Topic: [HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit) - page 126. (Read 565833 times)

you sell units you manifacture to PETA
you sell power you produce to PETA

 

(on a sidenote, if anyone is interested in buying over 900 shares of Scryptx, make me an offer in private message)

We do not reinvests any coins in our pocket. Please read the documentation before making "statements".

No one's complaining about the hashrate, it's how that hashrate translates to divs that people bitch about.
In more accessible terms, if cryptx quadruples his hashrate, but "reinvests" all the coin mined into his pocket, you might want to stop cheering (or risk looking somewhat foolish).

+1

+1

Yes. Only on this forum could an announcement that our hashrate is tripling cause pages and pages of complaining and accusations.

How are they going to sell the IPO (0,095) if the current market price is lower (0,082)?

Great You make a point bnow it looks very different - way was not so clear from the beginig?
Question is why are You not set static reinvestment%?

Here is a nice calculator:

http://btcinvest.net/en/bitcoin-mining-profit-calculator.php?diff=10553416309&dcosts=1600000&diff_mincrease=15&blpbtc=25&dhsmhs=1000000000&diff_mincreasedecrease=3&btcusd=444.68&dpowcon=1000000&btcusd_mincrease=1&pcost=0.25&calcweeks=32&dleadtime=0&action=calc

You forget a (rather important!) column :-)
+1000BTC will be paid back in less than 2 weeks

If you think 10PH linear is too little
Why not use 15% exponential, as advised by others:



1 exahash by early december, 2 exahash in january next year. 3 months into the new year and we would have digged out another 3 exahashes on top to get us to 5 exahash.

and you havent played with reinvestment ye..same goes for BTC/USD. you can tweak that rate and end up with more BTC than is possible to mine.. running by those suggested diff numbers, you'll see the mine is supposedly 2x more profitable at 0% reinvestment than 35%, 5x more profitable at 0% than at 80% reinvestment. either way the calculated divs on spreadsheet are less than what the mine will actually earn, the total year 1 divs at  35% reinvestment for instance  is obviously false since the predicted div earnings there throughout the total year 1 equates to what is *currently* mined with 1/3 of the hashrate in a month and a half, that then comes to a negative figure on spreadsheet once you subtract the price paid back for BF hardware.. this is hardware which will be added beginning next monday,

Breakdown of hosting fee of $0.25/kwh:

- We pay $0.155/kwh for electricity (retail in Belgium is $0.25/kwh)
- this leaves $0.095/kwh for hosting, maintenance, repair, labor

Compare this with cex.io ($0.26/gh per month which translates to $0.36/kwh) or cloudhashing ($0.70/kwh).
We are looking for the most power efficient miners, with new Bitfury's, consuming about 0.78W/GH, this means a hosting cost of $0.14/gh per month.

I really don't see why the argument.


Using cryptx's own spreadsheet so that nobody argues about the hosting fees, reinvestment calculations, BTC exchange rate, etc etc..  All I'm changing is the rate of growth of network hashrate to 10PH per interval, from cryptx's 6PH projection.  Yes, it's linear, so the rate of increase may easily be far, far greater.  At least this choice should appease people who point out that hashrate cannot rise exponentially forever.



- If the IPO doesn't sell at all, the loan amount could potentially be 3760 - 150 - 300 = 3310 BTC. 

- if a 1000BTC "loan" is taken from cryptx, it will only be fully repaid from dividends in Aug '14, and shareholders finally start getting lean and fast-declining dividends in Sep '14.  I don't know how cryptx calculates it, or how the loan amount is merely 1009 BTC if 10000 shares (950BTC) are sold at IPO.

- I don't see why the IPO will be bought up if the dividends quickly trend towards zero before reaching ROI, and since shares on the market are cheaper.

- Note how % network still drops during the first few periods of heavy reinvestment.  This shows that the reinvestment strategy is still futile at this rate of network growth.

We should now agree on how horrible the outcome is even with a linear 10PH increase.  Perhaps certain anonymous people will claim that 10PH is way too much.  ASICMINER has indicated expected delivery of 109PH of chips shortly.  That's just one manufacturer.  How about the rest?

So the question really is what you think the network hashrate / difficulty growth will be.

I don't think we should argue about other possible factors such as BTC exchange rates because these are the same figures as in cryptx's projections.

I also don't know whether other cloud mining operations can be sustainably profitable, but that isn't the point we're discussing.

why would there be 13 weeks without dividend?. previous week 150+btc mined. the farm will be increased up to 3x in capacity beginning next week..I'm sure you can extrapolate payback period from that.

I do agree a significant change without vote should not be happening, if these are supposed to be voting shares   Shame that havelock doesn't have voting system in place.

I've been reading along for quite some time now and seeing how strongly some people push their views, projections and guesstimates, I can't shake the feeling they do this to influence the share price to their own good.

The argument has been brought forward, that "investors" were screwed over by releasing scryptx, then, as soon as "everyone" moved their funds over to it and away from PETA, cryptx "inflated" the share price of PETA, leaving former PETA investors out in the cold.

This, my friends, is bullshit.

Look at the PETA share price: it was on a slight uptick right before and shortly after the announcement of scryptx. There is no sign whatsoever that PETA holders sold significant numbers of shares to free capital for investing in scryptx. Also, scryptx ipo was not sold-out, reaffirming the observation that demand was not excessive and especially not driven by former PETA holders switching over.

Apart from this observation, people moving over from one project to the other on words notice can hardly be called investors. They are short term speculators. The difference is important:
long term investors care about long-term dividend yield, that is company profits. Long-term some and multiple years, although in the bitcoin business I am willing to accept a single year as long-term already. Investors do not care much about the share price, as long as they are confident that overall they will make a profit. Note that there is always two sources of profit for shareholders: dividend yield (often misleadingly called ROI around here) plus profits from selling at a higher share price after the long-term holding period.
speculators, on the other hand, care about short-term profits, mainly from jumps in the share price. Speculators always quickly move their funds where they believe the next market price swings will be strongest, they are often the spearhead when it comes to ipos. Normally, they don't care about dividends at all, as they typically hold shares for too little time for them to be relevant. In the bitcoin business, with weekly dividends, large dividend yields and little trading volume, however, they have come to care about these as well.

Now, here we seem to have the case of small time speculators, who simply made a bad choice: they jumped at the scryptx ipo, selling their small holdings of PETA. When the new ipo with a baseline price of 0.9 was announced for PETA and market share price adjusted, they cried foul for missing out on the opportunity.

Now, to remedy their own bad decision, they try to frame cryptx' behavior as bad for investors, while really only speculators like themselves are negatively affected by a short term reinvestment if all profits and a long-term value increase by increases in the total hashrate. Clearly, they try to get people to sell their PETA shares, thereby lowering the price and giving speculators the chance to put their funds back into PETA at lowered share prices. Remember: speculators mainly care about share price changes! With a market this thin, they can easily affect the price and will want to do so, if they feel they missed out on something by making a bad decision.

Sadly, it seems to be working and the speculators seem to be getting away with their method: first, scryptx share price went down, indicating people sold to get free capital to move back into PETA. Now, PETA's share price is also down, indicating that investors are actually fooled by the guesstimates and statements around here and selling their shares. I believe, the shares are happily picked up by speculators who move back into PETA shortly before the ipo.

One last thing (edit): if you are unhappy, you are free to sell your shares on the market. No need to complain and try to influence others. They will see the sentiment just by looking at the share price.

So basically no, you are not selling electricity to yourself (or at least not a significant amount).

How much do you pay for electricity per kwh?

We have a 350,000 Watt solar facility at site, which is owned by another company of us. To give you all an idea what this means:

In Belgium a 350kW installation has a yearly revenue of about 300,000 Kwh. The PetaMine consumes about 500 kw or 1285 kw after IPO (500*1 + 1000*0.785), this means between 4,380,000kwh and 11,256,600kwh each year. This is without any growth!

So our own electricity is only between 6.8% and ?? 1,1% of all electricity needed. What do you think such an installation costs?

cost$/Gh/s is on an inverse trend to Difficulty
there is currently not enough asic manufacturing capacity in the world to maintain the current doubling rate of the difficulty, as indicated by http://bitcoin.sipa.be/speed-ever.png
$/BTC has historically kept going up, this impacts how much Gh/s each BTC buys
combining these factors, PETA is setting itself up to become the most profitable investment option available
with PETA current strategy, each share will continue to grow in corresponding Gh/s, giving you the most secure mining investment
PETA's current profit margin is 20% of mined revenue, they have shown that they are willing to adjust their hosting fee as their operations grow, altho some who only seek short term profits may think they have acted in self-interest when they decided to grow the operation by releasing more ipo and halting dividends the case is that their action will actually benefit all investors with greater returns and better odds of successfully operating indefinitely.



interests do align, they need to maintain and grow the hashrate network share to continue being profitable
this will always benefit investors in the long run

It was a poor decision to give petas profits through hosting fees that they determine.

I think it would have been better if they held a portion of petamine shares so at least their interests would align with their investors.

Agree with you there.


Peta-mines next miners are same architecture as in megabigpowers washington farm, in fact as far as i know cryptxs are rev 2 whilst mbp was still using rev 1 -- so peta equipment 25% *more* efficient, not 1/5th

unless you are talking about electricity. Belgium is not a competitive place for electricity. it's well known. However who said cryptx is paying 0.25 for electricity? If this was the case where would you propose they are earning profits from, not holding shares?

Their farm working with renewable sources via their subsidiaries as pointed out above. last was mentioned 350kw solar installation. Hence the 0.25 is the 'all in' fee you get for the convenience of the hosted mining . Last mining fee was ~23% of btc mined with BTC at $450, if $/BTC rate goes up this amount would decline

there is allot of cost inefficiency called profit in everything on the market, you would be surprised at the kind of markup they can pull off on certain things

PETA will continue to reduce the cost as their operation grows, economies of scale
i think 20% margin is fair at its current size (calculated based on 0.25$/kwh assuming 0.05$/kwh actual electricity cost)