Pages:
Author

Topic: [Closed] Bitfury miner group buy + hosting (with ESCROW) - page 9. (Read 37359 times)

sr. member
Activity: 269
Merit: 250

My usual preference is always to keep financial schemes simple, so wonder if this might be better organised as a separate group-buy. If that isn't a viable option, or if the group decides against it, then I would like to see a worked example with some assumed dates, difficulty, and expected payouts, because I get muddled when I try to work them out! Perhaps a spreadsheet so we could all tweak the numbers and see what effect delays or poor hashing rates have.

I agree that this would be better as a separate group buy. I'm on the fence as to whether I will participate in this group buy, but I would participate in a burnin bitfury group buy
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
150 GH/s already ordered for the group

Now 7 / 10.29 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
150 GH/s already ordered for the group

Now 8 / 10.29 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
Hi Guys, thanks for your thoughts. These were the kind of things that were in our minds too. I will be away from a PC for most of today, but will post some more thoughts later.

Update: John K placed orders for H-boards #4 and #5 for the group last night, so we now have 150 GH/s on order. I'll post screenshots of the order details etc. later today.
newbie
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
Quote
The only snag is timing - what if furyburner components arrived before bitfurystrikesback components? We've said in the OP that payments will only be made to group members who have shares in components that have been delivered (this is the incentive for early group members, who took the biggest risk). However, it would seem a bit unfair if later joiners whose shares paid for furyburners were to get mining payouts first. I need to give this aspect some thought. Any suggestions would be welcome.

you could stick to the OP rule of payout only for delivered boards just for the H-boards while treating any Furyburners as a hedge for the whole group. In case the Furyburners arrive early the payout rule would change and payouts would be made to all share holders for the time being. Thus there would be an incentive for existing share holders to agree to this fury hedge. I for one would buy more shares to get this fury hedge going... not sure though how much this arrangement would discourage potential new share holders from buying into those slightly less attractive shares of the furyburners... just my 2 cents.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500

Our feeling is that to split the hosted bitfury GB into two would be a mistake. Apart from anything else it would penalise this group, who have paid a premium for the starter kit and need to add additional hardware with at least the GH/s/BTC of the H-cards added to the group's mining power in order to offset the higher cost of the starter kit. Having diversified suppliers would for the most part be simple I think. The group's hashrate will grow with more hardware added (whether it's H-boards or furyburners) and a certain number of shares, depending on the price paid for components at the time of order will be issued. If we're able to buy hardware at better GH/s/BTC rates then the GH/s/share for the group will ultimately be better. The only snag is timing - what if furyburner components arrived before bitfurystrikesback components? We've said in the OP that payments will only be made to group members who have shares in components that have been delivered (this is the incentive for early group members, who took the biggest risk). However, it would seem a bit unfair if later joiners whose shares paid for furyburners were to get mining payouts first. I need to give this aspect some thought. Any suggestions would be welcome.

OK, so could we call the furyburner board 'component 7' and collect funds separately from components 6 & 8 (or whatever)? I'm still of the opinion that we should have funds ready to go when the orders are opened - if the performance/price when orders open is not good enough then we just let the opportunity pass and get an H-board instead.

I'd like to see how you propose to deal with the (most-optimistic) timetable if the furyburner board arrives in 'early October' and starts hashing, then the bitfurystrikesback starter kit comes a couple of weeks later. I haven't thought of a good scheme yet...
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
The collection for H-board #6 is now open

Now 10 / 10.29 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
Now 0 / 10.29 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)

We will ask John K to place an order for H-board #5 as soon as he can and will open the collection for the next component shortly.
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
Hi Stinky_Pete, thanks for giving this some serious thought. I can give a bit more info on some of those thoughts now, but others we may just have to wait and see how things develop with the project.

First thoughts:- I'm glad I wasn't involved in the bitburnerXX scheme
Yes, what a shame that was for all concerned Sad. To be honest, I think burnin was probably the most shafted by all of this - think of the time and effort and money that he must have put in to get that off the ground. Anyway, he's moving on and so shall we!

I don't see that the >40Gh/s speed is guaranteed, rather it seems to be a design goal. End-user overclocking also appears to be a design goal, so final speeds will probably be variable from board to board, and dependent on PSU and cooling efficiently, as well as the end-users views on safe chip temperatures, life time, and general gungho-ness. Does jlsminingcorp have any experience in overclocking similar hardware?
I wouldn't worry about this actually. The bitfurystrikesback chips are seriously under clocked - for power efficiency in the 100TH mine that they were designed for. C-scape has demonstrated 40GH/s from 16 bitfury chips with very limited cooling (marto74 has a s-hash board running well at these clocks - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/technobit-s-hash-minig-board-and-bitfury-293030). Burnin's design goal is 5GH/s per chip, but nobody has demonstrated anything that high with these chips - an interesting idea though. We've overclocked CPUs and GPUs if that counts. No magic smoke yet Wink.

Quote
Do I recall that the equipment will be in a domestic setting? I hope there is good ventilation since I imagine these boards will surpass GPUs in the heat produced.
No need to worry here. A 40 GH/s board would only use ~40W, compared to the ~150W+ from a 7950. Cooling any bitfury ASIC miners will be much easier than getting rid of the heat from GPU mining.

Quote
The timetable is unclear, as one might expect. But it seems that CryptX will be handling all the sales and marketing and there is an implication, but no promise, that they will inform people with existing Bitburner orders before the public "We will sent a mailing to all the Bitburner clients with the exact launch moment." also "Prices and Hashrate will be made public at the moment of the launch." (People with existing Bitburner orders also get vouchers as part of a complicated refund scheme). My impression is that the window for purchasing could be short, and so having the funds available to move quickly would be important. (I'm thinking back to the order of the August Bitfury Starter Kit, which sold out in less then 24 hours.)
This is the bit that worries me. We don't actually have much information to go on at the moment. However, I think if we've had the discussion now then we will be in a better position to make a quick decision when the time comes. I am particularly worried about the statement "Prices and Hashrate will be made public at the moment of the launch." If the price increases from burnin's initial estimate then these boards will look less attractive as an alternative to H-boards and there will be no incentive to switch. My suggestion for the group would be that we order the bitfury hardware with the best GH/s/BTC when we have funds to place an order, this makes decisions rather simple.

Quote
In these days of difficulty increasing by 30% every ten days, the thought of getting a faster board in early October is very appealing, and I would be happy to invest.

My usual preference is always to keep financial schemes simple, so wonder if this might be better organised as a separate group-buy. If that isn't a viable option, or if the group decides against it, then I would like to see a worked example with some assumed dates, difficulty, and expected payouts, because I get muddled when I try to work them out! Perhaps a spreadsheet so we could all tweak the numbers and see what effect delays or poor hashing rates have.
Our feeling is that to split the hosted bitfury GB into two would be a mistake. Apart from anything else it would penalise this group, who have paid a premium for the starter kit and need to add additional hardware with at least the GH/s/BTC of the H-cards added to the group's mining power in order to offset the higher cost of the starter kit. Having diversified suppliers would for the most part be simple I think. The group's hashrate will grow with more hardware added (whether it's H-boards or furyburners) and a certain number of shares, depending on the price paid for components at the time of order will be issued. If we're able to buy hardware at better GH/s/BTC rates then the GH/s/share for the group will ultimately be better. The only snag is timing - what if furyburner components arrived before bitfurystrikesback components? We've said in the OP that payments will only be made to group members who have shares in components that have been delivered (this is the incentive for early group members, who took the biggest risk). However, it would seem a bit unfair if later joiners whose shares paid for furyburners were to get mining payouts first. I need to give this aspect some thought. Any suggestions would be welcome.
newbie
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
waveydave,6,3,18t5UwG4Ge1DLQy6bK5X6hpJ73uoin6Lno

tx: 75df8ba4782668154614f15d23b848ab65ba9a128279954019230800b6798300

Signed message sent by PM.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
First thoughts:- I'm glad I wasn't involved in the bitburnerXX scheme

The hardware on offer seems to be standalone boards, rather than direct plug ins for our M-board (expected in October). So they would need a power source, fans, and some sort of physical support. Does jlsminingcorp have these available, or would part of our money be used for these parts? I'm assuming the useful life time of a PSU and fans is far longer than the mining boards, and don't favour buying new equipment. I do have a spare PSU that could be used if it is required.

I don't see that the >40Gh/s speed is guaranteed, rather it seems to be a design goal. End-user overclocking also appears to be a design goal, so final speeds will probably be variable from board to board, and dependent on PSU and cooling efficiently, as well as the end-users views on safe chip temperatures, life time, and general gungho-ness. Does jlsminingcorp have any experience in overclocking similar hardware?

Do I recall that the equipment will be in a domestic setting? I hope there is good ventilation since I imagine these boards will surpass GPUs in the heat produced.

The timetable is unclear, as one might expect. But it seems that CryptX will be handling all the sales and marketing and there is an implication, but no promise, that they will inform people with existing Bitburner orders before the public "We will sent a mailing to all the Bitburner clients with the exact launch moment." also "Prices and Hashrate will be made public at the moment of the launch." (People with existing Bitburner orders also get vouchers as part of a complicated refund scheme). My impression is that the window for purchasing could be short, and so having the funds available to move quickly would be important. (I'm thinking back to the order of the August Bitfury Starter Kit, which sold out in less then 24 hours.)

In these days of difficulty increasing by 30% every ten days, the thought of getting a faster board in early October is very appealing, and I would be happy to invest.

My usual preference is always to keep financial schemes simple, so wonder if this might be better organised as a separate group-buy. If that isn't a viable option, or if the group decides against it, then I would like to see a worked example with some assumed dates, difficulty, and expected payouts, because I get muddled when I try to work them out! Perhaps a spreadsheet so we could all tweak the numbers and see what effect delays or poor hashing rates have.
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
1.5 BTC sent
txtid : 52ee2167b40e4478c5cd8cdcdff9184c382eb40aaf90f0220bf62446ccd3d56d

username manawenuz , signed hash :
IITH5sPWropU/Z6BvzcWzIV6XxqMM4CHkXBGDZr85xbiSDVxPBTa/UAnPos+tCMo0F5g+0nYsgmHHQ6KXIEOjVY=

Got it and verified the address, thanks!
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
Now 6 / 10.29 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)
member
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
1.5 BTC sent
txtid : 52ee2167b40e4478c5cd8cdcdff9184c382eb40aaf90f0220bf62446ccd3d56d

username manawenuz , signed hash :
IITH5sPWropU/Z6BvzcWzIV6XxqMM4CHkXBGDZr85xbiSDVxPBTa/UAnPos+tCMo0F5g+0nYsgmHHQ6KXIEOjVY=
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
Hi All,

We would like to gather opinions from group members and potential group members about whether or not to diversify this GB to include a different hardware supplier in addition to bitfurystrikesback. For those of you who have followed the Avalon chips disaster story you will know that burnin designed and assembled a very nice board (the bitburnerXX) for Avalon chips (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/work-in-progess-burnins-avalon-chip-to-mining-board-service-179769), but that this project was hampered by the big delays in chip deliveries from bitsyncom. Burnin proved himself an excellent hardware designer and a very honourable person to order from during this project. Burnin has recently announced that he will sell a bitfury-ASIC mining board (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-burnins-bitfury-miner-283992), which should cost around 470 Euro + VAT (19% in Germany) and should give > 40GH/s. It appears that his delivery estimate for these is early October. We already have a personal bitburnerXX order and it seems that as existing customers we will have earlier access than the general public to order burnin's new bitfury boards.

Could you let us know by posting here whether you think that the group should switch to collecting for burnin's bitfury miners rather than additional H-boards for a while? We always have the option of continuing to collect for new H-boards again if the price of these changes and makes them more attractive (in terms of GH/s/BTC) than burnin's offer. We would anticipate that any new hardware being ordered for the group would be added to the total mining power of the group (and not to individuals who have contributed to that component) and mined BTC would be distributed in a similar way to the plan that we outlined for H-boards. The details would need to be finalised (and posted here as supplementary terms and conditions) if we decided to go down that route. Your comments and suggestions will dictate what the group does next.

To get you thinking, here are some data:

H-boards (25GH/s): October delivery: 390 Euro + VAT = 483.6 Euro = 5.37 BTC (at 90 Euro/BTC) = 4.66 GH/s/BTC
Burnin's furyburner (> 40GH/s): Early October delivery: 470 Euro + VAT = 559.3 Euro = 6.21 BTC (at 90 Euro/BTC) = 6.44 GH/s/BTC
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
Now 7 / 10.39 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)
member
Activity: 100
Merit: 10
flyswatta, 1 share, 0.5 BTC, 1KiF1wrGJx5a2yCa8qjonhGMXFDySKx4Ng
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
The collection for H-board #5 is now open

Now 8 / 10.39 shares remaining for next component (at current BTC rate shown in the OP)


We've just asked John K to order the next component and will update here when it's officially ordered from bitfurystrikesback.

Unless there are any objections from group members, once H-board #4 is ordered and we've done the calculations based on the BTC:Euro rate at time of ordering I plan to amalgamate the fractional shares from components 4 and 5 to make a whole share (plus a remainder probably) and open this to the group. I think the fairest way to do this is to issue it in component 4 and shift the list of shares down by one share. An example of what the list would look like if we did this is below to help explain what I mean. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this?

Edit: it may be necessary to amalgamate fractional shares from more than two components.

Quote
Component 6 collection status (open)
1) Stinky_Pete, 1 shares, 0.5 BTC, 1EysFQHn5s8MbFTBGvgHigDdQJV23emtJP, verified
jlsminingcorp, pledged the remaining fractional share for this component

Component 5 collection status (ordering)
1) anon(via pm), 2 shares, 1.0 BTC, 1HqERopY7UjLqMSxTyFjt7wsgPoogGxD2u, verified
2) Kushedout, 5 shares, 2.5 BTC, 12hv7UcFgrBWLjWs5McPYP63Yza6ufT6Sw, verified
3) manawenuz, 2 shares, 1 BTC, pledged 10th Sept
4) Stinky_Pete, 1 shares, 0.5 BTC, 1EysFQHn5s8MbFTBGvgHigDdQJV23emtJP, verified
5) jlsminingcorp, pledged the remaining fractional share for this component

Component 4 collection status (closed)
1) swirlingbrain, 2 shares, 1 BTC (after bitmit fee), 1EEsUXGzsUpirVKtbQ4pd772LBZKP5qhrs, verified
2) YEXZSURAZAWAN, 1 share, 0.5 BTC (after bitmit fee), 152hpQoQSWhwXGgdRSgVzhgyZQ5UAYgeDx
3) mare, 4 shares, 2 BTC, 1DSFkmqxzyH7CynXQ76d6uc1WzSxBHTha2, verified
4) wrenchmonkey, 1 share, 0.5 BTC, 16JaFLgobYiiBtaPVbTrbQjR9mV3f1T7xC
5) flyswatta, 1 share, 0.5 BTC, 1KiF1wrGJx5a2yCa8qjonhGMXFDySKx4Ng, verified
6) monkeynutts, 1 share, 0.5 BTC, 15p3joy1gDgbfty2VrJ2iz1HNLf1zLNuYi
7) anon(via pm), 1 shares, 0.5 BTC, 1HqERopY7UjLqMSxTyFjt7wsgPoogGxD2u, verified (whole share created from fractional shares in components 4 and 5)
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
OK, now all the distractions elsewhere are over, it's onto the next board for me.

Stinky_Pete,2,1.0,1EysFQHn5s8MbFTBGvgHigDdQJV23emtJP

TX:e8272d05a23c3664b1fa666ce3a17d4f812bfd86bf86b8cc768362aecf62eb55-000

Shares this month: 2
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Hooray for non-equilibrium thermodynamics!
payment hopefully made details, in PM

apologies for the delays in making the payment !

monkeynutts

Got it, thanks monkeynutts, I've updated the OP with your payment address.

When you get a chance, could you verify your bitcoin address (15p3joy1gDgbfty2VrJ2iz1HNLf1zLNuYi) by sending us a signed message, as described in the OP + 2nd post? This will ensure that signed messages are working in case you need to change the payout address etc. later.

Cheers
Pages:
Jump to: