PPA wasn't out of date. 0.9.1 only linked against the patched openSSL. there was no need to release a new version in the PPA since ubuntu patched it for you. There was a discussion about this on the mailing list. They probably should have released 0.9.1 into the PPA to clear up confusion, but 0.9 in the PPA is the same as home-built 0.9.1

it's not installed, it's generated once you run bitcoin-qt or bitcoind.

no, just a whale that would cause huge variance and quit while he was ahead. If he kept playing, he'd lose eventually - but he was "smart" and stopped playing.

This was a model for how group buys should work. Thanks for all your effort!

http://nastyfans.org:9332/fee
0%, they run on altcoin (namecoin) merge mining.

yeah, I fixed that in my post too, thanks

i replied over there

stratum adds nonce2 in the coinbase, but you also get to change ntime (and nonce) both in the header like you could with getwork
http://mining.bitcoin.cz/stratum-mining

edit: 2^32x2^16 corresponds to how many connections a proxy server can have open at a time: 4 bytes for the pool you connected to, two bytes to identify the proxy server connection . In one second, ntime doesn't change - so the maximum number of workunits your server can generate in a given second is 2^32x2^16=2.8147e+14 workunits/second. (one workunit=one hash)

with the above proxy server, your individual miner can create 2 bytes (extranonce2)+4 bytes (nonce) 2^8*2^32 work units per second = 1e+12 workunits/second

EDIT2: without stratum (i.e., only using getwork), both the proxy server and an individual miner is limited to 2^32=4.2950e+09 workunits/second

The new guidance is that cryptocurrencies always were property, not just starting this year - but since their origination. Therefore, if you didn't report them as property in 2008, you were committing tax evasion in 2008. However, they will graciously allow you to voluntarily report those previous earnings and they won't penalize you.

Your tax advisor is correct. Without 1099s, there is nearly no way (or at least it is massively cost prohibitive) for the IRS to track down every bitcoin user prior to this year. It doesn't change the fact that you were supposed to do it since 2008.

In my opinion, this is a band-aid until the IRS figures out real rules. They need something so the new bitcoin millionaires can get taxed, but it isn't ideal for the IRS nor users.

LRM could be fine, they just need to collect SSNs and addresses of everyone and issue 1099MISCs for everyone that earned a total of $600 in a given year (valued at the time dividends were sent). If LR stored bitcoin, he'd need to pay tax on his earnings. I'm assuming he set up his LLC as a pasthrough, so he'll pay individual rates on distributions he makes to himself. This is an additional complication, and something I pointed out 50 or so pages ago - but was told that LR doesn't keep anything in BTC so this wouldn't be an issue. strikethrough, it can be complicated depending on the wording of the new "contracts" so I don't really know how this effects LRM.

Yes, you can still buy in to this group buy. You can buy from the following forum members, please see:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=328135.0

ADDICTION Order Book 41.8 MH/s/share

BID:
10000@0.00011 - maqifrnswa
10000@0.00015- Bitcoinmiami

ASK:
1445@0.00035-Mudge
639@0.00085 - kirk46
100@0.0017 - msm595
2062@0.00235 - Kushedout
3409@0.0029 - btceic - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244042.msg3632557#msg3632557
138@0.0025 - Ditto - Auction
2500@0.002904 -justanickname - Auction
4500@0.00299- utens - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=335598.0

totally agree - you are hitting the important point, the only one that matters. I've written exactly what you've said in the past - as long as people get what they paid for, everything is fine.

However, it's been months of radio silence - so random interesting speculation is as helpful as blank computer screens, just more entertaining.

for all we know, this is as much an IRS thing as a fincen/sec/whatever.

Here's some more sausage, because it's fun to make up stories:

March 15 is the business filing day in the US. Perhaps as he prepared taxes several things showed up.

His LLC equity far exceeds capital contributions. The money had to come from somewhere. It either came from sales of services/goods, sale of equity, or sale of bonds/loans. When LR started the company, he didn't want to sell fixed rate contracts (that eliminated sale of "services"), definitely didn't want to give up equity, so said he was selling "bonds." When accountants saw that, and saw that the bonds were not backed by anything nor where there any promissory notes or other necessary documents, they realized he was running outside of the rules of taxes. Tax lawyers may have told him that he really needs to sell something "concrete" or sell equity (but equity is very complicated and he losses control, but it would allow investors to maintain a growing share of the company).

I still think this may have nothing to do with bitcoin regulation but instead something to do with LR not knowing how to run a business or a security. He essentially promised people equity (a share in growing proceeds from the operation including investment of retained earnings), but declined to give them equity.

I think this is where it is going. I'd personally like to see market forces control hashrate increase. If LR controls how many shares you get every time hardware arrives, then fees, expenses, and cost of purchase will still all be invisible to investors and make the contracts impossible to value accurately. If contracts are worth 100 MH/s, and LR is forced to sell new hashrate increases at market rates (i.e., reinvestment occurs in public, not behind the scenes), LRM is much more likely to survive long term and not burn through cash with inefficient purchases. I outlined a few pages back two ways it can be underwritten: one way LRM assumes all risk and reward, the other is sharing risk and reward (underwriting of hardware) amongst interested investors.

I must apologize - I think someone is doing this to flood the market with fake stuff like this in order to kill off copycats and protect the original authors of bitshares.
that was really clever! Thank you!

yeah, so people want to donate to a project that illegally takes someone elses code (in violation of https://github.com/InvictusInnovations/BitShares/blob/master/LICENSE.md), has no known team or backing, and will try to compete against a multi-million dollar company with prominent connections in the field?
It's either stupid, or a scam...

If bonds stay at 300MH/s (that is, pre-split value), then yes they are worthless. I think many are operating under the assumption that more bond splits are coming in proportion to future hash rate. It's wishful thinking but is the only logical conclusion that you can get at if LR wants to be fair. Sure, there'll be lots of debate on that, but we'll have to wait and see.

luckily, i have no more bonds ;-) but i'm looking for good deals, and this may turn in to one...

I don't know the specific problem is, the proposals address legal issues around what is a contract and what is a stock/bond - but it doesn't address anything about FinCen (i don't even know if this is a FinCen issue or not). The originally structured offering didn't really follow any legal precedence - it was a hybrid stock/bond/derivative/contract. That might cause problems with SEC and IRS since you can't pick and choose which rules you operate under from those four, you have to pick one set and go with it. I think it is possible for LR to figure this out fairly and for the company/offering to be much improved next week compared to two weeks ago.

I think he's turning this into how a "real" company should work, but that will probably piss a lot of people off and share value will drop as there is a market correction. Shares were possibly overvalued since no one could do a proper valuation since so much of the offering was invisible to investors (how much hashrate incoming, how much BTC was spent on what, how many BTC are left, what are rent/utility bills, what is LR's fee). The sad thing is that the majority of investors thought they were undervalued because of lack of liquidity (I was even ridiculed at one point for suggesting shares were overvalued because it was "obvious" to some investors that the only reason why they were trading so low was because bitfunder collapsed). The new system (if LR does something like system 2) makes everything extremely transparent and easy to know what you actually own.

I've been very critical of how everything about LRM has been handled and am the one that posted about sendmany within hours of the fee debacle (when LR kept all dividends of low-share count accounts after bitfunder collapsed). Even though i've been very critical, I think LR actually cares and wants to fix this - and there are ways that can fix it to be fair. We'll have to see if he can find a way to do it.

here are two example systems that follows the spirit of LRM's initial IPO and should be fair and legal. I strongly prefer system 2, which is modelled after ADDICTION which successfully did that for the purchase of 22+ KNC Jupiters in 3 separate group buys purchased weeks apart, but trade as the same security. The difference is LRM wants to do reinvestment.

System 1 (more closely in line with the spirit of the IPO, but I don't like this since fees are still opaque):
1) shares were 300 MH/s, and split 3x so they are currently 100 MH/s. The total number of shares outstanding equals 75% of the current total hashrate.
2) When new hardware (that has already been ordered) arrives, shares split again so that the total number of shares outstanding equals 75% of the total hashrate.
3) LRM purchases hardware and pays bills with the remaining 25%
4) when new hardware arrives, every shares splits to keep it so that each share is 100 MH/s

System 2 (more economically/financially "correct" but people may not like it. System 2 is much easier to calculate share valuation, and easier to put economic pressure on LR to make good decisions):
1) shares were 300 MH/s, and split 3x so they are currently 100 MH/s. The total number of shares outstanding equals 75% of the current total hashrate.
2) When new hardware (that has already been ordered) arrives, shares split again so that the total number of shares outstanding equals 75% of the total hashrate.
3) At this point, LRM purchases new hardware by one of two methods:
3a) Raise funds from the community at a rate LR finds fair and covers expenses, and issues shares to those that invested at a rate of 1 share per 100 GH/s. For example, if in the future he wants to buy a 1 TH/s miner, her can sell up to 1000 more shares at whatever price he wants to sell them for and keep the rest (1000 minus what is sold) for himself/LRM as a fee to pay expenses (this is fair and expected, if he takes too much the market will reject his offering). The shares ARE NOT ISSUED (thus no dividends or dilution) until the hardware arrives and is mining. Risk and reward are placed directly on investors that want to increase the mining hashrate and think it is a good deal.
OR
3b) LRM buys hardware with internal funds and sells share on the open market at 100 MH/s. Here the assumption, for LR, is that he can sell the hashrate for more than he bought it for to cover expenses. LR takes all the risk and reward in 3b.
4) An exchange is set up so users can choose what they want their reinvestment percentage to be. If you liked the original 25%, then 25% of your dividends will buy new shares. These new shares are either from LRM (3b above) or from other users and acts to properly set the market for how much LR should pay for new hardware. If you don't want to reinvest (i.e., don't trust LR), then make it 0%. If you think LR makes great decisions and will make more money in the future, set it to 100%.


In both of the above cases, the value per share is continuously decreasing, but the number of shares you own is increasing to keep up with LRM growth. The first case is pretty much the way LRM was set up from the start, the second case I think is a much improved and probably more "legal" solution - and it allows market forces to control how much hashrate is bought for how much money. LR won't like system 2 because it takes control out of his hands and puts it into the market and investors.

EDIT: one economic error with system 2, the total number of shares outstanding should account for >75% of the hashrate since reinvestment should occur through automatic dividend reinvestment instead of through LRM owning hashrate. It should be something fair that can cover expenses and LR fee - maybe 90%?