|
Sold 1060
Swapped 0
Total 1060
Price 0.039806
Total 42.19436
Less Fee 42.10997128
Man Fee 1.263299138
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,330.74996168
11417 LTC-ATF.B1 114.17000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7 202.42491432
Coinlenders CD 13/8 100.22728701
Just-Dice Balance 154.32265135
TOTAL ASSETS 1,901.89481436
Outstanding MINING 48569
Outstanding SELLING 48569
Outstanding PURCHASE 1531
Effective Units 50100
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 1,897.07966780
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.03786586
Days Dividend Post Div 393.98
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,897.07966780
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.03786586
PURCHASE selling price 0.03975915
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.03710854
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends have been scheduled for over half an hour now - just got to wait until BTC-TC processes them.
|
|
|
|
|
MINING dividend coming shortly. Had to go out this afternoon - thought I'd be back half an hour before dividend but ended up only just getting back. Am just updating all the math for the spreadsheet then will pay the dividends manually.
|
|
|
|
Where's the PURCHASE offer? No ask orders at BTCT  Sorry - got side-tracked on something else. It's up now. |
|
|
|
|
Sold 121
Swapped 0
Total 121
Price 0.040033
Total 4.843993
Less Fee 4.834305014
Man Fee 0.14502915
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1,294.61642477
11417 LTC-ATF.B1 114.17000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7 202.29066128
Coinlenders CD 13/8 100.16106604
Just-Dice Balance 152.59071648
TOTAL ASSETS 1,863.82886857
Outstanding MINING 47861
Outstanding SELLING 47861
Outstanding PURCHASE 1179
Effective Units 49040
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 1,859.11559936
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.03791019
Days Dividend Post Div 394.44
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,859.11559936
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.03791019
PURCHASE selling price 0.03980570
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.03715198
|
|
|
|
Dividends will be paid out on Saturdays ~12 noon Eastern Time(UTC -0500.)
If I buy the bonds on Wednesday when will the first dividend be paid? Saturday the 20th of July 2013? If so I will buy 100 BTC worth of bonds. You don't get any dividends until the machines arrive. After that you get 85% of what the machines you paid a 200% markup for mine. If you don't want to wait you can achieve the same result faster - just send 2/3 of your BTC to an address you don't have the key for. Where do you see a 15% fee included? It will be a zero fee company with all running costs covered by the company for life... As well as that, the hashrate per bond will be increasing over time. In fact Dave from BitFury has agreed to fly out to meet me in order to present a working prototype to me. I will likely be investing in BitFury a significant amount which will increase the hashrate per bond significantly. Sorry - was confusing this with one of the other offerings trying to sell on hardware/pre-orders at a big markup. Make up your mind whether you're running a bond or a share. If it's a bond then fix in stone what gets paid. If it's a share then add accountability in - and take your cut via a defined management fee. This vague "it's sort of a bond but I'll try to give a bit more than X but without any guarantees and I'll keep whatever I feel like" approach just isn't one or the other. Investors should know what they're entitled to from the contract. If it's a bond then they're entitled to some fixed payment. If a share then they own the output of everything bought with funds raised - less costs and management fee. |
|
|
|
If Doog would charge investors for his own mistake, they would flee. We've already seen 12k divested because some investors lost confidence in having their money there. For Doog is best to have a lot of investors money and good reputation. Some investors here in this thread just propose the contrary for their own benefit to have a bigger share of the bankroll.
Doog is not charging investors for his own mistake if he rolls back. By rolling back he is simply not giving an unearned benefit to investors for the mistake he made. Not quite that simple - or do you believe dooglus should and would have wiped out any winnings (and loss to investors) if the extra cash gambled had generated a profit? The whale would no doubt claim he was going to deposit anyway (and maybe even have sent it once he was up to give credibility to the claim) - as we've seen he's a lying sack of shit anyway. If you're CERTAIN dooglus would have clawed back winnings then a roll back should happen. But if you think investors took on the risk had he won then rather obviously they don't get the down-side when he loses. Unfortunately the ideal solution - that the whale refunds the losses he incurred by gambling - isn't going to happen and he's going to stick with his bullshit story. |
|
|
|
It isn't simply a dcase of "just" doing it. Some people will have invested/divested whilst specific bets happened. So the exact state for every bet would have to be worked out and the losses from that bet applied to those invested when it occurred. You can't, for example, take away funds from someone who had divested before the bets then invested again afterwards.
And, strange as it may seem, a roll-back, could in theory also INCREASE some balances - if they happened to only be invested on rolls that he lost.
It isn't just a case of applying a 1300 BTC 'loss' now.
Having made an announcement of what was happening I don't see how he can change his mind now anyway - and discussing it just encourages FUD with potentially investors trying to withdraw to avoid any claw-back (and new investors wary that they may get penalised for somethng that occurred before they even deposited). Had the error been noticed promptly then I agree a roll-back would have been the best way to go - with the losses to investors then recouped by reduced commission until it was paid off.
But he made his call on how to handle it - so we should just move on from there.
So it's ok that dooglus loses 1300 btc private capital to investors because rolling back is 'complex' and 'he made the call'. I strongly disagree. I think you're underestimating him. Fair resolution would have been immediate roll-back of all bets with the stolen money then dooglus loses it out of his future commission. He expedited that process - judging, correctly in my view, that settling it up front rather than having to take the site down (and lock up people's funds) whilst he coded, executed, checked and double-checked a roll-back was the best thing to do. Future investor confidence is worth more than saving some BTC short-term. If you fuck up, you admit it, cover it and move on. He's done the first two - yet strangely some people don't want to move on. |
|
|
|
I don't want to confuse people beyond making it clear that what they are buying isn't mining, and that the funds from which they receive dividends are the same funds used to buy shares (in any of the assets). As such, there is no way to bring more funds into the asset pools so if those funds run out, payments will stop. They will run out, and fairly quickly, if mining difficulty does not increase.
If mining difficulty does not increase, they can expect to get the exact same dividends from BFMines. The lump sum payment won't cover the rise in price, as any asset that consistently and over time will yield perhaps 100% will drastically rise in value and definitely much more than double overnight.
Actually the asset pool DOES increase slowly due to investment though, to date, that's been at a slower rate than the payment of MINING dividends (haven't done the exact math but think on average profit covers over about 1/3 of dividends). That is only true as long as you have a positive ROI on your .Selling investments, which may or may not be true (if Dooglus or TradeFortress drove into a concrete wall tomorrow, those funds would likely be worthless and cause a loss). Like I said, I'd be happy to write a more comprehensive article on DMS, but I want to clarify the article on BFMines so you don't feel I'm doing you or your investors injustice. Would you be OK with the clarification, the link to your post here, and the two paragraphs quote in the article? .b Yeah sounds reasonable. |
|
|
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
If that were a good idea it would have need to have been done immediately. Doing it now would apply the losses to wheoever is currently invested - not to whoever was invested at the time (you can't apply the losses to anyone who withdrew or gambled away their investment since etc). In general I agree with the point that losses made whilst running the business should fall on investors rather than on dooglus - but having announced he was paying it AND allowed withdrawals since it can't really be changed now. It can be changed now. He can just do it. As for withdrawals, since when did that stop paypal from doing a chargeback  It isn't simply a dcase of "just" doing it. Some people will have invested/divested whilst specific bets happened. So the exact state for every bet would have to be worked out and the losses from that bet applied to those invested when it occurred. You can't, for example, take away funds from someone who had divested before the bets then invested again afterwards. And, strange as it may seem, a roll-back, could in theory also INCREASE some balances - if they happened to only be invested on rolls that he lost. It isn't just a case of applying a 1300 BTC 'loss' now. Having made an announcement of what was happening I don't see how he can change his mind now anyway - and discussing it just encourages FUD with potentially investors trying to withdraw to avoid any claw-back (and new investors wary that they may get penalised for somethng that occurred before they even deposited). Had the error been noticed promptly then I agree a roll-back would have been the best way to go - with the losses to investors then recouped by reduced commission until it was paid off. But he made his call on how to handle it - so we should just move on from there. |
|
|
|
I don't want to confuse people beyond making it clear that what they are buying isn't mining, and that the funds from which they receive dividends are the same funds used to buy shares (in any of the assets). As such, there is no way to bring more funds into the asset pools so if those funds run out, payments will stop. They will run out, and fairly quickly, if mining difficulty does not increase.
If mining difficulty does not increase, they can expect to get the exact same dividends from BFMines. The lump sum payment won't cover the rise in price, as any asset that consistently and over time will yield perhaps 100% will drastically rise in value and definitely much more than double overnight.
Actually the asset pool DOES increase slowly due to investment though, to date, that's been at a slower rate than the payment of MINING dividends (haven't done the exact math but think on average profit covers over about 1/3 of dividends). DMS.Mining is explicitly designed to allow speculation on the value of PMBs during periods of fast growth - where the residual payments once the difficulty rise stops are likely to be relatively small. Current difficulty is pretty irrelevant to the value of PMBs - its where it'll be when it stops/slows right down that really matters. And at some stage there's almost certainly going to be a period when DMS.Mining will be great value due to those buying DMS.Selling not realising the halt is about to happen (at which stage DMS/Mining ends up with 90%+ of all funds). It won't give out the residual small payments PMB would - but it WILL give out a good sum in one payment immediately. Once that point comes into sight DMS.Mining will cease to be comparable to PMBs - at present it still is (or nearly everyone believes it is) because there's so likelihood of difficulty ceasing to rise in the near future. Last paragraph doesn't really apply. The point at which DMS/Mining would (or might) close is when growth slowed to around 3% per change - not if it ever reached total stagnation. Total stagnation (zero growth) is unlikely for some years and probably unlikely ever for any significant period. To get stagnation requires that the price of hardware doesn't fall AND the exchange-rate of BTC doesn't rise. Hardware is almost certain to drop heavily in price - and long-term BTC price must rise if it doesn't fail/stagnate itself. There IS one scenario where DMS.Mining is horribly worse value than any actual mining operation - the collapse of BTC, where BTC loses (nearly) all value for whatever reason. I don't rate that as massively relevant but it DOES exist - if that happened (and network hash-rate dropped massively - which it would) then DMS.Mining would just get all the capital back whilst actualy mining operations would get the large sums of BTC actually mined. It's not that relevant as having a lot of worthless tokens rather than a few matters not at all (we're not talking about BTC dropping to $10 for a while, we're talking about it dropping to the point where it becomes near or actually worthless) and if anyone believes there to be a significant chance of that then they shouldn't invest in ANY BTC investments. |
|
|
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
If that were a good idea it would have need to have been done immediately. Doing it now would apply the losses to wheoever is currently invested - not to whoever was invested at the time (you can't apply the losses to anyone who withdrew or gambled away their investment since etc). In general I agree with the point that losses made whilst running the business should fall on investors rather than on dooglus - but having announced he was paying it AND allowed withdrawals since it can't really be changed now. |
|
|
|
|
Your new post says the following :
"One particular case where this becomes apparent is with DMS.Mining. DMS.Mining, although an interesting speculator’s tool, is designed to fail if mining is profitable. The dividends you get from DMS.Mining is the same funds you pay when you buy the shares. If it turns out that mining difficulty does not grow indefinitely, DMS.Mining will close down because it won’t actually have more funds to pay out. "
That's not accurate. The funds available are MORE than what you pay when you buy a DMS.Mining - depending on how you look at it, they're either ~400 days of current dividend OR the funds from the sale of one DMS.Purchase OR the funds you pay PLUS the funds someone buying (or holding) a DMS.Selling paid. All three descriptions amount to the same thing - however you look at it, DMS.Mining share at any point in time are backed by significantly more than what they sell for and ALL of those funds are available to DMS.Mining investors if difficulty change is favourable.
Your paragraph pretty much states that all they can ever get back is what they paid for the share - that's a lie when expressed as a generality. If difficulty immediately stopped rising now then DMS.Mining shares would receive back well over double the price they currently sell at and would probably receive it all within the next few months. Conversely, if difficulty keeps rising rapidly for a long time then when difficulty finally levels off they WOULD receive a final payment but the dividends by then would be near irrelevant compared to what they receive now.
It may be the case that the only way your investors would ever make a profit is if difficulty stops rising soon (or alternatively if it stops rising middle of next year and they don't mind waiting a few decades and hope your hardware lasts that long). But as there's little likelihood of it stopping rising soon, arguments based on the assumption that it will are pretty meaningless. Yes it IS true that when difficulty stops rising (and I DO agree with you that it likely will - at least for a while) DMS.Mining ceases to behave like a PMB - giving a lump-sum golden hand-shake rather than a daily pittance. But that pittance that they don't get would realistically be at a tiny part of today's dividend - with the vast majority of all dividends they'd receive in, say, 3 or 5 years of operation having already been received.
And, of course, your own offering also will end and pay out a final amount as well - when depends more on the reliability of your hardware than difficulty changes : so it could be sooner or later than DMS.Mining (I'm not sure how the warranty/guarantee on the hardware is). At which point they get a random final payment - depending on what market price is.
Most of the rest of your comments are pretty fair (some aren't clear - e.g. the benefits of luck depend on what pool/payout structure you will use which isn't disclosed. Luck could have anything from zero effect if you mined on strict PPS to a massive impact if you solo mined) - or WILL be fair once the contract is updated to clearly reflect benefits you refer to.
And of course "better value" ALWAYS depends on the price. If your contract adds in the extra things promised then, once you start mining (and ONLY then), you definitely WILL be better value per MH/s than DMS.Mining or TAT/VM - but that isn't the same thing as being better value at ANY price. At present (with difficulty changes still some way off) I'd estimate the change in ending terms makes DMS.Mining at most about 5% less valuable than equivalent actual hashing - and that's IF you believe operator can/will pay indefinitely even when their hardware fails from old age (an unknown parameter for ASICs so far). TAT.VM has a significantly worse final payment than DMS.Mining so the margin would be higher there.
Best advice to potential investors in BFMINEs is to hold on. It looks unlikely to sell out soon, so there's no rush to buy - and no discount for buying now rather than later. When the hardware looks likely to ship, see how much difficulty has changed, work out how many years that would take to return capital even with no further changes, compare to other available options and decide then. As there's no way to sell back at or near buying price right now there's no incentive to gamble and buy without a clear delivery date when you can wait and see how difficulty changes and the prices of competitors (including any new ones that show up) rise/fall.
|
|
|
|
Dividends will be paid out on Saturdays ~12 noon Eastern Time(UTC -0500.)
If I buy the bonds on Wednesday when will the first dividend be paid? Saturday the 20th of July 2013? If so I will buy 100 BTC worth of bonds. You don't get any dividends until the machines arrive. After that you get 85% of what the machines you paid a 200% markup for mine. If you don't want to wait you can achieve the same result faster - just send 2/3 of your BTC to an address you don't have the key for. |
|
|
|
|
Sold 571
Swapped 0
Total 571
Price 0.040172
Total 22.938212
Less Fee 22.89233558
Man Fee 0.686770067
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1294.628725
11417 LTC-ATF.B1 114.17000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7 202.1580662
Coinlenders CD 13/8 100.09566289
Just-Dice Balance 158.76302688
TOTAL ASSETS 1,869.81548082
Outstanding MINING 47859
Outstanding SELLING 47859
Outstanding PURCHASE 1060
Effective Units 48919
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 1,865.11384101
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.03812657
Days Dividend Post Div 396.69
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,865.11384101
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.03812657
PURCHASE selling price 0.04003290
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.03736404
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why the max bet should go down. I see some are surprised of the amount of loss that can be made in a short time. Indeed the site lost in a few days roughly 4,000 btc on an invested capital of around 25,000 btc, that's a loss of -16%. But if it can go down so much so quick, it can also go up so much so quick, which indeed happened right before when the site was up 2000 btc or +6% in only a few days too. As long as you have the 1% house advantage all is well I would think as you have statistical certainty that you will make up the loss as long as people continue to play. However is it not the case that lowering the maximum bet makes the site less attractive for whales? If yes, you risk indeed not making up the loss if the whales choose other destinations! I am stunned that just-dice succeeded in having MORE turnover than Satoshi Dice already after 1 month. BTC turnover being the most important factor for the bottom line that is an amazing accomplishment. Obviously just-dice is offering value. Is it offering too much value and asking too little in return resulting in a loss? I think that is too early to judge as a monthly loss of say -5% can still be made up easily the next month with say +15%, resulting in an average of +5% per month, as was 'promised' in the brochure  You should be able to bet whatever you want, even more than the investor's money. But if you want to bet something huge (let's say 10k USD), it should split the bets into smaller ones, and ran them independantly. That won't stop whales from coming, and will be safer for investors. Of course it would stop whales coming. They don't want their big bets split up into small ones. If you do that right the way down then you may as well just ask them to send 1% of their BR to the site and not bother playing at all. People who are willing to lose large sums of money want to be able to win large sums of money. If the site wants to be able to take a few K BTC off a player then it has to be able to lose a few K BTC to them as well - or they won't come. Whales aren't going to show up with 5K BTC if there's a max win of 25 BTC or if big bets are treated as a load of small ones. As investors we have to be willing to lose if we want to win - it really IS that simple. Any change that makes investing "safe" will scare off big gamblers as they want to gamble, not donate. |
|
|
|
WEEKLY REPORT  Not much to report this week - it was a slow but steady week with no great excitement. LTC fell vs BTC (as BTC made a bit of a recovery) and we ended with 4.73% growth (before management fee) of which ~2.41% was from trading and the rest due to the exchange-rate movement. Our initial batch of 5000 LTC-ATF.B2 sold out in an hour and I sold a further 2000 into bids at a bit over face value - as we'll need more before long and it works out cheaper to sell now whilst orders were available and give (some of) the extra back in dividends. My website's not ready yet - I got a LOT less done this week than I planned to. Main reason was the start of the Ashes (that's cricket between England and Australia for those who don't know). I promised myself only to watch the interesting stages - but that turned out to be most of the 5 days. I'm looking into displaying our accounts live when I get everything done - so you'd be able to check on the status of it at any point in the week. It would show same information as now, hopefully along with some pie-charts showing how funds were split between sites etc. Management fee of 131 units will be transferred after posting this. The fund's own bid is at : .594
|
|
|
|
Dooglus, maybe you can explain why you have decided on the 1% max profit number exactly. How about a system where the max profit % increases at the total bankroll of the site increases up to a maximum of 1%. While the BR is relatively small (as it is now) that would lessen the price swings and risk from variance to the individual investors. As the BR grows and the the investor risk decreases that way, then the max payout can increase as well.
As an example:
Use the formula Max Profit = Bank Roll/100,000 to calculate the max profit percentage with 0.1% being the minimum (at Bank Roll 10,000) and 1% being the maximum (at Bank Roll 100,000)
At a Bank Roll of 10,000 BTC or less, the max profit will be 0.1%. At a Bank Roll of 50,000, the max profit will be 0.5% and a Bank Roll of 100,000 BTC or more the max profit will be 1%.
This strikes me as an easy solution to implement - the variance issue will go away as the Bank Roll grows but while the BR is relatively small, this would decrease the wild swings. Seems like a simpler and more dynamic solution than two separate Bank Rolls.
WHat is that supposed to address? If I have 100 BTC in the BR then my variance is pretty much the same for any risk % whether the total BR is 1K BTC or 1 million BTC. As soon as someone starts betting max bets I'll be getting the full risk every roll. Not seeing what total BR size has to do with it. Variance and swings are all relative to the base. Not seeing ANY logic at all for a 10 BTC max bet at 10k deposited but a 1000 BTC max bet if more cash is deposited up to 100k total. I'm assuming the 10k and 100k figures are just random numbers with no math to back why those are better than, say, 9123 and 57243.56. Plus your suggestion means the max bet is way smaller when deposited cash is low - then rises when there's a lot deposited and, arguably, it doesn't need raising anyway. |
|
|
|
I agree, should be relative to investment total. Say 0.2% would be a 50BTC max at current bankroll. Would still be better than all competitors except SD, but the other advantages of JD would still overall make this a better place for players (lower bank edge, real-time betting, more provably fair)
If you only want to risk 0.2% then you already can. Just withdraw 80% of your investment. It's not exactly the same but very nearly so AND you gain the advantage that 80% of your funds are now in your own wallet with zero CP risk. There's way too much results-oriented thinking in this thread. When the house went up a lot early it was all "Increase the risk % I want to risk more!". Now the house is down it's all "Lower the risk % I want to lose less!". When none of the risks have changed. The calls for allowing higher risk exposure had some merit - as there's no way to do that yourself. But the ones to lower risk percent are stupid as people can achieve that already just by managing their own funds rather than wanting someone else to do everything for them. |
|
|
|
|
Sold 463
Swapped 0
Total 463
Price 0.04035
Total 18.68205
Less Fee 18.6446859
Man Fee 0.559340577
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1270.200239
11608 LTC-ATF.B1 116.08000000
Coinlenders CD 29/7 202.02317061
Coinlenders CD 13/8 100.02932904
Just-Dice Balance 161.41629041
TOTAL ASSETS 1,849.74902927
Outstanding MINING 47344
Outstanding SELLING 47344
Outstanding PURCHASE 1004
Effective Units 48348
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 1,849.74902927
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.03825906
Days Dividend Post Div 398.07
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,849.74902927
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.03825906
PURCHASE selling price 0.04017201
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.03749388
Large drop in days of dividend left today - due to the losses on J-D (we lost about 10 BTC but have made back about 3 of them already on there). Report is same as usual other than the dividend not being deducted in it - as the balance at start already represents balance after the dividends were paid.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
