0.00001724 BTC/unit, so at current share price of .0025 that's a return for today of .689%, or extrapolated out for this moment and disregarding other variables, a yearly return of 251%.
Only in this looney tunes thread can dividends double and it have no effect on share price.
Topic: [HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit) - page 37. (Read 565829 times)
* Puppet waits for someone dumb enough to multiply that by 365 
edit: it took one minute and thirty seconds ROFL
daily dividends are in: 0.00001724 BTC/unit
What you seem to ignore is the fact how they came through. 2 or 3 times
If "coming through" still lets investors lose 2/3 of their investments in a matter of weeks, I dread to think what could happen when he no longer "comes through".
What you, Puppet and fonsie fail/refuse to acknowledge is that Peta has come through 2 or 3 times now for its shareholders when the circumstances changed. Mining is a tough business for sure - preorder delays, massive increases in network hashrate, etc - but it seems to me Peta has done a good job of looking after its shareholders. Certainly better than most operations I've been watching. That's why I held on to some shares.
Too bad they gave up posting here, but I can't blame them for that.
Strongly disagree. Please give 1 example where cryptx has "come through" for it's shareholders?Too bad they gave up posting here, but I can't blame them for that.
Do agree with the too bad they gave up posting here comment, but also disagree with can't blame them for that. There's a really good reason they aren't posting here anymore imho. proverbial cat's outta the bag you might say.
What you, Puppet and fonsie fail/refuse to acknowledge is that Peta has come through 2 or 3 times now for its shareholders when the circumstances changed. Mining is a tough business for sure - preorder delays, massive increases in network hashrate, etc - but it seems to me Peta has done a good job of looking after its shareholders. Certainly better than most operations I've been watching. That's why I held on to some shares.
Too bad they gave up posting here, but I can't blame them for that.
Too bad they gave up posting here, but I can't blame them for that.
What you seem to ignore is the fact how they came through. 2 or 3 times they had to find new victims to save the old ones. This will stop eventually, people learn from their mistakes, some faster than others. It seems you are more of a slow learner.
^Hi, doing this over coffee, so I could be off, but a couple of niggling corrections:
1. I think you left off a zero on the price, should be .0008?
1. I think you left off a zero on the price, should be .0008?
Indeed. So many zero's its tough to keep track off.
Quote
2. The sum total of dividends per share is unlikely to start decreasing, as it does in your chart...
Obviously, but at that point dividends are equal to or less than mining fees, from which point there wont be any dividends anymore and the remaining share value will approach zero. Some will argue the hardware still has resale value, but at that point, that will be peanuts. Moreover, shareholders do not own the hardware, they own the mining revenue minus fees. Ie, nothing at that point.
What you, Puppet and fonsie fail/refuse to acknowledge is that Peta has come through 2 or 3 times now for its shareholders when the circumstances changed. Mining is a tough business for sure - preorder delays, massive increases in network hashrate, etc - but it seems to me Peta has done a good job of looking after its shareholders. Certainly better than most operations I've been watching. That's why I held on to some shares.
Too bad they gave up posting here, but I can't blame them for that.
Too bad they gave up posting here, but I can't blame them for that.
^Hi, doing this over coffee, so I could be off, but a couple of niggling corrections:
1. I think you left off a zero on the price, should be .0008?
2. The sum total of dividends per share is unlikely to start decreasing, as it does in your chart...
...if my assumption that Havelock has no mechanism for distributing negative dividends is correct. It is, of course, far from certainty--Havelock's own charts suggest that it is, indeed, possible for shareholders to owe it money:
1. I think you left off a zero on the price, should be .0008?
2. The sum total of dividends per share is unlikely to start decreasing, as it does in your chart...
...if my assumption that Havelock has no mechanism for distributing negative dividends is correct. It is, of course, far from certainty--Havelock's own charts suggest that it is, indeed, possible for shareholders to owe it money:
I'm no-longer a shareholder. My point is that Puppet bags securities to pick up shares and then sells when he shuts up.
Wait, werent you a self proclaimed long term holder? Clearly you were not, just as I said, you were just trying to make me shut up, boost the price and get out before everyone else. Oh, and then try to paint me as having a hidden agenda. Hypocrite.
BTW, its hilarious if I post frequently people see that as proof of me shilling and beg me to shut up. When I got other stuff to do and basically all my points have already been proven, the same people see that as more proof I was shilling. Tough crowd. But if you think I hold a single satoshi in peta, you are delirious.
Here, some updated charts:
Still using the same 7% / Week growth - 3% week growth deceleration assumption:
0.008/BTC would seem like a reasonable price, 3x lower than the current market price.
BTW, if you think difficulty will grow substantially slower, buy all the antminers you can find and get rich.
Am I really the only one that noticed Puppet stopped posting here once that 2500 share bid wall @ .021 was sold into?
Perhaps he's just waiting for you to prove him wrong with some actual numbers, instead of endless pumping of your own shares....? Think about it...
In the mean time for those who don't wanna loose their BTC:
The following also applys to PETA... http://bitcoin.equipment/
I'm no-longer a shareholder. My point is that Puppet bags securities to pick up shares and then sells when he shuts up.
Not sure if that's the way to do it, talking it down with numbers that are accurate, then buy some shares and hope for a magick fairy to make PETA a good investment.
It would have been a better idea to buy them cheap and then start telling people that PETA also has a donkey shitting bitcoins, then SELL.
Even if he just wanted to trade a bit, I do hope people read back a few pages on forums, so they still read what he said.
Am I really the only one that noticed Puppet stopped posting here once that 2500 share bid wall @ .021 was sold into?
Perhaps he's just waiting for you to prove him wrong with some actual numbers, instead of endless pumping of your own shares....? Think about it...
In the mean time for those who don't wanna loose their BTC:
The following also applys to PETA... http://bitcoin.equipment/
I'm no-longer a shareholder. My point is that Puppet bags securities to pick up shares and then sells when he shuts up.
Am I really the only one that noticed Puppet stopped posting here once that 2500 share bid wall @ .021 was sold into?
Perhaps he's just waiting for you to prove him wrong with some actual numbers, instead of endless pumping of your own shares....? Think about it...
In the mean time for those who don't wanna loose their BTC:
The following also applys to PETA... http://bitcoin.equipment/
So CEX's price per GHS is ~0.00627. Since Peta is now pretty much equivalent to CEX in operation, the current price of ~0.003 for a Peta GHS is a bargain!!
The Peta maintenance fee is lower by my calculations as well:
CEX = 20c per GHS / Month
Peta = 16.4c per GHS / Month (Based on 1150TH @ $625 / BTC)
The Peta maintenance fee is lower by my calculations as well:
CEX = 20c per GHS / Month
Peta = 16.4c per GHS / Month (Based on 1150TH @ $625 / BTC)
Am I really the only one that noticed Puppet stopped posting here once that 2500 share bid wall @ .021 was sold into?
On the subject of Scryptx, the prospectus says:
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
It only sold 3 GH/s of a total 10 GH/s available.
If there's 10gh/s available though, what is it doing now? I doubt it's not online because they couldn't sell it. So is cryptx mining with it and keeping the proceeds? Should this not be disclosed if this is the case considering the fund promised to be a mining fund based on 10gh/s?
It's dishonest to say that you're buying into a fund "with 10gh/s capability" and then only use some of it because you didn't sell as many shares as you wanted. It would have been accurate to say that you're buying a share that is pegged to an exact hash rate, but so far as I can tell, they didn't say that. Saying it's a 10gh/s fund makes it sound like you're buying into 10gh/s, regardless of the number of shares sold; not a fund that has a predetermined value where only as much hash power will be brought online as they sell in an IPO based an a predetermined value per gh/s.
That's my take on it anyway.
Obviously, if they have 10gh/s capability and it was deployed for the fund, return on investment would skyrocket and the price of the fund would follow. It seems to me that's what should be done, since that's what was (ostensibly) promised.
Not sure what the problem is. It says 'with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power." (ie dependent on maximum possible shares being sold) If it said minimum perhaps things would be different.
IPO funds were used to purchase proportional amount of hashrate. By this argument If 1 share were sold cryptx would be paying out of pocket for one lucky shareholder to earn 10GH worth of mining in divs (of course an exaggeration) . Anyway, SCRYPT topic is more suitable to air these concerns.
Ok, that's what I was missing. It doesn't say anywhere that IPO funds were used to purchase proportional hashrate. Perhaps that's a given, but I'm new to cloud mining, so I don't know what is standard procedure and only know what is explicitly stated. But this makes sense to me now. Thanks for your help.
On the subject of Scryptx, the prospectus says:
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
It only sold 3 GH/s of a total 10 GH/s available.
If there's 10gh/s available though, what is it doing now? I doubt it's not online because they couldn't sell it. So is cryptx mining with it and keeping the proceeds? Should this not be disclosed if this is the case considering the fund promised to be a mining fund based on 10gh/s?
It's dishonest to say that you're buying into a fund "with 10gh/s capability" and then only use some of it because you didn't sell as many shares as you wanted. It would have been accurate to say that you're buying a share that is pegged to an exact hash rate, but so far as I can tell, they didn't say that. Saying it's a 10gh/s fund makes it sound like you're buying into 10gh/s, regardless of the number of shares sold; not a fund that has a predetermined value where only as much hash power will be brought online as they sell in an IPO based an a predetermined value per gh/s.
That's my take on it anyway.
Obviously, if they have 10gh/s capability and it was deployed for the fund, return on investment would skyrocket and the price of the fund would follow. It seems to me that's what should be done, since that's what was (ostensibly) promised.
Not sure what the problem is. It says 'with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power." (ie dependent on maximum possible shares being sold) If it said minimum perhaps things would be different.
IPO funds were used to purchase proportional amount of hashrate. By this argument If 1 share were sold cryptx would be paying out of pocket for one lucky shareholder to earn 10GH worth of mining in divs (of course an exaggeration) . Anyway, SCRYPT topic is more suitable to air these concerns.
On the subject of Scryptx, the prospectus says:
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
It only sold 3 GH/s of a total 10 GH/s available.
If there's 10gh/s available though, what is it doing now? I doubt it's not online because they couldn't sell it. So is cryptx mining with it and keeping the proceeds? Should this not be disclosed if this is the case considering the fund promised to be a mining fund based on 10gh/s?
It's dishonest to say that you're buying into a fund "with 10gh/s capability" and then only use some of it because you didn't sell as many shares as you wanted. It would have been accurate to say that you're buying a share that is pegged to an exact hash rate, but so far as I can tell, they didn't say that. Saying it's a 10gh/s fund makes it sound like you're buying into 10gh/s, regardless of the number of shares sold; not a fund that has a predetermined value where only as much hash power will be brought online as they sell in an IPO based an a predetermined value per gh/s.
That's my take on it anyway.
Obviously, if they have 10gh/s capability and it was deployed for the fund, return on investment would skyrocket and the price of the fund would follow. It seems to me that's what should be done, since that's what was (ostensibly) promised.
On the subject of Scryptx, the prospectus says:
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
It only sold 3 GH/s of a total 10 GH/s available.
On the subject of Scryptx, the prospectus says:
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."
If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.
This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."
So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?
Jump to: