http://s21.postimg.org/41h06xeuf/Capture.png
I mean, I couldn't make shit like this up
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 193. (Read 771288 times)
December 31, 2013, 12:49:17 AM
Lol, the irc was awesome, Ukyo bitching about Ken stealin' his shares for pages on end. here's a TL;DR crop:
http://s21.postimg.org/41h06xeuf/Capture.png
I mean, I couldn't make shit like this up
http://s21.postimg.org/41h06xeuf/Capture.png
I mean, I couldn't make shit like this up
December 31, 2013, 12:43:06 AM
Could be cryptx PETA-MINE no? Fits with dates and figures I think.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-tc-cryptx-introduces-the-peta-mine-18000-chips-in-septemberupdate-280570
http://www.cryptx.com/
edit using Cointerra chips?
Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM. Its not likely to see such even fluctuations with a bunch of 2-3 TH miners. They also already had 20 TH - this operation started out with 9 TH. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-tc-cryptx-introduces-the-peta-mine-18000-chips-in-septemberupdate-280570
http://www.cryptx.com/
edit using Cointerra chips?
December 31, 2013, 12:13:04 AM
Could be cryptx PETA-MINE no? Fits with dates and figures I think.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-tc-cryptx-introduces-the-peta-mine-18000-chips-in-septemberupdate-280570
http://www.cryptx.com/
edit using Cointerra chips?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/btc-tc-cryptx-introduces-the-peta-mine-18000-chips-in-septemberupdate-280570
http://www.cryptx.com/
edit using Cointerra chips?
December 30, 2013, 11:57:23 PM
We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.
Why would we ship other people product before adding to our hashing power? Makes no sense. If these are VMC miners they are hashing for ActM. Bargraphics wouldn't tell us honestly if it was ActM because everyone wants to get cheap shares. Because we have an obligation to our customers. It seems a lot of you guys don't exactly understand how a business is run. Ken has promised full refunds if we did not ship. So what do we do? We ship. All of our income was a liability until we actually shipped a product, we could not reasonably spend it on our own hardware if it was money needed to insure that we got our product to our customers. Then we reap the profits to pay for our own stuff.
You can't just take peoples money and use it for yourself if you don't want a ruined reputation and lawsuits on your hands. You guys seem to understand this when you pay for something, but not when someone pays you.
December 30, 2013, 11:53:28 PM
We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.
Why would we ship other people product before adding to our hashing power? Makes no sense. If these are VMC miners they are hashing for ActM. Bargraphics wouldn't tell us honestly if it was ActM because everyone wants to get cheap shares. Because we have an obligation to our customers. It seems a lot of you guys don't exactly understand how a business is run. Ken has promised full refunds if we did not ship. So what do we do? We ship. All of our income was a liability until we actually shipped a product, we could not reasonably spend it on our own hardware if it was money needed to insure that we got our product to our customers. Then we reap the profits to pay for our own stuff.
You can't just take peoples money and use it for yourself if you don't want a ruined reputation and lawsuits on your hands. You guys seem to understand this when you pay for something, but not when someone pays you.
December 30, 2013, 11:40:00 PM
We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.
Why would we ship other people product before adding to our hashing power? Makes no sense. If these are VMC miners they are hashing for ActM. Bargraphics wouldn't tell us honestly if it was ActM because everyone wants to get cheap shares. December 30, 2013, 11:33:09 PM
We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.
December 30, 2013, 11:30:18 PM
well it sure as hell ain't HashFast.
December 30, 2013, 11:19:23 PM
Has it not already been established that this is not Ken, as Baragraphics knows the entity the address belongs to?
I believe so:
225 TH/s is a nice, even 9x24.567 TH Fast-Hash One Platinum miners.
It goes from 65 TH (roughly 3x24.5 TH - could have been working out some bugs, bad chips, or hardware build issues), to 100 TH (roughly 4x24.5 TH), to 150 TH (roughly 6x24.5 TH), to 225 TH (roughly 9x24.5 Th)...
Whoever is mining is operating at roughly 2.25% of the global Bitcoin hash rate.
It goes from 65 TH (roughly 3x24.5 TH - could have been working out some bugs, bad chips, or hardware build issues), to 100 TH (roughly 4x24.5 TH), to 150 TH (roughly 6x24.5 TH), to 225 TH (roughly 9x24.5 Th)...
Whoever is mining is operating at roughly 2.25% of the global Bitcoin hash rate.
It's not ActM. I know this for a fact, as much as I would rather it be them.
Could be our first shipment.
December 30, 2013, 11:12:51 PM
Has it not already been established that this is not Ken, as Baragraphics knows the entity the address belongs to?
I believe so:
225 TH/s is a nice, even 9x24.567 TH Fast-Hash One Platinum miners.
It goes from 65 TH (roughly 3x24.5 TH - could have been working out some bugs, bad chips, or hardware build issues), to 100 TH (roughly 4x24.5 TH), to 150 TH (roughly 6x24.5 TH), to 225 TH (roughly 9x24.5 Th)...
Whoever is mining is operating at roughly 2.25% of the global Bitcoin hash rate.
It goes from 65 TH (roughly 3x24.5 TH - could have been working out some bugs, bad chips, or hardware build issues), to 100 TH (roughly 4x24.5 TH), to 150 TH (roughly 6x24.5 TH), to 225 TH (roughly 9x24.5 Th)...
Whoever is mining is operating at roughly 2.25% of the global Bitcoin hash rate.
It's not ActM. I know this for a fact, as much as I would rather it be them.
December 30, 2013, 11:11:10 PM
Has it not already been established that this is not Ken, as Baragraphics knows the entity the address belongs to?
December 30, 2013, 10:13:39 PM
I dont understand why all this is still under NDA?
This seems like a plausible connection considering the hashrate and electricity usage. I have always figured that we were working with alot more than 3TH ever since deposits from those chips stopped.
Hopefully Ken can clarify how much we actually have hashing and get our damn shares trading again, this is getting ridiculous
If this is Ken it looks like he had about 9 TH running prior to Dec. 24th. The BTCGuild account is still up but haven't tried to calculate the hashrate. The 9 TH could have been from the sample chips in early-mid Nov. There are basically 10 25 TH miners and a 9 TH something. We know they are divided into 25 TH each because they come up and go down by that hash rate. This seems like a plausible connection considering the hashrate and electricity usage. I have always figured that we were working with alot more than 3TH ever since deposits from those chips stopped.
Hopefully Ken can clarify how much we actually have hashing and get our damn shares trading again, this is getting ridiculous
I think Ken wanted to launch a sneak attack and catch competitors by surprise, whether that is a worthwhile goal has been questioned by some in this thread. But regardless, it makes sense to me, any information you don't have to provide to competitors, don't provide it. If a competitor knew that they were going to lose a significant percentage of their hash rate months in advance, they could sooner adjust plans to compensate.
December 30, 2013, 10:11:18 PM
1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is not Hashfast. Ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.5620
December 30, 2013, 10:11:12 PM
The short-term complete power-downs could be the electrical installer cutting the live feed so that he can safely add more conections/breakers to the circuit. Isolation switches should be in place for this but in a new installation created in a rush you might require the occasional dead circuit to make alterations or new outlets.
That is possible...they last about 10 minutes each. I'm not sure that one could use this much power from a residential line. I imagine this much power would require some specialized industrial arrangement. You are talking about 200,000 Watts with a setup like this.
December 30, 2013, 10:11:01 PM
I dont understand why all this is still under NDA?
This seems like a plausible connection considering the hashrate and electricity usage. I have always figured that we were working with alot more than 3TH ever since deposits from those chips stopped.
Hopefully Ken can clarify how much we actually have hashing and get our damn shares trading again, this is getting ridiculous
This seems like a plausible connection considering the hashrate and electricity usage. I have always figured that we were working with alot more than 3TH ever since deposits from those chips stopped.
Hopefully Ken can clarify how much we actually have hashing and get our damn shares trading again, this is getting ridiculous
December 30, 2013, 10:03:27 PM
The short-term complete power-downs could be the electrical installer cutting the live feed so that he can safely add more conections/breakers to the circuit. Isolation switches should be in place for this but in a new installation created in a rush you might require the occasional dead circuit to make alterations or new outlets.
December 30, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX 
December 30, 2013, 09:34:36 PM
hash tease.
December 30, 2013, 07:31:10 PM
Two of the 25 TH miners went down. Must be having some hardware/software difficulties or power-draw issues. Each one is drawing about 20,000 Watts. The whole system went down and then only 200 TH returned + the initial 9 TH. No other miner on Eligius is having these issues even though they are bringing new miners on over the last few days. That means that whoever is managing this operation is still working-out kinks in their miners, which would generally not be the case with final products from a manufacturer who was shipping consumer units. You can see in the chart below all of the power issues each time there is a power draw increase - as if the breaker is tripping. But there are also other minor "failures" throughout which are not systemic, which likely implies hardware/software issues or even miners on different breakers. But if they were on different breakers, this wouldn't explain why the entire system would go down.
The large down-time on the 28th was an Eligius-wide issue, not isolated to this miner.
The large down-time on the 28th was an Eligius-wide issue, not isolated to this miner.
December 30, 2013, 06:09:48 PM
Please for the love of God list the shares on Crypto-Trade so we have something else to talk about.
Jump to: