Absolutely. If I didn't have a method to value the future hardware that is on order your darling AMC would have a price to book of 100:1. You would howl like a baby then wouldn't you.
AuuuUUUuuuUUU (can I be a baby wolf?) My darling AMC has currently sold 5M shares to investors at a minimum of BTC0.0005/share, so BTC2500 minimum. Using your math it has only BTC2260 in "assets" (seems like the wallet balance doesn't count for you). Pretty good I'd say. But you already knew that. Your book value also assumes all shares are sold to investors, which is false ofc. Once more shares are sold, the price to book can only go down. But you already knew that too. Only 40M shares receive dividends so far. Again, you already knew that. Failing to use all available information for transparency is what really makes this thread a joke.  (Not that I'm complaining, as I love a daily dose of humor!  ) |
|
|
|
Guys!!!  Please stop! You are ruining his chances on getting the next Nobel on Economic Sciences on the use of Book Value as the mother of all measures!  |
|
|
|
You are nothing but a useful idiot for Ken. Ken has issued 100 Million shares. He controls 60 million of these shares. 20 million of those are a vehicle for retained earnings. They are still outstanding shares.
And the price to book for AMC is still 35. Well over 10 times ASICMINER right now.
Thank you " Oh Enlightened One" for shedding your light into the great unwashed. I am also delighted to know that, being an idiot, at least I'm still an useful one! |
|
|
|
(...)
AMC - Price: 100 000 000 * 0.0008 = 80000 BTC. Book value (6 Avalons at 70 GH/s + 5 TH/s of future hashing) 2260 BTC. Price to book 35
It should be obvious why these securities are beneficial only to their issuers, and why listings for BFMINES and AMC on BTCT.co should be rejected.
There is a difference between outstanding shares and authorized shares. I would suggest you looking into it before writing these shiny pearls of information...  |
|
|
|
Also can't login to WeEx.  |
|
|
|
As long as they don't melt! |
|
|
|
I'm working on a deal for more power and space... stay tuned (like ya'll wouldn't), so it may not be a problem going forward.
Great news! Tuned at 1000%! |
|
|
|
In b4 lock... 3... 2... 1... |
|
|
|
One more unfortunate example of the perils of not using 2FA... |
|
|
|
[BITFUNDER] [AMC] [PAID] 40,000,000 @ ฿0.00000101
Also, more good news: Avalon appears to be entering mass production as seen here http://imgur.com/a/fqpMEThis is from a mailing list email I just received. Competition, ON. "Dear pierrejo, It is time, tickets have subdued as most orders have been added to the system, shipping has began en mass. picture are worth a thousands of words." |
|
|
|
Not yet, I will post here as soon as I hear something from Avalon.
I guess they haven't yet cleared all the orders from Feb 18th... |
|
|
|
I have no doubt we can reach an equitable solution that will make everyone (including Inaba, of course) happy. The key is that we start getting SC hardware hashing for shareholders ASAP! May your words echo through the halls of the bitcoin gods! |
|
|
|
That's valid if our power envelope is unrestricted. If Inaba wants to maintain the SAME power envelope, BFLS is actually worth 71% more than BFLS.RIG. This is because BFLS represents FPGA Singles that can be upgraded to a lot more hashpower than the equivalent in BFLS.RIG (representing FPGA minirigs that use about 1/2 the power of the FPGA Singles for a given hashrate and thus cannot be upgraded to as much SC hardware). See my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89902.msg2476669#msg2476669Yep, I saw your post, but unfortunately, that solution penalizes heavily BFLS.RIG owners, since their shares are now only worth (35.57MH/61MH) 58% of BFLS shares, while they should be worth ($2.52/$3) 84% of BFLS shares. I hope we really go with an alternative solution. |
|
|
|
Just to clarify: The conversion factor of existing BFLS shares to 'new shares' would be diffferent than the conversion factor of existing BFLS.RIG shares to 'new shares'; there should not be a 'blanket' conversion if we want to be fair (I own approximately equal amounts of both so this doesn't affect me much, but it would negatively impact those holding more BFLS than BFLS.RIG).
BFLS is worth more than BFLS.RIG in terms of $; even more so if we are constrained to the same power envelope simply because a BFLS share represents significantly more power than a RIG share and can be converted to significantly more SC hardware/hashrate/income.
My calculations a few posts up show the details of this.
Absolutely! BFLS shares are worth 19% more ($3/$2.52) than BFLS.RIG shares, that's why each single sc is worth 433*3/2.52 = ~515.48 BFLS.RIG shares. I've always accounted for that in my formulas above. |
|
|
|
SC minirigs and SC Singles have roughly the same power efficiency. Space requirements are different.
True. I was checking giga's post ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237710.0) and it seems each 500GH minirig behaves internally like 8 SC singles with a max of 480GH (8*60GH), so if space is not a problem the SC singles should be the best choice (more redundance with larger area for heat dissipation, lesser work for fans). So, if Inaba prefers to convert everything to SC singles (or do a mix, with one asic minirig counting as 8 sc singles), using the .RIG referencial (more granularity), (hardware # based): [#new SC singles]*433*3/2.52 - [#existing fpga singles]*200*3/2.52 - [#existing fpga minirigs]*6058 = [#new BFLS.RIG shares assigned to Inaba]or (share # based): [#new SC singles]*433*3/2.52 - [#existing fpga singles' shares]*3/2.52 - [#existing fpga minirigs' shares] = [#new BFLS.RIG shares assigned to Inaba]. This assumes all BFLS shareholders get their shares converted to .RIG shares, using [#shareholder's new .RIG shares] = 3/2.52*[# shareholder's actual BFLS shares]. Edit: Added formula. |
|
|
|
I'm fine with swapping out for the same power footprint, as that is ultimately the root of the problem. Space can be managed most likely, but power is much more difficult to manage - 19 singles would consume almost double what power consumption is now, which is right around 3000w.
Let me see what I can shuffle around and see if I can somehow fit almost 20 singles in somewhere.
Maybe now it would be more beneficial to you (to increase power efficiency) to just convert all those singles into minirigs? Using Epoch's values, a "1.5TH asic minirig" is 11842 .RIG shares, so a real 500GH asic minirig is 3947.3(3) shares.So, [#new 500GH asic minirigs]*(3947+1/3) - [#existing fpga singles]*200*3/2.52 = [#new BFLS.RIG shares assigned to Inaba].With three 500GH asic minirigs, that's 3*(3947+1/3) - 40*200*3/2.52 = ~2318.19 .RIG shares to you; existing BFLS shareholders get converted to .RIG shares = 3/2.52*#BFLS shares. (another option is using 2*500GH minirigs + 4*SC singles, for example)Edit: Asic MiniRigs behave internally as 8 SC singles (480TH), see my post below. |
|
|
|
(...)
For BFLS (Singles):
- currently 1 Single represents 200 shares and is worth $599. 832Mhps per Single.
- 1 BFLS share is thus worth $3.00 and corresponds to 4.16Mhps.
- a Single SC upgrade costs $699 yielding 60,000 Mhps.
- Inaba would assign 433 shares total for each SC Single: 200 shares (the original $599) would stay with the current owners. The additional 233 shares (the $699 upgrade cost) would be assigned to Inaba.
- each BFLS SC (Single) share would still be worth $3.00 as before ($3 x 433 shares is $1299, the full price of a Single SC); shareholders would not lose (or gain) any value.
- each BFLS SC share would produce 138.4Mhps (60000 / 433 shares).
For BFLS.RIG (MiniRig):
- currently 1 MiniRig represents 6058 shares and is worth $15295. 26400Mhps per MiniRig.
- 1 BFLS.RIG share is thus worth $2.52 and corresponds to 4.4Mhps.
- a MiniRig SC upgrade costs $14604 yielding 1,500,000 Mhps.
- Inaba would assign 11842 total shares for each SC MiniRig: 6058 shares (the original $15295) would stay with the current owners. The additional 5784 shares (the $14604 upgrade cost) would be assigned to Inaba.
- each BFLS.RIG SC share would still be worth $2.52 as before ($2.52 x 11842 shares is $29899, the full price of a MiniRig SC); shareholders would not lose (or gain) any value.
- each BFLS.RIG SC share would produce 126.6Mhps (1500000 / 11842 shares).
(...)
Following RHA, my proposition to keep power costs at a minimum would be to trade only the "necessary" singles. Inaba told me he has almost 40 fpga singles atm, so that's around 3200W. If he were to "upgrade" all the 40 fpga singles, those would give 2.4TH (40*60GH), of which, - 2.4TH * 200/433 = 1.108TH would go to BFLS shareholders
- 2.4TH * 233/433 = 1.292TH would go to Inaba
So "only" 1.108TH is needed to fulfill all BFLS shareholders, which is about 40*200/433= 18.48 asic singles, consuming ~5543W. Since we need an integer number and there is an overhead to pay for power, 19 asic singles should be enough (consuming a total of 5700W), since those remaining 0.52 (worth 227 shares, around 31455GH) yield at the moment $2629.81/month, while the power costs for all 19 asic singles (5700W) should be around $625/month ($0.15/kWh). The underlying math is simple, For BFLS: [#new asic singles]*433 - [#existing fpga singles]*200 = [#new BFLS shares assigned to Inaba]. So, with 19 asic singles, Inaba will get 19*433 - 40*200 = 227 new shares. For .RIG: [#new asic minirigs]*11842 - [#existing fpga minirigs]*6058 = [#new BFLS.RIG shares assigned to Inaba]. Or, alternatively, For BFLS: [#new asic singles]*433 - [#existing fpga singles' shares] = [#new BFLS shares assigned to Inaba]. For .RIG: [#new asic minirigs]*11842 - [#existing fpga minirigs' shares] = [#new BFLS.RIG shares assigned to Inaba]. Using this proposal, it's just a matter of Inaba deciding on the number of new shares he wants/needs to cover for the overhead cost margin of running the hardware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
