Before answering Doog I want to quickly confute the martingale argument. Charging a variable fee that is 0.01-0.1% or, more simply, a flat fee of ~10 uBTC wouldn't alter the martingale strategies at all. It would at most penalize the dust bettors of which:
a) We choose to not care since they are contributing less than 0.1% of total amounts wagered on the site
OR
b) we allow them to play for free as long as they're betting amounts that are lower than, say, 1mBTC
In either case, the most generally played martingales would be hardly affected in case of the flat fee. They would be slightly affected but not by much in case of the variable fee. (I personally prefer flat fee).
You really underestimate the impact of the word "fee". First... people dont want to pay a fee when they can play for free. They will use the free version elsewhere regardless how high the fee is. Only because there IS a fee. On top... the player already pay a fee. Its only not a fixed one. Its a mathematically proven fee that enables all casinos worldwide to live. And its a hidden fee that the player dont see. Its the game itself. It would be grotesque if players have to pay a fee to play gambling games. Thats so very much no gambling anymore. |
|
|
|
Give yourself a deadline. Ukyo has been taking the publics deposits into his own fucking wallet since NOVEMBER knowing he could not pay people back. If this isn't a red flag or a concern for you, you are an idiot. I'm sorry, I'm not sure how else I can put it.
When will you do something about this? Anything is better than nothing. Another 2 weeks? Another 2 months, 5 months? Just at least set a deadline.
He is buying more time. At the very least Ukyo should have at least TOLD us what HAPPENED with all of our BTC we deposited to "WeExchange | A safe way to pay and get paid".
You have had money stolen from you, you should be angry.
I think if ukyo didnt pay me back in 2 months im sure his "plan" didnt work and i will go the court way... This amount of time surely should be enough to code his solution or whatever he does. If the timeframe went by then im sure he cant solve it.
@Ukyo
I will explain it to you, a corporation has a lien on its shares for any sums owed by a shareholder, so we have a lien on your shares. You are the owner of Bitfunder and the funds where on Bitfunder. Because they where transferred to WeEx in a contract that you had with them does not relieve you of your obligation to pay us our funds. Also, 38 BTC was left on Bitfunder and I have screenshots of it being there. I did not authorize it to be transferred to WeEx.
Youre right about the lien. But im very sure youre wrong on the liability front. Legally there are two cases. Weexchange in debt to VMC and VMC hold shares from ukyo. Weexchange is a company and ukyo a private person. If you try to solve this by taking the shares away we have: Weexchange in debt to VMC VMC in debt to ukyo ukyo can sue VMC for stealing shares You can try to explain a judge that you took it because ukyo owns weexchange but the same way company money and CEO-Money is divided you cant simply do what you plan. I would be surprised your lawyer said a different thing. That would only be possible if the company form of weexchange is different. By the way... isnt Graet owner of weexchange too? |
|
|
|
FYI, I got a confirmation email from the lawyer stating that my info was complete.
Yes, me too... as promised. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, About the confirmation emails, got this from the lawyer: We are sorting trough all the submissions: we have 74 complainants: 48 submitted all the requested infos; 26 submitted incomplete infos. I'm putting in some extra hours today and I hope to write to them all tonight. The lawyer will contact me on Monday when he has sent everyone confirmation emails. BTW, we still need 1.2 BTC to make up the 3.5 BTC (if correct) that's required to complete payment to lawyer
payment address for lawsuit to pay lawyer: 1PHDaiUMq5u3WTAwmYv7ioNnKfEGYXBtmT
if visualspade could confirm and let us know when due date for payment is required.
The remaining amount 2221.40€ (current bitcoin.de price 592.01€ = 3.7523 BTC), needs to be payed before the lawyer submits the complaint next week. The exact amount may change a little bit if the price of Bitcoin goes up or down. Not so good news. He doesnt accept Mtgox price isnt it?  |
|
|
|
Dear Dooglus,
I'd lie to reiterate a point discussed in the trollbox tonight so that you may read it over at your convenience and answer it at your leisure. A few users complained that your cut over the site is unfair to the investors due to their taking all the risk. It is true that you run the site and you have done such a spectacular job at it all throughout but it would be nice to come to reconsider the distribution of profits as the site and its usage evolves.
One suggestion that I proposed was to drop the percentage cut from the investors all together and instead charge a flat fee to bet. Such a fee would be reminiscent of a stock brokerage service where you allow bettors and bankrollers to contract a bet on your site.
A flat fee furthermore would weed out the monstruos amount of satoshi/dust bettors which wreak lag on the website and populate the trollbox with... well.... more trolls. 99% of the site's profit must be generated by wagered bets larger than 1 mBTC at least (could we get a fact check on this).
How about you charge a flat fee from now on of 10-200 uBTC (that is micron-btc 10^(-6)) to bet on JD. Based on the amounts wagered up to now, a 250 uBTC flat fee would have earned you the same amount of coins. As the gold price (measured in bitcoins) increases over time the fee can be reduced such that every ~50-100k bets you can expect to have earned an ounce of gold.
This would work well for investors in that now they would reap the full profit of their risk and you sir, for guaranteeing such a consistently phenomenal service. Furthermore you would be incentivized to advertise the site and lure new bettors mid-range bettors.
As a further plus to the site, we would experience less trolling, less spamming, less begging and, more importantly, LESS LAG.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Bad idea... people that see a fee are gone. A house edge is a way better, because normal and hidden "fee". I think 10% is pretty fair for dooglus. He allows us to invest. Not like other big dice sites that only make profit for single persons. So a fair share is a good trade. And why cut it down? Dooglus would lose his incentive to attract more players. Its not a good idea trying to take save bitcoins from dooglus loss. At the end you already can keep 90%. Tell me a casino where you can do anything like that. So dont fight the happiness of dooglus. |
|
|
|
I truly hope you have some plans for the following:
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
I think youre correct here ukyo. Regardless if the 106 BTC owned are ActM-Funds or Ken's private funds. He cant simply sell them because the shares belong to a private person not weexchange. As long as ken cant proof that ukyo is personally liable he cant sell them because weexchange is in debt. Its a legal risk he takes. It would b different if ukyo personally is in debt because then it would be legal i believe. On top this sell means lowering the shareprice for all shareholders. If the shares are owned by weexchange it would be legal too. It would be luck for the person that has something that belongs to weexchange. Though it would be unfortunate for all other weexchange victims. The shares would belong to the company and not to a specific person then. This has been gone over ad nauseam please let it die. Ken holds Uyko's property and Uyko holds Ken's 106 BTC… Now unless Ukyo pays this back then Ken can and should sell off enough of Uyko's shares as lien to recover lost funds. Whatever outstanding debts Uyko and Co. have are his responsibility, no one else's. Besides this is not for any of us to decide as I'm sure Ken has consulted with his lawyers and made his decision… let it go. Please dont ask me to stop speaking and then post im wrong. You got my text wrong. It doesnt matter that ukyo owns weexchange. They are different entities by law. Or do you think, if the CEO of Apple owns you 2 Million USD that you are allowed to take away IPhones in the worth of 2Million USD from Apple, sell it for your own gain and everything is fine? No, that would be plain theft because the company has nothing to do with the CEO by law. Feel free to respond... im not allergic to discussions. By the way... im a big shareholder of ActM. I dont see that its needed so hard that ActM gets 106 BTC now and that the shareprice has to drop for this artificially. |
|
|
|
<Ukyo> first was the bitcoind issue Wow, he still doesn't want to admit that the bitcoind issue was a bold lie. Edit: Guys, if its an issue with bitcoind, why wouldn't he go ahead and ask for help publicly? That stuff would be fixed within hours/ a couple days. I mean he's highly incompetent, but that would be hilarious. Like WeexUser wrote, Ukyo asked for help. But there wasnt a workaround yet for that wallet size and ukyo had a lot custom coding included so it would be hard to change for outsiders.
The second issue prompted the sudden halt of withdraw system. Might that be the block-issue? Where bitcoind couldnt load or process a certain block so it stopped in the blockchain?
The block issue is a new separate issue that happened to some bitcoin clients at the end of December and it can not be related to the cause of the withdrawal issues that started in October-November. - The first issue is bitcoind not being able to handle the huge wallet and restarting. Ukyo started doing the manual withdrawals after being unable to make a quick fix for this problem.
- The second issue is the actual problem. It is the issue that Danny refers to as a "legal issue" that he can't talk about. Ukyo now states that it started around the 15th November. It was also around that date he stopped doing manual withdrawals, stopped writing on the forums for a month, and said on IRC that "shit has hit the fan", so his story matches up perfectly.
I think I just noticed something important in what he said: <nsa__> When did you first hear about the "other" issue?
<Ukyo> within 4 hours of disabling withdraws
<Ukyo> and stopping the manual ones
<Ukyo> rahter If this is true it basically debunks the theory that the coins were stolen (by other people than Ukyo at least), since he would obviously not have been able to continue to withdraw coins for 4 hours. If its really a legal issue that involves bitcoins taken from weexchange then ukyo would fail miserably not telling us this because we wouldnt have the chance to sue early enough. Someone would get his money back and we are the bagholders. It wouldnt make sense to have a gag order then too. Gag orders should only make sense when government still wants to investigate. It wouldnt make sense either to take funds that specificially dont belong to ukyo nor weexchange but to certain people. Seizing that money would be something ukyo's lawyer could go against easily. Of course only when he wants. Im not sure but i read it the way that he disabled withdraws and only 4 hours later found out about the problem. "Finding out" is strange. Was his server confiscated? Can he really be that stupid and not having backups? I mean i cant imagine a half serious person having responsibility for millions of user funds and then letting all saved on one place only without backups. If thats really the case it would be no wonder he dont want to talk about. Regarding server... maybe some unscrupulous employee at the server host found the wallet and now makes an extended trip over the world. Edit: And he couldn't easily use another wallet as peope suggested because he had inserted some custom code in his bitcoind client.
He is allegedly now working on migrating his system to use a newer version of the bitcoind client. The newer version of bitcoind does not need his custom code due to a new feature and it fixes the block issue. He don't know yet whether it will also fix the restarting issue.
Why shouldnt he be able to use another wallet? The custom code isnt needed to send bitcoins. The only thing to do would be importing all private keys into another wallet. Maybe only a couple always to not break the new wallet. He didnt do this so i think either he dont have the private keys or the coins are gone. If the restarting issue is fixed it wont help us like he wrote in the chatlog. I want to know what would help us. Im switching from letting ukyo try his "plan" to "sue him fast before nothing is there anymore" back and forth... i couldnt care less if weexchange survives. For me weexchange is dead anyway and i dont see what ukyo will use it for in the future. The coins i lost werent weexchange funds, they were my funds weexchange had in escrow. So if the coins were stolen it wouldnt hurt i know it, when they were seized then it would be illegal and and and. *argh* This topic is exhausting. |
|
|
|
I have come up with an idea for the site that can help solve investor problems and trust issues with the site.
There are some investors that want to take larger risks than other investors. One of the ways you tried to address this was to possibly allow some people to risk more of their bankroll than others.
I've come up with a much better solution that will allow some investors to take more risk while lowering variance for other investors who don't want it.
The answer is to allow some investors to choose a fixed percentage return of .75 percent. For instance, let's say the profit of the site averaged 2 percent for a given week. The investors that choose the fixed percent would get paid .75 percent and the ones who took the rest of the downside risk would get 2 percent plus .25 for paying the fixed percentage.
In weeks the site has a loss the investors that took the fixed percentage of bets would get paid .75 from the investors that didn't. In this way some investors can lower their variance by giving up some profit and other investors can profit from that.
This is a +ev decision for the investors taking more risk because it ups their longterm returns to 1.25 percent.
2% a week sounds very high. Thats an intense return over a year The more the more the house is growing. So everyone would chose to get the fixed 2% and who should fund this then? On top the amount of fixed and dynamic risk has to be fixed then because otherwise they payment contract has to be paid by few maybe. I think thats not a general solution. You might find someone who is willing to pay you a fixed percent, though i doubt a bit. But generally i dont see how it could work. I still prefer a freely adjustable risk management per user because its mathematically proven fair. Who takes more risks easily goes above the border where he goes negative over time, who goes safe will earn less but less risk of losing and so on. Saying the risky investors would take profit from the others isnt correct either since the moderate investors chose a value they see as a save one while the risky investors risk their investment. Its all provably fair against each other. No victims in the game then except the ones that chose to risk being victims in exchange for possibly higher returns. Being it risky investors or in the most extreme case of a "investor"... a gambler. While its known already that the last one is at an disadvantage. But he choses to... and is holding this site running for all. READ WHAT I WROTE. I said that investors could choose to take a .75 percent return as a FIXED amount over the POTENTIAL return of 1 percent of all bets. The investors that didn't take the fixed return would get any weekly return that exceeded .75 percent. In losing weeks the investors that didn't take the fixed return would pay the return out of their investment to those that had. In this way with with an overall theoretical return of 1 percent for all bets taken on the site, the investors that didn't take the fixed return should gain 1.25 percent on average over time. Right... i overread that. But still you shuffle around the profits. If the amount of bitcoins invested as fixed investment isnt the same as the risky investment then the 75%-25% cant work. For example 30% choose fixed, 70% chose risk. Profit 2%. Each fixed investor gives away 25% of profit but thats no 25% for each of the risky investors. On top it involves a new layer of calculations for the whole website. And... chosing 0.5% IS already what you would see as the fixed investment because kelly calculated (of course justdice-bets arent perfect) that 0.5% gives 75% of the optimum profits with much less variance. 1% kelly gives 100% optimum profits. 2% gives zero profit. No gain, no loss in average. So what you try to do would be easily achieved with risk adjustment. Of course the bets arent perfect at justdice because the betsize is variable. |
|
|
|
|
Ukyo... you mentioned 2 problems in the last chatlog. Are those 1) the crashing bitcoind after some time and 2) the block that was blocking the wallet because it couldnt be processed so the wallet was kept at a old state of the blockchain?
If so... are the coins still in the wallet or are they gone like you wrote once in IRC?
|
|
|
|
I truly hope you have some plans for the following:
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
I think youre correct here ukyo. Regardless if the 106 BTC owned are ActM-Funds or Ken's private funds. He cant simply sell them because the shares belong to a private person not weexchange. As long as ken cant proof that ukyo is personally liable he cant sell them because weexchange is in debt. Its a legal risk he takes. It would b different if ukyo personally is in debt because then it would be legal i believe. On top this sell means lowering the shareprice for all shareholders. If the shares are owned by weexchange it would be legal too. It would be luck for the person that has something that belongs to weexchange. Though it would be unfortunate for all other weexchange victims. The shares would belong to the company and not to a specific person then. |
|
|
|
Doog just said this in chat: 12:22:25 [removed] Doog, biggest.txt seems to be not updating?
12:22:28 [removed] generated Tue Jan 21 19:59:30 UTC 2014
12:22:43 (1) <dooglus> [removed] yeah, I stopped it - it takes far too long and makes the server lag to update it
12:22:55 (1) <dooglus> I should make it just do the easy ones - last hour, etc.
12:23:00 (1) <dooglus> it's the 'last 52 weeks' that kills it
I think the solution should be to make a new table that stores the calculated losses/gains of a day. That way you only need to process these 52 weeks days instead all bets of these weeks. If not already done this way. |
|
|
|
I have come up with an idea for the site that can help solve investor problems and trust issues with the site.
There are some investors that want to take larger risks than other investors. One of the ways you tried to address this was to possibly allow some people to risk more of their bankroll than others.
I've come up with a much better solution that will allow some investors to take more risk while lowering variance for other investors who don't want it.
The answer is to allow some investors to choose a fixed percentage return of .75 percent. For instance, let's say the profit of the site averaged 2 percent for a given week. The investors that choose the fixed percent would get paid .75 percent and the ones who took the rest of the downside risk would get 2 percent plus .25 for paying the fixed percentage.
In weeks the site has a loss the investors that took the fixed percentage of bets would get paid .75 from the investors that didn't. In this way some investors can lower their variance by giving up some profit and other investors can profit from that.
This is a +ev decision for the investors taking more risk because it ups their longterm returns to 1.25 percent.
2% a week sounds very high. Thats an intense return over a year The more the more the house is growing. So everyone would chose to get the fixed 2% and who should fund this then? On top the amount of fixed and dynamic risk has to be fixed then because otherwise they payment contract has to be paid by few maybe. I think thats not a general solution. You might find someone who is willing to pay you a fixed percent, though i doubt a bit. But generally i dont see how it could work. I still prefer a freely adjustable risk management per user because its mathematically proven fair. Who takes more risks easily goes above the border where he goes negative over time, who goes safe will earn less but less risk of losing and so on. Saying the risky investors would take profit from the others isnt correct either since the moderate investors chose a value they see as a save one while the risky investors risk their investment. Its all provably fair against each other. No victims in the game then except the ones that chose to risk being victims in exchange for possibly higher returns. Being it risky investors or in the most extreme case of a "investor"... a gambler. While its known already that the last one is at an disadvantage. But he choses to... and is holding this site running for all. |
|
|
|
<QG> Ukyo; !!! <QG> <QG> howdidodi? <Ukyo> heh sorry <Ukyo> Got stuck with some cruddy stuff <Ukyo> I expct i should be more responive again. ---------- <Ukyo> -_-;; <nsa__> (´･_･`) <nsa__> Ukyo, have you finished updating the client, or have you been busy working on other things? (ken, etc) <Ukyo> its been a tornado of things altely <Ukyo> lately <Ukyo> not gong to fight ken <Ukyo> its not possible <Ukyo> he will dowahtever he is going to do, i have no control <nsa__> have there been any good things in the tornado? <Ukyo> quite a few actually. mostly regarding the loan stuff <Ukyo> but thats actually helped the weex stuff along <nsa__> Just to be clear: Were the withdrawal problems since October caused by one issue or multiple issues? <Ukyo> yes <Ukyo> first was the bitcoind issue <Ukyo> whcih still lingers <Ukyo> but mostly fixed <Ukyo> then there was another issue that prompted the sudden halt of the withdrwa system <nsa__> Excactly like I had interpreted the situation, thanks <Ukyo> if it was just the original issue <Ukyo> most everyone would have their btc by now <nsa__> When did you first hear about the "other" issue? <Ukyo> within 4 hours of disabling withdraws <Ukyo> and stopping the manual ones <Ukyo> rahter <nsa__> date? <Ukyo> dont recall <Ukyo> Novemebr.. 15th? or something <Ukyo> half asleep atm <Ukyo> so not entirely "all there" <nsa__> my guess was 18th so it sounds right <Ukyo> sounds about right <Ukyo> anywho, its about bedtime <Ukyo> think up some new questions and well talk again <nsa__> sure, btw it can't be the 15th since you said "Looking ahead I am expecting to get to or through the 26th today." on the 16th  Note that he said the "its about bedtime"-part almost 2 hours ago. Unless he had an all-nighter he is probably not in the US atm. Australia (where weex is registered) would be a good bet. I wonder what ukyo took the bitcoins he received from the loan for. Might it be that he invested it somewhere and get returns now? Regarding the wallet... the first problems was that bitcoind crashed all the time so he claimed he started manual withdraws. Its mostly fixed he writes. The second issue prompted the sudden halt of withdraw system. Might that be the block-issue? Where bitcoind couldnt load or process a certain block so it stopped in the blockchain? "most everyone would have their btc by now"... does this mean the bitcoins are still there but cant be accessed because bitcoind cant move on to the last blocks? I think it only sounds good. If it were that easy ukyo long ago would have started speaking about it. I dont know what to think about this chatlog. |
|
|
|
I decided January 1st to make a big move mining wise and am now running my 3rd group buy. I've never worked so hard in my life. You really don't appreciate the scale of things until a pallet of miners is sitting in your garage. Timing the arrival of everything needed to do a successful install is very challenging; Fry's Electronics and I are on a first name basis. On group buy #2, half of our power supplies were shit ~ be ready to face a ton of unexpected costs. Just managing all the owners, keeping track of who buys what and staying in constant communication is a full time job. Your family and friends need to be supportive, and you need to build a team to work at a large scale. It's vastly different than running a dozen miners at home; you are now accountable and responsible for somebody else's hardware. When you go big you'll want to use 208V power for more efficiency; be prepared to pay out the nose for cables to plug into a 208V PDU. Oh don't forget you need PDUs; get the ones that you can remote power cycle, only problem is they are over $1k each.
I haven't made any sort of profit (yet); I'm basically working for free. It's also been one of the most fun, rewarding experiences I have ever had.
Come Friday we'll be up to 17TH deployed, all from idea to deployment in less than a month's time.
Congrats for the success! Yes, the work involved is intense. Besides that the responsibility is something to shoulder which isnt easy when you watch the forum and see projects going down left and right. Other people start with good ideas too but then problems happen. So you hope to run everything better and try to prepare for every possible turn of events. I didnt want to get into the same place others in the forum landed when things dont run well. If something goes wrong you can save a huge amount of hate and the circle of doom when you keep really in contact and have some rhetoric skills. Nothing is worse than silence and missing information then. Good thing people still try running groupbuys and projects knowing the risks... |
|
|
|
Thats it pretty much. I dont see why shareholders rejoice. Difficulty is the biggest enemy and each month we start to mine later our profits are cut 50%. Each month.
Not if we sell chips. The higher difficulty goes the more that chips will be in demand. If difficulty stayed the same demand for chips would be very low. Chips are the new shovels. And we have an excellent budget option on the way AND a top notch 28nm soon after. I see your thought behind but its a thinking error. Its not a question of if we earn from mining + sales. Its if producing of miners is cheap enough to make a profit with mining. Selling miners to endusers happens when its profitable enough for them. Of course they pay mostly more than they should. Then the chips. A chip buyer first needs a miner design. Then he needs to assemble the miners. And for sure these miners will be more expensive at the end than the miners ActM can create at cost for selfmining. So when selfmining isnt profitable anymore for ActM then only customers that dont know how to calculate in bitcoin world would buy these chips. Assembling might be cheaper than buying complete miners but the problem is the point were this isnt profitable anymore.
Can we just give Ken a little credit for pursuing other avenues for a second? He knows what cost these chips are getting produced at and he obviously thinks there is a lot of money to be made otherwise he would have just waited for the custom 28nm from eAsic.
Let's just give the guy a break he is clearly doing everything he can to make this a success as an investor that's all you can ever ask.
I hope thats sarcasm. Otherwise i wonder if you really await that ken magically exceeds the limits of technology by far. |
|
|
|
You're full of shit. Sue the fucker. It's been two months with little to no communication. As soon as I have the time I'll go to Texas and start collecting up his assets myself.
For those who lost multiple bitcoins - you're a bunch of pussies waiting this long to do something. I've stabbed people over less money.
You will "collect" it? Im not sure how you will do this. If you want to sue him you are prepared for getting a court decision in months or years? Or should i take your "stabbed" more serious and your some kind of thug? Anyway... i think its nothing behind your loud appearence. You dont have a magic way to get the coins back either. If I lost 10btc or more from this asshole I wouldn't be sitting on the internet like a dumb pussy contemplating when the thief was going to return what he stole. Usually what I do is go to the persons house and collect. Its called 'personal responsibility'. You call it 'being a thug' because you want your daddy government to do the dirty work for you. Does Jon Montroll drive a car? Does he have expensive jewelry? A computer? I would take anything and everything to compensate for my losses. *lol* I knew when you started writing that you arent the smartest. You tell me that you want to go doing crimes in order to serve your justice. If ukyo is only a bit smart he would call the cops and you go to the police jail. Sorry, your plan is so dumb... and now i feel dumb that i thought i should ask you... maybe he has a good idea i thought... i should have known it better. When you get scammed you not only lose bitcoins... no, you would even go to jail for a scammer. Now thats a plan. I think i stop now. I think i made my point.
And he had the funds in weexchange wallet for sure since that wallet contained everything even his private funds.
Okay I smell a strong scent of bullshit here. Thats not my guess. Thats what ukyo wrote once. He wrote that all his personal bitcoins were in weexchange wallet too. Of course there is no way to proof this. |
|
|
|
Is this sponsoring fracking?
Hey SJ, I don't know about "sponsoring" fracking but there *is* some fracking involved. This is nothing like the documentary Gasland though; this is only 5-25 Barrels of water using a 15 minute bucket frack of 2000# sand. It's like the difference between a firehose and a faucet. So its clean fracking... more expensive and less rewarding... but at least the only risk is that toxic waters from the underground finds it way higher. Still a risk but way less. Regarding previous returns... are the returns already flowing to investors? So one prospect costs 160000 to explore? Since the returns are great i dont see why the company needs investments. Isnt that pretty unusual for gas and oil companies? Dont they normally fund themselve and earn all the money on the way? I mean one prospect only and they are done and would have enough investment for the next prospect. I dont understand this yet. |
|
|
|
|
So it looks like shortly before 18 o clock someone lost 500 Bitcoins. At least the chart says so. But when i see the stats in just-dice, the biggest losses in last 6 hours then there is no loss near to that. The losses are summarized per user right?
Am i seeing something wrong here?
|
|
|
|
Damn dooglus... you wrote so serious that i really thought there is a technical exploit... so i had to read this genius plan in full. I knew something is wrong since doge dice profit is for so long time below the theoretical profit... now i know the explaination... |
|
|
|
Summarized. - Will this profitable for ACTM?
- Won't the 28NM chips we were going to make be unable to meet ROI by Feb 14th (ish); so won't these start off unprofitable for everyone?
- Are the 55nm chips only being produced to appease previous customers?
- Will these chips (from selling and mining) meet ROI for investors (at IPO price I assume?)
- What part of Q2 for chips to come in? (Can we get a month? If you say Q2 and are expecting April, what happens if Ken says, nope now its Q3? Are we end of Q2 or beginning of Q2)
Thats it pretty much. I dont see why shareholders rejoice. Difficulty is the biggest enemy and each month we start to mine later our profits are cut 50%. Each month. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
