The financials of ASICMINER are pretty opaque (  ) however I'm thinking that the recent run-up in the price of bitcoin should be a good thing for the size of the dividends. My logic is that most if not all expenses are in fiat. Increasing exchange rate means less bitcoins need to be converted to fiat to pay bills (electricity, rent, hardware costs etc), leaving more for dividend payments. Would be awesome if we had more detailed financials. |
|
|
|
I need 20 day to get invest back. ...and THAT'S where I stopped reading. lol. yes that is what made me cry too and think we need to send him a tip.... This. OP, please post an address so that those of us who didn't bother with batch 1 avalons and missed out on batch 2 avalons and could only afford a group-buy of a batch 3 avalon can send you some spare change. |
|
|
|
|
WOW.
Are you for real ? Are you seriously annoyed that someone on the internet didn't tell you to put all your money (and more) into a brand new, never been done before "thing"?
Try this piece of advice then: put all your money plus all you can borrow into LTC .
Everyone "knows" that a litecoin "should" be worth 1/4 what a bitcoin is worth.
No? Didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And you're likely right about the PT instead of ASICMINER thing. I'm just curious and also new to the whole bitcoin thing, so I figured it would be better to ask risk being flamed than to just not know.
Can't say for futures on dividends, but there are certainly options on shares on btct.co. Range and liquidity (and value IMO) are pretty poor though. |
|
|
|
I'm curious, is it possible for ASICMINER to issue futures contracts?
J.
Futures contracts over/against what? I was thinking future Bitcoin delivery... Sounds more like something more suitable for an exchange-based PT than for ASICMINER itself to deal with. Is an interesting idea, not sure if it has legs. Effectively an asicminer share is a futures contract against all future dividend payments from asicminer. And you're talking about buying (or selling), say, the next 6 months of dividend payments? (as an example). |
|
|
|
I'm curious, is it possible for ASICMINER to issue futures contracts?
J.
Futures contracts over/against what? |
|
|
|
|
Danger Will Robinson!
The instructions on the back talk about sending part of the balance. Doing this presents a very real chance of losing coins. The user must explicitly send the tx change back to the note's address (theone on the front) . Otherwise the change is lost to an unknown public key.
|
|
|
|
|
Where are you located, geographically speaking? I think your only hope is a local face-to-face transaction.
|
|
|
|
they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know
In the current version of the software, yes. However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example). While not impossible, this wouldn't necessarily be an easy change. There are significant considerations about the largest value an integer variable can hold in the program. More importantly, it would change the way the blockchain represents the values and would therefore create a forked blockchain unless you could get EVERYONE to switch to the new programming and all of them to do it at the same time. There are other possible solutions. A couple of examples are an alternate cryptocurrency for small amounts, a new cryptocurrency that is backed by bitcoin, or a cryptocurrency that is designed to smoothly replace bitcoin. Other solutions may also present themselves in the future (necessity is the mother of invention). Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday. Ignoring this, which nails it IMO Seeing as possible solutions exist, and even better solutions could be discovered, I just don't see a reason to be concerned right now about the possibility that 1 Bitcoin could be worth more than $100,000,000 someday.
You're right that changing from 8dp to something else would require a fork. However if memory serves this has already been done at least once, with clients maintaining backwards compatability until a majority of nodes are running the new version, at which point clients automatically move up to the new version of the protocol. |
|
|
|
If you're making it for yourself, what do you care about design/tamper-proof/etc?
It doesn't offer much in terms of security - if someone did find your bill they'd probably just take the whole bill with them and sweep the address quickly, leaving neither evidence nor much to do about it. But the tamper proof tape does offer peace of mind. It's the knowledge that if you did get robbed you'd know it at once, and not discover it much later when you perform a routine check of you balance. It's not just for myself -- once the design is reviewed/revised, it will be available as a clientside javascript wallet generator based on the code from bitaddress.org. The idea is just to incrementally improve on the paper wallet generator already there, especially for people who want to do things like give their family members and friends a more attractive and idiot-proof wallet. Also I think a wallet should look valuable so that if I die, someone stumbling on my belongings will think, "Oh, this looks valuable. Maybe we should keep it!"  I like the design - well done. If I'm not mistaken, inkjet printer ink can fade relatively quickly (a couple of years?). I am not sure about laser printers. If I were you I would put some warnings up when using the software to that effect. |
|
|
|
they are only divisible by .00000000 as far as i know
In the current version of the software, yes. However this is something that can be changed if the need ever arises (such as BTC1 = US$1M for example). |
|
|
|
When ASICMINER gets 50 TH up and ready through, solo mining looks like a better idea.
I honestly would have thought that, with 10% of the network hash power behind it, solo mining would have been a no-brainer compared to the cut the pools take. Maybe it's not worth the hassle of effectively running our own pool. http://blockchain.info/poolsThere are a significant number of pools with ~10% hash power. And I couldn't agree more - with another 50TH behind us, it seems ludicrous to pool mine (unless the pool mining is spread across pools to explicitly avoid any one pool having a majority of hash power). |
|
|
|
BIP38 minimizes the chance of one party getting screwed, but there are at least two "bad" scenarios: - Alice never ships the cookies. Bob has lost his coins (again, unless Alice gives him the passphrase) but at least Alice wont get them either.
- Bob could not release the private key. But why? He already lost control of the coins… might as well give Alice her coins if she sent the cookies.
1. Because some people are dicks 2. see #1 I like the idea, but it doesn't quite replace escrow. Certainly seems like a good idea for a transaction between trusted parties but with other uncertainties (eg. delivery times). Would almost be like cash-on-delivery. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming coin loss is slow the system can be adjusted . The current 8dp limit is arbitrary and can be changed with the consent of the majority of the hashing power(they all agree to update their software to allow 16dp say).
|
|
|
|
|
This obsession with block speed confuses me. There is nothing wrong with accepting a zero-confirmation transaction after, say, 10 seconds, for a low-value transaction. This is little different to the amount of time it would take to fish out cash and pocket the change.
And for a large value transaction, I don't think speed is the issue.
|
|
|
|
The way I understand it, miners add transactions to the blockchain in exchange for a fee and for newly minted coins. The rate of newly minted coins was determined by the early adopters of bitcoin and cannot be changed unless 51% of the miners decide to fork the blockchain.
If this is correct, then in theory, a cryptocurrency can be made with the inflation rate determined by the number of transactions included in a new block. If many people adopted this currency, it would achieve transaction speeds far greater than any other cryptocurrency.
I believe that such a currency, made for fast trading rather than holding value, could be a good complement to Bitcoin. It isn't feasible to buy a cup of coffee with bitcoin and wait see to confirmations of the transaction before you drink the coffee -- however, this would be entirely possible with Fastcoin.
One of the problems with quick blocks is more chances of forks and orphaned blocks. The quicker the blocks are discovered, the more chances there are for parts of the network to be out of sync with other parts of the network. |
|
|
|
No, he did not say what you are trying to "translate". It all still does not make any sense. I also don't care if you are both the same person or not. But for sure you both (or one) are plain idiots trying to get some attention - hero members or not -I don't give a flying fuck.
ASICMINER has to get some more hashes ready to catch up.
Don't get me wrong - performance so far was awesome, and I am truly appreciating that. Thank you!.
But reading of idiots who do not have anything to say but blablabla just freaks me out...
You need to take your happy pills, and back away from the keyboard for an hour. Nothing that has come before deserved this kind of hostility. |
|
|
|
I dont think that it makes sense to deploy TH that doesnt hash because of difficulty because the next difficulty is calculated from the average hashing from the last. So at this time it would be a disadvantage only to have asics that dont hash because difficulty will rise only a bit less but you could have earned more bitcoins hashing the previous time. So i doubt thats the reason.
I hope it keeps growing...
Are you drunk? What are you speaking of? Is my english too bad or do you think it makes sense to keep a half TH away from mining only to not push the difficulty too high the next time it rises? No, it is not your Denglish (I am German, too). Your comment just doesn't make any sense to me, even after reading it for like 20times. ^^ Maybe I am just too stupid... :/ May I translate? He's saying that he doesn't see any sense in holding back deployment of hashing power until after the next difficulty bump, with the intent of _not_ increasing difficulty. The reasoning is that the difficulty adjustment is based on the entire 2016 block period, so a network hash rate bump in the last day or two would not have a significant effect on the size of the bump. And the conclusion is that we'd (asicminer shareholders) would be better off if hashing power were deployed as soon as it was available. I haven't done the maths, but my gut tells me if network hash rate was constant but for our new power then this would be not be true - we would be better off deploying after the bump. However in the face over a variable hash rate other hashing power being deployed across the network, I think his argument makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
