Quote from: Mabsark on January 26, 2015, 08:26:34 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on January 26, 2015, 07:53:26 AM

Quote from: Mabsark on January 26, 2015, 06:38:17 AM

That's pretty silly as the maths will show that cloud mining is more profitable for most people.

I would like to see those maths. From what I have seen, the investor, for the most part, has had a choice of either unprofitable or ponzi scheme.

I posted this the other day:

Quote from: Mabsark on January 24, 2015, 12:10:13 PM

If you can get legitimate cloud mining contracts for cheaper than the cost of a physical miner, then you'd also make a profit from cloud mining too.

You could currently buy 1700 Gh/s of AMHash off Havelock for less than 0.00097499 BTC/Gh, so less than 1.657483 BTC for 1700 Gh.
AMHash charges 0.001551 USD/Gh/day for maintenance. For 1700 Gh, that's 2.6367 USD.

An SP20 is currently selling for 479 USD. At 235 USD/BTC, that's 2.03829787 BTC. You also need to pay for shipping and a PSU.
The SP20 does 1700 Gh/s (customers say about 1500-1600) and consumes 1200 W.
That gives 0.00119900 BTC/Gh and 28.8 kWh used daily.
With an electricity cost of 0.1 USD/kWh, that gives a daily running cost of 2.88 USD.

The SP20 can also be underclocked to 1176 Gh/s using 639W.
That gives 0.00173325 BTC/Gh and 1.54 USD daily running cost or 0.001310 USD/Gh/day.

You are more likely to profit from legitimate cloud mining than you are from mining bitcoins at home or even if you get you miner hosted.

I was unaware. I stand corrected, though I suspect it might be an anomaly.