Topic: [BTCT][BFMINES] - Mining Contracts Now Available - Bonus Divs First Months (Read 26419 times)

I'm wondering if its possible to trade the contracts and in case it is, if someone is looking to buy some, just send me a message with subject "BFMINES" and your offer.
I have 1500 shares on address 13RNKSuzev3asMNLEnyJxTDeaPuo7F299U.

Hi!

Until there are more certainty about the legal aspects, putting the asset online for trading is risky for all parties. However, Havelock seems like a likely candidate if or when those factors are clear.

.b

Just wondering if there are plans to move to Havelock?

Actually, the first dividends went out this morning:

http://bfmines.com/2013/10/17/first-bfmines-dividend-payout/

Sorry for not updating here, but as there is no public trading and likely won't be for some time at the very best, I've focused on updating the contrac holders directly through email and through the web pages.

.b

So there was no dividend paid until now. What's planned?

As announced, BTCT, the current trading site for BFMines, has decided to shut its doors shortly.

Please read carefully, you need to do one specific action.

BFMines' primary purpose is not to be a trading vehicle but a mining contract. As such, the closure of a certain trading platform does not impact the primary operation of the contracts.

BFMines will continue to operate, expecting delivery of the first miner very shortly. Once the miners arrive, you will receive dividends as planned.

To accomodate continued operation, you need to update your profile and set your public withdrawal address. To do so, log in to BTCT and go to your profile.

Trading on BTCT will stop on October 7 on BTCT. 24 hours in advance, on October 6 2013, I will halt trading on BFMines on BTCT. I will also investigate whether public trading on a different exchange will make sense, or whether private listing is a better option.

One temporary change will happen as a result of this. BTCT offered a feature to schedule dividend payments into the future. When this feature disappears with the site, I will change the payout to pay in advance each difficulty period based on a 10 day difficulty period. Any remaining time in the difficulty period will be paid out next period. Any surplus dividends paid will be deducted from the next period.

This will only mean you get dividends sooner, so it is to the benefit of contract holders only. This is a temporary measure until I can find a solutoin to paying daily dividends. The advance payments will come from the operator's funds so will not affect the surplus capacity funds.

Until the future trading of BFMines is clarified, no further IPO contracts will be available for purchase.

Thank you for your patience and understanding in this transition. Do not hesitate to ask questions in the forum if you have them.

.b

I will release a statement within two days regarding the closure of BTCT. The statement will probably go out sooner, I just need some time because I have some pre-created appointments that cannot shift.

.b

With the closure of Btc.co what will happen to this Contract?

My guess is that some speculators may think that there will be a buyback at the IPO price of .004. However, there's nothing in the contract to support this; the funds are only returned if the mining hardware fails completely.

Though this attempt at a poorly valued fund has failed completely, I'm sure furuknap will be happy to take the funds he's already sold and buy some mining equipment that will never ROI for these investors, thereby fulfilling his part of the contract.

Can someone tell me, why BFMINES shares are so expensive? Using current ASK price on BTC-TC, it's 3.588 BTC for 1 GH/s.

Yes, you wouldn't want to encourage speculation as to how poor of an investment this would be.

Sadly, it's become apparent that some people insist on using lies and deception to try to paint others as scammers.

As such, I'm having to implement a policy on deleting any posts from user Redmetal in this thread. That user has had a long and passionate obsession with throwing dirt around regarding BFMines. The claims made are false and have been shown to be false many times. When exposed, Redmetal simply tries to divert attention by making another ridiculous claim.

Redmetal asked one question before I deleted his posts, and that is why I cannot quantify the additional backing that BFMines has (and thus benefits contract holders).

The answer should be apparent for anyone who bothers (and is capable of) reading a couple of posts. I do not know the performance of the hardware backing BFMines. I can only guarantee 20% more backing than required.

Like I have stated many times, including in articles that Redmetal has quoted so I know that he knows this, ASIC mining hardware has traditionally delivered more than the rated performance. The rated performance is 20% above what is required to run BFMines. It is likely, but in no way guaranteed, that the hardware from Metabank will also overperform, especially because we know that Bitfury's chips (which Metabank uses) overclock well.

This excess capacity will go to the benefit of contract holders but will not be paid out as part of the regular dividends. Instead, this excess power will go to secure long-term operation, cover operational costs, pay for short-term outages, and ensure that if or rather when the initial hardware fails, there will be funds available to replace that hardware.

Unlike Redmetal, I do not want to induce or encourage speculation so I will not reveal any plans for how this additional capacity will be used. I do not know the stability of the hardware, the final power consumption (and thus the expenses), nor the final output of the hardware. I have estimated that I will need a buffer of 20% to provide that safety for contract holders and to keep BFMines running for years to come.

However, it is not unlikely that some of this excess capacity can be used to increase the hashrate for contracts, either temporarily or permanently. If hardware prices fall, like many suspect, to counter the rise in difficulty, then it is safe to assume that less funds will be needed in the future to replace the existing hardware. In fact, if difficulty rises enough and thus hardware prices fall considerably, the excess funds may easily be enough to double, tripple, or quadruple the output per contract. Heck, if difficulty rises to 10 times what is is today and hardware prices drop to a 10th of what they are today, we could increase the output 10 times.

I would explicitly discourage such speculation, though, as there is absolutely no guarantee that we'll ever have funds to increase as much as a hash per second.

.b

This is not a PMB. It was originally called that to make it easier to understand, but apparently, the contract wasn't clear enough about the additional benefits so one of the earlier contract changes were to remove the PMB moniker.

This is a mining contract in which 1 mhs per contract is guaranteed. However, there are significant benefits beyond that. Depending on how the hardware performs, how much the final hashing power will be, the stability of the hardware, and the operational costs, more power can be added.

The contracts are backed by a minimum of 20% more than required. That additional hash power (and it may be more than 20%, depending on the hardware performace) goes to cover operational costs (estimated at around 5%), to ensure a steady operation, and further to the benefit of the contracts. That benefit may very well be in additional hash power, but it is way too early to say how much that will be or even if there iwll be anything left over.

.b

okay.

I have only been following the contract updates very loosely.


So the only thing this PMB will ever have is the machine rated for 120 GH/s which will arrive in September

This PMB will never have additional hardware using funds raised?

Hi,

I'm not sure I get all your questions; there seems to be three of them.

The Metabank miner is scheduled to arrive in September; it has been paid for and whether the IPO of the contracts sell out is irrelevant to the mining operation (any unsold contracts just remain with me).

The metabank miner is guaranteed 120GH/s, but we still do not know the final numbers. We do know, however, that the Bitfury chips will overclock well and under ideal conditions have even surpassed 50% of stated rate. This shouldn't be taken as a guess at what the final numbers will be, though. Anything above 120GH/s is a bonus on top of the normal bonus, but we shouldn't expect it. If it does go over 120GH/s, great, we all get more dividends, if it doesn't, we still get what we have been promised.

.b

so will this security have more than 120 gigahashes before the metabank chips arrive or not.

Will it have more than 120 gigahashes after the metabank chips arrive or not.


does this security have enough funding to it any of it all since less than 1/2 of the offering has been sold so far on btct.co?


thanks

Updated Contract

As previously announced, I have now posted the updated contract with the revised terms.

These terms are clarifications on intents of the initial contract and are solely to the benefit of contract holders. No negative comments have been received, neither directly nor in the public forum.

The major changes are as follows:

• 1.Surplus mining capacity will always go to the benefit of contract holders, also after the bonus period.
• Backing of the contracts will have no less than 20% additional mining power.
• Minimum revenue guarantee removes miner's bad luck.
• Added explicit mention of transaction fees, which are included in dividends

The contract has been posted on the BFMines public pages on http://bfmines.com/contract and should be updated on the BTCT page as soon as possible.

Pending the update on the BTCT pages and to avoid any speculation about modification of the contract, I have also created a screenshot of the contract page here:

https://i.imgur.com/OAOFeVX.jpg

Finally, by request, I have also set up a newsletter for the public. If you'd like to get information from BFAssets directly in your inbox, you can sign up here:

http://bfmines.com/newsletter/

The newsletter will be free, open to anyone, and get updates around the same time news is posted on BTCT and the web pages.

.b

Thanks for your question, I fully understand your concern and it's one I hear often.

You're right that buying hardware may yield a higher return on the hardware cost. If this wasn't the case, there would be no way to run shares mining operations at all; if I paid more for the hardware than I get in return, I would be giving money away. It does, of course, depend on which hardware you get, and the AM USB miners are even one of the worst in terms of performance available. You'll be better off getting the AM blades or get one of the larger mining machines from KnC or Bitfury, for example. There are even group buys that will give you a piece of one if you don't have the funds or are willing to risk a whole machine yourself.

In terms of buying and operating your own hardware, there are several factors that make this a very different proposition than getting a mining contract. You need to account for the risk (theft, hardware failure, other catastrophic events) than can cost you your entire investment in one fell swoop. You can get insurance to some extent, but at the very best it adds cost, and at worst, you won't be able to replace your hardware in the short term, costing you additional revenue and vital time.

Then there is the operational overhead. If you have USB miners, for example, you need a host machine that is online 24/7, which normally isn't that big of a deal, but still worth considering. However, you also need to be available 24/7; if your miner goes down just after you go to bed, it might be 8 hours lost. If your miner goes down just after you leave for a three-week vacation, well, you need to have some way of getting it back up or you're losing money.

You also need to account for the added electricity. For a couple of USB miners, this won't be much, but for a slightly larger installation, the cost can be significant, depending on your power cost. If you live in a warm country, you also need to expel the heat, which adds further electricity cost. You'll probably be better off going with a share in a group buy; just make sure you have a backup plan for when your hardware fails or that you account for that possibility in your profitability estimates.

If you plan on setting up your own asset, however, you're of course free to do so. There is significant time involved in doing so, I can tell you. The estimates from the BTCT asset issuer FAQ is 10-15 hours per week, and I'm not sure that is enough, at least initially. Also, you need to assume the responsibility for the hardware, the availabililty, the operation, internet connectivity, and so on.

If you're willing to do that for what would essentially be double the output of just mining with your two USB miners, then sure, you should definitely put up an asset and bring the prices down. Keep in mind, though, that you are committing to years of work and responsibility to contract holders. For a two-miner operation based on a price of $200, even if you have a 500% markup, you're looking at earning $800 for three years of working 10-15 hours per week.

.b

Yep you could. That's exactly what furuknap is doing! Or buy a 400gh KNC miner for ~75BTC, and then sell it for 0.004 per mhs and make yourself an easy 1525btc! Or squash the market and offer it at a lower price.

I own some of these assets and having done the math am not that convinced they are a good buy. At 0.004btc for 1 mhash/second you would need to purchase 333 shares for 1.332btc to get 333mhash per second, however that would also buy you 2 x Block Erupter (USB ASICMINER)  which would give you 666 mega hash per second.

Given mining will not start until September I do think see these ever being profitable to hold.

Have I calculated something incorrectly or could I start a bond/asset like this with block Erupter and essentially double my money?