Topic: Starting a new FPGA mining farm/contract! Cognitive Resurrected on[Havelock] - page 27. (Read 300686 times)

Check up historical prices and dividends. BTC mining securities generally have adjusted to maintain a yield of 10-30%, with the occasional spike up or down depending on news.



I'm not here to make friends, Goat. I'm here to minimize my losses and maximize my gains.

--EDIT--
Speaking of minimizing losses. Garr, if you're lurking, miners 3, 5 & 6 are down and 4 & 7 need a reboot. There seems to have been some power event at ~17:00 GMT

Traditional securities don't depreciate by 50 to 200% *monthly*.  This is bitcoin mining, a very untraditional security

No argument here. Garr fucked up. However, your actions are compounding the fuck up.
This is in nobody's best interest.

Agreed.
Unilateral action is not appropriate here.


A motion was raised on the 20th and ends on the 27th. The purpose of the motion was to determine if
shareholders wanted to liquidate COG or not. According to Garrett, the majority of the votes were
in favour of NOT liquidating. I'm sure we can verify this if Garr sends out the hashed results.



Additionally, mining with 20 TH/s at the current difficulty of 5 billion will yield 0.5 mBTC per
share per week in dividends. Traditionally bitcoin securities trade for between 3 and 10 times
their instantaneous annualized return. Dividends of 0.5 mBTC per week would support a share price of
between 0.08 and 0.26 BTC. Given current sentiment regarding Cognitive's future I would call it
0.08 BTC at best. This will increase as we get more hardware online and if action such as that
proposed by YoYa and SilverFuture can be taken to restore faith in the running of Cognitive.

If unilateral action is taken by Goat et al, they will, as of Monday, cost all of us a minimum of
approximately 0.08 BTC per share and any chance of turning Cognitive around.



+1
This is largely being driven by a personal issue between Garrett and Goat. No need to drag the rest of us into it.

I doubt Havelock would have stopped trading solely upon Garrett's request. Is there any evidence of this? Maybe Havelock could comment?

And that's alright, but you have to ask yourself can you save COG while bringing Garr to justice? Are your motivations rational or driven by the desire for to seek personal objectives against Garr? If you are being rational, then hopefully you will have also made provisions to salvage COG while bringing Garr to task. Do you wish to both save COG and bring Garr to justice, or is it just a desire to pursue your own personal objective?

This is along the lines of what I am thinking. There is no reason necessarily to exclude Garrett from the operation but it is clear that some experienced operators need to step in for certain oversight and finance roles. Best case scenario is agreements that avoid court action as a very last resort yet make a large majority of shareholders relatively whole. It's clear there are holders here who have skills that could be put to cognitive mining's best use.  There is no reason not to use talent that is available provided they are able to prove trustworthiness or are able to escrow some coin as Tafelpoot mentioned.  

Aye, but this shouldn't be about individual actions. You already have the means and a group to bring it to shareholders to advance your accusations, and likewise you should have faith that your co-owners of the stock will decide appropriately on your groups information and motions put forward towards the actions you feel appropriate.

At the end of the day, we should have a common goal which is the outcome most profitable to us all. Your desire to hold Garr to account is not mutually exclusive to other actions we should be taking to safeguard COG's future should we not decide to wrap it up by litigation or any other means.

Did I miss the call to arms?

What is your plan?  To take over and run Cog or write it off and just go after Garr?

Goat, shouldn't we be doing this using the appropriate forum of shareholder meetings, motions, and agreements?

You've made clear your feelings towards Garr, now let's find the means to secure COG's future by using the appropriate processes and procedures necessary to form an agreeable corporate structure going forward.

Now with regard to that, we should establish a corporate structure which would basically be an board to which operations would report. In COG's case, we are somewhat limited by the options available, but I do believe we could form a three or four person board representing: Operations, Large Shareholders, Small Shareholders, and Chairperson. Operations will be held responsible to the board, who may raise a motion to remove anyone they may feel isn't completing their duties. The board will be responsible for scheduling shareholder meetings, agendas, and ensuring that reports are published in a timely manner. The board might also be a good interface for the exchanges in dealing with COG.

Operations will consist of:
Finance
Mining Support
Shareholder support and PR
Hardware acquisition.

Given the size of the operation, it will be acceptable for one person to hold more than one role starting out. This should give us enough flexibility to secure the smooth running of the operation as well as ensuring that shareholders interests are looked after and maintained.

This is just a constructive suggestion to try and share my knowledge on the matter, any other suggestions would be welcome.

Hey, I just want to clear some things up.

I have not bailed out HashFast. I do not have the funds necessary to do this.

Eight additional units are scheduled to come online this week in the Canadian datacenter.

This will put our total hashrate just below 20th/s.

Three additional units will be shipped from CoinTerra this week, putting our hashrate at ~22th/s.

I have spoken with havelock and they have a very fair approach to resuming trading. Once the hardware comes online this week, they will make an announcement 24 hours in advance and then resume trading. I am confident that share price will regain value when this happens. Dividends are scheduled to resume the Monday after trading, which should be 31 March.

I and the folks at the Canadian datacenter are preparing everything to ensure a smooth transition and to get the hardware online within an hour of it arriving.

Isn't that what a co-op is?

I hope Garrett read the firmware feedback before changing the firmware.

I just had a great plan :
We put Garrett in jail, take the hardware (and Garrett shares), dispatch it through all members that are competent in mining, mine at a common address, distribute 100% of the profit proportionally and everyone is happy ?

some confirmation of the difficulty in running the CT hardware.

I was under the impression that the current ($0.375/kWh) place was temporary (renewed on a monthly basis) just to get our current hardware running in the short term. When a permanent and, hopefully, cheaper data center is organized, we move the hardware there. Am I wrong?



A multisig 2-of-3 could be useful here. Funds are mined to the address and it takes 2 of 3 "directors" to agree on where to send it. Of course, we're still left with the problem of finding people who won't collaborate to run off with the funds.

Double that and put me on salary. I bet I can run the other half of that CT order.

We are about to put 30+ TH/s at 1.2 kW/TH/s = 36 kW of hardware in a data center at $0.375/kWh ... we suddenly have to pay 9k usd = 15 btc monthly while earning less than 1 btc a day... the 1cogxX mined only 24.8 btc over the last 4 months.

The difficulty is now almost 5B. At a difficulty of 25B, we are running at a loss. This will happen most likely in about 5 to 7 months.
We need to have the coming 16 difficulty jumps to be below 11% on average in order to achieve a positive ROI in terms of USD ... while chances are quite non-existing that we break-even in terms of btc.

Garrett would you be willing to be responsible for the mining part, while leaving the management part to someone else?
You were still not able to give a detailed and provable overview of the expenses and income of the last 6 months and a lot of bitcoins seem to be missing in the fund.
Some external person could produce new 1cog adresses for you to put the miners to and take care of issuing the dividends.
While it doesn't protect cognitive from you pointing the miners to personal addresses, it does safeguard the reinvestment fund from you using it for personal loans (FIMB) and other projects (HF bailout).
I'd be willing to do this and even put some of my own btc with a reputable escrow to show that I wouldn't just run away with the funds.

You have neglected Cognitive at the cost of 100s of btc in market cap and also more than 100 btc in mining revenue (50 btc in October and 50+ btc last 2 months).
What are you going to do to make up for this? Your future dividends mean little to me if we have to base our estimates on that amount on the past. There is little incentive for you to hurry up if you're about to give away your gains anyway... I want fixed numbers with double/triple digits instead of 4 weeks x 20 pct (your shares) x 2 btc ...

You bailout HashFast but you'd better bailed out Cognitive and FIMB.

I think COG trading should be re-opened. Actually halting wasn't really explained.
As for COG transparency: a month ago it was more or less the same as it is today.

If Havelock knows something more then they should make it public and allow people to get out or in based on everyone's own judgement.
 

But not all datacenter are modern I suppose.
50-60% is what use a classic datacenter.


Electricity is important to run the hardware longer. Until energy usage > gain.
Cooling is decisive to run CT hardware. If it get a bit hot, some machines shut-down.

The cooling costs are usually included in the kW costs you have.
That being said, it's rare for a modern datacenter to have PUE > 1.1 (10% of power costs goes to cooling, lights, etc)
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #nwMHE0fNQbYG7Goi