Didn't someone here once say that the more profitable cloud mining companies are likely to be ponzis that will eventually collapse vs. less profitable companies which are more likely to be actually mining? I know PBMining had very high ROI compared to companies like CEX.IO at the time which were unprofitable since day 1. If one of the requirements of mining with a high-ROI company is to accept the very real risk that it will suddenly collapse one day then that doesn't the existence of that risk negate the expected ROI?
Or are you seeing it as just a gamble rather than an investment? If so, then it's really not that different (in fact, it's the exact same thing) as those people who play ponzis disguised as HYIPs despite realizing their nature and knowing the risks involved.
Topic: Top Cloud Miners Compared by Profitability - page 10. (Read 19634 times)
Nice list 
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Not so easy to judge. Hardware seems legit to me:)
Hashnest and Bit-x too. All other are cloudy cloudmining at least.
Even the "legit" sites can go bust like BUTTERFLYLABS, AMHASH and GAW...
Every single one of those were like Mt. Gox, hundreds of warning signs.. It was pretty obvious, yet people ignored them due to their own greed.
That greedy people have also forgot that when AM hash was raising money for the scam and Puppet & army was going to every thread 'proving its legitimacy' you were the one saying people that AM hash & Bit-X are the 'only 2' legit cloud miners around. Such a hypocrite...
Don't think I ever talked about AM hash. I'm pretty sure I never reference AMhash and Bit-X in the same post as being legitimate. I know you'll try to prove me wrong, feel free to do so if you wish.
Anyway AMhash was most likely the less obvious of the bunch.
Nice list
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Not so easy to judge. Hardware seems legit to me:)
Hashnest and Bit-x too. All other are cloudy cloudmining at least.
Even the "legit" sites can go bust like BUTTERFLYLABS, AMHASH and GAW...
Every single one of those were like Mt. Gox, hundreds of warning signs.. It was pretty obvious, yet people ignored them due to their own greed.
That greedy people have also forgot that when AM hash was raising money for the scam and Puppet & army was going to every thread 'proving its legitimacy' you were the one saying people that AM hash & Bit-X are the 'only 2' legit cloud miners around. Such a hypocrite...
Nice list
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Not so easy to judge. Hardware seems legit to me:)
Hashnest and Bit-x too. All other are cloudy cloudmining at least.
Even the "legit" sites can go bust like BUTTERFLYLABS, AMHASH and GAW...
Every single one of those were like Mt. Gox, hundreds of warning signs.. It was pretty obvious, yet people ignored them due to their own greed.
Nice list
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Not so easy to judge. Hardware seems legit to me:)
Hashnest and Bit-x too. All other are cloudy cloudmining at least.
Even the "legit" sites can go bust like BUTTERFLYLABS, AMHASH and GAW...
They may but chances are slightly less than the companies like scrypt.cc which are obvious Ponzi schemes which will run in the near future
Nice list
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Not so easy to judge. Hardware seems legit to me:)
Hashnest and Bit-x too. All other are cloudy cloudmining at least.
Even the "legit" sites can go bust like BUTTERFLYLABS, AMHASH and GAW...
Nice list
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Not so easy to judge. Hardware seems legit to me:)
Hashnest and Bit-x too. All other are cloudy cloudmining at least.
Nice list
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Better if you can mark sites in 3 divisions like ' legit' ,' Ponzi/scam' or' Yet to verify'..
Anyways Thanks for the contribution though
Note: I just added a "bitcoin price target for minimum profitability" to my table so you can see what price bitcoin needs to be for your favorite cloud miner to keep from going underwater.
Thanks for adding this:
Quote
Cloud Mining Risk Assessment:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cloudmining-101-ponzi-risk-assessment-878387
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cloudmining-101-ponzi-risk-assessment-878387
I added a difficulty increase of 0.201%/day (based on the 100 day average) to my "days-to-break-even" calculation.
It looks like most of the GH/s is overpriced by quite a bit...
It looks like most of the GH/s is overpriced by quite a bit...
Nice updated list. Please update it in the OP.
Thanks and done!
U need to update the OP in HashTalk as well...
I added a difficulty increase of 0.201%/day (based on the 100 day average) to my "days-to-break-even" calculation.
It looks like most of the GH/s is overpriced by quite a bit...
[/url]It looks like most of the GH/s is overpriced by quite a bit...
Nice updated list. Please update it in the OP.
Thanks and done!
If this is not an April Fools' joke, it would be interesting to know what miners are they using to achieve such incredible roi. Well, scrypt.cc would defend that they are trading altcoins, but what about the others 
I think they are ponzi.
I think they are ponzi.
Scrypt.cc is more ponzi then all of them together. 60 days ROI and you sell this to outsiders, yeah right.
Do you have any proof that Scrypt.cc is giving ROI in 60 days ? Then I must try them...
There is a calculator on their home page which gives you 60+ days result. Recently they had some drop in payouts but ROI s still unbelievable. No proof they mine at all though.
I am looking for ROI proof, NOT mining proof. Bit-X does not provide any mining proof either except for some vouch they got from BitFury by bribing them.
Do you have an evidence backing your ridiculous claim?
Do you have any evidence that bitcoincloudservices.com, cloudmining.website or cloudminr.io do not have their own miner ?
I would gladly accept any ASIC producer vouching for any of these companies you have mentioned as a proof they actually mine. I would also gladly accept any other proof known to man. No? Why not?
First of all, this account switching is very disturbing Marco. If you want to honestly argue, use at least one account per thread.
Now, coming to your point. What you gladly accept is immaterial. What our previous experience and logic says is important here. Our previous experience says that Asic Miner vouched for Hashie and then both vanished in the thin air one by one. It has been stated several times on various threads that what proof a cloud miner can provide to prove legitimacy beyond doubt. It is publishing their mining address & sold hash power which updates in real time. Unfortunately, not a single cloud miner that exists today does this. ASIC producer vouching is simply eye wash as it easily be gained by bribing them. Like someone said before that BitcoinCloudServices 'bought' their space in Bitcoin Foundation to show legitimacy. It does not prove anything. What is left is ROI. How can we beat the declining price of Bitcoin. That is why the list maintained by OP is important. Where you can see the real profit chart beyond this legitimacy game.
I guess there s no point arguing with you so I ll say the following. I will be here to remind you about your words when every single of these 3 ponzi services goes down. Regarding account, crazyivan was sailing these forums much before you have even heard about BTC so pls do not suggest I use more then one account and that I might be somebody else.
I didn't even bother reading it. I will now.
If this is not an April Fools' joke, it would be interesting to know what miners are they using to achieve such incredible roi. Well, scrypt.cc would defend that they are trading altcoins, but what about the others
I think they are ponzi.
I think they are ponzi.
Scrypt.cc is more ponzi then all of them together. 60 days ROI and you sell this to outsiders, yeah right.
Do you have any proof that Scrypt.cc is giving ROI in 60 days ? Then I must try them...
There is a calculator on their home page which gives you 60+ days result. Recently they had some drop in payouts but ROI s still unbelievable. No proof they mine at all though.
I am looking for ROI proof, NOT mining proof. Bit-X does not provide any mining proof either except for some vouch they got from BitFury by bribing them.
Do you have an evidence backing your ridiculous claim?
Do you have any evidence that bitcoincloudservices.com, cloudmining.website or cloudminr.io do not have their own miner ?
I would gladly accept any ASIC producer vouching for any of these companies you have mentioned as a proof they actually mine. I would also gladly accept any other proof known to man. No? Why not?
First of all, this account switching is very disturbing Marco. If you want to honestly argue, use at least one account per thread.
Now, coming to your point. What you gladly accept is immaterial. What our previous experience and logic says is important here. Our previous experience says that Asic Miner vouched for Hashie and then both vanished in the thin air one by one. It has been stated several times on various threads that what proof a cloud miner can provide to prove legitimacy beyond doubt. It is publishing their mining address & sold hash power which updates in real time. Unfortunately, not a single cloud miner that exists today does this. ASIC producer vouching is simply eye wash as it easily be gained by bribing them. Like someone said before that BitcoinCloudServices 'bought' their space in Bitcoin Foundation to show legitimacy. It does not prove anything. What is left is ROI. How can we beat the declining price of Bitcoin. That is why the list maintained by OP is important. Where you can see the real profit chart beyond this legitimacy game.
I don't own 50 million accounts you know, once again this is not me.
And you kind of contradicted yourself here:
Quote
If you want to honestly argue, use at least one account per thread.
So basically you're telling me to use more than one account? I think what you meant to say was: please only use one account per thread.Pro tip: everyone who doesn't share your opinion isn't just another alt account; people do agree on the same things sometimes you know?
As expected you bypassed the real topic of discussion and omitted my actual explanation which did not go well with you. I have included that back again within my original quote with bold
Definitely you do not have 50 million accounts on BitcoinTalk. Otherwise you would not have to work for Bit-X. But, you definitely have more than one Hero Member account as evident from this quote...
Hero Member Bitcointalk Account | 546+ Activity | 0.7 BTC
0.7BTC
Signed message from original owner available, no active loans out.
Can go to 574 activity on Tuesday (1 post now will add 14, 1 on Tuesday will add 14)
0.7BTC
Signed message from original owner available, no active loans out.
Can go to 574 activity on Tuesday (1 post now will add 14, 1 on Tuesday will add 14)
With your Pro Tip, you are trying to prove that I am wrong.
Look, I did not confuse you with tmfp, though he contradicted me. I doubted CrazyIvan, who is most likely your Alt. At least you should know I have some deeper knowledge about people in BitcoinTalk than an average person. If you have your old PM in sent item, check the PM you sent me on August 20, 2014. If this is not an April Fools' joke, it would be interesting to know what miners are they using to achieve such incredible roi. Well, scrypt.cc would defend that they are trading altcoins, but what about the others
I think they are ponzi.
I think they are ponzi.
Scrypt.cc is more ponzi then all of them together. 60 days ROI and you sell this to outsiders, yeah right.
Do you have any proof that Scrypt.cc is giving ROI in 60 days ? Then I must try them...
There is a calculator on their home page which gives you 60+ days result. Recently they had some drop in payouts but ROI s still unbelievable. No proof they mine at all though.
I am looking for ROI proof, NOT mining proof. Bit-X does not provide any mining proof either except for some vouch they got from BitFury by bribing them.
Do you have an evidence backing your ridiculous claim?
Do you have any evidence that bitcoincloudservices.com, cloudmining.website or cloudminr.io do not have their own miner ?
I would gladly accept any ASIC producer vouching for any of these companies you have mentioned as a proof they actually mine. I would also gladly accept any other proof known to man. No? Why not?
First of all, this account switching is very disturbing Marco. If you want to honestly argue, use at least one account per thread.
I don't own 50 million accounts you know, once again this is not me.
And you kind of contradicted yourself here:
Quote
If you want to honestly argue, use at least one account per thread.
So basically you're telling me to use more than one account? I think what you meant to say was: please only use one account per thread.Pro tip: everyone who doesn't share your opinion isn't just another alt account; people do agree on the same things sometimes you know?
Do you have any evidence that bitcoincloudservices.com, cloudmining.website or cloudminr.io do not have their own miner ?
Don't be ridiculous, how can anyone have evidence that someone doesn't have something? That doesn't mean you have to believe that they do, just because they say so.
These ponzi 'cloud miners' don't even attempt to prove they do actually mine.
Why should they?
There seem to be enough people willing to give them money anyway, who seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) Naive 'investors' who want to believe that they are really mining, despite total lack of evidence and ROI's which defy logic.
2) People who don't care whether they mine or not, just as long as the payments keep coming. (Like your good self).
'Cloud mining' is the perfect Ponzi environment, just make up some numbers and a website, there's no oversight, no proof needed of any legit activity, shrinking payouts are used as reasons to buy more and, of course, no comeback.
Real mining is subject to real costs and of course can't compete with the fairytale stuff on GH/s price.
That's why this "guide" is of no value, it compares apples to oranges.
You have a typical nature you know. You go to every thread and say everything is bad. I never found you praising anything. First let me know which cloud minings are pure & legit according to you and then I'll reply to your BS. Dont try to make your statement politically correct by saying 'Still it is not recommended'.
I added a difficulty increase of 0.201%/day (based on the 100 day average) to my "days-to-break-even" calculation.
It looks like most of the GH/s is overpriced by quite a bit...
It looks like most of the GH/s is overpriced by quite a bit...
Nice updated list. Please update it in the OP.
If this is not an April Fools' joke, it would be interesting to know what miners are they using to achieve such incredible roi. Well, scrypt.cc would defend that they are trading altcoins, but what about the others
I think they are ponzi.
I think they are ponzi.
Scrypt.cc is more ponzi then all of them together. 60 days ROI and you sell this to outsiders, yeah right.
Do you have any proof that Scrypt.cc is giving ROI in 60 days ? Then I must try them...
There is a calculator on their home page which gives you 60+ days result. Recently they had some drop in payouts but ROI s still unbelievable. No proof they mine at all though.
I am looking for ROI proof, NOT mining proof. Bit-X does not provide any mining proof either except for some vouch they got from BitFury by bribing them.
Do you have an evidence backing your ridiculous claim?
Do you have any evidence that bitcoincloudservices.com, cloudmining.website or cloudminr.io do not have their own miner ?
I would gladly accept any ASIC producer vouching for any of these companies you have mentioned as a proof they actually mine. I would also gladly accept any other proof known to man. No? Why not?
First of all, this account switching is very disturbing Marco. If you want to honestly argue, use at least one account per thread.
Now, coming to your point. What you gladly accept is immaterial. What our previous experience and logic says is important here. Our previous experience says that Asic Miner vouched for Hashie and then both vanished in the thin air one by one. It has been stated several times on various threads that what proof a cloud miner can provide to prove legitimacy beyond doubt. It is publishing their mining address & sold hash power which updates in real time. Unfortunately, not a single cloud miner that exists today does this. ASIC producer vouching is simply eye wash as it easily be gained by bribing them. Like someone said before that BitcoinCloudServices 'bought' their space in Bitcoin Foundation to show legitimacy. It does not prove anything. What is left is ROI. How can we beat the declining price of Bitcoin. That is why the list maintained by OP is important. Where you can see the real profit chart beyond this legitimacy game.
Do you have any evidence that bitcoincloudservices.com, cloudmining.website or cloudminr.io do not have their own miner ?
Don't be ridiculous, how can anyone have evidence that someone doesn't have something? That doesn't mean you have to believe that they do, just because they say so.
These ponzi 'cloud miners' don't even attempt to prove they do actually mine.
Why should they?
There seem to be enough people willing to give them money anyway, who seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) Naive 'investors' who want to believe that they are really mining, despite total lack of evidence and ROI's which defy logic.
2) People who don't care whether they mine or not, just as long as the payments keep coming. (Like your good self).
'Cloud mining' is the perfect Ponzi environment, just make up some numbers and a website, there's no oversight, no proof needed of any legit activity, shrinking payouts are used as reasons to buy more and, of course, no comeback.
Real mining is subject to real costs and of course can't compete with the fairytale stuff on GH/s price.
That's why this "guide" is of no value, it compares apples to oranges.
It's still handy even if you only use it to compare the different HashNest offerings (which are 100% verified).
Jump to: