First off, awesome. Second: Shavers posted general solicitations on a website dedicated to Bitcoin discussions, and he misled investors with such false assurances about his investment opportunity as “It’s growing, it’s growing!” and “I have yet to come close to taking a loss on any deal,” and “risk is almost 0.” Contrary to the representations made to investors, BTCST was not in the business of buying and selling Bitcoin at all. and from reading the actually complaint http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdfit looks like he got nailed for misrepresenting his business and running a scam, not for trading unregistered securities. but then there is this: THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 5(a) a
nd 5(c) of the Securities Act
41.
The Commission re-alleges and inco
rporates paragraphs 1 through 34 by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
SEC v. Trendon T. Shavers, et al
8
COMPLAINT
42.
Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly
or in concert, have made use of the
means or instruments of transportation or commun
ication in interstate commerce, or the mails, to
offer and sell securities when no re
gistration statements was filed or in
effect as to such securities
and when no exemption from registration was applicable.
43.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated and, unless enjoined, will
again violate Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Secu
rities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77
e(a) and 77e(c).] curious what labrat's lawyer has to say though |
|
|
|
So whats up with the website? Have we really not had any donations the last 4 days?
it's been the worst luck for the pool in at least the past 3 months... supposed to get a donation every 20 hours, it's been dry for over 4 days. Two rounds ago took 19 minutes, this round is now at 4 days 5 hours and 29 minutes. |
|
|
|
Miner01/1500+1
I don't understand difference between / and +
How do I use a diff of 4
Miner01/1500+1 right now that doesn't do anything /1500 means only return difficulty >1500 pseudoshares to the p2pool network. Right now the default is 8480. +1 means report all difficulty 1 shares to your miner software so both of those will end up being the default if you want your miner to use a diff of 4, try Miner01+4 |
|
|
|
|
I think it's trying to clear up the confusion about what they are actually selling (e.g. there are 4 "flavors" of jalapeno, there are 2 types of minirigs, etc.) and what are being shipped in what order
|
|
|
|
Sorry for misunderstanding here. When saying "broken", I mean not broken code but wrong algorithm/strategy.
One of principal rules of mining, as I understand it, is "A miner who breaks a rule must be punished." For example, if you mine not on the latest block but its parent, or mine invalid blocks, your work will be orphaned by the rest of network.
Now consider the rule defined by those 3 lines I was talking about. It states "If a share (S) is based on stale block, mine on its parent (P)." (That's what "Punishing for block-stale / Jumping to ..." log message is about.) If a miner (either intentionally or because of slow bitcoind) disrespects this rule, not only he loses nothing, but may also eventually profit from it! Really, his share A (a child of block-stale share S, which is punished by the rest of the network) is 1 share ahead of "proper" miner's share B, which is P's child. As a result, A will have priority over B even if B is found earlier!
Should I report a bug on GitHub?
I think it should be reported, at least to start the discussion |
|
|
|
I cannot login. Every time I try, the homepage is loaded again with no login-related errors or messages. I have reset my password and cleared cookies. That didn't help.
good, it's not just me. looks like a website problem. |
|
|
|
The 20% in start-up expenses include but are not limited to, warehouse rent and renovation (I've begun this already with my own personal funds), lawyer and accounting fees, management fees, and leaving a minimum surplus for unknown or unrecognized expenses as the company moves along.
Pertaining to your questions regarding management fees, I have put between 250 and 300 hours into this company over the last couple weeks, as well as many hours before that. I will of course be compensating myself for those hours spent.
I would like to share initial estimations of the allocation of funds. I will be updating the website in the next 24 to 48 hours with this information so that all potential or current investors may analyze the data.
thank you for the info - of course you should be compensated, the question is when and where does your compensation (and company profit) come from. Right now a large percentage of bond premium is unaccounted for and can either end up as new hardware (investor upside), bills, or your pocket. All three are acceptable, what matters is the distribution amongst those three, and where do future distribution go amongst those three. You're going to get close to a quarter of a million dollars in less than a week, that's as good as angel round investing - so I'm just asking questions an angel would. |
|
|
|
I've been exchanging some email with Lab_Rat...
He indicates that of the current capital from bond sales, around 80% will go into hardware purchases. The rest for overhead and expenses. (Secure data centre, lawyers, etc)
Of the hardware bought, 25% will be for the company, and mine for expenses and new hardware acquisitions. The remaining 75% will pay customer dividends.
The 100MH/s hash rate posted was intended to be seen as a minimum. The actual hash rate associated with a bond may in fact end up considerably higher, depending on what deals can be made. The initial numbers were based on a conservative estimate, and BFL gear. Given that BitFury is in the picture, it is possible that that this number may be much higher, depending on what that 80% of bond sales will buy.
Lab_Rat is meeting with (I think) the BitFury rep right now. He will be back later to confirm the above.
grnbrg.
I wish this was in the contract, hard numbers helps price securities. OgNasty does something similar to what labrat is proposing, but is nearly 100% transparent and is currently yielding dividends. That model is working, the key is transparency towards hardware reinvestment rates and purchasing. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.0This was in my business plan, but I did not make it public. I am working on some documents and spreadsheets, as suggested, that I will be publishing. I have no problem including these in the contract as they are/were my plans from the beginning. I wanted to promise a minimum and shoot for higher. I think that will help a lot. Many people's objections are to the vague definition of what a share is and where it will go in the future. I understand many people prefer to see simply "100 MH/s", but I think the more sophisticated investors would have preferred: "One share guarantees you the payout of (1/number_of_shares sold)*75 percent of the payout of the total of LabRatMining's operation. The remaining 25% is spent on expenses and hardware. We will post monthly statements on the expenses and balance available for hardware purchases. Hardware purchases will be made at the discretion of the company. The company will take XX% of the 25% each month as a management fee. The total LRM hashrate will be determined by the amount of funds raised in this bond sale, with 80% of the funds going to hardware purchasing and 20% of the funds towards startup legal and datacenter expenses. For example (and only as an example), at the current exchange rate of ~90 USD/BTC, and the current rate of 500 GH/s for $22,484.00-25% discount ($16863), and share rate of BTC15*0.8, we expect to purchase 320 MH/s/share. Of that 320 MH/s/share, 25% (80 MH/s) will go towards mining expenses and expanded hardware per above, and 240MH/s will be returned as dividends." While a clean clear share definition (ASICMINER) is simpler, this model can work if there is enough transparency. However, as as a defined security, lots of information is missing that serious investors need. As you can see, amongst the missing information is management fee is and if you havereasonable recurring expenses. I'm just trying to help point out how this can be improved, and hopefully become a successful BTC venture. EDIT: 20% for start up expenses? 20,000 shares sold is $270,000. 20% is $54,000 - that seems quite high for one month work of work (even for a lawyer), especially since the company owns the hardware assets. Unless some management fee is included in that, but you haven't shown what you get out of it yet - which is important for you to be sustainable. |
|
|
|
I've been exchanging some email with Lab_Rat...
He indicates that of the current capital from bond sales, around 80% will go into hardware purchases. The rest for overhead and expenses. (Secure data centre, lawyers, etc)
Of the hardware bought, 25% will be for the company, and mine for expenses and new hardware acquisitions. The remaining 75% will pay customer dividends.
The 100MH/s hash rate posted was intended to be seen as a minimum. The actual hash rate associated with a bond may in fact end up considerably higher, depending on what deals can be made. The initial numbers were based on a conservative estimate, and BFL gear. Given that BitFury is in the picture, it is possible that that this number may be much higher, depending on what that 80% of bond sales will buy.
Lab_Rat is meeting with (I think) the BitFury rep right now. He will be back later to confirm the above.
grnbrg.
I wish this was in the contract, hard numbers helps price securities. OgNasty does something similar to what labrat is proposing, but is nearly 100% transparent and is currently yielding dividends. That model is working, the key is transparency towards hardware reinvestment rates and purchasing. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.0 |
|
|
|
They are non-transferable. Still looking for people interested in getting in on my order...
chip codes, sorry wasn't specefic |
|
|
|
And what is the cost for me to participate in the 25% off?
If we were pursuing a group buy situation instead of someone just buying the code for their own use, I would want to split the discount. Meaning you would get 12.5% off your order. I would want to find a couple of others willing to participate if that is the case. Anyone interested in locking in discounted ASICs? I think I will try to place the order Friday. OgNasty, need any discount codes? I've got four to donate |
|
|
|
why is the diff so high in version 13.1?
9k is a little bit high isn't it?
I don't get any shares. What can I do?
I think it has to do with the new “dust payout” elimination feature. It raises the difficulty enough to minimize transaction fees when spending mined coins. It appears you may be able to reduce the share difficulty again by adding “+n” to the miner username, where n is the desired share difficulty. However, you may incur heavy transaction fees in the future when you go to spend the mined coins. Maybe someone can confirm this for sure. I've been finding it difficult to find detailed p2pool documentation lately for some reason. 3x longer shares = 3x higher difficulty = shares last 3x longer = approx. same payout per share per before, just find them less often and they stick around for longer. The dust payout feature would raise difficulty on people, but I think that is more evident on LTC than BTC. I think the difficulty of dust in BTC is something like 1.5 or 2, but it is something reasonably larger on LTC (since LTC difficulty is commonly < 1) |
|
|
|
Ahh, this is BAD, iw as sure that chain lengh will be change too, that payout last long for up to 3 days. But it is NOT.
Now small miners are killed for p2pool.
The chain is the same number of shares as before, but because shares are found 3x less often, that means that the chain is 3 times longer in real-word time (3 days instead of 1 day). Like it or not, the bitcoin mining community is in the midst of a transition to ASICs and the result is that small miners (GPU miners) are going to be left behind, no matter what pool you are on. you're right, it is 3 days EXCEPT spread is 3. so if time to block is 20 hours, shares only will last for 60 so 3x longer shares = 3x higher difficulty = shares last 3x longer = same payout per share per before, just find them less often and they stick around for longer EDIT: what chaged - shares are 3x harder to find and live for 3x longer, although spread is 3 - and time to block is like 20 hours, so shares last 60 hours (instead of 72) |
|
|
|
Can someone explain what is going on? Please! Pretty please!  Can you find your payout address here: http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000000a6913ee4ada3b92bed9f1398ad8f22f4f944a5d5593197d68if it is listed in the above link, the payout exists, you just have to find where it went in your wallet. Also double check your payout addresses in p2pool, make sure that there isn't a typo. you won't show up in p2pool-nodes.info unless you have a well connected public node. If you do have a public node, would you mind sharing the IP address so we can check out the stats and configuration? |
|
|
|
I don't know much about the German legal system, but the words"criminal" "lawsuit" and "prosecutor" are not usually used in the same sentence. Also, lawyers are generally calculating and only do things when there is something to gain. Why tip your hand on some internet forum, and why do it anonymously when you could get more clients by advertising? This is an old thread: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/528396.htmlbut it looks like the combined cost of the trial AND of collecting against a foreign corporation from Germany will probably exceed whatever damages that will be awarded against BFL for non-delivery. So, the only one that wins here is the lawyer... Something doesn't make sense. I vote troll. But if it is real, I applaud the lawyer for finding 30+ paying saps! Now they're out BFL money and lawyer money. |
|
|
|
jalapeno seems to be performing much better, 97% efficiency with <10% DOA right now. share time has jumped a bunch though, so sample size is still pretty low. is this just because the pool hashrate has gone up so much?
3x share time = 3x share difficulty = shares last 3x longer in the share chain = same payout per share, they are 3x harder to find, and "live" 3x longer up until the limit of shares living for only 3 blocks are 3 days, whichever is shorter |
|
|
|
BFL jallepeno, flashed with a custom version 1.2.5 firmware. Used to have ~85% efficiency and 20% DOA. Now down to 6.5% DOA and~96.5% (63-111%) efficiency). 2013-07-15 03:52:31.495832 Local: 7135MH/s in last 10.0 minutes Local dead on arrival: ~6.5% (4-9%) Expected time to share: 1.2 hours 2013-07-15 03:52:31.496095 Shares: 12 (1 orphan, 1 dead) Stale rate: ~16.7% (4-45%) Efficiency: ~96.5% (63-111%) Current payout: 0.1248 BTC 2013-07-15 03:52:31.496307 Pool: 1418GH/s Stale rate: 13.7% Expected time to block: 22.0 hours Interestingly, the expected time for my node to find a single share, is now longer than the expected time for P2Pool to find a Bitcoin block! Previously, it was the other way around. Guess that means that my node will fall out of blocks entirely (0 shares/block) but that's the price to be paid for finding blocks more often, so in the long term it should even out.
How does that work? If your node doesn't report any shares during a block, how does the other p2pool nodes know that you're mining? Will it really even out? How it works: you will only get credit in the blocks that you get shares in. If your node doesn't report any shares during a block, you won't get credit and other nodes won't know your are mining. Yes it will even out. It will even out because when you do get a block, you will get exactly the compensation for the blocks you missed. Example (made up numbers for demonstration) before you would get .1 BTC per share, and find a share every 12 hours. now you will get .3 BTC per share, and find a share every 36 hours. BTC/hour is the same in both cases. |
|
|
|
Could someone explain the changes in SHARE_PERIOD and SPREAD? I understand it's to support ASICs in some way but can we get a more detailed explanation as to what these setting do? Bitcoin:
SHARE_PERIOD=10, # seconds
NEW_SHARE_PERIOD=30, # seconds
SPREAD=3, # blocks
NEW_SPREAD=3, # blocks
Litecoin:
SHARE_PERIOD=10, # seconds
NEW_SHARE_PERIOD=15, # seconds
SPREAD=12, # blocks
NEW_SPREAD=3, # blocks Thanks! I'm not sure about SPREAD, but SHARE_PERIOD is the target time between shares. Essentially, the sharechain is blockchain of valid bitcoin blocks, but it has a target block time of SHARE_PERIOD. The payouts for valid blocks have to pay out to the last CHAIN_LENGTH shares. SPREAD is basically how long will p2pool remember shares in units of expected time to share. If it should take 10 hours for a share, a spread of 3 means shares are remembered for 30 hours (although there is a cap of 24 hours, this is more important to LTC as of now). |
|
|
|
I don't think difficulty increasing would affect pool luck.
that's your error - finding a block is a Poisson process. Variance (actually sqrt of variance, but that's semantics) is proportional to the square root of expected blocks. Percentage variance is thus 1/sqrt(number_of_blocks) If you normally get 100 blocks in a given week, you should expect +/- 10 blocks variance (i.e., 10%). If difficulty rises and you now get 9 blocks a week, you should expect +/-3 (i.e., 33%) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
