|
BobbyJo
|
 |
July 23, 2014, 11:48:51 AM |
|
I m pretty sure he sent me pics some time ago before the latest ASIC upgrade (may have even been the FPGA stage). He has previously sent out pics personally if you have PM'd him!!
|
|
|
|
Anillos2
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1003
|
|
July 24, 2014, 07:42:01 PM |
|
There have been rewards every day since 20/07!!!
Yes, I have a new satoshi for each account.  |
|
|
|
|
Squeaker
|
|
July 25, 2014, 04:34:52 AM |
|
hey, Pyra...
Just what is it we're waiting on to get our referral links active again?
=squeak=
|
"In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion." ~Anonymous |
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
July 25, 2014, 07:11:25 AM |
|
hey, Pyra...
Just what is it we're waiting on to get our referral links active again?
=squeak=
I am waiting too as I want to join. Why don't you make an option to join without inviting and you can put the person under another joined member? So everybody will get referrals and new members can join easily.  Kindly, MZ |
|
|
|
rdyoung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 25, 2014, 07:02:02 PM |
|
hey, Pyra...
Just what is it we're waiting on to get our referral links active again?
=squeak=
I am waiting too as I want to join. Why don't you make an option to join without inviting and you can put the person under another joined member? So everybody will get referrals and new members can join easily. Kindly, MZ Thats not a bad idea, any new signups without a ref link could be routed randomly to an existing account. |
|
|
|
|
|
Squeaker
|
|
July 25, 2014, 07:32:38 PM |
|
hey, Pyra...
Just what is it we're waiting on to get our referral links active again?
=squeak=
I am waiting too as I want to join. Why don't you make an option to join without inviting and you can put the person under another joined member? So everybody will get referrals and new members can join easily. Kindly, MZ Thats not a bad idea, any new signups without a ref link could be routed randomly to an existing account. I'd go along with this... it would take care of the problem of having to hunt for a valid referral link on the forums... how often have someone tried to use a referral to just find it has expired? (Granted, it isn't as big a problem as it used to be, since they became a little reusable, but a random link to an _ACTIVE_ account would be good, IMHO... just don't refer to an account that isn't active) =squeak= |
"In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion." ~Anonymous |
|
|
rdyoung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 25, 2014, 08:13:40 PM |
|
hey, Pyra...
Just what is it we're waiting on to get our referral links active again?
=squeak=
I am waiting too as I want to join. Why don't you make an option to join without inviting and you can put the person under another joined member? So everybody will get referrals and new members can join easily. Kindly, MZ Thats not a bad idea, any new signups without a ref link could be routed randomly to an existing account. I'd go along with this... it would take care of the problem of having to hunt for a valid referral link on the forums... how often have someone tried to use a referral to just find it has expired? (Granted, it isn't as big a problem as it used to be, since they became a little reusable, but a random link to an _ACTIVE_ account would be good, IMHO... just don't refer to an account that isn't active) =squeak= Good point. It could also be weighted so that those that have few or none would get some. |
|
|
|
|
|
Squeaker
|
|
July 25, 2014, 08:24:13 PM |
|
Good point. It could also be weighted so that those that have few or none would get some. I dunno if I would go along with weighting it... I would think just going by active account is enough. The % bonus is relative to the amounts that were deposited anyways. Basically, just loop... pick account at random... is it active? no? repeat... yes? set referral to that account. Favoring one account over another based on what the deposit was doesn't seem right to me, and ends up being less random, when each account would otherwise have an equal chance of getting the referral assigned to it. =squeak= |
"In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion." ~Anonymous |
|
|
|
kreeften
|
|
July 26, 2014, 10:56:13 AM |
|
why did with me so low? my info Total deposited amount: 0.10518028 BTC
Total allocated hashing power: 21.0 MH/s[/b] I saw someone who had Total deposited amount: 0.11 BTC
Total allocated hashing power: 2.9 GH/s[/b] 21.0MH/s or 2.9GH/s is a big difference  |
|
|
|
|
Squeaker
|
|
July 26, 2014, 02:03:54 PM |
|
what were the dates the deposits were made?
the exchange rate comes into play too... 0.10518028 @ 20 USD buys less hash power than 0.11 @ 600 USD does.
=squeak=
|
"In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion." ~Anonymous |
|
|
|
|
rigel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1240
Merit: 1001
Thank God I'm an atheist
|
|
July 27, 2014, 07:48:35 AM |
|
Quick update: the first payout was small because most of it went to cover up the last part of the hole.
There are some "stuck" transactions: after the wallet update there is a strange behaviour. However don't be alarmed, I am working to fix it. If you see a transaction in the logs but you don't see the transaction in the blockchain, it doesn't mean that your bitcoins are lost.
Are you involved in pyramining? I thought it was a one man band... |
|
|
|
|
|
Krak
|
|
July 27, 2014, 02:59:17 PM |
|
Quick update: the first payout was small because most of it went to cover up the last part of the hole.
There are some "stuck" transactions: after the wallet update there is a strange behaviour. However don't be alarmed, I am working to fix it. If you see a transaction in the logs but you don't see the transaction in the blockchain, it doesn't mean that your bitcoins are lost.
Are you involved in pyramining? I thought it was a one man band... It's the same update that was posted by Pyramining a while back. I dunno why this person is posting it again. |
BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
|
|
|
seot
Member
Offline
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
|
|
July 28, 2014, 05:45:28 AM |
|
Quick update: the first payout was small because most of it went to cover up the last part of the hole.
There are some "stuck" transactions: after the wallet update there is a strange behaviour. However don't be alarmed, I am working to fix it. If you see a transaction in the logs but you don't see the transaction in the blockchain, it doesn't mean that your bitcoins are lost.
Are you involved in pyramining? I thought it was a one man band... No, he is not involved with pyramining. He has been spamming other threads. I think he has been removed by this time https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=712301.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
July 28, 2014, 06:24:46 AM |
|
Good point. It could also be weighted so that those that have few or none would get some. I dunno if I would go along with weighting it... I would think just going by active account is enough. The % bonus is relative to the amounts that were deposited anyways. Basically, just loop... pick account at random... is it active? no? repeat... yes? set referral to that account. Favoring one account over another based on what the deposit was doesn't seem right to me, and ends up being less random, when each account would otherwise have an equal chance of getting the referral assigned to it. =squeak= I am sorry for not telling correctly. What I told was putting the newly registered member under member who joined just before him. If that account has 1 or 1+ ref, then newly registered member can be put under any member who got no referral. Kindly, MZ |
|
|
|
|
Squeaker
|
|
July 28, 2014, 07:01:28 AM |
|
I am sorry for not telling correctly. What I told was putting the newly registered member under member who joined just before him. If that account has 1 or 1+ ref, then newly registered member can be put under any member who got no referral. yeah... I wouldn't go along with that... that effectively shuts out everyone who already has accounts, creating one single long referral chain. By your method... New person joins, last account created before him gets listed as his referral The new account now becomes the last account created with no referrals Repeat The condition that the last-joined account would need 1 or more referrals already, before the new account gets linked to someone random instead, would never hit, and no new account would ever be assigned randomly. You would end up with a chain of: A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-etc-etc-etc in a single unbroken chain. =squeak= |
"In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion." ~Anonymous |
|
|
|
BobbyJo
|
|
July 28, 2014, 07:59:30 AM |
|
Agreed, it should be random, like it was in the beginning with members who joined on their own. People have to stop trying to penalise those who have already made money, or joined a long time ago in order to benefit newer members.
|
|
|
|
|
Squeaker
|
|
July 28, 2014, 08:01:56 AM |
|
some people just can't let go of their class-warfare indoctrination... :shrugs:
=squeak=
|
"In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion." ~Anonymous |
|
|
|
BobbyJo
|
|
July 28, 2014, 10:59:25 AM |
|
A communist/ socialist/ everyone is equal, even those who haven't invested as much or who joined late etc, approach is clearly not going to work. What incentive is there to join if you think that as soon as you get 50% of your money back you will get screwed over in favor of someone who joined 1 year after you??? This is business not some socialist class struggle.
|
|
|
|
rdyoung
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1000
|
|
July 28, 2014, 01:35:46 PM |
|
A communist/ socialist/ everyone is equal, even those who haven't invested as much or who joined late etc, approach is clearly not going to work. What incentive is there to join if you think that as soon as you get 50% of your money back you will get screwed over in favor of someone who joined 1 year after you??? This is business not some socialist class struggle.
Who in this thread has ever said someone should/would be penalized after receiving 50% of their funds back? What I have said is that those that invested when btc was 20$ and have made likely 1000% profit in fiat, should get their payouts temporarily halted so that those of that us that have only recieved 10% or less of our investment might have a chance at seeing it before we die. You fuckers remind me of the rightwing republicans, its a good idea when its benefiting you, but as soon as it doesn't benefit you even as much as it was, its a bad, evil idea and the world will stop spinning if its done. |
|
|
|
|
|
