Add my thanks to that too please dooglus.  Though silent (till now) on this thread I am a regular and appreciate your making your analysis available to us

I guess by the call you made prior to this current tranche you've got a pretty good feel for the market:


My prediction is unless someone comes in with big bucks and soaks up what's likely to be a lot more asks at around this price and at all increments on the way up than are currently showing we're going to have to wait for new money to come in to gradually push the price back up.  If there's no big demand right now the few current stockholders who would still consider increasing their S.DICE holding have some time to watch the market and buy when confident it's not getting lower.  If Erik's previously stated plan to release another 2,000,000 before the end of the week goes ahead we could be hovering around this mark for quite some time.

As far as I know there is no indication of a decline in play/profit/projected dividend and the value of total existing stock has not changed therefore it is still of the same underlying value as it was on Monday when it was trading .007x.  In that sense it's still a bargain but nobody knows what could happen to the business in the meantime and there is still a possibility this will have been an excuse for a total re-evaluation for many, such that the risks associated (e.g. risk of legal persecution) as re-assessed now forms a bigger part in determining value.  If that's the case the 'heady days' of .007x may never return

From a personal perspective with the bid side of the order book at Havelock looking as it is were I to sell my holding right now I'd be at a substantial loss*.  However I like that what happened last night was different again to what happened the previous two nights in terms of what can be gleaned and extrapolated (or guessed and unfoundedly speculated ) from it.

* Edit: A few minutes later and this is no longer the case with enough bids around the .62 mark that I am no longer in negative equity

SD isn't raising capital.  It is not an issuance of new stock being sold by SD.  It is stock already existing that prior to this week was part of the 90% private holding now being been sold into the open market.  In other words it is the private holder of the shares being sold that is receiving the money raised, not the business.

Quite possible.  But unlike Bitcoin itself there is a dividend here and one of the beauties of SD is it is transparent right through from provably fair play right through to being able to tell what the gross profit is at any point and to have a good idea of how much the dividend will be by the time it gets announced and paid.

Of course there are the risks associated with this stock on a number of fronts e.g. going bust on a random 'losing streak'; legal clampdowns due to gambling laws; risks with problems with the exchanges (both primary and pass-thrus) as well conspiracy-type scenarios (not that far fetched considering the history of bitcoin scams) such as EskimoBob suggests above.

However if SD is attracting enough new custom to make up for the decreasing affordability of Bitcoin and the Blockchain.info tickertape keeps screamiing SD then I suspect enough interest will come from those just joining the party looking for something to do with their Bitcoin who will look and be able to make a reasonable judgement of the values of the stock even if the market is flooded with them and if the price is 'temporarily down' and the stock underpriced enough will notice and correct.  The main point of all these additional shares on the market is that is actually the only thing that has changed.  They are now available.  They were already in existence before, just not on the market.  I don't think it's anything to lose sleep over other than maybe for those who had plans to cash out in the near future.  I did enough losing of sleep last night - 3am here in London - to buy my S.Dice stock on Havelock!

Adam, sorry if this sounds patronising.  It is not intended that way.  I'm going through the exercise of reasoning it out myself by thinking it through in the process of writing it down.  I know you know most if not all this already.

Because there isn't enough liquidity on all the various outfits, nor an easy means of transferring stocks between them, for an arbing bot to level them off

Ditto for (at Havelock)  - I converted my remaining asks that had missed the boat to a new one at .62 and was both surprised and delighted it got taken within 10 mins.

Straightforward, functional and effective website.  Tremendously responsive communications. Twice I've come up with what I thought were short-medium term suggestions - in both cases implemented within hours!

The impression I got from the start that gets reinforced with every encounter is that Havelock Investments is a solid bricks & mortar company, established and adequately capitalised; it is experienced, as James points out above, with business in general - with web & tech business in particular - and with Bitcoin itself and is I believe rapidly earning its place as a serious contender in this growing marketplace.

All I would say to balance my positive assessment is to remember there is always a risk that something will go wrong which we should consider as well as the obvious risk we each take in investing in the first place.

All the best James for Havelock's future and all the best with my fellow budding and experienced stock traders

If James is doing the same as yesterday the new units will be going on as an Ask at (100 times) what he managed to get them for plus ~.01 which for yesterday's average purchace price of .5534 were put on at .565*

So I definitely wouldn't put anything on for less than .63 and wouldn't put a massive one on at that level either if you really want them taken because it all depends on how many at what price James can get them for.  Hence people 'playing it safe' by bidding higher.


*

It is an interesting one to think about.  Elaborating on Bowjob's reply the shares are only likely over time to reduce in value in the event that projected earnings per share were expected to drop.  I guess if USD/BTC keeps rising and the money for gambling comes mainly from fiat (or for businesses where price/profit is liked to fiat rate) there comes a time when it is impossible for the vast majority to be playing with the same size stakes as before.  But the indications for now are that increasing numbers of people are playing and some are playing with what at today's exchange rates are huge amounts of money in fiat terms.  I also tend to think, because generally the money people put into Bitcoin is money they can afford to lose anyway and because it isn't USD people treat it more like play money than they might if they were thinking of it in terms of USD all the time.  Just some comments and guesses

There certainly are bullshit statistics but with your current lack of understanding I'm afraid you're not qualified to call them that other than if you're just repeating someone else.  But again, if you're repeating without having properly understood the reason something may be bullshit then you're leaving yourself open to questioning or criticism that you're unable to defend.  Getting more angry and calling people idiots from where you are in your understanding of statistics is not a good idea!

I am no statistician but if you want to be able to present your ideas convincingly or refute a statistics-supported claim without losing credibility I would first recommend you say nothing more about statistics and focus on the non-statistics element until you have done a little background reading and at least understood the very basics.  For now just stay away from the numbers!  Second I would recommend sometime in your future, ideally sooner rather than later, finding some videos or a book by a statistician who teaches well and shares your world view (I would recommend Hans Rosling's Ted Talk videos other than that I think he would annoy you so much with his 'public policy' world views that you would lose patience and not learn anything!)  It is not necessary to learn a huge amount before some numbers you're presented with begin to allow you to see the world quite differently leaving you more informed and better armed to make whichever argument you wish to.  My guess is you'd find it enlightening.

Best,  tf

May I gently suggest you argue with the points made and statistics quoted here rather than against some imaginary person who is arguing for the prohibition of guns and is using iffy statistics to do so?  Do you know the source of Puppet's per 100k statistic?  He didn't reference it so I certainly don't.  If you want to claim statistics are across the board irrelevant to this issue then why not say so?  But if your problem is with this particular one let's start with your apparent misunderstanding of it.  As I say I'm not familiar with the source of this particular one but generally speaking what is meant by 'per 100k' is that for every one hundred thousand people, so many violent deaths occur.  So whether we're talking about a population of 60 million or 300 million it gives us a means of comparing.  Whilst some studies or figures, such as, I would guess, the violent deaths/100k figures are done on a sample size of the whole population (with maybe some adjustment to account for possible anomalies) some, you are correct, are done on a smaller number, with figures extrapolated from the results obtained from the sample population.  You are also correct that too small a sample size can lead to misleading figures, as can leading questions in questionnaires etc.  But there are statistical tools that enable one, given a sufficient understanding, the means of being able to ascertain how representative, how valuable, how reliable, how likely the figures are to represent what is.

BTW, I'm a Welshman so I'm as qualified as you to talk about the US situation

Easy tiger Lethn, no need for that!  Would you care to explain how overall population, and more intriguingly to me, land mass means that comparison on a per 100k is 'idiotic'?  Granted it doesn't tell the whole story - no statistics do - but surely that doesn't make it worthless?

Thanks thefiniteidea for the clarification between the two.  it is useful to be able to differentiate with clear terminology of what is meant rather than my more vague notions.

Also your presentation of price, value, supply, demand and the relationship between them in relation to market analysis is educational.  Appreciated

Thank you for the clarification.  I had understood that but I can see how the way I wrote it could look as if I meant they decided as a collective.

Sounds like a clever comment but but I don't accept the presumption that either side are in essence hateful.  My impression from too many years following youtube theist v. atheist 'debates' is that where theists are angry they tend to talk of atheists as being evil, falsely (in almost all instances) accusing them of wanting to restrict their freedoms to practice religion.  Whereas atheist anger I think more generally is as a result of frustrations arising out of false accusations, of rewriting history and a failure to understand that demanding secular public institutions protects everyone equally.

Indeed they do but the wisdom of the reader is a prerequisite to extracting the 'good bits'.  A religious leader/manipulator can also extract the bits that suit his needs just as a rose-tinted believer only sees the bits that support their world view.  More to the point a reader with the wisdom to spot the wise bits doesn't need the 'sacred texts' - I'd venture to say he/she is equally likely to enhance his/her wisdom from reading Shakespere than any sacred text!

I heard a programme on the BBC last year discussing this issue in relation to rape statistics because there'd been some headline news making rape incidence in the UK out to be very high in comparison with countries I will not name, nor will I name the prevailing religion but where rape is known not to be that uncommon.  What it came down to was the difference in culture: for instance here a tendency to see themselves as having been violated rather than there seeing themselves as having committed adultery; to have reason to trust that the police will take the reporting seriously and act justly rather than ignoring it or worse still, reporting back to the family/perpetrators that they'd been grassed up etc. etc.

Rape is of course one of the most difficult to get an accurate picture on - especially internationally with such diverging standards - but for gun and knife deaths here in the UK we can be more confident that the figures are a fairly good reflection on the situation.  Of course there will be some manipulation of stats by politicians and the media to suit their own agendas but on the whole fear of crime is much much higher here than actual risk of crime.  The impression you'll get from opinion polls is that the UK is in a terrible position with regards to crime but other than some inner-city areas where there is a genuine animosity between a good proportion of the inhabitants and the police, the UK is well policed and there is a good relationship between the police and the people.  Even the police here recently voted overwhelmingly to reject a policy to arm your average bobby (after an incident where a trap was laid to shoot an officer) and to stick with 'consensus policing'.  The police don't want guns and the vast majority of the population don't want guns here either (excluding farmers and for shooting game etc.).

But I struggle with this because as an advocate of freedom I don't believe I have a right to stop others from baring at least small arms.  I think the idea that there will be a need, here or in the US to protect ourselves from being gunned down by our own army (the apparent 'practical' justification for assault weapons) as in Libya is quite far fetched but I also don't see that someone should be prevented from having a gun in the house to protect their family in the event of an intrusion.

So yes, I suppose you could say I'm mixed up on this issue.  If the prohibition on gun ownership here was lifted I guess eventually I would feel a need to arm myself and learn to use one.  Yet I am a lot happier with there being so few guns around here.  I am one who was once literally thrown out of my parked car in London to see it driven off by thieves.  I was also on a tube train once late at night where I was punched out of the blue because someone whose presence I was not even aware thought I was looking at him strangely in the reflection of the glass!  However that's over a period of 20 years in London and other than in a few areas I am happy to walk or travel wherever and whenever I wish to without fear and without needing a gun.  My guess is I would need a lot of training to project more confidence carrying a gun than I do now as opposed to the fear that I may get into a situation where I'd need to make a decision whether or not to use it.  Really though, in a situation where one is approached by a group of youths, one or more of whom may have a gun or knives it takes an expert on such situations to know what is the solution most likely to result in one's own safety.  Talking or running might be a better move than reaching for a gun - and it's not an expertise I'm particularly attracted to.  I have no answers - not even for here, let alone for the US!

It would appear MSNBC have now changed the clip on their page http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/29/emotional-father-of-sandy-hook-victim-heckled-by-gun-nuts/ but not the headline.  The clip as is does not show the number of times Heslin had asked variations of that question rhetorically throughout his testimony but at least what they show is now uncut.  To be fair on the 'hecklers' even when he did ask directly as if wanting a response still nobody, I guess out of respect, said anything until he said 'nobody in this room can answer that'.  Unfortunately by holding their silence at that point he and everyone else in the room could have mistakenly been led to believe it to be the case so it is not surprising people spoke up.  The chair's response was I think extreme in threatening to clear the room but I think Heslin's response considering his personal circumstance was gracious in straight away acknowledging others' right to their opinion.

Although I didn't specifically name increased security I believe I covered that indirect, network-supporting aspect of mining.


 It was my reading of what sounds was saying that he was referring to the creation of coins aspect of mining.  I may have been mistaken.  sounds?

How is this the case?  Mining generates new Bitcoin.  Printing FRNs (or creating FRN denominated loans electronically) creates new fiat.  How is that 'the opposite'?

I fear you are ascribing causality here where there is none.  I have seen nothing to suggest mining (i.e creating new currency) 'increases the value of each bitcoin'.  Indirectly of course the process of mining; the fact there is a mining network is what gives bitcoin value therefore it is fair to say without the process of mining the existing bitcoin would be of no value but that is not the same.  The usd value of bitcoin is determined by the balance of supply and demand.  Nothing else.  If it's going up it's because demand is outstripping supply.  Increasing coin production by more mining (if that were not restricted by the process) would increase supply and usd value would decrease.

As I said above Bitcoin is currently out-inflating USD and most other currencies and the only reason that isn't putting people off Bitcoin is that we can know with full certainty it will eventually be a deflationary currency.  It is far from one for the few years ahead.  If the FRB were to find a way of encoding a promise to do the same (halve the introduction of new currency every x years) into the way they create new dollar Bitcoin would lose a substantial part of its advantage.  However, apart from the logistical implications of that I can't see them or the US (or any other) government ever agreeing to yield the monetary control they currently wield.

I'm not convinced that mining is 'continually professionalising' if what DeathAndTaxes was saying is true in that 'amateur' mining has added very little in terms of security to the network for some time.  If anything ASIC has a smaller advantage from economies of scale than GPUs.  With AMD cards there was a definite advantage to buying bulk in temrs of MH/S/$.  Also, to be one of those big enough to make a difference large space was needed, substantial technical expertise and constant monitoring and tweaking.

In contrast, the competing ASICs products available look to have very little difference in GH/S/$ and the difference for instance per $ with BFL for instance (assuming they come through) between their Mini Single and the Mini Rig is much less than bulk-buying GPUs.  The ASIC producers have very little incentive to sell quantity at a substantial discount because every unit they sell reduces the value of subsequent units to their prospective buyers.

And that's without considering a growing Bitcoin user base pool from which miners come.  At the beginning the total number of users was so small everybody needed to be mining so CPU was appropriate.  The proportion of an immensely larger user base mining would have to be tiny for the total number of miners to be as low as they were not so long ago.