|
Just a thought: It seems to me a better chart of labrat mining performance - in contrast to the dual hashrate & difficulty chart - would be a graph of the cumulative daily delta of the percentage changes of hashrate and difficulty since inception. It seems this would account for the area under the curves and give a better idea on the trend of LRM decay or growth.
|
|
|
|
The news is not quite ready. I filled grnbrg in on a few things so he now understands why the news is worth waiting for. It's just being coordinated with a couple people. Apology on the delay, but I will not say "2 more weeks" because it's imminent. Just going to let the suspense build even more! Just please no pointy sticks, or dull ones for that matter.  P.S. The jet-lag is from me returning from a trip that is part of the news. Did you buy a timeshare in the Bahamas? |
|
|
|
|
Why do I have the lurking feeling that Mr Teal is somehow involved with this news.
|
|
|
|
No need to let anticipation build-up for tape-out news alone. It must be better news... maybe shipments of asic chips are inbound? Unless they are being fabbed in China... where the Chinese new year is around the corner. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm....maybe it's news on tape-out.
|
|
|
|
But, i would take a stable 800 bitcoin any day over what bitcoin normally does...
To the moon!!! ┗(°0°)┛ Sounds like the btc-e troll box. |
|
|
|
|
About three days and no posts. This is about as quiet as I've seen this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Labrat.
Have you investigated how the Bitfury hashing might be optimized by hacking the circuits and using external clocking? I'm not sure if that makes sense to you right off, but I've read that it could increase the efficiency quite a bit. To be clear, I'm not sure how it might or might not increase the hashing rate, but it should reduce the electrical consumption if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Any chance at getting photos of all the hardware and not only a single BFL rig and one or two BitFury boards?
Not that I think it, but theoretically, how could anyone prove this is still not a ponzi scheme? Except, maybe by the hash-rate in the pool.
Bitcoins + hardware value collected: upwards of BTC7500
Bitcoins paid out: just over BTC1000
Take us on a small tour. Even if it's a mess and not as pretty as ASICminer's facility. It's still something. Besides, we can see a before and after if LRM is ever proven successful for long term.
|
|
|
|
I'm not planning on buying GHS on CEX, no worries.
But I'm also not moving over the rest of the HW due to the high network percentage.
Buying back bonds right now is just not a good idea as I'm trying to raise as much funds as possible to get LRM to expand. There are a couple projects going on that are limiting LRMs flow of cash making that move irresponsible.
I'd have no problem with this in April or so.
I'm likely going to take the alt coins for the time being to use 100% toward hardware.
It seems expanding LRM will be an ongoing process. When would you do a bond buy-back? In principle, buying back bonds is a good move for LRM & bond holders. It would increase weekly monies useful for more hardware purchases (i.e. LRM would expand faster) and increase dividends for bond holders (not to mention sustaining or even growing value per bond). And I wouldn't classify any good move as irresponsible. Unless perhaps, you know that you have another move or project that can easily beat bond buy-backs for the long term. For example, if you could acquire a better than bond GH/ BTC rate immediately in the form of hardware, then that might be better than a bond buy-back on the front end (not necessarily better for the long run; I'd have to do some math) - i.e. better for LRM & bond holders. Or if you had some mega clearance level deal in the works a month off, which hasn't been disclosed, then that might be better than a buy-back. If you don't know that your specific intentions are better or not, then share your intentions more often, you could take advantage of group think on potential moves for LRM & bond holders. There are plenty of intelligent people with vested interest in LRM success tracking this. |
|
|
|
Buying GH on CEX is a bad idea, imo.
A better idea would be for LR to buy LRM bonds from people selling them. And deleting the acquired amount from the list of outstanding bonds.
Good point This is a tried and true strategy for companies which feel their share (bonds) are undervalued. It is also a huge confidence statement on the part of management. Seconded -DiggeR That makes five people with an immediate affirmative response to thinking this is the [best] thing to do with the alt coin returns. Labrat or grnbrg ... any response or thoughts of yours on this would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
If LR really thinks the future of LRM is golden - especially with the ASIC's in a few months - this should be a no-brainer to what's best for LRM & bond holders, I'd think.
|
|
|
|
Buying GH on CEX is a bad idea, imo.
A better idea would be for LR to buy LRM bonds from people selling them. And deleting the acquired amount from the list of outstanding bonds.
Good point This is a tried and true strategy for companies which feel their share (bonds) are undervalued. It is also a huge confidence statement on the part of management. Reverse dilution... or bond buy-back.... akin to what I think is termed accretive acquisition. |
|
|
|
|
Buying GH on CEX is a bad idea, imo.
A better idea would be for LR to buy LRM bonds from people selling them. And deleting the acquired amount from the list of outstanding bonds.
|
|
|
|
I vote more long term like the asic project. Think buying a few Ghs now would be short term due to the rapid difficulty increase...
Heh. Holding seems to almost always the best bet.  grnbrg. +10 except..only if the idea is to buy more hardware with it after holding...not to redistribute as dividends (otherwise, just pay the dividends now to the same effect). |
|
|
|
The referral bonus only includes purchased GHS
Oh, that sucks, so I moved pools thinking I was helping LRM while it does nothing at all :/ It can help. Use the NMC you generate and buy GHashes... everything you buy makes 3% of that amount get added to LRM. +1 I'm trying to figure out exactly what would best help LRM with these alt coins we're mining. There are plenty of ways they can help. If you feel you must buy something. Then evaluate the return on buying GPU hardware to mine alt coins to in turn buy BTC. The return on investment might be as good as buying Bitfury hardware, and the hardware delivery is as fast as you can order video cards online. Check for a PM from me on this. |
|
|
|
Same.
7 shares = 0.00587398 BTC this week.
That is 0.00083914 BTC per share.
I am not sure where I can see current bonds held but last weeks was 58,174 bonds so...
(58,174 X 0.00083914 BTC) X (4/3) = ~65.088173813 BTC for this week before LRMs cut.
At current difficulty, 23 TH/s for 7 days should have yielded ~68.5643 before pool fees on average.
Pretty damn close. Not a bad week I would say.
I may have lost track of time. So, keep that in mind. But the week after the two mining thing was over, divs were paid out on about 5 days. Something like that. But I'm assuming last weekend was a full 7 day div payout at the full 23TH. That's my assumption here: Given that assumption. It seems the divs today weren't bad compared to a calculation based on the difficulty increase. Difficulty went up about 30%, but divs showed less change at about 27% compared to last week. Perhaps, damage from difficulty increase was mitigated by merged mining returns. |
|
|
|
Yes, this is a very interesting clarification from FINCEN. Apparently if we were shareholders we would be fine because we are collectively mining for ourselves. As bondholders we do not "own" anything other than the right to receive a dividend. In its current configuration it is possible LRM needs to restructure the bonds into shares or become a MSB. I'm not a lawyer. With that disclaimer, my simple interpretation, so far, is that it is probably not a problem for LRM. I think this would be the key paragraph (my red emphasis): FinCEN understands that Bitcoin mining imposes no obligations on a Bitcoin user to send mined Bitcoin to any other person or place for the benefit of another. Instead, the user is free to use the mined virtual currency or its equivalent for the user’s own purposes, such as to purchase real or virtual goods and services for the user’s own use. To the extent that a user mines Bitcoin and uses the Bitcoin solely for the user’s own purposes and not for the benefit of another, the user is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, because these activities involve neither “acceptance” nor “transmission” of the convertible virtual currency and are not the transmission of funds within the meaning of the Rule. This is the case whether the user mining and using the Bitcoin is an individual or a corporation, and whether the user is purchasing goods or services for the user’s own use, paying debts previously incurred in the ordinary course of business, or (in the case of a corporate user) making distributions to shareholders. Activities that, in and of themselves, do not constitute accepting and transmitting currency, funds or the value of funds, are activities that do not fit within the definition of “money transmission services” and therefore are not subject to FinCEN’s registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations for MSBs.8 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
