|
And there I was, thinking that the upcoming ASIC war was going to be an interesting development in the Bitcoin world.
Like I said before, I'm not sure whether a "Bank" is the right way to improve Bitcoin's mainstream adoption. But I do think that people would be more open for Cryptocurrencies if getting Coins were 1) as easy as walking into a bank branch and 2) hedged against volatility. Also an actual physical office with everyday people will probably inspire more confidence than shady looking Russian online exchanges filled with trolls and teenagers.
Either way, please, for the love of Crypto and all that is hashing, make sure that your clients know that there are risks involved in Bitcoin's volatility and that you are taking the appropiate steps to mitigate those. Be transparent about these measures. Make sure you can properly handle huge spikes of direct customer communications in times of large market movements. And always prioritize the safety of your client's funds over profit.
|
|
|
|
Why is this time different? They've made and flaked on promises before - what's special this time?
What promise did they not kept!? You guys think that unanswered questions are promises not fullfilled = wrong So far the promise of actual evidence  |
|
|
|
Possible outcomes in this Wednesday: (from the best scenario to the worst)
1, Labcoin provides a mining address and a signed message. There're 1 - 2 blocks mined there.
2, Labcoin provides a mining address and a signed message, but there're no block mined yet.
3, Labcoin provides a mining address without a signed message.
4, Labcoin says "mining address will be given soon. We are still tweaking the miner"
5, Labcoin never appears and there's no update forever.
Assign each item a probability based on your prediction and make a decision based on it. I believe that's more useful thing to do than fighting with each other.
6, Labcoin posts shaky photographs of a computer screen showing blockchain.info 7, Labcoin says "there are no chips, the hashpower has been in your hearts all along" |
|
|
|
I'm really interested to see whether they'll show something tangible until Wednesday. Their other news posts and "proof" so far were rather underwhelming. Right now all they have are Schroedinger chips.
Eh, if they finally provide a mining address... I would not be surprised if they fail somewhere else, like proving it's theirs. Pre-emptive FUDding, claiming they'll claim an address that isn't theirs. Like that will last even 10 minutes. He's right, though. Anyone can look for a freshly mined block on the blockchain and claim the address as theirs. I hope Labcoin reads this and will take care of the trust issue, eg. by using the wallet address to sign a message. That can't be too much to ask for. |
|
|
|
I'm really interested to see whether they'll show something tangible until Wednesday. Their other news posts and "proof" so far were rather underwhelming. Right now all they have are Schroedinger chips.
I'm betting Lacoin will provide what he said and early at that. There is no reason not to at this point. There was no reason not to show compelling proof before either. We'll see. |
|
|
|
|
I'm really interested to see whether they'll show something tangible until Wednesday. Their other news posts and "proof" so far were rather underwhelming. Right now all they have are Schroedinger chips.
|
|
|
|
I'm impressed  Thank you for your answers, this cleared up a lot. Issues of centrality aside, I do think an easy to use service layer of Fiat => Bitcoin => Fiat could very well help both mainstream propagation and closing the loop. Looking forward to see your updated prospectus. I'm especially interested in your planned ratio of Bitcoin reserves to Fiat accounts holding (eg. for every EUR 100,- in a Fiat account you hold EUR 200,- worth of Bitcoins at free market price) |
|
|
|
|
Is the price of EUR 699,- including VAT or without VAT?
|
|
|
|
|
This project sounds very interesting, but I'm still not sure what to think. To be honest it sounds pretty crazy, but then again it might be just crazy enough to work. I do have a problem with the aspect of centralization though. If this takes off, it will bring quite some volume to the market, but it might also become a single point of failure, not unlike the legacy banking system. If this project goes awry and non-Bitcoiners lose money (i.e. your Fiat clients) the media is going to have a field day. Bitcoin should still be considered a highly speculative investment, therefore bringing "civilians" into the mix that are just looking for a safe place to store their Fiat seems pretty risky. Banks using high risk assets for saving accounts is partially what caused this financial mess in the first place. In other words, please make sure to have proper contingency plans and exit strategies prepared to avoid financial damages to your clients and reputational damage to Bitcoin. Nonetheless it's great to see a fresh, bold project apart from the regular mining operation or gambling site. Especially one that aims to propagate the mainstream use of Bitcoin.
2 questions:
a) I'm not sure whether I understood your course of action correctly.
Step 1: Buy up Bitcoins on the free market (ie. other exchanges) which will serve as your backing
Step 2: Keep the Bitcoins in the local market (ie. Neo) and trade them at local prices
Step 3: Buy / Sell Bitcoins on the free market to make your Bitcoin holdings correspond to the Fiat your clients have deposited (at a much smaller Volume then Step 1)
Step 4: Profit / Loss depending largely on the difference between the Fiat holdings of your clients and the Bitcoin backing required.
Is this correct or did I miss something?
b) What figures are you basing your estimated numbers of accounts on (eg. 3100 accounts in February)? Your expected reach in advertising, number of current account holders of traditional banks, number of people closing accounts with traditional banks... ?
Sorry in case any of this has been answered before. I very much appreciate your transparency and responsiveness so far.
|
|
|
|
I heard some stuff about Intel releasing 14nm tech a while back and if things keep on as they have done lately I'd not bet against them coming to a rig near you soon... Bitcoin market cap: ~1.5 Billion USD Intel market cap: ~110 Billion USD I think Bitcoin still has a long way to go to become interesting for the likes of Intel. And should that day ever come their 14nm tech is going to be the least of my worries  the $17 million that HashFast and Cointerra have (supposedly) made in pre-orders isn't nothing. Intel makes lots of chips, not just desktop CPUs but lots of ASICs as well. Back when SSDs were starting to get popular Intel came out with their own, and it performed way better then anything else on the market - not because the flash memory was any better, but because the ASIC they used to interface the flash to SATA was so much better. Other drives were fast for the most part, but would randomly lag under typical desktop usage (where tons of little files, like dlls and registry keys need to be read and written too constantly) Turns out, Intel looked at the available controllers, decided they all sucked, and just made their own. Now that SSD controllers are a lot better, Intel doesn't make them any more. Of course, I doubt that little asic was made at their smallest process node. And from what I understand development costs go up significantly the smaller you go. However my guess is that for Intel those costs might not be as high, since they'll likely have all the software, test equipment, and so on available right away. And, of course, they have their own fabs. Which means that, not only do they not need to deal with third party companies to interface with the fabs, as most bitcoin ASIC people have had to do, access to things like spots on multi-project wafers should be easy to get, even on short notice. It would depend on what kind of resources they want to spend on it - but given the time sensitive nature Intel could do things like kick existing slots off of wafer runs to get test chips and so on. Difference being, SSDs were upcoming consumer grade hardware, while specialized Bitcoin mining rigs are still more of a fringe phenomena in a highly speculative market. It was definitely in Intel's interest to push / improve the PC market, while Bitcoin ASICs might not fit as well in their agenda. However the market cap argument doesn't hold up entirely, I'll give you that. Either way, I doubt that Intel will enter the mining rig market before Bitcoin's mainstream adoption significantly improves. It's an interesting thought though. |
|
|
|
That's how it is with investing. It's always easier to see this sort of thing in retrospect. I'm still kicking myself for not buying Google's stock when it went IPO at $80. It's only gone up by a factor of ten since then. My reaction at the time was obviously way off, "Seems overpriced." Oops.
I actually would have bought in but my reaction at the time was "Fuck me, I'm a highschool student with no money" |
|
|
|
I heard some stuff about Intel releasing 14nm tech a while back and if things keep on as they have done lately I'd not bet against them coming to a rig near you soon... Bitcoin market cap: ~1.5 Billion USD Intel market cap: ~110 Billion USD I think Bitcoin still has a long way to go to become interesting for the likes of Intel. And should that day ever come their 14nm tech is going to be the least of my worries |
|
|
|
What a way to wake up... I knew I should have set a clock in the middle of the night :p
To cancel your bids?  Nay. To check whether Labcoin actually posted something meaningful or whether it's time to abandon ship. I actually gave Labcoin the benefit of the doubt, but for the moment being:  |
|
|
|
What a way to wake up... I knew I should have set a clock in the middle of the night :p So, for future reference, is there any way to place stop loss orders on btct.co or the other crypto exchanges?  |
|
|
|
I guess LC is using Valve time™.
LC shares @ 0,003 => Half Life 3 confirmed? |
|
|
|
What's the deal with Icedrill shares tanking, or are the pre-ipo investors still cashing out?
I think that's mostly because right now there's very little buying pressure until either a) the batch 2 wall @ 0,0016 gets eaten up and b) icedrill actually just hashing. |
|
|
|
I think you will find that they were referring to the KNCminer products as "The Competition", which Josh has actively commented on in several forum threads.
Sure. I would have guessed KNC as well. But that is quite old information, which is my point. My hope is potential customers of BFL understand that is incorrect information. The competition is much tighter than that now. But even some of those offers that are at a higher $/GH are as good or better, simply because they are delivering (or expecting to deliver) sooner... e.g. one KNC product is $12/GH but is expecting to be shipped in November. Will Monarch deliver in November? That would be a very big surprise. I'm sure that one lone blogger or BFL spokesman will receive a Monarch in November, after which they'll advertise the product as "in stock" and "shipping" |
|
|
|
|
Payment received btw, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Nice site, looking forward to see how it develops. The desired salary in the resumes should additionally be calculated to BTC though and not just shown in USD |
|
|
|
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY BITCOIN
saved for future reference Here save this one instead done and done |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
