so if all power is directed at 10 oldest accounts, I will never see anything!

This is a complete change to the original concept and I am not content with only the 10 oldest accounts receiving any hashrate (apart from new deposits).  This part needs a rethink, otherwise 10 individuals (or maybe less if they are owned by the same people) will benefit and no one else will.

(pyramining please correct me if I'm wrong...)

My understanding is that, "old" deposits will get a hashrate share according to the terms they joined with (but with the new referall bonus changes), "new" deposits will get a hashrate share according to the new terms, with that all said and done pyramining is bringing on surplus power above and beyond that which was described above .... this surplus power is going to be used to clean up the oldest 10 deposits in the system and work forward to current day deposits (which it will never achieve so long as pyramining stays viable and attracts new investments but I and most should hope that it gets the old/current deposit gap bridged significantly)

[rdyoung]

There are accounts above mine with hundreds of BTC outstanding.  If all legacy power is directed at those accounts, it just means that those owners will benefit before difficulty increases and others will get nothing, instead of everyone sharing something.

When I joined I understood that difficulty would increase but I accepted that new members would make up for that.  Now, I do not benefit from new members and I think it will be difficult to attract new investors due to ROI time, so if all power is directed at 10 oldest accounts, I will never see anything!

This is a complete change to the original concept and I am not content with only the 10 oldest accounts receiving any hashrate (apart from new deposits).  This part needs a rethink, otherwise 10 individuals (or maybe less if they are owned by the same people) will benefit and no one else will.

(pyramining please correct me if I'm wrong...)

My understanding is that, "old" deposits will get a hashrate share according to the terms they joined with (but with the new referall bonus changes), "new" deposits will get a hashrate share according to the new terms, with that all said and done pyramining is bringing on surplus power above and beyond that which was described above .... this surplus power is going to be used to clean up the oldest 10 deposits in the system and work forward to current day deposits (which it will never achieve so long as pyramining stays viable and attracts new investments but I and most should hope that it gets the old/current deposit gap bridged significantly)

This would be the ideal situation. The 24ths or so left after queued deposits get activated being used to clean out the cobwebs, that would get things cleared out in a reasonable amount of time.

[simonk83]

I do think we're at a point where we should be focussing a bit more on getting existing accounts paid out more quickly.   I don't think I'm being crazy when I say that, at the moment (and looking at the stats) new people are most likely not flocking in droves to join.    Old accounts have been patient while the payout period increased from months, to years, to the average persons lifetime.

I don't think it's unreasonable to try and focus on paying back older accounts before we try and rework things to encourage newer deposits.   I understand that without a certain degree of new users, no more hardware can be bought and things grind to a halt, so I'm not suggesting that new deposits be totally ignored (of course not, they deserve their payouts as well), I'm just saying that if there is excess hashing, it should be focussed on clearing up the historical stuff.

Just as a disclaimer, I have several accounts.  Most are 1 year old as of this month, but one is 2 years old, 30 BTC, 30% complete, and I'm getting 440.6KH/s for that.   Uncool.

[rdyoung]

I do think we're at a point where we should be focussing a bit more on getting existing accounts paid out more quickly.   I don't think I'm being crazy when I say that, at the moment (and looking at the stats) new people are most likely not flocking in droves to join.    Old accounts have been patient while the payout period increased from months, to years, to the average persons lifetime.

I don't think it's unreasonable to try and focus on paying back older accounts before we try and rework things to encourage newer deposits.   I understand that without a certain degree of new users, no more hardware can be bought and things grind to a halt, so I'm not suggesting that new deposits be totally ignored (of course not, they deserve their payouts as well), I'm just saying that if there is excess hashing, it should be focussed on clearing up the historical stuff.

Just as a disclaimer, I have several accounts.  Most are 1 year old as of this month, but one is 2 years old, 30 BTC, 30% complete, and I'm getting 440.6KH/s for that.   Uncool.

My accounts are showing funky stats as well.
I have 1 @ 47.xxbtc that is showing 11.5mhs in the large profile stats center left, but still showing a more "reasonable" 12.6gh on the right.
We should know whats what over the next week or 2, he should have gotten some hardware today and he should be ready to start bringing them online.

[pyramining]

My accounts are showing funky stats as well.
I have 1 @ 47.xxbtc that is showing 11.5mhs in the large profile stats center left, but still showing a more "reasonable" 12.6gh on the right.
We should know whats what over the next week or 2, he should have gotten some hardware today and he should be ready to start bringing them online.

Don't care about those numbers now, I am still working on the changes. Soon you will see correct stats.

[pyramining]

A few considerations that I want to share with you about the new policies:

Old mining hardware (~5Th/s) is not performing anymore. If we do apply the new rules to new accounts only, older accounts will receive only a few small payouts because the hardware gets obsoleted too fast following the mining difficulty increase.

The solution I thougth to this problem, is to dedicate as much hashing power as possible to new accounts, so they will be able to become completed quickly. If the difficulty increase doesn't bring us new surprises, the hardware will still be profitable for a little longer, and older accounts will be able to get payouts. It should be fair because it encourages new deposits, and it will help older ones.

About the additional bonus for the oldest 10 accounts, I chose 10 because only a few accounts have large amounts absorbing all those bonuses. The only alternative I can think of, to improve this, is to split the mined amount of the hardware not bound to any deposit (the hashing power of completed accounts) in equal parts (not depending on the hashing power) and assign it to all the "old" accounts. While the first rule would benefit oldest deposits (those who waited more than others), the second would benefit smaller deposits because they will be completed first and everyone will get payouts starting from day 1.

[simonk83]

The solution I thougth to this problem, is to dedicate as much hashing power as possible to new accounts, so they will be able to become completed quickly.

Can't say I'm too happy about that.  I'd rather older accounts get priority (as they should).

[gweedo]

The solution I thougth to this problem, is to dedicate as much hashing power as possible to new accounts, so they will be able to become completed quickly.

Can't say I'm too happy about that.  I'd rather older accounts get priority (as they should).

I agree, I feel like I am getting a little bit of the shaft for believing early on, and giving money.

[Monkey1]

agreed.  I also dont believe there will be significant new deposits, even when new infrastructure is installed, so we cant rely on new deposits to pull us out of this one.

I would rather any extra hashing is split across all old accounts, benefiting all and not just a few.  Smaller accounts will not benefit more than larger accounts as they will receive less.  I am not convinced that we will complete old accounts quickly enough to have any real effect and I would rather have a small percentage of something than wait in line for a large percentage of nothing.