Was going to bid... If you have less than 500 forum posts you must pay a 10% deposit Nope. |
|
|
|
Motion to make a small(20BTC or less) GPU hardware purchase. This would include the company's reinvestment fund(.83BTC) + up to 19BTC from the treasury.
With the delay of the company's ASIC mining hardware, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain an attractive APY to attract additional investors without expanding mining hardware
Would the extra GPUs be able to recoup the capital expense in such a short time frame? After the bASICs finally get here, what happens to these GPUs? |
|
|
|
@ DeaDTerra: When will you issue new shares on BTC-TC?
I will once the people who has claimed on BTC-TC has logged in and claimed it so Ican pay the dividend.
//DeaDTerra
DeaDTerra, Once the list you gave to Burnside is "in the system" at btct.co, those "claim accounts" are live and will collect dividends. Even if the claimant hasn't logged in yet. Once they do log in, even months later, they will see their shares and dividends in that account. |
|
|
|
It would be nice if we could merge accounts on BTC-TC since I now have two  EDIT: Nevermind, I am an idiot. Even though you figured this out, I'm going to answer this question for other people. I just want to let everyone know that after you log in to the "conversion" account that was automatically created and verify your shares, you can log out and create a new account on btct.co, perhaps with a username that you prefer. After you create a new account, you can transfer any shares/btc from the "conversion" account to your "real" account for free. Then you can forget about the "conversion" account. |
|
|
|
Is there a way to transfer shares bought on BF to BTC-TC?
The short answer is: no. The long answer is: yes. To do this cleanly, you would have to ask DT to manually remove shares from your account and then the exchange; AND THEN add those shares to another exchange, and then credit them to your other account account. I don't know all the steps involved, but this is not an easy "cut-n-paste" process. To be honest, it would be much faster to just sell on one exchange, bring the BTC over and re-buy on the other. |
|
|
|
It's looking more and more like "outside" assets will need to be used.
I think having outside assets makes a lot of sense. I agree that the fund will have more value to investors on BTC-TC if it includes assets from other exchanges/sources.
Thanks for this valuable input. I will change the asset contract to include assets from outside of the btct.co exchange. Although this introduces extra risk, I think it's the only way we can move forward with the fund. I want this fund to be transparent, that is why I originally wanted to use only btct.co assets. Burnside made it easy for the fund's portfolio to be examined by the public. After looking at how Bitfunder works, it's easy to show what assets the fund owns by publishing the public BTC address tied to the fund. After speaking with OgNasty, the proprietary platform for NASTY "Fanclub" now also supports publishing shares held by a BTC address to the public. As for other platforms, I don't know if publishing assets held will be possible. Another change to get moving forward will be to increase the maximum amount of BTC that can be held in the fund to 20%. I don't plan on ever keeping this much BTC in the fund, but this will be required in order to balance assets across multiple exchanges/platforms. The management fee will be increased to a total of 7.5% of dividends paid because of the added complexity of accessing multiple exchanges and proprietary platforms to keep the underlying assets in balance. Motions will be allowed to be requested by shareholders to include new assets or remove existing assets from the fund. I want this fund to be successful and fair for everyone involved. Let know what you think about the proposed contract changes. |
|
|
|
Hey since when I get different lucky numbers for one transaction (2 bets)  Since Jan 3: At 2013-01-03 00:00 GMT (In about an hour) the logic for calculating the bet hash which was hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id) will be changed to hmac512(secret, bet_transaction_id + ":" + bet_output_index)
This means that each bet inside a single transaction will get a different lucky number. With this change, we will be relaxing some of our max check logic so that players will be able to make multiple bets to the same address in a single transaction.
Currrently, if a player sends a transaction of:
{
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
250 BTC -> 1dicec9k7KpmQaA8Uc8aCCxfWnwEWzpXE
}
The first one will be processed normally, the second one will be considered above max.
At the switch over at 00:00 the same transaction will be processed as two separate bets with two separate lucky numbers and won't be considered above max.
I'll be updating the docs to reflect this as well.
|
|
|
|
Hey, I sent a few small bets, and they came back fine. I have just sent a $5 and $13 bet in, and nothing came back. The other ones had come back instant, is there any reason why nothing came back for these ones, not even a $0.00?
Here is the perfect answer to your question: Has the bet transaction confirmed? If not, is it a child of a transaction that also has not confirmed?
If that is the case, those are likely being ignored until they have a confirmation, which was a change that was implemented late December following some transactions that were essentially disrupting the system. If that is the case, place your wagers with the Bitcoin-Qt client which will not allow you to spend funds that don't have at least one confirmation.
If you are still having problems and your bet transaction has at least one confirm, find your bet transactions and paste them here so we can help your better. |
|
|
|
So does it need any more votes, or are you only waiting on the list? I don't own any LTC-GLOBAL (and I don't even see it on the exchange), so I can't vote.
No, GSDPT does not need anymore votes. LTC-Global is sold here: https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/LTC-GLOBALPrice per share is in Litecoins. |
|
|
|
BTC-MINING, if and when namworld gets it going again would qualify after a few more YES votes.
Not sure if it would meet your criteria actually. Although its contract says it's a mining company in fact its only asset (other than a few BTC) is a loan to BitBond. So it doesn't own mining hardware - just passes through to an actual mining company. Well, this is unsettling news. It's looking more and more like "outside" assets will need to be used. |
|
|
|
Tom continues to tease.  *still holding breath... starting to turn blue* |
|
|
|
Cash + 3 or more mining assets and you'll be fine. BTC balance is obviously an asset that belongs to investors and is just as obviously not limited to 20%. It's a balancing act for any long term transparent fund, but with a properly designed spreadsheet it's a breeze.
I have thought about that. Holding 20% of a few assets + the rest in BTC would follow the btct.co terms. But I can't pay dividends on the BTC. I don't know how many people would be willing to buy into a fund that holds that much BTC. That's why I put a limit on how much BTC could be held in the fund. But it certainly would allow me to start the fund much faster. I would like to hear the thoughts of others. What about allowing the fund to hold up to 40% in BTC (cash)? I would also like more opinions on adding "foreign" assets into the fund (Assets from other exchanges). |
|
|
|
One other request for clarification. Contract says:
"Bitcoins will be used to balance the fund
and to offer share buybacks."
What's the fund's policy on liquidity/buying back shares? Sounds like you have a policy (which is a big step up from many 'funds') - but at what % of current fund value do you do it? Is it done via bids place by you, by filling asks placed by investors or on request?
The share buybacks will be offered on a very limited basis at 90% of the current Net Asset Value per share buy placing bids on the market. Only a very limited portion of the Bitcoin Reserve will be available for buybacks. The Bitcoin Reserve's priority will be for balancing first, and then buybacks. I would rather have the fund's shares be traded on the open market, but I know that's not always possible. So, I hope a buyback policy will help in a very limited way with some investor's liquidity. ("Very limited" 3 times in one paragraph.) Why not just pay 5% of received dividends as a management fee - which manager can then use to buy shares that DO vote and own assets if he so chooses?
Sounds good. It's a pay cut, but does keep things simpler. The asset contract will be modified with the buyback policy and the management fee change when we can determine how to add underlying assets whilst keeping below 20% for each asset. |
|
|
|
Are there 5 or more such companies on BTC.CO?
From BTC.CO Assets Issuers Terms of Service:
"Long-term investment securities are not to invest more than 20% of their portfolio into any other single security on BTC-TC. "
We don't have 5 yet and as Deprived pointed out, over 20% of any single one would not be allowed.
This is what we call a snafu. I admit, I got caught up and I wanted to start a new asset with the New Year. I may have jumped the gun getting this asset created, but there is more than one solution to this problem. To keep things simple (as I originally planned) we can simply wait for additional companies to meet the criteria. COGNITIVE and BASIC-MINING already meet the criteria. BTC-MINING, if and when namworld gets it going again would qualify after a few more YES votes. I urge any other mining company from GLBSE to move to btct.co and take advantage of the waived asset creation fee. Deprived posted this while I was composing my response: Which isn't to say the fund can't be approved now then start selling shares once there's more offerings around. Now would be a terrible time to start it anyway
Are there any other good ones on BitFunder or CryptoStocks? Or maybe you could mix in some Asicminer or something else not being traded? Honestly, I think pulling in some off-exchange companies actually brings more value to the table for your fund investors.
And this is the other option. Changing the contract to allow for companies off of btct.co to be included in the fund. I originally did not want to do this. It makes things much more complicated. I also wanted to be able to prove ownership of underlying securities by making the fund's portfolio public. I wouldn't be able to do that as easily with assets from other exchanges (or proprietary platforms). If we were to go the off-btct.co route: NASTY looks like a good candidate. And I have also been offered a way to publicly display shares owned by the fund using their proprietary platform. There may be a few others. |
|
|
|
Back when GLBSE was up, I had invested in a passthrough for SatoshiDICE. Now that I have fully regained my composure (and bitcoins) from its crash, I am looking for investment opportunities, specifically with SatoshiDICE. I don't like the idea of using MPEX though. Is there an existing passthrough/is someone willing to make one?
GSDPT is up and running on BitFunder, You can purchase shares there  //DeaDTerra Still waiting for my shares on https://btct.co  Thanks! |
|
|
|
Sure I can snap some pics and post them up.
[..]
The whole thing is caseless so it ain't the pertiest thing ever
Naked cards? Exposed boards? We love server/rig pr0n. |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to find a good share price.
BTC1 used to be the going rate, but that was awhile ago. I would like to stick with 1 some how. BTC0.1 seems to little, but may be more practical for smaller investors.
BTC.25 sounds about right to start, but I would still rather have tenths.
I also thought about including non BTCT.CO mining companies, but I don't want to evaluate these companies. With BTCT.CO assets, the moderators usually get it right, but other assets don't have this moderation. I want to stick with a formula for including assets that anyone can follow, not using my own arbitrary judgement.
Any thoughts? I would love to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
