Pages:
Author

Topic: Starting a new FPGA mining farm/contract! Cognitive Resurrected on[Havelock] - page 24. (Read 300744 times)

sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 250
dunchy /at/ vmail.me

vote:no

more than 4,000 shares voted no. sorry but your vote it meaningless at this point. garr is going to have to sell the units off asap.

I'm not sure I'm getting you ? I just wanted to reply to MilkyLep's post to support auditing of votes. I voted immediately after I received the email.
vip
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
dunchy /at/ vmail.me

vote:no

more than 4,000 shares voted no. sorry but your vote it meaningless at this point. garr is going to have to sell the units off asap.
sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 250
dunchy /at/ vmail.me

vote:no
full member
Activity: 213
Merit: 102
Maybe a shareholder would want to devote a certain email to "audit"  the votes?

[email protected]
hero member
Activity: 583
Merit: 500
Bitcoin for all & all for Bitcoin
Maybe a shareholder would want to devote a certain email to "audit"  the votes?
sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 250
How the votes look so far ?
vip
Activity: 840
Merit: 1000
You people have delusions of grandeur.  We should all be voting for liquidation.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority is.
member
Activity: 109
Merit: 10
You people have delusions of grandeur.  We should all be voting for liquidation.
legendary
Activity: 947
Merit: 1008
central banking = outdated protocol
no news for the weekend? Huh

It'd be nice to get some updates from Garret or Samuel. We are currently at around 15Th/s  according to these charts http://cognitivemining.com/charts/
legendary
Activity: 1057
Merit: 1000
The Experience Layer of the Decentralized Internet
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1033
Question Goat, but why aren't you looking to remove Garr and possibly put yourself forward to manage COG? I don't want to be stirring here, but have you zero interest in a constructive outcome that involves restructuring the entire operation?

Ehm, managing it requires:

 * renting space
 * paying for cooling and heating
 * hiring somebody to manage devices
 * doing currency conversions
 * logistics

That's a lot of work, and it's not clear if it can be profitable at this point...

You see, when Garr was managing it as a hobby of sorts we had many of these things more-or-less for free, but it clearly doesn't work now. You need more professional approach to get good results, and that requires money. While, on the other hand, difficulty is pretty high now and gets higher and higher.

Talking specifically about Goat, he has a lot of bitcoins... Do you think it makes sense to waste a lot of time to get a tiny profit out of a mining operation when you're in such a position?

Nope. It makes a lot more sense to liquidate it ASAP and forget about it.
hero member
Activity: 809
Merit: 501
Always verify deals with me through my public key!

I'll be voting to keep the operation going.
I hope that in a few months there will be a COG.F3 to keep us going forward.

Problem is Garr will keep stealing (unless he either is jailed or runs) and no one will invest into this operation. You are more or less wanting a Ponzi type operation but the problem is, no more fools will join.

Take what you can now.

Question Goat, but why aren't you looking to remove Garr and possibly put yourself forward to manage COG? I don't want to be stirring here, but have you zero interest in a constructive outcome that involves restructuring the entire operation?

Anyway....almost there, but not counting my chickens yet till we have 24+ hours of operation at +17:
128 seconds   17.43 Th/s   519374

Garr, we'll need an update on how many miners are operating and where they are at. Also, your last motion didn't have a start and end time, so some discussion on how to progress electricity costs would be in order.
sr. member
Activity: 299
Merit: 250

My vote : NO

You'll have to reply to the email he sent out to vote.

Also, we have movement on Eligius.
New machines seem to be running at 1.6 TH/s. Our 256 second average is 10 TH/s.


Oh really ? Don't say ?

I'll bite here although I'm obviously speaking to a shill account. All your calculations are essentially flawed because of the following ruthless facts that are in front of your nose:

- The OP of this operation is performing a theft, which became obvious as of moment when Havelock stopped the trading.
- There never was a bug in the hardware we purchased.
- We will not start mining. Ever.
- When Goat's cavalry kicks in only dust will be left.

So people, be reasonable, take your 10% that's left of your investment, learn your lesson and leave the rest to Garr to enjoy it in hell.

EDIT:

The only other way out of this mess would be to:
-  Find a reliable person who's integrity and actions can revive the share price
- Make Garr IMMEDIATELY transfer all Cognitive's assets to this person.

But I don't see anyone crying to take his place. Therefore: END THIS.

full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
Thank you so much robitnik, all that makes sense to me now.

I'll be voting to keep the operation going.
I hope that in a few months there will be a COG.F3 to keep us going forward.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Robitnik, I'm really greatful for your summarizing the history.

I think that the crux of what I don't understand is here:

If COG.F/2 shares were instantly converted to ordinary shares at the time of purchase (i.e. when we made the deal for the hardware), the value of the hardware per share would have been 650/14420 = 0.045 BTC per share.

that means that when we made the deal for the hardware, each 5 BTC COG.F2 share immediately became 20 x 0.045 = 0.9 BTC worth of COG shares?
Because the investment of COG.F2 investors was dissolved with previous COG owners? Is that fair?

No problem. It's a complicated situation.

If they were converted immediately (they weren't) they would have been worth that much in hardware. The share price is usually worth more than just the price of the hardware though. COG.F and COG.F2 were essentially a bet that the share price would be greater than 0.25 BTC when they converted which seemed very plausible at the time. There are a few factors that run the price up.

That hardware (if it was running) produces bitcoins, so the dividend yield increases the price of a share.
Acting as a group allows us to make better deals (i.e. the $500 discount per unit) than if we were buying alone, this increases the share price.
Because we have many machines running rather than say just 1 each, a single machine's failure is not catastrophic & the risk is spread.
We have an economy of scale when it comes to other things like hosting, power and management which all add to the value.

As I said in a previous post, historical data for BTC mining securities suggest that people typically value an asset like this at between 3 and 10 times its annual yield (an "interest rate" of 10-30% in BTC terms).
i.e. if the dividend changes, the share price will change to ensure the following is true: 0.3 > ((weekly div)*52/(share price)) < 0.1
This has generally been the case with some exceptions resulting in spikes up and down depending on the disaster of the week.

At the current difficulty, 20 TH/s (if running) will produce ~14 BTC per week which (after reinvestment) yields 0.5 mBTC per week. If there was faith in Cognitive going forward, that would traditionally have supported a share price of between 0.078 and 0.26 BTC per share. We also have another 10 TH/s to be delivered.

Where it went wrong was Garrett waiting too long for the Washington data center. The second Cointerra started delivering, we should have been deploying. There should have been an intermediary datacenter in place beforehand. That's what is being done now. If we decide to keep this show going, we'll have to take measures to ensure something like that doesn't happen again. As I said elsewhere, I expect the difficulty growth rate to slow, which means our current hardware will be running (and paying off) for quite a while. If we can manage even one more good deal and deploy it quickly, Cognitive will be set for a long time.

But all that depends on whether shareholders decide to liquidate now for ~0.02 BTC per share or not. If cog keeps going, it will also depend on us figuring out a better way to manage it. YoYa suggested setting up a board consisting of Finance, Mining and PR which seems like a good idea to me.
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
Robitnik, I'm really greatful for your summarizing the history.

I think that the crux of what I don't understand is here:

If COG.F/2 shares were instantly converted to ordinary shares at the time of purchase (i.e. when we made the deal for the hardware), the value of the hardware per share would have been 650/14420 = 0.045 BTC per share.

that means that when we made the deal for the hardware, each 5 BTC COG.F2 share immediately became 20 x 0.045 = 0.9 BTC worth of COG shares?
Because the investment of COG.F2 investors was dissolved with previous COG owners? Is that fair?
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
...
However, I'd like to know roughly how much percentage of mining revenues these hosting expenses would be.
...

I'd like to see those numbers too.


Edit: I answered before thinking. Actually that does not make perfect sense. If ~650 BTC were needed to raise the required dollar amount, and if we sold the hardware for ~300 BTC now, that accounts for a 50% loss, not a 90% loss.

The best I can describe it is as follows (bear in mind, I'm working from memory here so the numbers might be a little off).

In dollar terms:
We bought 14 units for ~$78,000 which is $5,500 each (discounted from $6,000).
We will receive a total of ~22 units currently valued at ~$8,000 each for a total of ~$176,000
This is a 225% profit in dollar terms.

In bitcoin terms:
We bought 14 units for ~650 BTC which is 46 BTC each. [ 1 BTC = $120 ]
We will receive a total of ~22 units currently valued at ~15 BTC ($8,000) each for a total of 330 BTC. [ 1 BTC = $520 ]
This is a ~50% loss in BTC terms purely from the increase in the $/BTC rate.

If COG.F/2 shares were instantly converted to ordinary shares at the time of purchase (i.e. when we made the deal for the hardware), the value of the hardware per share would have been 650/14420 = 0.045 BTC per share. Now it is 330/14420 = 0.023 BTC per share. Which is a roughly 50% drop in terms of BTC.

The profit in bitcoin terms here is clearly not in selling hardware but in mining with it if we have it in hand. You can see those calculations in previous posts.
newbie
Activity: 57
Merit: 0
I rather have my 50-70% investment right now than 80-100% in 8 months...

There is so many opportunities around, it makes me sick to know that I wasted 9 months for 90% loss and promises.

+1

Sell everything and end this catastrophe already
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1131
The problem is that the CT hardware was priced in dollars. At the time 1 BTC was worth ~$120.
Thank you, that makes perfect sense now.
I think I'm going to vote "YES" for the reserve fund to cover hosting expenses. However, I'd like to know roughly how much percentage of mining revenues these hosting expenses would be.
Edit: I answered before thinking. Actually that does not make perfect sense. If ~650 BTC were needed to raise the required dollar amount, and if we sold the hardware for ~300 BTC now, that accounts for a 50% loss, not a 90% loss.

I rather have my 50-70% investment right now than 80-100% in 8 months...

There is so many opportunities around, it makes me sick to know that I wasted 9 months for 90% loss and promises.
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
The problem is that the CT hardware was priced in dollars. At the time 1 BTC was worth ~$120.

Thank you, that makes perfect sense now.
I think I'm going to vote "YES" for the reserve fund to cover hosting expenses. However, I'd like to know roughly how much percentage of mining revenues these hosting expenses would be.

Edit: I answered before thinking. Actually that does not make perfect sense. If ~650 BTC were needed to raise the required dollar amount, and if we sold the hardware for ~300 BTC now, that accounts for a 50% loss, not a 90% loss.
Pages:
Jump to: