Websites powered by bitcoin mining | Bitcointalksearch.org

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: DannyHamilton on October 01, 2016, 09:35:31 AM

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 03:54:03 PM

I don't agree with you that people are losing 90% of money investing in mining.
- snip -
https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

Quote from: oldmaid on October 01, 2016, 08:48:53 AM

YOU seem to have no concept of reality man.

https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

Quote from: oldmaid on October 01, 2016, 08:55:02 AM

2. 90% loss on mining is just wrong. https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

Ok, you've now posted that link 3 times, and I don't think you've read anything written there yet. You might not want to use that link anymore.

Lets take a look at what people at that link have to say (I skipped those that were trying to push the Cloud Mining scam):

Quote

Henry Berg: June 11, 2015
the total return on the project since September, 2013, is -27.2 percent

Quote

Henry Berg: December 29, 2015
at the current bitcoin price of USD $430.73, I am currently overpaying for the bitcoins I mine to the tune of USD $0.85 per day. My mine uses USD $455.56 worth of electricity to mine one bitcoin

Quote

Henry Berg: January 10, 2016
my effective BTC cost is USD $508.10. With the current market price of BTC at USD $440, it doesn't make sense to run much longer

Quote

Henry Berg: June 11, 2016
at an effective cost of $997 per BTC. Will run until the halving of the block reward next month, then take everything apart

Quote

Dan Anderson: November 8, 2015
It's a specialist game or a fool's errand at this point. . .
It's neat, but buying BTC outright is easier

Quote

John Bailey: November 3, 2015
mining is a losing proposition

Quote

Adrian Peirson: July 9, 2016
Mining isn’t generally profitable

Quote

Nick James: November 3, 2015
I would hardly see this as a profitable activity

Note that NONE of them indicated that mining was actually profitable for the average person, ALL of them posted before "the halving" when mining revenue was cut in half, and there isn't a single analysis there that takes into consideration opportunity cost.

Absolutely, and I chose that article specifically with the intention of finding one from a perspective like you have. That is doesn't work. Unfortunately you missed the important sections of the article.

Quote

Update June 11, 2016: Current mining operation is running at a loss, but whole project is now 11.6% in the black. Cost of electricity now $0.12 per kWh, mining 0.016 BTC per day but at an effective cost of $997 per BTC. Will run until the halving of the block reward next month, then take everything apart. Overall expenses so far 65% equipment, 35% electricity. Looks like my hobby paid for itself if I want it to, but so far I have not sold any of the bitcoin that I mined.

However, I don't hold it against you.

I wouldn't expect you to show the stuff that doesn't support you. Anyway the whole point was to show you that 90% mining loss is a stupid statement. I agree with you overall the loss is 5% - 20% which is what I said originally. And at that rate I still think the idea is a good one.

For example you could buy all your food in bulk and save 10% but you probably go to the store because it spreads the cost out overtime. In this case the mining is serving a purpose. Not only getting new coins but also putting those new coins in the hands of people that might believe in the system, and are going to spend them. There are so many benefits that can come from mining for a website like wikileaks and yeah maybe there is a money burn of 10% at the current time but so what. If you don't want to do it you just send your donation this is only for the people that want to. No one gets hurt.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 4801

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 03:54:03 PM

I don't agree with you that people are losing 90% of money investing in mining.
- snip -
https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

Quote from: oldmaid on October 01, 2016, 08:48:53 AM

YOU seem to have no concept of reality man.

https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

Quote from: oldmaid on October 01, 2016, 08:55:02 AM

2. 90% loss on mining is just wrong. https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

Ok, you've now posted that link 3 times, and I don't think you've read anything written there yet. You might not want to use that link anymore.

Lets take a look at what people at that link have to say (I skipped those that were trying to push the Cloud Mining scam):

Quote

Henry Berg: June 11, 2015
the total return on the project since September, 2013, is -27.2 percent

Quote

Henry Berg: December 29, 2015
at the current bitcoin price of USD $430.73, I am currently overpaying for the bitcoins I mine to the tune of USD $0.85 per day. My mine uses USD $455.56 worth of electricity to mine one bitcoin

Quote

Henry Berg: January 10, 2016
my effective BTC cost is USD $508.10. With the current market price of BTC at USD $440, it doesn't make sense to run much longer

Quote

Henry Berg: June 11, 2016
at an effective cost of $997 per BTC. Will run until the halving of the block reward next month, then take everything apart

Quote

Dan Anderson: November 8, 2015
It's a specialist game or a fool's errand at this point. . .
It's neat, but buying BTC outright is easier

Quote

John Bailey: November 3, 2015
mining is a losing proposition

Quote

Adrian Peirson: July 9, 2016
Mining isn’t generally profitable

Quote

Nick James: November 3, 2015
I would hardly see this as a profitable activity

Note that NONE of them indicated that mining was actually profitable for the average person, ALL of them posted before "the halving" when mining revenue was cut in half, and there isn't a single analysis there that takes into consideration opportunity cost.

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: franky1 on October 01, 2016, 06:33:31 AM

Quote from: countryfree on October 01, 2016, 05:25:39 AM

Yes, I don't want to be bothered with that, I also don't want to look like a loser. Excuse-me, but normal media do not beg. I'd rather follow the examples of the FT or the NYTimes which both have a paid-entry section.

though this is a concept that works in mass media. creating a pay-wall for something like wikileaks becomes a barrier to entry.
though "mining to donate" avoids the barrier to entry. the loss of potential donations due to burning funds in the middle is a barrier of utility

its like a homeless shelter being handed 10 percent of a bed to "help the homeless", because people need to saw the bed to fit through a small cat-flap on the entrance. the other 90% goes in dumpster.
many people would just not even bother shipping the bed to the shelter because they know what happens with the bed they donate.

the OP of the topic needs to seriously rethink his concept, and fill in the holes.
its not an original concept either. "bitcoin mining for goats" had the concept to hand funds to charities to pay for goats in developing countries, even when (pre bitmain) it was profitable to mine. there was still holes in the concept.

OP needs to revisit his concept and fill in the holes

There are no holes.

1. Your right a pay wall for wikileaks is stupid.
2. 90% loss on mining is just wrong. https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore
3. Wikileaks is a special case because they cannot get funding with most other means and adding another possibility for them can't hurt. If you want to donate just bitcoin you can the whole point here is just to add another possibility for people.

4. If you feel that there are holes in the concept why don't you add some advice rather then just trolling.

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: franky1 on October 01, 2016, 06:16:53 AM

Quote from: oldmaid on October 01, 2016, 02:30:29 AM

The point is to even out the flow of donations to become more like an income stream rather then a up and down donation guess. I know from experience that having a stable income even if it might overall be 5% less is worth the effort.

5% less?.. seriously stop making up numbers to raise false hope and fake promotion. please actually do some maths.

your trying to promote something without looking at the REALITIES.
in concept form anyone can say its possible for people to visit a different solar system if they do X,Y,Z. but the REALITY of achieving it is much different.

again it appears many people like myself understand your concept. understand the altruistic(selfless) intent, which are both admirable. but the reality is much different.
please grasp reality. and solve the issues of reality. then come up with a concept that works in reality

YOU seem to have no concept of reality man.

https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-making-money-in-bitcoin-mining-anymore

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: countryfree on October 01, 2016, 05:25:39 AM

Yes, I don't want to be bothered with that, I also don't want to look like a loser. Excuse-me, but normal media do not beg. I'd rather follow the examples of the FT or the NYTimes which both have a paid-entry section.

though this is a concept that works in mass media. creating a pay-wall for something like wikileaks becomes a barrier to entry.
though "mining to donate" avoids the barrier to entry. the loss of potential donations due to burning funds in the middle is a barrier of utility

its like a homeless shelter being handed 10 percent of a bed to "help the homeless", because people need to saw the bed to fit through a small cat-flap on the entrance. the other 90% goes in dumpster.
many people would just not even bother shipping the bed to the shelter because they know what happens with the bed they donate.

the OP of the topic needs to seriously rethink his concept, and fill in the holes.
its not an original concept either. "bitcoin mining for goats" had the concept to hand funds to charities to pay for goats in developing countries, even when (pre bitmain) it was profitable to mine. there was still holes in the concept.

OP needs to revisit his concept and fill in the holes

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: oldmaid on October 01, 2016, 02:30:29 AM

The point is to even out the flow of donations to become more like an income stream rather then a up and down donation guess. I know from experience that having a stable income even if it might overall be 5% less is worth the effort.

5% less?.. seriously stop making up numbers to raise false hope and fake promotion. please actually do some maths.

your trying to promote something without looking at the REALITIES.
in concept form anyone can say its possible for people to visit a different solar system if they do X,Y,Z. but the REALITY of achieving it is much different.

again it appears many people like myself understand your concept. understand the altruistic(selfless) intent, which are both admirable. but the reality is much different.
please grasp reality. and solve the issues of reality. then come up with a concept that works in reality

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 04:35:45 PM

Quote from: countryfree on September 30, 2016, 04:31:32 PM

I'm a webmaster, owning several websites, making money via advertising, and I've never asked for donations. Your story reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest who was once offered a car. He didn't want it because he didn't want to get into trouble, nor get into expenses with insurance or gas. I don't think I'd be happy if someone would offer me some miner equipment. I was once a miner, but I gave up in 2013. Sorry but I don't to be bothered, nor waste time with uncertain projects. Time goes fast so I want to concentrate on what I do best, and what I'm sure is profitable to me.

So for example you would not want to be bothered with setting up a slush account and putting the address up on your site? If no one used it OK so what. But if they did and you made more money what's the bother you don't have to run the equipment you don't have to do anything but open a account that takes 2 mins. You can't be bothered with that?

Yes, I don't want to be bothered with that, I also don't want to look like a loser. Excuse-me, but normal media do not beg. I'd rather follow the examples of the FT or the NYTimes which both have a paid-entry section.

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: davis196 on October 01, 2016, 12:39:17 AM

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 12:11:54 PM

I was just thinking that some websites should be powered by bitcoin mining. Like wikileaks for example. Because having bitcoin donations is inconsistent and the people who get those donations are just going to exchange them as soon as they can for regular money. But if the site was powered by bitcoin mining then it would give them a constant consistent income stream witch they are probably more likely to find something to do with rather then just exchange.

I was thinking of setting up a bitcoin mining account and locking the payment address to the wikileaks donation address. And then they could put up even a metric on their site showing the mining power pointed at them. It would be a way to power what they are doing and also show the faith people have in websites by the amount of power pointed at them.

I was wondering if anyone had any old mining equipment they would be willing use as a test for this?

So, you have $1600, and you have a choice. You can send the charity or website $1600, or you can buy a bitcoin miner and mine $1000 worth of bitcoin for the website.

"Wouldn't it be better to just give them the $1600 directly right away? Rather than making them wait to receive only $1000 in small increments over a period of a few years?"

Right in that scenario I'm with you. However, think about it like this instead. Let's say you buy a simple miner for 200 bucks off ebay and you point it at wikileaks. Then you find out they are doing something wrong that you don't like. You turn off your miner. Or think about it like this maybe they have many different mining addresses and you chose to mine on the stories that you think are the most important. And give them your vote on what they need to work on. This way for the next 5 years you can use your power and your skill to help power something you believe in and if at any time you feel that it's not going the right way you move your mining power to where it matters. And then imagine your example you send them 300 bucks and it's gone they decide to close up shop and leave? They decide that they are going to change their mission and only cover stories that relate to whatever is funny? Your money is gone you have no say... What do you choose?

Also consider how many people have mining equipment that isn't "profitable" anymore in regards to making money but still would be great for charity?

I don`t understand your idea.

Even if you mine btc and donate them,you will still have to pay for electricity.

You will lose more,if you mine bitcoins and donate them,instead of just donating btc that you already have.

The point is to even out the flow of donations to become more like an income stream rather then a up and down donation guess. I know from experience that having a stable income even if it might overall be 5% less is worth the effort.

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: Carlsen on October 01, 2016, 02:24:46 AM

I really don't think wikileaks would be happy if you give them old mining technology and want them to use it.
It would be some strange kind of chairity if you give somebody a tool that makes him pay more than he can get out of it.
Baisically i can only agree to what most others here have said, in most countries the bitcoin mining train has already left the station. No way to jump on it anymore.

Like I said all wikilkeaks does is open a mining pool account and post the address on their site. If people want to point their mining equipment at them great if no one does OK no harm done.

Carlsen

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 501

I really don't think wikileaks would be happy if you give them old mining technology and want them to use it.
It would be some strange kind of chairity if you give somebody a tool that makes him pay more than he can get out of it.
Baisically i can only agree to what most others here have said, in most countries the bitcoin mining train has already left the station. No way to jump on it anymore.

qiwoman2

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1023

Oikos.cash | Decentralized Finance on Tron

I don't trust a lot of these bitcoin mining sites. All those hyip and cycler programmers just moved to doing bitcoin sites just to collect more and more money in their pockets and rip off a lot of newbies. Only one geld site that has been around for eight years and is now introducing bitcoin mining I am going to trust as it is veyr old.

davis196

hero member

Activity: 3192

Merit: 939

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 12:11:54 PM

I was just thinking that some websites should be powered by bitcoin mining. Like wikileaks for example. Because having bitcoin donations is inconsistent and the people who get those donations are just going to exchange them as soon as they can for regular money. But if the site was powered by bitcoin mining then it would give them a constant consistent income stream witch they are probably more likely to find something to do with rather then just exchange.

I was thinking of setting up a bitcoin mining account and locking the payment address to the wikileaks donation address. And then they could put up even a metric on their site showing the mining power pointed at them. It would be a way to power what they are doing and also show the faith people have in websites by the amount of power pointed at them.

I was wondering if anyone had any old mining equipment they would be willing use as a test for this?

So, you have $1600, and you have a choice. You can send the charity or website $1600, or you can buy a bitcoin miner and mine $1000 worth of bitcoin for the website.

"Wouldn't it be better to just give them the $1600 directly right away? Rather than making them wait to receive only $1000 in small increments over a period of a few years?"

Right in that scenario I'm with you. However, think about it like this instead. Let's say you buy a simple miner for 200 bucks off ebay and you point it at wikileaks. Then you find out they are doing something wrong that you don't like. You turn off your miner. Or think about it like this maybe they have many different mining addresses and you chose to mine on the stories that you think are the most important. And give them your vote on what they need to work on. This way for the next 5 years you can use your power and your skill to help power something you believe in and if at any time you feel that it's not going the right way you move your mining power to where it matters. And then imagine your example you send them 300 bucks and it's gone they decide to close up shop and leave? They decide that they are going to change their mission and only cover stories that relate to whatever is funny? Your money is gone you have no say... What do you choose?

Also consider how many people have mining equipment that isn't "profitable" anymore in regards to making money but still would be great for charity?

I don`t understand your idea.

Even if you mine btc and donate them,you will still have to pay for electricity.

You will lose more,if you mine bitcoins and donate them,instead of just donating btc that you already have.

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: calkob on September 30, 2016, 05:16:15 PM

i know when i donate it is little and often, i wouldnt donate large amounts of bitcoin to charity, mostly small amounts.

if you had some old mining equipment would you point it to a charity?

calkob

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 521

i know when i donate it is little and often, i wouldnt donate large amounts of bitcoin to charity, mostly small amounts.

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: Shiroslullaby on September 30, 2016, 05:00:53 PM

Yeah honestly unless someone would be willing to make a huge investment in gear to get the necessary hash power,
its probably better for a site/ organization to just set up a donation address.

Donators can get coins from whatever means they have (mining, purchase with fiat, trading, etc)
and send to that address if they wish.
Much less work for the charity/ website.

Its definitely an interesting idea, though!

What if they just open an account at Slush and give the mining address out on the site? How much work is that for them?

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: franky1 on September 30, 2016, 04:56:48 PM

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Overall the loss is about 5% to 20% if the price doesn't go up. And with that you get the ability to have constant donations. You might not want to mine for them but I would. For example in my case I'm not going to send them any bitcoin. But I would buy a cheap miner and point it at their site. If I'm the only one then yeah it wouldn't work but I would bet that if they have a mining address up at the top of their site with a hash rate clock I would bet it would get quite a few miners.

so not only have you failed to grasp the burning of money from miners mining on existing pools and just directing the rewards towards wikileaks existing bitcoin donation address..

now you want wikileaks to make a pool.
ok here is some news. unless a pool has approximately 1% hashpower combined. its not really ever going to solve a block.
say there was 100 miners who spend 2.5btc each for a bitmain miner., they can mine constantly for YEARS and never get a block due to low hashpower to compete
meaning no donations AT ALL
meaning all them miners burning electric may not even give wikileaks a 12.5btc reward ever, aswell as literally burning 250btc combined to buy some bitmain miners.

it would require 1% of the network hashrate for a chance
so now you have developed a new concept which is even worse then the first page concept

again i understand the theory and altruism you wish to promote. but you need a slice of reality to realise how much potential donations its burning

No I didn't think about them actually being a pool but that could work also if they get enough hash power. I was just thinking that they could use a mining pool that already exists to start with. They just open an account at Slush and put the address on their site. If you want to point your miners there you can if not you don't. No one get's hurt but I think that hash clock up at the top of the site if it got big would be a real strong symbol for many people. It could show the power of a website.

Shiroslullaby

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Yeah honestly unless someone would be willing to make a huge investment in gear to get the necessary hash power,
its probably better for a site/ organization to just set up a donation address.

Donators can get coins from whatever means they have (mining, purchase with fiat, trading, etc)
and send to that address if they wish.
Much less work for the charity/ website.

Its definitely an interesting idea, though!

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: oldmaid on September 30, 2016, 04:23:26 PM

Overall the loss is about 5% to 20% if the price doesn't go up. And with that you get the ability to have constant donations. You might not want to mine for them but I would. For example in my case I'm not going to send them any bitcoin. But I would buy a cheap miner and point it at their site. If I'm the only one then yeah it wouldn't work but I would bet that if they have a mining address up at the top of their site with a hash rate clock I would bet it would get quite a few miners.

so not only have you failed to grasp the burning of money from miners mining on existing pools and just directing the rewards towards wikileaks existing bitcoin donation address..

now you want wikileaks to make a pool.
ok here is some news. unless a pool has approximately 1% hashpower combined. its not really ever going to solve a block.
say there was 100 miners who spend 2.5btc each for a bitmain miner., they can mine constantly for YEARS and never get a block due to low hashpower to compete
meaning no donations AT ALL
meaning all them miners burning electric may not even give wikileaks a 12.5btc reward ever, aswell as literally burning 250btc combined to buy some bitmain miners.

it would require 1% of the network hashrate for a chance
so now you have developed a new concept which is even worse then the first page concept

again i understand the theory and altruism you wish to promote. but you need a slice of reality to realise how much potential donations its burning

oldmaid

member

Activity: 131

Merit: 19

Krypton

Quote from: countryfree on September 30, 2016, 04:31:32 PM

I'm a webmaster, owning several websites, making money via advertising, and I've never asked for donations. Your story reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest who was once offered a car. He didn't want it because he didn't want to get into trouble, nor get into expenses with insurance or gas. I don't think I'd be happy if someone would offer me some miner equipment. I was once a miner, but I gave up in 2013. Sorry but I don't to be bothered, nor waste time with uncertain projects. Time goes fast so I want to concentrate on what I do best, and what I'm sure is profitable to me.

So for example you would not want to be bothered with setting up a slush account and putting the address up on your site? If no one used it OK so what. But if they did and you made more money what's the bother you don't have to run the equipment you don't have to do anything but open a account that takes 2 mins. You can't be bothered with that?

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

I'm a webmaster, owning several websites, making money via advertising, and I've never asked for donations. Your story reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest who was once offered a car. He didn't want it because he didn't want to get into trouble, nor get into expenses with insurance or gas. I don't think I'd be happy if someone would offer me some miner equipment. I was once a miner, but I gave up in 2013. Sorry but I don't to be bothered, nor waste time with uncertain projects. Time goes fast so I want to concentrate on what I do best, and what I'm sure is profitable to me.

Topic: Websites powered by bitcoin mining (Read 1685 times)