dutu: You are perfectly right.
agibby5: It seems you don't have a clue how and when Eligius mining pool is sending the coins mined. Please read the Eligius FAQ (at least) and come back: http://eligius.st/~gateway/faq-page
Topic: [Group Buy]12 KNCminer Jupiter's 15 Sold [Closed] Jupiter Pool - page 6. (Read 75591 times)
February 19, 2014, 05:02:25 PM
February 19, 2014, 04:33:42 PM
I had a chat with dutu about the question that GB2 members may owe GB1 members... here's the entire chat.
The cell references are in regards to this spreadsheet: http://1drv.ms/1d0t1j2
Basically the answer is the timing that the pools paid out fell into the territory of time where GB2 machines had joined, but the income was accrued when only GB1 machines were active. Read below. Please comment.
The cell references are in regards to this spreadsheet: http://1drv.ms/1d0t1j2
Basically the answer is the timing that the pools paid out fell into the territory of time where GB2 machines had joined, but the income was accrued when only GB1 machines were active. Read below. Please comment.
Quote
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
[3:29:16 AM] agibby5: anyway, i wanted to ask what the whole GB2 owes GB1 calculation is about?
[3:29:18 AM] dutu: i think i missed that
[3:29:20 AM] agibby5: i don't follow that at all
[3:29:37 AM] agibby5: and i don't see how you can assume that expected earnings are == actual earnings
[3:29:38 AM] dutu: i think it's easy to explain
[3:29:55 AM] agibby5: i mean, do you have proof that soniq was mining to other addresses?
[3:30:02 AM] agibby5: that's the only way i can see that happening
[3:30:06 AM] dutu: no i think he wasn't
[3:30:17 AM] dutu: what happened is:
[3:30:22 AM] agibby5: otherwise, the payouts are the payouts and you can see them in teh addresses via recieved btc
[3:30:29 AM] dutu: GB1 started mining before GB2
[3:30:55 AM] dutu: GB! should have been paid for all this mining income which was when only GB1 was mining
[3:30:57 AM] dutu: right?
[3:31:56 AM] dutu: the fact is GB1 has not been paid for all this income, as pard of this income has arrived at soniq wallet later
[3:32:05 AM] dutu: and then it was split between GB1 and GB2
[3:32:21 AM] dutu: when it should only been sent to GB1 users
[3:32:26 AM] dutu: does it make sense?
[3:33:09 AM] agibby5: yea. i follow that
[3:33:22 AM] agibby5: but when i look at your spreadsheet, it indicates alot of "expected" income
[3:33:29 AM] agibby5: but expected results are not equal to actual ones
[3:33:49 AM] dutu: yes, that is the estimated income
[3:34:14 AM] dutu: estimated theoretical income based on the Jupiter hash power
[3:34:35 AM] dutu: and this is in line whit what we have received in soniq's wallet
[3:34:52 AM] agibby5: but GB2 members can't makeup for any variance to actual vs expected income recieved by GB1 members
[3:34:53 AM] dutu: this is why I am saying i believe he hes not mined anywhere else
[3:36:00 AM] dutu: can you repeat the question please?
[3:36:23 AM] agibby5: you cannot take mining income from GB2+ members to pay for any variance related to actual results for any GB1 members
[3:36:26 AM] agibby5: example:
[3:36:37 AM] agibby5: say GB1 was expected to earn 100 btc, but they earned 85 instead
[3:36:48 AM] agibby5: and now GB2 gets on board, and they earn 200 now combined
[3:36:49 AM] dutu: ok, one sec
[3:36:56 AM] agibby5: you cannot take the 15 btc out of the new 200
[3:37:08 AM] agibby5: because GB1 didn't really earn that in teh first place
[3:37:22 AM] agibby5: btw, i'm in GB1 so i would love a bump
[3:37:29 AM] dutu: let us go one step back
[3:37:30 AM] agibby5: please convice me
[3:38:15 AM] dutu: column G "expected amount" is the theoretical mining income based on Jupiter has rate, ok?
[3:38:27 AM] dutu: now look at line 38
[3:38:55 AM] dutu: it shows that the theoretical mining income is equal with the actual mining income
[3:39:12 AM] dutu: good, then we have concluded that
[3:39:31 AM] dutu: 1) theoretical mining income is a good estimate
[3:39:47 AM] dutu: 2) soniq has not mined somewhere else
[3:39:53 AM] dutu: next:
[3:41:19 AM] dutu: line 26 shows that received amount is much hi=hers the expected amount to be mined during that period
[3:41:22 AM] dutu: why?
[3:41:51 AM] dutu: because the coins received were coins mined during thet period + coins mined during previous period
[3:42:34 AM] dutu: late transfer of coins is also shown by negative values in colum g on lines 24 and 25
[3:43:09 AM] dutu: taht is coind mined during periods in line 24 and 25 were only received during the period on line 26
[3:43:11 AM] dutu: got it?
[3:44:38 AM] dutu: btw, we can chat on the group chat if you want i don't mind
[3:45:25 AM] agibby5: i do, but it seems like you can't keep balancing between GB1 and GB2 members. for example, how do you fix the lines 29 and 34?
[3:45:55 AM] agibby5: i guess my question is, at what point do you assume that GB1 and GB2 shares payout equally during that dividend payout?
[3:47:31 AM] dutu: i'm not sure if I understand the question
[3:48:09 AM] agibby5: at what point should soniq assume that payout of shares for GB1 and GB2 are the same?
[3:48:16 AM] agibby5: is it line 25?
[3:48:24 AM] agibby5: if so, then you can't go to line 26, and send a "rebate" to GB1
[3:48:47 AM] agibby5: if it's line 26, then you can argue that GB2 also earned a bit less because of line 25s lower income
[3:48:49 AM] dutu: no you don't do it at every line and I agree with you you cant
[3:49:24 AM] dutu: becuase the mined bitcoin is not coming to the wallet in real time
[3:49:57 AM] agibby5: i just take issue what what you're saying a bit here... becuase it seems like you want to take income that's been recieved at the wallet when GB2 was in action and put it into GB1's hands.
[3:50:05 AM] agibby5: and that's hard to explain to people
[3:50:13 AM] agibby5: i think i understand now... but I don't know how it'd be justified
[3:50:26 AM] agibby5: i believe it's due to mining variance, right?
[3:50:31 AM] agibby5: everyone shoulders that risk
[3:50:46 AM] dutu: well, that's a small amount per user anyway
[3:50:54 AM] agibby5: what's the real difference?
[3:51:12 AM] agibby5: do you see my point?
[3:51:12 AM] dutu: but the fact is mining income that should been received for line 24
[3:51:20 AM] agibby5: but it wasn't though
[3:51:28 AM] agibby5: variance showed us that we couldn't get that many coins
[3:51:40 AM] agibby5: but the next time period, the variance worked in our groups favor
[3:51:44 AM] dutu: has only been received during the period on line 26
[3:52:56 AM] dutu: the mistake soniq did was thet he didn not collected at wallet all the bitcoin mined before GB2 started to mine
[3:53:10 AM] agibby5: that's not his mistake
[3:53:15 AM] agibby5: that's the pool paying out at that time
[3:53:19 AM] agibby5: because it found the blocks when it did
[3:53:19 AM] dutu: and then when he received this income later he splited it between GB1 and GB2
[3:53:23 AM] agibby5: that's the definition of variance
[3:54:13 AM] dutu: hm... not sure about that
[3:54:42 AM] dutu: pools would pay per mining share and will not have such a big variance i believe
[3:55:37 AM] agibby5: what explains that income coming in later then?
[3:55:45 AM] agibby5: magic?
[3:57:03 AM] agibby5: despite my humor, that's a serious question
[3:57:11 AM] dutu: when did soniq stared to mine at Bitminter?
[3:57:38 AM] agibby5: offhand, i don't know. he would say that's public information and it could be found... but i don't know where.
[3:57:55 AM] dutu: on the Oct 16 we have the first payouts
[3:58:07 AM] agibby5: how about this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226319.msg3364200;topicseen#msg3364200
[3:58:11 AM] dutu: of a total of 39.78 BTC
[3:58:50 AM] dutu: which means teh miners were mining
[3:58:58 AM] agibby5: that was oct 18th
[3:59:04 AM] dutu: but the payout address was only setup on the 16
[3:59:47 AM] agibby5: yes, first payments look like the 16ht
[3:59:48 AM] dutu: after that you have regular payments of ~5 BTC
[4:00:14 AM] agibby5: yeah, 16th it looks
[4:00:58 AM] dutu: which explains why you ahve a huge amout of coins received for the period on line 26
[4:01:16 AM] dutu: because some coins where mined before
[4:01:33 AM] agibby5: where did you get your figures?
[4:01:44 AM] dutu: what figures
[4:01:52 AM] dutu: teh transactions?
[4:01:54 AM] agibby5: in the spreadsheet
[4:01:58 AM] dutu: from the blockchain
[4:02:16 AM] agibby5: it looks wrong
[4:02:27 AM] agibby5: 10/16+ should be GB2+3 starting
[4:02:30 AM] agibby5: not the 15th
[4:02:37 AM] agibby5: right?
[4:02:52 AM] agibby5: and 10/15 is still part of the original 15 miners
[4:04:28 AM] dutu: as per soniq's information:
[4:04:38 AM] dutu: "Date reached advertised hashing rates"
[4:04:44 AM] dutu: GB2, GB3
[4:04:48 AM] dutu: 10/15/2013
[4:04:55 AM] dutu: this is what I have in the file
[4:05:19 AM] agibby5: i'm still unclear how this happened
[4:05:25 AM] agibby5: if it's not variance, what is it
[4:05:29 AM] dutu: but if something is wrong i can correct
[4:06:01 AM] agibby5: for example, i buy a car that says it can get 25miles per gallon. sometimes it gets 32, sometimes it gets 17
[4:06:27 AM] agibby5: can i call the manufacturer of the car or the builder of the road to complain when I get 17?
[4:06:36 AM] dutu:
[4:07:33 AM] dutu: are you saying one day the jupiter is hasing 100oGHS and another day at 300?
[4:07:42 AM] dutu: i don't get the analogy
[4:07:43 AM] agibby5: no, i'm trying to come up with an analogy
[4:07:57 AM] agibby5: but i wonder this...
[4:08:20 AM] agibby5: i know larry was switching pools a few times and trying to let everything settle during those first few days. people weren't happy with teh output
[4:08:24 AM] agibby5: maybe that's what caused it
[4:08:32 AM] dutu: cause of what?
[4:08:56 AM] agibby5: so yes, on average, i'm guessing perhaps that this would be attributed to teh lower income... hence the lower hash output because the miners weren't hashing 100% of the time due to switching pools?
[4:09:14 AM] dutu: yes, this is understandable
[4:09:15 AM] agibby5: i'm asking you what, other than variance would cause this
[4:09:33 AM] agibby5: and along the way, i'm trying to think of reasons and making up analogies that i can understand
[4:09:35 AM] dutu: OK,
[4:09:56 AM] dutu: as you can see the payout from bitminter at least is done every ~5 btc
[4:10:04 AM] dutu: if you mine 7.5 btc a day
[4:10:10 AM] agibby5: it looks like 5, then it jumps to 7.2 i think for the next few
[4:10:14 AM] dutu: one day you get 5 the second day you get 10
[4:11:03 AM] dutu: but in average and for a long period of time the value should reach close to the theoretical value
[4:11:25 AM] agibby5: yeah, this seems to be a prime example of luck and variance
[4:11:29 AM] dutu: now when mining income is verly low cvolume you'll probably see that variance is almost none
[4:11:37 AM] dutu: it's not luck
[4:11:44 AM] dutu: it's how the pool pays out
[4:11:52 AM] dutu: it doesn't pay out in real time
[4:12:01 AM] dutu: it pays out in blocks of 5 for example
[4:12:06 AM] agibby5: yeah, it waits until it finds a block to satisfy those shares mined
[4:12:17 AM] agibby5: it cant payout without hvaing a block reward already found
[4:12:58 AM] dutu: regardeless, the average is the same
[4:13:38 AM] agibby5: if i had a machine in my house, i'd swallow that variance and i cannot call teh pool and complain
[4:13:43 AM] dutu: and you ahev it here
[4:13:43 AM] dutu: http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/
[4:14:31 AM] dutu: well, I'm mining with my machines at home for quite a long time already... and have no variance
[4:14:48 AM] dutu: but the payment comes in portions
[4:14:57 AM] dutu: one day 5 the next day 10
[4:15:11 AM] dutu: because they pay every 5
[4:15:19 AM] agibby5: so how do you explain and convince GB2+ members that GB1 members deserve a portion of the payouts they generated?
[4:15:42 AM] agibby5: because i think the expected/theoretical comparison doesn't work
[4:15:50 AM] dutu: GB1 do not deserve portion GB2 has generated
[4:16:44 AM] agibby5: where does the "adjustment" amount come from?
[4:16:51 AM] agibby5: the later earnings of GB1 machines?
[4:17:41 AM] dutu: the adjustement comes from coins mined by GB1 which were not receiving the walled before the 16
[4:17:43 AM] agibby5: if you make a sheet with that info, i think that proves your point.
[4:17:58 AM] agibby5: you'd have to do a sheet of the GB1 income only
[4:18:17 AM] agibby5: the GB2 mix i think confuses things too much
[4:18:48 AM] dutu: cell E24 is amount recived at wallet by GB1
[4:19:02 AM] dutu: this is too low
[4:19:30 AM] dutu: because the coins were received on the 16, that is cell E26 which is too high
[4:19:32 AM] agibby5: if you can show that they earned 5 btc on day 1, and 10 on day X... but day X payouts were distributed incorrectly to GB2 members, then perhaps you have a point
[4:20:06 AM] agibby5: because it shouldnt take almost an hour long convo to hash this out
[4:20:12 AM] dutu: i can but i need the list of transactions from the account at the pool
[4:20:27 AM] agibby5: cant you use the blockchain?
[4:21:04 AM] agibby5: i think GB1 is the one payout address, and GB2+ is the other, right?
[4:21:19 AM] dutu: I ahve used the blockchain to show that for GB1 miners thay neve mot received the complete amount
[4:21:29 AM] dutu: 51 received
[4:21:33 AM] dutu: expected 85
[4:21:48 AM] dutu: the delta was received on the 16
[4:22:22 AM] dutu: but really i won't spend more time on this
[4:23:30 AM] dutu: I have received no feedbak
[4:23:37 AM] agibby5: so maybe i'm stupid, but why does it take me this long to undersatnd this? even with your spreadsheet and almost hour long convo
[4:23:41 AM] dutu: so what's the pojt to spend time and explain more
[4:23:59 AM] agibby5: you've not presented the data in an easy to understand way
[4:24:07 AM] agibby5: and convincing others is going to be tough
[4:24:15 AM] agibby5: you probably didnt get a reply becuase most peopel don't get it
[4:24:46 AM] dutu: that's soniq job to figure out correct payment
[4:24:49 AM] agibby5: i know larry didn't know what you were talking about
[4:25:08 AM] dutu: i'm sure he had zero interest to figure that out
[4:25:28 AM] agibby5: i didn't really follow it until we talked
[4:25:37 AM] dutu: and he will have zero interest to figure out he owns us 76 BTC
[4:25:58 AM] agibby5: so basically the answer is the timing that the pools paid out fell into the territory of time where GB2 had joined, but the income was accrued when only GB1 was active?
[4:26:12 AM] dutu: correct
[3:29:16 AM] agibby5: anyway, i wanted to ask what the whole GB2 owes GB1 calculation is about?
[3:29:18 AM] dutu: i think i missed that
[3:29:20 AM] agibby5: i don't follow that at all
[3:29:37 AM] agibby5: and i don't see how you can assume that expected earnings are == actual earnings
[3:29:38 AM] dutu: i think it's easy to explain
[3:29:55 AM] agibby5: i mean, do you have proof that soniq was mining to other addresses?
[3:30:02 AM] agibby5: that's the only way i can see that happening
[3:30:06 AM] dutu: no i think he wasn't
[3:30:17 AM] dutu: what happened is:
[3:30:22 AM] agibby5: otherwise, the payouts are the payouts and you can see them in teh addresses via recieved btc
[3:30:29 AM] dutu: GB1 started mining before GB2
[3:30:55 AM] dutu: GB! should have been paid for all this mining income which was when only GB1 was mining
[3:30:57 AM] dutu: right?
[3:31:56 AM] dutu: the fact is GB1 has not been paid for all this income, as pard of this income has arrived at soniq wallet later
[3:32:05 AM] dutu: and then it was split between GB1 and GB2
[3:32:21 AM] dutu: when it should only been sent to GB1 users
[3:32:26 AM] dutu: does it make sense?
[3:33:09 AM] agibby5: yea. i follow that
[3:33:22 AM] agibby5: but when i look at your spreadsheet, it indicates alot of "expected" income
[3:33:29 AM] agibby5: but expected results are not equal to actual ones
[3:33:49 AM] dutu: yes, that is the estimated income
[3:34:14 AM] dutu: estimated theoretical income based on the Jupiter hash power
[3:34:35 AM] dutu: and this is in line whit what we have received in soniq's wallet
[3:34:52 AM] agibby5: but GB2 members can't makeup for any variance to actual vs expected income recieved by GB1 members
[3:34:53 AM] dutu: this is why I am saying i believe he hes not mined anywhere else
[3:36:00 AM] dutu: can you repeat the question please?
[3:36:23 AM] agibby5: you cannot take mining income from GB2+ members to pay for any variance related to actual results for any GB1 members
[3:36:26 AM] agibby5: example:
[3:36:37 AM] agibby5: say GB1 was expected to earn 100 btc, but they earned 85 instead
[3:36:48 AM] agibby5: and now GB2 gets on board, and they earn 200 now combined
[3:36:49 AM] dutu: ok, one sec
[3:36:56 AM] agibby5: you cannot take the 15 btc out of the new 200
[3:37:08 AM] agibby5: because GB1 didn't really earn that in teh first place
[3:37:22 AM] agibby5: btw, i'm in GB1 so i would love a bump
[3:37:29 AM] dutu: let us go one step back
[3:37:30 AM] agibby5: please convice me
[3:38:15 AM] dutu: column G "expected amount" is the theoretical mining income based on Jupiter has rate, ok?
[3:38:27 AM] dutu: now look at line 38
[3:38:55 AM] dutu: it shows that the theoretical mining income is equal with the actual mining income
[3:39:12 AM] dutu: good, then we have concluded that
[3:39:31 AM] dutu: 1) theoretical mining income is a good estimate
[3:39:47 AM] dutu: 2) soniq has not mined somewhere else
[3:39:53 AM] dutu: next:
[3:41:19 AM] dutu: line 26 shows that received amount is much hi=hers the expected amount to be mined during that period
[3:41:22 AM] dutu: why?
[3:41:51 AM] dutu: because the coins received were coins mined during thet period + coins mined during previous period
[3:42:34 AM] dutu: late transfer of coins is also shown by negative values in colum g on lines 24 and 25
[3:43:09 AM] dutu: taht is coind mined during periods in line 24 and 25 were only received during the period on line 26
[3:43:11 AM] dutu: got it?
[3:44:38 AM] dutu: btw, we can chat on the group chat if you want i don't mind
[3:45:25 AM] agibby5: i do, but it seems like you can't keep balancing between GB1 and GB2 members. for example, how do you fix the lines 29 and 34?
[3:45:55 AM] agibby5: i guess my question is, at what point do you assume that GB1 and GB2 shares payout equally during that dividend payout?
[3:47:31 AM] dutu: i'm not sure if I understand the question
[3:48:09 AM] agibby5: at what point should soniq assume that payout of shares for GB1 and GB2 are the same?
[3:48:16 AM] agibby5: is it line 25?
[3:48:24 AM] agibby5: if so, then you can't go to line 26, and send a "rebate" to GB1
[3:48:47 AM] agibby5: if it's line 26, then you can argue that GB2 also earned a bit less because of line 25s lower income
[3:48:49 AM] dutu: no you don't do it at every line and I agree with you you cant
[3:49:24 AM] dutu: becuase the mined bitcoin is not coming to the wallet in real time
[3:49:57 AM] agibby5: i just take issue what what you're saying a bit here... becuase it seems like you want to take income that's been recieved at the wallet when GB2 was in action and put it into GB1's hands.
[3:50:05 AM] agibby5: and that's hard to explain to people
[3:50:13 AM] agibby5: i think i understand now... but I don't know how it'd be justified
[3:50:26 AM] agibby5: i believe it's due to mining variance, right?
[3:50:31 AM] agibby5: everyone shoulders that risk
[3:50:46 AM] dutu: well, that's a small amount per user anyway
[3:50:54 AM] agibby5: what's the real difference?
[3:51:12 AM] agibby5: do you see my point?
[3:51:12 AM] dutu: but the fact is mining income that should been received for line 24
[3:51:20 AM] agibby5: but it wasn't though
[3:51:28 AM] agibby5: variance showed us that we couldn't get that many coins
[3:51:40 AM] agibby5: but the next time period, the variance worked in our groups favor
[3:51:44 AM] dutu: has only been received during the period on line 26
[3:52:56 AM] dutu: the mistake soniq did was thet he didn not collected at wallet all the bitcoin mined before GB2 started to mine
[3:53:10 AM] agibby5: that's not his mistake
[3:53:15 AM] agibby5: that's the pool paying out at that time
[3:53:19 AM] agibby5: because it found the blocks when it did
[3:53:19 AM] dutu: and then when he received this income later he splited it between GB1 and GB2
[3:53:23 AM] agibby5: that's the definition of variance
[3:54:13 AM] dutu: hm... not sure about that
[3:54:42 AM] dutu: pools would pay per mining share and will not have such a big variance i believe
[3:55:37 AM] agibby5: what explains that income coming in later then?
[3:55:45 AM] agibby5: magic?
[3:57:03 AM] agibby5: despite my humor, that's a serious question
[3:57:11 AM] dutu: when did soniq stared to mine at Bitminter?
[3:57:38 AM] agibby5: offhand, i don't know. he would say that's public information and it could be found... but i don't know where.
[3:57:55 AM] dutu: on the Oct 16 we have the first payouts
[3:58:07 AM] agibby5: how about this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226319.msg3364200;topicseen#msg3364200
[3:58:11 AM] dutu: of a total of 39.78 BTC
[3:58:50 AM] dutu: which means teh miners were mining
[3:58:58 AM] agibby5: that was oct 18th
[3:59:04 AM] dutu: but the payout address was only setup on the 16
[3:59:47 AM] agibby5: yes, first payments look like the 16ht
[3:59:48 AM] dutu: after that you have regular payments of ~5 BTC
[4:00:14 AM] agibby5: yeah, 16th it looks
[4:00:58 AM] dutu: which explains why you ahve a huge amout of coins received for the period on line 26
[4:01:16 AM] dutu: because some coins where mined before
[4:01:33 AM] agibby5: where did you get your figures?
[4:01:44 AM] dutu: what figures
[4:01:52 AM] dutu: teh transactions?
[4:01:54 AM] agibby5: in the spreadsheet
[4:01:58 AM] dutu: from the blockchain
[4:02:16 AM] agibby5: it looks wrong
[4:02:27 AM] agibby5: 10/16+ should be GB2+3 starting
[4:02:30 AM] agibby5: not the 15th
[4:02:37 AM] agibby5: right?
[4:02:52 AM] agibby5: and 10/15 is still part of the original 15 miners
[4:04:28 AM] dutu: as per soniq's information:
[4:04:38 AM] dutu: "Date reached advertised hashing rates"
[4:04:44 AM] dutu: GB2, GB3
[4:04:48 AM] dutu: 10/15/2013
[4:04:55 AM] dutu: this is what I have in the file
[4:05:19 AM] agibby5: i'm still unclear how this happened
[4:05:25 AM] agibby5: if it's not variance, what is it
[4:05:29 AM] dutu: but if something is wrong i can correct
[4:06:01 AM] agibby5: for example, i buy a car that says it can get 25miles per gallon. sometimes it gets 32, sometimes it gets 17
[4:06:27 AM] agibby5: can i call the manufacturer of the car or the builder of the road to complain when I get 17?
[4:06:36 AM] dutu:
[4:07:33 AM] dutu: are you saying one day the jupiter is hasing 100oGHS and another day at 300?
[4:07:42 AM] dutu: i don't get the analogy
[4:07:43 AM] agibby5: no, i'm trying to come up with an analogy
[4:07:57 AM] agibby5: but i wonder this...
[4:08:20 AM] agibby5: i know larry was switching pools a few times and trying to let everything settle during those first few days. people weren't happy with teh output
[4:08:24 AM] agibby5: maybe that's what caused it
[4:08:32 AM] dutu: cause of what?
[4:08:56 AM] agibby5: so yes, on average, i'm guessing perhaps that this would be attributed to teh lower income... hence the lower hash output because the miners weren't hashing 100% of the time due to switching pools?
[4:09:14 AM] dutu: yes, this is understandable
[4:09:15 AM] agibby5: i'm asking you what, other than variance would cause this
[4:09:33 AM] agibby5: and along the way, i'm trying to think of reasons and making up analogies that i can understand
[4:09:35 AM] dutu: OK,
[4:09:56 AM] dutu: as you can see the payout from bitminter at least is done every ~5 btc
[4:10:04 AM] dutu: if you mine 7.5 btc a day
[4:10:10 AM] agibby5: it looks like 5, then it jumps to 7.2 i think for the next few
[4:10:14 AM] dutu: one day you get 5 the second day you get 10
[4:11:03 AM] dutu: but in average and for a long period of time the value should reach close to the theoretical value
[4:11:25 AM] agibby5: yeah, this seems to be a prime example of luck and variance
[4:11:29 AM] dutu: now when mining income is verly low cvolume you'll probably see that variance is almost none
[4:11:37 AM] dutu: it's not luck
[4:11:44 AM] dutu: it's how the pool pays out
[4:11:52 AM] dutu: it doesn't pay out in real time
[4:12:01 AM] dutu: it pays out in blocks of 5 for example
[4:12:06 AM] agibby5: yeah, it waits until it finds a block to satisfy those shares mined
[4:12:17 AM] agibby5: it cant payout without hvaing a block reward already found
[4:12:58 AM] dutu: regardeless, the average is the same
[4:13:38 AM] agibby5: if i had a machine in my house, i'd swallow that variance and i cannot call teh pool and complain
[4:13:43 AM] dutu: and you ahev it here
[4:13:43 AM] dutu: http://www.bitcoinx.com/profit/
[4:14:31 AM] dutu: well, I'm mining with my machines at home for quite a long time already... and have no variance
[4:14:48 AM] dutu: but the payment comes in portions
[4:14:57 AM] dutu: one day 5 the next day 10
[4:15:11 AM] dutu: because they pay every 5
[4:15:19 AM] agibby5: so how do you explain and convince GB2+ members that GB1 members deserve a portion of the payouts they generated?
[4:15:42 AM] agibby5: because i think the expected/theoretical comparison doesn't work
[4:15:50 AM] dutu: GB1 do not deserve portion GB2 has generated
[4:16:44 AM] agibby5: where does the "adjustment" amount come from?
[4:16:51 AM] agibby5: the later earnings of GB1 machines?
[4:17:41 AM] dutu: the adjustement comes from coins mined by GB1 which were not receiving the walled before the 16
[4:17:43 AM] agibby5: if you make a sheet with that info, i think that proves your point.
[4:17:58 AM] agibby5: you'd have to do a sheet of the GB1 income only
[4:18:17 AM] agibby5: the GB2 mix i think confuses things too much
[4:18:48 AM] dutu: cell E24 is amount recived at wallet by GB1
[4:19:02 AM] dutu: this is too low
[4:19:30 AM] dutu: because the coins were received on the 16, that is cell E26 which is too high
[4:19:32 AM] agibby5: if you can show that they earned 5 btc on day 1, and 10 on day X... but day X payouts were distributed incorrectly to GB2 members, then perhaps you have a point
[4:20:06 AM] agibby5: because it shouldnt take almost an hour long convo to hash this out
[4:20:12 AM] dutu: i can but i need the list of transactions from the account at the pool
[4:20:27 AM] agibby5: cant you use the blockchain?
[4:21:04 AM] agibby5: i think GB1 is the one payout address, and GB2+ is the other, right?
[4:21:19 AM] dutu: I ahve used the blockchain to show that for GB1 miners thay neve mot received the complete amount
[4:21:29 AM] dutu: 51 received
[4:21:33 AM] dutu: expected 85
[4:21:48 AM] dutu: the delta was received on the 16
[4:22:22 AM] dutu: but really i won't spend more time on this
[4:23:30 AM] dutu: I have received no feedbak
[4:23:37 AM] agibby5: so maybe i'm stupid, but why does it take me this long to undersatnd this? even with your spreadsheet and almost hour long convo
[4:23:41 AM] dutu: so what's the pojt to spend time and explain more
[4:23:59 AM] agibby5: you've not presented the data in an easy to understand way
[4:24:07 AM] agibby5: and convincing others is going to be tough
[4:24:15 AM] agibby5: you probably didnt get a reply becuase most peopel don't get it
[4:24:46 AM] dutu: that's soniq job to figure out correct payment
[4:24:49 AM] agibby5: i know larry didn't know what you were talking about
[4:25:08 AM] dutu: i'm sure he had zero interest to figure that out
[4:25:28 AM] agibby5: i didn't really follow it until we talked
[4:25:37 AM] dutu: and he will have zero interest to figure out he owns us 76 BTC
[4:25:58 AM] agibby5: so basically the answer is the timing that the pools paid out fell into the territory of time where GB2 had joined, but the income was accrued when only GB1 was active?
[4:26:12 AM] dutu: correct
February 19, 2014, 02:44:07 PM
Hi Soniq and group members,
Here come part two of the report on my analysis of Soniq’s balance sheet and dividend payouts.
This verification and the report posed here is for Soniq’s balance sheet and transactions on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Here is the file posted by soniq which I have verified: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtH6ASvoAExHdF9IcFh3QmQ2dEt4Zk5qT3lRUDFDTVE&usp=drive_web&pli=1#gid=24
This is the excel file I have produced with verification calculations and results: http://1drv.ms/1d0t1j2
(1) I have looked at “Dividend Payment Balance Sheet” in soniq’s file
(Line 6) Total Mining income Received: 1332,890284
(Line 14) Total Expenses: 211,2304057
Total BTC to be paid out 1121,65987854
(2) I have looked at “Ledger Jan 31_14” sheet in soniq’s file (and have copied original sheet into my file so I can color it)
Positive values (column D) consist of
• Mined coins that have been paid out
• Other stuff that has been paid out (refunded hosting payments, share price adjustments, private loans, 2% management fee)
(Negative values are the bitcoin transactions to users)
Let us take an example to clarify and we exemplify with a random user:
The user he has been paid out:
0,66000000 Refunded hosting payment (line 368)
0,28645000 GB1 prorated share price adjustment (line 369)
4,28738914 Mined coins (lines 370-275 marked in green)
I have applied a filter to sum all mined coins that have been paid out (green lines).
The sum of the mined coins that have been paid out to all users is 1044,68000011 BTC.
However, total BTC to be paid out is 1121,65987854 BTC
1121,65987854 - 1044,68000011 = 76,97987843
To conclude, up to Jan 31, there is still 76,97987843 BTC mining income received that Soniq has missed to pay out.
February 19, 2014, 01:04:49 PM
I had an unexpected family emergency and took some time away to clear my thoughts, sorry about not posting sooner.
Have been trying to get a clarified answer from Espen on prorated balances and he has finally responded, now have to coordinate with agibby to add to currently balanced books.
Will be making a dividend payment as soon as the prorated balances are accounted for. This is the achilles heel using third party programmers, is trying to get timely responses.
Will try to get this done as soon as possible
Have been trying to get a clarified answer from Espen on prorated balances and he has finally responded, now have to coordinate with agibby to add to currently balanced books.
Will be making a dividend payment as soon as the prorated balances are accounted for. This is the achilles heel using third party programmers, is trying to get timely responses.
Will try to get this done as soon as possible
Soniq, you have promised answer and feedback to my analysis and correction required. I trust we will receive this ASAP.
February 19, 2014, 03:16:08 AM
Have been trying to get a clarified answer from Espen on prorated balances and he has finally responded, now have to coordinate with agibby to add to currently balanced books.
I fail to understand why you keep on depending on others for this. Their product and resulting excel sheet is a mess and adding to it will only make the mess bigger. KISS, I said this already so many times.Will be making a dividend payment as soon as the prorated balances are accounted for. This is the achilles heel using third party programmers, is trying to get timely responses.
Will try to get this done as soon as possible
Well, I am losing my patients and I am sure many with me. Will try to get this done as soon as possible
I will give you till Friday noon GMT, if there hasn't been a dividend payment by then and the refund for the too high paid share price, I will seek legal advice.
February 19, 2014, 03:04:31 AM
I had an unexpected family emergency and took some time away to clear my thoughts, sorry about not posting sooner.
Have been trying to get a clarified answer from Espen on prorated balances and he has finally responded, now have to coordinate with agibby to add to currently balanced books.
Will be making a dividend payment as soon as the prorated balances are accounted for. This is the achilles heel using third party programmers, is trying to get timely responses.
Will try to get this done as soon as possible
Have been trying to get a clarified answer from Espen on prorated balances and he has finally responded, now have to coordinate with agibby to add to currently balanced books.
Will be making a dividend payment as soon as the prorated balances are accounted for. This is the achilles heel using third party programmers, is trying to get timely responses.
Will try to get this done as soon as possible
February 19, 2014, 02:15:33 AM
Larry you are currently online.
It's really time to make a post with a true update. This isn't your only group buy and people in the Bitcoin environment are taking less and less time to pursue legal action.
It's really time to make a post with a true update. This isn't your only group buy and people in the Bitcoin environment are taking less and less time to pursue legal action.
February 19, 2014, 02:10:14 AM
Has any one heard from Soniq :?(
Nothing by me.I think it is time to start thinking about legal actions.
February 17, 2014, 11:25:03 AM
Has any one heard from Soniq :?(
February 16, 2014, 11:16:23 AM
This is one giant clusterfuck of a GB, lesson learned. 
February 16, 2014, 12:05:22 AM
Thank you for your analysis dutu
Me and agibby are looking into this and Bens question.
Espen the original programmer will be back from a business trip on Wednesday, and will help us to clarify all the transactions to date.
Will have a clarified response before next dividend payment.
Thank you for your patience
Me and agibby are looking into this and Bens question.
Espen the original programmer will be back from a business trip on Wednesday, and will help us to clarify all the transactions to date.
Will have a clarified response before next dividend payment.
Thank you for your patience
Has this Being fixed ?
when can we expect the next dividend payment.?
February 12, 2014, 11:12:35 AM
Thanks for your reply, agibby.
It's quite said if soniq is attempting to censure the communication -the operation was supposed to be totally transparent, so we should really wonder if something is to be hidden from group members.
As a second note, we see soniq going online on this forum!!!
Surly, a one-line-update to group buy members here can't be that difficult.
It's quite said if soniq is attempting to censure the communication -the operation was supposed to be totally transparent, so we should really wonder if something is to be hidden from group members.
As a second note, we see soniq going online on this forum!!!
Surly, a one-line-update to group buy members here can't be that difficult.
I don't think he's trying to censure anything. I just don't have a way with words that most people agree with
February 12, 2014, 11:02:05 AM
Thanks for your reply, agibby.
It's quite said if soniq is attempting to censure the communication -the operation was supposed to be totally transparent, so we should really wonder if something is to be hidden from group members.
As a second note, we see soniq going online on this forum!!!
Surly, a one-line-update to group buy members here can't be that difficult.
It's quite said if soniq is attempting to censure the communication -the operation was supposed to be totally transparent, so we should really wonder if something is to be hidden from group members.
As a second note, we see soniq going online on this forum!!!
Surly, a one-line-update to group buy members here can't be that difficult.
February 12, 2014, 10:04:49 AM
Hi agibby,
I have posted these findings on Feb 02.
Can you please verify these and provide feedback (as you have been working with soniq to clarify the books and findings)
You hove have an agreement with soniq that you should not provide further feedback or checks on the balance sheet and payments, please let us know. At leas we should know if we can expect or not feedback from you.
It is really disappointing that all went very silent again with no further feedback, payments or information being provided to share holders.
I have posted these findings on Feb 02.
Can you please verify these and provide feedback (as you have been working with soniq to clarify the books and findings)
You hove have an agreement with soniq that you should not provide further feedback or checks on the balance sheet and payments, please let us know. At leas we should know if we can expect or not feedback from you.
It is really disappointing that all went very silent again with no further feedback, payments or information being provided to share holders.
Hi agibby,
I have reviewed Soniq’s balance sheet and mining income.
I will finalize the review, but let me share preliminary findings.
Firstly let me note that this verification is on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Excel file with verification calculation and results: http://sdrv.ms/1bkoevq
I. Verification of total income amount and expenses
The conclusion is that my verification shows exactly the same total income amount as published by Soniq in the balance sheet.
This is, total income 1332,89 BTC.
Also the total expenses calculated by me comes to the same amount as in Soniq’s balance sheet.
This is total expenses -211,23 BTC.
Which gives total accumulated for dividend payout is 1121,66 BTC.
II. Comparison of total income amount to “expected” mining income
I have also compared the mining income in the balance sheet with expected mining income".
I have considers the starting mining dates as declared by Soniq, i.e.
• Oct 11 when GB1 miners (15 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
• Oct 15 when GB2 miners (11 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
(Note: In fact some GB1 miners have started before Oct 11, but the income before Oct 11 can be considered minor)
Calculation of "expected mining income" has been done based on
* mining period (i.e from Oct 11 (GB1) and Oct 15 (GB2) until Jan 31)
* Jupiter hashing power
* bitcoin network difficulty and
* mining calculator for applicable bitcoin difficulty.
The conclusion is that the total mining income in Soniq’s balance sheet is in line with calculated expected income.
I have considered Jupiter hashing power = 550GH/s and applied an efficiency factor of 97.5%.
Under this conditions, the total income in Soniq’s balance sheet differs with less than 1% from the “expected income”
III. Corrections needed
As shown in detailed mining breakdown on period intervals GB2 members have been paid for part of mining income attributed to GB1 miners.
As it can be seen on lines 24 and 25, mining income was not received in full to soniq’s wallet from the mining pools (note the difference between received amount and expected amount).
Part of bitcoin mined under period Oct 11 – Oct 15 was transferred to soniq’s wallet after only Oct 16 (on line 26 note the positive difference between received vs expected).
As shown in the table, amount of coins mined by GB1 15 miners (before GB2 and GB3 11 miners arrived) was 85.48 coins.
Soniq has issued a payment of 50 BTC for GB1, when in fact it should have been 85.48 BTC.
Incorrect amount paid to GB2: (85.48-50)/78000*33000 = 15 BTC.
In conclusion a correction is required to be done at next dividend pay-out: deduct 15 BTC from dividends for GB2 users and pay this out to GB1 users
I would like to ask you to verify the information I have posted here and confirm.
Please doublecheck with Soniq’s, and once confirmed please apply the required correction.
Please verify and provide your and Soniq's feedback on above calculation and verification asap, before the next payout so that required correction can be applied. Other GB members are welcome to comment and provide feedback.
I have reviewed Soniq’s balance sheet and mining income.
I will finalize the review, but let me share preliminary findings.
Firstly let me note that this verification is on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Excel file with verification calculation and results: http://sdrv.ms/1bkoevq
I. Verification of total income amount and expenses
The conclusion is that my verification shows exactly the same total income amount as published by Soniq in the balance sheet.
This is, total income 1332,89 BTC.
Also the total expenses calculated by me comes to the same amount as in Soniq’s balance sheet.
This is total expenses -211,23 BTC.
Which gives total accumulated for dividend payout is 1121,66 BTC.
II. Comparison of total income amount to “expected” mining income
I have also compared the mining income in the balance sheet with expected mining income".
I have considers the starting mining dates as declared by Soniq, i.e.
• Oct 11 when GB1 miners (15 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
• Oct 15 when GB2 miners (11 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
(Note: In fact some GB1 miners have started before Oct 11, but the income before Oct 11 can be considered minor)
Calculation of "expected mining income" has been done based on
* mining period (i.e from Oct 11 (GB1) and Oct 15 (GB2) until Jan 31)
* Jupiter hashing power
* bitcoin network difficulty and
* mining calculator for applicable bitcoin difficulty.
The conclusion is that the total mining income in Soniq’s balance sheet is in line with calculated expected income.
I have considered Jupiter hashing power = 550GH/s and applied an efficiency factor of 97.5%.
Under this conditions, the total income in Soniq’s balance sheet differs with less than 1% from the “expected income”
III. Corrections needed
As shown in detailed mining breakdown on period intervals GB2 members have been paid for part of mining income attributed to GB1 miners.
As it can be seen on lines 24 and 25, mining income was not received in full to soniq’s wallet from the mining pools (note the difference between received amount and expected amount).
Part of bitcoin mined under period Oct 11 – Oct 15 was transferred to soniq’s wallet after only Oct 16 (on line 26 note the positive difference between received vs expected).
As shown in the table, amount of coins mined by GB1 15 miners (before GB2 and GB3 11 miners arrived) was 85.48 coins.
Soniq has issued a payment of 50 BTC for GB1, when in fact it should have been 85.48 BTC.
Incorrect amount paid to GB2: (85.48-50)/78000*33000 = 15 BTC.
In conclusion a correction is required to be done at next dividend pay-out: deduct 15 BTC from dividends for GB2 users and pay this out to GB1 users
I would like to ask you to verify the information I have posted here and confirm.
Please doublecheck with Soniq’s, and once confirmed please apply the required correction.
Please verify and provide your and Soniq's feedback on above calculation and verification asap, before the next payout so that required correction can be applied. Other GB members are welcome to comment and provide feedback.
I only focued time on trying to balance the books in terms of what has been paid out to individuals. I hadn't looked at anything having to do with how much GB1 owes GB2 or vice versa. I'm not sure why this would be the case though... I don't think you can make the assumptions about expected income vs actual and then make an adjustment based on that. That was not my goal.
I finally got a hold of soniq recently and he reported to me that he's had a family emergency which is why he's been silent.
He's also waiting to hear back from espen about how the share price adjustments were handled or any issues that might have occurred there which Ben raised.
For the record, I'm nowhere near or desire to be the spokesperson for this GB or for soniq. In fact, soniq has taken objection to some of the replies I have made in the past. Please do not take my prior or current replies as such.
February 12, 2014, 08:55:49 AM
Hi agibby,
I have posted these findings on Feb 02.
Can you please verify these and provide feedback (as you have been working with soniq to clarify the books and findings)
You hove have an agreement with soniq that you should not provide further feedback or checks on the balance sheet and payments, please let us know. At leas we should know if we can expect or not feedback from you.
It is really disappointing that all went very silent again with no further feedback, payments or information being provided to share holders.
I have posted these findings on Feb 02.
Can you please verify these and provide feedback (as you have been working with soniq to clarify the books and findings)
You hove have an agreement with soniq that you should not provide further feedback or checks on the balance sheet and payments, please let us know. At leas we should know if we can expect or not feedback from you.
It is really disappointing that all went very silent again with no further feedback, payments or information being provided to share holders.
Hi agibby,
I have reviewed Soniq’s balance sheet and mining income.
I will finalize the review, but let me share preliminary findings.
Firstly let me note that this verification is on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Excel file with verification calculation and results: http://sdrv.ms/1bkoevq
I. Verification of total income amount and expenses
The conclusion is that my verification shows exactly the same total income amount as published by Soniq in the balance sheet.
This is, total income 1332,89 BTC.
Also the total expenses calculated by me comes to the same amount as in Soniq’s balance sheet.
This is total expenses -211,23 BTC.
Which gives total accumulated for dividend payout is 1121,66 BTC.
II. Comparison of total income amount to “expected” mining income
I have also compared the mining income in the balance sheet with expected mining income".
I have considers the starting mining dates as declared by Soniq, i.e.
• Oct 11 when GB1 miners (15 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
• Oct 15 when GB2 miners (11 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
(Note: In fact some GB1 miners have started before Oct 11, but the income before Oct 11 can be considered minor)
Calculation of "expected mining income" has been done based on
* mining period (i.e from Oct 11 (GB1) and Oct 15 (GB2) until Jan 31)
* Jupiter hashing power
* bitcoin network difficulty and
* mining calculator for applicable bitcoin difficulty.
The conclusion is that the total mining income in Soniq’s balance sheet is in line with calculated expected income.
I have considered Jupiter hashing power = 550GH/s and applied an efficiency factor of 97.5%.
Under this conditions, the total income in Soniq’s balance sheet differs with less than 1% from the “expected income”
III. Corrections needed
As shown in detailed mining breakdown on period intervals GB2 members have been paid for part of mining income attributed to GB1 miners.
As it can be seen on lines 24 and 25, mining income was not received in full to soniq’s wallet from the mining pools (note the difference between received amount and expected amount).
Part of bitcoin mined under period Oct 11 – Oct 15 was transferred to soniq’s wallet after only Oct 16 (on line 26 note the positive difference between received vs expected).
As shown in the table, amount of coins mined by GB1 15 miners (before GB2 and GB3 11 miners arrived) was 85.48 coins.
Soniq has issued a payment of 50 BTC for GB1, when in fact it should have been 85.48 BTC.
Incorrect amount paid to GB2: (85.48-50)/78000*33000 = 15 BTC.
In conclusion a correction is required to be done at next dividend pay-out: deduct 15 BTC from dividends for GB2 users and pay this out to GB1 users
I would like to ask you to verify the information I have posted here and confirm.
Please doublecheck with Soniq’s, and once confirmed please apply the required correction.
Please verify and provide your and Soniq's feedback on above calculation and verification asap, before the next payout so that required correction can be applied. Other GB members are welcome to comment and provide feedback.
I have reviewed Soniq’s balance sheet and mining income.
I will finalize the review, but let me share preliminary findings.
Firstly let me note that this verification is on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Excel file with verification calculation and results: http://sdrv.ms/1bkoevq
I. Verification of total income amount and expenses
The conclusion is that my verification shows exactly the same total income amount as published by Soniq in the balance sheet.
This is, total income 1332,89 BTC.
Also the total expenses calculated by me comes to the same amount as in Soniq’s balance sheet.
This is total expenses -211,23 BTC.
Which gives total accumulated for dividend payout is 1121,66 BTC.
II. Comparison of total income amount to “expected” mining income
I have also compared the mining income in the balance sheet with expected mining income".
I have considers the starting mining dates as declared by Soniq, i.e.
• Oct 11 when GB1 miners (15 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
• Oct 15 when GB2 miners (11 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
(Note: In fact some GB1 miners have started before Oct 11, but the income before Oct 11 can be considered minor)
Calculation of "expected mining income" has been done based on
* mining period (i.e from Oct 11 (GB1) and Oct 15 (GB2) until Jan 31)
* Jupiter hashing power
* bitcoin network difficulty and
* mining calculator for applicable bitcoin difficulty.
The conclusion is that the total mining income in Soniq’s balance sheet is in line with calculated expected income.
I have considered Jupiter hashing power = 550GH/s and applied an efficiency factor of 97.5%.
Under this conditions, the total income in Soniq’s balance sheet differs with less than 1% from the “expected income”
III. Corrections needed
As shown in detailed mining breakdown on period intervals GB2 members have been paid for part of mining income attributed to GB1 miners.
As it can be seen on lines 24 and 25, mining income was not received in full to soniq’s wallet from the mining pools (note the difference between received amount and expected amount).
Part of bitcoin mined under period Oct 11 – Oct 15 was transferred to soniq’s wallet after only Oct 16 (on line 26 note the positive difference between received vs expected).
As shown in the table, amount of coins mined by GB1 15 miners (before GB2 and GB3 11 miners arrived) was 85.48 coins.
Soniq has issued a payment of 50 BTC for GB1, when in fact it should have been 85.48 BTC.
Incorrect amount paid to GB2: (85.48-50)/78000*33000 = 15 BTC.
In conclusion a correction is required to be done at next dividend pay-out: deduct 15 BTC from dividends for GB2 users and pay this out to GB1 users
I would like to ask you to verify the information I have posted here and confirm.
Please doublecheck with Soniq’s, and once confirmed please apply the required correction.
Please verify and provide your and Soniq's feedback on above calculation and verification asap, before the next payout so that required correction can be applied. Other GB members are welcome to comment and provide feedback.
February 10, 2014, 02:23:31 AM
@Ben and dutu, did you ever receive further response to your requests/questions?
None outside the forum messages, which only answer part of the questions.My biggest question is the missing refunds for the jupiter purchase price versus share purchase price difference, which is over 2.2BTC for me for example. Soniq has ignored my questions about this missing refunds. I think everyone should check if they deserve a refund and got it or not.
It looks like the books are still in need in verification or for those that soniq claimed already took a look and audited the books to speak up.
Agree and not much is happening in here.Wasn't there supposed to be another dividend this past weekend?
Yes, Soniq promised weekly dividend payments, but you know what his promises are worth...Additionally, what's going on with the merge-mined Namecoins? How are we to claim these and where/how have they been accounted for?
It was suggested to go to http://bitcoinfun.ca/nmcsign/ and link your btc address to your nmc address. Don't take my word for it tho. I haven't done this yet.
February 10, 2014, 02:11:57 AM
@Ben and dutu, did you ever receive further response to your requests/questions?
It looks like the books are still in need in verification or for those that soniq claimed already took a look and audited the books to speak up.
Wasn't there supposed to be another dividend this past weekend?
Additionally, what's going on with the merge-mined Namecoins? How are we to claim these and where/how have they been accounted for?
It looks like the books are still in need in verification or for those that soniq claimed already took a look and audited the books to speak up.
Wasn't there supposed to be another dividend this past weekend?
Additionally, what's going on with the merge-mined Namecoins? How are we to claim these and where/how have they been accounted for?
February 09, 2014, 05:07:25 AM
Thank you for your analysis dutu
Me and Agibby are looking into this and Bens question.
Espen the original programmer will be back from a business trip on Wednesday, and will help us to clarify all the transactions to date.
Will have a clarified response before next dividend payment.
Thank you for your patience
Me and Agibby are looking into this and Bens question.
Espen the original programmer will be back from a business trip on Wednesday, and will help us to clarify all the transactions to date.
Will have a clarified response before next dividend payment.
Thank you for your patience
Hi Soniq and agibby,
Please provide feedback on the verification i have provided.
It took me a couple of hours to produce the excel file, surly checking it and validating can't take more than that.
February 03, 2014, 12:05:55 PM
Thank you for your analysis dutu
Me and agibby are looking into this and Bens question.
Espen the original programmer will be back from a business trip on Wednesday, and will help us to clarify all the transactions to date.
Will have a clarified response before next dividend payment.
Thank you for your patience
Me and agibby are looking into this and Bens question.
Espen the original programmer will be back from a business trip on Wednesday, and will help us to clarify all the transactions to date.
Will have a clarified response before next dividend payment.
Thank you for your patience
February 02, 2014, 12:57:49 PM
Hi agibby,
I have reviewed Soniq’s balance sheet and mining income.
I will finalize the review, but let me share preliminary findings.
Firstly let me note that this verification is on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Excel file with verification calculation and results: http://sdrv.ms/1bkoevq
I. Verification of total income amount and expenses
The conclusion is that my verification shows exactly the same total income amount as published by Soniq in the balance sheet.
This is, total income 1332,89 BTC.
Also the total expenses calculated by me comes to the same amount as in Soniq’s balance sheet.
This is total expenses -211,23 BTC.
Which gives total accumulated for dividend payout is 1121,66 BTC.
II. Comparison of total income amount to “expected” mining income
I have also compared the mining income in the balance sheet with expected mining income".
I have considers the starting mining dates as declared by Soniq, i.e.
• Oct 11 when GB1 miners (15 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
• Oct 15 when GB2 miners (11 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
(Note: In fact some GB1 miners have started before Oct 11, but the income before Oct 11 can be considered minor)
Calculation of "expected mining income" has been done based on
* mining period (i.e from Oct 11 (GB1) and Oct 15 (GB2) until Jan 31)
* Jupiter hashing power
* bitcoin network difficulty and
* mining calculator for applicable bitcoin difficulty.
The conclusion is that the total mining income in Soniq’s balance sheet is in line with calculated expected income.
I have considered Jupiter hashing power = 550GH/s and applied an efficiency factor of 97.5%.
Under this conditions, the total income in Soniq’s balance sheet differs with less than 1% from the “expected income”
III. Corrections needed
As shown in detailed mining breakdown on period intervals GB2 members have been paid for part of mining income attributed to GB1 miners.
As it can be seen on lines 24 and 25, mining income was not received in full to soniq’s wallet from the mining pools (note the difference between received amount and expected amount).
Part of bitcoin mined under period Oct 11 – Oct 15 was transferred to soniq’s wallet after only Oct 16 (on line 26 note the positive difference between received vs expected).
As shown in the table, amount of coins mined by GB1 15 miners (before GB2 and GB3 11 miners arrived) was 85.48 coins.
Soniq has issued a payment of 50 BTC for GB1, when in fact it should have been 85.48 BTC.
Incorrect amount paid to GB2: (85.48-50)/78000*33000 = 15 BTC.
In conclusion a correction is required to be done at next dividend pay-out: deduct 15 BTC from dividends for GB2 users and pay this out to GB1 users
I would like to ask you to verify the information I have posted here and confirm.
Please doublecheck with Soniq’s, and once confirmed please apply the required correction.
Please verify and provide your and Soniq's feedback on above calculation and verification asap, before the next payout so that required correction can be applied. Other GB members are welcome to comment and provide feedback.
I have reviewed Soniq’s balance sheet and mining income.
I will finalize the review, but let me share preliminary findings.
Firstly let me note that this verification is on the transactions up to Jan 31.
Excel file with verification calculation and results: http://sdrv.ms/1bkoevq
I. Verification of total income amount and expenses
The conclusion is that my verification shows exactly the same total income amount as published by Soniq in the balance sheet.
This is, total income 1332,89 BTC.
Also the total expenses calculated by me comes to the same amount as in Soniq’s balance sheet.
This is total expenses -211,23 BTC.
Which gives total accumulated for dividend payout is 1121,66 BTC.
II. Comparison of total income amount to “expected” mining income
I have also compared the mining income in the balance sheet with expected mining income".
I have considers the starting mining dates as declared by Soniq, i.e.
• Oct 11 when GB1 miners (15 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
• Oct 15 when GB2 miners (11 miners) have reached advertised hashing rate
(Note: In fact some GB1 miners have started before Oct 11, but the income before Oct 11 can be considered minor)
Calculation of "expected mining income" has been done based on
* mining period (i.e from Oct 11 (GB1) and Oct 15 (GB2) until Jan 31)
* Jupiter hashing power
* bitcoin network difficulty and
* mining calculator for applicable bitcoin difficulty.
The conclusion is that the total mining income in Soniq’s balance sheet is in line with calculated expected income.
I have considered Jupiter hashing power = 550GH/s and applied an efficiency factor of 97.5%.
Under this conditions, the total income in Soniq’s balance sheet differs with less than 1% from the “expected income”
III. Corrections needed
As shown in detailed mining breakdown on period intervals GB2 members have been paid for part of mining income attributed to GB1 miners.
As it can be seen on lines 24 and 25, mining income was not received in full to soniq’s wallet from the mining pools (note the difference between received amount and expected amount).
Part of bitcoin mined under period Oct 11 – Oct 15 was transferred to soniq’s wallet after only Oct 16 (on line 26 note the positive difference between received vs expected).
As shown in the table, amount of coins mined by GB1 15 miners (before GB2 and GB3 11 miners arrived) was 85.48 coins.
Soniq has issued a payment of 50 BTC for GB1, when in fact it should have been 85.48 BTC.
Incorrect amount paid to GB2: (85.48-50)/78000*33000 = 15 BTC.
In conclusion a correction is required to be done at next dividend pay-out: deduct 15 BTC from dividends for GB2 users and pay this out to GB1 users
I would like to ask you to verify the information I have posted here and confirm.
Please doublecheck with Soniq’s, and once confirmed please apply the required correction.
Please verify and provide your and Soniq's feedback on above calculation and verification asap, before the next payout so that required correction can be applied. Other GB members are welcome to comment and provide feedback.
Jump to: