|
Sure hope that BTC isn't pegged to the USD's fantasy-based enrich-the-billionaires inflationary dollar policy. It'd be a really strong negative for BTC's future worth.
|
|
|
|
|
Auction is closed. No takers. But that's alright quite happy to hang on to these!
If anyone in the future is looking for shares those will have at least some available. 1.7 BTC per share is my absolute min though. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Thanks man  Okay going start staring at the calendar see if I can hurry up delivery times for us all. |
|
|
|
|
Always liked the looks of KNCMiner...
I'm in for 6 shares. 3 BTC sent.
Transaction ID : 143eeb334bc8c4f6e907f40264444d965b9ad8199ba978e44c804d832e3442d7
PM forthcoming... and now sent.
|
|
|
|
|
They are shipping more than 2-3 a day.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you guys think about this? I read some people on this forum saying that the scam'alts, or scamalts as I call them, do not have a negative affect on the price of BTC.
Personally I don't see how that could be. For 9 out of 10 new coins they typically get invented and have a value for the first little while they are around, because they crash to nothingness. And there is also a lot of premining going on as well. Basically these coins just have their value established out of thin air, and they people (often the creators and preminers) will quickly convert the dumb coin into BTC which actually has value. So the end of this brief cycle is that someone has swapped almost completely worthless coin for a reasonable amount of BTC.
Am I missing something here on how this does not contribute to the subtraction of value of BTC in fiat? Because if this is the case, the 25+ scam coins trading these days really must be hurting BTC's value.
I don't think -- even if it was possible -- that alt coins should be banned or anything. I just wish folks would not trade for them so much. The alt-coins should start with values like 0.0000001 and work their way up if they prove useful. Not start at 0.003 for an initial feeding frenzy and dump, then fizzling out 2 weeks later...
Open to any discussion but not dumb flames or stupidly please+thanks...
|
|
|
|
Rad ASICs for the masses, just on the horizon a few months away. |
|
|
|
What's the point of having a starting bid for these at 3? Anyone can just go to BTC-TC and get them cheaper  |
|
|
|
|
Great to see the balling roll and folks getting updates. World of change from just a week ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still profitable with my 5x7950s. But I think the gig will be up come September.
|
|
|
|
I think the chances are pretty low there will be a batch 4. I don't want to dig through threads for the next hour, but pretty sure Yifu said that it was going to be the last batch. They are going to supply the chips going forward, and folks will be making Klondikes and other similar units. And this is why you should buy my batch 3 group buy shares !  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=232223.0 |
|
|
|
|
Ok FinShaggy. At the very least then, I think your statement than puts the onus on you to show when Devcoin was worth 10$ then. You made the statement, so it is fair that you be the one to find proof of this.
If you can't find the proof, absolutely no reason not to remove the claim.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm not going to argue with you.
I think you are trying to swim upstream though. I think when you represent a community, it is always better to go with the majority opinion. I don't think many folks, out of the community at large, would side with you on this.
Also I don't think it does Devcoin any favors even it is shown to be technically accurate. New comers would then see that Devcoin is only worth about a millionth of what it was once worth a few months ago, which is not very inspiring.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we can at least all agree (I presume?) that it is misleading to state that Devcoin had a high of $10. If it did happen, and I don't think it did, it was a very brief aberration and in no way really indicative of the actual, respectable worth of Devcoin.
I'm not saying you are acting dishonestly or anything like that. Let's just change the statement to something a bit more reasonable for the benefit of everyone, and accuracy, and move on. Sound reasonable?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that could only plausibly be accurate if it was when maybe it was the first day DVC was on Vircurex, and that was just one of the first offers maybe?
As you can see from the charts DVC was at the absolute most only close to about a $1, and only for a brief time, (.90 cents is the all-time high I could see), and was never anywhere around the $10 mark. Actually I might be messing up my chart-reading again. I think maybe 9 cents was the all time high, not .90.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignored....
If this person is older than 16 14 than I feel for him. He must have some sort of mental retardation.
|
|
|
|
Whoops,  , yes sorry, my math fail there. You are correct. |
|
|
|
[response to hotcoldcoin's post above] I'm not allowing anything. Merely offering a plausible explanation for the mistake. Note, I haven't read Finshaggy's other posts on this. There was ONE day, April 21st, according to the cryptochart for DVC at crytocharts.info, that the coin was worth about 9$, and may have, may have briefly touched 10$. Still would make FinShaggy's statement a big hyperbole and misleading, but I don't think this one error negates all of Finshaggy's work for the devcoin community or think that is a mistake worthy of banishment, personally. Just something that ought be fixed. As for the other topic of shares, I'm slightly bitter I missed the deadline at devtome. My contrib must have missed the script by just an hour or two  aw well, next round I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
Sort of a long shot, but not entirely implausible that the writer meant / was thinking 10 cents perhaps? The coin has been worth more than 10 cents often enough, but ya never close to the $10 mark. ... Though the way it was written, it does seem like $10 was intended.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
