Topic: Diablo Mining Company - page 23. (Read 96370 times)

That's assuming no maintenance costs.

If the investment is in BTC then that's also assuming the BTC/US$ rate remains unchanged.  If, for example, BTC doubles in value aginst the $ in those 6 years then after the 6 years (assuming zero maintenance costs) you'd still only have made back half your initial investment in BTC.

Where what you propose really starts to fall down is if you compare it to any other investments on here - or even directly to mining.  Compare s[pending that money on power-generation to spending it on more mining power (and just buying the power) and using part of mined income to expand.  You'll find the mining makes way more profit (or less loss) whether BTC gos up. down or stays unchanged vs the us$ (only possible exception is if it devalues far less quickly AND bitcoin crashes in price).  All the solar-power does is suck away loads of the cash for a possible tiny return a long way down the line.

I don't dispute your claim that long-term investing US$ in solar power could generate some profit.  But we're talking baout investing BTC not US$ - and you need to compare it to other investment available.  Just because something could make a profit doesn't mean it's a good idea to it - if there's other options equally (or more) accessible that could make more.  Unless, of course, the decision to do it is entirely politically rather than economically driven.

Without ongoing maintenance costs your estimate of 6 years is totally unrealistic. For one thing you'd need insurance - or if someone vandalises it are the shareholders just supposed to kiss goodbye to their investment?

Nefario just got done explaining on IRC that the audit is already in process. [\\\] is imsaguy.

[08:43:47] I've hired an outside party with qualifications
[08:44:01] they will work out a profit and loss
[08:44:14] then I'm getting someone else to write a report (another auditor)
[08:44:17] and finally
[08:44:33] a third person to verify the profit and loss, and report are correct
[08:46:36] I dont trust you to chose auditors.
[08:47:07] I've only gotten one so far
[08:47:09] why not ? he could "hire" usagi, an anonymous "3rd party" with "qualifications". he knows ito integral calculus!
[08:47:12] <[\\\]> I've hired an outside party with qualifications << whom?
[08:47:18] <[\\\]> the auditor should be well known
[08:47:24] <[\\\]> in fact, its announced BEFORE the audit
[08:47:26] I agree with imsaguy
[08:47:29] <[\\\]> at least on a real stock exchange
[08:47:35] this whole thing is extremely shady
[08:47:49] not only that, the shareholders should have to agree to the chosen auditors as well
[08:47:54] <[\\\]> aye
[08:48:03] <[\\\]> I think Diablo-D3 is a douchebag
[08:48:04] <[\\\]> don't get me wrong
[08:48:07] <[\\\]> but this stinks of shady

(nefario goes on to talk about the london Bitcoin conference)

[08:48:43] <[\\\]> notice how my questions go unanswered?
[08:48:47] <[\\\]> Who is doing the audit?

(nefario continues to ignore the question)

[08:50:02] <[\\\]> Who is doing the audit of DMC?
[08:51:06] [\\\]: I'll announce it later

So, shareholders. Not only do you not get to vote on who the auditors will be, nefario will not even say who they are. The report may not even be released until AFTER the vote. He also refused to answer the question if smickles would be allowed to be one of the auditors (one of the few people I trust to fairly look at corporate financials).

What gives, nefario? You claim I haven't been transparent enough, and you turn around and do worse?

Here in Maine, since I moved here 23 years ago, power prices per kwh have doubled while my kwh monthly usage has decreased. My entire bill is not kwh, so my overall bill hasn't doubled; but compared to USD inflation, USD has not inflated that quickly (only 85%).

I've done some of the calculations for solar earlier in the thread and in the op: it costs about $700 per 1kw of panel installed which produces 1200kwh actual per year in Maine. According to the EPA's Electric Power Monthly report*, commercial electricity is 10.76 cents a kwh, industrial 7.49 cents a kwh; these are retail prices include distribution/transmission overhead (for example, I pay 0.071 per kwh from the supplier, 0.068 per kwh for the distribution, 0.023 for the transmission, for a total of 0.162 cents per kwh for residential, which is actually a tad higher than the EPA's report). Maine pays net energy billing for facilities 660kw or less with a rolling 12 month window, plus I can resell power back to them at wholesale rates (a little less than than the 0.071 cents/kwh from the supplier in my above example) for anything over that.

Now, that cap is 660kw not 660kwh. As in, I could install 660kw panels of panels and generate 792Mwh a year of power and pay effectively $0** to Bangor Hydro, our local power company, for the first 792Mwh of usage of the year.

792Mwh would cost me (assuming a commercial rate instead of industrial, I'm not sure what the minimum is to get into industrial) $85,219. 660kw of panels would cost $462,000 to install, or only a little under 6 years at current rates. These panels will last about 30 years give or take, so at today's rates that is $2.556 million dollars of electricity for an up front cost of $462,000, or about 5.5 times cheaper power. The same numbers for industrial are $1.779 million, or 3.8x cheaper.

To further run the numbers, 792Mwh a year, 22kw per rack maximum usage including cooling, that is 4 racks fully loaded at 24/7 max power usage, or about 8-16 loaded more conventionally.

Edit: $700 per 1kw does not include single/multi-axis tracking systems. Here in Maine they tend to not be worth it, although because panels are getting smaller/energy densities are getting higher, they may be worth it in the future.

* http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_06_a
** not sure how the taxes work here, but thats around 4% of the bill

Ask your parents what they used to pay for electricity before you were born. It was much lower than what they pay now.

The prices are only going to continue going up, and there is no indication this will stop. The market is already heavily regulated and power companies are operated as state sponsored legal monopolies.


Its been part of the plan since the beginning. If you don't like it, then don't invest.

Where?

There would be at least as much space for two or three dozen racks, and we'd be aiming at high density computing.

Not all racks are created equal, many data centers are equipped to handle only 2 to 4 kw of gear in a rack, we'd be at 25-30kw of gear per rack. People are paying $20-30k/mo per rack space for high density computing, were as a sparsely populated rack 2kw would only go for $1k/mo, sometimes less if you find a really good deal.

Now, if I can get a suitable building cheaply and can be renovated for our needs? That could be a lot more than just three dozen racks.

Thats not true. Even here in Maine, (at today's power prices) solar panels will last around 30 years and hit ROI in 15 through resale at retail electricity prices alone; commercial and industrial power prices are still higher than retail, so if we consume most of are electricity that way the ROI is higher.

Now, see where I said "at today's power prices"? Prices will only go up. We can pay an upfront price now in a large lump sum, or we can pay several times that over the next 30 years. You call it substitution of cost, I call it massive reduction in cost. The largest cost of a data center is power, which I've dealt with in two ways.

The first is obviously the green power, the second is the fact that we are so north and that are summers are so mild that we won't need 24/7/365 HVAC. I've done preliminary cost analysis on a water chilled in row cooling system using a larger than needed water tower for external heat exchange plus large scale air economization, we'll use a lot less power than, say, building it in MD/DC/VA or SoCA/AZ/NM/TX like a lot of DCs are being built, even if you account for better solar coverage than Maine.

You mean, why cant you.
Its probably related to the fact apple has quite happy shareholders, over $100,000,000 in the bank as a result of decades of clever management, while you managed to lose 95% of shareholder value in just a few months while achieving absolutely NOTHING.
I honestly think you are about the only "CEO" who could possibly bankrupt Apple in the course of a year.

If I recall correctly, the GREEN bitcoin mining company is doing this, using solar energy to mine bitcoins.

Anyone see this?

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/behold-apples-massive-solar-farm-from-the-sky-photos/

That is Apple's solar farm powered data center facility. They have one, so why can't Bitcoin?

I brought this up earlier, but no one cared. A lot of people traded assets with DMC, a lot of people probably do not want their names released.

Even if you blank all their names out, it gives an improper view of what really happened.

Let the motion be later. It all depends on nefario here.

If the current motion passes no, then I remain as CEO, and the plan continues.
If the current motion pass yes, the assets will have to be written off and replaced, then that sets the plan back about a year, and we need to make other arrangements to pay shareholders.

Good point. Perhaps make it opt-in, by having each shareholder message Nefario through GLBSE that they would like to be included on the list? Seems cumbersome, but I'm not sure that there's a better way that respects the privacy of each user.

Nefario, could a motion be raised to release a list of shareholders to Diablo? Looking back at TYGRR.BOND.P you didn't seem to want to budge on that issue, but if the shareholders vote in favor of it, I can think of no reason why you wouldn't be able to do it.

You made many terrible choices, some of which went against the original contract. The results of these choices were large losses for DMC and it's shareholders.

That is the definition of mismanagement.

I'm hostile towards anyone who is trying to harm shareholders. If nefario wins, then not only does DMC lose, but so does every single asset on GLBSE. DMC can be successful no matter what nefario does, but even if DMC is successful this doesn't mean shareholders are unharmed.

As I said before, if nefario succeeds, then shareholders cannot be paid dividends because I will not send one more BTC to GLBSE and nefario will refuse to release a list of shareholders and their number of shares.

You think I'm not showing my shareholders what they need? They need a leader who will protect their interest in the company, they need a leader who will follow the plan and not destroy the wealth of assets that has been built to make this plan happen.

Why do you think I've been in talks with building business relationships not only with other major Bitcoin companies, but also with companies in the ISP industry? Because I believe in the plan. It is financially sound, and it can be the thing Bitcoin needs to show the world we're serious about what we're doing. We can do this.

Except I never mismanaged it. I may have not always been able to turn a profit, but I haven't mismanaged it.

This point seems to be overlooked by some and needs to be stressed. The assets, like the company,  belong to the sharesholders and no one else. Its not your company Diablo, you sold it and then you (mis)managed it.

Diablo, as a shareholder I implore you to cooperate by allowing Nefario to release the CSV. While this is a complete mess, and there have been mistakes made on both yours and Nefario's parts, this will just get messier if you end up getting taken out of DMC. I have confidence that if you can make it through this, DMC can be successful.

DMC is a fantastic idea, combining renting out shelf space and selling cloud services with Bitcoin mining. If you keep being hostile towards Nefario and Usagi, you're not going to win, no matter who's in the right. You're not showing your shareholders why they need to vote to keep you on-board right now.

I voted against the motion. This is under the assumption that you can get your shit together. You've obviously made mistakes, but you need to acknowledge them, and grow from them.

In other words, please don't fuck this up.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree here.  When 2 parties to an agreement have a dispute there's absolutely no way one of those parties can also be the judge.

It's fine talk about things being "handled amongst ourselves" - but when that fails someone else HAS to make the final decison.

Nefario's post above this makes exactly the same point (amongst others).  I'm not going to waste my time and clutter this thread any more by repeatedly saying the same thing which you either ignore, don't understand or just firmly disagree with.