Mystery box: mine has specs a step up from the bottom, where of course I also hoped for a surprise that was better than the random 90% coupon elsewhere.
Still, 20 dollars for 24 months of IPv4 and being free of FOMO... better deal than a lottery ticket of the same price
@tulipyun said: Can @VirMach please clarify that the orders at the top of the queue all got 128M? Thanks!!!
@VirMach said:
Confirmed, Everything you've described so far that I have seen has essentially been what was disclosed as part of how this particular deal was specifically planned out to ensure it's randomized, fair, verifiable, and quickly deployable.
I'm very sorry that due to my bad English I didn't understand how your answer answered my question.
So I would like to try to explain my concerns and invite you to answer them.
@FrankZ said: That was me. I approved the Mystery Box offer.
Since FrankZ said he approved the mystery box, I next took the liberty of treating @VirMach and @FrankZ as informed.
As a former fan of Virmach, I tolerated their service interruptions, ip replacements, positively reported problems to them, and showed my support by purchasing the mystery box in the first place.
I don't like 128M RAM, but it's acceptable.
It wasn't until after all the mystery boxes were opened that FrankZ replied to my posting and I quote:
@tulipyun said: Got it, thanks for the explanation, it looks like Virmach punished those who purchased the mystery box first because the program that came first in line was the worst.
I told people not to buy early when the order thread was leaked on nodeseek, but of course nobody who is bitching listened.
Unfortunately, I hadn't noticed the alert before, and didn't even realize it was compromised information after my payment was complete.
What's disturbing to me is that this seems to imply that, for reasons unknown to me, the organizers pre-decided to significantly increase the odds that the first purchasers of the Mystery Boxes would get the worst possible plan.
@VirMach said: Mystery Boxes are going to begin activating. I'd say about 39% of you are going to be really mad
Based on the above data, could you kindly disclose to us the percentage of orders that were lucky enough to get 128M RAM out of all the orders placed before the official release of the Mystery Box by LET-BOT ( ):
A: Less than 39% B: 40%~80% C: More than 80% 100%
I think that would completely put my mind at rest and would welcome any additional information you can provide, thank you!
(Since I relied on a translator to complete this post, if any of it offends anyone, please believe that it was never my intention and accept my sincere apologies!)
@tulipyun said: Since FrankZ said he approved the mystery box, I next took the liberty of treating @VirMach and @FrankZ as informed.
Since you quoted part of my statement you should also read the part where I said
@FrankZ said:
That was me. I approved the Mystery Box offer. ... The plans were set more than a week before the offer link was leaked, and the order never changed from what was originally set up. ....
So nothing changed because it was leaked early. You seem to be trying to make this out to be some nefarious plan, it was not.
@tulipyun said: Since FrankZ said he approved the mystery box, I next took the liberty of treating @VirMach and @FrankZ as informed.
Since you quoted part of my statement you should also read the part where I said
@FrankZ said:
That was me. I approved the Mystery Box offer. ... The plans were set more than a week before the offer link was leaked, and the order never changed from what was originally set up. ....
So nothing changed because it was leaked early. You seem to be trying to make this out to be some nefarious plan, it was not.
Thank you for your response, I noticed what you quoted and for space reasons I didn't quote it in its entirety, which I guess is a case of poor consideration on my part.
What you specifically pointed out shows exactly when the plan was developed, and I completely agree with that.
But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
BTW I'm not in a position to prove anything, I humbly put forward my concerns and hope for a kind response, that's all.
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
@tulipyun said: But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
VirMach already answered that
VirMach said: In fact the plans that got created in the quantities they did average out to be better than the six plans previewed average for anyone who read what they were buying, and the plans were also pretty much right on the dot for being the intended average even in a smaller group of activations so we dodged a bullet on that one and no one can claim the lower quantities had a negative impact.
@tulipyun said: But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
VirMach already answered that
VirMach said: In fact the plans that got created in the quantities they did average out to be better than the six plans previewed average for anyone who read what they were buying, and the plans were also pretty much right on the dot for being the intended average even in a smaller group of activations so we dodged a bullet on that one and no one can claim the lower quantities had a negative impact.
This reply I understood Virmach to be saying that the quality of the actual plans that were opened were superior to the ones that were shown by the LET-BOT, which I totally agree with as well.
But there was not the slightest response to the specific questions I asked.
Just the simple answer of whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
Of course, it doesn't matter if there's no answer.
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
@tulipyun said: But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
VirMach already answered that
VirMach said: In fact the plans that got created in the quantities they did average out to be better than the six plans previewed average for anyone who read what they were buying, and the plans were also pretty much right on the dot for being the intended average even in a smaller group of activations so we dodged a bullet on that one and no one can claim the lower quantities had a negative impact.
This reply I understood Virmach to be saying that the quality of the actual plans that were opened were superior to the ones that were shown by the LET-BOT, which I totally agree with as well.
But there was not the slightest response to the specific questions I asked.
Just the simple answer of whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
Of course, it doesn't matter if there's no answer.
Apparently it doesn't matter if there IS an answer either since it's been answered and you just keep asking the question over and over.
All this mystery box Sturm und Drang is giving me some serious FOMO. If someone wants to dump their POS package for the $3 transfer fee, hit me up. I can do paypal.
@tulipyun said: But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
VirMach already answered that
VirMach said: In fact the plans that got created in the quantities they did average out to be better than the six plans previewed average for anyone who read what they were buying, and the plans were also pretty much right on the dot for being the intended average even in a smaller group of activations so we dodged a bullet on that one and no one can claim the lower quantities had a negative impact.
This reply I understood Virmach to be saying that the quality of the actual plans that were opened were superior to the ones that were shown by the LET-BOT, which I totally agree with as well.
But there was not the slightest response to the specific questions I asked.
Just the simple answer of whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
Of course, it doesn't matter if there's no answer.
Quantities are not equal for every plan variance. Quantities varied from 5 to 30 per random plan, but it does not necessarily mean what you think it means, although for it to average out properly, obviously larger plans do take up more space than others. Even so, in the original list, there were for example a 256MB plan with 10 quantity, and a 2GB plan with 30 quantity.
There were 2 plans with 30 quantity that ranged from 1024MB to 2048MB.
There were 5 plans with 25 quantity, that ranged from 128MB to 2048MB.
There were 11 plans with 20 quantity that ranged from 128MB to 3072MB.
There were 4 plans with 15 quantity that ranged from 128MB to 6144MB.
There were 3 plans with 10 quantity that ranged from 256MB to 2560MB.
There was one plan with 5 quantity that was 5120MB.
This was the average specifications for all the 7 plans that were purchased through, with the 7th not being purchased all the way. I may be off by like 3% or so in the below since it's not accounting for a few cancellations here and there but those customers cancelled at random and I could be missing like 1% of them or so maybe, I don't know, I'm just making a quick reply.
So there you that's clue, you can use all that information to work back to your specific question if you still really want a specific answer to it. Just work back from all the data you were provided.
And? So don't run 12. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
What?! To deprive one running newest Debian is blasphemy!
On a serious note: you know that virmache is shit, don't encourage them to behave even worse.
I'm not destined to be in this conversation much longer but I truly don't see a problem. I'm not a provider but if someone scraped my non-advertised sale and a bunch of lunatics bought it, a) from a rando web link, b) before the sale even started, c) without knowing what it was, and d) with a warning label saying you may well be upset, I might have intentionally given them 64MB instances as a disincentive to do it again next time.
Customers should not be blamed for buying it early because no one knows it’s a sale which is not fully prepared and if there is a warning to let people wait for the detailed rules then it will be a different story but there wasn’t any so people only choose to rely upon providers conscience and expect even the worst plan has a baseline with common sense. And yes there are check boxes so we accept any results but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express disappointment after that.
And if you don’t want your product to get FOMOed then sure just punish your followers in your way and wish the best luck to you business
@tulipyun said: But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
VirMach already answered that
VirMach said: In fact the plans that got created in the quantities they did average out to be better than the six plans previewed average for anyone who read what they were buying, and the plans were also pretty much right on the dot for being the intended average even in a smaller group of activations so we dodged a bullet on that one and no one can claim the lower quantities had a negative impact.
This reply I understood Virmach to be saying that the quality of the actual plans that were opened were superior to the ones that were shown by the LET-BOT, which I totally agree with as well.
But there was not the slightest response to the specific questions I asked.
Just the simple answer of whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
Of course, it doesn't matter if there's no answer.
Quantities are not equal for every plan variance. Quantities varied from 5 to 30 per random plan, but it does not necessarily mean what you think it means, although for it to average out properly, obviously larger plans do take up more space than others. Even so, in the original list, there were for example a 256MB plan with 10 quantity, and a 2GB plan with 30 quantity.
There were 2 plans with 30 quantity that ranged from 1024MB to 2048MB.
There were 5 plans with 25 quantity, that ranged from 128MB to 2048MB.
There were 11 plans with 20 quantity that ranged from 128MB to 3072MB.
There were 4 plans with 15 quantity that ranged from 128MB to 6144MB.
There were 3 plans with 10 quantity that ranged from 256MB to 2560MB.
There was one plan with 5 quantity that was 5120MB.
This was the average specifications for all the 7 plans that were purchased through, with the 7th not being purchased all the way. I may be off by like 3% or so in the below since it's not accounting for a few cancellations here and there but those customers cancelled at random and I could be missing like 1% of them or so maybe, I don't know, I'm just making a quick reply.
So there you that's clue, you can use all that information to work back to your specific question if you still really want a specific answer to it. Just work back from all the data you were provided.
Thank you very much for providing such detailed data, but it doesn't help to answer the specific question I posed, which both you and FrankZ chose to avoid completely on the point about whether the worst planned ones are specifically distributed at the top of the order list. I guess that's kind of the answer.
I won't be asking any new questions on this.
Anyway, thanks guys.
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
And? So don't run 12. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
What?! To deprive one running newest Debian is blasphemy!
On a serious note: you know that virmache is shit, don't encourage them to behave even worse.
I'm not destined to be in this conversation much longer but I truly don't see a problem. I'm not a provider but if someone scraped my non-advertised sale and a bunch of lunatics bought it, a) from a rando web link, b) before the sale even started, c) without knowing what it was, and d) with a warning label saying you may well be upset, I might have intentionally given them 64MB instances as a disincentive to do it again next time.
Customers should not be blamed for buying it early because no one knows it’s a sale which is not fully prepared and if there is a warning to let people wait for the detailed rules then it will be a different story but there wasn’t any so people only choose to rely upon providers conscience and expect even the worst plan has a baseline with common sense. And yes there are check boxes so we accept any results but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express disappointment after that.
And if you don’t want your product to get FOMOed then sure just punish your followers in your way and wish the best luck to you business
My condolences on still not having learned the lesson. Keep trying. I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
Can you share how to do it? I have a 64mb machine idling and kernel panics every time when the host reboots, causing high CPU load, had to manually shut it down.
@tulipyun said: But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
VirMach already answered that
VirMach said: In fact the plans that got created in the quantities they did average out to be better than the six plans previewed average for anyone who read what they were buying, and the plans were also pretty much right on the dot for being the intended average even in a smaller group of activations so we dodged a bullet on that one and no one can claim the lower quantities had a negative impact.
This reply I understood Virmach to be saying that the quality of the actual plans that were opened were superior to the ones that were shown by the LET-BOT, which I totally agree with as well.
But there was not the slightest response to the specific questions I asked.
Just the simple answer of whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
Of course, it doesn't matter if there's no answer.
Quantities are not equal for every plan variance. Quantities varied from 5 to 30 per random plan, but it does not necessarily mean what you think it means, although for it to average out properly, obviously larger plans do take up more space than others. Even so, in the original list, there were for example a 256MB plan with 10 quantity, and a 2GB plan with 30 quantity.
There were 2 plans with 30 quantity that ranged from 1024MB to 2048MB.
There were 5 plans with 25 quantity, that ranged from 128MB to 2048MB.
There were 11 plans with 20 quantity that ranged from 128MB to 3072MB.
There were 4 plans with 15 quantity that ranged from 128MB to 6144MB.
There were 3 plans with 10 quantity that ranged from 256MB to 2560MB.
There was one plan with 5 quantity that was 5120MB.
This was the average specifications for all the 7 plans that were purchased through, with the 7th not being purchased all the way. I may be off by like 3% or so in the below since it's not accounting for a few cancellations here and there but those customers cancelled at random and I could be missing like 1% of them or so maybe, I don't know, I'm just making a quick reply.
So there you that's clue, you can use all that information to work back to your specific question if you still really want a specific answer to it. Just work back from all the data you were provided.
It’s doesn’t make much sense to calculate the average like you and Buffett have $60B in average.
what’s the percentage of people who get exactly 128M and what do you think these vps can be used for?
@HiEndSoul said: Customers should not be blamed for buying it early because no one knows it’s a sale which is not fully prepared and if there is a warning to let people wait for the detailed rules then it will be a different story but there wasn’t any so people only choose to rely upon providers conscience and expect even the worst plan has a baseline with common sense. And yes there are check boxes so we accept any results but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express disappointment after that.
And if you don’t want your product to get FOMOed then sure just punish your followers in your way and wish the best luck to you business
Are you seriously saying that it's normal to purchase a random service just because the URL exists and the product should just be whatever each customer imagines it is?
@HiEndSoul said: Customers should not be blamed for buying it early because no one knows it’s a sale which is not fully prepared and if there is a warning to let people wait for the detailed rules then it will be a different story but there wasn’t any so people only choose to rely upon providers conscience and expect even the worst plan has a baseline with common sense. And yes there are check boxes so we accept any results but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express disappointment after that.
And if you don’t want your product to get FOMOed then sure just punish your followers in your way and wish the best luck to you business
Are you seriously saying that it's normal to purchase a random service just because the URL exists and the product should just be whatever each customer imagines it is?
For the first half, yes that’s exactly how BF deals spread across communities.
For the next half, people just expect there will be a baseline with common sense
Comments
No, far to lazy for that.
I am happy that microLXC is fully automated, besides bugs or if something gets stuck.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
ITS WEDNESDAY MY DUDES
edit
un-edit!
Haven't bought a single service in VirMach Great Ryzen 2022 - 2023 Flash Sale.
https://lowendspirit.com/uploads/editor/gi/ippw0lcmqowk.png
Virmach is a fine provider if you know what to expect.
Free Hosting at YetiNode | Cryptid Security | URL Shortener | LaunchVPS | ExtraVM | Host-C | In the Node, or Out of the Loop?
@VirMach MIAZ012 is freaking out and load is over 500
For staff assistance or support issues please use the helpdesk ticket system at https://support.lowendspirit.com/index.php?a=add
Oh absolutely, a 128M RAM? Even my grandma’s toaster has more processing power.
RAM != processing power
For staff assistance or support issues please use the helpdesk ticket system at https://support.lowendspirit.com/index.php?a=add
I bet your Mama's "just works" home router runs on less than 128mb ram.
If you are bitching that you can't run Debian, that shows how smöl your d incompetent you are.
The all seeing eye sees everything...
Mystery box: mine has specs a step up from the bottom, where of course I also hoped for a surprise that was better than the random 90% coupon elsewhere.
Still, 20 dollars for 24 months of IPv4 and being free of FOMO... better deal than a lottery ticket of the same price
I'm very sorry that due to my bad English I didn't understand how your answer answered my question.
So I would like to try to explain my concerns and invite you to answer them.
Since FrankZ said he approved the mystery box, I next took the liberty of treating @VirMach and @FrankZ as informed.
As a former fan of Virmach, I tolerated their service interruptions, ip replacements, positively reported problems to them, and showed my support by purchasing the mystery box in the first place.
I don't like 128M RAM, but it's acceptable.
It wasn't until after all the mystery boxes were opened that FrankZ replied to my posting and I quote:
Unfortunately, I hadn't noticed the alert before, and didn't even realize it was compromised information after my payment was complete.
What's disturbing to me is that this seems to imply that, for reasons unknown to me, the organizers pre-decided to significantly increase the odds that the first purchasers of the Mystery Boxes would get the worst possible plan.
Based on the above data, could you kindly disclose to us the percentage of orders that were lucky enough to get 128M RAM out of all the orders placed before the official release of the Mystery Box by LET-BOT ( ):
100%
A: Less than 39% B: 40%~80% C: More than 80%
I think that would completely put my mind at rest and would welcome any additional information you can provide, thank you!
(Since I relied on a translator to complete this post, if any of it offends anyone, please believe that it was never my intention and accept my sincere apologies!)
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
Since you quoted part of my statement you should also read the part where I said
So nothing changed because it was leaked early. You seem to be trying to make this out to be some nefarious plan, it was not.
For staff assistance or support issues please use the helpdesk ticket system at https://support.lowendspirit.com/index.php?a=add
If I can play doom on it it is fine
Free Hosting at YetiNode | Cryptid Security | URL Shortener | LaunchVPS | ExtraVM | Host-C | In the Node, or Out of the Loop?
Thank you for your response, I noticed what you quoted and for space reasons I didn't quote it in its entirety, which I guess is a case of poor consideration on my part.
What you specifically pointed out shows exactly when the plan was developed, and I completely agree with that.
But it doesn't answer my question as to whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
BTW I'm not in a position to prove anything, I humbly put forward my concerns and hope for a kind response, that's all.
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
@tulipyun before ordering there is a box needs to be checked:
if you dont understand what "disappointment" means, dont buy anything in foreign language.
here's your next better provider:
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
VirMach already answered that
For staff assistance or support issues please use the helpdesk ticket system at https://support.lowendspirit.com/index.php?a=add
This reply I understood Virmach to be saying that the quality of the actual plans that were opened were superior to the ones that were shown by the LET-BOT, which I totally agree with as well.
But there was not the slightest response to the specific questions I asked.
Just the simple answer of whether or not the first purchasers got the bad plan at an exact higher rate than the others.
Of course, it doesn't matter if there's no answer.
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
Apparently it doesn't matter if there IS an answer either since it's been answered and you just keep asking the question over and over.
All this mystery box Sturm und Drang is giving me some serious FOMO. If someone wants to dump their POS package for the $3 transfer fee, hit me up. I can do paypal.
That's enough for two VMs
but I wouldn't recommend it.
Dataplane.org's current server hosting provider list
Quantities are not equal for every plan variance. Quantities varied from 5 to 30 per random plan, but it does not necessarily mean what you think it means, although for it to average out properly, obviously larger plans do take up more space than others. Even so, in the original list, there were for example a 256MB plan with 10 quantity, and a 2GB plan with 30 quantity.
This was the average specifications for all the 7 plans that were purchased through, with the 7th not being purchased all the way. I may be off by like 3% or so in the below since it's not accounting for a few cancellations here and there but those customers cancelled at random and I could be missing like 1% of them or so maybe, I don't know, I'm just making a quick reply.
1675MB RAM, 1.65 CPU, 37GB Disk, 4202GB Bandwidth.
This takes into order quantities already. So the average person got that for $20/2YR ($10/YR.)
If we average out the plans, which this part you can do yourself without the quantities actually sold per plan, it would be:
2066MB RAM, 1.71 CPU, 38GB Disk, 3500GB Bandwidth.
So there you that's clue, you can use all that information to work back to your specific question if you still really want a specific answer to it. Just work back from all the data you were provided.
Customers should not be blamed for buying it early because no one knows it’s a sale which is not fully prepared and if there is a warning to let people wait for the detailed rules then it will be a different story but there wasn’t any so people only choose to rely upon providers conscience and expect even the worst plan has a baseline with common sense. And yes there are check boxes so we accept any results but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express disappointment after that.
And if you don’t want your product to get FOMOed then sure just punish your followers in your way and wish the best luck to you business
Thank you very much for providing such detailed data, but it doesn't help to answer the specific question I posed, which both you and FrankZ chose to avoid completely on the point about whether the worst planned ones are specifically distributed at the top of the order list. I guess that's kind of the answer.
I won't be asking any new questions on this.
Anyway, thanks guys.
Have the honor of being the crybaby who pays $20 for a 128MB VPS at VirMach in 2023.
My condolences on still not having learned the lesson. Keep trying. I'm sure you'll get it eventually.
I've recently experienced with automatically being logged out by Virmach website. Has anyone experienced with that or just me alone?
Virmach Deals
Can you share how to do it? I have a 64mb machine idling and kernel panics every time when the host reboots, causing high CPU load, had to manually shut it down.
It’s doesn’t make much sense to calculate the average like you and Buffett have $60B in average.
what’s the percentage of people who get exactly 128M and what do you think these vps can be used for?
Are you seriously saying that it's normal to purchase a random service just because the URL exists and the product should just be whatever each customer imagines it is?
For the first half, yes that’s exactly how BF deals spread across communities.
For the next half, people just expect there will be a baseline with common sense
How about just stop scanning other people's billing area.
Make it makes sense. If a product is hidden in the storeroom, you dont go inside the storeroom and get whatever you like.
Especially you dont even know what's the terms like.
食之无味 弃之可惜 - Too arduous to relish, too wasteful to discard.