 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
|
May I add to the motion that priority of selling goes to shareholders?
|
|
|
|
Hi creativex I wonder if it is possible to put a threshold on a number of reinvestment funds that needs a vote before spending. What I mean say the threshold for example is 20 BTC, anything to be spent more than that would need a motion while anything less than does not need a vote. a timeframe for less than 20BTC payment is required to prevent using the funds frequently without votes  It's just a suggestion, we have full faith in you, and you are doing a great job |
|
|
|
|
Hello, I've sent a PM yesterday asking for 2 shares, sent you the txid and other info in PM
|
|
|
|
|
@iCEBREAKER
What you call a "gamble with investors' money" is in no way a violation of the Basic-Mining contract. The mining pool and payment methods were not addressed as "require shareholders' vote".
And in the contract under "Organization and Management" it clearly states that:
"Eric Corlew is the sole operator of bASIC-MINING at this time. All decisions not
specifically requiring shareholder approval as per the above contract will be at
the sole discretion of Eric Corlew."
In addition to that, creativx owns 20% of the shares in the company, getting a daily of something like 2-2.5 bitcoins at the current time from managing the company. I do not see him sabotaging this by doing things that reduce the trust of the shareholders placed in him. It is not because he loves his shareholders but it is his own best interest to continue running this establishment.
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I do not know any of the cloudhashing guys and I am not accusing them of scam or not.
but here are some numbers with some assumptions that I made.
Assuming difficulty is up %20 per month
Assuming the 10GH contract
I have used the average difficulty over the next two years which would be around 310million.
The net income over two years would be around -197 USD if the value of bitcoin stays the same, which is highly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
rnt2jL3KcHTcYxhszbbdax5TLY2ePDNpvX
|
|
|
|
My yesterday's balance was around 77LTC today I have only 60 That is ALOT... Also whenever I try to withdraw it gives me "Transaction failed(incorrect address?)" Any help would be appreciated  |
|
|
|
Not yet updated in the spreadsheet |
|
|
|
I'm all up for looking for good deals for GPUs, as LTC is getting a good value at the moment which can do good for dividends rather than spending from the reserves. At the current difficulty you can easily increase the daily dividends by 0.05BTC/day per GPU assuming you are getting 7950. GPUs will still be decent even after ASIC delivery as LTC is gaining value now. So I'm all for GPUs rather than pay divs from treasury I know you do not like to manage more GPUs than what you've already have, but the return would be better than spending from treasury Keep up the good work creativex  |
|
|
|
Here are the 2 reasons why I like LTC:
1- CPU mining is not yet obsolete, so I can use GPUs for BTC and CPU for LTC on the same machine.
2- ASIC resistance. After ASICs hit the BTC network gpus will be much less useful for btc mining, might as well go ltc with them.
It's not ASIC resistant at all. You could make an ASIC for LTC if you seriously wanted to and though it was worthwhile. What you mean to say, more precisely, is that Bitcoin specific ASIC's (SHA-256) will not work for LTC. That said however, almost all of the rest of the bitcoin hashpower COULD work on LTC. So if you're happy about CPU mining, if all that mining power were to switch to LTC, all CPU miners would be similarly royally screwed. Not an ASIC but the effect would be the same. :-) If I understood correctly scrypt algorithm requires memory to function, and creating ASICs with memory in them [which is more expensive] will not be feasible at least for a year or 2. So Unless LTC becomes really high I dont think any company would bother making ASICs for it since these ASICs will even cost more than the traditional BTC ones. This is just my understanding, correct me if I was wrong |
|
|
|
|
Here are the 2 reasons why I like LTC:
1- CPU mining is not yet obsolete, so I can use GPUs for BTC and CPU for LTC on the same machine.
2- ASIC resistance. After ASICs hit the BTC network gpus will be much less useful for btc mining, might as well go ltc with them.
|
|
|
|
Hello again May I suggest that you put the average hashing power of the company in the spreadsheet? it might give investor a better look at the company. |
|
|
|
Hi Just wondering if there are any ASIC plans after cancelling the BTCFPGA order. buying GPUs will not be enough to survive the ASICalypse  |
|
|
|
Hi, Just wondering, when will you finish constructing your website |
|
|
|
GIGAMINING 10 @ 0.00001000
YAMBC 30 @ 0.0100000
BTC-MINING 300 @ 0.00001000
This is my bid |
|
|
|
Thanks for clearing up I thought ASIC mining power was exclusive to those who deposit with the last 1111. My mistake |
|
|
|
|
The only issue i have with this plan on the ASIC is that early adopters will not benefit from it at all, in fact it would hurt them rather than benefit them.
Another plan is to scale the whole project together in a way that early adopters will get the rewards faster instead of stretching the ROI time even longer.
I mean with the 18BTC I deposited 5 months ago, there has been no increase in the infrastructure hashing speed which makes it no different than mining bonds except more expensive since most mining bonds are permanent.
Early adopters will be stuck with less than 10MH/BTC without the ability to scale up with the arrival of ASICs to the market which will result even longer time to get the reward after ASIC arrival. (at least x5 time)
With that in mind, instead of getting the reward back in 30-40 months, it would be over 10 years to get the btc back with the very low speeds.
|
|
|
|
At the current moment we passed 1,173.104 |
|
|
|
|
