Latest posts of: MPOE-PR

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 [249] 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 »

4961

Economy / Securities / Re: S.DICE - Want a piece of SatoshiDICE? IPO this week before new site launch!

on: August 20, 2012, 12:30:04 PM

Surely. If you have an MPEx account it's as easy as putting in a BUY order for your desired volume. If you don't have an account you will have to talk to someone who offers brokering services. I think Brendio might be one, there might be more people offering it.

4962

Economy / Securities / Re: S.DICE - Want a piece of SatoshiDICE? IPO this week before new site launch!

on: August 20, 2012, 12:23:34 PM

Quote And if you have to pay 20btc just to register on MPEX just to get a few shares you will NEVER make a profit buying S.DICE. This is not playing around in some finance-themed MMORPG. This is investing. We're not playing here, you understand this? It's not the monthly subscription for Diablo IV we're discussing, too expensive at 20 btc, would be ok at 5. If you need to talk to a lawyer you need to pay, depending on where you live, 500 or 5,000 dollars just for him to hear out your story. Nothing more. If you need to talk to a doctor you need to pay... eh, I don't even want to get into that. IPOs are not for people wanting to buy 5 dollars worth of shares, nobody participated in the Facebook IPO based on the strength of his 19.95 balance sheet with freestocks.com. 20 bitcoins is nothing for an investor. He who stumbles and falls on a twenty bitcoin trap is not an investor. There's really no other way around it.

4963

Economy / Securities / Re: S.DICE - Want a piece of SatoshiDICE? IPO this week before new site launch!

on: August 20, 2012, 11:54:22 AM

Quote Investing in SatoshiDICE actually peaked my interest. These returns are ridiculous though... AAPL pays ~2.5 dollars a year in dividends. The share trades for ~650 dollars. You may think the reason you don't own AAPL is because "they're insane". The truth however is that you don't own AAPL because you don't have money. Quote 0.0033278 BTC for 1/100M of 10%? Are you insane? I don't think you read the offer very carefully. 0.0032 BTC (lowest tier) buys someone 1/100M of the revenue of SatoshiDICE! The dividend yield works out (if worked out by people who actually can do division and multiplication) at an estimated 0.00036 BTC a year per share, or a little over 10%. This revenue has some very marked advantages over any available alternatives. To wit: a. It is better than Ponzi. This should be self explanatory. If it is not self explanatory you are not an investor and do not belong discussing securities. b. It is better than mining bonds. Mining bonds depreciate. You pay 1.5 BTC to buy one today, it's worth 1.0 BTC in four months and in the interim it's paid 0.1 or 0.2 dividends. You've not made 10 or 20% a month. You've made a 30% loss over the quarter. A 30% loss compares disfavourably to a 1% gain a year. c. It is insulated from fiat-world risk. The government of Japan decides to arrest a person from MtGox staff? Your MtGox investment is now worth zero. Game over. Dwolla decides to lock the accounts of TradeHill? Your TradeHill investment is now worth zero. Game over. The only thing that can kill pure-BTC plays like SD is the collapse of BTC itself, which is no extra risk to the BTC investor: you already have those BTC. Quote Here's another way to look at this: 320,000 BTC is a little more than 1.5% of all bitcoins that will ever exist. And for now, and possibly for a little while longer, SatoshiDice is a lot more than 1.5% of all that's worth owning in bitcoins. There are some good companies out there. Maybe ten, maybe twenty, certainly not one hundred. This is one of them. Quote Subtracting expenses out before the reported revenue numbers skews the profitability. Net profit is calculated as the difference between revenue and expense. Why would this be problematic? What would it skew? Quote I still have a hard time grasping how these voluntary associations are being referred to as companies and corporations. Because that is exactly what a company or corporation is: a voluntary association. Furthermore, milk is the white liquid seeping out a cow's udders, not the item found in a government approved package announcing to the world that within lies milk. This is an important point and I think too easily forgotten. Quote When someone is talking about raising something like $7K for a project that you'd never get a loan for from a bank or never would see finding through an Angel, for instance, then I think these cyber equities are a fantastic innovation. But raising over a quarter of a million dollars, with a valuation of several million dollars -- I wonder if this cyber-equities approach should be reconsidered. This is a very limiting, unfortunate and in the end destined-to-fail way to regard bitcoins. They are not this exotic pet, to play around the "serious" fiats and fill the cracks they leave. Bitcoin is the harbinger of doom for all fiat currencies. That is its role. That's what it is supposed to do. The notion that it should be relegated to denominating scams and ridiculous penny-ante endeavors of bizarre internet denizens with visible mental handicaps (yes, not being able to do basic math is a mental handicap for an adult human) is loathsome. Bitcoin will support million dollar ventures, and it will support billion dollar ventures. And then it will support trillion dollar ventures, and quadrillion dollar ventures, and as the dollar slowly I mean quickly devalues into irrelevancy bitcoin will support everything. That's the paradigm. And as shocking as this may sound, nobody needs nobody's permission for this. Now, here's the question, and it lies in front of everybody: do you have some money for which you want to make some money, or do you have some time to kill for which you want to waste people's time? That's the whole story.

4964

Economy / Securities / Re: S.DICE - Want a piece of SatoshiDICE? IPO this week before new site launch!

on: August 20, 2012, 05:30:58 AM

Quote did i read the fine print right, 100,000,000 shares at .0032 or 3,200,00 btc or more than 30 million usd? that is insane... Your math is a little broken there, but as they say practice makes perfect. Quote yeah, i was like lulz.... Me too. Cause of the math. In general money people are good with numbers. Quote what is stopping someone from coding up a clone of satoshi dice over a weekend and taking a piece of the pie... thus reducing your profits. it seems that is a major threat i would love to hear countered. I'm not a tech, but I would guess the same thing is stopping someone today that stopped someone up until today. And also the same thing that stopped all the groupon clones from becoming groupon and all the facebook/twitter clones from becoming facebook/twitter. In the words of the once-famous Jerry Seinfeld, Quote No Resources, No Skills, No Talent, No Ability... Go with the flow, hate less, live longer.

4965

Economy / Securities / Re: Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 18, 2012, 01:19:00 PM

Quote Saying that investing in bonds, etc. is the "worst" investment is an exaggeration. If you compare mining bonds to USD-based investments, they look very good. Even though their values in BTC have dropped by half, their values in USD have still gone up. Add in the dividends and you are doing well. Again: USD-based accounting is completely irrelevant. We are discussing BTC investments here. You're basically arguing that since the Zimbabwe dollar went from 1k per USD to 1bn per USD this means that some used car you bought made you a lot of money during the time it was slowly rusting in your front alley.

4966

Economy / Securities / Re: Weekly loss of N% guaranteed - Enjoy perpetual loss with fixed Mh/s mining turds

on: August 18, 2012, 01:08:20 PM

Quote Lending to greece and spain was never this profitable either Something like that.

4967

Economy / Securities / Re: Be careful of low rep GLBSE issuers.

on: August 17, 2012, 10:56:24 PM

There's always the Web of Trust. Post count isn't such a big deal, as some here have intimated. Actual trading rep, on the other hand.... Edit: And serious kudos to LoupGaroux above for a coherent & valid argument.

4968

Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Bitcoin traders in person meeting

on: August 17, 2012, 10:49:13 PM

Has -otc really gone downhill that much? What of all the controlled evaporation gmaxwell was doing?

4969

Economy / Lending / Re: [MPEx] CDO roll call for bond issuers

on: August 15, 2012, 02:40:11 PM

@bitcoin.me NYAN seems to have some similarities to this, yes. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking? @ciuciu Credentials are in the signature.

4970

Economy / Lending / Re: [MPEx] CDO roll call for bond issuers

on: August 14, 2012, 11:20:12 PM

This has finally happened. Here's the contract:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 

MPCD.x is a tranched CDO composed of the following assets : 

i. 500 BTC to be invested in MPOE bonds starting the 1st of September for an asking rate of 4.99999999% a month (MPOE pays not on calendar months but on last-Friday-of-each-month) ; 
ii. 500 BTC invested with Patrick Harnett's 1% a week compounding bond offering (the line PsHCai6pF2UH1475 500.9815 in the most recent stats update reflects this investment) ; 
iii. 100 BTC invested with usagi's NYAN.A asset. 

The theoretical monthly yields of these investments are as follows : 

i. 500 * 4.99999999% = 24.99999995 BTC ; 
ii. 500 * 4.4061192% (1% per week, thus (1.01^52)^(1÷12)) = 22.03059600 BTC ; 
iii. 100 * 4.4061192% (1% per week, thus (1.01^52)^(1÷12)) = 4.40611920 BTC ; 
Total : 51.43671515 BTC 

This CDO is tranched as follows : 

MPCD.A, 350 BTC paid 2% per month (1.02^12 = 26.8% apr) = 7 BTC ; 
MPCD.B, 400 BTC paid 3% per month (1.03^12 = 42.6% apr) = 12 BTC ; 
MPCD.C, 350 BTC paid 9.2676329% per month (1.092676329^12 = 189.6% apr) = 32.43671515 BTC; 
Total : 51.43671515 BTC. 

Each tranche will consist of shares nominally worth 0.001 BTC, so 350`000 shares for MPCD.A and MPCD.C, and 400`000 shares for MPCD.B. 

This asset is created today, 15th of August 2012, will pay dividends on the 1st of each subsequent month for three months (that is, 1st of September, 1st of October, 1st of November) and then dissolve on the 1st of November. On each of the three dividend dates the exact sums quoted above will pe paid. On the last dividend date, all the remainder capital will be paid out, as follows : 350 BTC to MPCD.A holders. If less than 350 BTC capital remains the payment will be pro-rated (each holder gets his (shares / total shares) * remainder capital). Then, 400 BTC to MPCD.B holders. If less than 400 BTC capital remains the payment will be pro-rated (each holder gets his (shares / total shares) * remainder capital). Then, 350 BTC to MPCD.C holders. If less than 350 BTC capital remains the payment will be pro-rated (each holder gets his (shares / total shares) * remainder capital). 

The fund has a little head start (because the investment with Patrick Harnett is already ongoing) which I am generously donating to smooth things over. The NYAN.A investment will also be realised as soon as deposits confirm. 

Please bear in mind that the MPCD.C asset implies significant risk, no matter how attractive the >9% monthly interest might look. In case anything whatsoever goes bust the .C capital is first in line to pay for it. Other than defaults in any of the assets such loss could occur by the MPOE bond failing to activate (if sufficient capital is offered at a lower than the quoted rate the bond will lay fallow). 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) 

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQKtZsAAoJEIpzbw4vt7RSYzUQAKKPUG24eZWzpZa1cZbZddbt 
95y8Rbn2pOIpAzQymMP3oMj06B3ylRaU6gqDdrzzRwednvo/+nirju3laamGhf6/ 
BQACHryBCwNCqABSUPfRX9K3cTb8vZziA8dVvR1A1Qr5L5cG3+LgNvGXSfYCuTkb 
fN0JAMG/0iExN54VbrogH7Gb1l66DoRcEyJ30uAv7JWWLFcB3k7agekAaQJlA0Q5 
k4lQ4BH+bpP8EJXkAI4E6lepOv2Y0z/JqD22Fwv0FpLeV363VK1NvQeSRsUMNdbJ 
yVJkoeqA8k8/MNZZ/74+LdJvjQCbIitI/bm+S+xM0dRP1LlPB0oln1dN2CoDEW/1 
fuknxjV78l6WeAJGhN3V0sHwr1y+YDnirUvXbJhBz3x9feY2qr0MxHR5XjfQMi/x 
1g63ul/ihtz9qRuBjcVbFdBWEFXrcGcXMmIM/dC70m/eRiXLvH9eVK5gLwKEMbh2 
64ywx3ihjWJM8JtGlwwiXFnkX7EGifnzWJZbSof6pc9B8zdk5ps/K7m7Ov7v4VgT 
W/evcgtFpzCBNpoH8+O5LpkhhUPNxf1bUiwOnnDD14Md/wRNR6aARikzrmDrjFo9 
CqwhYdV8YguxyxZeedbYoj+uZe8QNWriuYJWX0XvIpw0eSmXXsmiHU5SDkMqKZoC 
CGEI7MFPlgv8MjYxyWeE 
=s1tK 
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Link

4971

Economy / Securities / Re: Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 14, 2012, 02:21:43 AM

I'm not sure why you think your problems as a miner matter two shits from an investor's perspective, seriously.

4972

Economy / Securities / Re: Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 13, 2012, 08:28:15 PM

Maybe some people who invest in BTC are completely disinterested in USD based accounting?

4973

Economy / Securities / Re: Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 13, 2012, 04:30:06 PM

Quote the high returns and huge risk Exactly. As to the theory of inflation being beneficial (or at least there being a market for inflationary currency): all this is an accounting artifact, the underlying realities aren't changing by introducing inflation. It's just that one hundred years (next year will be a century since 1913!) of inflationary practice has made everyone used to that particular paradigm. Especially people who are technicians (as in, not doctors in finance, they merely learned some simplified and practical finance-related trade based on some assumptions) suffer the most, in the sense that this entirely new paradigm is pretty much rendering all their training useless. The fact of the matter is that an inflationary bitcoin has little advantage over traditional fiat (in the sense that if you are going to have inflation it is better for it to be fixed by someone competent than to have it baked in and unchangeable). This observation is how we ended up with central banks and Bernanke in the first place, if you think all that is bad (or corrupt, or whatever) you have not really considered the sort of havoc a FIXED and PERPETUAL inflation rate would wreak on humanity. In the end all the forms of finance bitcoin is disrupting were improvements in their heyday.

4974

Economy / Securities / Re: Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 13, 2012, 04:18:39 PM

For those of you that aren't on IRC: Quote BTC-Mining mircea, for example, gigamining share holders will be able to pay 0.25 BTC to switch their 1 BTC IPO share (5 mhash each) to 4 shares (25 mhash each) for 20x the hashing. BTC-Mining when ASICs are out BTC-Mining and there is already over 0.30 BTC paid back per share mircea_popescu BTC-Mining still not a bond, sounds more like a sort of stock option ?! BTC-Mining Not to count difficulty was relatively stable before bitcoin prices raised mircea_popescu yes but as the guy rightly points out, in order for something to be a bond it needs to meet some criteria. mircea_popescu these are 1. fixed principal and 2. maturity date. mircea_popescu absent either it ain't a bond. BTC-Mining Well, he had GPUs, but he bought a lot of FPGA which is tradable for the new ASICs from BFL mircea_popescu i think he still has the gpus BTC-Mining So for that part, upgrade was already paid by investors BTC-Mining yeah, but he'll have to lose them with raising difficulty mircea_popescu maybe so. mircea_popescu none of this is really germane to the issue tho. mircea_popescu if i lend you a car i haven't sold you it, i've lent you it mircea_popescu if i tack on the option for you to turn it into an airplane mircea_popescu it's still not a sale. BTC-Mining Well yes and no. It's technically a sale of power, but the equipment is managed by Gigavps who has a margin vs what he gets with what people paid. mircea_popescu ... mircea_popescu but he makes no representation he will return a certain btc value at a certain future date. BTC-Mining He could do it that way: I've sold you a contract for X mhash. Equipment remains mine, and I'll trade it for 20x more mhash, but won't give you anything BTC-Mining Or he could go: Well you did pay for the equipment I'm trading in. I'll raise to Y mhash on those contracts and keep a similar margin mircea_popescu yes, it could be a bond in the very tenuous theory where hash power is a currency mircea_popescu except i don't think it is. BTC-Mining It is a bond, that's where you see the community is small and run by single individuals. BTC-Mining I can hardly see a corporate entity acting like this mircea_popescu i don't take your meaning ? BTC-Mining They've sold a contract for X something, it will stay a contract for X something. mircea_popescu yes, but unless its for X something money it's not a bond. BTC-Mining They wouldn't upgrade to Y something on the pretense X something is now upgradable BTC-Mining Because they sold X, not the underlying equipment that is upgraded BTC-Mining All employees within a corporation are employed to get more money for the corporation. mircea_popescu a different way to express this would be "the issuers realised how badly they're screwing so called but not really investors mircea_popescu and by the theory you can fleece a sheep many times but skin him only once, are now sweetening the deal" BTC-Mining Goodwilling decisions are not acceptable, unless otherwise it would tarnish them and cause a loss of revenue BTC-Mining Well in any case, mining so far has been constantly profitable. And so far I see no real loss for any long term miners. GPUs can be resold, although if you bought just before FPGA/ASICs, it's pretty much a loss. mircea_popescu hey, i've made profits too, but the point remains : they aren't really bonds. BTC-Mining Indeed mircea_popescu they're in fact very sophisticated financial instruments mircea_popescu that people in general aren't capable to correctly value. BTC-Mining Well yes, indeed mircea_popescu im not arguing that "they're bad" or anything. mircea_popescu im just saying, its NOT something random q citizen comprehends. BTC-Mining The contract is that of a bond, but the issuers (at least the most reputable ones in the bitcoin community) decided not to leave them as fixed bonds. BTC-Mining They are more like floating bonds moving up and down according to the operation's state I suppose. mircea_popescu they are somewhat like floating bonds except really they're more like floating warrants mircea_popescu which as far as i know was never yet used irl mircea_popescu and if someone tried the house/sec/etc would have a weeklong fit noagendamarket Its like issuing a bond on a used car ... BTC-Mining warrant? It's not optional, it's quite simply a direct weekly coupon for X mhash of mining... seems like a floating coupons bond... noagendamarket its never going to increase in value mircea_popescu well in theory it's principal backing is that you have the option to directly realise your underlying mh/s mircea_popescu (by selling the bond and buying the machinery) mircea_popescu you don't have capital per se mircea_popescu your only semblance of capital is this "option" mircea_popescu which is really virtual anyway BTC-Mining I'm just not following you on that last bit... mircea_popescu noagendamarket actually if the asic companies run off with everyone's money it might increase mircea_popescu btc-mining lemme elaborate : mircea_popescu if i hold a treasury my ownership extends over a certain sum of us$. mircea_popescu if i own a mining "bond" my ownership extends over no sum of us$ or btc BTC-Mining Ah, true, true mircea_popescu my only ownership is over the theoretical output of a theoretical machine mircea_popescu so it's a "sort of" warrant for that machine mircea_popescu which is never physically settled, yes, but by the cash value mircea_popescu but yea, it's really very contorted to define in fiat-terms what a mining "bond" is. mircea_popescu "floating coupon virtual warrant" FCVW for instance... BTC-Mining A bond is a loan, it's tied to pay coupons AND pay back the full principal mircea_popescu yes. BTC-Mining Ah, who started with giving those the name "bond" to start with? mircea_popescu im not even sure. maybe bitbond ? mircea_popescu i think giga got it from amazingr. noagendamarket A mining bond means you pay the operator for priviledge of loaning them money mircea_popescu lol

4975

Economy / Securities / Re: Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 13, 2012, 04:17:00 AM

Quote Hate to piss you off, but wouldn't the value of those assets go up a lot if we go back to June prices? Why'd that piss me off lol. If BTC went back to 5 then Jane wouldn't have to contend with the 5/12 part, just with the 1.5/2.1 mn part. And if difficulty also went down, it'd be even. And if she also recanned a can of worms in a smaller can than the original she'd prolly make pancakes out of water droplets and spontaneously materialize unicorns and nice thoughts. There's a reason nobody [without the backing of the free money printing press] buys Spanish or Italian bonds IRL. That reason is "currency risk".

4976

Economy / Securities / Re: Weekly loss of N% guaranteed - Enjoy perpetual loss with fixed Mh/s mining turds

on: August 13, 2012, 03:33:43 AM

Quote Bonds are usually good for preserving your capital and earning you a fixed income from dividends. If you think about it, mining turds offer you none of the previously mentioned benefits. At the moment, dividends do not cover the depreciation of your invested capital. Sorry, but this applies to all the mining turds out there. I just wrote a piece elaborating on that. Hadn't seen your (very well thought out) post, smickles pointed it out tho.

4977

Economy / Speculation / Re: Best Time To Sell In Over A Year

on: August 13, 2012, 03:22:57 AM

Or maybe the best time to buy PUT options in a year...

4978

Economy / Securities / Why Miner corps, bonds and other assets are THE WORST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE.

on: August 13, 2012, 03:18:49 AM

To grasp the obvious we must first understand the wonders of depreciation. Suppose you have a single use Polaroid camera. If this camera is used to make a picture all its value is consumed, and it is subsequently worth zero (maybe a little more for its usefulness as a doorstop). Thus, if you take your Polaroid to the nude beach, take a picture of a naked lady and sell that picture for $10 you have not made $10. You have made $10 minus whatever the Polaroid cost you. If the Polaroid cost one dollar then you made nine. If the Polaroid cost twenty you lost ten. It's what it is. Now suppose Jane, Joyce, and Josephine each have one thousand bitcoins on April 13, 2012 (it's a Friday). Jane goes out and buys miner gear, either directly (FPGA or w/e) or indirectly (buys shares in mining company, buys miner bonds, w/e). Joyce invests her money in any non-mining related bitcoin denominated assets. Josephine just sits on her bitcoins. Today is August the 13th (not a Friday) and the comparison between the girls is as follows: Jane owns about 66% of the mining stuff she used to own (she nominally owns exactly the same amount, but the increase of diff from 1.5mn to 2.1 mn has taken a bite out of it). To add insult to injury, the new market value of this 66% fraction of what she used to own is a little under half. To wit, if one item cost 100 dollars in April it could be bought with ~20 bitcoins. Today, due to BTC being ~12, the same item can be bought with a little over 8. Thus, what used to be worth 1000 bitcoins back when Jane bought it (on a Friday) is now worth 1000 x 0.66 x 5 / 12 = 275. That's right, an eye popping QUARTER of what it used to be. This is depreciation. If Jane's investment paid her dividends of 10% each month, calculated in BTC at the nominal value she has 400 BTC to sweeten the 725 BTC loss, leaving her to eat about half that. By comparison to Josephine, who just sat on her BTC, Jane has realized a 32.5% loss through depreciation provided her mining stuff did in fact pay 10% a month. If it paid a more actually-in-the-market 3% she's looking at a 50% loss. In fact, in order to fully compensate her depreciation, Jane's assets would have needed to pay no less than 181.25 BTC each month, which is a nominal 18.125%. So, when comparing her yields with Joyce's, Jane is well advised to subtract 18.125% monthly. Obviously if Joyce invested on GLBSE the odds are pretty good she realized a negative too, but that's obviously a story for a different time. Fun?

4979

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: World's First Bitcoin Lawsuit - Cartmell v. Bitcoinica

on: August 13, 2012, 12:59:20 AM

Quote We'd hoped that our offer would both push Bitcoinica to resolve the claims faster, and give them more room for error. If they resolved all the claims within 6 months and paid us an equal pro rata share, they'd have immunity from us. Coincidentally, the amount of funds stolen only 2 days after this offer was made was nearly 100% of what we were owed at the time. This would seem to be veering towards criminal. A DA might even prosecute ex officio.

4980

Local / Offtopic / Re: Română

on: August 11, 2012, 01:40:51 AM

Probabil cea mai eficienta metoda de-a obtine BTC pentru vorbitorii de limba romana este fain. Karma obtinuta se poate vinde pe euro (1 karma = 1 eurocent) sau direct BTC.

Pages: « 1 ... 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 [249] 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 »