 this is going to get fugly |
|
|
|
|
Can anyone link to an English translation of this article?
|
|
|
|
|
At this point in a market sequence you will often hear the term Bear Trap thrown about, used to describe a small downward movement usually following a significant upswing. Investors who have a negative market outlook (bears) decide the slight fall indicates the start of a larger downward trend, and sell the underlying asset accordingly, only for the upward trend to again resume, resulting in another phenomenon, massive financial loss, sometimes followed by 'butthurt'.
Whilst it is often used in the scenario you have described, the final reversal of the small dip is needed to complete the bear trap sequence, bets must be placed before the outcome is known, and so it goes that the bulls and bears will perpetually dispute whether a large rise followed by a small dip is a bear trap or the bursting of the bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
I can sympathise with ognasty here, in my case I specifically requested tracked shipping as i knew the coins i ordered were likely to be funded prior to arrival and with 5 coins the risk was a little higher, I just assumed there would be no problem with postal regulations, I guess neither of us anticipated the hassle involved.
Mike, my particular case could have been de-risked if you had some sort of mechanism for allowing the target recipient of a new coin to securely trigger (or more specifically, delay) initial funding on a per coin basis. Even if the ability was limited to the original purchasser in group buys such as this, the resuced risk and cost of transport would probably help to boost overseas demand.
Could your 2/3 party escrow model could be re-purposed to enable this sort of thing?
|
|
|
|
I would be willing to offer 9 coins for 9/20 the price and throw in capsules so they can be remailed.
I believe he just served you some WIN |
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Please excuse what is probably a naive question, but how is this different to Localbitcoins?
I don't see how you are performing the role of a secure escrow service, since you are not handling or able to guarantee the transfer of the fiat currency component of any deal - am i missing something? Does the escrow only protect the fiat-receiver in any deal? How do you guarantee the cash component of any deal is delivered in conjunction with BTC release? Does this rely on the honesty of traders admitting to having received cash transfers?
How will you resolve disputes if/when dishonest btc sellers do not acknowledge receipt of buyer funds, and subsequently request return of btc from escrow?
Do you plan any voluntary or enforced policy for vetting/verifying the identities of participants to help prevent fraud?
Re-reading my post it seems overtly negative, it was not initially intended as such, but I guess these are fundamental issues.
|
|
|
|
In case not already posted - near term competition just got smaller. BTCGarden IPO cancelled, 32000 BTC about to hit the market, expect a chunk of this to land in AM, although possibly offset by jitters around the sustainability of mining ops within the Chinese political environment. Note - they are down but may not be out, they self funded their initial hardware order and may still get some of it online, the IPO money was primarily for Gen 2 chip investment. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264696.0;topicseen |
|
|
|
Ambitious roadmap. I wonder how long "Deploying" takes to become "Deployed".  Source: http://www.btcgarden.com/figures.jsp<Edit - looks like total network hashrate is over 100TH to low, so could be an old chart> |
|
|
|
I've never heard of BTCGarden and I bought 2012 stocks. Now price is falling by 5%. I want to know more...
That's my kind of strategy!  |
|
|
|
I know reading is hard, but posting here is not the way to get your question considered: If you would like to add a question, pm it to me.
Emphasis is TAT's I know patronising others is easy, but I don't see anything wrong with collaboratively discussing and refining potential questions here. Particularly if the community can help answer quesions without the need to bother Friedcat. |
|
|
|
For more transparency, is it possible to share a wallet address for depositing income from ASICMINER hardware sales?
Would it be too hard to simply trace this back from divi payments? Anyone tried? |
|
|
|
It's poll time!
Please review the questions below, and consider whether there are any you would like added to this poll.
If you would like to add a question, pm it to me.
Please try to be reasonable with any submitted questions, and understand that not all suggestions will be used.
QUESTIONS
Does ASICMINER/Bitfountain intend to create and official website and/or blog outside of the bitcointalk forums?
Does ASICMINER have plans to develop a marketing campaign to extend beyond word of mouth and business on the bitcointalk.org?
Originally, board members were going to receive a test unit of an ASIC mining device. Will you provide this or any other tangible items to board members in the future?
Could we have an official live hashrate meter from ASICMINER?
For more transparency, is it possible to share a wallet address for depositing income from ASICMINER hardware sales?
What are the plans regarding the Official ASICMINER Exchange? Have they been dropped?
Besides mining, hardware sales, and fees, are there any other potential sources of revenue?
I would ask, believing that I heard that AM was aiming to maintain a steady 30% of the network hashrate, if that number is still achievable. Put another way, with BFL shipments obviously coming online, and other far more efficient offerings to come in the future from others (KnCMiner being an obvious contender, assuming, as always that they follow through) does AM believe that 30% is still achievable? If not, what number should we hope that AM will strive for? The target percentage of network hashrate having a huge impact on BTC flow, and therefore BTC dividends, and therefore the perceived value of AM, as an enterprise and on a per-sharew basis. Or is that question too long? BFL is the least of anyone in the mining space's worries. (Well assuming you aren't actually waiting for a BFL hardware delivery.) -helixone BFL aside, it's a good question. Given the recent IPO's and other announcements around new mining ventures (Labrat, BTC Garden Hashfast etc), it would be very useful to re-check FC's view on the likely total network hashrate at the end of the year, and what proportion of this the current business plan predict's AM will still control. Also - is there a danger that hardware sales/franchises will be hit if the hashrate rises too steeply and hardware intended to be sold is instead required to maintain network percentage... |
|
|
|
Yeah difficulty doesn't work that way. It is hard to understand what you are trying to accomplish but when you just start making up new meanings for words like "difficulty" it is hard to take is seriously.
If difficulty is cut in half without an equal reduction in hashpower, it will be twice as easy to find a block and thus in the long run blocks will be found twice as fast. If in any interval twice as many blocks are found then the average time between blocks has to be reduced in half.
Definition of difficulty: the threshold below which you must find a hash. The lower the hash, the lower the chances of finding it, the longer (on average) it takes to find it. The problem here is that there are THREE variables changing at the same time and you are having a hard time thinking about how all 3 interact. I can assure you I know how difficulty works and am not an idiot, so stop trying to take the short cut and assume I am nuts and start thinking through how these THREE variables interact. The variables are: 1. reference difficulty 2. reward 3. hashes/sec. 1) If mining difficulty were cut in half and hash-power stayed the same, blocks would be found twice as fast. The network would notice this and double the difficulty such that 50% of the hashing power equals 100% of todays hashing power and thus maintain the 6 blocks an hour invariant. No matter what the network can adjust reference difficulty to maintain an average block rate of 6 / hr. 2) Given the reference difficulty, miners have two choices: mine at the reference difficulty and receive 100% of the reward or mine at half the reference difficulty and receive 50% of the reward. Either way, the network is paying the same BTC/hash for hashing power. The result is that the more people that choose to mine at 50% reward the higher the reference difficulty would get. Like I posted earlier, if 50% of the miners adopted the 50% fee for 50% difficulty then you would see the reference difficulty go up by 33%. Bytemaster, I sense your frustration - I think i get it (although quite possibly, i don't). I think you are suggesting simultaneously offering two difficulty thresholds at the same time, high and low. High = 25 BTC reward per block. Low = 12.5 BTC reward per block. The network adjusts the difficulty of each threshold to reflect the proportion of hashpower mining at each threshold, such that the COMBINED block find rate remains at 1 per 10 mins. In this scenario I suspect most people would ignore the inflation incentive you refer to and simply mine whichever difficulty is most profitable at any given point in time, because any disproportionate difference between difficulty thresholds would produce a greater profit incentive to switch difficulty than any long term benefit of lower/higher inflation. I also suspect that in reality most miners would simply mine at both levels simultaneously, submitting any valid blocks on discovery, regardless of whether they meet the high or low threshold, because at the point of having found a block which meets the low difficulty threshold, the chances of making money are greater if it is submitted than if it is thrown away in the hunt for a more valuable block. This means all network hashpower is always dedicated to both levels (rather than a 50% low, 50% high model). All this would eventually lead to a necessary stabilisation point at which low difficulty blocks can be found on average say 15 mins apart, and high difficulty blocks at 30 mins apart, in which case the end result of 30 mins mining would remain at 3 blocks (one every 10 mins on avg), and the net coin inflation would be 50 as opposed to the current 75. It's an interesting idea, and the effect on inflation would be real, however I don't think the reality would deliver the split mining model you propose, instead the mad scramble for MORE bitcoin would simply continue with people going all out to get whatever they can, and probably grumbling about the lower overall ROI along the way. |
|
|
|
|
Could be testing the franchise model... just pay for hosted equipment and receiving address is updated.
|
|
|
|
|
You should read up on Kipochi, a company who announced a partnership with M-PESA last month.
M-PESA are a provider of mobile phone based fiat payment account services in several African ad Asian countries (e.g. Kenya), operating in a market where relatively few people have access to traditional bank accounts. More people in Kenya are estimated to use M-PESA than traditional accounting services.
Kipochi make it possible for M-PESA users to easily convert balances into and out of Bitcoin (i do not know what fees are charged for this but have seen them referred to as very low in a few places). The benefits of bitcoin conversion are instant international transferability of funds to/from people outside the current M-PESA network and the avoidance of further M-PESA transaction fees (if any) once funds are in bitcoin (plus some speculation or hedging value if required).
It is tie-ups like this that have the potential to catalyse explosive growth in the bitcoin user base, particularly with the comparatively low overreach of regulation in such communities.
Of course - the real solution is not to require conversion back to fiat at all, but this requires a critical mass of adoption, something which is far more likely to occur in communities such as those in Africa where the majority of people are already primed for simple phone based payment technology, and where the advantages of very low fees can be tremendously important.
|
|
|
|
|
How does Casascius ship these overseas?
I signed up to your group buy because you personally invited me to it, I subsequently turned down other group buy offers as a result of being included in yours. Now first batch coins are no longer available.
I also paid a premium well in excess of the coin list price (including shipping), and more than non-international buyers, purely to compensate you for the hassle of co-ordinating shipping.
Please DO NOT reallocate the coins you are holding on my behalf to anyone else - if necessary I will arrange for a US delivery address for you to send to, but to simply tell me the deal is off because you don't want to waste any more time is a pretty big let down.
<minor edit for politeness - also I have just seen your PM and will reply there>
|
|
|
|
|
Ognasty - is there a format/sequence to the firstbit addresses in the roll you received?
Casascius' latest post got me interested
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
