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

[Monkey1]

When will our referral link lists be reactivated?

=squeak=

This.  I have been waiting ever since the new ASICs came on line!

[1714486195]

1714486195

[1714486195]

1714486195

[1714486195]

1714486195

[1714486195]

1714486195

[Lincoln6Echo]

There is no new hardware available at present so it wouldn't make sense to reactivate referals.

If you are not among the Top 10 with extra hashpower, I think you won't see your BTC ever again.
Only the oldest Accounts profit from current Situation which have most likely the biggest amount of deposit AND get the biggest bonus.

 

[rdyoung]

There is no new hardware available at present so it wouldn't make sense to reactivate referals.

If you are not among the Top 10 with extra hashpower, I think you won't see your BTC ever again.
Only the oldest Accounts profit from current Situation which have most likely the biggest amount of deposit AND get the biggest bonus.

 

There is plenty of hardware available. All hardware not allocated to deposits is being aimed at the 10 oldest deposits.

[Monkey1]

I'm afraid to say that I think hes right.  Pyra changed the rules half way through in order to attract new members, whilst screwing over existing members and now you cant even recruit new members!  It was good whilst it lasted!!

[Lincoln6Echo]

Instead of everyone profits a little from 24 Th/s only a very few do. Imho that really sucks.

Even if the Top 10 accounts only need to clear out 100 BTC altogether (which is very very very optimistic) it would need way more than 3 month of mining with 24 Th/s.

And you wonder why there are no stats on pyramining.com?

[symbot]

I tried to sell two of my accounts today and did not succeed in either case.  I got an error message saying that I tried to change something I did not have access to.  

I signed my withdrawal address using my Blockchain.info wallet and I think I followed the instructions correctly.  Anybody else have problems recently?

/edit:

Here is the error message:

The change you wanted was rejected.
Maybe you tried to change something you didn't have access to.

[platti]

what does "10 oldest deposits" mean. deposit before which date?

[rdyoung]

what does "10 oldest deposits" mean. deposit before which date?

It means exactly that. The 10 oldest deposits.

[Squeaker]

what does "10 oldest deposits" mean. deposit before which date?

It means exactly that. The 10 oldest deposits.

And when one of the 10 oldest deposits, complete, then the next-oldest deposit will be added in to keep it at 10 oldest...

What he wants to do is try and knock out those deposits who have been incomplete the longest, and it will always be the 10 oldest ones at any given time.

=squeak=

[rdyoung]

what does "10 oldest deposits" mean. deposit before which date?

It means exactly that. The 10 oldest deposits.

And when one of the 10 oldest deposits, complete, then the next-oldest deposit will be added in to keep it at 10 oldest...

What he wants to do is try and knock out those deposits who have been incomplete the longest, and it will always be the 10 oldest ones at any given time.

=squeak=

It may seem unfair to some of us, but its the most fair way of doing things. Those that deposited during the fpga phase still deserve a payout as much as those of us that invested in the first round of asics. I would however like to seem him do what was mentioned by others, pause earnings for those larger accounts that have seen a $ profit. The earliest accounts/deposits were when btc was @ 10$ or less, an account that deposited even 100btc at 10$ and has received even 10btc as payouts, deposited 1k$ and has received upwards of 10k$+ in earnings.

[BobbyJo]

I think he should do what was advertised (and mentioned by others above).  Forget the bonus for the oldest 10 accounts, which will benefit virtually no one and split that hash rate across all accounts. I did not join a 'pay the oldest 10 accounts' set up.  I joined a ' split hash rate across all accounts' set up, which is what we had until recently.

[silverston]

I tried to sell two of my accounts today and did not succeed in either case.  I got an error message saying that I tried to change something I did not have access to.  

I signed my withdrawal address using my Blockchain.info wallet and I think I followed the instructions correctly.  Anybody else have problems recently?

/edit:

Here is the error message:

The change you wanted was rejected.
Maybe you tried to change something you didn't have access to.

i have same problem

[Squeaker]

I think he should do what was advertised (and mentioned by others above).  Forget the bonus for the oldest 10 accounts, which will benefit virtually no one and split that hash rate across all accounts. I did not join a 'pay the oldest 10 accounts' set up.  I joined a ' split hash rate across all accounts' set up, which is what we had until recently.

Actually, it won't "benefit virtually no one"... it'll benefit 10 depositors...

=squeak=

[peruana]

When i think of on-demand mining i think of a service like mining.mbigas.com or is that a different type of service?

[bigbeninlondon]

I think he should do what was advertised (and mentioned by others above).  Forget the bonus for the oldest 10 accounts, which will benefit virtually no one and split that hash rate across all accounts. I did not join a 'pay the oldest 10 accounts' set up.  I joined a ' split hash rate across all accounts' set up, which is what we had until recently.

I'm pretty sure it was 'get exactly the hashrate that you paid for'.  I paid 10btc for ~100 MH/s (at the time that was $50 for 1/3 the hashpower of a $200 GPU, so looked like a deal).  I'm sincerely hoping they don't keep the agreement exactly as I signed up for, because otherwise I'd take like 1000 years to get my payout.

[Monkey1]

It has only been 'get the hash rate you paid for' for a couple of months.  He changed the rules recently before releasing the new ASICs.

Previously it has always been a certain amount of hashing power was added to the system every time anyone deposited and all rewards were split amongst all active accounts on a ratio of what they paid for, so as time went by, new members contributed more has rate, but older accounts still got paid.  This was changed in order to encourage new deposits, which means old accounts will never be paid and you cant even create new accounts.  The whole thing is a mess.

[rdyoung]

It has only been 'get the hash rate you paid for' for a couple of months.  He changed the rules recently before releasing the new ASICs.

Previously it has always been a certain amount of hashing power was added to the system every time anyone deposited and all rewards were split amongst all active accounts on a ratio of what they paid for, so as time went by, new members contributed more has rate, but older accounts still got paid.  This was changed in order to encourage new deposits, which means old accounts will never be paid and you cant even create new accounts.  The whole thing is a mess.

This was changed because the fpga deposits were weighing everyone down. Even if he had left it like it was, we would all be seeing very little payouts.
Not to mention cost per ghs before he changed the rules, because of the older deposits from when fpgas were king and btc was sub 25$, as a socialist investment we were all getting a lot less hashing power than we could buy else where. CEX was better priced before he changed the rules.

What would speed things up is if he would do 1 of 2 things, either pause payouts for those that have a substantial fiat profit or flip things around and start paying out the smallest deposits before x date first. IMO Clearing out the deposits starting with the smallest would likely have the largest impact, I have chained accounts as well as a LOT of micro deposits, if these deposits that are 14+ months old would get cleared it would mean quite a bit of btc being deposited to another account at the current rate, this would give him more cash to buy more hardware.
I also hope this time around he will order some hardware from some of the companies that have them in stock ready to ship, rather than worry about producing his own.

[Monkey1]

I know why it was done, I just fundamentally disagree with doing it.  We all knew what we joined when we joined it (although some people appear unable to read a page of writing and cry foul, but you will always get that).

I would be happy with small payouts if the structure was what I paid for at the start.  What annoys me is that people complained, so he changed the entire structure for everyone, without proper consultation.  I agree that if it was left as it was, we would still be receiving small payouts, but they would be greater than they currently are, and it would be what we all agreed to at the start.

Now the idea is to benefit new accounts at the expense of older ones (and for months you haven't even been able to make new accounts).  Difficulty is continuing to rise at a massive rate and you cant create new accounts to add to the power.
Since he changed the rules, the wheels have fallen off this.  I think we ware just going to have to man up and write off any outstanding coins (which for me is a considerable amount of coins and/ or fiat!!).

[rdyoung]

I know why it was done, I just fundamentally disagree with doing it.  We all knew what we joined when we joined it (although some people appear unable to read a page of writing and cry foul, but you will always get that).

I would be happy with small payouts if the structure was what I paid for at the start.  What annoys me is that people complained, so he changed the entire structure for everyone, without proper consultation.  I agree that if it was left as it was, we would still be receiving small payouts, but they would be greater than they currently are, and it would be what we all agreed to at the start.

Now the idea is to benefit new accounts at the expense of older ones (and for months you haven't even been able to make new accounts).  Difficulty is continuing to rise at a massive rate and you cant create new accounts to add to the power.
Since he changed the rules, the wheels have fallen off this.  I think we ware just going to have to man up and write off any outstanding coins (which for me is a considerable amount of coins and/ or fiat!!).

I disagree with the idea that pyramining is dead in the water. There are ways to fix this, the changes he made are how things should have been from the beginning, the way it was was a good idea it simply did not see the asic generation of mining power coming.
If he would do one of the things I laid out in a previous post it would get things going again, especially if he brings back account creation so that those that are good at marketing can bring in some new accounts as well as being willing to buy available hardware instead of creating his own.
Another project I am invested/watching petamine was able to bring on over a petahash in a very short time, where as pyra was bringing on 10ths or less every week or so.

[silverston]

why i cant sell my account ?