Unlikely; someone wouldn't have invested to sell them like that. Someone needed to pull out very fast - but why?

I think "a lot" would be an understatement.

I'd fully support this initiative, but I suspect a significant amount of capital would be necessary.

Perhaps, but I think that's unlikely. Hopefully GLBSE hasn't been hacked...

Someone just dumped a ridiculous number of gigamining shares; I suspect Nefario took it down on purpose to determine if someone had hacked in.

Excellent, great work Nefario!

Subscribed. Are you reserving a certain number of bonds for the GLBSE open market IPO?

Any update on this? Those of us with futures shares are on the edge of our seats.

No matter how much you beg, pray, or pay, perfection isn't going to float to you on the ground gift-wrapped with a nice fat transaction fee for expedient delivery. But reaching gets you a little closer to the sky.

In short, we're getting nowhere with the move to new forum software, and we may end up waiting indefinitely for something that might not ever exist, much less exist now. While no solution exists to my knowledge that offers all of the requested features, there are many programs which would be a significant improvement over SMF.

This is not a whining thread. I'm not demanding anything, I'm not calling doom, I'm not issuing ultimatums that no one cares about. I'm asking what I, as a community member, and more broadly we, as a community, can do to move this forward in a realistic time frame. I'm not suggesting that we give up our initiative for custom software, only that we make progress now.

I suggest we implement an interim solution that improves the forum, though it may not provide all that a custom one would, and continue the bounty for custom software. This would provide two main advantages over continuing the trek up a hamster wheel: improved features and usability and tangible progress, both of significant importance and both immediate. I have never administrated a forum as large as this, nor have I ever transferred a forum from one management system to another, but it seems a transition to pre-existing, documented software from pre-existing, documented software should not be particularly hard to implement. Summarily, this would be an immediate solution that would provide significant improvement, stem the tide of forum-bashing, and be moderately easy to install.

Obviously I cannot do any of this alone. So, my questions are:

To moderators and administrators: Are you willing to pursue something akin to this? If so, what can we do to help?

And to users: The two I immediately thought of were vBulletin and Invision Power Board, but what forum software would you suggest?

Cross-posting, try this.

Don't give up yet!

First of all, format the drive using a half-decent program instead of Windows' built in junk. Download bootice here, extract the rar, and open the executable. Select your drive in the drop-down menu and click "Parts Manage". Click "Reformat USB Disk", select "USB-HDD mode (Single Partition)", and format the drive.

Now burn the image file to the drive. Download the win32diskimager binary here. Open the .exe (ignore any warnings), select your BAMT .img file (NOT a converted .iso), select your drive, and click "Write". When writing is complete, click "Exit".

Now insert the USB drive into your mining machine. At this point, you should be able to see and boot from it. If not, enter your BIOS and look for anything relating to USB boot. (An "Enable"/"Disable" toggle for example) Unfortunately I can't give specific instructions as BIOS's vary wildly, but it should be pretty apparent. Enable USB booting and you should be good to go.

Hopefully that will fix it. This isn't a Linux issue at all; probably just an issue of formatting and writing the drive correctly. Good luck!

I'll give this a try, with Linux instructions.

Commands enclosed in blocks are to be run at a terminal (through a monitor or SSH, doesn't matter)

1. Stop whatever is currently running.
and then
after the reboot.

2. Modify /etc/bamt/bamt.conf to run your hardware.

a. Find the line (Ctrl-W to search) that says "cgminer: 0". Change that to "cgminer: 1". (without the quotes)

b. Find the line below that starts with "cgminer_opts:". Change it to, substituting your username and password:
"cgminer_opts: --api-listen -G -S /dev/ttyUSB0 -o http://mine1.btcguild.com:8332 -u user -p pass -I 9"

Optional (if you want CGminer to manage everything)
c. Set all your GPUs to use CGminer. For each GPU (gpu0 through gpu3 in your case) change the line stating "cgminer: 0" to "cgminer: 1". If you were using phoenix2, make sure to change "phoenix2: 1" to "phoenix2: 0" as well.

d. Save file and exit. Ctrl-O, Enter, Ctrl-X.

3. Restart mining.

If this all works correctly, you should have everything running, visible by gpumon and the web interface, and manageable by BAMT standard commands.

Disclaimer: I do not own a Single, so this is untested. AFAIK it should work, but it's quite possible I missed something.

The GLBSE page is a history of past dividends. Goat just hasn't paid any yet; he will.

The actual rate is 6.8%. Contracts are immutable, so Goat cannot change it.

Math can do a lot of things, including "proving" logical impossibilities. For example:

Let a = b.
Then a^2 = a*b.
Then 2a^2 = a^2 + a*b.
Then 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab.
Consequently 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab.
Factoring, 2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab).
Divide by (a^2 - ab), and...
2 = 1

(There is (sort of) an error in the above, but most people miss it. See if you can guess it!)

More seriously, we are not questioning the financial viability of PPT assuming Pirate does not default, only the less-than-optimal profitability in comparison to directly investing 960 BTC. Essentially, if you have 100% guaranteed investment opportunities, one that pays 1% per week, and another that pays 2%, both make money, but the second is the better choice financially.

I like what you're doing here, and you have my kudos. (And you certainly started a trend.) Don't get me wrong, I think PPT has had a positive impact and I wouldn't want you to cease it. Some of us just like spending our Friday nights doing math.

In this round, for example, if they only invest 3000 BTC into Pirate and he defaults, they will only lose 960 - 113.95 = 846.05 BTC.
If they invest all 3113.95 BTC, and he defaults, they will lose the full 960 BTC.

Note that I'm not saying that investing that additional BTC with Pirate is a bad idea, I'm just pointing out that it is a rational possibility. Holding that 113.95 BTC outside of Pirate decreases their profits if Pirate pays, but decreases their losses if he defaults:


This acts effectively as a partial hedge against their own investment, decreasing variance. Think of it as a similar effect to taking a slight fee at a PPS pool in return for more reliable payouts. (Not a literal analogy, but it might help clarify.)

The PPT group. When they issued PPT.A, they put 960 BTC in the insurance fund. We are stating that it would have been more profitable to simply invest that 960 BTC in Pirate.


Investing the 960 BTC in Pirate instead of running PPT.A, not in addition to.


Less loss if BS&T defaults.

(Patrick, if you feel this discussion is OT, just say so and we'll stop.)

Oh, we were discussing break-even in comparison to simply investing 960 BTC with Pirate, not general break-even for a non-default.

I concur, albeit only if they are compounding interest, which may not be the case.


You are entirely correct - we're just trying to figure out if this particular round of bonds was profitable.


Can you show the math behind that break-even value?

If they invest all 3113.95 BTC and Pirate does not default, they will make 25% profit off 960 BTC held in insurance versus 31% if they simply invested 960 BTC in Pirate in the first place.

(Moved from other thread)

For the sake of getting this thread back OT dispute resolution, I'll try to mediate.

bitcoiners, from your posts, it sounds to me like you were concerned when the dividend was not payed on time and wished to sell back your bonds. The dividends have now been paid. If you still wish to obtain a refund, I would suggest you personal message Goat. Since you are requesting a service not provided for in the contract, usual protocol would dictate that it is your responsibility to contact the bond issuer and resolve the dispute. Normal protocol would involve doing this by private message, as it is a conversation with no general relevance to TyGrr.Bond-A bonds. If you do wish to make your frustrations public, there is indeed a Trading Discussion forum for exactly this kind of topic; you can find it here.

A general suggestion: If you're making accusations, make sure they're backed up in fact. For example:


I perused the whole thread and could not find any statement by Goat that he would buy back bonds at .3 upon request. Bond issuers are not obligated to do anything not explicitly stated in their contracts.

To both of you: Good luck; I hope this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I agree putting 1920 BTC with Pirate is financially more profitable than this round of PPT bonds in all cases, but I'm not sure how that's relevant - no investment needed to be made initially by any of them other than the 960 BTC in the PPT fund. (PPT.A is simply being reused, no 8 BTC asset creation fee)

More importantly, we're ignoring a few key aspects of this.

Assuming the 113.95 BTC above the 3000 BTC is not invested with Pirate and not earning any interest (unlikely), if Pirate defaults, they will lose 960 - 113.95 BTC = 846.05 BTC - but only if he defaults before the first payment.
If he defaults after the first payment, they will lose 960 - 113.95 - (.07 * 3000) = 636.05 BTC.
After the second payment, 960 - 113.95 - (.14 * 3000) = 426.05 BTC.
After the third payment, 960 - 113.95 - (.21 * 3000) = 216.05 BTC.

If he does not default, they will make 3113.95 - 3000 = 113.95 BTC

An investment of 960 BTC into Pirate would lose 960 BTC if Pirate defaults before the first payment.
960 - (.07 * 960) = 892.8 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the first payment.
960 - (.14 * 960) = 825.6 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the second payment.
960 - (.21 * 960) = 758.4 BTC loss if Pirate defaults after the third payment.
And finally a .28 * 960 = 268.8 BTC profit if Pirate does not default.

Effectively, the first usage of 960 BTC is better if Pirate defaults before all 4 payments, the second if he does not default. I'm not necessarily arguing for PPT's choice here, but it seems to me to have a similar effect to a partial hedge. They make less if Pirate pays out, but lose less if he defaults.