You're about a day late.

Yes, some people have. (1, 2, 3)


The actual reason is explained in this scientific paper.

Here's a big thumbs up to the so called "bankers" as well as to the rest of the citizen finance Doolittle Brigade. Well done fellas, great treasure awaits.

Yeah, I would say shill. Get lost.



On a personal note, I find the gall of the misguided claims on the exchanges subject appalling. I will not turn this into an attack of the other exchange, the guy in charge of it is at least working to consolidate his secondary position, and from what I hear hasn't slept in three days. But the pretense of the forum trolls has to stop. We all know who's the top dog here, pretending it ain't so makes you look ridiculous at most. In general, it just makes you look stupid.

You are either an idiot or a shill. Which of the two is it?

That is exactly correct, and it is both necessary and implicit in the notion of "free market". This is how banking worked, at the time that banking actually worked and it was being done by Lombards. This is how diamonds are still traded in Antwerp today, millions' worth of stones moving around on the mere personal cognizance and say-so of trusted members. This is what having a free market both requires and means.


This is a blessing in disguise. The more that is accumulated the more is at risk. Paying out to investors actually reduces risks, and is thus a good thing. What would you really prefer, situation A where 1k BTC accumulated over 100 intervals resulting in a 100k BTC pot somewhere, or situation B where 1k BTC were paid out over 100 intervals resulting in 100 payments of 1k to investors? Cause looking at past experience the only certain thing is that investors aren't getting 100k BTC from situation A.


This has got to be a joke of some kind. Gox deals in millions, Bitcoinica dealt in 10's of ks at its peak. MtGox got hacked, survived and apparently learned from those mistakes, Bitcoinica got hacked, failed to learn from mistakes, imploding. You're proposing a poodle took over the brontosaurus here.


This is not a plan. Looky here:


S.DICE is by a wide margin the most liquid of all BTC assets. Sure, if you're looking to get out 10k BTC it might take days. Days, not five years. Then again, if you're looking to sell 10k BTC it might take a little on MtGox too. Certainly a 100k hard sell is sending the market tumbling. But if you're looking to to cash out a couple hundred...none of these are real concerns.

In the end it all works similar to how fiat-based stocks work: if you go in for a few shares it's one thing. If you go buy whole percents of a stock, be it BP or GOOG you're not going to be able to divest in five minutes. It's the nature of things, everyone knows this, don't go institutional investor unless you want to be one as it were.


No one person owns the bitcoin infrastructure, and nobody cares what any one person does. If what they do is useful then fine, if not then it's irrelevant. This can't be stressed enough, and in a bundle as to the earlier point someone raised of "what if blocks become full": not only the bets minimums could be raised, but moreover a currency that can't process transactions is thus irrelevant. Either it fixes itself or we all move on at that point.


I'd say this is the sort of thing by which bitcoin stands to gain.

MPEx has an affiliate option. Referrers are credited 5 BTC for new account signups, with various potential ways to draw in referrals. Here's a devtalk exploring the possibilities.

Just wanted to remind everyone that the first batch of S.DICE goes out in less than six hours.

Also, the GLBSE pass-through (GSDPT) opens in ~2 hours. GLBSE is back online too.

I'm not quoting the "random other participant to the discussion". What made you think that?

I'm not at liberty to discuss what the strategy of MPEx is. The fact that I generously went out of my way to find you a reference from the actual owner for a side point raised here is nice of me. The fact that you seem to think you have the standing or authority to attack what the one person with standing and authority says on a subject is... well... kinda silly.


Copyright is a right. The notion that rights depend on courts to exist is a little more of the same "we've grown up in a paradigm we can't really leave" issue. So: milk is not milk because "government" says so, and rights do not exist because of the courts. Quite the contrary: the courts are one of many things flowing from the existence of rights.

Furthermore, 4.2 does not rule out courts. 4.2 rules out the pretension of some courts to modify private contracts. They are still held to enforce private contracts, as written. In short, 4.2 only rules out improper courts.

But yes, thank you for noticing that the first time someone wrote an actual contract for a BTC security it was not one of the citizen-finance people hanging out on this forum. This in spite of the fact that they've been going around wrecking the notion of BTC finance for over a year, to the degree that most people (and even most of them themselves!) regard such a thing with incredulity today. Go pay a royalty and use it in your own stuff, you'll be better off.

I'd have to quote here


I imagine the problem is not exactly the loudness as much as the senselessness. People complaining meaningfully about something substantial aren't a liability, they're an asset. When it turns to complaining for lack of activity and in hopes of milking some excitement out of the dreary white collar slave day... that's another matter.

On a side note: maybe you should try the IRC, it really doesn't bite.

Well, I can appreciate that school of thought, it just doesn't convince me. Could be pure bias, obviously.

Forgot to say: mpoe.org, mpoe.biz, mpex.us, mpex.biz among others all point to http://polimedia.us/bitcoin.

You're right in that "the exchange mess". Without going into historical causes of the present situation, we don't think the solution you propose works. The correct solution would be:


It's what we're doing here, at any rate.

Factory, we have a very easy to delineate problem here. You say


This is great. Then you follow by saying


And here it starts. Nothing I have said actually translates to a denial of future uncertainty. If you want to go into dissecting semantics and pretend you don't understand what "the story is" means or such that's fine, but it will not make you look respectable, as you imagine. It will make you look [more] like a man on a mission. Which, I suppose, is fine by me if it's fine by you. It does however contradict the pretense you set forth above, and that's what'd be dishonest in this entire discussion.

It is dishonest to claim that 10 times 10 is a thousand. It is dishonest to claim somebody is "unprofessional" because they're either not working for whoever's shilling you out or else you just don't like them. It is dishonest to deny the facts of the matter, such as they are.

That MPEx is held to standards nobody else is held to is perfectly fine. That people ask "Hey, what happens in case your domain gets seized" is great, because it gives us the opportunity to answer. I can understand why we're the only exchange asked these things: nobody cares about the others. Asking questions is not the problem. Pretending questions were not answered just because the answer doesn't come out to be what you wanted or expected it to be, that's dishonest. Getting a good answer and pretending it's a bad answer, that's dishonest. Claiming to be insulted by "LOL" and using "fuck" as a form of address, that's dishonest.

So, as far as "professional" goes, let me tell you a little about things you have no way of knowing, given that I work for the - so far only - people who professionally handle BTC securities. There are exactly two bitcoin companies listed in the bitcoin world so far. One is MPOE/MPEX. The other is SatoshiDICE! The reason both these exist as available investments for people in BTC is not the intrinsic strength or value of the investor market in BTC. Either owner could have had much better deals going to the established marketplaces.

The reason both of these exist is that it just so happens that their owners simultaneously a. don't really need the money and b. would like to see BTC flourish and develop. That's it. No amount of ranting and raving about how 10% dividends a year is too close to real world's 2.5 dollars / 650 dollar share and not close enough to imaginary 7% a week returns is going to matter in that discussion, because it can't make the respective owners either poorer or less desirous to see BTC flourish.

S.MPOE makes about half what S.DICE does, and is currently trading at a slight premium over what S.DICE is asking for. Thus the P/E multiplier of S.MPOE is closer to about 20x. That is what investors (the real variety, not the forum dweller variety) value it at. It is true that the owner there retained about 98% so far, and so that might have an impact, or else the growth potential is valued differently, or what have you. Either way that falls, based on actual experience as opposed to imaginary experience, S.DICE is a good buy.

We have talked to numerous companies that have valid business models in order to offer their shares to the interested public. There are exactly two answers that we hear with inordinate frequency. One is that the owner doesn't need the money, so a listing doesn't make sense. The other - heard in general as a reply to the observation that BTC will go to shit in a bucket if serious businesses don't start offering real investor debuchees and actual financial instruments - is that the owner does not want or need the hassle of a bunch of drama from two penny investors.

That is what you are doing, with your unwelcome and unwarranted delusions of self importance. You are, with every dishonest remark, with every goblet of bile, with every hateful and rude comment on this forum, you are making it more difficult for the actual professionals to close actual deals, and you are making it less likely for actual businesses to go BTC rather than traditional, and in short you are sticking nails in BTC's coffin. It's that simple: as long as BTC is perceived as "that currency in which they do Ponzis" we are, collectively and generally, going nowhere. We have a limited window of time to make BTC work, financially. If in 2020 all that's happening are still "investments" of the ilk we've seen offered all over this forum, the very notion of cryptocurrency might be too discredited to ever take off. If this insanity going on the lines of "bitcoin is for raising money to buy a toaster" is allowed to continue it might become our ceiling. As it is it will come to haunt us.

I haven't seen you explaining why ZIP is such a bad thing, back then. Why not? How's the honesty/dishonesty going there? I don't recall seeing you explaining why LIB.x were bad things, back in the day. Were you even around, in those times? Pirate uninsured bonds are trading in distress, 30-40 cents to the dollar. I was there saying it's dishonest, back then. Were you? Where were you? Were you being honest?

So, please, take a step away from your computer, and take a step away from yourself. And think. Am I being intelligent, and am I contributing something useful? It's perfectly fine to not have the money to go in, it's perfectly fine to have the money and not want to go in. It's perfectly fine to not go in. It is perfectly unfine to be carrying on in this manner.

Two points need to be spelled out here.

A. The lists of "risks", real or perceived, is this nonsense that VAs throw at first-time founders in the hopes that they may be strong-armed. Nobody sitting at this table is a first timer. I could make you a list of 100 risks related to connecting to an internet forum, or to getting out of bed in the morning. Let's save this entire line for fresher turnips, it's a shame to waste it on this occasion.

B. The pretense is that investors are somehow in a strong position in this deal. This is patently false. There are potentially nine and a half million btc to be invested, that's three hundred times the total value on offer. That's right, there's three hundred of you. There's just one SatoshiDICE!

For all the talk about "btc risks" we all know what the real story is: in a couple of years btc is solidly in two figures, mining is barely profitable, in the commodity range (say, 1%?) and there's just not that many revenue streams to be had in a purely deflationary currency. Those are the risks, and you know it, or else you wouldn't be here in the first place. "The risks" are that if you lose out now you will never, ever, ever meet this deal again.

That's about it.

Let me make something perfectly clear to you: there is no other form.

All login-and-password sites in bitcoin have been hacked. All of them. MtGox was hacked. Bitcoinica was hacked. There is no future there.

Learn to love GPG. Thinking you are part of a cryptocurrency and being unable to use cryptography, the most basic and user-friendly version imaginable to boot is a little sad. Lying to yourself that this is okay...well....

As to the point of which is the larger exchange: we have an excellent benchmark, S.DICE / GSDPT. If indeed GLBSE is significant, then likely the majority of volume will come through the passthrough offering. If indeed GLBSE is insignificant, then likely an insignificant portion of the volume will come through the passthrough offering. This is apparently necessary for people who really don't understand that 2-300k over 8 months is way under 100k+ a month, who apparently abound on this forum.

On a more personal note, to a few of the OPs: Not everything you don't know about is "bad". Actually, most of the best things in this world are things you don't know about. Why all the bile, seriously? You've encountered a wonderful thing you've never seen before. It may have financial or technological barriers that are challenging for you personally. They may even turn out to be insurmountable for you personally. Does that make the wonderful thing horrible now? What are we dealing with, five year olds?


Some prefer humor, some prefer bad grammar. It's a large enough world for everyone.

Good luck!

In case the domain is confiscated or otherwise lost MPEx would move to a different domain, in a different jurisdiction. Should the same happen again, MPEx would move to what will at the time be a solid alternative for a free Internet, be it the TOR netword, namecoin or some equivalent based DNS or any comparable solution. No government will ever be able to stop the Internet, in general. We're prepared to show this in the particular.

This is by the way true of all the other polimedia properties, which probably should be given a few words. Romania is a small market. As such, the same person happens to own the most widely read blog in Romanian (Trilema), the Romanian digg/reddit (fain), the Romanian 4chan (dtng). Such concentration may be rare in other language spaces and inconceivable in English, but it is a fact in Romania due to the smaller size and relative backwardness of that language space. The owner has elected to list them all under the same domain. Other people might have made different choices.


Should the systems be confiscated or otherwise lost the service will failover to different systems, possibly on bulletproof hosting if need be. This to the point of availability.


From the FAQ, as to compromise.

In the unlikely case that the continuation of MPEx becomes impossible, all issuers will be provided with lists of their assets' owners. A successor system would have to be constructed, but no information is lost (since people can still sign with their keys, it is trivial to identify yourself as an owner).

Yes, stock is available to borrow for shorting, with the restrictions that a. to those traders that already have margined accounts with MPEx and b. after the last IPO date. This has actually always been the case on MPEx.

I can only hope other exchanges would implement the same leeway, you would be a lot less able to manipulate the "market" value of your junk bonds if that were the case.


This is nonsense. Finance is finance. If you decide that you will only take Ponzi-level "interest" then you decide you will only put your money into Ponzi schemes. That's a fact. Bitcoin has to come to terms with financial sanity.

That aside, obviously everyone is entitled to his own choices.


Unlike pretty much anyone on this forum, I haven't substantially altered any post I've made. Just saying.


Fify.

(Oops Rassah beat me to it).


I have nothing to do with pricing anything, sorry.


The fact is most bitcoin transactions ever made were made to or from SatoshiDICE!

Think about it. If there existed a website that could claim "the majority of internet connections are made either to us or from us" how poorly would you think that'd fare? A fact's a fact, SD has a good position, why argue with it?


This keeps being repeated. Then it is pointed out that the entire transaction set is public and has in fact been audited by independent people all over the forum. Then it gets repeated again. Why?


All business models are easily replicated. That is what humans do: they figure things out. Once a human figured it out, any other human can do it too. This is the main explanation to our success as a species. Still, the fact that in theory anyone could make an iphone does not mean the iphone clones are iphones. This has also been pointed out before. It still gets repeated. Why?


Then it's a moot point. If you don't like BTC get out. If you are comfortable with BTC this adds no extra risk. This has also been said before, yet here it is repeated. Why?


Bolded out for convenience.


Very nice how that worked out btw, props to you. Do you take more btw?


Which is fine. But this is a BTC asset.


This.

People keep asking, "oh, why the stock offering"? Well, a good reason could be: once people who would finance a competitor have the option of buying into the genuine article, they might regard investing in trying to reinvent the wheel for what it actually is: trying to reinvent the wheel.

The model may be replicable or not, but the point of fact is: intelligent people solve new problems. That's what they do. Solving this problem would have been good in March. We're at the end of August, the world moves on. What's next, Bitcoin has no value because it's easily replicable and as such that guy with truecoin or realcoin or whatever it was is going to take all the market over?


See above. Reimplementing something is no innovation. It's quite the contrary of innovation.


How would it not ? It has nothing to do with any other currency. It's all BTC.


The only reason this argument can even be brought is because this is only the second large company to ever be listed in BTC world. You will get used to it, and then you will possibly see quite the reverse: 10 P/E is HUGE in a currency that is fundamentally deflationary. 1% in dollars means nothing because of HeliBen. 1% in BTC means a lot. A HUGE LOT.

BTC is a good thing. It compares favourably to any fiat. If this point is contentious to you I guess BTC investments aren't yet something you can do.


Domains are no part of this discussion. Should the domain be seized, MPEx will simply move to another one. Possibly something TOR based, or namecoin based or whatever.

Enough with the FUD, seriously.


Either a lot more than there is for GLBSE or else there's some magic afoot, seeing how I've not yet heard of 10 second page loads. Just saying.


GLBSE has had ~200k volume since its launch (January). Sadly they don't provide per-month figures. MPEx has had ~100k volume this month alone. Do your math (without skipping degrees of magnitude like others in the thread, please).


Just because you're not on IRC doesn't mean the world outside doesn't exist. Step out of your bubble. It's small and it doesn't smell too good.

Anyway, reading through these pages has been an interesting exercise in sociology.

All bitcoin risk is extreme risk in this perspective. Not saying it is not a valid perspective, either.

The concern you raise about voting rights is valid, but there is a reason to do things this way. Specifically, bitcoin lacks as of yet an effectual way to enforce the will of the shareholders against a recalcitrant management. Because of this, it is better (or at least more honest) to give shares no voting rights than to feign giving them some rights that in reality aren't enforceable in any practical manner (and in fact experience has shown that time and time again, these forums are filled to the brim with imploded pretenses of the sort). Yes, you lose out on the possibility that shareholder votes would enshrine better management. It's not clear that this would actually conceivably occur (and it's not so clear it occurs all that often in the common everyday world, either). In exchange you gain something, too.

The shares are intended to work as shares. It seems the most that can be done at the moment. Maybe in time we find better solutions.




So: 30 days lockdown, never sell out more than 50mn. That's the deal.