The reason is because of the continued controversy on how to fairly convert/merge the shares.  BFLS holders want 1:1.18, 1:1.1 or 1:1 while the BFLS.RIG holders don't see any of those solutions as fair.  None of the arguments are invalid and they all have merit, which is why it's hard to say "We will go this route and not this one."  None of the arguments are wrong.

When I wrote the "the singles will be converted to ASIC" it was before a lot of developments had happened in the mining community, not least of which the exact extent of the level of effort required to manage singles vs a minirig.  The singles would be upgraded to a minirig no matter what, so all BFLS shares would, by default, becomes RIG shares after the conversion, but you would end up with a much lesser rate than what's being proposed here (You would end up with 30 GH against 1.5 TH per single), as stipulated by the contract.  Some people are dead set against the 1:1 ratio is the problem.

With regards to the share price being "kept higher" than the one calculated from the device USD price, I'm not sure that's relevant here... looking at the list, most people purchased directly from me for the rough equivalent of the purchase price in USD of the hardware.  I know there was some trading going on, but the volume was almost non-existent, as most people held on to the shares.  Regardless of what may have happened on the exchange, the shares were never meant to be a trading stock and for all intents and purposes, I used GLBSE as a glorified excel spreadsheet to handle the distribution of the mined funds in a fast, easy manner.  From the volume, I think most people agreed with that.

I kind of take umbrage to the accusation that this is the "Nefario" way of doing things.  The contract, from day one, has always stipulated that the hardware can be sold (or traded in for 200 shares) and the proceeds would be distributed to the shareholders.  I am trying to find the least disruptive way of handling this within the scope of the contract.  I am NOT just throwing the contract out of the window and doing what I want to do... heck if I was doing that, I'd just say "Sorry, GLBSE is dead and this is too much hassle to deal with, ya'll are stuck." 

With regards to "quantity and price are as yet undetermined" - that is to say I don't know how much of the hardware I want to release to the public and how much I want to keep for myself.  Beyond that, the shares will be offered on a first come, first serve basis to anyone and will likely be offered in lots of 50 or so, since it would be exceptionally time consuming to  handle anything less... none of the share purchase/sale is automated, as I have no intentions or desires to make a full fledged exchange.  I would like to have a set of investors that want to share in the ASIC platform who don't want to invest in the hardware themselves or operate it, I don't want people trading shares back and forth trying to arbitrage or make a profit from the sale...  that was one of the problems I had when I sold shares initially - people wanted to buy in bulk for a discount and then resell them at a profit.  There's nothing wrong with this, it's just not something I want to be a part of. 

HorseRider: No, I haven't. I will get that sent out in the next hour.

Yes, I'll try to get to that later tonight.

No problem, I understand.  Is there something you can do about the sorting though?  I have a transaction I need to find, but I have no way to find it without sorting the columns unless I go through each transaction in each wallet individually.  Maybe have the ability to turn off pagination and use the old method until such time as there is a viable solution?  I guess I could just revert to an earlier version if need be.

I've had instances where I want to edit all comments associated with an address and instances where I just want to modify one transactions comments.  Maybe make a button that "Apply to all" or "Apply here" or something... then if they click Apply to All, update the DB ledger for all entries... I'm not sure I see the advantage of having a dynamic ledger when you are viewing it in a page by page scenario... can't you still update the ledger entrie(s) if it's not on the current page?

I guess I'm not understanding why/how you are applying this opportunity cost to only one side of the transaction, which then results in an unbalanced transaction.  Yes, BFL is late and the opportunity cost is real, but it applies to both sides of the transaction (and thus cancels out).  Saying BFL was not affected is the fundamental problem here - BFL is only not affected if the transaction is unilaterally applied to the customer and not BFL, which is not the case (as you point out in a later paragraph).  BFL would have to hold on to the BTC and then issue refunds in USD for that to apply, and that is not what's happening.  The opportunity cost that affects the customers also affects BFL.  If we had held on to the BTC, we could have gained quite a bit (again, as you already pointed out).  So yes, the opportunity cost is real in so far as "if someone had held on to the BTC, they'd have more USD value than they did before," but again that's only valid with hindsight, not with future predictions.  If BFL had known that BTC was going to rise, BFL should have kept the BTC instead of the USD.  Anyway, I'm rambling at this point... the take away from this is that the potential opportunity cost applies to both the customer and BFL and thus cancels each other out as providing an advantage to one party over another.

To answer your question, yes we maintain preorder funds separate from expenditure funds.

Hmm, yeah I've run into similar problems on various projects, so I share your pain.  Just throwing a few ideas out there (I have not looked at the Armory code, though, so these may be off base):

• Store the visual transaction records in an array for each page when the page is up, and sort by columns from the visual record, instead of taking the record directly from the Armory DB.  So you would pull the records for that page into memory and just manipulate it as if it were all text.
• Do away with column sorting and allow for a global search based on lots of different criteria (I would like this regardless). Searching across wallets would be a good idea - so you could index all the visual data, again, in a DB and then allow searches across all of it.  This would be very handy.
• Allow filtering on columns, which would somewhat negate the need for sorting (but not completely)

On a related note, how do I make transaction specific comments?  That would be really handy, I didn't know that was a feature.  Anytime I edit a comment, it seems to be tied to the address not the transaction.

Two reasons: 

One, the current website is Wordpress and I loathe Wordpress thus I tend to avoid trying to update it.
Two, the new website should be rolled out soon, so updating the old one has taken a back seat to other issues. See point one.

Hey.. windows 64 version .86-beta, sorting columns appears to be broken (probably related to the pagination code I would imagine).

Clicking columns won't sort any of them anymore, which makes finding a transaction difficult.  A global search function would be really nice, too... I have a bunch of wallets and thousands of transactions, so finding a particular transaction in a particular wallet is sometimes problematical.

8 @ 4.25

Here's my list of share holders.  If you see something off let me know, but this is what I have and without some evidence to the contrary I am reluctant to go against this list.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtKoE07Urp8_dHFpUFVlcDVpeWVGUmUwZFY4WXpHbHc

Please contact me with your full BTC address to confirm your shares and account, so I can correlate my database to this list.  I will mark your column green once you've confirmed your shares.

For BFLS, I will be paying out accumulated dividends as well as the buyout of the hardware.  Because of the controversy in conversion and to make things easier and to fulfill the original contract as stipulated, I am choosing to go this route.  

I will then offer some RIG shares, quantity and price are as yet undetermined.

It kills me to agree with Jutarul, but this is actually a pretty good way to measure it.  The whole "If you bought BTC instead of XXXX device in YYY time, you would have made ZZZZ" is ludicrous and goes to show that the person making that argument does not understand how money works.  I know it's already been said, but the value of BTC could have just as easily gone down and you would have made out ahead.  Unless you have a crystal ball, saying "You would have made ZZZZ" after the fact is nothing but rhetoric.  Sure, I can say that about ANY financial transaction that involves the exchange of money... if I had known AUD would have dropped so much since 2008, I would be a millionaire right now... however, I didn't know the USD would lose value as quickly as it did against AUD.  Hindsight is great for making financial predictions, you are always 100% right.

Now you go apply that to the real world and see how you make out.

Like I said, please find someone to explain basic English to you.  I can't help you any further.

8 @ 3.75

I hope by this weekend if I get a chance to finish and correlate everything.

Wow, we've managed to find someone more devoid of intelligence than PuertoLibre, congrats!

If you can't read, then I can't help you.  If your'e too stupid to understand what you read, then again, I can't help you.  I'm not you're keeper, I suggest you go find someone willing to hold your hand through simple English sentences.

So let me get this straight... you want me to ... wait for it ... predict the future.  Wow, and here I thought the ludicrous, often idiotic demands had reached a frenzied peak, but again you never cease to amaze me with the depths of your stupidity, Syke.  Thank you for pointing out, once again, that some "members" of this forum are always capable of bringing more stupidity than has already come before, no matter how idiotic what has come before is.  Einstein was right...

Yes it's true, this quoted boy is an idiot.

What part of this was unclear?



Come around to what?  It's been like that for months.


No. I am explaining to you the current state of events.  You chose to disbelieve me, which is your prerogative.  It does not, however, make you correct.  You very rarely get ANYTHING correct, and this time is no different.  I honestly can't tell if it's from mental incapacity or you do it intentionally just because you like to stir up trouble.  So good on you for being so opaque that you are quite possibly indistinguishable from a monkey banging on a keyboard.

Haha, the idiots are out in force tonight.

Let me just sum up all the responses:

Syke: You're an idiot.  You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
PuertoLibre: You, too, are an idiot.  Everything you type is bullshit for the most part.  These past few posts are ridiculous to anyone even partially sane, but I'm sure they make sense to you.

To everyone else:  BFL refunds anyone who asks.  We always have. Yes, the policy on our website is CYA, absolutely, and I have always maintained that.  If you want to sell your order, that's on you.  We won't change the shipping address.  We will verify that someone actually HAS an order with us.  Whether or not they will honor your purchase is Caveat Emptor and if you do not want to assume that risk, ask for a refund.  PuertoLibre's delusions aside, this has been the case for months, if there are instances where a CS rep has changed addresses, a) That rep did it improperly and B) I would like to know about it, as I am unaware of this happening since I came on board and started setting and enforcing company policy.

This just makes my head a-splode.  Do you even read what you write or do thoughts just flow out of your head and into your fingers, like a stream of consciousness thing or something?

Lets boil down what you just wrote:

1. Customer wants to sell their order
AND
2. BFL won't change the shipping address
SO
3. Customer is advised to take delivery and send it to third party
BECAUSE
4. BFL does not want to be liable for scams
THEREFORE
5. BFL won't refund money because they would be out more sales.

WTF?  Seriously, how does it even make sense?  They are two completely unrelated policies and situations.  If a customer wants a refund, we issue a refund.  End of story.  If a customer wants to sell their device, then they need to take responsibility for it as we don't have the man power, nor do we want to be liable for scams.  What does one have to do with the other?  Absolutely nothing, yet in typical PuertoLibre fashion, you try to throw out FUD and paint BFL as somehow being evil and we are scamming by conflating two unrelated issues.  You go on to highlight the fact BFL "pushes the  risk of the sale from BFL to the reseller and the buyer."  Well no shit, Sherlock.  What company do you know is willing to shoulder the responsibility for third party sales, especially in a high scam environment?  You act like this is some revelation and that BFL is just crazy evil for doing this.

Do you seriously wonder why I call you an idiot?

8 @ 3