He said he did sold those contracts above what I sold ... my price is 0.094 , after my selling,that PAJKA bond ever exceeding this price ,
No, this is another lie and you even provided the evidence yourself. You sold on average 0.09x something, but you sold a lot cheaper than that, which I then sold a bit later: 07.06.2013 07:25 PAJKA.BOND buy 12 0.07 0.00168 0.84168 13.06.2013 11:24 PAJKA.BOND sell 1 0.088 0.000176 0.087824 13.06.2013 08:10 PAJKA.BOND sell 1 0.088 0.000176 0.087824 12.06.2013 20:57 PAJKA.BOND sell 1 0.088 0.000176 0.087824 12.06.2013 20:55 PAJKA.BOND sell 1 0.088 0.000176 0.087824 12.06.2013 20:36 PAJKA.BOND sell 1 0.088 0.000176 0.087824 There's more, though, but I don't really want to post my entire history or even more of my trading history, but at the very least, this is hard, firm evidence that I did sell what I bought from you at a higher price than I paid and that you, once again, is proven to be a liar. .b wow furuknap, don't you have any sense of embarrassment? who gives a fuck if SOSLOVE is lying or if hes just terrible at english, hes not the one trying to sell a shitty mining security |
|
|
|
I feel like a dope for paying 1.99 for several of these. Part of my "value" calculation was the ability to mine for a period of time, then resell the hardware. Now that possibility is gone.
Even your resellers are fearful of ordering another lot for fear they will be undercut again by price cuts and have a lot of unsold inventory.
In hindsight, you should have picked a reasonable price to begin with and stuck with it. There's no way I will order any more of these for fear of getting fucked again.
you feel like a dope because you WERE a dope. Not just picking on you specifically, but everyone complaining in this thread. Not shocking that people dumb enough to buy these at 2 are dumb enough to think they got screwed by a price drop...if you thought that these were a good investment at 2, then they're an even better investment at 1. If all you can think about is how much you overpaid, then maybe, just maybe, you SHOULDN'T HAVE OVERPAID. |
|
|
|
GLBSE had maker-taker. One of the very few things I liked about the site (maybe the only thing - can't think of a second off-hand). So anyone who used GLBSE should be used to it (though I expect most never even noticed).
and bitfloor had it for BTC/USD |
|
|
|
Difficulty is not rising much, if this will continue SELLER might not get any dividend in next adjustment.
pretty much entirely related to the asicminer hashing drop |
|
|
|
Burnside, have you considered maker/taker pricing?
Yeah. I wouldn't mind doing something that shifted some of the fee to the maker, and reduced it on the taker. Would be curious to hear from the masses what they think? Hope you mean other way round. Maker should get the lower or zero fee (for adding liquidity), taker the larger (or whole) fee for removing liquidty. It's great for removing spreads - with people buying bidding 1 satoshi below ask rather than buying so as to avoid a fee. The other way round (which you said) works to discourage people placing orders - leaving empty order books. Getting late here. Yes, the reverse of what I said. We want to encourage orders on the books.  Yeah imo its basically THE answer to this whole liquidity/spreads conversation, except that maker should get a rebate, not just zero fee. You could change .2% fee on trades to something like .3% fee on taker, .1% rebate on maker (or .4/.2) Have fun explaining this to customers though. meh, customers that don't understand it would probably not notice a difference...to them it would just seem like a fee change from .2% to .3 or .4%. maker/taker pricing is standard on all the major US stock exchanges, how many retail investors do you think are aware or pay attention to it? http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Maker-taker |
|
|
|
Burnside, have you considered maker/taker pricing?
Yeah. I wouldn't mind doing something that shifted some of the fee to the maker, and reduced it on the taker. Would be curious to hear from the masses what they think? Hope you mean other way round. Maker should get the lower or zero fee (for adding liquidity), taker the larger (or whole) fee for removing liquidty. It's great for removing spreads - with people buying bidding 1 satoshi below ask rather than buying so as to avoid a fee. The other way round (which you said) works to discourage people placing orders - leaving empty order books. Getting late here. Yes, the reverse of what I said. We want to encourage orders on the books. Yeah imo its basically THE answer to this whole liquidity/spreads conversation, except that maker should get a rebate, not just zero fee. You could change .2% fee on trades to something like .3% fee on taker, .1% rebate on maker (or .4/.2) |
|
|
|
|
Burnside, have you considered maker/taker pricing?
|
|
|
|
dude I don't care about your personal holdings and I don't read every post of yours to scrutinize them carefully. that post includes anyone who thinks its worth more. There is still a market. One of the principals is willing to sell at a certain price. If people think its worth more, they can buy and profit. Everything else is drama, though to be fair, its the only reason I'm in the thread right now How high above .4 were you really expecting? There isn't ALWAYS another sucker to sell to....
Uhm... Which part of this conversation did you not understand? I don't expect it to go anywhere, up or down. I expect the market to decide. I don't expect tytus to decide. .b buy them at his price if you think its worth more. You're just frustrated that there won't be an endless supply of suckers to sell to at low volumes. This has nothing to do with markets. Ah, well, again, because it seems your ability read is challenged: I do not hold any 100TH shares. I benefit from a limit on price. tytus helps me. Financially, I would cry from joy if he dumped the price to 0.2. If I could trust him to stay away from market manipulation, I would buy. That's why I suggested moving 100TH away from tytus' control and onto another exchange to make it a viable investment again. .b |
|
|
|
How high above .4 were you really expecting? There isn't ALWAYS another sucker to sell to....
Uhm... Which part of this conversation did you not understand? I don't expect it to go anywhere, up or down. I expect the market to decide. I don't expect tytus to decide. .b buy them at his price if you think its worth more. You're just frustrated that there won't be an endless supply of suckers to sell to at low volumes. This has nothing to do with markets. |
|
|
|
Oh man, I was totally ready to link to this MPOE post and then MPOE did it himself  Furuknap-drama queen much? 200 MH/share? thats equivalent to 40 shares of DMS.Mining @ 5MH/share. 40 shares of DMS.Mining will run you about .76 right now, but you start getting dividends TOMORROW, without the risk of complete failure, without the risk of people who have never done it before building out a datacenter, without the risk of natural disaster, without paying electricity, rent, or any other costs, and with no risk of computer/internet downtime. How high above .4 were you really expecting? There isn't ALWAYS another sucker to sell to.... lol @ this whole conversation I'll be blunt. At this point, I see now way for an extremely long time to rebuild the confidence of investors. If 100TH is still to be a viable asset, several things must happen.
1) 100TH is delisted from pico.
2) 100TH is listed on another exchange where tutys has no controlling interest
3) The shares controlled by tytus are put in escrow, only to be put on market after the escrow has ensured the rules set forward by tytus (and possibly the exchange) has been followed (for example 48 hour notice, declaration of price in advance, any exchange-specific regulations if any, etc)
Whether pico surives is actually not very relevant to 100TH, but I can't see an exchange operated by tytus being possible in the foresesable future.
I'll post an article in the coming days explaining my thoughts on this event and what happened in May. Tytus, I encourage you do contact me (DM) if you want to voice your side of it as part of that article. I will publish anything relevant and give you an early review of the content.
.b
Far as I can see, you're here to scam. The reasons are quite simply: 1. You're nobody, I couldn't tell you from Adam. Tytus, what's that. Wot? The cost to make you, entirely, is about fiddy cent. (Sure, you may or may not be related to Leszek Rychlewski, who'd be a moderately cited biology researcher. On the strength of your presentation that connection is not worth investigating.) 2. You came up with what you call an exchange, for no apparent reason. It doesn't exchange anything. The worthless assurances of some Marshall Islands shell "repaying" anyone for anything are of no value and no interest. 3. You came up with a scam for that exchange, specifically, an imaginary set of 1000 boards that Tom was selling you (in spite of bASIC not making that many boards to begin with and you not being anywhere on the lists of people that ordered). I did point out to you then you're lying through your teeth, and your response was that *I* should check up on your claims. No receipts, no proof of anything. You could be Inaba if we didn't already have an idiot by that name around. Conveniently enough for you Tom blew up, and so you're roughly in the situation of the various scammers operating out of GLBSE: they get to pretend like it was all Nefario's fault. Oh, yes, I forgot, you lost a million dollars with the bASIC blow-up, how fortunate for us that you're so cavalier about that disaster, picked yourself up and are back for more. Innit easy to get through due diligence for imaginary fortunes and imaginary investments? How strange that Tom never had half that much money to refund in the first place. 4. You came up with a slightly larger piece of bs. Who is bitfury? Oh, wait, nevermind, "BitFury Group facilitating development of BitCoin-related software, hardware and services". Great. They made a splash last summer with their insane "licensing" deal. Meanwhile they draw 7MW per Gh or something like that, and nobody (including the manufacturer) even knows what the units cost. Let alone that there were a grand total of two units built overall, during the entire 10 month lifetime of the project. As a bonus, MegaBigPower.com is some bs site registered two weeks ago, in no position to "operate" anything whatsoever. To make it perfectly clear: 100 TH made out of bitfuries is much like an aircraft carrier made out of old refurbished Ford Model Ts: not seaworthy. 5. If you think that is a business plan you have absolutely never either seen one or done business. I get that you think Bitcoiners are idiots, and most are. The important point is that those who are have no BTC, and those who still have BTC aren't idiots. Your deluded notions that anyone will actually put as much as fifty dollars into this patent nonsense is about as amusing as the idiocy coming from the bitfinex corner. I get that you think you can buddy-buddy and "act professional" and it'll wash like it has in the past. You're wrong. It won't. To quote my ever-watchful boss, Pack it and move. This is your only warning, and quite frankly I have no ideea why warnings are even necessary. Bitcoin is not for idiots. That means you. Aww. Serious question...if tytus put a block of 10000 shares are at the IPO price on the market today, would you be happy or sad? My answer is...I would be ELATED and I've bought a lot of shares above the IPO price.
I'm glad to hear you're one of those problems that's in the process of sorting itself out. Except if in fact you're lying, goat style. |
|
|
|
They haven't got enough hashing power to maintain 30%. BFL hash about 400 Th/s incoming...
Sure they do...two weeks, right? |
|
|
|
Thanks, tradefortress. The pricing is intended to be competitive. I want to have a reasonably priced PMB and this should be around 30% lower than current PMBs trade. Add to that a rougly 15-20% bonus dividend the first six months and I hope to see some interest. On a price/mhs, BFMines will be the lowest priced PMB on the market.  If you're going to do comparisons you need to do them based on what they'd be charging when your hardware arrives. Either that - or compare your price to their price minus the dividends they'd have paid whilst you waited for delivery. Also this needs clarification : " To compensate for this, the first months of operation will give approximately 20% higher coupons/dividends." How many months? Replace approximately with an exact definition. It's a contract not a vague statement of general intent. Furuknap doesn't worry about semantics in contracts  |
|
|
|
The mechanism is this (and you'll see it in practice on Monday by the looks of it):
We might get there sunday if you sleep in It's gonna be interesting! |
|
|
|
Has anyone been able to get a successful transaction through the Bitinstant site yet? Would be nice to get the old version back as an option while they are working on the 'Beta.' old.bitinstant.com I am still waiting on a transfer that went through zipzap on tuesday. On bitinstant, I see that there have been seemingly nonstop attempted and failed transfers to my gox account since. I informed support on tuesday who told me I was at the front of the line but have heard nothing since. Really annoying. |
|
|
|
A FEW PREDICTIONS
As well as allowing the market to determine a price for fixed-rate hashing, the performance of this fund will also allow testing and examination of market participants in a few other ways.
Here's a few predictions I'll make now - I'm not going to explain the reasoning in detail behind these predictions (as doing so would make them less likely to be correct). In general terms these predictions are based on my view of how many market participants assess the value and desirability of investments.
1. I expect there to be far more trading volume in MINING than in SELLING despite an equal number of both being issued to investors.
2. I expect MINING to trade at a significantly lower price per hash than PMBs on BTC-TC (by which I mean at a 25% or more discount - not just some small amount that could be accounted for by contract differences). Initially this is inevitable (as PURCHASE is being sold below the price of PMBs) but I expect it to remain true in at least the medium term (months).
3. I expect there to be a significant quantity of PURCHASE that never gets exchanged for MINING or SELLING and which is held long-term.
This post will be not be edited - so in some months time we'll see if any/all of the above were correct.
agree with #1 and #2, not sure about #3, seems wrong to me but I'm sure you have a reason....in other news TAT VMs entire offering just sold out instantly...lets do this!! |
|
|
|
|
are any holders of Pajka interested in writing put options or lending shares? if so please pm me to discuss prices/terms...
I'm interested in durations >1 month
|
|
|
|
Absolutely fascinating product Deprived. Best of luck.
+1, looks like you put a lot of thought in to this. I predict this is bad news for existing PMBs |
|
|
|
So far, this bond has delivered exactly what the contract states. I'm not sure why you would assume that the contract would now suddenly be wrong?
re-read what I quoted, he was speculating about the price he would buyout shares, when he already had terms for a buyout listed. I didn't assume it's wrong, I asked. |
|
|
|
How about if bfl is not deliver nor refund the BTC back to you ? what will you do then?
Great question, it doesn't look like BFL will deliver so I guess you would buy out the fund. Well, I believe that BFL will deliver sooner or later. In case BFL goes bankrupt ... I might consider buying the bonds back ... but the question is at what price ... What price do you see fair? 0.1 BTC minus all paid dividends? No, that's too much ... but how much ... that's a question. Some people bought into 0.3mhash/s bonds, some bought into 1.5mhash/s bonds all with the risk that they might never reach even 3mhash/s ... When PAJKA.BOND was selling as 1.5mhash/s bond per 0.1BTC it was cheaper than other mining bonds and now after upgrade it gave already nice dividends. Now the difficulty went a bit higher and new mining bonds/companies backed by ASIC showed up at lower prices. If you buy now you take a risk that BFL will bankrupt but you know the price (it may be higher when BFL delivers) and get the dividends from 3mhash/s until they deliver. The choice is yours. I'm confused, your contract states exactly how much you would pay to buy the bonds back, and why does BFL have anything to do with your bond? You offered a 1.5 MH bond (now 3 MH.) your contract on BTCTC states that you can buy out the bonds at 110% of the average 15 day price. are these wrong? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
