There've also been studies showing cell phones being linked to cancer. Doesn't stop the government from issuing free phones.

https://zipconf.com/

Integration with other services will come with time. Litecoin has significantly faster confirm times without need of a third-party service, fwiw.

Social account linking, maybe. I think you touched on another important point, though -- defaulters are almost always scrammers, not people who ever negotiate paying off a small portion of debt or are ever responsive again on the accounts they used to scram with.

We tried doing collaborating on publishing this info a few times before, and it always falls apart because lenders are too lazy. Two websites were previously made to try doing what the OP did, and I once made a simple collaborative Google Doc for trusted lenders - manually inserted every single loan Sen made using data from the giant IBB thread - but it all ended abandoned.

ETA: Derp. I should read the whole 1m worth of words before commenting. :x

For the sake of clarity, the price I'll pay when I initiate a buyback (assuming it's after August 2nd, which it almost certainly will be) is ((.32+5daywtdavg)/2), so even if the 5-day weighted average trade price of BDK some time in October were .1, I'd be buying back @ .21BTC/share. I wouldn't be too willing to listen to unitholders' complaints at that price given I've earned ~.11BTC/share from issuing and selling BDK so far. 


With that in mind, I'd like to state it's very possible I will not be issuing an IPO on July - possibly August, too, and want to point out that I'm not contractually obligated to actually issue and sell shares on the 2nd day of each month until August 2nd. There will be an IPO when I believe the price justifies the time and buyback liability (noting an offering can only occur on July 2nd or August 2nd, until August 3rd, when I can issue & sell whenever I please). I have also reconsidered the multiple funds idea, and will not be going forward with it. I doubt, even with a 10% fee off the top, there's enough potential profit to justify the time.

I will be a bit less talkative in this thread and with unit-holders. I'm at my peak workload right now and have a backlog of PMs I need to get to again. I will not be reducing my commitment to BDK operations, but I promise to spend much less time thinking about new securities to issue. 

Why would they not? If they were split, and represent the same contract, they would be worth the same (assuming rational markets), and splitting them would only cause inefficiency in the market (and a messier GLBSE portfolio).

Voluntary economy with Bitcoin makes sense. Breaking noses and windows, justifying a harsh gov't response does not. I suspect we're a far, far distance away from again murdering tax collectors by pouring hot tar on them and dragging their bodies through public centers. Well, there was that Joe Stack guy two or three years ago... but that guy was crazy. Tar/feather/murder of tax collectors is clearly a principled action, not an insanely callous one. (trololo)

They can be paid dividends if the Issuer moves them into the "BTC" account, I believe. By default, issued shares by the Issuer go to a special account specifically for the security. If the Issuer leaves those shares in that special default account, then dividends are not paid to those shares. If the Issuer moves them to his "BTC" account, then he will be paid. It's up to him.

They can keep them hidden, but they can't use them to transact with registered (legal) merchants, nor can they be used to pay taxes. Once an unregistered address interacts with a registered merchant address, the police are immediately summoned and the block will not be processed by government miners (they don't need to profit off mining, and can do it as a "public service." Once they adopt Bitcoin as the official currency of Satan/America, they will be able to throw a LOT of cash at this, leaving little incentive for profit-centric entities to mine). When an individual submits his addresses, he testifies that those are the only addresses he controls. It would be likely not be difficult for government to prevent individual-to-individual transactions simply by having enough hashing power to be able to effectively dictate which transactions are processed.

(as an aside, citizens should be required to turn in their wallets' private keys when registering their addresses. Additionally, there is no reason the government cannot easily implement [or have corporations implement] something which can detect whatever the government wants to call "taint," or have merchants use payment processing software which will not accept funds from addresses not in the database, though it will send an immediate alert to the police.)

The government would be able to effectively reverse transactions (if citizens are required to submit private keys). Since funds can't go from merchants to unregistered individuals, petty theft of "cash" would pretty much be eliminated. Even if someone stole the funds to an individual account, they'd immediately be summoning the police, which makes the act much more complicated for the average petty criminal. It may also permit tax reports to be automated given the government knows exactly where everything's going if everyone's registered in a database. Transaction flags could be included which indicate to the IRS supercomputers how to tax the transactions.

More shares were paid dividends last month than this month. There are 1000 oustanding shares. In May, 507 shares were paid dividends. In June (a few days ago), 554 shares were paid. Outstanding shares are not paid dividends if they are in the Issuer's account, suggesting the Op is selling shares. I don't see Share Issuance talked about anywhere in the contract or bylaws, though I haven't been following this since IPO.

All merchants and citizens must register their pre-existing addresses and move all funds into one registered "green" address (perhaps the government could assign a wallet citizens must use once they register their Bitcoins, and retain the private key in case that citizen were to act illegally). Phase it out, give everyone x months to come into compliance with the new regulations, and launch massive education campaigns, so anyone operating illegally past that point made a conscious decision to operate against the USG. Registered merchants must have GPS embedded within as part of receiving their merchant license. So, when a "bad" tx hits the blockchain, police are immediately alerted.

Police could quickly and easily ensure all merchants are in compliance with regulations as merchants would have their own transmitting chip which assigns every human being to a unique private key. That private key becomes their identity, which the government may retain. (In regards to other uses, this would allow the USG to ensure child sex offenders are not near your children. Once the offender is near any individuals whose private key indicates that person as a child on the national database, police could be dispatched immediately.)

It's really not a matter of oppression or centralization, but a safety measure essential to securing our national sovereignty. Just as we would not let murderous drug traffickers in the country, Amer'ca must come together in defense of our sovereignty when it comes to preventing those same murderous drug traffickers to fund their anti-American operations. This bill is essential, but I won't lie -- this bill does indeed lessen some privacy, which criminals would not want - BUT, this bill allows us to continue flourishing as a democratic and freedom-loving nation, permitting us to preserve and enjoy the freedoms prescribed to us by our Constitution, and stop the evil-doers who want to do harm to our country. Amer'ca will not waver in the face of terrorism, but strike decisively with the economic and military might which can only be found here - Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

USG declares only BTC from "green addresses" (addresses a client [in this case, databases hosted by the USG] whitelists to allow immediate payment) are permitted to be used as legal tender. Merchants are not allowed to accept payment from addresses not in the national database. To register for a green address, you need to fill out a form. In part of that form, you need to tick a box indicating unwavering loyalty to your government, agreeing to the philosophy it espouses (peace, prosperity, and the eradication of religion). There's no reason a concept like Patriotism can't symbolize the concept of rejecting Christ in some scenarios.

It seems inevitable that wireless technology will soon make the economic benefits of having some type of transmitter within you far outweigh the privacy risks, and perhaps in effort to "protect your rights," the government will force all merchants to acquire specific licenses to receive the password (I doubt passwords be static at that time, but changing every millisecond -- everyone needs to be in sync, password to access the password may relate to code within your body, unique to you - and who knows what other compromises a merchant would need to make to get that license to access such sensitive data) to access your chip. Basically, whenever a merchant receives payment from a non-"green" address, the government would immediately know exactly who it is via an alerter system they developed, and almost certainly the location of the merchant operating unlawfully.

So, you've effectively had a number ingrained in you. You need that number to participate in the legal economy and pay taxes. Failing to do so would cause hardship, and perhaps death. Getting a green address assigned to you requires you to submit to the Anti-Christ, and you give testimony to that submission (rather, a rejection of Christ) merely by broadcasting your signal. Bitcoin is clearly of Satan.

If we're going to talk about indirect consequences, though, maybe we should talk about how protected BTC is from a Pirate default. Pirate has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of BTC, now. BTC market cap is ~$50m -- that includes coins (potentially a very large amount) which aren't at all involved in the BTC economy, yet.

Loss of GPUMax -> GPU mining less profitable (this'd come on the heels of the block reward halving, and ASICs coming in 2013 -- GPUMoney was supposed to have contingency plans to keep GPU hashing there profitable, even if BTC mining wasn't)
Loss of Pirate -> Miners (including GLBSE-listed organizations) may default -> various funds may collapse
Lendees who do Pirate arb will likely default -> lenders may default (those with significant liabilities, anyway) -> various funds and bonds may collapse

What happens from there will be interesting. Will investors have the outside capital and be resilient enough to continue on with BTC, perhaps buying back in? I'd guess it'd be a massive blow to morale (as an effect of a blow to profits) for a large portion of those using the BTC they've purchased for investment. Pirate may also sell the coins he's collected at that time, if he hasn't already. It could set crowdfunding way, way back, and for those with a large chunk in BTC investments, but not much USD, could cause them to cash out and drop Bitcoin entirely. It may cause a significant decline in the BTC exchange rate. Currently, almost nobody accounts for what they're doing -- with the rate Pirate offers, almost any business venture could be doing arb, and giving investors a minor amount of that and a pat on the head. Even for those of us who do disclose what we do, there's not much way to verify it. It's all online or on paper. It's not like I can point to a rental unit and say "yup, that's ours. Here's my key. We walk in, and everyone respects my claim on this property. Here are the checks we collected from last month." It's "nobody contests with my claim on the property I say I own, though nobody would really be able to, anyway." Even for those with services like BitCoinTorrentz (and I use them only for the sake of needing a name), they could be putting everything they earn in a Pirate account until it's time to pay dividends, when they pay only principal on what they put in Pirate. We have no idea how deep it goes, it's very difficult to verify someone's ownership of what they say, and that's what allows semi-drunken BS speculative posts like my own right here. It seems ironic, though, that Bitcoin, based on a zero-trust philosophy, currently requires full-trust for actual commerce (even if that full trust is placed in an escrow service, or perhaps later, an "independent" auditor).

Maybe another compromised account, or just someone who needed cash now. Dunno how that could be a mistype. There's almost no bid depth anywhere on GLBSE.... even Gigamining suddenly dropped ~40% yesterday when someone dared sell >50BTC worth of shares. So, Cognitive should have a similar reaction whenever someone dares to sell >10BTC worth of shares. If someone needs to sell any significant amount of anything to the public for whatever reason, they'll get almost nothing. For significant transactions, you have to line up private buyers. It's irrational to sell Cognitive that low, but markets are not always rational, even if the creators of discord are in the minority. We'll still talk about their outliers, knowing it'll be utterly insignificant in the long-run, and perhaps in that respect, we're also acting irrationally just by talking about it.

There are a few different theories on why the bid orders are so awfully insignificant. I favor the argument that it's primarily a by-product of an extremely high-yield market. Nowhere else will you earn ~30-150% annual RoI with almost any credible security listed. It's thus extremely expensive (relative to most USD options) to maintain a bid order when you factor in opportunity cost. GLBSE tries to solve this by only charging a fee to the person who places an open-market order, but it's not nearly sufficient, and I don't know how they could fix this, perhaps without allowing uncovered orders again (that is, with 10BTC in your account, you can place a bid on Cognitive for 10BTC-worth of shares, another order for 10BTC-worth of Gigamining, and maybe 10BTC-worth of YABMC. It could be implemented where all other orders automatically cancel once one of your 10BTC bid orders are fulfilled somewhere, partially or in full). ramble,ramble,ramble...

I guess it is time to move on.

Tip Jar: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=YHASFLP2GL89S

June 11 UPDATE
Dividend/share paid: 0.00121358BTC/share
Total dividend paid: 9.83BTC
Running total dividends paid in June: 9.83BTC

June2012 Net Income Expectations
Optimistic estimate: 300BTC
Reasonable estimate: 125BTC
Pessimistic estimate: -75BTC
(Guesstimated weekly dividend payouts -- June 4th: 0.0BTC/share Actual: 0.0BTC/share, June 11th - .00063BTC/share Actual: 0.00121358BTC/share, June 18th - .00014BTC/share, June 25th - .00036BTC/share)

Dividends paid.

Issued: 16367 bonds (1636.7BTC FV)
Interest Payment: (1636.7*.01)=16.367BTC

Next Payment Date: June 18th

I'm less than three days away from catching up.

Just throwing stuff out, seeing if anyone has any opinions/ideas. I can get my head in the clouds sometimes, waste time on pointless hypotheticals. Obviously, I have no intent to declare bankruptcy, and am not at any risk of it. There have been decent revenues this month (~160BTC after I account for securities sold for a gain today), but losses have been pretty hefty, too, due to having to account for 130BTC in losses to pay interest on CDs and bonds due within the first week of the month. Additionally, $20k of BDK funds are still tied up in Hermes, largely sitting there at the moment. That's being sorted out within a few hours, so they can find a nice, productive home, and start earning money instead of just costing money to maintain. It's not reasonable to look at week-to-week performance, and is why I initially did not want to have BDK dividends paid every week, but I worried there wasn't enough trust for me to pull that off. Ironically, it turns out having a week without dividends has created its own dent in trust, even if only temporary. I have the formula ready to have loan/deposit interest spread out over time, but this will only affect loans/deposits made after I made the change this morning.

I'm pretty certain I asked for the contract on GLBSE to be changed many weeks ago and was told it was. I'll prod people to get that corrected (Issuers aren't allowed to change the contract on GLBSE -- Nefario has to do it manually, and that's why I frankly don't consider it valid). I know I talked about that with Nef in IRC, but I believe I have email logs about the contract changes. I'll post it if I find it when I get to main PC. The contract in the OP of this thread is *the* contract, and the contract I will abide by. I'd send a message to shareholders through GLBSE were it possible.

The funds would be targeted at providing investors options instead of just getting the current two options - one a bit bland (BDK.BND), and one with pretty broad involvement in various sectors (BDK). BDK would effectively be the parent company of these "funds" - and these funds aren't something concrete - just probing for comments. As I posted, BDK would receive dividends from these subsidiary funds just like any other security-holder, so BDK profits on what it contributes to these funds would earn revenues as they currently do. Rather, BDK would receive exactly what it currently does on investments, plus take 10% of net profits from non-BDK investors in these subsidiary funds as a management fee. However, I think BDK would benefit beyond that 10% in that I'd be willing to take on liabilities if BDK is not liable for more than it puts in were, say, "BDK.FND.ABNORMAL" to invest in an alpaca farm that goes bust. Having more OPM (Other Peoples' Money) is extremely important because that's how I get access to the backroom deals, where huge chunks of securities can be bought at dramatically reduced rates. I'm struggling a bit to do this now with so many funds committed. There's a bit of a scaling issue going on. I have access to the deals now, but I'm uncomfortable having BDK directly take on more liabilities than there is equity (which is why I bought back 1kBTC worth of BDK.BND and turned down some interested in buying CDs).

Long-term, I believe the best way to go forward (again, not set in stone) is to do a forced buyback toward the end of the year, own all of BDK without buyback liability (I think creating "BDK" may've been a mistake on my part thinking now of all the other ways I could've gone about this), then have anyone with interest in investing with me either buy BDK.BND or one of the "funds."


Any other questions - throw 'em at me while I'm up. Cheers!

ETA: And now I'm down. See y'all tomorrow.

My understanding was that 2monthly = 2x per month. I would agree, however, that there is no need to reduce the price, and perhaps a price increase should be considered. As a consumer (as well as insignificant investor)... the price is ridiculously low, to the point where I've considered donating just because I feel like I've robbed you - and I'm a cheapskate in the extreme.

ETA: "Please report bugs to my inbox or by mail (support at bitmit net)" derp, nm