@HeavySteel: I did not suggest to make bitmit more expensive but to use the revenue model to give an incentive for faster turn-over. Sure, in the end, always the customer pays. That's only logic.
If Tosaki's target is to have the average item on stock for about one year, he could model the fee such that instead of charging 2% of the sales price, he charges 1% of the initial price per item per year of listing and 1% at sales. This way somebody selling quickly or selling well above the initial price would save money and people that have their value weighted average item listed for more than one year selling at exactly the initial price would pay more. Setting the initial price at practically zero would reduce the fee to 1%, so maybe the equilibrium would be more on the 0.5% 1.5% side but it is all doable without charging more fees in total.
@SgtSpike: Optional listing fee with a way to sort by listing fee paid would be nice but I'm afraid it wouldn't work as people would get the reasoning behind the fee wrong as I wouldn't see that as a way to actually make these auctions more expensive. How do you sell that to the shoppers that the one auction pais .1Ƀ per year of listing + 1% of whatever you pay him and the other pays 2% of what you pay. Call them A and B? Red and Blue? Guess this option has a marketing problem.
Call it featured listings. Or paid listings. Or premium listings. Something along those lines should work nicely, as people are used to those words being used for higher-paid listings. Yeah, optional featured listing would be fine, but to make it clear again that I don't want the shop to pay extra to get featrued, here is an example: Imagine a shop that has a listing of 1000 physical bitcoin wallets, selling 10 per day. He who has an interesting product would pay as in the example above 1% of initial (= final price) per month per listing + 1% per sale. Selling his 1000 physical wallets at 3Ƀ each within 100 days would result in 1%*3Ƀ*3months + 1%*3Ƀ*1000 = 30.09Ƀ as opposed to 2%*3Ƀ*1000 = 60Ƀ. Interesting idea charging the final fee based on how long the item has been up... again, he'd run into problems where people relist items by canceling the original auction and remaking it, but if that issue can be circumvented (perhaps with a craigslist-style similarity detection of some sort), I think that would make for a nice solution on both counts. Actually no. My idea is to charge even when you cancel … in advance. You would configure the listing to be re-listed 2 months, so you would have to pay 1% for the listing now, 1% next month and get de-listed afterwards. It would be trivial for 1-item-listings to pay back 0.734 months if you sell early or to charge daily. The free listings for beginners (10? 100? per account) would still apply if this model is not optional. (1%? 0.00001%? These numbers are completely made up the way it feels reasonable to me but please don't get excited about "overcharging" and "ripping off" people. It's just examples.) Ah, you had me going there... I thought we actually agreed on something! I don't think it's a bad fee model to follow, but I still don't think now is the right time to introduce fees. |
|
|
|
TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1357902718572
Please refer to this number for futher correspondence with SEC officer regarding Butterfly Labs Inc case.
Did you ask for a refund of the miner(s) that you ordered? Did BFL comply with the request? If so, what is it you are filing a complaint about, exactly? |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like I misunderstood portions of your post, certainly.
I simply do not wish to see the CPU miner removed from BitMinter is all. I think it is a good feature and a necessary tool for newbies.
|
|
|
|
You should read about BFL's history of shipping products and their CEO's history  Their history of shipping products wasn't unethical - it just wasn't well estimated/planned/executed. Incompetence, if nothing else, but not unethical. Regarding their not-CEO employee, people CAN turn over a new leaf and change. |
|
|
|
...
Kano is asking DrHaribo to remove the feature, which would limit the freedom of people to CPU mine if they wish to CPU mine. Kind of like the government makes laws to try and protect stupid people from themselves which also limit the freedom of people.
If your purpose is to mine with a CPU for profit, then no, it doesn't make sense. However, even kano himself just admitted that he does short testing runs with CPU mining. Why remove the option and not let other people do CPU mining if they want? Kano is essentially saying that what is good for him (CPU mining) isn't good for anyone else, and shouldn't be available to anyone else. In my opinion, that is an absurd viewpoint. There are a variety of reasons for a person to mine Bitcoins, and only one of those is for profit. Others might include testing, experimenting, or educating.
Actually if you bothered to read what I said ... yeah that may be a little difficult when your opinion is so ridiculous and biased ... I said ...
Then hopefully it pops up a message telling everyone that they are losing money by pressing that CPU button ...
Since there are "plenty of newcomers" that use the miner.
Myself, I will not run a closed source, obfuscated, java code miner when I have access to a free open source miner with nothing hidden. Too risky IMO. Why do you believe I have a biased opinion? Who has biased me, and how/why? Sure you said that bit about a message popping up (which I believe is a good idea, and which DrHaribo seems to have vaguely implied he has implemented), but then you follow it up with the post I quoted, stating that DrHaribo's choice to leave the CPU miner in didn't make sense, that we don't want CPU miners (who is "we", and how do you know they all agree with you?), and that what DrHaribo said is false (how is it? It seems a user would have to compile it themselves if they wanted to CPU mine). I felt it prudent to follow up with support as to why CPU mining can be appropriate in some cases. One particularly relevant case would be someone experimenting with Bitcoin mining who doesn't have a GPU capable of mining. I don't think whichever miner you choose to run is relevant to the conversation. |
|
|
|
You know what's funny?
SgtSpike asked about the sudden $0.30 rise before the sudden $0.30 rise actually happened.
Huh? No I didn't. When I made the post, the price had been up to at least $13.80 for a little while (not sure how long exactly). It just so happened that it was part of an even larger move to go beyond $14.00, but my original post was specifically talking about the rise from $13.50 to $13.80, which happened prior to my making the post. I know, I know. It's just that the rise from 14.00 to 14.30 was much sharper and I was trying to fool people into thinking that had been the rise (if you look at a chart, that one really jumps out and dwarf the previous rise(s) in speed). So I figured I could trigger some comments along the lines of "wew, SgtSpike did the buying" or "he's psychic!". Pretty lame I must admit in hindsight.  You can also put up a buy order and possibly buy below market if it gets taken. I don't know wether these routinely get taken by people though because I only ever sell on localbitcoins.com and do the buying somewhere else (bitcoin.de, bitcoin-central).
I took a sell order yesterday which had got left behind the market at the time I made it - and I was very impressed with the seller honouring it 12 hours later when the price relative to market was distant history. And this is the reason I don't sell there...! I'd forget to update my order with the latest BTC price! |
|
|
|
@HeavySteel: I did not suggest to make bitmit more expensive but to use the revenue model to give an incentive for faster turn-over. Sure, in the end, always the customer pays. That's only logic.
If Tosaki's target is to have the average item on stock for about one year, he could model the fee such that instead of charging 2% of the sales price, he charges 1% of the initial price per item per year of listing and 1% at sales. This way somebody selling quickly or selling well above the initial price would save money and people that have their value weighted average item listed for more than one year selling at exactly the initial price would pay more. Setting the initial price at practically zero would reduce the fee to 1%, so maybe the equilibrium would be more on the 0.5% 1.5% side but it is all doable without charging more fees in total.
@SgtSpike: Optional listing fee with a way to sort by listing fee paid would be nice but I'm afraid it wouldn't work as people would get the reasoning behind the fee wrong as I wouldn't see that as a way to actually make these auctions more expensive. How do you sell that to the shoppers that the one auction pais .1Ƀ per year of listing + 1% of whatever you pay him and the other pays 2% of what you pay. Call them A and B? Red and Blue? Guess this option has a marketing problem.
Call it featured listings. Or paid listings. Or premium listings. Something along those lines should work nicely, as people are used to those words being used for higher-paid listings. Yeah, optional featured listing would be fine, but to make it clear again that I don't want the shop to pay extra to get featrued, here is an example: Imagine a shop that has a listing of 1000 physical bitcoin wallets, selling 10 per day. He who has an interesting product would pay as in the example above 1% of initial (= final price) per month per listing + 1% per sale. Selling his 1000 physical wallets at 3Ƀ each within 100 days would result in 1%*3Ƀ*3months + 1%*3Ƀ*1000 = 30.09Ƀ as opposed to 2%*3Ƀ*1000 = 60Ƀ. Interesting idea charging the final fee based on how long the item has been up... again, he'd run into problems where people relist items by canceling the original auction and remaking it, but if that issue can be circumvented (perhaps with a craigslist-style similarity detection of some sort), I think that would make for a nice solution on both counts. |
|
|
|
|
If you don't mind me asking, how much did you lose?
|
|
|
|
...due to the $0.30 rise. |
|
|
|
@HeavySteel: I did not suggest to make bitmit more expensive but to use the revenue model to give an incentive for faster turn-over. Sure, in the end, always the customer pays. That's only logic.
If Tosaki's target is to have the average item on stock for about one year, he could model the fee such that instead of charging 2% of the sales price, he charges 1% of the initial price per item per year of listing and 1% at sales. This way somebody selling quickly or selling well above the initial price would save money and people that have their value weighted average item listed for more than one year selling at exactly the initial price would pay more. Setting the initial price at practically zero would reduce the fee to 1%, so maybe the equilibrium would be more on the 0.5% 1.5% side but it is all doable without charging more fees in total.
@SgtSpike: Optional listing fee with a way to sort by listing fee paid would be nice but I'm afraid it wouldn't work as people would get the reasoning behind the fee wrong as I wouldn't see that as a way to actually make these auctions more expensive. How do you sell that to the shoppers that the one auction pais .1Ƀ per year of listing + 1% of whatever you pay him and the other pays 2% of what you pay. Call them A and B? Red and Blue? Guess this option has a marketing problem.
Call it featured listings. Or paid listings. Or premium listings. Something along those lines should work nicely, as people are used to those words being used for higher-paid listings. |
|
|
|
Did you really wish to contend that *any* computer will in today's environment make more in BTC than the electricity cost when CPU mining?
Of course not. It's just there so it is possible to see what bitcoin mining is like even if you don't (yet) have the hardware to do it profitably. For cgminer they chose to force beginners to compile the miner themselves if they want to test mining on a CPU. And most beginners don't know what "compile" even means. ... So ... where is this rubbish you've stated as truth, that is in fact false, taken from? Anyone who asks for information about CPU mining on cgminer is told that it is not supported and to not discuss the subject. Even the cgminer README says it is not supported (and has for 1 year) We don't want anyone to do CPU mining no matter how new to bitcoind (or stupid) they are. None of the binaries we release allow CPU mining. I use it on rare occasions in development to test run multiple cgminers - but it only takes a couple of minutes running on my desktop to shutdown my CPU due to overheating - so my test runs including CPU mining are usually quite short. ckolivas did once completely remove it in a branch, but didn't end up putting it into the master (I can't remember why) but was probably due to being useful for code testing during development. I chose a solution that made the most sense to me.
Really? Offering CPU mining to people who are most likely ignorant of the stupidity of doing it ... makes the most sense? Go figure. Maybe you don't see it kano, but you're really starting to sound like the overbearing governments most of us are trying to avoid. Protecting stupid people from making their own stupid decisions is exactly why we have so many dang laws and regulations around everything in the first place. Let people have the freedom to make their own choices. Let people mine with their CPU if they want. Let DrHaribo give people the freedom to mine with their CPU if they want. It is their choice, not yours. Umm... I don't see Kano suggesting we make it illegal, with fines paid in BTC, for making a miner available that uses CPU. He's just pointing out that it doesn't make sense mine with a CPU cost wise. Some people here might not know that. M Kano is asking DrHaribo to remove the feature, which would limit the freedom of people to CPU mine if they wish to CPU mine. Kind of like the government makes laws to try and protect stupid people from themselves which also limit the freedom of people. If your purpose is to mine with a CPU for profit, then no, it doesn't make sense. However, even kano himself just admitted that he does short testing runs with CPU mining. Why remove the option and not let other people do CPU mining if they want? Kano is essentially saying that what is good for him (CPU mining) isn't good for anyone else, and shouldn't be available to anyone else. In my opinion, that is an absurd viewpoint. There are a variety of reasons for a person to mine Bitcoins, and only one of those is for profit. Others might include testing, experimenting, or educating. |
|
|
|
I completely disagree with the idea of introducing fees to limit listings. Bitmit needs MORE people to list on it, not fewer. I understand that with time as the only cost to list an auction, spamming can be rather prevalent, but it is not a terrible problem right now. But there are filters to search for and sort plenty well enough to get rid of any spam you might not want to see! On the other hand, fees would virtually kill the site from lack of listings. I'd much rather see a couple thousand listings with some spammy ones thrown in here and there (as it is now) than a couple dozen listens without any spam.
Bitmit needs to grow, not limit itself. No listing fees please!
I guess you don't get the point. Scrolling through bitmit filtered for auctions only, you see 2% of the items actually have bids. For me that means that 98% are overpriced. Auction means that the price gets determined by the bidders, not the seller. Sure, it's convenient for somebody uploading his 10,000 items inventory through the api setting a multiplier to his items of 1.5 hoping to fool people that are ready pay a 50% mark-up if only they can use their bitcoins. And yes, maybe he just doesn't care to ever un-list his shit cause it doesn't cost him anything to have his crap listed but it costs the buyers time and the servers space and traffic. Tosaki has to find a balance so he attracts sellers and buyers alike. Apart from being offline, bitmit currently has more sellers than buyers. That's stupid. Imagine 2 shops per capita. Yes, you are a seller and I'm advocating to hurt the sellers in order to get the buyers interested. What does a supermarket do when it doesn't sell a single glass of peanut butter? It lowers the price long term or it sells of the rest at half the price to never refill. Tosaki keeps it in store well beyond the best before date. Sure, his display space is cheaper than in the supermarket but it has a cost, too. This cost has to be reflected in some way. Maybe listing should cost 0.001Ƀ per week. It might well be that this already would solve the problem. And if you still complain, sorry I stick with this side of the story cause if paying 1.3ct. per week per item that you try to sell, you are not seriously trying to sell but you are waiting to find an idiot that buys one of your millions of items. I understand your point of view, I just don't entirely agree. Seeing 98% of auctions without bids could just as easily mean there's not enough people browsing the site. More people will browse the site if there are more listings to browse. It's also not an entirely accurate figure, as some of those could have bids before they end. What if I am a buyer looking for an item, currently "overpriced" on bitmit, but available to buy with Bitcoin? I want to buy this item with Bitcoin, and am willing to pay a premium to do so. Does that make me a fool? I'd rather like having people uploading their 10,000 items inventory automatically. It would give me, as a buyer, more options, even if a lot of them ARE overpriced. I'd rather see five results when I search for a particular item instead of zero. A decent compromise might be a system whereby a seller could opt to pay a small fee upon listing, and this would get him premium listings in SOME views on the site. Not all, because it annoys me when I am looking through autotrader and the like and I can't do a simple sort by price without it still being grouped by fee levels. But perhaps in an "auctions ending soon" view, and other default sorts, it would put the paid listings at the top, as those are more likely to not be "overpriced". Additionally, more particular users of the site such as yourself could opt to ONLY show paid listings as a user preference. |
|
|
|
Did you really wish to contend that *any* computer will in today's environment make more in BTC than the electricity cost when CPU mining?
Of course not. It's just there so it is possible to see what bitcoin mining is like even if you don't (yet) have the hardware to do it profitably. For cgminer they chose to force beginners to compile the miner themselves if they want to test mining on a CPU. And most beginners don't know what "compile" even means. ... So ... where is this rubbish you've stated as truth, that is in fact false, taken from? Anyone who asks for information about CPU mining on cgminer is told that it is not supported and to not discuss the subject. Even the cgminer README says it is not supported (and has for 1 year) We don't want anyone to do CPU mining no matter how new to bitcoind (or stupid) they are. None of the binaries we release allow CPU mining. I use it on rare occasions in development to test run multiple cgminers - but it only takes a couple of minutes running on my desktop to shutdown my CPU due to overheating - so my test runs including CPU mining are usually quite short. ckolivas did once completely remove it in a branch, but didn't end up putting it into the master (I can't remember why) but was probably due to being useful for code testing during development. I chose a solution that made the most sense to me.
Really? Offering CPU mining to people who are most likely ignorant of the stupidity of doing it ... makes the most sense? Go figure. Maybe you don't see it kano, but you're really starting to sound like the overbearing governments most of us are trying to avoid. Protecting stupid people from making their own stupid decisions is exactly why we have so many dang laws and regulations around everything in the first place. Let people have the freedom to make their own choices. Let people mine with their CPU if they want. Let DrHaribo give people the freedom to mine with their CPU if they want. It is their choice, not yours. |
|
|
|
I think OP is completely fuckin' right.
1. Design new efficient Mining Hardware
2. Take money for pre-orders
3. Build hardware using pre-order money
4. "burn in" or "test" new hardware while there's no competition and difficulty is steady
5. Delay delay delay...
6. Once competing ASICs start to ship, ship your promised hardware out
7. Sit on your virtual pile of coins and watch the difficulty skyrocket while taking more orders
Makes perfect business sense, and anyone saying "they wouldn't do that" is suffering from a terrible bout of wishful thinking. "That" is exactly what companies try to do, make maximum profit.
Would be disappointed if all the major competitors weren't in on it too.
Except some (dare I say most?) companies are actually ethical and don't lie to their customers. |
|
|
|
|
I completely disagree with the idea of introducing fees to limit listings. Bitmit needs MORE people to list on it, not fewer. I understand that with time as the only cost to list an auction, spamming can be rather prevalent, but it is not a terrible problem right now. But there are filters to search for and sort plenty well enough to get rid of any spam you might not want to see! On the other hand, fees would virtually kill the site from lack of listings. I'd much rather see a couple thousand listings with some spammy ones thrown in here and there (as it is now) than a couple dozen listens without any spam.
Bitmit needs to grow, not limit itself. No listing fees please!
|
|
|
|
You know what's funny?
SgtSpike asked about the sudden $0.30 rise before the sudden $0.30 rise actually happened.
Huh? No I didn't. When I made the post, the price had been up to at least $13.80 for a little while (not sure how long exactly). It just so happened that it was part of an even larger move to go beyond $14.00, but my original post was specifically talking about the rise from $13.50 to $13.80, which happened prior to my making the post. |
|
|
|
I thought of the stamp set but every set I found is just the capital letters. Maybe you could do the letters upside down to signify lower case.
You could just do the SHA256 hash of a set of random capital letters/numbers that you want, and use the result as your private key. Precede the random characters with "SHA256" so you don't forget that's how to use them. |
|
|
|
I'm looking to by any and all Eley Tenex 40 grain 22 ammo.
Also looking to buy 22lr in bulk. If you will sell it for less than .05 per round, hit me up.
is the second line (".05 per round") close to what you are expecting for the specific ammo on the first line? or just in general for any 22 i don't have any (for sale anyways) of either but would buy online shipped to your address at cost in btc (as long as it's not banned for sale at your exact location) I'd buy any 22 thats less than .05 per round, preferably aguila 40 grain It's not illegal to ship ammo to MA, but the big online places wont do it because the MA attorney general is a cocksucker and threatens them. (as far as i know) Has .22LR really gotten that expensive? I used to buy it a couple years ago for almost half that. everythings going up. thank that fucking retard that shot up the elementary school. Meh. Guess I'll wait until the hype dies down again. |
|
|
|
Will be interesting to see how the loans go after the recent jump from $13.80 to $14.3. IS there a list of loans with outstanding balances, repayment history, delinqneucy info, etc anywhere that's conveniently available?
"Bitcoin. Harder to repay, every day." This might also make people try to pay off loans faster. I have a loan with a year term that I am certainly not interested in waiting a year to pay it off. And not take out loans in the first place! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
