Which will produce more revenue??
Energy last edited by
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
Bluebook last edited by
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
gpedro last edited by gpedro
@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
RichBC last edited by
@gpedro . ok, right so now let's change it up. Rent is now $1/100TB. Which one now?
If this was a real as opposed to hypothetical opportunity I would take out multiple accounts of probably 50TB with a read time of 25 Seconds to allow them to be scanned simultaneously :-)
Bluebook last edited by
The real question would be if the capacity being offered was pre-plotted under one accid and you were purchasing a % of the entire capacity, or if it was plotted on demand with individual accid's. My thoughts would be that a % of a pre-plotted capacity would yield more winning blocks than plotted on demand, as it would have a bigger chance per block of finding a winning d/l
HiDevin last edited by
@richbc It's been a long time where have you been :?
@gpedro What if the 1,000TB could be done in less than 60 seconds ?
gpedro last edited by
@haitch Obviously the 1000Tb option, if there was any higher LOL Do you have a proposal to cloud mining at 1$/100Tb? That would be awesome... xP
@gpedro LOL - not any time soon ;-) Maybe 10TB / $1 / Day .....
vaxman last edited by vaxman
If you could rent, for $1, any one of these miners, which would you choose and why?
- 1000TB of plots. The scan time is 500 seconds.
1$ / 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 ?