oops, looks like something eat me one core and miner not have enough priority. It works same now  Sorry! It (miner) is not very cpu hungry (taking about 1-2%), but better to rise it priority to "above normal". I always run cgminer at "realtime" priority!  |
|
|
|
(...)
Summary:
Jesusminer
(...)
Priceless!  |
|
|
|
thats a good idea i'll do that to 10 %:)
+1 for 10% here! C'mon ppl, Inaba has really been unwearying in getting Eclipse working day by day by day... He really deserves our help when things don't go as planned. |
|
|
|
Wow, so I just got this from Vitaliy Maxorin: Good day!
I myself am a programmer and I know for myself that for financial losses incurred due to errors in the source code the programmers are paid out of his pocket. I myself have several times carried a financial loss because of their mistakes. But no I will not reimburse my losses. I understand your request as a man, but I think it is not appropriate as a colleague. Excuse me, but I do not return the money you lost. His email is MVitaliyB@mail.ru, he was over paid 47.30350378 BTC. Too bad there are so many thieves in the world... sad. WTG breaking that Russian stereotype to boot! Funny how he mentions reasons that are typical of a signed contract between parties when buying a service/code/etc... And even has the nerve to write back justifying his theft!  |
|
|
|
GLBSE has been having these issues since v2.0 launch and the Google OTP has just made it worst, as I usually need to type my OTP two or more times before it works and make sure I type it as soon as it recycles to a new one. Then you get to the re-captcha screen which is even more of a pain in the ass.
Unfortunately i'm a small time investor so I'm selling all of my GLBSE assets and buggering the hell out. Mining is moving downwards (at least for the next few months 'til we have a more clear picture with ASICs and stuff), GLBSE is not capable of scaling all that gracefully so I've decided to buy a used old netbook, install Ubuntu and Armory, liquidate all of my assets, including my GPUs and workstations, put all my coins in that laptop and wait it out.
Yea I'm probably going to lose some potential profit in the process but better safe than sorry.
This is exactly why I advised to use HOTP and not TOTP in the beginning. It's just a monumental pain in the ass... please add an HOTP option in addition to TOPT if you are unwilling to ditch TOPT completely. +1 for an HOTP option! |
|
|
|
*crossing fingers* |
|
|
|
I (as an investor) don't have an issue with it being public; it would likely stop many "When am I getting my BFLS/Where in this list am I/This is unfair" type questions.
True, but it will also create a secondary market for "selling your position" on the list (you will attract investors wanting to play that market). Needs more thought.  |
|
|
|
I guess to keep track of them the shares must be numbered? They should be in the GBLSE DB, so maybe Nefario can expose that? As for public or private, dunno. Needs more thought. |
|
|
|
Ok, I think I've responded to all the PMs, if not, I apologize, please contact me again. I am offering BFLS.FUTURES shares as per these conditions: BLFS.FUTURES is a non-dividend stock that will be used to allocate BFLS parent shares as hardware comes online. BFLS.FUTURES shares may be traded for BFLS shares on a 1:1 basis when BFLS shares become available. BFLS shares will be increased as new hardware is available, and BFLS shares will be reduced as hardware is taken offline. This is to prevent share dilution of BFLS shares. If more hardware is put into service than BFLS.FUTURES shares covers, BFLS shares will be given to public sale. Purchasing BFLS.FUTURES shares will grant the bearer priority allocation of BFLS shares when they are available, before any public sales. Share allocation will be on a first come, first served basis. When you purchase BFLS.FUTURES shares, you must contact the issuer with the date of purchase and amount of shares if you wish to be allocated BFLS shares in a priority manner. Your SHARES hold the place in line for BFLS shares, not any individual. If you later sell your shares prior to allocation of BFLS shares, the new owner will then be in place for BFLS shares. You must notify the issuer of the sale and to whom the shares are being transferred. If you wish to purchase shares prior to the IPO, please contact me with the number of shares of BFLS.FUTURES you want and at what price. I will allocate out shares so they are as equitably distributed as possible. Once that is done, I will offer additional shares for public sale. This seems a very good method. My only question is if you'll be able to verify how many shares are sold to each person in the public sale, so that when someone says to you "I just bought 100 shares, add me up to the list for conversion" you can really verify that, otherwise the BFLS<=>BFLS.FUTURES ranking list for can be easily cheated. |
|
|
|
If 1 bitcent and 1 anti-bitcent are destroyed in mutual annihilation how much energy is produced?
That's how MintChipCents are produced! Just add blood, sweat and tears to create even more! |
|
|
|
Trying to order a Mini-Rig, they have sent me very lousy bank details, when I tell them I need SWIFT number and IBAN number for Internatinal transfer, they say the have no idea what these are.
I have doubt about trusting these people now.
North American banks don't use IBAN numbers. At least for mine, you concat the institution number, transit number and account number together, not necessarily in that order. That's not a BFL think, it's just an issue sending wires between Europe and NA. They should know what a SWIFT number is though, although that is sometimes labeled differently here. My bank calls the SWIFT number the BIC. ^ This. NA Banks don't use IBAN/SWIFT, they use a Clearing Code and/or Fedwire/ABA code. |
|
|
|
True attack costs are gigantic, because they directly attack a golden goose! Why would anyone with 10TH (or 9TH, or 8TH, or ...) do anything besides mining (thus, collecting huge profits) is beyond me. Wait, I have 10TH, gonna collapse Bitcoin now! Much better investment! |
|
|
|
Inaba, it seems (to me anyway) like you are trying to back your offer with singles, but at the same time you do not want to give them up.
Until BFL starts shipping them with regularity, I think he should hold onto them. Otherwise, this asset is just a guaranteed "quick" (45 days) shortcut for buying singles, with a delivery estimate you can count on, unlike the delivery dates of BFL that we know are written in sand. So, for some people, having a definite date is worth paying premium. Where I live, FNAC selled the iPhone 4 on its release day for 1200€ (at that time, ~$1740). It still sold out! |
|
|
|
Yeah, I was just thinking about that... for sanity sake, I will just do a 1:1 ratio and take the 15% off the FUTURES shares as opposed to the BFLS shares. So BFLS.FUTURES shares can be traded for BFLS shares at a 1:1 ratio when hardware becomes available.
Yeah a 1:1 ratio will simplify a lot. As for avoiding just a very few ppl snatching all shares, maybe using some kind of small batch round robin assignment would work? You'll have to do it manually, based on user forum info here (or other differentiation mechanic), since GBLSE is anonymous and anyone can create accounts at will. |
|
|
|
I expect the emerging of a large ASIC industry (if it happens) will lower the value of bitcoin by reducing the number of miners and thus the number of participants and the size of the bitcoin economy.
That's the one concern I have with this as well. A lot of the people currently interested in Bitcoins are interested because they are mining them "for free". Take away that "free" income, and those people are just going to disappear. ... and that will be the day a new alternative cryptocurrency will be born, so they can participate again. If you have a warehouse full of toys, but no one to play with them, do you have any toys at all?  |
|
|
|
When you need to get new hardware, you just release new shares at market price, setting the price per share of the hardware accordingly. That way you don't dissolve the existing shares and you get the capital you need for the hardware.
You can't do that, because you are diluting the worth of the previous investors' shares until the new hardware arrives. That's why you need a self-contained entity (a "sub-asset") until the new hardware arrives. Then you can merge everything together. |
|
|
|
|
Could you plz explain further how sub-assets are implemented? Can the owner merge them with the main asset when he chooses to?
|
|
|
|
Yes, there could be also some middle ground to the 2 extremes I presented, something like "BFLS.Singles" with X*200 shares and "BFLS.SomeotherFPGA/ASIC" with Y*  ? shares later. This might make it easier to sell shares with a different "hash rate" in the future. No need to complicate stuff, all shares should be under the one main "BFLS" asset. GLBSE knows base asset names. E.g. I have GLBSE, then only I'm allowed to create GLBSE.SUB
When there is motivation for the acquisition of new equipment, a new sub-asset can be created if needed (as in the case of Mini-rigs, where the ETA is unknown), for example, "BFLS.MINIRIG", on which the shares will convert into the main asset "BFLS" when it arrives. This works similarly to making 2 different IPO's and merging them after, but in an easier way to implement. |
|
|
|
I tend to agree, Vbs. But how would I account for adding in the MiniRig since the hardware hasn't arrived as of yet? If I issue, lets just say 6000 shares additional for hardware that isn't online, how does that sit with people?
I think GBLSE has support for sub-assets, you can release them as BFLS.SEPTEMBER2012 or BFLS.MINIRIG. There are already some entries like that on the shares list for BTCBOND, https://glbse.com/assets@fees for issuing new shares for existing assets, that would be free of charge
That'd be nice, but probably Nefario's call. No, mila is correct, there won't be any fees for issuing more shares. What I will also do, specifically for bonds is allow new sub assets to be created for free (or very little). So for example, an asset named BOND would be able to create a BOND.12.JAN, then BOND.12.FEB etc. I'll probably even put a special interface just for bonds. |
|
|
|
I think the number of shares required to exchange for hardware should be kept constant (e.g., 200 for each single, 6000 for a mini-rig, etc), so that you always know how much "hardware" you have. What would vary is the price of each share, based on BTC/$, equipment cost, etc. at the time they are issued. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
