If the Bitcoin extortion did not have anything to do with this decision, why then do this so late in the campaign? Other News Sources: The Wall Street JournalCNNBecause they just filed the 2011 returns. They weren't done until today, so obviously, they couldn't release them earlier. |
|
|
|
Surely, profitability is a function both of the network difficulty level and also the exchange rate if you're cashing out into fiat immediately. Obviously, early adopters are rewarded for having taken the risk of the early plunge. If I could dig up the $30k I'd be seriously tempted by the ASIC minirig. Somehow, though, I can't see any bank lending me that.  I tried - they asked what the loan would be for, I explained mining, and they promptly sent back a professionally courteous email saying my laon request had been denied.  |
|
|
|
|
No guarantees anymore. No more easy money. No more paying off computer hardware by mining. Sorry, you missed out on those boats.
If I hadn't already preordered, I'd be waiting on the sidelines right now until I saw how quickly BFL makes it through the preorder list. If they made it through quickly enough, and there was still enough profit in it to pay off the unit in 6 months or less, I'd probably buy. Otherwise, I'd probably stay out of the mining game, and instead, buy up a few bitcoins here and there, and wait for those to appreciate.
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't related to the ransom. The ransom was for earlier tax records (not sure what years) in which Romney supposedly has something to hide. As the article says, the Romneys are just now filing their 2011 tax returns (probably filed for an extension earlier in the year), and they'll be released later today.
|
|
|
|
Shtylman, Any thoughts on creating a secondary market where "on hold" BTC can be bought/sold? I'd be willing to purchase some "on hold" BTC from those who might be in a hurry to cash out if I could get them at an exchange rate that is slightly more favorable than the current rate for BTC that are not "on hold". If you could create a way for these BTC to be identified and traded, then you would allow those customers of yours who have fears or are in urgent need to cash out to transfer the BTC to those who are just hoarding and have no immediate need. This would significantly improve customer satisfaction. I'd even guess that buyers of "on hold" BTC would be willing to pay a transaction fee to the exchange in the form of "on hold" BTC (which would remove those BTC from the pool of BTC that the exchange would need to repay). (perhaps I should send this question in an email to ensure Shtylman sees it). +1 to this - I would welcome such a market. |
|
|
|
I think the criminal law is more cut-and-dry, so fewer questions about it. People buying drugs on silk road know it is illegal - what questions would they have? I am sure there are some, but I can't think of any myself at the moment.
People are more interested in questions regarding the economics and usage of Bitcoin itself... questions that haven't yet had the opportunity of being specifically answered in a courtroom yet. I think that's why you get more of them based around security law / civil law instead of criminal law.
True. I might be dealing with a slightly more intelligent crowd then I'm used to in my practice as well lol. Typically the criminal questions I get are along the lines of "Yeah I did it, but what legal grounds can I use to get off." That's mostly what I do in criminal cases. Just poke holes in the prosecution's argument. The law surrounding bitcoin usage is definitely intriguing though. It basically requires the application of hundred(s) year old law to cutting edge modern technological and security issues. And you nailed it. There is about 0 actual case law on the subject. So I can't wait until someone actually brings some of these issues to trial. Haha, a higher class of criminal! Here's a question for you: What's your take on the legality of Bitcoin as a currency? Could the US deem it illegal to use (even though they couldn't stop people from using it) as they did with other alternative currencies, like eGold and Liberty Dollars, etc? |
|
|
|
Ok, with Bitfloor gone....what is the cheapest one now?
Bitfloor is back up! |
|
|
|
@Thumbs - I am certain I am no expect in economics, much less those of the Austrian variety. But while I certainly agree that resources should be allocated to the most valuable investments, are you saying that investments with a risk-adjusted return of 3% would receive no funding? And this should be normal? It seems to me that, regardless of how you reallocate monies according to the valuation of various investments, it still does not answer the question of, what happens to those who choose to save instead of invest as a result of "gaining" 3% on just holding their money instead of investing it? That's still a reduction in the overall investment pool, no matter how you divvy up the investments themselves. Lower overall investment = lower economic activity. What if I can buy aluminum for 20 BTC and turn it into a bicycle worth 30 BTC, but my overhead is 9.5 BTC? I'd be only make 0.5 BTC/bicycle. Then I'd only have a 2.5% net profit margin, which would be fine in an economy neither inflating or deflating, but a bad investment in an economy deflating at a rate of 3%. Why is this a bad investment? If the currency is gaining purchasing power over time this means the cost of aluminium is going down, the cost of labor (overhead) is going down and the price you can charge is also going down. You won't be able to charge as much for it next year but your costs will be lower and you'll still make the same amount of profit. It's a bad investment because of the maths I wrote out before. I could, at maximum, only recover 83.33% (2.5/3) of my original investment if the net profit margin stayed at 2.5%. Yes, the expenses and revenues are going down, but I would NOT make the same amount of profit. 2.5% of 19.42 is less than 2.5% of 20.00, and it would keep going down each year. I'd only ever make back 83.33% of my original investment at that rate. |
|
|
|
@BFL-Engineer/BFL_Josh/BFL_Sonny:
Are you going to do something to compensate the fact that the Avalon might be mining @ 60GH/s for $1299, versus the Single SC mining @ 40 GH/s for the same price?
Release theirs first.  |
|
|
|
Why would I invest in said business with my money to make 2% per year, when I could just keep the money in my pocket and make a certain 3% per year?
Because 5% > 3%. If you are earning a sum of 2% in a currency that increases in value by 3%, you reap the benefits of both. In a way, yes. But you're missing out on what that investment could have been making had you just held on to the money. I'll do some maths. Nope. You need better maths.  If you have X units of something, and their value is increasing by 3% per year, if you don't invest, then after three years you will have a value of X*1.03 3. However, if you do invest at 2%, after three years, you will have X*1.02 3 units, each worth 1.03 3, for a total value of X*1.02 3*1.03 3. In the investment case, you'll end up with a value of 1.159611, but if you had simply held them, you'd have a value of 1.092727. Ah, I was afraid I wasn't explaining it well enough. To put it simply, the investment value does NOT rise with the 3% purchasing power increase. If I buy a building for 10,000 BTC, and deflation hits at a rate of 3%/year, then my building is only worth 9,700 BTC the next year (and maybe the rental income was the 2%, so I'd have 9,900 BTC instead). If I had held that BTC instead, I'd still have 10,000 BTC. I cannot think of an investment that would also gain value along with value gains of the currency itself. If you can think of one, please enlighten me. But really, what good do you do to society by simply buying and holding assets (which is deteriorating by time btw)? When austrians speak of investments they generally speak of value improvement. That is, you buy resources for X amount of bitcoins and then transform it into a more valuable form and sell it for Y amount of bitcoins. If you can buy aluminum for 20 BTC and turn it into a bicycle worth 30 BTC then that's an investment. If you simply buy aluminum in the hopes of an increase in price you are speculating (which is totally fine sometimes, but that is the exception rather than the norm). Simply holding resources will generally be a bad investment in a deflationary economy. And that is a good scenario. It means the resource hoarders will stay away from the market, and the price will keep going down to the point where those who actually see a way to improve on the resource find a viable way to do so. In your scenario where the rent is worth 200 BTC the price of the building simply wont be 10.000 BTC. Rational market agents will see that as a losing investment and stay away from the market. That means the price will go down to the point where it actually becomes viable to buy it and rent it out for 200 BTC (and most likely add some value by improvements to the asset). The price of resources will go down by time in a deflationary economy. That means you actually need to improve on it if you want to profit. If you don't have an idea on how to do that you should stay out of the market rather than keeping other people out of it. I'm not talking specifically about holding resources. I am talking about every investment (besides loans) that a person could make. What if I can buy aluminum for 20 BTC and turn it into a bicycle worth 30 BTC, but my overhead is 9.5 BTC? I'd be only make 0.5 BTC/bicycle. Then I'd only have a 2.5% net profit margin, which would be fine in an economy neither inflating or deflating, but a bad investment in an economy deflating at a rate of 3%. SgtSpike, I'd be interested to hear your reaction to my previous comment.
Your post proves my point (unless I am missing something, which very well could be the case, as I am rather hurriedly looking over these posts). The green widget is not produced or purchased, the green widget worker is not paid, and thus, less economic activity has been created. This is the nature of a deflationary economy. |
|
|
|
|
I think the criminal law is more cut-and-dry, so fewer questions about it. People buying drugs on silk road know it is illegal - what questions would they have? I am sure there are some, but I can't think of any myself at the moment.
People are more interested in questions regarding the economics and usage of Bitcoin itself... questions that haven't yet had the opportunity of being specifically answered in a courtroom yet. I think that's why you get more of them based around security law / civil law instead of criminal law.
|
|
|
|
I cannot think of an investment that would also gain value along with value gains of the currency itself. If you can think of one, please enlighten me.
I just gave you an example in the post above. Give a loan, get back a larger amount of currency at the end of the loan. Sorry, yes, that is true. Then though, the effective loan rate would be 5% for the loanee, which means, he may decide not to take it because the interest is too high. This would result in lower amounts of lending than would be seen with a currency that doesn't deflate. Ahh, ok. You are saying that you'd end up with X*1.023*0.973, which is of course lower. And no one would do that.
But that seems to be a straw man. The numbers 2% and 3% aren't dictated by the market, you just made them up. Saying that 2% < 3% is hardly controversial. What you need to do is show that the market causes x% to be necessarily less than y%, where x% is the market rate of return on investments (beta) and y% is the rate of deflation.
No one would make the purchase that you are using as an example. They would either purchase things with a yield higher than the deflation rate, or they would make loans where they get interest in addition to the return of the principle. Or they would do nothing.
I am glad we finally agree that no one would make an investment made to return 2% in an economy where the currency is deflating at a rate of 3%. However, it's not a straw man at all. With a currency that doesn't inflate or deflate, anything above 0% (after calculating for risk) makes sense as an investment. With a currency that deflates at 3%/year, the investment has to make more than 3% (after calculating for risk) to be profitable. Therefore, in a deflationary economy, we lose out on all investments estimated to pay back 0%-3%, after calculating for risk. This results in a smaller, less productive economy. |
|
|
|
To me the two red arrows on the left are pointing at 2 capacitors and the one on the right points to a fan header. The blue arrow IMO points to the copper heat pipes...
:facepalm: You are completely right, now that I look at it that way... It's just a view through the side grill! |
|
|
|
 Red arrows point to switches Blue arrow points to some sort of LCD display with orange lettering on the front? |
|
|
|
The important bits: Your balance as of the theft will remain on hold and be released in parts as we begin to recover funds to pay back balances. As funds are available for repayment, they will be dispersed on a pro-rated basis (i.e. if 5% of the funds are available for repayment then 5% of your original pre-theft balance will be unheld and immediately available for trading or withdrawal).
Bitcoin funds for repayment will be purchased using revenue from fees. This will ensure that as Bitfloor grows I am able to continue operation to recover the stolen funds over time. I am also pursuing investment from various parties to speed up the fund recovery process however felt that keeping the exchange closed for too long was only doing more damage. That's satisfactory to me! Thanks for the update, and for working hard to keep the exchange alive and pay everyone back Roman! |
|
|
|
why even pre order when they're like 5k behind?
I certainly wouldn't right now. |
|
|
|
Why would I invest in said business with my money to make 2% per year, when I could just keep the money in my pocket and make a certain 3% per year?
Because 5% > 3%. If you are earning a sum of 2% in a currency that increases in value by 3%, you reap the benefits of both. In a way, yes. But you're missing out on what that investment could have been making had you just held on to the money. I'll do some maths. Nope. You need better maths. If you have X units of something, and their value is increasing by 3% per year, if you don't invest, then after three years you will have a value of X*1.03 3. However, if you do invest at 2%, after three years, you will have X*1.02 3 units, each worth 1.03 3, for a total value of X*1.02 3*1.03 3. In the investment case, you'll end up with a value of 1.159611, but if you had simply held them, you'd have a value of 1.092727. Ah, I was afraid I wasn't explaining it well enough. To put it simply, the investment value does NOT rise with the 3% purchasing power increase. If I buy a building for 10,000 BTC, and deflation hits at a rate of 3%/year, then my building is only worth 9,700 BTC the next year (and maybe the rental income was the 2%, so I'd have 9,900 BTC instead). If I had held that BTC instead, I'd still have 10,000 BTC. I cannot think of an investment that would also gain value along with value gains of the currency itself. If you can think of one, please enlighten me. |
|
|
|
Been a few days...just bumping the thread. I'm kind of surprised all of my questions have been serious security law / civil law type questions. I really thought most of them would be of a criminal nature around here You donīt see the community spirit and, am afraid, donīt really want to be part of it. Ciao What does that even mean? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
