Does anyone know why Giga and many other Mining bonds have lost around 20% of there value in the last few weeks.
Has a large investor pulled out?
I believe a large part of our current issues can be explained by the following asymmetry/inefficiency in the GLBSE market: If I want to sell 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I can simply put in a sell order and it does not cost me anything. However, if I want to buy 1000 GIGAMINING bonds (or any other bond or stock) I have to put up the full amount of BTC in order to place the order. So for the entire time the buy order is in the book I have to tie up that amount of BTC. So there is a cost, an opportunity cost, to placing buy orders. So the bottom line is that it is easier to sell than to buy. Until this issue is fixed the bids will always be lighter than asks and there will be an intrinsic bias toward selling and therefore and intrinsic downward pressure on prices. Great point. In a normal exchange, when you place a buy order, your orders will just not execute when you run out of money, but you can place limit orders on multiple securities at once. Without this, market making is basically impossible unless you are willing to tie up large amounts of capital. |
|
|
|
|
Decided on some rate guidelines:
High-school level:
0.2btc/question
2.0btc/hour for homework help
College level:
0.3btc/question
3.0btc/hour for homework help
please PM me for donation address
faster service with tips upfront!
|
|
|
|
|
The issue here is with credibility and independence. A btc ratings agency would have to be trusted by many people by having a well-established reputation, while also being independent from any assets that it is covering. The value of the company would be based on its reputation for being independent and objective.
This would be pretty hard to do while preserving anonymity.
|
|
|
|
Physics grad from top 5 US university, will answer any college level physics/engineering/math/chemistry question that I can.
There's gotta be a few of you who are not done with exams yet!
If you can tell me if the Higgs Boson exists I'll pay you  And no, I'm can't tell you whether or not it exists. The Higgs boson is the only particle that is part of the "standard model" of particle physics that has never been observed experimentally. This is because its interactions with particles we can observe easily are extremely rare and difficult to measure. One of the goals of the LHC is to confirm its existence experimentally, but many physicists believe it will not achieve its goal (as is alluded to in deepceleron's chart) The chart shows sigma/sigmaSM, which (I think) is essentially a ratio of the likelihood of that particle existing with the mass (in eV, a unit of mass or energy) on the x-axis. The LHC and Tevatron experiments have excluded the possibility of the Higgs existing with certain ranges of mass, but there is still a window where it could exist. At higher masses, (which are out of the range the LHC can observe), the Higgs could still exist, even if the window area turns out to be excluded as well. Deepceleron, please correct me if I'm wrong about this. |
|
|
|
Thanks... One thing that's always bugged me: why does the gravity equation use radius squared when electric field calculations use radius cubed? I was taught the cubed was because it spread out in three dimensions, but doesn't gravity also spread though 3 dimensions?
1. to keep this universe in balance so all matter doesn't collapse into nothingness like all the other universes, 2. because gravity is really the bending of space-time and not a force, 3. because you need some easy force math before we make you learn the quantum chromodynamics Lagrangian, 4. thee flying spaghetti monster designed it that way so that pasta-like strings of matter join together in meatball-shaped clumps in her noodly image. Electrodynamic force also scales with 1/r2, and it is due to exactly the same effect (spreading out into 3 dimensions) as with gravity. I.e. the total force exerted on a shell around the central potential is the same, regardless of how big that shell is (since the area of a shell is proportional to r^2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation |
|
|
|
Since we live in this universe and it's rules, we cannot observe things that have no postulated method of being observed, hence why physicists start to turn into wacky metaphysical philosophers after too much education.
Or people who try to think about physics without enough education . I think you might enjoy this video, and the many others on Khan's website. They are super accessible if you are interested in learning more. http://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/v/introduction-to-gravity |
|
|
|
hence why physicists start to turn into wacky metaphysical philosophers after too much education. haha, or bitcoin traders! |
|
|
|
|
Useless post, but this reminds me of Hiro's job in Snow Crash--basically selling tidbits of information to a gigantic centralized "Wiki" type information construct
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be interested to meet this Atlas guy haha
|
|
|
|
Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there. Thank you. That's what I believed to be true, but I've been ridiculed on several occasions by people who don't think past "duh, it's gravity". We don't know how it arises, but we can observe and predict its effects. Its actually crazy when you think about it. There are parts of our model for gravity that don't quite add up. For example, the stars in galaxies are moving too fast to be held in by what is our model of gravity, requiring the postulation of dark matter-- but dark matter has never actually been observed and we have no idea what it could be-- only that it has gravitational mass. |
|
|
|
I am not that familiar with the specific algorithms in computational quantum state optimization, but I would imagine that the most efficient distributed method would depend on the symmetry of the Hamiltonian in which you are optimizing.
Is this for a college class? I want to take that class!
Quantum mechanics, from the back of the book that nobody gets to. I did some reading and it looks like the multi-configurational self-consistent field method suffers from poor convergence, which could be mitigated in a distributed network by each node crunching through the CSF space in parallel, with each node starting from equally spaced (in k-space) reference configuration state functions. The node that reaches the lowest non-pathological energy state wins. No block reward though  |
|
|
|
Also, explain gravity. Elaborate on your answer.
This. I asked a physicist on these forums this before and all I got was a bunch of trolling about how I was an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean by "explaining gravity", since we still do not really know how it arises. We have excellent models for it (read: general relativity), but it's origin is still one of the big unknowns out there. |
|
|
|
|
I am not that familiar with the specific algorithms in computational quantum state optimization, but I would imagine that the most efficient distributed method would depend on the symmetry of the Hamiltonian in which you are optimizing.
Is this for a college class? I want to take that class!
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't think that 5mh/s will be worth as much in a year as it is now. I just think that over the next few months, the dividend payments will be greater than the asset depreciation--i.e. the mining difficulty will rise more slowly than the dividend yield.
|
|
|
|
|
But its the annual rate of it being nuts that matters.
edit: and yes, I'll be investing/reinvesting some into MOORE--I like the idea
|
|
|
|
LOL at the price action on gigamining due to this thread
Mining bonds are an interesting investment
Well, just looks like price discovery at work. Based on my analysis a 1 Mh/s bond from a strong credit risk counter-party, which I would consider both GIGAMINING and BITBOND to be, should be valued around .2-.22 BTC which would put the GIGAMINING bond at about 1-1.1 BTC plus a slight premium based on the NPV of the PPS bonus. Perhaps most investors, or should we say gamblers, are just not able to do a very competent discounted future cash flow for their valuation or even rudimentary financial analysis for that matter. What is worse are these people lending out their GIGAMINING and BITBOND shares to counter-parties of questionable financial capability posting minimal collateral. For example, in this thread we see: 30 BITBOND with 1 BTC collateral, 100 GIGAMINING with 1 BTC collateral and 30 GIGAMINING with 1 BTC collateral. Based on 5 day trading volume for the underlyings that is about 184 BTC in the notional with 3 BTC collateral or 61.33x which means if the price rises by a mere 1.63% then the collateral is gone. There is a reason for the Regulation T initial margin requirement being about 50% and not 1.63%. Good luck collecting on a margin call. But we are getting to see what is so often the case with investing: You make money when you buy not when you sell. Not to mention that whoever is "borrowing" your bonds is apparently going to deliver your dividends as well...hfgl w/ that You are absolutely right about the price of the bonds being heavily discounted due to counter-party risk, but 100+% yield, where the mining math adds up, is good for even the junkiest of junk bonds. GLBSE rating agency business opportunity, perhaps? |
|
|
|
Mining bonds are an interesting investment, since you should expect the price of bonds to depreciate as mining capacity increases. But the annualized yield of something like gigamining is somewhere around 200%, so you are still making a lot of money in the dividends.
Just curious: how to you get the annualized yield of a gigamining bond to be anywhere near 200%? A 5Mhps bond yields 0.10 BTC/month ( http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/calculator.php). That's 1.2 BTC/year at the current difficulty. But the bond cost you, say, 1.4 BTC. So after a full year of dividends, you still haven't paid that bond off. Which indicates a yield closer to 85% (not 200%). And keep in mind that difficulty is, in general, increasing, so you'll likely find that a year of dividends will be LESS than 1.2 BTC. gigamining: 1.38btc dividend/wk: 0.022btc weekly yield: 1.59% annual yield: (1+0.0159)^52-1 = 127% Its still really high. I'm assuming compounding returns. |
|
|
|
|
Nope, genuinely new member here!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
