You keep missing your shipping deadlines. You say you're going to ship in May, but how do we know you won't ship in say August because you decide you need another vacation?
Even if they did, you'd still probably receive it sooner than you'd receive a $5,000 BFL order made today. ASICMiner may or may not make their boards available to the public between now and then and if helveticoin pans out, its partners may or may not deliver units before August. No-one's putting a gun to people's head and making them buy an Avalon - no-one needs an ASIC ASAP, those who want them ASAP are driven by self-interest, not altruism. If people don't like Avalon's terms, they can wait for someone else to offer terms they find more acceptable (just as people can choose whether or not to seek a refund from BFL). |
|
|
|
Ah folks, do the math - they don't want to sell, they will mine themselfs.
From the very start, Yifu has been clear about the fact that Avalon never really wanted to retail complete units to end users. They'd probably be thrilled if they could find an integrator who wanted to produce their own units using Avalon's chips and/or boards and they could just deal B2B rather than with end users. It's pretty much the failure of other ASIC vendors to deliver a working retail unit yet which has created this situation. When you're making something to order, you can charge whatever the market will bear. If they've misjudged the market, then they won't be able to sell out Batch 3. |
|
|
|
Can you quote it as I cannot access the site for several hours now.
No problems. I have no idea where this ludicrous "ground plane issue" rumor got started, but whoever started it is out of touch with any sense of reality. There is no ground plane issue on the PCBs. The hold up right now is the test rig and debugging it... since that is what we are doing at the moment, there's nothing new to update. Once the test rig issue is resolved, we will resume the process going forward. I am loathe to detail the process at this point, it is just fuel for the trolls who like to pick apart every word type and analyze it for conspiracy theories. I will update when I have an update that's worth posting. Smaller updates I will post in the chat, and thanks to the magic of the grrnbrg they will make it to twitter. At this time, I wholeheartedly endorse grrnbrgs unofficial twitter feed.
Just as an unrelated side note, it would take approximately 24 hours to get new PCB's made if we had to redesign them for some reason. Depending on whatever would need to be done to the PCBs, the actual design work would take two or three days typically, unless it was a complete redesign and there would be basically no reason in the world to do that at this point. I don't know why anyone would think 4 - 6 weeks for a PCB redesign, that's just crazy. We have gone through many, many board redesigns since this process started, I've only pictured two or three of the 6 or 7 revisions we've had throughout the process. Basically, we could have a redesigned board ready to go by the time the chips arrived at the facility, that has never been a sticking point.
I haven't been posting much because I am very busy with other issues related to getting these chips out and making sure everything is ready once they arrive here in KC. I will make time to sit down and go through some of the threads here as soon as I can, but right now I am focusing on all the details for shipping. The daily DDoS doesn't help, but I've mostly gotten that automated at this point, so it's no longer that big of a concern or time suck thankfully. |
|
|
|
The real problem is that usagi is trying to use the share BOTH to represent silver being sold AND to represent shares in the investment fund. That inevitably leads to either over-priced silver or devaluation of investments - as there's no way to sell the shares representing silver cheap (relative to other silver sellers) whilst keep those representing invesment high (there only being one set of shares). Everything else stems from attempts to reconcile two completely opposing objectives into one (plus maybe some from the impossibility of trying to sell something that is devaluing fast at a profit whilst competing with those who don't actually hold it in stock).
That's why my very first criticism was basically that the silver selling MUST be seperated from ownership of the investment. Of course usagi's reply was then along the lines of 'you don't understand' - his typical refrain whenever the inconsistencies in his statements are pointed out.
Could this have been overcome by issuing two classes of shares to each shareholder - one representing the silver and one representing shares in the investment fund? It's generally not a good idea to make anything more complex than it needs to be. Perhaps there are some simple options which could be applied now (even if TU.SILVER needs to buy back shares to implement them) to prevent later dramas. |
|
|
|
Anyway, my advice to Serena is to open the books. Maybe it's my inner accountant crying but I think real financial statements (instead of this A+B crap) and a publicly available general ledger will clear up the scammer accusations that have plagued all of her businesses. I know "a public general ledger" is insanity, but I feel it's appropriate in this situation for a few reasons:
1. This is Bitcoin, it's all about keeping account balances in public and having them publicly verifiable.
2. Usagi's had lots of problems in the past and present with interactions between entities under her control, a ledger will clear this up.
3. Accounting is fun
4. pro forma spreadsheets will be easier for Usagi to write and everyone else to verify if account balances can be known
It's not necessarily insanity, but I think it could create confusion. While usagi has recently said that TU.SILVER is a "coin shop", realistically it's more like an investment fund which operates a coin shop. Transparency is great and all, but most businesses couldn't function if shareholders were giving their input on a daily or weekly basis - there's a good reason why shareholder meetings only happen occasionally absent a crisis. Obviously, usagi needs to be accountable both as the fund manager and as the operator of the coin shop, but a balance needs to be found between between shareholder involvement and micromanagement by shareholders (which will absolutely not work). Separate from any past actions of usagi's which were controversial is the issue of whether his style of communicating with his shareholders is beneficial or whether it inevitably ends up with every decision being questioned and debated endlessly. usagi's communiques sometimes come cross more as a means of saying "look how clever I am" than as being primarily a means of keeping shareholders informed and that is usually where the trouble starts. Quoting Buffet as an appeal to authority will not overcome this problem (it may even exacerbate it). |
|
|
|
From now on, if you or anyone has a question regarding the company's finances you MUST speak to me or DeaDTerra about it privately.
Same shit, different day. |
|
|
|
I really wish the BTC to crash hard just after Avalon starts taking order. We shall see what happens to their BTC 88 - 115 payment plan. Greedy bastards.
How are they any more greedy than miners? Based on this thread, miners themselves have no confidence in BTC and view it only as a means to earn USD. |
|
|
|
BTC pricing is fine - the problem is merchant product pricing. They should adjust BTC price according to fiat value. All these discussion about avalon batch 3 originated from the static page someone found. However, if avalon actually adjusts the BTC price taking care of the market value, that should do it.
For example, someone also mentioned the 88BTC - 115BTC price is taking BTC value at usd 20. If that is computed accordingly, things would be fine.
The post in question states In accordance with the the 360 yuan = 1BTC exchange rates, the RMB price between 31680-41400 yuan, shipping extra. 360 yuan is almost USD 58 - a price BTC touched today. The post was made today. http://bbs.btcman.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1550&extra=page%3D1 |
|
|
|
Yeah, I also find it pathetic. It is OK to start small, but making too big a noise relative to your actual position in the market just, makes your appear childish and scares away the actual investors. Take this as a kind word from president of the depository, whose holdings are 100,000+ ounces of silver. (Yes, I know there are guys with 1000 times more than I have, and I would be grateful if they ever talked to me (which they don't  )) Perhaps usagi should diversify into sex parties and chocolate.  |
|
|
|
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort. This is the provision which applies to Bitcoin and miners. A miner doesn't have to be considered a creator. He merely needs to obtain his Bitcoins (or other virtual currency) by his "own computing effort" (people pooling their computing efforts will almost certainly be covered under this provision, too). I don't think it matter because miners cannot remove coins from circulation so they are not administrators. If Amazon coins start getting issued Amazon can create and remove coins from the system so they are the administrators. No-one's arguing that miners are administrators. The central issue with the potential to affect miners is them being classified as money transmitters if they sell their coins. Different provisions apply to Blizzard (most certainly an administrator) and WoW gold than to Bitcoin. WoW gold would count as (b) Centralised Virtual Currencies and therefore the provisions of that paragraph would apply to Blizzard. Bitcoin counts as (c) Decentralised Virtual Currencies and therefore the provisions of (c) apply to Bitcoin, miners, and exchanges. Off course an interesting question is how it would come to the attention of regulators that you're selling BTC you mined. Exchanges don't require you to disclose the origins of the BTC you're offering for sale, and wouldn't have the resources to verify any declarations by customers about such origins anyway - are they going to be required to report every single BTC deposit just in case you're selling BTC you mined as opposed to BTC you bought or received as payment for goods/services? Also, bear in mind that this is a guidance statement. It tells you how FinCEN intends to approach the issue of virtual currencies but it doesn't create legal definitions in and of itself. |
|
|
|
An individual member on here is already making claims to send him 2 Bitcoin and will give you an invite to it. Anyone who took that post seriously deserves to be scammed. |
|
|
|
|
You sound like you have a low risk tolerance but you're looking to "get rich" in a high risk environment. Your 50 BTC would only be worth $3000 today had you held onto them. Not "rich" by anyone's definition, even though it would have been a good return. More importantly, even if Bitcoin rose to $1,000 by this time next year, you still wouldn't be "rich". Would you have the nerve to hold those 50 BTC in the hope that they'd be worth half a million plus at some indeterminate future time (which still isn't "rich", but is an amount which allows fulfilment of some dreams which might otherwise be out of reach).?
An ASIC will bring you diminishing returns, just as your current hardware has. It's not the path to riches - you'll need to keep spending more on hardware just to tread water.
As MPOE-PR indicated, bringing something to the table is a good starting point. If you don't have capital, then what is it that you can bring to the table. You're not going to get rich passively, so what niche can you fill?
|
|
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that this was pretty much expected and that enterprises have been preparing for it.
The thing which was largely unexpected is miners themselves being regarded as money transmitters if they sell their BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you think the FinCEN guidelines mean more ASICs are needed. 3600 BTC are going to be produced per day whether they're produced on GPUs or ASICs and FinCEN doesn't going to give a damn about what hardware you used to produce them - only what you do with them after you've mined them.
|
|
|
|
Patrick, do we also run up against the issue of people laying themselves open to sanctions if they take intermediate steps to avoid these provisions - such as purchasing something with BTC they have mined but then selling their purchases? As the original source of the BTC isn't a "serious crime" or predicate offence (which is key in relation to how FATF defines money laundering), then it's hard to argue such a strategy is money-laundering per se and yet my instinct is that taking such steps could well be an offence in its own right (especially if done repeatedly). |
|
|
|
FinCEN does not write law. They provide guidance.
Guidance statements give an indication of how an agency interprets the law. Until there's a test case, their interpretation remains unchallenged. You're not going to find many Bitcoin enterprises which can afford to mount a legal challenge if FinCEN tries to slap them with tens of millions of dollars in fines - even huge conventional financial institutions tend to agree to civil forfeiture because the potential penalties per offence are absolutely massive. Additionally, operating as an unlicensed money transmitter carries with it the potential for criminal prosecution (carrying a penalty of up to 5 years in prison). It's tempting to believe that the authorities have bigger fish to fry and that they wouldn't waste their time on small players, but that can't be guaranteed. |
|
|
|
It's probably worth pointing out that the requirement to register with US Treasury also applies to those outside the US who do business as a money transmitter in the US. (2) Foreign-located money services business. Each foreign-located person doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized or licensed business concern, in the United States as a money services business shall designate the name and address of a person who resides in the United States and is authorized, and has agreed, to be an agent to accept service of legal process with respect to compliance with this chapter, and shall identify the address of the location within the United States for records pertaining to paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=532af3285642b30728036e7a8059b718&rgn=div8&view=text&node=31:3.1.6.1.6.3.5.9&idno=31This provision doesn't require that you act as a money transmitter on a regular basis or that you be an organised/licensed business concern. It has a lot of potential to be interpreted very broadly. |
|
|
|
Look you all. I dont want to scam anybody. Like you all think that i try to do.
I indeed want to purchase ASIC miner, thats why i asked for help of you guys.
And im not force anybody into this.
For a start, donation requests go in Off-Topic. You want to risk the funds of others rather than your own. Given how recently you joined the board and the fact that you're not willing to risk your own funds, people aren't going to trust you to return double their donation (after all, what's to stop you saying you got scammed even if you didn't). Newbies joining and asking other members for funds pretty much straight away is one of the things driving the requests to have newbies restricted from certain types of activity for a significant period of time after joining. There's no more reason for anyone to help you buy an ASIC than there is for them to help me buy one. If I posted a request like yours, I'd expect ridicule in response. |
|
|
|
So maybe I am mean...but it does sound a bit like a scam for buying another scam?
Yep. It's very meta. Check his post history. He's desperate to buy an ASIC and - hey - why not use other people's funds for something which looks like a scam. He wasn't asking for donations when he was trying to acquire an Avalon. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
