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

[inaltoasinistra]

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).

If older accounts get priority we'll not get new deposits, pyramining will die and older accounts will not get paid out :O We need to be competitive

[1713885636]

1713885636

[1713885636]

1713885636

[1713885636]

1713885636

[1713885636]

1713885636

[1713885636]

1713885636

[pyramining]

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

Older accounts would get priority if the "bonus to the 10 oldest accounts" will be implemented.

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

I am open to listen to advices, if you think there is a better way to handle things, make your proposal. I think that adjusting rules to ease new investments will help everyone, otherwise the steep difficulty increase would slow everything down further.

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.

Hmm.. I think also this point of view is right. I will run a few simulations.

[pyra-proxy]

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

Older accounts would get priority if the "bonus to the 10 oldest accounts" will be implemented.

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

I am open to listen to advices, if you think there is a better way to handle things, make your proposal. I think that adjusting rules to ease new investments will help everyone, otherwise the steep difficulty increase would slow everything down further.

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.

Hmm.. I think also this point of view is right. I will run a few simulations.

Since it sounds like I was wrong in my assumption, could I encourage you to consider taking that approach?  Older accounts get a share somewhat proportional to what they had before new hardware (maybe add a small bonus like 10% of new deposit power proportioned out to legacy hardware deposits proportionally distributed so they are not left out of the advantages and because I strongly suspect for the near future a high % of new deposits will actually be in the form of nested accounts... so keeping them churning helps stimulate the system), next provide advertised hashrate to new accounts (low cost high hash rate), lastly it sounds as if you will be deploying extra hash rate above and beyond the current sold amounts, while not churning on a new/old deposit use this extra to clean old accounts (to be frank I have no objection to you dedicating the entire whiz bang amount to the 1 oldest deposit in the system and gradually churn it up the chain, heck that's a marketable "feature" to have the opportunity to get "flash" mined for sticking with pyramining for the long haul.)

[Monkey1]

But flash mining isn't really flash mining!  Some accounts above me have up to 450BTC outstanding.  Even assuming spare hashrate was 30 THash/s (which it isn't) and that difficulty remains constant (which it wont), this 30 THash/s will produce approx 3.5 BTC per day.  Therefore to flash mine 1 single account (this may be a big one, but there are bigger ones I know of), it will still take 128 days plus!

I suggest that any spare or bonus hashrate is distributed evenly over all existing (or old) accounts, in direct proportion to the amount of BTC you have remaining.  This should be easy to implement and manage and should be straightforward to re calibrate when an account gets completed (everyone gets a fraction more power).  I consider myself pretty early into this, but limiting any bonus to a few accounts means that all but the very very first people to invest will see anything back.

And please dont change the bonus structure for any existing accounts (and preferably not for the queued amounts).  We all signed up for the current T&C.  Any new rules, whatever you decide, should only be implemented for deposits made after the rules are published.

[pyramining]

And please dont change the bonus structure for any existing accounts (and preferably not for the queued amounts).  We all signed up for the current T&C.  Any new rules, whatever you decide, should only be implemented for deposits made after the rules are published.

The bonus structure for existing accounts will not be affected.

[pyra-proxy]

But flash mining isn't really flash mining!  Some accounts above me have up to 450BTC outstanding.  Even assuming spare hashrate was 30 THash/s (which it isn't) and that difficulty remains constant (which it wont), this 30 THash/s will produce approx 3.5 BTC per day.  Therefore to flash mine 1 single account (this may be a big one, but there are bigger ones I know of), it will still take 128 days plus!

Pyramining is the only one with the right data to see what the effect would/could be, but remember he said by "deposit" not by "account", the big difference here being that those huge accounts are likely multiple deposits not necessarily performed at the same time so the "flash" mining would likely jump around a bit and would hit many people.... but things to consider in the approach taken (I'm trusting pyramining has considered most of these but tabling things I feel should be considered all the same among a minefield of considerations...):

Note: not looking for answers, just hoping these were at minimum a set of considerations

1) What are the largest deposit sizes and how quickly does it taper off to completing deposits daily in any "flash mining" scheme (1, 10, even dispursion, etc.)
2) What is the ratio of FPGA/legacy asic/new asic deposit btc amounts
3) What is the anticipated ratio of hash power for each deposit category before and after changes
4) What is the "estimated recovery time" if we stay the course versus the new plan (albeit this is hard to predict but taking into account difficulty increases continually at current rates + steady BTC rate)
5) What contingency plans/growth plans may be in the works to keep this ship sailing? (renewable "free-ish" electricity to keep difficulty monster at bay for instance, new hardware roll out plans that may be above/beyond just new deposits say perhaps pyramining reinvesting 10% of realized profits to communal mining efforts or some such, alternative uses for legacy hardware such as alt-coin mining which they *may* still prove profitable on, continued account buyback program which nullifies bought back accounts out of the ecosystem, etc.)

I'm not in the earliest investment group by any means, my personal contribution is in excess of 100BTC of which was significantly weighted to FPGA purchases, but these were across several accounts and many many more deposits (not including the pass-through funds I also operate).  I'm hopeful that the changes will stimulate pyramining but it's murky water and hard to see what the outcome will be at this point and pyramining has the most direct non-speculative info of all of us so ultimately I have to have some faith that the plans being worked on are in the best interest of the system pyramining has been dedicated to for so long.

[btharper]

As far as how to distribute the hashrate from completed accounts, I don't know enough about how many accounts have how much in them to say what would be the best. Although another idea would be to randomly pay out to one account at a time (0.01 BTC) given to a random account at a time with some extra weight to larger accounts. Or split things between different plans 75% to n oldest accounts, 20% randomly, 5% to largest account). I'll be happy if I can get paid out in the foreseeable future.

As for favoring new vs old deposits, that's something that has to be done. If old accounts are favored there's no reason to create a new account, keeping some of the completed account hashing power in the new deposits even makes sense; faster returns is more incentive to add money into the system. If there's no new money there's no new hardware, this is something that should probably have happened for each successive generation of hardware. Getting MHs when you have to pay for GHs doesn't make a lot of sense and just seems like tossing more money into the same pit that took your money in the first place. People have to be able to profit off their own money and then everyone else can recoup "lost" money.

[rdyoung]

As far as how to distribute the hashrate from completed accounts, I don't know enough about how many accounts have how much in them to say what would be the best. Although another idea would be to randomly pay out to one account at a time (0.01 BTC) given to a random account at a time with some extra weight to larger accounts. Or split things between different plans 75% to n oldest accounts, 20% randomly, 5% to largest account). I'll be happy if I can get paid out in the foreseeable future.

As for favoring new vs old deposits, that's something that has to be done. If old accounts are favored there's no reason to create a new account, keeping some of the completed account hashing power in the new deposits even makes sense; faster returns is more incentive to add money into the system. If there's no new money there's no new hardware, this is something that should probably have happened for each successive generation of hardware. Getting MHs when you have to pay for GHs doesn't make a lot of sense and just seems like tossing more money into the same pit that took your money in the first place. People have to be able to profit off their own money and then everyone else can recoup "lost" money.

While I agree with the move to give new deposits the actual hashrate they ordered, I disagree with the new deposits need to be given priority. Old/New can be paid out in tandem.

Instead of focusing on the potential new accounts going forward we need to get the backlog cleared first. There are plenty of chained/nested accounts that would create new deposits that could be turned into new hardware. And as pyra already posted he decided on the earliest 10 deposits because they are the ones absorbing most of the referral bonuses. There is one account above me that deposited only a few BTC and has been paid out several hundred, I don't have a problem with that but to be honest losing 30% of earnings is a major factor in this current situation. If we clear out the deposits/accounts from the top down then all those ref bonuses start bouncing back downline and help clear out even more accounts.

As others have posted, pyra is the one with all the data to base a decision on. However, I still feel that splitting some or all of the excess hashpower to ALL current deposits would allow for accounts such as mine to move through the chain and put that money back to work.

[abbeytim]

yah im pissed

Joined: 2012-05-29 12:43:31 UTC    4btc

only received 1.79btc     



Break even: ~ 1245 months
Complete reward: ~ 1369 months
Current infrastructure: 266.29 MH/BTC
New infrastructure: ~ 108.8GH/s/BTC

says my hashing eqivelent is 35 kh/s this sucks

[rdyoung]

yah im pissed

Joined: 2012-05-29 12:43:31 UTC    4btc

only received 1.79btc     



Break even: ~ 1245 months
Complete reward: ~ 1369 months
Current infrastructure: 266.29 MH/BTC
New infrastructure: ~ 108.8GH/s/BTC

says my hashing eqivelent is 35 kh/s this sucks

Yeah, all accounts are showing funky #s.
They did this the last time he was monkeying with the system and installing the last batch of hardware.
It was fixed once he got things straightened out.

[pyramining]

While I agree with the move to give new deposits the actual hashrate they ordered, I disagree with the new deposits need to be given priority. Old/New can be paid out in tandem.
[...]

I am afraid I have been misunderstood (or I didn't explain that very well). All the deposits will be paid, proportionally to their hashrate. I was just meaning that the NEW deposits will get the full hashrate paid for, that will be released to the pool upon completion. It's the opposite of the old situation where the hashrate was released to the pool earlier.

[rdyoung]

While I agree with the move to give new deposits the actual hashrate they ordered, I disagree with the new deposits need to be given priority. Old/New can be paid out in tandem.
[...]

I am afraid I have been misunderstood (or I didn't explain that very well). All the deposits will be paid, proportionally to their hashrate. I was just meaning that the NEW deposits will get the full hashrate paid for, that will be released to the pool upon completion. It's the opposite of the old situation where the hashrate was released to the pool earlier.

OK, thanks for that clarification.

[Monkey1]

So enough of the complaining!!!!

When are we back in business?  When is the first lot going live??

[ingrownpocket]

I guess this is over? I don't receive a satoshi on my 5 BTC deposit in months.

[gweedo]

I guess this is over? I don't receive a satoshi on my 5 BTC deposit in months.

They took their machines off line cause it was costing more than it was making and they have asic which should be going on line soon.

[Monkey1]

I know I asked, but to be fair, I think he said they would start coming online from next week!!

[Tittiez]

I know I asked, but to be fair, I think he said they would start coming online from next week!!

He also said we'd originally have the asics in January. I'm pretty sure he's running on Valve time so give him another week.

[rdyoung]

I know I asked, but to be fair, I think he said they would start coming online from next week!!

He also said we'd originally have the asics in January. I'm pretty sure he's running on Valve time so give him another week.

We are in bleeding edge tech, we should expect delays on top of delays.
He is also a 1 man army running things, what he has done by himself is very impressive IMHO.

[ArethusaF38]

I know I asked, but to be fair, I think he said they would start coming online from next week!!

He also said we'd originally have the asics in January. I'm pretty sure he's running on Valve time so give him another week.

We are in bleeding edge tech, we should expect delays on top of delays.
He is also a 1 man army running things, what he has done by himself is very impressive IMHO.

Hear hear!

[rdyoung]

Pyramining: Any update as to the deployment of new hardware?