Which will produce more revenue??



  • If you could rent, for $1, any one of these miners, which would you choose and why?

    1. 100TB of plots. The scan time is 50 seconds.

    2. 200TB of plots. The scan time is 100 seconds.

    3. 300TB of plots. The scan time is 150 seconds.

    4. 400TB of plots. The scan time is 200 seconds.

    5. 500TB of plots. The scan time is 250 seconds.

    6. 600TB of plots. The scan time is 300 seconds.

    7. 700TB of plots. The scan time is 350 seconds.

    8. 800TB of plots. The scan time is 400 seconds.

    9. 900TB of plots. The scan time is 450 seconds.

    10. 1000TB of plots. The scan time is 500 seconds.



  • @rds I would rent #10 simply because of the available DL's to be found... Granted it is 10x slower but I do not think that would outway the amount of DL's you will find with such a large miner configuration. As i said "I think" because I do not know that to be the case. Why are you selling rentals? Lol



  • @rds i find myself agreeing with @kingcajun on this. The more possible deadlines available to be found would easily outweigh the speed to scan the files as block times can vary greatly and some are sub one minute, whilst others take well over 10 minutes



  • humm #5 or #10 ........ in theory burst has a 4 min block time 240 seconds because of this id chose #5 as there would be no need to have higher capacity and a longer scan time. But in reality we know that even thou the average block time is 4 min over the long term, the actual block times very wildly i personaly have seen as low as 1 second and even as high as 50 min befor so for this id choose #10 because even thou on average the block will change befor its finished scanning its nice to have those extra plots when that long block rolls around



  • I did however forget to ask how long the rental period was, as if it is for the next 10 blocks only, it would have to be option 5, otherwise it would increase depending on the rental length



  • @bluebook , unlimited rental time. The reason i specified rental was so that people would not choose #10 just because of the initial cost of 1PB is so much higher than the other options.



  • Well if all of them cost 1$ I would go for the #10, but fully aware that all of the plots will not be read in most blocks... But more capacity for the same price is basically free capacity, right?



  • @gpedro . ok, right so now let's change it up. Rent is now $1/100TB. Which one now?



  • If it is in a single payment I am still betting on the 1000TB, but if the rent was monthly I would take the trouble to do an average for a few days of the duration of the blocks and then decide



  • It would all hang on the length of the rental period. In a years time from now, the block reward will be about 55% of what it is now, on a one off payment it would be option 10, but on a monthly fee i would choose option 5 or 6 unless the price of burst hit a sustainably higher price. If the price dropped, i would have to reconsider



  • @rds Then I would choose the #5 option (if recurring payments), because if you do the math you will see that most blocks will be <240s, due to every time a block takes some long extra time, it takes the network a few blocks to get the average time per block back to 240s so it will be easier to get lucky with reads up to 240s...

    Well, I'm saying this because I'm not looking at the price of the miner! Because for 1$ for 100Tb for life I would most likely still getting the 1000Tb just for the lulz... Also if it would be for life (one payment only), I think the 1000Tb is better just because after you get 2-3 blocks you should be on the green... Averaging 500Tb being read every block, that would give you about 12900 Burst per month, so with a one-time payment plan like this there would be no way of going wrong really LOL
    EDIT: Correction... The only way of going wrong would be not getting at least the 500 Tb lol



  • @rds said in Which will produce more revenue??:

    @gpedro . ok, right so now let's change it up. Rent is now $1/100TB. Which one now?

    If this was a real as opposed to hypothetical opportunity I would take out multiple accounts of probably 50TB with a read time of 25 Seconds to allow them to be scanned simultaneously 🙂

    Rich



  • The real question would be if the capacity being offered was pre-plotted under one accid and you were purchasing a % of the entire capacity, or if it was plotted on demand with individual accid's. My thoughts would be that a % of a pre-plotted capacity would yield more winning blocks than plotted on demand, as it would have a bigger chance per block of finding a winning d/l



  • @richbc It's been a long time where have you been :?


  • admin

    @gpedro What if the 1,000TB could be done in less than 60 seconds ?



  • @haitch Obviously the 1000Tb option, if there was any higher LOL Do you have a proposal to cloud mining at 1$/100Tb? That would be awesome... xP


  • admin

    @gpedro LOL - not any time soon 😉 Maybe 10TB / $1 / Day .....



  • @rds said in Which will produce more revenue??:

    If you could rent, for $1, any one of these miners, which would you choose and why?

    1. 1000TB of plots. The scan time is 500 seconds.

    1$ / 100 TB is what timeframe ?
    At the moment, a rental of 1 PB for 10$ per day would be (barely) profitable.
    Operating 1PB for 10$/day is impossible.

    Option 10 will have a higher revenue than all others.

    You will find the best deadline buried in these plotfiles after you scanned the whole volume.
    The probability to find the best deadline that is buried in this stack within 500seconds is 1.
    For 240 seconds it is 0.48 , so the "excess" volume of 520 TB is helping, just not with a factor of 1.

    For a more accurate factor, you'd need to analyze the historical block time distribution as it is not symmetrical (more "fast" than "slow" blocks). Anyone fluent in R ?