double entry bookkeeping FTW  10-24-2013 (US format) 10-26-2013 Change / Percent Verified 146 Verified 197 + 51 + 35 % Failed 42 Failed 20 - 22 - 52 % Did Not Receive 170 Did Not Receive 141 - 29 - 17 % Total 358 358 0 it's interesting to note that 40% of the bondholders didn't contact LR, but they account for only 13% of bonds. EDIT: Weighting by shares is very important, it tells you what percentage of assets are being "absorbed" by LRM. Both % of accounts and % of shares are important, for different reasons. |
|
|
|
Did dooglus ever address / reply to this post? I think given the growth of just-dice, it is now prudent to consult lawyers.
If a license is required, I'm 100% certain that all investors would be happy to take funds from the bankroll to pay legal fees.
Dooglus, can you comment on this? As a large bankroller on the site, I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks.
I haveno problem with paying for laywers, just don't take it from the bankroll - that will destroy investor confidence (and cause a run on the bank as people withdraw to avoid the tax). If doog ever dips his hand in the bankroll, the site might as well be dead. On the other hand, I have no problem changing house edge or increasing commission to cover legal expenses/licensing. But once you become 100% legal, you literally get a target on your back from regulators - so it's a hard choice. |
|
|
|
Sooo...
We have today :
Verified : 146
Failed : 42
Did not receive : 170
waited by shares: Verified: 68% Failed: 11% Did not receive: 21% Weighted? actually, I made a timer for the number of seconds each share was worth and waited until it was done. i then calculated how long I waited for each of them divided by the total amount of time I waited. Thus, "waited."  |
|
|
|
Sooo...
We have today :
Verified : 146
Failed : 42
Did not receive : 170
waited weighted by shares: Verified: 68% Failed: 11% Did not receive: 21% |
|
|
|
It's not final, @Lab_Rat is looking into automated solutions. (And the nastyfans website looks kind of cool....) * grnbrg takes off any sort of "official" LRM hat. My thoughts here.....As far as the 0.025 BTC fee.... I'll be honest and say that I suggested that. Until there is an automated system that only needs to be reviewed occasionally, trades are going to have to be handled manually. Between co-ordinating the emails, verifying signatures, re-requesting invalid signatures, hand-holding the users who don't really understand signatures, making and double-checking the changes to the master list, I figure that each transaction is going to take me 5-10 minutes, probably more. If there is a transaction for 2 bonds at 0.08 BTC each, the 0.5% fee would be 0.0008 BTC, or roughly 15 cents. To be perfectly honest, I don't want to bother with small transactions. (I know there are people who want small transactions, and I understand their frustration. But my time is worth more than $2 an hour.) Setting a minimum fee makes it worth my while to process trades. $5 didn't seem like an unreasonable number. But, as above. The process isn't final. Should the fee be smaller? How small? $2 per transaction? Maybe a flat fee for a transaction of any number of bonds? Again - until an automated system is set up, this will be manual.... I'm trying to foster some discussion here, and hopefully get away from the surprise changes...  grnbrg. I've been critical of fees in the past, but I don't have problems with fees that are (1) temporary and (2) voluntary while things are being sorted out. This temporarily fee puts a clamp on liquidity, but not nearly as much as being forced to close the security on bitfunder did. As long as a system is in place to reduce that restriction on liquidity, then this is a nice band-aid. Since the situation is better with the band-aid than without (i.e., no trading at all), I think it's fine for the time being. |
|
|
|
|
an idea to get nonnakip some BTC for his effort...
Have you thought about licensing your trust-free seat management software? lots of cloud mining services lost their exchanges, you could license your code to them (or host it yourself for a licensing fee).
|
|
|
|
I'm selling 130 shares cheap if anyone is interested.
I would like to know how we are going to trade the shares now.
I'm still working out the details with @Lab_Rat, but the short version is going to be that both parties will need to send an email to LR or myself, signed with the BTC address associated with the LRM shares outlining the transaction. "I want to buy 50 shares from <address> for XXXXBTC" "I want to sell 50 shares to <address> for XXXXBTC". I will provide a BTC address and will receive the funds from the buyer, and transmit them to the seller, less a 0.5% fee. (Minimum fee of 0.025 BTC.) Once I have received the payment I will update the master spreadsheet of bonds to reflect the requested sale. The above may change slightly. And @Lab_Rat needs to set up the spreadsheet yet. But that's the idea. grnbrg. And why would you do the escrow? Theres no point doing an escrow, if you see the money change hand's the deal is done. Public ledger for the win. see nastyfans.org https://www.nastyfans.org/about (read the section on selling and buying) It does what grnbrg is suggesting with no fees (besides bitcoin transaction fees). 1) I post I want to sell shares and my BTC address 2) someone clicks they want to buy my shares. My shares are put on hold and the buyer is given my BTC address 3) The buyer has 7 blocks to send money or the shares are released 4) The website monitors the blockchain to see if the BTC addressed received payment. When it is confirmed 6 times, reassign the shares to the buyer. This is a business deal, perhaps you can buy the code from nonnakip. |
|
|
|
|
nonnakip has done a great job on the site, made us immune to a lot of the uncertainty going on. I think the idea of holding no BTC on the site and just brokering private deals is brilliant, and I understand why there are only asks and no bids. Would it be possible, however, to make a pseudo-bid sheet? Maybe set up an alert system, something like:
sign up for email alerts if someone posts an ask at or below your pseudo-bid (pseudo-bids may or may not be public)
or
if someone posts an ask at or below your pseudo-bid, begin the process of exchanging shares (email the buyer the BTC address and place the shares on hold as if they bought it on the site)
it will help liquidity a little bit by letting people know that there may be an opportunity for quicker liquidation at a price. It's possible to abuse the system in the same way the current system can be abused (by reserving shares with no intention to purchase), and the bid system can be limited to existing fans (most hold a seat before placing a pseudo-bid).
|
|
|
|
Please show us the YouTube video.
Any video is meaningless. The fundamental math is not debatable -- it's like saying that 2+2=4 is just your opinion. JDs system is published and references cryptographic standards. It's just as hard for doog to cheat the published system in the proposed attack as it is for doog to crack the bitcoin network and solve blocks without hashing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generatorThere are no mathematical arguments backing up the assertion; it's not even worth discussing. Really, stop feeding the troll. verify whatever you want here: http://bitcoinmaniac.com/justdice/the above link is (literally) infinitely more significant than any empirical evidence. |
|
|
|
There have been a lot of comments that dooglus is possibly the same person/people who have taken alot of the winnings from Justdice. I have been racking my brain on a way to prove that he cannot leverage his knowledge of the server seeds, and I think I thought of something. I apologize if this has already been suggested and disproven as a nonfunctional idea. I tried to look through the forum posts, but with hundreds of pages, it is difficult to search through.
Here's the idea: what if, instead of a single server seed to generate all the random numbers for a user, the server seed is combined with the server clock time (in milliseconds), then hashed to give the random value. On every bet, the exact server clock time used to generate the random number is posted alongside with the bet and its results. In addition, the seeds are automatically changed on a regular basis, such as hourly or daily, and everyone's prior seeds can be publicly looked up. if a player appears to have unreasonably good luck and high winnings, their seeds can be looked up and hashed with the server times of their bets to prove fairness of their results.
Thoughts?
The operator (dooglus) could in this case write a simple server-side script that only accepts rolls from a specific user-id (the alter-ego account he'd use in this scenario) if they win, otherwise pretend the rolls never happened. All rolls that do take place would be perfectly verifiable. The gist of it: As long as the server and the roll-process are under the control of a single person or group of persons collaborating, there is always a way to cheat. From very obvious cheats like just running away with the cold wallet to very subtle ones like allowing staff-controlled accounts to have slightly better odds. There's a way to distribute the rolling process between different servers, each controlled by a different person. But in this scenario, you'd have to trust the server operators not to collaborate to cheat the system. In the end, it still boils down to trust. There is little you can do to prevent an untrustworthy operator from cheating you. Just pick your websites with care before you deposit. I know you pretty much say it, but I think it's worth explicitly mentioning: only investors get screwed in that scenario. It's still fair for the gamblers. |
|
|
|
|
Provably fair means that you can use math to repeat the exact roll and get the same outcome. There's no way to cheat gamblers. You know you can prove every bet in the site's existence was fair by looking at bet seeds? But everyone knows math is just someone's opinion...
Back to more serious topics, is dooglas' name taken from Chester's invisible friend from sifl and olly (the sock puppet?)
|
|
|
|
|
important question: is dooglas from sifl and olly? chester's friend?
|
|
|
|
Today morning speed dropped to 10T#  i wouldn't read too much into it yet. The original plan was to share the hashrate amongst several pools. It could be a hardware problem, or it could be just diversifying. |
|
|
|
It only worked out that way last week, and a sendmany automated payout system is underway which will result in no fees from here on out.
nice work, thank you! |
|
|
|
In addition to that math (disclosed hashrate projects and difficulty increases) there are big fundamental changes that make people feel different about the potential:
1) people less than 20 shares no longer receive dividends. that is temporary, but such a decision caused a large loss of confidence in management. The shares are worthless without reliable dividends.
2) everyone else has to pay a new fee of a minimum 0.025 per account, perhaps as much as 0.075 per account. again temporary, but investors think it is outrageous and no longer want to be a part of it.
3) transaction fees now have to paid for by investors, and are projected to be 0.0005 per account per week. Small, but investors are losing faith.
Blowing a lot of this out of proportion. Last week was THE ONLY week you'll see a 0.025 fee, and BTC0.0005 is about $0.07. If you think 7 cents on a transaction up to ~$1000 (approx what the highest bondholder was paid last week) is high. Go back to PayPal. EXACTLY! 7 cents on a transaction of 17 cents is insane (a single share)! Is the official policy of LRM that investors only count if you have >$1000 invested? If so, are there plans to merge shares to reduce dust payments? Another option, see: Another thing nastyfans does that could be good to emulate: dividends are paid out once a week in one transaction with minimal transaction fees, essentially shared by everyone. Charging every account .0005 for transaction fees is ridiculous when you can make a single transaction with fees a few times bigger than that. Example: https://blockchain.info/tx/7c4d0999406c28ca71f67bd6c6b0d73ba75f43a565513b5d54ffe0ce480c7cb1total fees for 20,000 "shares" and smaller dividends than LRM: 0.0035 BTC. I don't see how .0005 per account per week is at all reasonable when others are doing 0.00000018 per share per week (for a similar number of shares as LRM). |
|
|
|
|
Thanks Carnth and nonnakip, it was a lot of work for you and it was handled smoothly!
|
|
|
|
Unless you have reason to think these one or two people selling a lot of shares has insider information, then don't worry about why they are selling.
These events that have happened lately - like Bitfunder - are not changes in the basic fundamentals of Labrat.
what are the fundamentals of LRM? have you seen a balance sheet or income statement? Of course I'm not thinking about fundamentals in that sense of detail or transparency. I would assume most of everyone here knew that Labrat wasn't transparent on financial data. I was making the point that there is no special new information about fundamental information - that could affect revenue - that we already know or have been told. For example: Labrat hasn't changed any projections in the past couple weeks. Ordered hardware has had no good or bad updates. Difficulty is going up as always expected. Bitcoin is on the incline, but still in the same ball park as it has been for the past month. So..in THAT SENSE.. fundamentals haven't really changed (much). And seeing a lot of selling doesn't mean any of these (or one's we are not aware of) have necessarily changed - which is why I made that comment. So, if a person was happy about LRM potential, by what they knew a week ago, then I'd say there is no obvious significant changes to cause one to feel any different now about potential. They'd more likely have to form a new different opinion from the same information. see my post as to the mathematical projections. That math explains that the drop could have happened without btifunder's problems if investors lost faith in LRM. In addition to that math (disclosed hashrate projects and difficulty increases) there are big fundamental changes that make people feel different about the potential: 1) people less than 20 shares no longer receive dividends. that is temporary, but such a decision caused a large loss of confidence in management. The shares are worthless without reliable dividends. 2) everyone else has to pay a new fee of a minimum 0.025 per account, perhaps as much as 0.075 per account. again temporary, but investors think it is outrageous and no longer want to be a part of it. 3) transaction fees now have to paid for by investors, and are projected to be 0.0005 per account per week. Small, but investors are losing faith. Since there are no financial disclosures, board of directors, or real assets, this entire security is based on "trust that zach will buy the right hardware and keep paying dividends." Once the trust is gone, the security isn't based on anything. EDIT: Although illegal if this was a real security, one could imagine implementing 1-3 above to purposefully drive down the price so you can buy back the proceeds from the hardware yourself. That would be brilliant! Make other people buy you hardware and promise them the proceeds, then drive down the exchangeable price of the hardware, the buy back the rights to dividends below the cost of the hardware! |
|
|
|
Unless you have reason to think these one or two people selling a lot of shares has insider information, then don't worry about why they are selling.
These events that have happened lately - like Bitfunder - are not changes in the basic fundamentals of Labrat.
what are the fundamentals of LRM? have you seen a balance sheet or income statement? Here are the fundamentals (which aren't real fundamentals since this is based on LRM projections, not released data): This hashrate per bond value is currently 81MH/s per bond. Given a 75% difficulty increase per month, and no new hardware purchases: bonds are valued at BTC0.015 minus 0.025 per account hashrate of 400 MH/s per bond Given a 75% increase per month, and no new hardware purchases Hashing starting in november, bonds valued at BTC0.042 minus 0.025 per account hashrate of 700 MH/s per bond Given a 75% increase per month, and no new hardware purchases Hashing starting in november, bonds valued at BTC0.074 minus 0.025 per account hashrate of 700 MH/s per bond Given a 50% difficulty increase per month, and no new hardware purchases Hashing starting in november, bonds valued at BTC0.11 minus 0.025 per account to get to IPO prices, LRM has to 1) add hardware exceeding difficulty and exceeding 700 MH/s per bond with no dilution, 2) hope for < 75% per month difficulty increases, 3) drop extra dividend fees, and 4) get to full hashrate in < 1 month. At this point, there is no evidence of these improvements happening. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that there is no evidence besides occasional "we're working on deals" comments. This is why securities follow certain organizational rules and investors demand transparency. |
|
|
|
|
Again, this is one of the greatest organized and conceived group buys ever. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
