Thanks! It's nice to hear something like that. Now if only you were a college recruiter...  I've neglected school for the most part for almost my entire time in it. I blame that entirely on my ambition to learn. Initially one may find that ironic, but I feel what's being taught in school is mostly irrelevant to what I want to do with my life. Only recently I'm starting to accept that there's little I can do about the corrupt way work ethic and even "intelligence" is measured. It seems that I show a great deal of passion and ethic for most things I do outside of school. Now I'm sitting here towards the end of my junior year stuck with a terrible GPA, regret, and hopes that I find a way to counter my mistakes. Sorry for being completely off topic, this turned into quite a rant. I've just never had the chance to say any of this. Anyway, good luck with the company! Speaking as a fellow high-schooler, your pain is not unheard. I've found that it's just best to pretend the system actually works and use it as best you can, while doing your own projects on the side. Colleges are, quite honestly, more interested in personal motivation than GPA. If you show them what you've done with Cognitive, I think they'll be impressed. (Though improving your GPA wouldn't hurt nonetheless) If I can offer you any assistance, don't hesitate to PM/email me. I've gotten a fair amount of experience navigating the typhoon that is our education system, and I'm always glad to help. Sorry to derail the thread, but I thought that post deserved a reply. I'm also planning to pick up a few shares of this; doing my best to diversify my holdings now that some non-scams are coming on to GLBSE. |
|
|
|
You're right. As a long term investor I wouldn't care too much about a few dividend payments a little diluted. I know it would be compensated in the long term. But I understand that it would be an issue for some people. Yes, a "sub-asset" which can be merged would be the ideal solution, but I don't think glbse can do that by now. Maybe Nefario can implement something like that...
Since, as Nefario stated, GLBSE does not support that function, seems we need another approach. I can think of two options off the top of my head: (1) Inaba pre-sells shares before they are released to interested parties (larger volumes only). This gives him sufficient capital to buy the hardware and he then issues the shares once the hardware arrives, transferring shares to those who pre-bought accordingly. (2) Inaba issues a seperate, temporary stock each time he wishes to order more hardware. A share of this asset "guarantees" the buyer a share of BFLS upon receipt of the hardware by Inaba. He raises enough money, purchases the hardware, issues new BFLS shares, transfers shares to those who bought the temporary stock, and finally deletes the temporary stock. Crude, and I don't know what Nefario would think of this, but AFAIK it should work. |
|
|
|
3) Rotation is really the question here, are you depending on it for this mining op to be profitable Inaba? What happens if people just want to buy shares and let you mine "forever"? If Inaba just mines forever, he owns 15% of shares, income from that should cover operating costs. However, if a unit fails, it won't cover replacement, so it shouldn't be treated as a contract, it should be treated as a company that buys back shares with capital (the singles), but an in production single that fails shouldn't cost Inaba if there is no replacement available. This woud be the only reason for the GH/s per share to change. However, the terms of the IPO don't necessarily state that, and they don't really state that the value of a single vs it's USD value will be used to peg (and adjust, if necessary) additional offerings. That's why I said he may want to change the terms and delay the offering. Changing the terms now will certainly upset some people whether they have a right to be upset or not (even though technically he holds all shares and can do that, someone with open buy orders might not get the chance to close them if time isn't given). The other issues solve themselves with these changes, as long as Inaba understands he may hold 200 shares for a while after a rotation if the price is pegged. He'll get the dividends for the shares, so that is fine. I think the intent is that the 15% would cover replacements. BFL offers a 6 month warranty and operating costs are pretty minimal (~$2-3/mo at ~.05 USD per KWH). |
|
|
|
|
Well, in any case, this was a good stress test for GLBSE. Server didn't go down, but it dropped a decent amount of pings and was slow to respond at times.
|
|
|
|
The sale of the remaining shares has ended.
I will now start distributing pre-sale shares.
I had a bid in higher than the last price, but somehow didn't get any shares... alas. Do leave some more shares for those of us with shallower pockets next time if you would be so kind. |
|
|
|
Doing a cash transaction with a friend right now so I can snag a few shares  Cool. Even though the bonds didn't sell out in the first day (yet), I think it's just a matter of time. BitBond is the only 105% PPS mining bond, so it doesn't take a lot of math to see that it gives a higher return that other bonds. Plus, any investor holding bonds on Saturday will receive a payout from the start of round 2 until Saturday 2pm Pacific Time.  Well, regardless of who's got the better bond, there's certainly a large influx right now in any case. I'm sure yours will sell pretty soon. |
|
|
|
On an unrelated note, Inaba, would it be possible for you to verify your identity with Nefario? You certainly have a good reputation here and run your own pool, but it would be nice nonetheless. I can look into it... not sure what needs to be done exactly? If I were to combine the two (Singles + MiniRigs) how would the shares be priced, though? They'd have to be pegged to USD I guess... so what's a good value? $1 USD per share? More, less? I'm certainly open to ideas. I'm afraid I haven't issued any assets on GLBSE, so I'm not sure exactly how the verification process works, but AFAIK you just send Nefario proof of phone, proof of email, proof of identity (copy of driver's license or the similar), proof of address, and show him Facebook/LinkedIn accounts if you have them. You can do none to all of that. I don't think it's that complicated; gigavps did it for his similar "perpetual MH/s" offering and seemed satisfied with the process. As for share layout, I'm always glad to offer suggestions. My initial thoughts: - Shares priced at 1 BTC (~5 USD) (If you want higher priced shares, just multiply. ) Why: Easy round number, not ridiculously small but not too large. (I don't think really anyone would buy less than 1 BTC worth, but speak up if I'm not correct in that assumption.) - Take the USD new price for a single/box, add ~10-20% depending on your wishes (estimating what you'd be comfortable with based on your previous stated prices) and set that as the trade-in price. (so, say, ~140-150 shares per single, ~3600-3800 shares per mini-rig, equivalent to ~5.5-5.9 MH/s per 1 BTC share) Why: Flexibility for investors, some profit for you assuming USD/BTC stays fairly stable. |
|
|
|
The investment is based on # shares per equipment value/running costs/etc, as well as the price of each share. Can't really see how the dynamics would change  Not fractioning this seems a really better investment, since you will be able to trade your shares for various equipment types over the long run, instead of your investment being devalued when singles are no more the flavor of the month. I agree. As a potential investor, having potentiality of trading shares for up-to-date hardware is extremely appealing. I would much prefer it be one stock for everything rather than multiple for each. On an unrelated note, Inaba, would it be possible for you to verify your identity with Nefario? You certainly have a good reputation here and run your own pool, but it would be nice nonetheless. |
|
|
|
It does not claim to have any advantage over the general Bitcoin Wiki.
This is a general FPGA wiki.
Fair enough, just curious. |
|
|
|
Now I feel stupid. Thanks gigavps. |
|
|
|
|
Exactly what is the advantage of this over the general Bitcoin wiki?
|
|
|
|
|
When (as in day) are you planning on releasing shares for BFLS?
|
|
|
|
Why the necro?
he's proposing OT for everything (except curing cancer) I think a digital cash integration with Tahoe is one of the most important projects that needs to be done, regardless of which digital cash system is used to accomplish it. (I would use OT and Bitcoin together but if you have a better suggestion I'd love to see it.) How much time do you all think you have, that you can sit on this forum gossiping like a bunch of old women instead of coding something so important? Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? It's very odd to necro old threads like this. Better to just start a new one listing your goals or whatnot. |
|
|
|
Troll harder, maybe it will work one day!  I'm not kidding, you'd probably have more interest if you put it in the correct sub-forum... |
|
|
|
I just wanted to point out that Open-Transactions could work as the accounting system for a Tahoe-LAFS integration, and in fact such a thing is why I wrote OT in the first place.
I will support anyone who uses OT to do this Tahoe integration.
Why the necro? |
|
|
|
It was sarcasm.
And my response was intentionally serious, as was my query. |
|
|
|
|
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribed. I might need colocation for a new project I'm working on, still figuring it out.
|
|
|
|
It may be indeed useless, or it may be not. Nice to hear your opinion on the matter. Mine is not so certain.
You don't need to thank me for my opinion, I'll give it whether you like it or not. I'm not saying that I think Litecoin is a bad investment; I'm saying that from a purely technical standpoint it has nothing to differentiate itself from Bitcoin except the hash algorithm difference, which lends itself to weakness. (An algorithm inefficient on standard hardware opens up the currency to an easy 51% attack by custom hardware designed to use that particular algorithm) If you have evidence against that, please say so. Lots of people mines with CPUs. You may not consider this "serious" mining, but it happens, and at least for those people, there should be some value in doing it. "No one" was hyperbole, I understand that people do actually mine with CPUs. "There should be some value in doing it"? Value is not brought in by miners; miners are brought in by value. The existence of CPU miners doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea to create a currency that allows them to feasibly profit from CPU mining. More miners means more people, more human resources if you prefer, doing something they found valuable. That's the way anything becomes valuable. It can, I agree, but not in every case. I mined Litecoins for awhile because it made financial sense. I thought the concept was useless and I sold every Litecoin I mined immediately. If you think that adds value to the currency, please explain. In fewer words, it's the GLBSE, and there's a darn good reason for that.
So, just because bitcoin is hardcoded on the name, we should make separate projects for any other currency? Ok, fair with me, but I think it would be almost trivial to integrate other cryptocurrencies on the existing infrastructure, and it certainly would aggregate value to it. Don't over-analyze that statement, it was just a tl;dr summary. Could other currencies be integrated? Yes. Would it aggregate value? I'm not so sure. I know that all of us who are longing bitcoin would like that someday all the value in the universe would be measured in bitcoin, but sadly this isn't going to happen. There will always be lots of units of measure and people will be choosing arbitrarily between them.
And I think that a more complex cryptocurrency ecosystem would be beneficial for bitcoin as a whole. I tend to see it as in the free software ecosystem. Just because linux exists and is the kernel chosen by the big majority of people, that doen't meant that we should abandon projects like gnu/hurd, *bsd and every other competing kernel. On the contrary, the existence of alternatives and competition makes the big projects even more valuable.
Oh, I certainly hope Bitcoin doesn't get to that point, at least in it's current state - it's far too vulnerable to attack. I agree entirely with the idea of competition, but your analogy is misfitting. *BSD and gnu/hurd provide advantages that Linux does not. (Trust me, I use the former. FreeBSD is more secure, often faster, and significantly more stable than Linux in my humble opinion.) However, I fail to see (and if there are any please enlighten me) any advantages Litecoin provides relative to Bitcoin. Competition is incredibly valuable - spin-off schemes with no advantages are not. |
|
|
|
Current purchase price per share is 0.00005116 BTC/share. BUT, that doesn't include pirate's cut, right? So if I set my workers to 0.00005115 BTC/share, I wouldn't get work, because the threshold is somewhere below that after the cut?
Correct, you have to subtract ~10%. In this case you should get work (when purchases are running) around .0000046. The price is fluctuating quite a bit though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
