|
How much were shares originally, how many shares were issued?
|
|
|
|
|
OP I thought about this some more. You should abandon the idea of creating miners (shipping in August) and instead resell the chips to DIY folks in the US, along with assembly parts, as soon as they enter your possession.
Since you have made such a large purchase, you may have an advantage over everyone else buying chips in smaller quantities. As evidenced by the other threads with groupbuys, there is a huge market for chips where the buyer doesn't have to purchase 10k at once, and where the chips are already being shipped to the US. That's your opportunity.
Otherwise, why the hell would someone like me take the risks that you are outlining, instead of getting in on Avalon batch 4? Surely that will be cheaper and more predictable than what you are proposing, since its based on actual current difficulty and faster (by comparsion) shipping times. Think about it, there is absolutely no reason for someone to take a chance on your plan given these realities and options.
|
|
|
|
^^ i will give him that. In poker we call it pot committed! Kinda sucks ... I actually thought this guy was a scam and it seems he is one of the few who maybe actually be genuine and has made an investment into the asic market .. I hope he fairs out ok..
Yea, its awesome to see someone willing to bet millions on this. The only issue with his plan that I have is that its obvious that if he had done even some cursory estimates into what difficulty will be in August, even with very conservative estimates, he would know that he couldn't charge 1/3 of what he is planning to. Avalon has already sold hundreds of thousands of chips. Assuming that they can get those to market (which this guy is also dependent on) and then even if Asicminer ships very few units, and BFL ships none, no one will see ROI based on his anticipated pricing and timeframe, and that's ignoring the extra competition that is coming, and the other risks to his operation. |
|
|
|
|
I wish you luck sir. I personally think that your price is much too high given your expected delivery date and the current understanding of the market. But given the amount of money you have invested (and are yet still willing to invest) you do certainly seem committed.
|
|
|
|
What do you have in mind for the software to mine?
he said cgminer. |
|
|
|
|
Nick never credited me for almost a whole day of mining.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick I'm still waiting on mining credits from 2 days ago. I don't appreciate your lack of communication.
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting to credited for yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm getting the transaction message as well, which means the hot wallet is empty.
I'm going to have to move to another pool, this one is constantly fucked up.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick, it looks like I wasn't credited for mining yesterday. Can you please fix that?
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction failed(incorrect address?)
This is happening AGAIN.
|
|
|
|
So the longer I think about the block size issue, the more I'm reminded of this Hayek quote: The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit We can speculate all we want about what is going to happen in the future, but we don't really know. So, what should we do if we don't know? My default answer is "do the simplest thing that could possibly work, but make sure there is a Plan B just in case it doesn't work." In the case of the block size debate, what is the simplest thing that just might possibly work? That's easy! Eliminate the block size limit as a network rule entirely, and trust that miners and merchants and users will reject blocks that are "obviously too big." Where what is "obviously too big" will change over time as technology changes. I support this. Let's try the simple solution and if it doesn't work, we can try something else. Bitcoin is all about free market, right ? So let's allow the market to decide for us. Configuration setting can be made for both client and miner applications, so users will be able to choose. I support it too. Letting the market decide the fees and the maximum blocksize is the right answer. I happen to believe that a limited blocksize will lead to centralization, but for those that think the opposite (that larger blocksizes lead to centralization), I truly wish they would put their time and effort into helping BITCOIN scale. If you are concerned about computing requirements going up for the average user, you can certainly work towards optimizations that will lighten that load, without trying to replace Bitcoin for the majority of what constitutes its present day usage. I think thats probably why Gavin is working on the payment protocol, so that dead puppy "communication" isn't needed. All the effort and time spent discussing this issue... imagine if it was actually used productively. |
|
|
|
|
I can't withdraw at all, it keeps saying Transaction failed(incorrect address?)
|
|
|
|
honestly, i have no hope for 4). its the least likely option to get a majority behind it. plus its too optimistic. my money is on 2) with an eventual 3). This forum is not representative of bitcoin users as a whole. The majority of bitcoin users don't realize there is a fixed limit on the transaction rate and would be appalled if they knew. Move outside the circle of people who have some kind of vested interest in limiting the capabilities of the blockchain and the response would be, "Of course there shouldn't be an arbitrary limit on the transaction rate." Bitcoin with a fixed protocol limit of 1 MB blocks is like building a long distance telephone network that had a global limit of 10 calls in progress at once, and refusing to ever increase this limit no matter how much demand there was to make long distance phone calls, or how much the technology improved. I am 100% sure that a bitcoin would not be worth $144.00 USD right now if the majority of people purchasing at that price (or even half that price) had knowledge or belief that in the very short future, it would cost more than a few cents to use Bitcoin or that the network would permit a maximum of 7-20 transactions per second forever. That is not what people using, adopting, investing, or proselytizing are selling to others in their elevator speeches, because if they were aware of it they would be disgusted. Any alt chain that chooses to scale will quickly replace Bitcoin in terms of both usage and fiat exchange rate, because as should be quite obvious to anyone without ulterior motives, the two are correlated. Without usage that presents a superior alternative to existing systems, which in this case is the ability to instantly and cheaply send money anywhere without a 3rd party risk, Bitcoin is irrelevant, worthless, and soon to be obsolete. |
|
|
|
EDIT: to be clear no-one, including myself, thinks the blocksize must never change. Rather achieve scalability first through off-chain transactions, and only then do you consider increasing the limit. I made a rough guess myself that it may make sense to raise the blocksize at a market cap of around 1 trillion - still far off in the future. Fees in this scenario would be something like $5 per transaction, or $1billion/year of proof of work security. (not including the inflation subsidy) That's low enough to be affordable for things like payroll, and is still a lot cheaper than international wire transfers. Hopefully at that point Bitcoin will need less security against takedowns by authority, and/or technological improvements make it easier to run nodes. We won't get to $10 billion, let alone $1 trillion, if it costs $5 to make a bitcoin transaction. I refuse to believe that you truly do not understand this. Bitcoin will not capture enough economy if it is expensive to use because it won't be useful. Nobody is going to convert their fiat currencies twice in order to use bitcoin as a wire transfer service with a marginal (at best) savings. And they will have to convert back to their fiat currencies because bitcoin is to expensive to spend or to move to an off chain transaction service (to spend there). Expensive is not decentralized. Go fucking make PeterCoin, give it a 10KB block size, and see how far you get with that horseshit. |
|
|
|
.
The idea that Bitcoin must be crippled to 1 MB blocksizes forever is absurd and perverse and I'm extremely thankful that people smarter than I am agree with that stance. If people like you and Gavin weren't working on Bitcoin (for example, if it was run by Peter), I would be getting as far away from it as I could. |
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see YTD by year (since inception) against USD. Has anyone done that?
|
|
|
|
|
Scammers and malware are a bigger threat than governments.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
