Thanks @malthrax, I guess I am one of the lucky 279, I guess I will just 'wait awhile'...

@jackbox, look at the dates, the last debit_AE transactions were from Dec 23. I am looking for all my income since then.

@miningpoolhub, all my ETH balance is missing, can you please look into what happened?

See evidence in this album: https://imgur.com/a/wzKUP, I haven't made any withdrawals for over 2 weeks but my balance reset this morning, any idea why?

PM me if you need more data than just the TX IDs in the pictures. Thanks!

Yeah, sorry everyone. Charles is correct. We didn't get enough interest in time to move on this. Good luck everyone on your future bitcoin endeavors.

I will have to pay customs and taxes. We also don't know if we have to buy 2000W+ of power supplies yet either. It's nice to have some buffer. I am being open and up front about how much it costs so everyone can make their own decisions.

And here is a picture of my pre-order screen for verification purposes:
http://imgur.com/BcpNtP2

$39USD is approximately 0.04 BTC at current prices

Update: Unfortunately we did not have enough interest in time and the units are already sold out. Also, I will not be pursuing this for the upcoming non-previous-customer Neptune orders.

I am an owner of a KNC Saturn unit and have access to pre-order a Neptune.
I do not have the capital to invest $10K+ in a unit right now, but I thought if there was enough interest I could use my pre-order access for a group buy.
I didn't see any other group buys with low price shares so I thought I would see the interest

KNC Neptune Stats:
Expected Hashrate: >3000 GH/S
Expected power usage: <2500W @ wall
Expected income: Do your own guesswork for expected income. I think with expected difficulty increases if KNC ships in Q1 we could potentially reach positive ROI within 3-12 weeks, and if they ship in Q2 then positive ROI by the end of the year. No guarantees, those are just wide estimates. With BTC price so volatile we could be millionaires or we could be broke by then, that's the fun of BTC.

How would our group buy work?

• 300 shares at $39 USD per share each entitled to 1/300th of the profit
• Payout once per week of (total btc - electricity costs @ 0.13$/KWH)/300 per share
• Buy as many shares as you want
• Mine somewhere with a publicly visible hashrate such as eligius or provide equivalent to shareholders such as the pool API key to view stats.
• Decommission unit after one year warranty expires or making less than $1 USD profit/share/week whichever comes later
• I won't charge any fee other than deduct electricity cost because I would just be buying some shares too
• If >80% of shareholders request refund before shipping we will attempt to refund the unit

Why join this group buy:

• Cheap shares, why not take a gamble?
• KNC is a trusted producer, has proved they are capable of creating cutting edge units in short time frames, and has previously over-exceeded expected unit performance. All of this means the delivery of the unit itself is of little risk and most likely will hash higher than 3 TH/s.
• I am an experienced miner and can manage the unit configuration and maintenance and investor payments efficiently. I ran a GPU farm for 2 years and now have a KNC Saturn @ 284GH/s in total mining over 1000BTC (if only I would have kept them until today )

Payment:
I am not going to accept bitcoin until I can gauge interest. If you are interested in purchasing some shares, please post here or PM how many share you would like to reserve.
Once we have enough reserved, hopefully before the weekend, I will look at current BTC exchange rate post equivalent BTC price of $39USD on Bitstamp and give everybody a day or two to get BTC in and then make the purchase and provide all buyers access to order status number.

I had a June 25th paid order, and my status still says New(Payed) on the order screen and just 'Status:Paid' on the order tracking.
Didn't they say they were going to update the remaining orders with days or weeks?
Anybody have dates that ordered later than I did?

cklovias, there are several ways to overcome this drawback of the simple windows time functions. Probably the two easiest ways are using the code from this explanation http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163996.aspx, or by using the .Net stopwatch class (for your code, you would have to call into a c++/cli dll wrapper around the class, then you have to deal with people needing the .Net framework installed too...maybe make it optional?)

I like using dynamic on my main windows computer, but I have been sticking with 2.7.5 because it has better dynamic behaviour for me. I have just been thinking, 'oh well, make it until the ASICs come out and that's good enough!'

Got a chance to try the new dynamic difficulty changes and they are still less responsive than 2.7.5.
I got some numbers this time, started up a game and ran both at dynamic intensity:
2.7.5 stabilizes during game at ~270MH/s and stays at I=6 (Game graphics only slightly different than no mining)
2.8.3 at ~325MH/s and stays at I=6 (Game graphics are noticeably choppy and playability is significantly affected)
    Setting the intensity manually to I=5 results in similar performance to 2.7.5, but obviously the point of d is to not have to do that.

I should also mention this effect is noticeable in other applications than just games, like videos.

For now I am happy with 2.7.5, just thought I would post my results to help out whenever time comes to do some more changes.

For me, whatever changes happened to dynamic in 2.7.6 have made it work poorly again. It is back to being really unresponsive to lowering when I am using the gpu for other things. It will lower one intensity or even stay the same as when I am not using the gpu for something else. I am on Windows 7 with two 5870s. What specifically changed with the algorithm in 2.7.6?

(2.7.5 is running smooth, and responds quickly when other programs use the gpu, and all I have to do on that version is set the intensity to fixed then back to dynamic and I never get the negative intensity bug anymore. 2.7.5 is the first version since 2.1.2 that I can get high performance when not using the gpu for other things and still have really responsive backing off of intensity when I do).

Did anybody talk to cklovias before he left, and might now what time frame he was expecting to be gone?
Hope things are going well for him, at least as much as possible with whatever emergency he is dealing with.

Anybody else still trying to use dynamic intensity figure out what is triggering it to turn to negative intensity after running for a while? When I see it happen I seem to be able to fix it by manually using the keyboard controls to set intensity to a fixed number and back to dynamic. When I do that it seems to stay running properly thereafter, but when I renable dynamic I see this in the output:
Kind of weird it shuts down three times, plus I only seem to see this after re-enabling dynamic mode after it drops to negative. Can anyone else seeing this confirm?

On 2.7.5 I am having a problem with dynamic intensity dropping after running several hours.  I haven't figured out whether it is time related or triggered by something I do. It sounds similar to some other reports, but mine only drops to -7 instead of -9. It first happened to my second (of two crossfired) cards, so I set that to fixed intensity this morning, then when I came back this afternoon my primary card had done the same thing. So, I set my primary card to fixed intensity, then back to dynamic and that fixed it (Obviously, restarting also fixes it). This machine runs Windows 7, but I had it happen on a Ubuntu machine downstairs earlier this week. I have dyn-interval set to 30.

One comment about part /1/: I agree it is beneficial to limit paying extra credit to active miners first, but I would advise caution on how to classify 'inactive' miners. I use this pool as a backup pool, so my average hashrate is very low, and this pool would become useless to me if there was some arbitrary 'active' MH/s threshold other than '> 0'.

I think the best idea from part 1 is to limit the extra credit rewarded in a round to the amount of normal credit earned, this would automatically reward only active users, without any arbitrary minimums. I think it is also a 'fair' approach in that the rate of extra credit is directly proportional to the rate of active mining.

+1 from me.
1 BTC sent.

Thanks for the explanation, Kano. I figured it was coupled to the OS fairly tightly or else I would have been able to find some how-to googling, your explanation is a lot better than anything I found online.

cklovias, I understand that at some point you have to move on (although I don't know specifically what new feature was required in the newer version, I know you are smart enough to not just rebase to the new version for fun). My gripe is with the linux setup, not with your excellent software.

Thanks to both of you for all your work!

Kano, sent some bitcs your way for saving me an OS upgrade. Seriously, why is it required to upgrade your OS for a new version of software? Shouldn't there be an easy way to just get the new GLIBC installed on an old version?

Thanks tenzor.

@tenzor Were you running this on linux? And are you willing to share the script you used to generate these results?