Sold   14
Swapped   0
Total   14
Price   0.03392
Total   0.47488
Less Fee   0.47393024
Man Fee   0.014217907

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,242.97011711
11293 LTC-ATF.B1    112.93000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7    203.45889382
Coinlenders CD 13/8    100.73730243
Just-Dice Balance    168.81111024
TOTAL ASSETS    1,828.90742360
   
Outstanding MINING   53918
Outstanding SELLING   53918
Outstanding PURCHASE   2681
Effective Units   56599
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   31,256,961
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00008045
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00402236
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00804471
365 days (Buyback)    0.02936320
405 days (IPO)    0.03258108
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.03217885
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.03298332
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,824.35419689
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.03223298
Days Dividend Post Div   400.67
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,824.35419689
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.03223298
PURCHASE selling price    0.03384
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.03159
   
J-D House profit at report   1584

Agreed about the steps Stars take nowadays.

Think the main thing which will cause the SEC to go after an exchange will be when some significant-sized asset scams/defaults/fails and the operator and/or victims are in the US.  At that stage if they're having to investigate the security it kind of makes sense to go after the exchange at the same time as they'd have to interact with the exchange one way or another whilst gathering evidence.  I think that's probably AMC's best change of making headlines in the BTC world tbh - around middle of next year when it becomes apparent investors are in for a large loss to something run from on US soil.  They only need 1 US investor for all the foreign registered companies etc to be irrelevant - and AMC gave profit projections in USD so has no 'it's a game' defence to even try to hide behind.

Best defence for those of us actually running investments is to make a profit whenever the outcome of an investment hinges on our own predictions, competence or efforts.  That cuts out a lot of potential charges right away.  Not being in the US also helps of course.

I think the burning question of the moment is : are you based in the US?

The implication of what you posted is that Pokerstars DID have a check-box for people to tick saying they weren't in the US.  That's totally wrong.  At the time the US moved against them Stars (and Fulltilt) both accepted US players and claimed they'd been advised that was fine.  The actual action against them didn't hinge on them having US players anyway - but on the means by which funds were being transferred between US players and the sites (and the steps that were being taken to disguise those movements of funds).

I DO agree with the main thrust of your post - that claiming it's just a game won't have any impact at all on what does/doesn't happen.  To have any chance of claiming something's a game (as, for instance, is the case with companies in Eve-Online) it would need to have no interaction at all with fiat-money.

All the time an exchange lists securities which claim to have a face value fixed in USD I really can't see the "it's a game" idea having a leg to stand on.  Same for any listing which claims to give rights to the profits of a company conducting fiat-denominated business or having fiat-denominated expenditure/income (which indicates that company/individual considers fiat/BTC to be interchangable).

The main defence exchanges have had to date is being too small to matter and trying to avoid listing scams.  Both of those things are ceasing to be the case - I'm amazed, for example, that no investor in Ziggap appears to have filed a complaint with the SEC to get the clown who ran it in trouble.

I notice the bonds claim to be secured against all of BTC-EQTY's assets.  Does that mean the benefit and risk of the bonds gos to BTC-EQTY investors (i.e. the capital raised from them is an asset and their face-value is a liability)?

Sold   3195
Swapped   0
Total   3195
Price   0.03379
Total   107.95905
Less Fee   107.7431319
Man Fee   3.232293957

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,259.46595650
11293 LTC-ATF.B1    112.93000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7    203.34013100
Coinlenders CD 13/8    100.67872209
Just-Dice Balance    168.57606624
TOTAL ASSETS    1,844.99087583
   
Outstanding MINING   53918
Outstanding SELLING   53918
Outstanding PURCHASE   3057
Effective Units   56975
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   31,256,961
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00008045
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00402236
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00804471
365 days (Buyback)    0.02936320
405 days (IPO)    0.03258108
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.03217885
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.03298332
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,840.40740100
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.03230202
Days Dividend Post Div   401.53
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,840.40740100
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.03230202
PURCHASE selling price    0.03392
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.03166
   
J-D House profit at report   1534

Very good profit on J-D today - meaning value of PURCHASE rose by 1.5 days' dividends even after paying today's MINING dividend.

It's interest free.

I did some tests - basically I borrowed $5k, sat on it for over 50 minutes then closed the loan.  Did it twice covering different parts of the hour to make sure that at least one of them would have been active when the interest calculation code ran.

Did it when rates were low (obviously) and did absolutely nothing else that day which could generate any fees or profit.

There was zero fee charged, no entry in my history and balances didn't change.  By my calculations I should have been charged about $0.20 interest on each occasion.

Last official description I saw was that once per hour a check was made and any loans that had been open at previous check got charged interest.  Rather obviously that would allow for borrowing interest-free so long as you kept it under 1 hour.  STranegly, despite that description, it was then claimed that you couldn't borrow interest free - yet at no point was any attempt made to explain what it did different to the provided description that prevented it.

My tests indicate that you can, indeed, borrow interest free.  That's likely of more use to lenders than borrowers - when rates are low you can use half your USD to borrow all the cheap loans then try to lend the other half at higher rates than would otherwise be the case.  Just make sure you cancel your loans within an hour.

EDIT:  My tests were done over a month ago - it's not impossible that the system has changed since.

I did the halt later than usual today.  But I always halt PURCHASE when a SELLING dividend gos out if there's any bids over what the new Ask price for PURCHASE will be - as I can be certain whoever placed those bids wouldn't want them filled.

I don't halt on MINING or SELLING as I don't (and can't) fix a price on those.

Sold   967
Swapped   0
Total   967
Price   0.039422
Total   38.121074
Less Fee   38.04483185
Man Fee   1.141344956
   
Units   53800
Excess Div   0.00001566
Refund   0.842508

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,444.94443172
11293 LTC-ATF.B1    112.93000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7    203.19674236
Coinlenders CD 13/8    100.60799494
Just-Dice Balance    158.89987361
TOTAL ASSETS    2,020.57904263
   
Outstanding MINING   51003
Outstanding SELLING   51003
Outstanding PURCHASE   2797
Effective Units   53800
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   31,256,961
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00008045
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00402236
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00804471
365 days (Buyback)    0.02936320
405 days (IPO)    0.03258108
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.03217885
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.03298332
   
NAV Post MINING Div    2,016.25098742
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.03747678
Days Dividend Post Div   465.86
SELLING Dividend    0.00529794
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,731.22208419
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.03217885
PURCHASE selling price    0.03378779
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.03153527
   
J-D House profit at report   -312

You've understood the rule fine - correct dividend under the contract IS what you calculated above.

What you miss is that I previously promised that if difficulty changed prior to midnight (but after previous day's dividend) then I'd pay the difference between old and new dividend myself - so MINING investors never got a smaller dividend than investors in TAT.VM.

Report will show the correct new dividend in it - and I'll refund DMS for the difference between the two (that calculation will also be in the report - as it was the previous time this happened).

So for SELLING holders no need to worry that you're paying extra to MINING than you should.  MINING WILL be getting more than contract says they should - but the extra comes from me personally.

Firstly it's NOT true of all non-mining/exchange businesses.  Mining is generally fiat-denominated in practice - and is itself a short on Bitcoin (it's very simple to prove that).

There's other business areas that exist (or have existed in the past) that are purely BTC-denominated - examples being trading funds, currency-trading funds, gambling assets (to an extent - there IS some impact of exchange-rate there).  Pretty much anything that is a financial service can be BTC-denominated.

And businesses that trade primarily in USD-denominated assets can also generate income in BTC - they just have to make enough profit to be able to hedge/cover their exposure to fiat.  I run an LTC-denominated fund that mainly trades in BTC-denominated securities.  Despite that, the fund itself only has 15% exposure to BTC - with the other 85% being LTC-denominated exposure.  That's achieved by borrowing the BTC used so as to offset BTC-denominated assets with BTC-denominated liabilities (so the fund's own LTC-denominated assets are largely used just as collateral to borrow BTC).  The same could be done for fiat exposure.  Except the problem becomes that noone wants fiat exposure unless they can play along with the pretence that it's actually a BTC-denominated investment.  And, of course, if you could borrow fiat to reduce exposure then you wouldn't be trying to raise BTC in the first place.  The sad truth is that the primary reason for companies in a fiat-denominated business raising capital in BTC is simply that they lack the credit-rating/track-record/assets to get fiat-denominated capital.

I'm interested in what you mean by "the current climate" when saying you believe you can out-perform BTC.  What model for BTC price are you using to define this "current climate"?  It would have to be a very short-term model if based on history to conclude that BTC's growth could be matched by the growth of a USD-denominated real-estate investment.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with raising funds here for a fiat-denominated business.  Just please don't try to insult everyone by pretending it's a Bitcoin-denominated investment or is likely to make more profit than just holding Bitcoin would.  Its target market should be those who want to invest fiat, not those who want to invest Bitcoin - and there should be a decent market for that from those who don't have much non-bitcoin capital and so could sensibly look at some fiat-denominated investments so that even if Bitcoin collapses they still have some assets left.

Yeah I answered before - we deposited a total of 160 BTC.

But you don't need to know that to work out our % of house - what matters is what we currently have there as a percentage of total investment there.  I don't particularly want to start giving increasingly detailed financial reports on J-D as the more info I give the more I can get wrong and lead people to act incorrectly.

You can see what our investment is in each report and what house profit was at that time.  You can see how the house profit/loss has changed since that report.  If you divide that change by the total invested in J-D then that will give a pretty decent indication of how our investment has changed in value.  It won't be accurate - and there's nothing I can provide to allow an accurate calculation.  That's because amount invested there total changes a lot - with people investing/divesting when whales show up etc (ours always all stays invested).  So in theory house profits can rise whilst we take a loss or vice-versa (though the change would have to be pretty small for that to be likely).

It's a situation where if I provide more information it doesn't actually allow a more accurate calculation - it just misleads people into believing they can calculate something more accurate.

I already mentioned the reason this isn't the case.  But here it is again.

When I talk about mining being profitable I'm talking about it making enough operational profit to repay capital costs before the equipment fails.  With GPUs the situation was nearer to what you indicate - as when operational profit (coins mined - cost of mining them) fell low the GPUs could be sold off for use in gaming computers etc.

With ASICs there's no such second use for them.  So the ASICs will continue to be used to mine all the time doing so costs less than the coins they generate - even when it's unprofitable to mine if capital costs are taken into account.  So as soon as an ASIC is bought you can pretty much rely on it mining until either it fails or the cost of the power used in mining exceeds the coins generated.  And that latter point is WELL below the point at which mining has ceased to be profitable.

Your example appears not to understand the difference between operational profit and 'true' profit.  People can (and will and do) mine where they mine more coins than it costs in power but still end up with a loss due to never recovering what they paid for the hardware.  That scenario is especially common when BTC rises strongly vs USD (and moreso if profit is measured in BTC rather than USD).

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal.  It's not lying in the context of this to enter a local balance that you either don't have or don't plan to invest.  It's entirely valid -and not cheating - to use that figure to control your personal exposure.  Local balance is just a notional balance that you want to be considered, without obligation, as having when determining your exposure to action.

The rest of your concern IS valid - that it could end up pressurising people into increasing their risk exposure to keep up with others.  But that's something investors have to decide for themselves - it isn't (and shouldn't be) a major concern for dooglus (it's a gambling site - so its whole purpose is to allow people to do risky/-EV things with their BTC).

Problem with that is two-fold:

If they intended to invest in J-D anyway then obviously it makes no sense.
If they didn't intend to invest in J-D then if J-D makes a loss of more than $50 on a 17 BTC investment they're looking at having to trust you to keep the deal.

If you're dishonest (and I'm NOT saying you are) then it makes perfect sense for you - you make more than your $50 if J-D performs anywhere near expectation and you're protected against a heavy loss as you can just walk away and try again on another new forum account if a whale gives J-D a kicking.

Anyone looking to take this deal needs to be very confident you'll pay up even if J-D takes a loss - and I doubt there's that many people who both trust you AND won't invest in J-D themselves for a higher expected return.

Point is simply that if you, as manager, are saying shares in October will only be worth .002 then that means they're hugely over-valued right now.  In which case you should be selling new ones down to somewhere near there as you giving out a load more at .002 is guaranteed to crash the price down to near there anyway.

Value of the shares right now is whatever the BFL pre-orders are worth divided by number of shares.  Take off that whatever dividends are likely to be paid before October and that's what share should be selling at.

If there was any evidence suggesting you'd done anything to make a profit for investors then some percentage could be added to that in respect of management.  But I'm pretty sure current NAV/U + dividends received is less than price paid so there's not really any reason to aply a bonus to valuation for management (as initial investors would be better off if they'd just kept their BTC in the first place).  Think that's pretty true for any investment that gambled on BFL shipping on time - not just this one.

Sold   822
Swapped   0
Total   822
Price   0.039477
Total   32.450094
Less Fee   32.38519381
Man Fee   0.971555814

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    1,413.11867946
11293 LTC-ATF.B1    112.93000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7    203.05744413
Coinlenders CD 13/8    100.53928541
Just-Dice Balance    159.03998806
TOTAL ASSETS    1,988.68539706
   
Outstanding MINING   50854
Outstanding SELLING   50854
Outstanding PURCHASE   1979
Effective Units   52833
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   26,162,876
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00009611
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00480554
100 days (Forced Close)    0.00961107
365 days (Buyback)    0.03508041
405 days (IPO)    0.03892484
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.03844428
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.03940539
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,983.60757993
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.03754486
Days Dividend Post Div   390.64
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,983.60757993
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.03754486
PURCHASE selling price    0.03942210
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.03679396
   
J-D House profit at report   -286

Yeah, run by us again why issuing new shares at 1/10th of market makes sense?

You could just put new ones up for sale on market at .004 and raise same money issuing half the shares without all the invisible pledging junk.

That's IF investors vote to have the share price destroyed of course.  Wjich is unlikely - as anyone wanting to vote yes would be better off selling their shares then pledging them to get new ones at a fraction of the price.

At worst what you should do is auction the shares on the market if there's a desperate need to sell them - that way you at least get the maximum price per share and it doesn't look like giving away shares to mates.

Mining isn't "designed" with any sort of consideration of profitability at all - any more than gold is "designed" with profitability in mind or any other commodity is "designed" with profitability in mind.  Mining exists - and profitability or otherwise depends on how it is used, not on any other aspect of its design.

Mining IS designed to produce fairly stable coin generation.  That DOES impact on profitability - but isn't why it was designed in that fashion.

You say :

"Thus, by the same argument you are making, difficulty will cease to rise until such a time where mining operations again are profitable. "

No.  At no stage have I ever argued that mining needs to be profitable.  My belief, in fact, is that if technological advances didn't occur it would cease to ever be profitable at all (and would end up sat at a level of difficulty that didn't move much at all).  That's because there ARE various classes of people who will mine even if doesn't make a profit:

1.  Those doing it for fun or to support the bitcoin network, where profitability isn't a factor of importance to them.
2.  Those with 'free' electricity - where although the mining isn't making a profit overall it IS making a profit for them.
3.  Those who fail at math.
4.  Those who buy mining hardware then sell shares in it to others who fail at math/common-sense.

Add that to those locked into hardware already - whose loss is already mostly fixed - and difficulty will happily stay above the level where mining is at all profitable.

Technological advances break that - and mean that, for short periods, mining is decently profitable (but with ASICs that decent profit isn't reaching the general public).  And ongoing advances on a smaller scale (decreasing cost of unchanged hardware) can keep it marginally profitable.

And even if it's not profitable at all, you only need to find some suckers willing to pay 5,10 or 20 times the cost of hardware plus add a favourable buy-back clause for issuers to make a profit from mining (even though the profit doesn't actually come from mining - but from giving back investors a lot less than they invested).

And there's one HUGE way in which DMS.Mining isn't like PMBs/mining contracts (ones which pay out on PPS or similar).  Even if mining becomes unprofitable DMS.Mining still has proven backing in place to meet its contract.  If mining output falls such that cost of operation eats up a large chunk of mined coins then most PMBs have no established backing from which dividends will be paid - they just have to rely on the operator digging into his pocket for funds he may or may not have (history suggests quite a few won't have it or will be unwilling to part with it).

It's not possible at present - API feed from BTC.TC doesn't show the identity of who transferred so there's no way to find who to send back to.  In theory it could be done by screen-scraping or by running a logged-in session and parsing the returned page data.  But it's just not worth that much hassle.  Once the API gets updated will look at it again.