thanks - I deleted my previous post when I realized investors did pay for the hardware that has not arrived yet but are only getting "credit" for the hardware in hand. That's a loose end that should get tied up.

See first post of this thread, something like 285BTC

that statement is as much FUD as the statement "LRM is sustainable" is FUD. There really is no data either way. The burden of proof is on LR, and proving the project is sustainable is what investors/customers are paying him to do. He's not just getting paid to install mining hardware. He's a CEO, but he acts more like someone that really likes mining hardware and not financial statements, projections, corporate accountability, and accounting.

Nothing about the coinseed deal nor the secret ASIC project has been presented at all that shows if it is a good or bad deal for LRM. We know it's a great deal for LR (he got a job and he gets paid on hashrate regardless of whether the company fails), but no one knows if it's a good deal for LRM.

He said it was more or less true, but not produced by mt gox. It's obvious a draft of something produced for mt gox (consultant, contractor, investor, whatever) since Karpeles knew of it and what it was back when it was a secret. It also could be a red herring produced by gox to "leak" the story prior to it breaking, and can hide behind "we never made any statement" but still get a story out.

Document is not a hoax. STOP THE FUD FUD!

serious question, how do lower fees help drive price up? fees usually increase spread and decrease liquidity. I don't see how lower fees and higher volume mean higher prices.

Neither does saying something is FUD make it FUD.

What he said was factually correct, and the conclusion is supported by evidence. Please present data to the contrary.

I don't think this is true. Combined, BTC-E and BitStamp exchanged $746M in 30 days, MtGox exchanged $350M. BTC-E&BitStamp exchanged 1.1MBTC, MtGox exchanged 0.85MBTC.

There is a mechanism to buy and sell addiction miners:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=328135.0

Buy up enough shares to "own" a miner and then sell it. The interesting thing is that it is already hashing and is in a datacenter, so it should demand a higher price than having it shipped somewhere. If you insist on shipping it to you (or someone else), maybe you can work out a deal with tyrion70.

I love this group buy because it is so transparent, and it is set up as a market. The market allows everyone to collectively decide what should be done.

thanks eightcylinders, that's pretty cool

don't know if this is worth your time, but since this will become an increasing problem over time maybe it is worth some thought. Maybe you can have a bundled auction of accounts that have low dividends. That would just be one auction for you to handle, you can charge a fee for your time if necessary, and the proceeds can go to payoff the smaller accounts. This way those accounts get closed out fairly rather than having dividends disappear and it gives an opportunity for others to increase their holdings.

For example, the total number of shares held in all accounts with <145 shares is 3204 (~1% of the total share count). There are  57 out of 209 accounts with < 145 shares (27%). Bundling up and buying out those accounts will stave off worrying about dust and simplify management of the group buy. One one hand, only 1% of the total number of shares are affected. On the other hand, more than one quarter of shareholders would be bought out.

I think selling 134 GH/s of currently hashing, no pre-order, no hosting setup, would be an attractive offering.

Wow, it's like neither of you two read the last page of posts. No one, at all, was asking to have binding votes to tell Doog what to do.

Since you didn't read the background and both posted knee jerk reactions to what you thought the discussion was about, I will explain it to you.

Doog is running a site with a BTC35k bankroll + unknown sized gambler deposits. Everyone agrees that he should run it however he wants to run it. He has most of the accounts stored off-line in a cold wallet for security, which is great. However, if he gets hits by the proverbial bus - what happens?! Luckily for us, Doog has a "dead man's switch" - someone else (or something) that will reload the hot wallet and issue refunds in the case he is no longer able to run the site. The question being discussed (and note, this is not what you thought was under discussion) was what happens if both Doog and the dead man's switch fail? Are BTC35k lost forever in limbo? Is there some way investors [1] can trigger the dead man's switch via multi-signed keys or other cryptographic mechanisms?

Two points were being discussed: 1) Is it technically feasible? 2) How can we determine a consensus has been reached?

This was a part academic and part practical discussion.

Please contribute to that discussion before arrogantly dismissing it without even understanding what you're talking about.


[1] one who "expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/invest

cumulative bid/ask from 0-0.1BTC, secondary axis is at $750/BTC.

An even more powerful entity banned it this week too: Apple
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/06/technology/apple-bitcoin/


they don't want competition, apparently...

sure that's how you vote, but that points out the exact problem I am concerned with:

1) if every investor gets 1 vote, you need to have an super-majority of investors watching JD and this thread to know when something requiring a vote happens.
2) if investors get votes proportional to the amount invested, a competing website and buy out and shut down JD very easily by investing lots of money and sending "shutdown" votes

I've been struggling trying to figure out how to identify investor consensus. There are many cases where you would need fast response, and many investors don't monitor JD often enough to respond quickly. You also are worried about a rival site shutting down JD but making large deposits just to call the vote and shut down the site.

I like the idea - do you have an idea how investor consensus can be determined?

See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=328135.120

Bid: 3000 shares @ 0.00027BTC - eightcylinders (smaller quantities okay, good till 2/8)
Ask: 639@0.00085 - kirk46

each share is 41.8 MH/s

This.

No need to debate. Just make your move and vote with your wallet.

Stats so far: total BTC returned, per share: 0.017-0.018BTC.
Shares are currently exchanging at ~0.066BTC (~$55)

If you think LRM will return dividends > 0.066BTC over the life of the investment or will appreciate/reach steady state, then buy. If you think it will return less than 0.066BTC, sell. If the only way you see LRM returning $55/share (more than triple what has been distributed so far) is if BTC rises in value, then think about what that means and how you could better optimize your return (hint: it's not by owning LRM).