|
We should all pool to buy a 30-second superbowl commercial spot.
|
|
|
|
That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.
Not to me. They make damn good burgers. Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King. They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive. So do Checkers and Hardee's. Their burgers are great. And they may pay higher than the minimum wage, too. FirstAscent would argue that the reason is: Minimum wage laws, or something else, increases wages> Employees get paid higher wages > Employees are more competent and more satisfied > Employees make better burgers > Company makes more money due to sales, I guess?, because their burgers are as cheap as McD's I'm saying that's somewhat ass-backwards, and it's actually Company differentiates itself by wanting to make better burgers > Company sets up quality standards for the burgers > Company pays for better ingredients and higher wages for better employees > Company sells better burgers, and charges a premium on the improved quality of food and service. Minimum wage has nothing to do with it, and the burger quality improves from the top down (the company), not bottom up (employee's good intentions). And even these better burgers follow supply/demand/quantity/price: If there are not enough people willing to pay for the more expensive burgers, even if the burger chain makes a killing on profit margins, it is limited by how much it is able to sell and expand. That's probably why In-n-Out is still only on the west coast, while McDonalds is around the world. Yes, I completely agree with you. The fact that In-N-Out is in business and NOT paying minimum wage only further proves the argument. The market had set a natural wage floor for burger-flippers at the "higher quality" fast food joints. There's no requirement for In-N-Out to pay anyone extra wages - they CHOOSE to do it because they want the better workers that come along with paying that higher wage. Likewise, if someplace like McD's doesn't really care much about the quality of their workers, they (should be able to) choose to pay less than what the current minimum wage is to match that sentiment. If they find that the turnover rate is too high, or that their workers are so bad as to be consistently driving customers away, then they would choose to raise their offered wages to acquire better workers. The market would naturally set the proper wage, and we wouldn't be losing jobs due to minimum wage causing too much supply and too little demand in the labor market. |
|
|
|
BFL products are priced in USD. They have no set BTC price precisely because they're sold for USD. That using a payment processor allows you to bypass the process of having to convert BTC to USD yourself in order to pay for your order doesn't mean that you're buying the units for Bitcoin any more than the fact that my bank automatically converts my AUD to USD for my Amazon orders means that I'm buying books for AUD.
And if you paid 200 AUD for something, and later got a refund and only received 100 AUD, that would suck, wouldn't it? Sure. But why is that relevant? Exchange rates change, there's nothing you can do about it. They're unpredictable too - he could just as well be getting 400 AUD back instead of 100. |
|
|
|
BFL is liking waiting for all the dates to expire by which users can return items, so they can take the money and run.
Because waiting for return policies to expire makes taking the money and running any more legitimate? If they were going to run, they would have done so long ago. Still enough braindeads here who still buy into their "queue". With every day they do not run off they make more money... *edit* A bit like the pirate situation: Everyone knows its a trap but most people fall for it due to their greed.. Please do explain how they make more money every day they don't run off? They're giving out refunds, while I haven't heard mention of a new sale in days, maybe a couple of weeks. To me, it seems they are losing money each day they don't run off. |
|
|
|
I dont like "internet" as a name to define 0.01 BTC !
This does'nt fit at all in my mind !
Bitcents seems some way familliar, but dont like the link with the dollar too.. other appelation would be better in my opinion !
I agree. Internets doesn't make much sense or appeal to anyone but the geeky crowd. millibits makes the most sense to me, but I think a more original name (bitcoins, satoshis) would make more sense. On a related subject, can I call 8 Bitcoins, Bytecoins?  |
|
|
|
BFL is liking waiting for all the dates to expire by which users can return items, so they can take the money and run.
Because waiting for return policies to expire makes taking the money and running any more legitimate? If they were going to run, they would have done so long ago. |
|
|
|
I only see two setbacks, both of which are understandable IMO.
- The first batch of chips didn't work. Delayed from October to late-November.
- Fab shop has delayed on BFL twice, pushing the date to early-December, and now mid-January.
Except that Josh's claim that there was a floored batch of chips was refuted by Nasser. We've been very busy recently, unfortunately I couldn't catch up with the forums. There is a correction to be made: Chips are not and were not flawed. We decided to add certain clock buffers to improve noise-resistance and possibly increase frequency even further. Obviously any delays caused by that decision cannot be blamed on the fab. The fab burning down would be an "unexpected setback". Delays caused by decisions made by the customer are not "unexpected". The delays may be "understandable" - because no manufacturing process ever runs perfectly - but they can't legitimately be called "unexpected" because a properly planned project takes into account the possibility of pretty much everything going wrong and never sets it target dates basedon best case scenarios. They DID take into account the possibility of everything going wrong. The way I saw it right from the start was that late October was an "if everything goes right" release date, and January 1st was an "if everything goes wrong" release date. Obviously, they are now expecting to exceed their January 1st date, which irks me, but I was only expecting product before then if things went well. |
|
|
|
That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.
Not to me. They make damn good burgers. Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King. They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive. Every time I take a trip through CA, I make sure I stop at an In-N-Out at least once. |
|
|
|
|
Someone should edit it back.
|
|
|
|
They didn't lie, they had unexpected setbacks. There's a difference.
They were told they couldn't do it that fast. They bragged about how expert they were. Then setbacks, and more setbacks, and then more setbacks. Sooner or later you have to conclude they are either grossly incompetent (which means their "expert" status was a lie), or just flat out lying about their dates. Take your pick. I only see two setbacks, both of which are understandable IMO. - The first batch of chips didn't work. Delayed from October to late-November. - Fab shop has delayed on BFL twice, pushing the date to early-December, and now mid-January. |
|
|
|
|
I calculate that the two video cards I have left (a 5850 and 5870) are currently making about 0.1 BTC/day. I assume they use around 300w of additional electricity beyond just letting the computer idle (which they would be doing anyway). At $0.10/kwh, 300w means $21.60 in electric costs.
Revenues: 3 BTC/month = $40.80
Expenses: $21.60/month
Profits: $19.20.
Plus, it keeps my office room warm, and the only other option is electric coil heat, which would be exactly as expensive. May as well generate some BTC with that electricity then.
I realize there is additional wear & tear on the cards, and I AM starting to hear some noise on the 5850 fan. So there is an additional expense there.
When ASICs are released, I'll stop mining with GPU's. $4/month won't be worth it.
|
|
|
|
Both Bloomberg and Reuters have had coverage on Bitcoin... Seems it's just a non-reason to tell us to piss off, i wonder who's behind that... I bet they got nice money for refusing it for whatever made up reason.
They mean along with all the other currencies in showing live ticker prices, etc. |
|
|
|
Josh has confirmed that the new date is for delivery of the chips only and doesn't include assembly etc.
I'm far more interested in when they expect to receive test chips because they won't even have a working prototype until then and nobody with an ounce of sense is going to authorise the full production run until the test chips have been proven to work to contracted specifications.
They are doing a full run without testing. It doesn't cost much more when you're talking about millions of dollars of lost sales if they have to wait until test chips are ready to do a full run. And if BFL had to add another 6-12 weeks on top of the current delay, you can bet a lot of people would be jumping ship! In other words, they're putting all their eggs in one basket. I hope that basket holds... |
|
|
|
Is it because these are out of stock that they go so much higher than market price?
I think that's how supply and demand works.  Lol. I should have worded that differently. Are they still out of stock everywhere? |
|
|
|
I'm just frustrated with the fact that I could still be mining now....I sold everything for pre-orders
Me too, but on the same token, I wouldn't have been able to preorder without selling... so I'll (hopefully) be one of the first to mine with ASICs because of having an early preorder, but I sacrificed mining on everything but a couple GPU's in the meantime. |
|
|
|
What was the forum that just recently introduced the ability to award someone "+X INTERNETS" and these would be awarded in bitcoin as increments of 0.01 BTC?
I kind of like the idea of 0.01 BTC being called "internets" in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
To be honest, the word "bitcents" has a flaw few have probably thought about. With the growth in 1 BTC's buying power, I am now starting to consider a coin for 0.5 BTC. But the thought of using the word "BITCENTS" on a coin is scary in a Liberty Dollar sort of way - specifically because it contains the word "cents", a word that also is used commonly in fiat currency including US dollars. I will not use a word containing "cents" on a coin.
Call it 500mBTC then. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is now hilarious.
Keep the punches rolling, guys!
|
|
|
|
. . . But absolutely it's legitimate to be in the table of currencies . . .
Most here would agree with you that Bitcoin is a currency, but there may be room for discussion as to what the "base" unit is and what the relative value is of that base unit. If the "Satoshi" (the smallest integer unit of represented value in a transaction) is considered the base unit, then calling 1 BTC a "currency unit" would be like calling a Franklin (U.S. $100 bill) a "currency unit". They are both just names for a multiple of the base unit. If the "Satoshi" is the "currency unit", then it doesn't belong on that list. And that's exactly why it is a meaningless list, as Evorhees mentioned above. We're only playing along with the meaninglessness of it. |
|
|
|
|
I thought about it, but talked to my wife and she said it was a bad idea. People just wouldn't understand, would think it was a weird gift, etc. Like imanikin said, I have a feeling it would just be an unappreciated gift. People who aren't interested in Bitcoin might put it on the same level as fruitcake or something.
I think it is far better to use Bitcoin to purchase gifts with. For example, I bought my reddit secret santa gift with Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I love the "no central authority" thing
Do you think "Stateless" sounds better or worse? Or "Stateless Protocol?" I like "Stateless Protocol." Sounds like Skynet. No. I think stateless is largely a useless term to many people. It could just mean that whatever it is that is stateless is still under federal guidance/regulation/authority. Or a stateless government might mean that there are no state-like subdivisions within the governmental hierarchy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
