|
Even though I'm a bit skeptical yet, the more I think about it, the more I hope that this is legit since this would be a very intriguing way to approach crowdfunding.
Anyhow, is the information on the webpage for the studio (like the phone and address)? I might have someone that would like to make use of your studio services.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, not that fortunate. Then again, I'm pretty content with what I have...At least for now.
Hell, I'll be honest, my goal is to retire by the time I'm 50. I'm still well ahead of schedule.
|
|
|
|
This entire field of crypto currency is fresh, oh so fresh. Sure, there will be a lot of losers just like tens (or hundreds) of computer variants died in the '70s. But first, there will be hype. A real hype.
Enough to think about wagering a bet on some Altcoins. An asymmetric bet with potential high reward.
I'd take on a bet like that. I also agree, that we are very new in the crypto currency field. Bitcoin only got really noticed in 2012, before that only a handful of people knew about it. Uh, there was the whole spike to $35 in June of 2011 and the Federal Inquiry into Silk Road in September of 2011. If anything, there was less aggregate attention to Bitcoin in 2012 than 2011. Anyhow, I digress, I do agree that the crypto-currency paradigm is still quite young and that there is a lot of untapped potential. The difference is that crypto-currencies haven't pushed into the mainstream collective like computers of the '70s. In one sense, we can say that the amount of dilution in this scene is either premature or we'll be in for a hell of a ride in a few years. |
|
|
|
looks interesting...although if I were to buy a company or shares in a company, financial history (turnover, overheads etc) is essential information and quite normal for it to be provided. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584664.0 Ultimate Altcoin daytraders spreadsheet It is an interesting concept, but what you say is correct. Not only is this essential information normally released, in this case I believe they are skirting around some very nasty federal laws in at least the US. They are basically proposing to sell unregulated stocks. Interested to see what happens, but my BTC will be staying in the wallet on this one. This is kind of a no-brainer. This isn't a shitcoin released on vapour-promises for a quick pump-and-dump. This is a niche offering to crowdfund ongoing equity investment with a recording studio in Montreal. If you were asked to buy equity in a similar venture using fiat-- and you probably wouldn't since you're concerned with US federal law risks with regard to foreign investment-- then obviously you wouldn't give it a second thought. Stop comparing this to shares in a company and start comparing it to indiegogo, Kickstarter, etc. Initiatives on those sites aren't bound to deliver on their backer rewards, and that's the inherent risk you take supporting something you believe in. For certain types of crowdsourcing funding, the fundee receives the funds no matter how much of their target was pledged, and from that point on, they're free to do what they will, even if that includes wasting it and saying they tried. It's up to you to vet your investment in those cases, as it is with Rhinocoin, and decide for yourself if it's worth it to you to essentially donate to their cause and maybe receive equity returns. If you're truly comparing it to a legitimate crowdfunding company, you would know that there are legally binding provisions to help ensure that the initiator follows through with his or her project. There is a complete lack of recourse in the case the OP takes the money and runs. I think that's why a lot of people are asking either for significantly more transparency or for funding via escrow. [Personally, I don't think the threshold is met with just an escrow.] |
|
|
|
There is so many threads complaining about so many alts.
Why?
Why so many and Why make another one?
FTFY Case in point: here is another thread along virtually the same issue made 6 hours prior to yours. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673837.0 |
|
|
|
Wait so what was the price in which he bought the bitcoins for?
I'm sure over time we will find out from those who participated in the auction. And if no one does, hopefully some sort of market correlation can be made to approximate it. [Still though, I'm inclined to believe that once bitcoin gains another magnitude of value he'll disclose the price.] |
|
|
|
Clearly this was an attempt by a certain person to win a "moral" bet with another person that LTC would dip under $2.
Clearly this attempt failed. Well, better luck next time.
Clearly that statement is a guess.  I was just teasing on the bet that never happened between Darkota and Smoothie (in the LTC Critique thread that you have). That's all.  Admittedly, looking at the right-hand trend, this really does look like a "fat-finger" error because of the pair mismatches between BTC/LTC and LTC/USD on btc-e. Figures you were joking Found it. Admittedly, the stipulation was that it'd have to be sub $2 for 48 hours. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=662058.msg7501331#msg7501331Popcorn? [On an aside: The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this was intentional...The pair mismatch really was drastic after all.] |
|
|
|
Clearly this was an attempt by a certain person to win a "moral" bet with another person that LTC would dip under $2.
Clearly this attempt failed. Well, better luck next time.
Clearly that statement is a guess. I was just teasing on the bet that never happened between Darkota and Smoothie (in the LTC Critique thread that you have). That's all. Admittedly, looking at the right-hand trend, this really does look like a "fat-finger" error because of the pair mismatches between BTC/LTC and LTC/USD on btc-e. |
|
|
|
|
Clearly this was an attempt by a certain person to win a "moral" bet with another person that LTC would dip under $2.
Clearly this attempt failed. Well, better luck next time.
|
|
|
|
|
What I wonder now if how inline the winning bid is in relation to current market prices. From what I calculated, basing off of weekend prices and volume, 30k BTC would have pushed prices as high as $750 (assuming that coins were bought at chunks at a time instead of in one-go).
|
|
|
|
The bid form allowed one person to specify any number (0-9) of 3'000 BTC 'A' lots, all at the same price, and optionally the 2'655 BTC 'B' lot., at some other price. But a person could submit as many forms as he wanted, with different prices. Obviously if all his forms added to more than 9 A blocks and 1 B blocks, some of his bids would never win.
It is true that on one form you could bid for multiple lots at one price, but... If you wanted to bid at different prices then you needed multiple forms and you would then have to make multiple $200,000 deposits - one for each form. I think the $200,000 per form deposit probably made most people fill out just one form = one bid price on one or more lots. Yeah, I figured the deposit form affected the likelihood of adjusted and differing bids. Still with that the only "justification" I can see with buying blocks at $800+ is if they wanted to get all of the blocks from this auction. After all, there is only around 20k BTC on btc-e and bitstamp on sell orders (settling at about $800); but if that much trading occurred, I would imagine more people would shift coins to sell to catch an upswing which wouldn't necessarily allow the price to get to $800. |
|
|
|
Again with these super long blocks. 37 mins. 20++.
One quick confirmation is better than an unconfirmed transaction for 40 minutes. Even if ultimately it doesn't provide any more or any less security.
WTF? What are you babbling about? Confirmations = security. There is no such thing as "one quick confirmation". Confirmations happen when they happen by design. I'm talking about quicker confirmations and the fact that the same amount of time needs to pass in order to achieve the same level of security. Like when using Litecoin(with it's 2.5 minute target) you still need 4x the confirmations in order to reach the same confidence level as one Bitcoin confirm . One confirmation however is much, much better than zero confirmations and prevents Finney attacks. If you trust the network then one confirmation is enough, and if you can have that confirmation quicker than 10 minutes it's much better imo. Even if in the end it's not any more secure against double spend attacks that involve confirmations. Do you see what I mean? If you were running a business and you decided that one confirm by the network to acknowledge the transaction was sufficient(despite the fact that it's never going to be 100% secure, you're accepting the risk) wouldn't you rather have that confirmation quicker than 10 minutes on average? I just got done watching over 40 minutes to use a service after depositing. It's not a very good system. LTC only has confirmations after 2.5 minutes on average, LTC should have a 10 minute block roughly as often that bitcoin has a 40 minute block. Having shorter confirmation times will also mean a much higher orphan rate as miners have an incentive to build on their orphaned blocks to try to get them to be part of the longest chain to get their block rewards. Yeah, there will be more orphaned blocks which is bad for miners and is a waste of their hashing power. But even a 10 minute wait on the high end is much better than a 40 minute wait on the high end. It's a killer for some businesses. Unless there is a trusted third party system like coinbase or something that everyone uses that can make that a non issue I think it's a major problem. I agree that the variance can be a major issue; but let's face it, most transactions now days are done virtually within minutes if not seconds;, which goes hand in hand with the fact that most businesses and consumers rely on fallbacks to ensure their security. Reconciling speed with the protocol will be one of the trickiest things and things may end up with a company like Coinbase acting as a "bank" intermediary. [As a note, assuming normal block propagation times, the probability of a 10 minute LTC block is the same as a 40 minute BTC block, time duration though is drastically different with 9 hours for said LTC block and 1.5 days for the same BTC block.] |
|
|
|
|
I wonder if the people who made offers for $800+ were also trying to get multiple auction blocks. I'm not sure if that would even by allowed by the auction format, but that is the only "justification" I can make for buying blocks at $800+.
|
|
|
|
|
Admittedly, I feel like with the transfer of the amount of coins, a slightly inflated price price (with an appended discount) would make sense. I see a price of $750 as slightly high for 30k Bitconis (considering bulk transitioning), but not overly crazy considering that buying 6k BTC would push the price at Bitstamp to over $700.
|
|
|
|
+1 (at least) I love it when people give the correct mathematical reason for the "long/short" block times. There was a similar discussion not so long ago when there were 6 blocks in like 11 minutes. As a note, we should be expecting "droughts" like this about once every 4 days (with using the average propagation time of 8 minutes as it has been recently). If the average propagation time was 10 minutes like intended, then it'd be once every 1.5 days. |
|
|
|
Hmm interesting, but I don't know how valid those numbers are. Seem odd.
As I noted, these numbers are only based on visible data. I just checked not so long ago again and there is ~15k BTC that is currently on sell orders on BTC-e and Bitstamp. So take these numbers with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Step:
1) Buy RP with daddy's CC
2) Use them in LoL.
Much easier.
FTFY. Realistically, from a Bitcoiner's perspective I can see why you'd want merchant acceptance - but from Riot's view I can't see a reason at all to accept Bitcoin transactions. Well I'll give them a reason then, I'm a platinum player in LoL, but I've never bought RP, since it's not a pay to win game, there's no reason to buy, RP is only for buying skins. Everything else in the game can be obtained for free. Plus, I try to keep my credit card usage online to a minimum, to minimize the risk of information leak, especially since gaming companies doesn't have the greatest track record of not being hacked. But if Riot start accepting Bitcoins, I pledge to buy at least 1 BTC worth of RP. Maybe this sort of this should happen more often to entice more merchant acceptance of BTC. Send BTC to an escrow fund, show a company how much is pledged if they begin accepting BTC as a payment, and when BTC is made a payment option, release the funds for transactions. Sure the logistics would need a bunch of fine-tuning, but I could see this working. Then again though, I think the pledged money needs to be fairly significant in order for this to work. |
|
|
|
Trolling thread to get all your hopes up. No real bidder will put in a bid at such organized numbers, and nearly all of them too. Btw can someone do a quick calculation on what the price would be if 30k btc were bought from the current market, assuming current price is $620?
30k * 620 = $18,600,000 ? I think he was more asking what the cost would be if you bought up all the Bitcoins currently at market until you get to 30k BTC. At this point, there is only ~2k BTC visibly liquid on exchanges at around the $620-$630 price range. When I last checked, Bitstamp's orderbook was at ~7k BTC and the price stretched to ~$750 with a total orderbook value of around $4.7M. Using an extrapolative method (using a linear-logarithmic stretch fit), I got a value of ~$25.8M yielding an average value of ~$840. Although upon first glance $900 seems quite ludicrous, with the available liquidity, 30k at $900 is actually less crazy than it seems. As a note, if there are more entries available in Bitstamp's orderbook, this method could be made more exact. And if there is way more liquid coins than on Bitstamp, then the average price of my calculation should be significantly less. |
|
|
|
I'll be honest, I doubt they have a substantive tape-out for something that is in that form factor. I'd bank GAW won't have any batches shipped until 2015 at the earliest; KNC just had their tape-out a month ago, so I would expect them to ship out at least a quarter before GAW. Whichever coin has the majority of sCrypt hash power after KNC ships their Titans (most likely Litecoin) won't be affected by these Vaultbreakers. On the other hand, all of the smaller coins will easily be in a world of hurt. On the bright side, a few of these rigs could easily kill any newly cloned sCrypt coins that come out later this year. |
|
|
|
|
Of course most people are damned tired of these new coins that keep coming out endlessly.
But I'm also see more and more threads stating how tired people are of these new coins. And there are the same type of responses (too many coins; some innovative coins; I need a pump; etc...).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
