Topic: http://www.pyramining.com/ - Discussion thread (no advertising here) - page 16. (Read 318060 times)

lets see 4btc in 2012 = 34mh/s  so  2btc / 0.00003866 BTC per month = 51733 months /12 = 4311 years hmm what a scam

I just wanted to thankyou to pyramining for ripping me off I joined in may 2012 and less then half of the 4btc is paid back

I just wanted to say a thank you to pyramining. I love the service as it has generated me a good fair profit. I am very happy with the results.
When I read this thread it reminds me just how much of a live experiment BTC is and I am glad to be a part of it.

Indeed

This really needs to be fixed!

No clue, I just tried to sell one of mine and got the same error message someone else did. And I know I did it right because I have changed my address with pyra via the same signature method.

I am not sure what you arguing about? We agree on everything except the point that this can't be fixed.
You are ignoring what I have posted that would allow this to get back on track.

If he would A) Enable new accounts so that some of us can start advertising it and B) Do something like split the excess hashing power amongst 100+ deposits instead of the 10 currently OR flip it around and start clearing out the smallest deposits to get enough funds flowing to bolster A). He also needs to be willing to purchase hardware from one of the many vendors that have equipment in stock and ready to ship. Bitfury and Bitmaintech both come to mind. Bitmaintech has a reputation of having ready to ship hardware. If he did this, and was willing to add new hardware as the funds were available, forget waiting until the 30ths has soldout, buy new hardware NOW to get your old accounts paid out, this project could have a long and healthy life ahead of it.

Us bitching about what should have been doesn't do much considering pyra has apparently gone awol. He was "on" the forum on the 14th of june but hasn't posted anything since the 27th april. I sent him a PM on the 22nd of april that has gone answered.

Unless of course he has decided to let this project slowly die, in that case ignore everything I have said above.

Its irrelevant how things should have been.  This is not how they were implemented and we all knew the rules and agreed to them by signing up.  I dont have an issue changing the rules for new deposits but that is not what has happened.  the rules changed after money was taken (and held in a queue) and a block on any new accounts being created.  I see no way to make back the outstanding coins, unless difficulty decreases by a factor of at least 100 (unlikely unless the GHash data centers fail- and even then it would be temporary).  For example, I have over 25 BTC outstanding and since he reimplemented payouts, I have received approx 0.09 BTC.  At that rate (not allowing for difficulty increasing by at least 10% every ten days) it will take me approx 45 years to receive my coins.  And with no way to create new accounts?  How is that not dead in the water?

That would be nice. It has been longer than usual that he has been out of contact.

p2pool.info has been having issues, found another site to track p2pool info
http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php

Would be nice to have an update from Pyraming...

why i cant sell my account ?

I disagree with the idea that pyramining is dead in the water. There are ways to fix this, the changes he made are how things should have been from the beginning, the way it was was a good idea it simply did not see the asic generation of mining power coming.
If he would do one of the things I laid out in a previous post it would get things going again, especially if he brings back account creation so that those that are good at marketing can bring in some new accounts as well as being willing to buy available hardware instead of creating his own.
Another project I am invested/watching petamine was able to bring on over a petahash in a very short time, where as pyra was bringing on 10ths or less every week or so.

I know why it was done, I just fundamentally disagree with doing it.  We all knew what we joined when we joined it (although some people appear unable to read a page of writing and cry foul, but you will always get that).

I would be happy with small payouts if the structure was what I paid for at the start.  What annoys me is that people complained, so he changed the entire structure for everyone, without proper consultation.  I agree that if it was left as it was, we would still be receiving small payouts, but they would be greater than they currently are, and it would be what we all agreed to at the start.

Now the idea is to benefit new accounts at the expense of older ones (and for months you haven't even been able to make new accounts).  Difficulty is continuing to rise at a massive rate and you cant create new accounts to add to the power.
Since he changed the rules, the wheels have fallen off this.  I think we ware just going to have to man up and write off any outstanding coins (which for me is a considerable amount of coins and/ or fiat!!).

This was changed because the fpga deposits were weighing everyone down. Even if he had left it like it was, we would all be seeing very little payouts.
Not to mention cost per ghs before he changed the rules, because of the older deposits from when fpgas were king and btc was sub 25$, as a socialist investment we were all getting a lot less hashing power than we could buy else where. CEX was better priced before he changed the rules.

What would speed things up is if he would do 1 of 2 things, either pause payouts for those that have a substantial fiat profit or flip things around and start paying out the smallest deposits before x date first. IMO Clearing out the deposits starting with the smallest would likely have the largest impact, I have chained accounts as well as a LOT of micro deposits, if these deposits that are 14+ months old would get cleared it would mean quite a bit of btc being deposited to another account at the current rate, this would give him more cash to buy more hardware.
I also hope this time around he will order some hardware from some of the companies that have them in stock ready to ship, rather than worry about producing his own.

It has only been 'get the hash rate you paid for' for a couple of months.  He changed the rules recently before releasing the new ASICs.

Previously it has always been a certain amount of hashing power was added to the system every time anyone deposited and all rewards were split amongst all active accounts on a ratio of what they paid for, so as time went by, new members contributed more has rate, but older accounts still got paid.  This was changed in order to encourage new deposits, which means old accounts will never be paid and you cant even create new accounts.  The whole thing is a mess.

I'm pretty sure it was 'get exactly the hashrate that you paid for'.  I paid 10btc for ~100 MH/s (at the time that was $50 for 1/3 the hashpower of a $200 GPU, so looked like a deal).  I'm sincerely hoping they don't keep the agreement exactly as I signed up for, because otherwise I'd take like 1000 years to get my payout.

When i think of on-demand mining i think of a service like mining.mbigas.com or is that a different type of service?

Actually, it won't "benefit virtually no one"... it'll benefit 10 depositors...

=squeak=

i have same problem

I think he should do what was advertised (and mentioned by others above).  Forget the bonus for the oldest 10 accounts, which will benefit virtually no one and split that hash rate across all accounts. I did not join a 'pay the oldest 10 accounts' set up.  I joined a ' split hash rate across all accounts' set up, which is what we had until recently.