Topic: [HAVELOCK] SCRYPT 4 GH/s hosted scrypt mining project by CRYPTX - page 7. (Read 64118 times)

You seem to have the impression that is not cryptx's purpose for this project.

whats the point. thats just paying crypt x as a middle man?

I strongly suspect CryptX will decide to go with GAW miner's as this would result in more hosting/admin fee bang for the buck as far as he is concerned.

This is true. I should have clarified above that it was more of an upfront cost as opposed to ongoing...though ongoing is the more important one. It costs $324 to run a 54MH/s War Machine for a month, but at this current difficulty, 54MH/s would only generate about 55-60 LTC ($275-300). Ouch.

Obviously this isn't the best option unless we shy away from mining just Litecoin and focus on a multipool.

Those hosting/power/fees figures are per day.  ie,
Cheapest Hashlet per MH/s: $16.95 up-front, + $0.08 per day or $2.40 per month of 30 days
GAWMiner War Machine, per MH/s: $13.89 up-front, + $0.20 per day or $6 per month of 30 days.

So, plugging 1MH/s and 0W power usage into Litecoinpool's mining calculator, I get this based on current difficulty:
Expected Rewards
24 hours   0.03439600 LTC   0.17 USD
7 days   0.24077197 LTC   1.18 USD
30 days   1.03187988 LTC   5.07 USD

Clearly, GAWMiner War Machine at SCRYPT's ludicrous hosting fees is immediately non-profitable (unless you are cryptx).

As for the expectation of profit with the Hashlet...  I woudn't count on it.  It's not just about litecoin difficulty (which seems to be somewhat stable), but also about exchange rates (which are on a long-term downward trend).

Better than everything in the last 2 months.. sorry but I am happy with little steps. Better to buy overpriced A2 Miners with overpriced Hosting Fees..

Oh, ok, I didn't find those prices in their website, and, I assume, we can also benefit from a discount up to 20% by buying in bulk, looks better deal than the one offered previously.

Good question, since the whole situation doesn't make much sense when you start to break it down. We give Cryptx money, and then they use that money to buy cloud miners...making them an unnecessary middleman.

In reality, the math sort of breaks down to:
Cheapest Hashlet - $16.95 per 1MH/s + $0.08 in hosting / power / fees = $17.03 per 1MH/s
GAWMiner War Machine - $13.89 per 1MH/s, + $0.20* in hosting / power / fees = $14.09 per 1MH/s

* - 1800W @ 54MH/s = 33.33W per MH/s = 0.8 kWh per day. This is $0.20 per MH/s @ $0.25 in fees per kWh.

The hashlet is marketed toward the average consumer who doesn't have the space or electrical capacity to mine. We've got that with Scryptx, so why not just buy hardware?

I'm sorry, why is GAWMiners a good deal for us?

http://gawminers.com/pages/hashlet-prime

Nice! Hope Scrypt X is buying them. I send them an email.

Now I buy more shares.. the price will increase.

Cheers

A question which Havelock refuses to answer.  The corollaries have also been asked and remain unanswered:

1.  What conditions must be met for the issuer to be considered in breach of contract?
2.  How long may the issuer be (1) for the escrowed funds to be forfeited by the issuer?
3.  What will happen in case of (2)?
4.  How long does Havelock have to respond after (1) becomes a boolean 1?
5.  What recourse is available to the investors if Havelock fails to act?

All good, simple questions which must be answered before "Don't worry, ur monyz b held by us" becomes meaningful.

What are the conditions that must be fulfilled before Havelock releases escrowed funds to the asset issuer?

Not bad, sure, but I have one big problem with Cryptx going that direction: Do they plan on charging their $0.25 fee on top of GAW's $0.08 maintenance fee (even though they're not hosting anything)? They haven't been clear on that, and I wouldn't put it past them to "forget" about clarifying.

The fact that cryptx is looking into deals with GAW sounds not bad actually!

Those hashlets are pretty well and I'm sure its possible to get a lot of discount too.

There are lots of information here:  https://hashtrader.com/

check it out if you dont know what it is.

Can anyone comment on the Litecoin difficulty leveling off? Looks like the Litecoin price has also leveled. Therefore can
we expect to at least sustain the current dividends and share value.

Glad to see this fund isn't going the same path PETA did, although I managed not to lose any money with PETA I cannot do the same with this fund if things went the same way.

I've said this several times on this topic and sent as a comment on surveys, why aren't we using multipools?!

We are paid bitcoin, I don't care what coin we are mining!

I've read somewhere about scrypt merged mining, is this a thing?

And of course, it would be nice having CryptX around...

High degree of likelihood it was fixed imho.  Certainly wouldn't put it past CryptX at this point.  As for the 245BTC outstanding BTC I'm 100% certain you won't get any sort of definitive answer from CryptX himself.  His sha project is literally 5-8 weeks (max) from total failure, and all this more than likely vote results in is more pain for shareholders over time I'm afraid. 

@Korbman:

The issuer has been incommunicado since


Havelock's last response (note date):


Best of luck 2 U.

It appears you're confusing several separate issues as one (understandable, given you've never shown much insight to begin with):

Previous
Issue #1) Reinvestment is wholly necessary for the health of a mining enterprise. Regardless of who's behind the fund (again, a separate issue), reinvestment is the only way to maintain active growth. This isn't so much an argument as it is a fact.

Issue #2) Cryptx's piss-poor management and communication skills. Nothing more to say on this one.

New
Issue #3) A third of the original funding raised by the IPO should still exist...somewhere. Theoretically, it should still be in the ScryptX Havelock account, unless Cryptx lied to the Havelock team to have it all withdrawn. I'll save my judgement on this until I can dig in a bit more.

Issue #4) From what I've been able to gather so far, Cryptx is spending roughly $2,000 a week for a hosting fee, but given the equipment we're using the total fee should only amount to $1,500 or so (and this accounts for fluctuations in LTC/BTC and BTC/USD prices).

Issue #5) As for the vote being rigged, I agree with you there (until proven otherwise). Given the sentiment I fully expected reinvestment to be halted...but to see 2/3 of all votes sway the other way is a bit odd (I don't hold that many shares, and I certainly don't think voicing my opinion carries that much weight).