Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2024, 11:55:15 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 75 »
141  Economy / Services / NEEDED: POSTFIX/DOVECOT WIZARD! on: November 05, 2013, 12:59:41 PM
Hi!

If you are capable of setting up Postfix on a fresh debian or ubuntu install (on my BitVPS KVM-6), I will hire you.

It's a multi-domain system, and I will need a list of files you've changed or installed (i.e. if you change or create a configuration file please list it for me so I can copy/back up as necessary). That is all the documentation I require.

I will need to be able to send and receive mail on each domain hosted by the system via IMAP, and there are several users on each domain (i.e. a techsupport address, billing, etc.) full logging in /var/log or whatever must be done as well.

Unfortunately I have tried setting it up myself and although I have gotten to the point where I can receive mail on one domain/virtual account, I cannot send mail.

Your payment will not be based on what you do to set it up nor how long it takes. Paradoxically the better you are at doing this the shorter time it will take. From what I have seen you are not going to need more than an hour to do this so let us set the price at 2 bitcoins cold. That will be enough for you to set it up and document what you have done. If that's grossly low, I'm open to a justification for a higher rate.

If installing cpanel or something on the system will help me administer mail accounts, then that is what I want. I don't care how it is done as long as it gets done. In fact I prefer a cpanel-like solution if that is easier.

PST if you can help! ty.
142  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading on: October 09, 2013, 05:33:25 AM
I'm aware of that, again, bitcoin will make the process of proving that impossible, using an anonymous way of communication and a mixer.

The burden of proof lies with the exchange, not the SEC. The exchange (or asset issuer) would have to prove they take measures against selling to US customers, directly or through a proxy. What you are suggesting would make it impossible for them to prove that. That may or may not get the exchange of the hook, it sure as hell wont get you off the hook. But perhaps you have a better legal team than bitfunder and dont mind taking on the SEC ?

Wow, puppet giving lessons on burden of proof. Nice.
143  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: September 30, 2013, 02:24:18 AM
There's absolutely NOTHING that indicates he is cheating. The wild swings he is experiencing looks 100% legit. Look at how he plays, its just a completely random walk.

Here's a chart of the site's profits for the day, with the expected profit (minus 20k, to bring them closer together!) overlayed.

The random walk goes horizontally, whereas the expectation goes up at 30 degrees to the horizontal.  How?  And why?

img width=900]https://i.imgur.com/X9fL34G.png[/img]

Need more info. Where was that list of all his bets and how much each one won/lost? https://just-dice.com/whale.txt has old info.

EDIT: Ahh I see you just posted that while I was typing. Thanks.
144  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 28, 2013, 01:53:50 PM
Deprived and I appear to have hammered out a deal in PM, and we will be posting a new motion shortly -- likely after the weekend (let's relax and have a barbecue or something this weekend and stop fretting over internet spaceships).

The new motion is expected to be extra fair (Deprived has gone over it with a fine toothed comb) and I expect that I will be able to repair much of the damage caused by BTC-TC shutting down. So there you have it, everybody wins. If you do not want to be a part of this merger, I can only advise you to sell out now, because this motion is going to pass. I've refreshed bids at the maximum I can pay people who do not come along for the merger. Get it while you can.
145  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: September 27, 2013, 02:31:03 AM
Anyways, I've stopped begging a long time ago. The ones who "invested" in my "gambling security" did it willingly and contacted me directly. No one ever contributed to the "Group Bet" I started even earlier.

Oh. That was you?

I never really paid much attention to those messages o_o

I have a slight suggestion for dooglus in the way he implements the lucky number generation. Use the nonce twice. Once as concatenated input to the "secret", and second as concatenated input to the "message".

There is a better way, and one which doesn't require much coding or a reduction to kelly/4.

Remember, dabs, vegas rule #1: never talk a sale. Do you know what I mean?
146  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- ALERT: BTC-TC SHUTDOWN on: September 26, 2013, 07:48:56 PM
I am freezing the fund until Deprived and I can hammer out some sort of deal. It's too volatile now and until Deprived makes a decision I cannot value the fund. (edit: as he ended up confirming the next day).

Ideally I want to have BMF trading at 0.030 again within 1 or 2 months, and I have faith that the plan I am presenting to Deprived will get us there. But he's in the driver's seat right now with more than 50% of the shares, so it's up to him. Hopefully he will see what the benefits of this are and we can move forward.
147  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: September 25, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
20:29:20 (153338) <percent> -976. OK I surrender.

One minute later there's a pending deposit of 1000 BTC to the account.

He never surrenders.

Dooglus, seriously, you need outside help on this. I offered to help you for just 40 BTC and your site just lost 100x that in literally 2 days. I believe I have shown you there is a problem by analyzing the bet about and profit amount. The error is now even greater than before. Look, if your profit is not approaching 1% but approaching zero, there is a problem and I can give you a nice pep talk which will set you straight. But you need to understand what it's value is so I am increasing the price to 100 BTC. I don't even care if you hire someone else. I suggest you talk to a casino owner if you don't talk to me, and offer him more than I am asking for to help you out with your game's design. I hope you don't look down on me for making this offer as some others have. You have a lot of chances here because you are the first "good" dice site. Here's hoping I am wrong and your site approaches 1% over the next 2 million bet. But if it doesn't, please consider talking to me as an alternative to shutting the site down?
148  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 25, 2013, 02:49:42 AM
In response to your very last point, namworld is back - he's on holiday at present but will be redeeming bonds at face value if you return them to him.  Check his thread for details: he made a post then locked the security to prevent people selling on the market cheap (I actually disagree with that - security should only be locked when you're about to make a final full settlement).

I don't have time to go over the proposal in detail but here's a few pointers on how I look at things:

1.  If any motion is being made for a massive change like this (which is effectively to use the cash for a brand new security) then, if the motion passes, anyone who wants out should be bought out at full NAV/U.  i.e. They shouldn't be worse off then if the security had closed in accordance with the contract.  I'm obviously not thinking of myself here - as I can sell back at .032 later anyway.  When I say bought out at full NAV/U I mean immediately - not in the future.

Nowhere in the contract does it say I have to invest exclusively on BTC-TC. In fact I was invested all over the place. The reason why I am trying to change the contract is only to lock people in for about a year, so I can invest into a real estate project. To compensate I am offering to guarantee a face value for the bond about 50% more than what it's worth right now. But there's no special need to liquidate our assets just because we are running a motion. If the motion doesn't pass, life will go on as usual for BMF. There will be special considerations made for you of course, explained in greater detail below.

2.  Normally where I have a (near) controlling interest I vote down any motion with significant opposition (e.g. on LTC-ATF my position was always that if there were 10% NO votes I'd vote against my own proposal).  So long as point 1 is very clear I wouldn't do that - as they suffer no disadvantage then if the motion passes compared to if it fails.

If the motion passes the disadvantage is that the shares would not be redeemable upon demand for a certain period of time, like six months or a year. I am guessing that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantage and investors will choose to take the 0.033 vs. the 0.022. Yourself included. But you are right in guessing if you vote no the motion will not pass.

3.  Even if I disagree with the motion I'd vote yes if the majority of other votes (excluding those controlled by yourself) voted yes - as my warrants/redemption rights give me personally protection.

Ok so you're going to wait for the other shareholders to make up their mind? Hmm, ok, however be aware that this motion is designed to benefit you personally (and take the other shareholders along for the ride, of course).

4.  For me to even consider giving up my warrants/right to sell back for 6 months at .032 would need some very good offer.  As it stands I could approve any motion then have 6 months to see which way the exchange-rate moves.  That sort of ability is worth a lot more than a few extra points on an interest rate.  With my warrants/sellback rights if the change occurs as proposed I can effectively pick whichever is worth the more of .032 BTC or the current fiat value of .032 BTC converted back into BTC in 6 months.

Sure, except if you don't vote yes you will not get more than 0.032. The big problem here is if you vote no, your money will not be participating in the real estate deal and I won't have any incentive to offer you a higher face value. That's why we will run a motion. Either you vote yes, or you vote no. If you don't vote and it doesn't pass, that's the same as if you voted no. So it is important that you vote.

That way I am not faced with closing the fund (ex. closure clauses I and II which permit me to simply close and liquidate given 30 days notice). Of course were I to do that you would redeem at 0.032 immediately, and I wouldn't mind you doing so. You wouldn't loose anything. You could just hold the 0.032 bitcoins for 6 months and decide what to do with them then. So, all things considered, it kind of feels like I'm buying your vote, doesn't it? No matter what happens, you get more money if this motion passes. Especially if your planning to wait around 6 months anyways.


5.  One issue I see is that because of my sellback rights NAV/U for everyone else could be adversely effected if you close down - as they end up footing the bill for the excess of .033 over actual NAV/U.  If you end up closing now then, in principle, I'm fine with just taking an equal share the same as everyone else and surrendering the sellback rights (the warrants would be worthless anyway as with no NAV left buying at .033 would be futile).

The only situation in which I would close down is to force you to redeem. That won't happen since we're going to vote on it. You're either in or out. If you want to redeem, it's ok, I have the BTC sitting in my wallet right now. But don't you want more money?

Easiest way forward by far is just to close BMF down - then start a new fund.  No arguments from anyone over fairness or feeling pressured into accepting the change - and no need to get voting approval or worry about the thorny issue of my warrants.  But I won't stand in the way if the majority of investors want to go for it - and will make my own decision on what to do when I see what exactly is on the table.

Starting a new issue might be better. It depends. I've spoken with a few exchange owners, and we will see what happens. Essentially I would run a FIMB/CIPHERMINE.B1 style issue -- tied to EUR, guaranteed buyback date, good interest rate. But where to list?

Given that I only need 300 BTC and the fund won't trade for a year, it might be better to just try to come up with the funding here or on the lending forum.
149  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 25, 2013, 01:08:36 AM
Ok, after reading your posts carefully and giving the matter some thought, I get what you're trying to convey. I still place high value in the liquidity of my investments, but in this case that may come at a high cost. In addition, I don't like being exposed to JPY, with funds that were meant to be exposed to BTC. I expect BTC to appreciate against my local fiat-currencies (EUR & CHF) and recently JPY has gone down considerably against EUR & CHF.

I do have a few additional questions (apologies for being so bothersome Tongue):
- You first mention "I do not mind paying 24% (at 2%/month)." and after that you mention an interest rate of 15.6%. Which one is it? I assume 15.6% since it's mentioned several times.
- What happens if the motion to approve this plan fails?
- What happens if only part of the new batch of 10000 bonds is sold and there is insufficient funds to finance the second property? Other than the mentioned increase in in face value to 0.035 not going through? (you forgot a 0 in the "instant 0.03 profit" part by the way) Are there different outcomes depending on how much is sold (e.g. if 50% is sold, then ..., if 80% is sold, then ...)?
- What is the precise NAV/U that current investors can use for the 95% redemption clause?

Q: I don't like being exposed to JPY, with funds that were meant to be exposed to BTC.
Of course when investing in a security you are giving up your exposure to bitcoins, for exposure in the security. If that security invests (or otherwise represents) non-bitcoin denominated assets, such as computer hardware, gold, or real estate (or for example, IP such as BTC-TC) that asset determines the value you have. At some future point (now) when you want your exposure to bitcoins back, you need to give up your exposure to the asset you've invested in. That's totally fine with me, I don't mind giving you your share of the NAV of the company as it stands right now.

Q: I expect BTC to appreciate against my local fiat-currencies (EUR & CHF) and recently JPY has gone down considerably against EUR & CHF.
It doesn't have to be tied to Yen. I'd tie it to Euros if you prefer. The idea is not to make or gain 10 or 20% on yen-eur. It's to stop a 200% gain in BTC from forcing me to default. Bitcoins are like any other asset in that they have value or utility, as does gold, computer hardware, Euros or and Yen. But the main difference between BTC and, say, yen, is that yen is much more stable since it is traded billions of times a day -- and more importantly, it represents trillions in assets such as real estate, clothing, and food. That means that when considering value for value's sake -- guaranteeing a return tied to yen is actually a clearer and more interesting deal than guaranteeing a return in BTC. You have to remember that if you invest with BMF (or anyone) you are no longer exposed to BTC.

Even if you invest in mining hardware, you are not exposed to BTC. Your return is based on the value of the mining hardware but merely transacted in BTC. This is easy to understand; when difficulty drops so do the total bitcoins you will ever get out of your hardware. But a higher difficulty does not increase the number of bitcoins mined over time (in general) and therefore does not really affect the cost of BTC. So I'd point out that having your return in BTC is not actually better than having it in BTC/fiat -- it's just more volatile. I dunno, some people like that volatility. Personally, after watching BTC-TC and GLBSE blow up with half my money I prefer something a little less volatile.

The very guarantees I want to give, such as a fixed face value tied to a currency, and a fixed interest rate with a guaranteed rate of return, do not exist in your current investment and I feel they may provide a solution to the volatility.

Q: You first mention "I do not mind paying 24% (at 2%/month)."
Sure, I could do that. Please see the response to Progressive.  A higher interest rate means that there will be less chance to redeem the bonds, and that the term may be longer. The essential numbers are, if I can pay 5 BTC a week at 1% interest, that means I can float 5/0.01 or 500 BTC in bonds. If I lower the interest rate to 0.5%, then I can float twice as much capital. So I need around 350 BTC max, and if I pay ~24% (0.462%/week or 2%/month) that means I need to afford 1.615 BTC a week to pay the interest on the bond. But this is not a perpetual bond, and 24% is a very high interest rate. Typically you would see 10% or less on this kind of bond. So for 24% I would ask for something like being irredeemable for 2 years. Investors said they didn't really want that so I offered lower numbers as well. I think we need to discuss it here and then make a vote. Do you prefer something like 24% a year or 10% but being able to sell back at any time, or a combination, something like 16% but only being able to sell back at 95%, etc?

Q: What happens if the motion to approve this plan fails?
If investors are voting NO for me to lock down the funds into real estate for a year, then they are voting to get their share of what's left of the BMF pie "now". They are free to redeem their shares for 95% or to wait and see what else I do. This needs to go to vote because it will change the contract. If I invest the money into a real estate deal I cannot place a bid for 95% and that would violate my contract. I want to change the fund so that you can't sell back to me at 95% on demand. For that, I will guarantee a face value of at least 0.033 and so forth.

Q: What happens if only part of the new batch of 10000 bonds is sold and there is insufficient funds to finance the second property?
Good question, because I didn't think of that. It would be easy to allow a refund or buyback since we wouldn't need the money. That's interesting, I will put that in, thanks. That way, people who buy in expecting to get a face value increase to 0.035 won't be disappointed.

Q: What is the precise NAV/U that current investors can use for the 95% redemption clause?
I don't know what is going on with BTC-BOND. It would be unfair for me to write his asset to zero, so I will have to give you a share of cash and of BTC-BOND. Unfortunately BTC-BOND and several other assets we hold have been locked by the issuer, so we can't sell out even at a significant loss.

The floor is about 0.02, but if Namworld pays us back and there's no other losses I can say 0.0245 right now.
150  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BTC-BOND - 0.03% Daily on: September 24, 2013, 04:43:33 PM
Anybody know a way to contact Namworld? He is one of the few asset issuers who has not made any statements since the BTCT shutdown was announced, and he certainly missed a huge opportunity to buy back this loan at much less than face value.

As of this moment, his profile shows he hasn't been active since 21 September. I tried PM-ing yesterday as well as emailing the address specified on the BTC-BOND details page just a few minutes ago, but no luck so far...

Hmm, is Namjies in Asia? Hurricane Usagi o_o
151  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 24, 2013, 04:24:25 PM
The basic idea here is that it's not BMF's fault, nor our problem, that BTC-TC is closing. We have lots of BTC we can invest in stuff like Ukyo.Loan or XBOND, or to hold with people like coinlenders or just-dice. That means there is no rush for me to repurchase anyone's shares. What I am doing now is adding a "don't panic" guarantee that I will a) pay fixed interest and b) buy back shares for 0.033, at a date in the future. Both of those guarantees did not exist before.

Unfortunately a lot of people will still want to liquidate their shares because they are afraid about BTC-TC closing. So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024. If that's what you would like to do just xfer your shares to usagiBMF and I will send along the coins.

OTOH, if you want to stick it out with BMF and maybe buy some more shares, I will give you a special guarantee for 0.033/share (or 0.035/share) and 15.7% interest for 1 year (then repurchase). I will probably end up running a vote on this before BTC-TC shuts down. It is the right thing to do to allow shareholders to vote on what is going on, so I don't think it would be proper to allow mass redemptions until people are made aware of their choices. After all, i've sold out almost everything we own and I am holding bitcoins. We're not going to lose any more money, so it's ok to be patient and wait a couple more days.

What I am looking for is to use this crisis to strengthen BMF. If Deprived and the other shareholders (like you) agree, I will tie BMF to the real estate deal I am working on, and we can all make a lot of money. It's either that or 95% of NAV.

I wish burnside didn't do this to us. Especially to us, given the crap I had to go thru to get approved. But it's really out of my hands. Offering my investors these special guarantees and an option to get a profit out of this is really the best I can do.

This is not what you said in your earlier post.

No? Well let's take a look; I have not added or deleted any words, just highlighted what you quoted:

But, if you need me to force buyback your shares off-market, you will get 95% of 0.033 (which is in the contract) or 0.03135. So basically, if you have to send me a PM or e-mail because you can't sell your shares on the market, you are guaranteed to get a minimum of 0.03135. That's the long and short of it. It makes no sense to involve BMF in any other company or bond issue. This way things are kept exceedingly simple.

But!

There is a new way forward. BMF isn't closing. We are still here, and we have a special plan for those who choose not to redeem their shares.

I will now discuss that plan.
Here you first offer a redemption at 0.0315 BTC per share and then you follow up with stating that "for those who choose not to redeem their shares" there is a new plan for the future. This implies that there is first a possibility at redemption for 0.0315 BTC per share for those that want out and those that chose to stay in, will be part of the altered offering that you detail in the post that follows.

I believe I was very clear when I stated "we have a special plan for those who choose not to redeem their shares". The issue is that this really has to go to vote before I can start making these kinds of sweeping changes. If you are going to vote NO, you might as well redeem your shares for 95% of NAV now. Trouble is, that will almost certainly become a mistake, as everyone who stays is bound to vote YES because it is "free money".

I know it would be very convenient for shareholders if I took on all the risk for only a fraction of the reward, but that would be extremely unfair to me. I only get 5% of dividend income -- less than $50 a month for a 300 BTC fund. I can't possibly be expected to step in and cover the losses of a fund over something like this. That's why I was very clear in the contract that I will not be made liable for damage caused to the fund by actions of the exchange. OTOH, if I made a stupid investment decision, then you could vote me out as the fund manager. That's your option, it's in the contract. I accept full responsibility for stuff that is my fault.

However, as I stated, there is a way we can move forward. It depends on shareholders not redeeming their shares and supporting the move to invest into a real estate project (as explained elsewhere). If everyone redeems their shares there won't be any capital left to invest anywhere and all I will be able to do is give NAV, because that's all we will have left.

In your post of september 22, you mention that a new batch of shares may be sold "below NAV (0.032)".

So I am slightly confused by your statement that the current NAV is significantly less:
Quote
So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024.

I can accept that the 0.033 buyback guarantee applies to the new bond-structure, but the way I see it, investors that do not want to opt to move over into this new structure should be able to redeem their shares at 0.0315 BTC as per your recent posts.

Why should I give 80 BTC to BMF investors merely because BTC-TC closed? That does not make sense.

I haven't even taken this to vote yet.

But I will say this. If people are going to stick with the fund and support what I am doing then I will do everything I can (including guaranteeing a face value and fixed interest by securing the fund with my house). But to ask me to do that for nothing, well, I'm not sure that is really fair to me.

I understand your frustration. I share it. It took me 10 months to get listed and literally the next month the exchange shuts down. I've poured a lot of blood and tears into this. So I want to keep fighting, and make this a good deal for shareholders. I'm not giving up yet.
152  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 24, 2013, 02:35:45 PM
Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

Ehh? Didn't I give a date in my last post? I just got home from work, I'll have to check that in a bit. For now please re-read my previous post, I am pretty sure there's a date in there.

Well, the two posts are slightly confusing about the exact terms of the change of the fund into a bond. You first say that one unit is worth 0.033 and that you'll prove that by buying any share on the market for this price. By market do you refer to BTCT or to the market in general? You then mention redemptions at 95% of NAV as per the contract for redemptions that are "off-market". Finally, your second, larger post details how BMF will operate as a bond and there you do specify a date for the redemption at face value of the bond. However, your first post implies that the units are already worth 0.033 and will be bought back on the market, which I assumed to be BTCT, which is due to close in <2 weeks.

My precise situation is that I have some units of BMF that I am seeking to liquidate as I have decided to reduce my exposure to securities (at least for now) because of the BTCT closure. And my question is whether this will happen via the market/BTCT for the price of 0.033 or "off-market" at the price of 0.0315.

The basic idea here is that it's not BMF's fault, nor our problem, that BTC-TC is closing. We have lots of BTC we can invest in stuff like Ukyo.Loan or XBOND, or to hold with people like coinlenders or just-dice. That means there is no rush for me to repurchase anyone's shares. What I am doing now is adding a "don't panic" guarantee that I will a) pay fixed interest and b) buy back shares for 0.033, at a date in the future. Both of those guarantees did not exist before.

Unfortunately a lot of people will still want to liquidate their shares because they are afraid about BTC-TC closing. So it is my duty to stand by the contract and place bids at 95% of NAV. That means about 0.023 per share right now, maybe 0.024. If that's what you would like to do just xfer your shares to usagiBMF and I will send along the coins.

OTOH, if you want to stick it out with BMF and maybe buy some more shares, I will give you a special guarantee for 0.033/share (or 0.035/share) and 15.7% interest for 1 year (then repurchase). I will probably end up running a vote on this before BTC-TC shuts down. It is the right thing to do to allow shareholders to vote on what is going on, so I don't think it would be proper to allow mass redemptions until people are made aware of their choices. After all, i've sold out almost everything we own and I am holding bitcoins. We're not going to lose any more money, so it's ok to be patient and wait a couple more days.

What I am looking for is to use this crisis to strengthen BMF. If Deprived and the other shareholders (like you) agree, I will tie BMF to the real estate deal I am working on, and we can all make a lot of money. It's either that or 95% of NAV.

I wish burnside didn't do this to us. Especially to us, given the crap I had to go thru to get approved. But it's really out of my hands. Offering my investors these special guarantees and an option to get a profit out of this is really the best I can do.
153  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 24, 2013, 12:57:31 PM
Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

So to confirm: This means that you'll be placing market bids at 0.033 BTC/unit on BTCT to fill up any open asks at that price or below? If so, when do you plan on doing this?

Ehh? Didn't I give a date in my last post? I just got home from work, I'll have to check that in a bit. For now please re-read my previous post, I am pretty sure there's a date in there.
154  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 24, 2013, 05:31:24 AM
Well over the long weekend (it's moon festival in China) I met with a few key figures over a property I am buying. I met with the designers and contractors for the project and we now have a very clear financial estimate of what this is going to cost. It's going to cost 130 bitcoins for the development deposit, and it will cost 500 bitcoins to finish extending the house.

We are going to be able to come up with 90 of the 130 bitcoins needed for the development deposit, and if we can come up with the remaining 40 bitcoins, certain parties with a vested interest in seeing this go thru have guaranteed that we will get the other 500 bitcoins free and clear. Did I mention we already bought the property for 50% off? Yeah, the people who sold it were desperate for money. It's a long story but that's the gist of it.

Why is this super duper news? Because BMF is going to invest in the property too! That's right, BMF will invest the other 40 bitcoins (and then some) in seeing this through. No problem right? I can still do that even if Deprived exercises his warrants. And in reward, I will personally guarantee that BMF will be worth 0.033 per share. I think you can see that the 80 bitcoins I need to come up with to make BMF worth 0.033 is vastly less than what we are going to get to do this property. I am more than happy sinking another four or five months of my income into BMF to make it worth 0.033, and I will do so. You have my word.

But,

A vital part of this entire project is that we acquire a neighboring property and merge it with what we have now, squaring the lot. This will allow us to extend the house to the north and place on the nexus of the development, with garden paths leading directly to two different highschools. We will use the extra space to build student housing and rent it out. We can do this because the schools frequently have students from out of town living at the school and we will be able to offer a competitive rate. It's guaranteed we will be able to make a profit from that development. Secondly it will allow us to build 2 floors instead of three, with a massive walk-out roof garden and laundry facilities. I can't express to you how important the acquisition of that property is, it is worth far more than what it will take to acquire. The magic number here is 300 bitcoins. I need 300 bitcoins to get that property. That is where a new bond issue comes in. We will need to sell more shares of BMF. We need to sell 10,000 more. Theoretically they would be sold at less than face value (0.032) so that there would be some kind of profit allowed for new investors.

Finally, I would pay a fair and reasonable interest rate during the approximately 1 year it will take to repurchase all of BMF at 0.033 (I could repurchase much sooner, if I didn't invest into this house). Given the amount of money I expect to make on this I do not mind paying 24% (at 2%/month). This would of course be tied to mtgoxjpy (yen). This places BMF along the same lines as FIMB, CIPHERMINE.B1 or RentalStarter.

The great thing is, BMF can continue operating exactly as before, selling shares at exactly the same price, and so on. See, all this is just a back explanation for why BMF is peachy keen and you have nothing to worry about. We will want to list on another exchange. We will use almost exactly the same contract, too. But as a confidence booster we will place a minimum guaranteed interest rate on BMF so that you know we are serious and not screwing around.

The long and short of it is this; (--edit: this will be put to vote before it is implemented.)

1. BMF is now a bond with a face value of 0.033.
(intended but not guaranteed to get Deprived to drop the redeem clause on his warrants).

2. BMF pays 15.6% per year as weekly payments of 0.3% tied to yen at 13,000/BTC.
(intended to get investors to be happy about holding their shares until I can buy them back with my paycheque).

3. BMF will sell an additional 10,000 (and no more) bonds at 0.032 in order to finance the acquisition of the neighboring property. Should this sale be completed the face value of BMF will rise to 0.035, granting an instant 0.03 profit per unit to the investors.
(intended to allow us to acquire and develop the neighboring property).

4. BMF will become redeemable at face value after December 31st, 2014.
(At this point you will be able to redeem for 0.033 or 0.035/bond).

5. BMF will seek to relist on a different exchange or if invited to do so.
(to facilitate coupon payments and repurchase).

The important thing to understand is that the bond will be tied to yen (I think mtgoxjpy is 13,000 now). So if BTC doubles vs. yen, you will not be repaid 0.033 but less. This should be obvious since we are investing in real estate and merely transacting in BTC.

So right now I advise every investor to do one of the following:

1. Sell out now for 95% of NAV by sending me a PM.
You are advised to do this before the exchange closes. When the exchange closes this offer will be suspended for several months because I will sink all of BMF's capital into the property.
Of course, if you have warrants, you can sell for 0.032.

2. Buy more shares of BMF at less than face value
If we sell out 10,000 more at below face value (0.032 --edit: assuming the vote for this plan passes) we will increase the face value from 0.033 to 0.035 and everybody wins.
The 15.6% will be based on the new face value as well, so you will get even more money out of your existing shares.
This offer will expire in early December. We need the money before then for the development deposit.
After December the house plan will be set in stone and will be difficult to change, so we need the money to buy the neighboring property before then.

3. Do nothing.
You will begin receiving payments of 15.6% once the development deposit has been paid (--edit: assuming the vote for this plan passes)
You will get more if other people buy more shares and the face value rises to 0.035 because of them.
You will have the opportunity to sell your shares back to me at 0.033 or 0.035 before the end of 2014.

How do you buy more shares of BMF? Send me a PM. We can run much like the old GBF and hold it manually for you. Hopefully we can relist on another exchange, but where, I do not know. I'd like to list on BitFunder but have been told we can't get an answer until after October. We shall see.
155  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 24, 2013, 05:00:44 AM
So here's the plan:

1. confusing mix of explanations and apologetics
3. BMF is worth 0.033 per share.

Yes, I know, this doesn't make sense. But I've learned the hard way from GLBSE closure how to handle this situation. So there it is, BMF is now worth 0.033 per share, and I will prove it by buying back every share on the market at that price.

If you don't believe me, then you're crazy. But go ahead. If Deprived executes his warrants, or not, every share will be bought back at 0.033 or above.

But, if you need me to force buyback your shares off-market, you will get 95% of 0.033 (which is in the contract) or 0.03135. So basically, if you have to send me a PM or e-mail because you can't sell your shares on the market, you are guaranteed to get a minimum of 0.03135. That's the long and short of it. It makes no sense to involve BMF in any other company or bond issue. This way things are kept exceedingly simple.

But!

There is a new way forward. BMF isn't closing. We are still here, and we have a special plan for those who choose not to redeem their shares.

I will now discuss that plan.
156  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- DISCUSSION: Motion to list BMF.B1 on: September 23, 2013, 06:51:04 PM
You might want to Options->Wrap lines.

http://www.mergely.com/nSpOy3ho/

Thanks, but there's no option to edit a motion in progress. That being said, the motion will probably have to be redone or NYAN/A shareholders will receive significantly less for a couple of reasons. Those reasons are also relevant to BMF (and NYAN/A shareholders will likely read this) so a few comments.

1. The major loss here is that we bought 25 shares of BTC-TRADING-PT a while ago and those are now worth zero. This has reduced the value of BMF shares to around 0.29.

2. The secondary loss is that face value bonds were sold out at an average of only 100% and not 106%. We were LUCKY here. I was online and trading throughout this whole thing and was able to dump a significant amount of shares in the 20 minutes between when I read burnside's post and when he stopped trading. That (and other minor losses associated with a depressed market) reduced the value of BMF shares to around 0.025 (assuming I get a reasonable price for the very few remaining unsold assets).

3. If Deprived chooses to exercise his bonds around the middle of November, the value of BMF is expected to fall to about 0.02. However, I hope to interest him in a deal. The deal involves the new bond issue I've been mentioning on this thread, which is slated to take center stage in this thread because it represents salvation for BMF investors.
157  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: September 23, 2013, 07:04:33 AM
We've been trying to work out some fairly serious issues.  I really hope to be able to post more soon.

EEK! Burnside, we've seen this before. If you can't comment on this, it can only mean you are in legal trouble, and then everything will go to hell. Especially given that it implies you have been forced to close registration either by lawyer's advice or officially.

Based on my past experience I am going have to act as if BTC-TC will close within 24 hours.

BMF reminds it's investors that it is not liable for losses caused by the closure of an exchange... :/

Immediately after this I placed all securities on sale and attempted to withdraw the balance of BMF's account (more than 50 BTC).

Not 20 min later, I see this:

"Apologies. Trading has been temporarily frozen for system maintenance. We'll be back shortly"

Additionally, my balance shows "Balance: 0" which means we are missing ~80 BTC.

That is so not cool.
158  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: September 23, 2013, 05:23:05 AM
We've been trying to work out some fairly serious issues.  I really hope to be able to post more soon.

EEK! Burnside, we've seen this before. If you can't comment on this, it can only mean you are in legal trouble, and then everything will go to hell. Especially given that it implies you have been forced to close registration either by lawyer's advice or officially.

Based on my past experience I am going have to act as if BTC-TC will close within 24 hours.

BMF reminds it's investors that it is not liable for losses caused by the closure of an exchange... :/
159  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BTC-Trading Pass-Through Fund -- BTC-TRADING-PT on: September 23, 2013, 04:56:24 AM
Mabsark,

Rannasha's answers are accurate, although I disagree with his belief that the stock is overpriced. The exchanges are growing and I believe they will continue to grow. Increasing profits justify a higher price.

I don't provide a history because that information can be obtained elsewhere already (including in this thread), and because I'm lazy.

BTC-TRADING-PT is passive and only hold shares of LTC-GLOBAL. Its price closely follows the price of LTC-GLOBAL, but it is denominated in BTC. Ignoring recent events, it has dropped over the last several weeks because the price of LTC in terms of BTC has been falling (20% or so).


John Bolton
John Galt Asset Management


The fund's assets can be viewed on this page: https://litecoinglobal.com/portfolio/gbw4

Can anyone tell me what's on that page as I can't view it? I need an LTC-GLOBAL account but registration is currently disabled.


Looks like the problem is a little bit bigger than that. Luckily my trading strategy caused me to avoid a 50 BTC loss, as I had only picked up 20 or so shares above .90. Still, an 8-10 BTC loss with little to no warning is pretty bad.

I didn't actually realize that LTC-GLOBAL had stopped allowing new users. Looks like BTC-TC has too. That's an extremely troubling sign. I'm going to have to look into that. I'd say shares of LTC-GLOBAL are worth IPO right about now (20 LTC) not 300 (or 450+ for that matter).
160  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BMF -- The Return of the Original Mining Fund on: September 22, 2013, 06:32:48 PM
Note: BMF investors please be aware that a large number (more than 2000) shares of BMF may hit the market soon, and the intent is to sell them below NAV (0.032) to move the shares as fast as possible. Please see https://btct.co/security/NYAN.A for more information.

The motion will be considered passed if 50.1% of total shareholders vote YES, since at that even if everyone else votes NO the motion will pass.

If you're interested in getting at these shares, my suggestion is to place your bid now. BMF will not place bids until after the shares are on the market, so there is plenty of time for public holders to get in on this.

happy investing~
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ... 75 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!