|
Mining returns of 31.39996128 BTC paid @ 0.01624416 BTC per share for the week of 24th June to the 30th June of 2012
|
|
|
|
https://glbse.com/vote/view/81Voted Yea:1619 Voted Nay:0 Sold shares: 1933 Over 80% of shares voted yes, with ZERO no. I think the decision has been taken. We will go ASICs
|
|
|
|
Why not go with the mini-rig now, and trade it in for an ASIC later? They allow people to trade in their old BFL purchases for 100% of the price you paid for it.
Technically, until motion pass, we are still going for the Mini-Rig. We might motion about this later. However their delivery time might be long if they ship us a Mini-Rig from the returns they receive and we then have to ship it back. It wouldn't be an advantage in that case. Once motion passes, I will inquire about this and see if it would be advantageous to still pre-buy a MiniRig and request a trade in later.
That. Voting "no" means no ASICs. If we go for ASICs, we will have to motion about if we still go for the FPGAs while we wait. I'll also have to inquire first: - If they'd make a new Mini-Rig or give us a refurbished one they get sent for a trade for an ASICs when the order is ready. If they would send us an old one, then obviously the ASICs are ready since you ship the old FPGAs to them when your ASICs order is ready to be shipped. - If they do send old ones when ASICs are already out and we would have to buy one off of someone else instead to trade it in later, I would also need to get information about equipment return (What if it's broken/doesn't work & what happens if we want to return that unit for the trade in). Basically, vote no only if you don't want to use ASICs at all. We'll see the options for going FPGAs temporarily after that. According to what I know about people owning shares and their vote, the motion will pass. We're already over 50% "yes" of the total shares sold and only actual votes count in the percentage. |
|
|
|
|
Technically, until motion pass, we are still going for the Mini-Rig. We might motion about this later. However their delivery time might be long if they ship us a Mini-Rig from the returns they receive and we then have to ship it back. It wouldn't be an advantage in that case. Once motion passes, I will inquire about this and see if it would be advantageous to still pre-buy a MiniRig and request a trade in later.
|
|
|
|
The contract clearly states: "The holder of this bond will receive as coupons a number of bitcoins equivalent to 100% PPS output of 5 MH/s, for as long as they hold the bond." Note the word equivalent. His duties are limited to pay the equivalent of it. There's nothing going against him borrowing on the funds for dividends with his large profit margin. The contract is clear, the numbers were clear, the calculations could be made by anyone prior to investing in his company.
I get it you don't take time to answer any replies that contain facts? You did indeed buy paper this mining operation has never had the capacity to fulfill the bond requirements for payout so all of you having been paying yourselves with your own money from the first payment, which is why this was such a really bad idea from the start. Oh well too bad you know what they say about a fool and his money meanwhile gigavps has well north of $100k of your peoples money in his pocket as profit.
So what? He had a large profit margin and may have borrowed on that while equipment was delivered. As long as he pay on his bonds what he promised. There was never anything hidden about the price of IPO and how much mhash you were getting, nor was it guaranteed that He would keep enough hardware around at any time for sold hashing. Just that the bond would pay the equivalent of 5 mhash/s. I hardly see how something could be wrong when people willingly bought into something that was clear from the start. Why insist on something being bad when people agreed to it? Anyone who bought those bonds were buying a promise to be paid the EQUIVALENT of 5 mhash/s. They can invest without reading or make assumptions, that does not give them any claim. As far as I'm concerned, Gigamining acted honestly throughout his operation. The terms were there, black on white, and were respected thus far. When something is as scummy as this it deserves to be put under the microscope you can continue to kiss gigaass all you want as you seem to be so inclined, as this is not the first time I have seen you defending his behavior.
The thing that has to be put under the microscope is if people take the time to read what they're buying before making a purchase. Their is a term for them type of contracts in particular the "Total failure of consideration". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment.... That applies to receiving something that was not for you in error and keeping it, or someone offering something and enriching himself without providing what he offered... That does not apply to a RESPECTED AGREEMENT, no matter if his margin is 1% or 99%, as long as both parties agrees. Gigamining HAS been providing the equivalent of 5 mhash/s |
|
|
|
The contract clearly states: "The holder of this bond will receive as coupons a number of bitcoins equivalent to 100% PPS output of 5 MH/s, for as long as they hold the bond." Note the word equivalent. His duties are limited to pay the equivalent of it. There's nothing going against him borrowing on the funds for dividends with his large profit margin. The contract is clear, the numbers were clear, the calculations could be made by anyone prior to investing in his company.
I get it you don't take time to answer any replies that contain facts? You did indeed buy paper this mining operation has never had the capacity to fulfill the bond requirements for payout so all of you having been paying yourselves with your own money from the first payment, which is why this was such a really bad idea from the start. Oh well too bad you know what they say about a fool and his money meanwhile gigavps has well north of $100k of your peoples money in his pocket as profit.
So what? He had a large profit margin and may have borrowed on that while equipment was delivered. As long as he pay on his bonds what he promised. There was never anything hidden about the price of IPO and how much mhash you were getting, nor was it guaranteed that He would keep enough hardware around at any time for sold hashing. Just that the bond would pay the equivalent of 5 mhash/s. I hardly see how something could be wrong when people willingly bought into something that was clear from the start. Why insist on something being bad when people agreed to it? Anyone who bought those bonds were buying a promise to be paid the EQUIVALENT of 5 mhash/s. They can invest without reading or make assumptions, that does not give them any claim. As far as I'm concerned, Gigamining acted honestly throughout his operation. The terms were there, black on white, and were respected thus far. When something is as scummy as this it deserves to be put under the microscope you can continue to kiss gigaass all you want as you seem to be so inclined, as this is not the first time I have seen you defending his behavior.
The thing that has to be put under the microscope is if people take the time to read what they're buying before making a purchase. |
|
|
|
Well I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell real cheap to you if you actually believe that load of BS your selling there. Like somehow BFL forced him to take second dip at the idea for an extra $120k at least just days before the big announcement which if what I suspect may be true he knew it was coming that is just plain flat out rip-off, the timing is just way to fishy. Oh and his tidy profit was locked in as soon as people gave them their BTC he charged well over 100% margin 20000shares*1.5btc=30000btc*$5=$150000-$60000 for rig boxes=$90000 profit less the ponzi payments for the last few months on first issue.
He sold initially 10 000 shares 1 BTC each (He had 50 Ghash/s), not sure for the other shares. With that he almost had enough for 100 Ghashs/s in MiniRigs, he sold 10 000k shares. He did have a large profit margin, yes (quite high I find. But not as excessive as one might think.) Yes he borrowed a lot. But everything he did seemed clear to me right from the start. I'm not sure everyone did those calculations but people can invest in whatever they want. The contract clearly states: "The holder of this bond will receive as coupons a number of bitcoins equivalent to 100% PPS output of 5 MH/s, for as long as they hold the bond." Note the word equivalent. His duties are limited to pay the equivalent of it. There's nothing going against him borrowing on the funds for dividends with his large profit margin. The contract is clear, the numbers were clear, the calculations could be made by anyone prior to investing in his company. |
|
|
|
|
It has occured to me that the new MiniRig SC would raise the mhash/share to new, tremendous levels. I almost feel ridiculous stating such vast numbers. But this IPO has always been about buying the best Butterfly Labs equipment and as such, we're now motioning on buying the new ASICs Mini-Rig.
For all people having a stake in this co-purchased operation, please vote now.
|
|
|
|
I personally wouldn't mind if all withdrawals/deposits & transfers in/out & BTC/Shares/Bonds owned on an issuer's account were simply publicly viewable. Or at least if it was an option for security issuers to enable. I also wouldn't mind if we had a readily available area to write info/news to investors. You know those 3 links Dividend payments
Verification
Company and security details, contract Well I'd recommend they get switched to a single line at the top with the tab growing/shortening if you switch/close tabs. With contract on a unique tab and company infos on another with an editable area for security issuers: ~~1 very thin navigation line at the very top~~
Old Motions
Mail asset issuer
Auditing link (to see holdings and latest transactions in the account)
~~1 Bar at the top (expand/close info tabs)~~
Company and security details (with editable text zone for news/recent infos
Contract (only contract)
Motions (current active ones, highlighted in red/yellow when a motion is active)
Verification
~~1 table shown at all time near bottom~~
Dividend payments
I think that placement would be clearer and easier to use as all important infos and active motions would be visible right away, yet they would take only about 60px if unexpanded. |
|
|
|
But they don't end up being a whole lot more performant, even if they are. Not on such a large magnitude.
Not sure for Jalapeno vs Single or SC Single vs Single, but I calculated for MiniRigs only and the efficiency difference was 20x MiniRig: 25 000 mhash/15 000 USD = 1.66 mhash/USD SC MiniRig: 1 000 000 mhash / 30 000 USD = 33.33 mhash/USD It's not to say that they won't dislodge FPGAs. We're going to motion for going with ASICs instead of FPGAs. However, from what I read about FPGA vs ASICs, it seemed like performance would be closer to a range of 2 to 4 the performance of FPGAs. 20x just seemed wrong. Although I do have to admit I do now know about specifics for SHA256 ASICs. I do know they should be a lot more power efficient. Around 10x the efficiency. It's really the expected extra performance I had in mind (2 to 4). 20x seems unrealistic, even for ASICs. ALTHOUGH I've heard they did use older chips for those FPGAs. That might have played in there too, although a 20x efficiency jump really is a far shot from what I estimated from reading about the difference between FPGAs and ASICs. |
|
|
|
|
Mining returns of 28.83860097 BTC paid @ 0.01491909 BTC per share for the week of 17th June to the 23th June of 2012
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~EMAIL REPLY~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi, Impact is mainly trading with virtual currency on vircurex like
btc, litecoin,iocoin ix coins gg etc.\
I gave some shares away for free for advertise.
Thanks and good luck Ralf
> Hello,
>
> I just received 100 shares of IMPACT. Mind if I ask why you are giving
> shares to me? Also, what does IMPACT do exactly?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, sometimes asking the issuer is much faster than wondering. Some guy just trading a bit on large spread small exchanges with a few bitcoins and just giving out the shares to that, it seems. Maybe he could post a thread around the forum. I'll email him about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly as Tritonio said. They don't gain or lose any value.
|
|
|
|
|
As Diablo said, their announcements have always been a bit... blown into myth material. ASICs shouldn't end up being much more efficient than FPGA. They cost more to design but end up being cheaper to produce so it is good for volume. But they don't end up being a whole lot more performant, even if they are. Not on such a large magnitude. I have high doubts they could pack that kind of processing power in less space than the current FPGAs they use. Probably just an announcement to get some talk about them and visibility. I don't say I approve such tactics but it seems to have worked for them. They end up with acceptable specs, lowest market price. So even if they don't reach their promises, people still buy their equipment. For now I'm waiting for the actual performance expected and product to be put on market to further consider the new ASICs.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost, as long as Amazingrando doesn't fail to purchase the bonds back. He's been pretty reliable and trustworthy so far, investing in his own mining operation and giving out dividends on his Bitbond title and to us. He does have a lot of experience in bitcoin mining too. I'm not really worried about that, although something catastrophic could always happen to him. Late payments/default risk are limited to the issuer not being able to continue operating his mining operation and so far it seems more than a healthy one. So pretty much the exact same risks you'd expect from placing your funds with any mining title on GLBSE or with BTC-Mining.
|
|
|
|
I never said I was going to sell my assets at 0.19 or 0.15. I said even if I were to do something I will never do and sell my assets at 0.190/mh and assuming BFL isn't lying about their specs, I could end up with 200 ghash in SC Singles. Problem is, a) I would never do that, b) I don't trust BFL.
So, there, I proved you wrong. That was easy. I'm not sure I like a troll owning 26% of my company.
I don't know what to say.. I asked you why I had lost 50% of my investment with DMC, and you respond by calling me a troll. There's more to it than that of course but I don't want to get into it anymore. You win D, I'll stop talking about you and your company. I just hope you do a better job going forward than you have done so far, because people have lost a lot of money investing in your company so far. I'm not sure why you keep claiming you lost 50% of your investment. Market prices for everything on GLBSE are panic low because of the BFL announcement. I don't know why you don't see this as an opportunity to just buy more at a much cheaper price. Because the prices currently being down might mean it's impossible getting back your investment or getting rid of your shares. During any stock market crash there's plenty of good opportunity to make money, but there is no guarantee that specific titles will go back up. Any further investment could be considered as risky. As such you usually consider you have lost part of your investment so long as share prices are lower as you cannot immediately get it back in full and you have no guarantee of them going back up. Especially if they cannot trade their share the other way around. You'd definitely need at least a PR person, that doesn't seem to be your forte. What you say about the panic lows might be true but you'll have to answer people more nicely if you're going to hold their money. Misunderstandings happen all the time, you have to clear those up yourself unfortunately and explain how you plan to get the prices back up or why you think they will go back up. |
|
|
|
|
Mining returns of 30.1346067 BTC paid @ 0.0156057 BTC per share for the week of 10th June to 17th June of 2012
Also will update the main post about the new ASICs announcement.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that might be Diablo-D3. He's been doing a lot of moving around of his fund to profit from prices difference. That's about his share of the operation for sale there I believe. Maybe he could confirm.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, I believe around 15 months. It all depends on difficulty change and how much new equipment gets added in. You'd get similar returns as regular PPS for your bitcoins, but don't forget that's 50% of the total. An extra 40% would go toward buying more equipment for the same amount of shares. Depending on what we get, it might also change the outcome with increased returns. It all depends on how fast it goes and that's not something that can be predicted.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
