Topic: [HAVELOCK] PETAMINE - 1,150 TH/S HASH RATE (1GH/S per Unit) - page 52. (Read 565829 times)

@Puppet:  La La Land might not be real, but Walla Walla Washington is!

Walla Walla hey!

Sure Jimmy, whatever you say. In your world even cryptx achieved 100% ROI.

I meant to say anyone who bought the cheapest in-stock hardware before march has achieved a positive ROI.

Yeah like all Bitmine customers, all Hashfast customers, all BFL customers, all AMT customers, all BlackArrow customers, all Cointerra customers,.. VMC, ... etc.  even KnC customers seem to forget their batch 1 preorder costed like 70 BTC. There may have been some miners, like bitmain customers  maybe some Bitfury's, but those are exceptions and they made tiny profits (if they have cheap electricity). The *vast* majority of asic miners paying retail prices have made a BTC denominated loss throughout all of bitcoin asic history. If you're going to argue that point, dont bother, enjoy your fantasy world.

ASICMINER was selling overpriced mining gear to ignorant/starry-eyed miners.  It was mining with self-made chips and miners, and the competition at the time of greater-than-network-growth was nominal.

Yes, even now you can [theoretically] grow an operation faster than the network growth, up to [but not including] the point when you contribute 100% of the total hash rate.  At that point, no amount of money will allow you to grow faster then the network.
Hope this helps.

@jimmothy re. "anyone who started mining before march has reached a positive ROI in both btc and usd":

wat

Are you trying to say mining is not profitable?

You know that just about anyone who started mining before march has reached a positive ROI in both btc and usd right?

ITs real simple. If you have an investment that yields less than 100%, even 99%, and you reinvest your earnings over and over in the same vehicle,  your ROI will eventually approach zero. The math isnt that hard really

There is no historic data to refute this claim, its pure and simple logic. And it does generally apply to all of bitcoin asic history. The one thing that prevents some people from seening that is the fact bitcoin appreciated >1000x in a few years. So even someone who preordered a BFL miner for 100BTC and ended up mining 20 BTC will often think he won, because he made a dollar denominated profit. And many have reinvested those 20 BTC in Monarchs and will end up mining 5 or less BTC. Reinvestment for the win.

Asicminer had increasing returns to scale for a while. Its growth outpaced the network even with sub100% reinvestment. I believe it's not the only case either although I would have to look around a bit.

Thank you Puppet, Korbman and anyone else who answered the questions I posed. It seems that like the gold-rush in the 1800's, the sellers of the mining equipment benefit the most from the mining.

dividend guess: 0.00163292
Beginning to see the light with regards to Korbman and Puppet's arguments regarding this asset sadly.  Trying to figure out where my acceptable exit-loss point is for this stock barring some seriously positive announcement from cryptx on friday. 

Which ones are those?

Great! Yes. That is what I meant when I said, "Puppet sort of answered it but not really..."

Specifically, the point you make:


THIS is where you lose me. In short, I don't believe this and would like to hear the case for it.

If a reinvestment strat was expected to ~0% ROI why would any rational actor ever do it?

Are all miners irrational or are your numbers off?

What do you do with ASIC and the historic cases which refute this claim?

Is there any investment vehicle to short PETA? If investors of PETA are not able to see what is happening here when they are being blatantly told and still refuse logic, can we get a way to make money off of them at least? The ability to short the majority of Havelocks offerings would be a money maker based on YTD returns.

Right on cue, in quick succession.  All we need now is jonsi's valuable input.

Hope  
                     is always the last thing to die.

No contradiction whatsoever. For the next ~3 months or potentially forever, here wont be a spare satoshi available for (re)investments from the current mining revenue at the current dividend split ratio.  That cryptx may "re"-invest with new funds from investors or by taking what little dividend potential is left to investors, is no contradiction, its just further proof that the concept does not and can not work.   If it did work, dividends would grow and/or there would be plenty room for reinvestment. Instead you have neither;  you have rapidly evaporating dividends that will amount to  barely ~20% of the total investment and still no reinvestments without fresh capital (or eating the remaining capital).


Ah yes, the magical white rabbit that will turn 8 BTC/TH hardware profitable somehow. Im holding my breath. Most people here are totally deluded about how "good" his previous idea's were and blind to their results. Werent you all cheering when he "offered" that loan? What good is that doing now? Its eating half your dividends and leaving even less on the table than there would have been otherwise.  Its only helping cryptx reap in more fees.


I already did a bazillion times. Like here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7347749

and here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7411291

It's hard to say. The goal is to reinvest at the same (or greater) pace as difficulty; if difficulty increases by 10%, then increase your hashrate by 10% or more. Now the question becomes "what does it cost to increase by 10%?"...to which the answer will vary based on access to hardware, cost of that hardware, and payment methods (BTC or Fiat).

Keeping it simple, let's say PETA generates BTC1.0 of revenue during 2016 blocks. If difficulty goes up 10%, it may cost PETA BTC0.5 in hardware purchases to increase their hashrate by the same amount to maintain that revenue stream of BTC1.0. 50% profit, 50% reinvestment.

That's also why I wanted to emphasize my previous point about active communication and voting. The PETA operators have the most comprehensive understanding of their current assets, expenses, and sources for hardware...which should make them the only people who can properly calculate reinvestment rates. If reinvesting 90% of their revenue into new hardware keeps them floating, then by all means do it. But if voters think that 50% is better for the company (when it's not), then you slowly start entering the downward spiral of never being able to catch up to difficulty increases because the funding isn't there.


EDIT:

Patience. I'm not on all day every day lol

EDIT 2:
I'd also like to point out that Puppet is correct, regardless of what others would like to believe. So long as commercially available hardware isn't able to achieve a positive return on its own (meaning spend BTC1 on hardware, mine back BTC1.1 for example), then no amount of reinvestment will help. Spending 100% of revenue on unprofitable miners won't magically make them profitable.

LOL!!!

Contradiction. Just as I called. Yes, this is turning out the way I called. CryptX has to and will do something along the lines of reinvestment. Contrary to Puppet's insulting insinuation that CryptX will do something deceptive, however, I think CryptX will do something beneficial. On the grounds that he has continued doing so in the past. Usually when he is quiet for a while he speaks with a new and better plan than even expected.

Now, will someone please answer my question. Puppet sort of answered it, but not really:

This is so true. Costs can be much lower on just a small batch order. Can't imaging what price are paid by projects that buy dozen miners - peanuts in regard to market price

So it looks increasingly likely the loan will in fact, never get paid off.  Cryptx isnt going to like that, he doesnt want to lose money on this himself, so here is a prediction: friday he will suggest further witholding dividends to accelerate paying off the loan  "speed up "reinvestments". That way he gets his money back, he gets to pocket another round of hardware purchase kickbacks and increases his exuberant hosting fees.  Clueless shareholders will rejoice even though the final result of this is that they  will not even come close to  the best case return I projected.

Alternatively, although it ammounts to pretty much the same: cryptx will announce a new security and offer existing shareholders a paid "upgrade". Just another way to get more BTC from the suckers since his mining gear is rapidly running out of steam.