I was doing BKB -> BTC conversions as that was what you got when Dean was still doing token buybacks with the BKB token.

If the buyback continued until the 4th, you would have gotten the result outlined at the bottom of table 2. The part AFTER the tables is if you had kept the BKB as-is and never participated in any buybacks until after the BKT transfer.

If your question was in regards to table #2, I calculated the price of bitcoin at each quarter date (i.e. the 4th during the outlined months).

If your question was in regards to table #1, everything was based on the minimum price of $3200 across the past two years. Table #1 was more for estimation and at-a-glance stats.

What constitutes your buy price, then? I did add the note that an investor could only expect to sell at what the highest buy price is. The liquidity of such a coin is up for grabs.

While this is technically true, I'm not going to base anything on the increased price of a token that started at the minimum price. Objectively-speaking, coins with lower market caps and volume are easier to raise the price of.

I have not stated my opinion. Nor does it matter. I have presented the facts and it is up to the reader to engage and create their own opinion using the facts thereof.

Do bear in mind the potential errors of the calculations from the various remarks I've made (no bonus, roundings, etc.)

Here is the math, in case anyone is interested.

We are using token stats and the BTC exchange price from this post: ICO audit complete. Final funds raised

Without factoring in any price differences and without factoring in ICO bonuses:
One investment of 3 BTC (13790.4 USD) would yield you 148507.43 BKB tokens^_*

The following don't factor in any profits/losses:

Buyback Stats (lowest price of $3200)
-------------------------------------
2 quarters: 19.00% sold  ->  $1824.00
4 quarters: 34.39% sold  ->  $3301.44
8 quarters: 56.95% sold  ->  $5467.20
-------------------------------------

Buyback Stats (true prices @ quarter)
-------------------------------------
Q1 (Dec 17): $1379.04 @ $11271.20/BTC = 0.12235077BTC
Q2 (Mar 18): $1241.14 @ $11471.20/BTC = 0.10819618BTC
Q3 (Jun 18): $1117.02 @ $7622.00 /BTC = 0.14655208BTC
Q4 (Sep 18): $1005.32 @ $7230.36 /BTC = 0.13899722BTC
Q5 (Dec 18):  $904.79 @ $4001.27 /BTC = 0.22612570BTC
Q6 (Mar 19):  $814.31 @ $3747.36 /BTC = 0.21730231BTC
Q7 (Jun 19):  $732.88 @ $7910.92 /BTC = 0.09264156BTC

TOTAL: 1.05216582 BTC + 71,030.64 BKB
EQUIVALENT PRICE: $8,206.90 (@7800) + $6,595.90 (@0.09286)
FINAL PRICE: $14,802.80
FINAL PROFIT: $1012.4 (7.34%)

* buyback dates are on 4th of March, June, September, December


On the flipside, if you held the 148507.43 BKB, a conversion of 30 BKT = 1 BKB nets 4,455,222.9 BKT.
This is 0.40097006 BTC (we can only guarantee a sale at the highest buy order)‬ which is roughly $3207.76 (at 8000 USD/BTC)

In order to recoup the losses, one would need BKT to rise to the price of .00000039 BTC/BKT. This is a 333.33% price increase.

---

I'm being very generous, rounding in the direction of BK's favor.

Who are you talking about?

And here's the deal... the positive trust comes from different users on bitcointalk. You don't seem to have a problem with that part of it except for the fact that the trust isn't going the way that you want it.

Assume that you don't know whether the person you're trading with was the same user that built their history around their account or not.

How are you meant to trust them? That user you're trading with has multiple identities, as far as anyone is concerned.

Their problem was with the lack of decentralization. Their solution was to use a centralizing method in order to rectify that.

Craig Wright.

Meaning who?

Then your issue isn't with the system... it's with the people in the system.

Meaning you don't like how the decentralized system ended up and you want to centralize it in your favor.

/thread. Stop contriving issues around things that you're blowing out of proportion.

I think you read it wrong. You've inherited 430 million USD from a great-uncle who recently died, but in order to transfer the balance to your bank account they first need you to pay a small fee.

That's pretty awesome.

4, 2, 0. Tx coming soon.

when lightning node?

Insubstantial posts include those that are general, repeated, vague statements extended/padded out with inner repetitions or pointless words jammed in there, or perhaps some run-on sentences that seem like they add something of worth (perhaps not much but enough to perform outside the definition of spam) yet in reality are just sentences that restate the previously-discussed information.

Above is an example of a post that can be shortened thusly: Spam posts contain general, repeated, and/or vague statements to pad for extra length.

Congrats! That's one lucky win.

Currently, usurpers need to stop.

If more egregious aristocracies nix yielding over us...

Then, manifesting adverse negligence, barons overtake opportunities forever.

---

The drivel continues onward, mixing the topics that belong in Reputation to those of Meta. Mind not the forum but rather focus one's attention on others.

A continuous upheaval of discussion into dilapidating digressions descends our forum further yet the conscious cessation of caveat consideration charts a cruising course into another anabiotic cesspool the likes of which can be found in all other boards.

With the continuum of posts thusly formatted therein with a difference of vernacular language and even less brevity, we see the rise of clandestine extraneous machinations, surfacing with a bold stroke of dissent and impertinence.

Perchance the best method would be to follow the same principle as that of rules 12 and 30: "no duplicate posting in multiple boards; similar marketplace items must be listed together"

With regard to the intent thereof, the fundamental rationale is to mitigate the number of repetitious discussions. Mayhap cogitation of the substance derived from the incessant embodiment of indignance found in many threads in this board can bring some insight to those that have yet to come to a fruitful realization.

I read through this thread.

... ^{s_igh. _***}

---

Yet another pointless topic.

We have:
Another @theymos thread
Nominal hearsay evidence being used as concrete proof of malice
Keyboard raging. Deflection. Reflection. Confections.    
Empty threats. Insults. Blanket statements.
Rhetoric. Pretend arguments. Ad-hominem attacks.

---

Don't you get tired of the egotistical masturbation?

I am very confused. Thule has not written a word about the original feedback. It's as if I've been left out of the suit party and I'm sat dumbfounded in a Halloween gator costume.

---

If I recall, the trust wasn't even a problem at all... that is, until I was added to DT2 back in 2018. Most come and go but some feed on the attention, which doesn't seem to stop.

Hey, since we're in the same cult, it's time to add me to your campaigns again. I need that sweet, sweet bitcoin and I'm dying to spam the forum again.

What about, rather than a neutral, a countered negative?

The mark of 0: -1: +0 incites investigation from people who don't always look at the trust pages of regular 0: -0 / +0 profiles and doesn't have any impact on their primary trust rating. The cautionary message is also removed from the top of their owned topics as the negatives and positives are in balance.

---

Again, we don't have anything that serves as an in-between but I would say that this is some feasible option.