Been out all day again - thought I'd scheduled the dividends but apparently not.

Will get spreadsheet updated, send dividends, post reports and schedule dividends for next few days now - as I'll be out quite a lot this week.

Troll.

There's no way Ukyo would approve something that made a thread like this without ever contacting him.  So it could never work as a scam.

It was oversubscribed and safe to invest and immediately flip.

Think I bought about 300 BTC worth and sold them off quickly for over double that - a tiered sale of shares like your pretend one is FAR more risky for pretty obvious reasons.  Plenty of other sensible people did the same thing - and then left it alone after that (as noone could safely predict when the last dump would occur - so any attempt to trade after that had a large downside and not such a good upside).

Silly thing is, if it HAD been a real listing you'd almost certainly have sold at least the 1 million 'early bird' shares to people looking to flip - even with no clear plan, no proof of anything and a posted screenshot showing that you'd created 100 million shares despite claiming there were only 10 million.  

That's how stupid people are.

I assume this is just a joke as :

1.  There's no sign of it on Bitfunder.
2.  It says how many shares would be sold but not how many there are in total - meaning noone knows whether public shares get 90% of profits, 10%, 1% or 0.001%.
3.  There's no proof offered of anything.
4.  There's no details of anything.

The CIPHERMINE.B1 dividend came through before I got the transfer processed.

Total dividend was :

2013-09-29 22:00:15    30833    ฿ 0.00004700    ฿ 1.449151

928 of those bonds were sent in transfer - but the dividend had already been paid.  As they transferred their shares in a lot earlier today, they should have already had the bonds and got the dividend on them.  So 0.043616 BTC is being sent in a 2nd payment to the person who transferred in for a sell back earlier.

Here's the current updated assets + details for redemptions.  NAV/U dropped less than usual because the CIPHERMINE bond paid just under half of today's MINING dividend.

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   507.7934491
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    299.05000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9    203.64459670
Just-Dice Balance    153.86136722
TOTAL ASSETS    1,255.05941306
   
Outstanding MINING   172500
Outstanding SELLING   172500
Outstanding PURCHASE   14397
Effective Units   186897

NAV/U    0.00671525
NAV/U Excluding Ciphermine    0.00511517
Ciphermine per unit    0.16000792
Units per Ciphermine    6.24969069

Been out most of the day - the dividends went out on schedule however.

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)   539.3699072
9071 LTC-ATF.B1    90.71000000
CIPHERMINE Bonds    308.33000000
Coinlenders CD 27/9    203.64459670
Just-Dice Balance    153.86136722
TOTAL ASSETS    1,295.91587110
   
Outstanding MINING   178300
Outstanding SELLING   178300
Outstanding PURCHASE   14397
Effective Units   192697
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   148,819,200
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00001690
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00084483
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00168966
365 days (Buyback)    0.00616724
405 days (IPO)    0.00684311
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.00675862
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.00692759
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,292.65995462
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.00670825
Days Dividend Post Div   397.02
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,292.65995462
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.00670825

Will post the new buyback rates in about 5 minutes - the CIPHERMINE.B1 dividend payment is due to arrive in a few minutes so will wait until that's in so it's included in the buyback.

There was one transfer back whilst I was out - made before today's dividend payment - will be processing that now at the old rate (i.e. before deduction of today's MINING dividend from NAV/U).

So Armando used the couple of ASICs he bought with the money stole in his last scam (he admitted to having bought ASICs with it instead of returning it) then used the few coins he mined with them to convince people he'd manufactured his own ASICs?

Priceless.

The source isn't mine to reveal (as I'm not the one who paid for it) - but is credible (i.e. advice from professionals not some forum user's personal opinion).  My intention was just to give some idea of what was being considered - not to give a conclusive answer on specific points.

On a more general note, my belief is that answering questions about plans - when we don't have any firm plans - is counter-productive.  But you can take it as fact that a group of us with access to funds, technical expertise, experience in BTC securities and a data centre are giving it serious consideration including spending money on legal advice.  And I'm sure if/when anything concrete develops it will be announced.

Some of you may notice that I've made a post elsewhere confirming that I'm in discussions with others (including Kate from CIPHERMINE) about creation of a new exchange - possibly purchasing and using the code from BTC-TC.

It is NOT my intention at this point to wait for that - I am still looking to relist elsewhere as soon as possible.  It potentially exists as a fall-back position if we're unable to list elsewhere but is in no way my plan.

I felt I ought to clarify that - as I didn't want investors thinking there was any possibility that I'd try to stay unlisted for a few months waiting for an exchange that may not even ever come to exist.  As soon as I have news on any move (or lack of ability to move) I'll update you all promptly.

I should add (as I mention I've been in discussion with Kate) that I have no doubt whatsoever that Kate intends to continue to operate CIPHERMINE and to honour the bonds.  The reasons I can't offer cash redemptions is now that if I do I'll accelerate DMS into a position of having a larger percentage of assets tied up in them than was agreed in the motion.  It's the lack of liquidity on them that's the problem, not a question of whether they'll still have face value when relisted.  Until they're relisted somewhere the lack of liquidity DOES reduce their value to us - as ideally we need to reduce the percentage of our assets tied up in them not increase it.  As I believe it's almost certain they'll relist before 3 months pass it makes no sense for DMS to ask for them to be bought back in 3 months time - and surrender all dividends in the meantime.  Until BTC-TC announced closure they were working precisely as intended - paying us interest AND selling on the market at a rate I was happy with at a price slightly above what we paid.

Not going to happen.

I'm one of the parties involved in discussions.  Nothing is actually agreed yet - and certainly nothing would be agreed by me personally unless a bunch of different elements line up.  One of those elements being that the exchange can legally operate in the UK.

Broadly speaking there are three legal obstacles which have to be addressed:

1.  That holding BTC on behalf of investors/users and transferring it to other users doesn't subject the operators to financial supervision OR to a need to obtain AML/KYC details from users.  This one we're already basically certain we're fine on - due to legal advice received and precedent already set.
2.  Whether, regardless of BTC being used, the 'securities' themselves are illegal and/or subject to regulation.  This is the key one - but there IS a very interesting case to be made that they're fine because of the way HMRC treat Bitcoins.  Legal advice is currently being sought on this.
3.  That having US investors (with the rules in the US being VERY different) is OK.  This one is interesting - but the answer is almost certainly that a UK-based exchange could NOT accept US-based investors as - even if fine to operate in the UK, it would break agreements between the UK and the US.  So there's a very real likelihood that any new exchange would not take US investors - the situation with US companies is less clear.

For those confused how the situation could possibly be so different in the UK to the US, the answer lies in their totally different approach to treating Bitcoins.

The US is moving very much towards them being treated as though they were (similar to) currency for the purpose of regulation.

The UK, in contrast, is saying that they have no face or intrinsic value and thus can't be referred to in accounts and aren't subject to regulation.  They're explicit, in particular, that any conversion from BTC to fiat has to be treated as income tax (for individuals) and revenue (for companies) and can never be claimed as capital gains or investment return.  This actually has very BAD consequences for businesses raising funds in BTC then converting them to fiat to (for example) buy mining hardware - but has very GOOD consequences for those looking to run something like an exchange.

I'm not going to lay out the argument that follows from this - but I believe there IS a strong one and am personally obtaining advice on it in the next week or so (even if I don't end up participating in an exchange it would be very useful information in respect of any BTC securities I operate).

So no - Tor isn't on the table (not as far as I'm concerned - and noone else involved in the discussions has expressed an interest in it).  All of those talking want something openly run in a jurisdiction where there's no likelihood of interference from the authorities - and the UK might be that place.

I believe the OP was made prematurely - and the title is misleading.  As MPOE-PR pointed out, there's no plan yet - though the intentions aren't actually entirely vague (just not detailed in the OP). And noone should read this as BTC-TC coming back with all securities and user-accounts etc - if burnside's code is purchased it's certain the data won't come and that it would be rebranded.  Burnside's code is NOT the only option under consideration - but it would be far preferable to a newly written system because of already having been heavily tested in a live environment.

Don't expect updates from me in the near future - but I felt I should at least confirm that when Kate says various issuers/others are involved then it definitely is the case : and statements of available investment have been made, though not committed to (i.e. I and others have said "I have X BTC I'd consider using for this" not "I have X BTX that is definitely going to be used for this").

You've been managing your group for a year.

Could you please impress us with proof of how massively you've grown your hashing power during that year - so investors can se how well you manage a mining operation.  As it's a group I assume you have proper records to share.

You fail to grasp what risk is.

The money is risked as soon as it's added to the available MAX WIN.  ALL of it is risked then.

When someone clicks the bet button and rolls it ceases to be risked - and turns into either winnings or loss.

Between every bet the low-risk better IS risking 0.25% of his bank-roll and the high risk 1% of his.  That's what being invested means - that you accept the risk of someone making a bet and winning in return for the benefit of them making a bet and losing.  And the amount each investor risks is determined BEFORE the next bet occurs - the amount wagered, the bet chosen and the results then determine what the result was of that specific instance of risk.

EDIT: To be clearer, consider what the MAX WIN actually is.  It's a statement by the house that "we have investors who are collectively risking X BTC on any gamble you choose to make where your winnings would not exceed that".  It's on offer - so it's at risk.

No - Kelly in this context relates to what the INVESTOR risks.  And the low-risk is NOT risking more than 0.25% of his bank-roll in any one shot.  Where in dooglus' proposal does the low-risk bet over 0.25% of his bank-roll?

Think of it in terms of a single bet with only investors.

Investor A (low risk) says : I'm willing to risk up to 0.25 BTC on this bet.
Investor B (high risk) says : I'm willing to risk up to 1 BTC on this bet.

The house says to Gambler : "You can bet up to 1.25 BTC - how much would you like to bet"?

Without knowing the answer what is the fair way to share exposure?  To me (and to dooglus) the obvious answer is A gets 20% of the action, B gets 80% - in ratio to what they're willing to risk on that single bet.

You seem to believe A is allowed to say "I'm willing to risk up to 0.25 BTC but I want half of all action until my money is all in play".

So why isn't B allowed to say "Fuck you - I'll take the first 1 BTC and you can go without unless he bets more than that?"

If one can make stupid claims for preferential treatment relative to what they're risking, why can't the other?

Remember that the money is exposed to risk BEFORE the bet is made - it's all exposed to accepting action (and displayed as such in the MAX WIN area).  If you want a bigger share of each bet then offer to expose more of your money per bet (either by a higher risk % or by depositing more).

You misunderstand me.

I have no problem at all with dooglus' proposal.

My problem is with those who want to change it so they get more exposure to low-variance and less to high-variance.  i.e. they don't just want to be able to reduce what they risk (which is fine) but also to cherry-pick (in terms of variance) which action they have exposure to.  Which means that they want to be allowed to reduce their portion of the site's variance at the expense of higher-risk investors getting MORE variance without a commensurate increase in profit-share.

I repeat : dooglus' proposal is fine with me. 

And if those wanting lower variance in their bank-roll prefer to achieve it by unnecessarily have 4* the CP risk they could have by divesting 3/4 of their bank-roll and going at 1% then that's a price I'd accept (that decisions DOES very trivially increase my risk as well - once I've reinvested, that is - as it increases my CP risk as well by unnecessarily bloating funds in the cold wallet).

Think you're misunderstandign what the 0.25% and 1% are.

They're the amount each investor is PERSONALLY willing to risk per bet - and what their investment adds to the MAX WIN.  With all alternatives suggested there are ratios of HIGH:LOW risk investments where someone coming in with new investment doesn't increase MAX WIN - making their investment fundamentally useless as it dilutes profit for everyone else without adding anything.

Worse still, in some suggestions, if low risk investment is a lot larger than high risk then high risk end up being forced into being low risk - as MAX WIN gets set based on low-risk.  Just try looking at something like 20K low-risk investment, 5K high-risk for some of the proposals - and you'll see it works out that low-risk get to force high-risk into also only risking 0.25% of investment at most.

A proposal that relies on assumptions about the ratio of low to high risk investment is NOT a valid proposal.
Nor is one which can allow more investment to join without raiding MAX WIN - as by definition existing investors are already willing to cover any bet up to current MAX WIN - so no more investment is wanted if it doesn't raise it.

This whole debate is largely about a minority of investors who want some way to only personally accept small bets whilst passing all big bets to others.  Which is based on some sort of entitlement belief that they should be allowed a disproportionate share of low-risk action whilst leaving higher-risk action to others.

What would totally amuse me right now is if dooglus said : "OK - mechs and co have convinced me that it's fine for some people to only partake in the first part of bets and leave the high-variance stuff completely to others.  So I'll personally cover 100% the first 1 BTC of every bet and the rest of investors can have everything above it."  And then the really juicy low-variance stuff would go to someone who actually had some entitlement rather than to those with a mistaken belief that they have a right to only back the stuff that doesn't need backing (as those willing to cover all the action could back it without their money).

Not until either:

1.  They're liquid and can be sold at face value.
2.  They form less than ~18% of total capital : which can only happen if/when we relist and get new sales.
3.  A very convincing guarantee of imminent liquidity is provided.

At present they're slightly over 20% which is fine by what was agreed but will cease to be fine after the next SELLING dividend.  Redeeming for all cash would increase that percentage.  If taken to extremes and most people cashed out with all cash then we'd end up with only the bonds left - and be unable to pay dividends.  Which is why that percentage can't be increased.

I'd offer an all cash option valuing them at whatever the first large bid was on market.

Because the fund SHOULD be selling some of them now (especially if people want to cash out all in cash) I can only value them for the purposes of cashing out at whatever they'll sell for on the market.  Which at present looks like being my own personal bid for 10k of them at .006 (which represents a price-point I'm personally happy to buy a decent chunk at - and give up my own liquidity for a likely 65% profit in a few months time).

In short you can't expect anyone else (including DMS) to buy them at .01 when you plainly value them a lot lower than that yourself.  And if DMS redeems in all cash then that effectively means I'm buying your ones of them at around .01 on behalf of everyone else - and likely they don't want that (or there'd be lots of bids above my .006).

Not sure that's true in the second case - as their BR is what they have left of the 125 plus the untouched 375 they have in cold storage.

Broadly speaking having the two risks is similar to (but not quite the same) as if the people wanting low variance did what they should have done in the first place - and withdrew 3/4 of their BR.  But as they can't do BR management themselves, you're having to do it for them.

For those who want to avoid massive losses, the amusing thing is that a high risk level SHOULD be their friend.  Their optimal strategy if they want to avoid large downswings is to invest a small percentage of their BR at a very high level risk level - giving them tiny CP risk AND a stop-loss to curtail losses if a whale hits a large winning streak.  Of course they then also give up a lot in situations where a large down-swing is followed by a large up-swing - but until they accept they can't get the benefits of massive variance in an upward direction without accepting the reverse nothing is going to make them happy.  Unless you were to specifically cater for them by allowing them to only cover small bets (where their money isn't needed) out of some sense of charity.

The other ways also only work in certain ratios of high:low risk investors.

If you try looking at a situation with 20k invested low-risk and 2k invested high-risk in some of the other proposals you immediately see that there ends up being no difference between them.

I think labcoin should be more concerned about finding some working ASICs tbh.