Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 182. (Read 959381 times)

The donation page is not yet automatic. I updated it to show the last distribution. I know that it must be better and it will be. I wanted the important details up as fast as possible. I am sure others will be verifying the math.

Also just received an incoming transaction from the same transaction ID: http://blockchain.info/tx/ed5840c188b8aa691fd6288aee480403f2e4138531360619b7ccb0cf34985e36

Thanks !

Question; is this dividend a fair representation of the coming weekly dividends? Or was there much time lost reconfiguring different pools and the new version of CGMiner?

Nice. I just calculated out the per-share amount in today's payment and it came out 0.00131686 / 0.00140476 = aprox 6.2% "missing bitcoins" sweet

Transaction: ed5840c188b8aa691fd6288aee480403f2e4138531360619b7ccb0cf34985e36

***disclaimer, that's my own & based on 12 shares:

My payment of 0.01580232 (12 shares worth) divided by 12 came to aprox 0.00131686 per share.



... err, I meant "seat" ... lol whatever. Thanks nonnakip & OgNasty.

Yep, give the guy a break. I didn't see a lot of other issuers go to the lengths that OgNasty has to make things right.

Agreed. Also, just think, Nasty's situation is fantastic compared to Gigamining's.

 

I know things are getting a little tense here, but can we give OgNasty and nonnakip a little slack while things get put in place?  

I think there's a lot that has been on their plates with getting things established, and like everything there's some room for improvement.  Like it or not though, they were put in this position by GLBSE, they were tasked with putting together an interim solution to address the needs of existing shareholders in a quick amount of time, and I think they are doing as well as they can all things considered.

There's been a change in vernacular specifically on the "fans" site for reasons which I think should be apparent to most share holders or "seat owners".  This hasn't been spelled out on here, and I think for somewhat obvious reasons, so I don't mind this.

As for some of transparency in operational decisions being made recently, OgNasty made the decision to put dividends toward another SC when he didn't have a list, and also posted his intention of doing so on here with nearly no feedback indicating share holders being upset with this decision.  We know that this is the official message board to check for updates, not voicing your concern at that time and given the uncertainties OgNasty faced I think he was well within his rights to make that call.  For the mining transparencies, I firmly believe that OgNasty has been acting in our best accord by the sheer fact that he actively has been keeping us updated post GLBSE and worked with nonnakip to get something up and going.  He could have walked away with funds and delivered nothing with minimal punitive damage - but he didn't, and I think as a shareholder himself, it's in his best interest to ensure other shareholders are confident in operations if he considers this to be a longer term investment, which I have no reason to suspect he doesn't.  

At the moment I don't have any questions about the operations and how things are directly relating to the funds we see in donations as they aren't currently impacting seat owners, but once we have some SC's operating of course this will need to be further outlined.  In the interim though, I'm going to give them some slack to get things organized and address some of the outstanding questions.  There's only so much they can do in a short period of time, and especially in Nonnakip's case while he is a seatholder as well, he's not getting direct donations of any kind and I'm sure he put in a good bit of time into developing the site we have now, which isn't perfect, but considering we had nothing a few weeks ago and faced the possibility of no list ever coming from GLBSE I think it does at least show us the number of seats we have and give us a vehicle for buying/selling, along with seeing incoming donations (which we didn't have on GLBSE).  

(disclaimer: I don't personally know OgNasty or Nonnakip, I haven't been asked to post this - I'm just thinking we're being a little over-critical and should back off just a little while some concerns are being addressed.)

OgNasty, how 'bout a quick write-up here responding to each of these questions. More information is always desirable, and there's no reason you can't take 10 or 15 minutes and answer each of these in turn, provide specifics etc.

Thanks in advance.

@Audriux9: Assumptions are funny like that. There are women in the bitcoin community too



...



@OgNasty: Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood -- I was attempting to provide benefit of the doubt / come up with a plausible way to explain the large variance. The minus of 35.6% (transaction fee theory) from the total 44.9% discrepancy shows a mere 9.3% "missing bitcoins" which I was referring to as... well how about a direct quote:


Specific information which is more likely to be relevant:


On average, the bitcoin network produces blocks (confirmations) approximately every 10 minutes... that's 6 times per hour, 144 times per day, 1008 times per week
(by design, difficulty automatically adjusts so that the next 2016 blocks should take 14 days.)

Newly mined coins require 120 confirmations, and let's just say both pools are below the 1 BTC payout threshold
(and still at 7488 MH/s hash rate, so still 7.82 on average mined per week... at least until the next difficulty change)

Fortunately, 120 confirmations is a nice "round number" equal to 20 (twenty) hours, so it's rather straightforward to calculate how much bitcoin is found in 20 hours of delay.

... and even re-use the calculated mining rate values since the difficulty is still 3370181.79928 today:


0.0465580899537 * 20 = aprox 0.93116179 (limited to the number of decimal places supported by bitcoin's design)

And let's assume worst case scenario, so there could be up to 1 BTC "stuck" in each of the pool's payout threshold / queue systems, for a total of 2.93116179 BTC in deferred bitcoin.

(2.93116179 / 7.82175912 = aprox 37.5%)

... Safe to assume that this will roll over into future payouts (as I said before: this isn't lost, since this payout granularity is and nothing more than jitter --- none of the "missing bitcoins" would actually be lost for this particular type of variance, as it is just rolled over by the pool into the next payout)


Assuming "ways to show you" is a reference to some method or system for monitoring or otherwise collecting data about mining operations, and reliably report to the fans what is going on

... that sounds much more "fun", so thanks

Why would you want to deal with the lack of transparency and a shitty "fansite" when you can own cognitive shares which are basically the same as nasty but where the operator hasnt basically stolen all the coins mined since glbse shutdown.

-10

I could say anything.  I'm working on ways to show you.  It takes time.

Could you provide your investors with the details on NASTY mining operation? For example how much have you mined since GLBSE shutdown, how much have you spent on additional mining hardware and etc.

I do not notice any effect of unconfirmed coins to mining payout, because I do not know about any failure of your mining operation (you did not start mining first coins this week, you continued to mine all the time since GLBSE shutdown, so last week unconfirmed coins, adds to next week payout, hence weekly payout should not be effected by unconfirmed rewards, payout depends on mining capacity, bitcoin network difficulty and pool luck if any.


Would you care to explain how to include "set up mining operation in preparation for the arrival of ASIC hardware"?

@kuzetsa -> http://youtu.be/GZYhDMCOyww



Adding mining pools has 2 delaying effects on donations.  1) Mined coins take time to be confirmed before they are distributed by the pool.  2) The confirmed coins must reach the payout threshold before being distributed.  

Saying that x amount of coins have been mined during a period when you don't have access to the information of how many unconfirmed coins have been mined or how many confirmed coins are awaiting the threshold to be paid out is flawed math.



Luckily, Bitcoin is all about freedom.  You have the choice to auction your seats and stop following this operation.  I wouldn't look down on you for taking your ball and going home if you aren't having fun.

Hello fellow member kuzetsa.

I run the nastyfans fanclub. The donations received to this fanclub are available for all to see. When fanclub donations are distributed I will try to minimize the Bitcoin transaction fees so the members receive as much of their donation part as possible. I can not do any more than that. I am just a fan like you.

I have full trust in OgNasty and am excited to see NASTY MINING be a part of the evolution of Bitcoin mining. I think it is exciting that our fanclub receives donations.

Even in that case, shouldn't matter:

There hasn't been a distribution of dividends / donations since we were still on GLBSE, and the announcement date for "nasty-mined bitcoin scooped up to get another BFL FPGA with ASIC upgrade" (... blah blah blah I'm not a bank... ) was more than a week ago by now.

---

Edited to add this:



... and this:


This lack of accounting is exactly the sort situation I was wanting NOT to be in the middle of.

Could it just be you calculated the value for mining a full weak and nonnakip stated the value for 14/12/12 when he posted and not 17/12/12 of the donation day?

disclaimer: (sorry to everyone: I had previously used some shorthand & quoted bot commands without much explanation of what the numbers all meant)

Since my last post, I have rechecked all the math more than once, made a few drafts for explaining all the logic involved, and proofread the whole mess of it for clarity.

Math recheck 1)


Math recheck 2)

Bitcoin Mining Calculator:

                   Coins       |||     Dollars
               ======================
per Day     |||   ฿1.12    |||     $15.07
=============================
per Week   |||   ฿7.82    |||    $105.50
=============================
per Month  |||  ฿33.97    |||     $458.15

(Exchange rates vary on a minute-by-minute basis, so the dollars value gets stale rather quickly...
bitcoin network difficulty changes every 14 days, and is currently 3370181.79928 as of moments ago)

---

There is a real difference in how much we're mining, versus how much nonnakip states there will be distributed to fans on a per-seat basis.

Fact 1) The original post claims 7488 MH/s

Fact 2) ... and nonnakip states "donations" would go to 5568 seats.

1 week worth of mining at that speed divided down into 5568 seats would be: ***

0.0014047699568...
0.00140476 if you drop the 99568 at the end which is indivisibly small for bitcoin purposes
(rounding down to satoshi resolution. It would be meaningless to the bitcoin network)

---

Initially, I was half-asleep, kinda scratching my head, wondering what was up with these "missing bitcoins" and trying to figure it all out.
(nonnakip didn't specify anything in the post about fees... the post in question was titled "first donation distribution")

Later though, I thought to myself: "could this just be a matter of unconditionally taking out 0.0005 BTC from EVERY seat's distributed donations?"

I checked some math to determine how much "fees" were contributing to the "missing bitcoins" ... and found a correlation by using this example:

Let's say someone has 100 seats:

Sent as 100x separate micro transactions (which would recklessly, and unnecessarily spam the network with 100x as much transaction data) wastefully burning 1x fee for EACH micro transaction at a rate of 0.0005 BTC each, for a total of 0.045 BTC worth of fee overpayment, yet only giving that fan a mere 0.090476 BTC as a result.

However, aggregating the donations to those 100x seats, if done as a single transaction, now that fan can get their 100x seats worth of donations in a single transaction
(neither harming the network, nor overpaying fees)

This would be a total of 0.140476 BTC (best case is no fee)
Alternatively, minus a single 0.0005 fee, a payment of 0.139976 BTC (worst case scenario is a single fee)

Already, that's most of the "missing bitcoins" accounted for:  0.00140476 minus an unconditional per-seat penalty of 0.0005 (transaction fee) would be 0.00090476

... Now, assuming that fee is applies unconditionally to the full 5568 seats (last reported count) and then compared to full amount mined by nastymining

5568 * 0.00090476 = 5.03770368 BTC sent to fans (out of the original 7.82 mined per week***)

0.00090476 / 0.00140476 = 35.6% "missing bitcoins"
0.00077423 / 0.00140476 = 44.9% "missing bitcoins"

That's "close enough" for me I guess.

I was mining bitcoin (like all the way back in june) before I even found out about nasty

... As such, I know that a value like 9.3% isn't an unexpected variance: poor luck on the mining pool(s), fluctuations in mining rate, or just some harmless granularity error due to being between pool payout thresholds (payout granularity would be best case scenario, and nothing more than jitter --- none of the "missing bitcoins" would actually be lost for this particular type of variance, as it is just rolled over by the pool into the next payout)

That said, a 44% discrepancy from the predicted mining rate is something like 5x as much variance as I would expect, hence my "missing bitcoins" panic.

Think I got it right this time / sorry about my earlier post when I was half-asleep (oops)

(now assuming a poorly thought out fee structure accounts for the bulk of the discrepancy I spotted earlier)


*** Note: synthetic values, but still statistically expected if the measured or stated hash rate is accurate.

---

@OgNasty: Please don't label people's poorly explained math (in this case, my own) with pejorative, stigmatized terms such as "conspiracy theories" either because it was poorly written and confusing, or inconveniently threatens your agenda / ego / name / honor / etc. etc. etc. somehow or other. (see also: argumentum ad hominem  and/or  derailing)

Blindly trusting the operators of nastymining, and the fan-site is NOT MY IDEA OF FUN ... To express a legitimate concern, only to have it dismissed with "no, don't worry about it. There's no problem. Now please go away" without any attempt to work out or explain the details... Well that's just nasty (oh wait, I get it now. LOL)

1. Polls can take up to 30 days to complete if members are not voting and I do not want to wait so long until distribution. And it maybe takes multiple polls to get a 75% action agreement solution.

2. The donation total is very small right. All unclaimed seats would get only a 0.33 BTC total for this distribution.

Why can't you do it prior?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but I do enjoy reading your conspiracy theories.

...



Then where is the other 40% 45% of the theoretical mined bitcoin going?

I'm certain I did the math correctly & used the right syntax with gribble.

(edit: just looked again at the ratio between expected mining versus promised "donation" distribution)