4. BFMines guarantees no bad luck in mining. If the variance of luck is 10% and only good luck counts, BFMines adds an additional 2.5% on average. If you feel lucky, that may be higher. However, bad luck would be taken from the above excess capacity, so I'm not adding that to the 'idle speculation', even though good luck would be paid out.
None of these things are part of the contract and cannot be at this stage. They are in no way guaranteed and may not even be likely. However, I'm somewhat confident that these factors are part of what people evaluate when they look at BFMines compared to straight-forward PMBs. I discourage this; it is very likely that these numbers won't be real. We're not guaranteed more than 120ghs from Metabank; we have no idea whether Bitcoin will rise again; we do not know whether even a cent of excess capacity can be paid out after hardware risk.
.b
This is where there's still a problem. On the one hand you say "BFMines guarantees no bad luck in mining." Then immeidately after you say "None of these things are part of the contract and cannot be at this stage. They are in no way guaranteed" Guarantee should mean the same thing in both places. Is no bad luck guaranteed or not? I read it as an unfortunate misuse of guarantee in the first instance where it really should have said "BFMines intends not to pass bad luck on to investors but can't guarantee it." I believe it's bad form in general to try to promote a security on the basis of benefits which investors have no contractual obligation to. Investors should not be put in the position of needing to rely on an issuer delivering more than they're contractually obliged to. I appreciate you hope or intend to put such commitments in the contract - but investors would definitely be advised to wait until they're actually in before investing (unless they're happy with what they'd get without them). |
|
|
|
er, will you remind me why the selling div didn't happen today?
edit: oh...23:59 GMT deadline....? weird, I don't remember that, oh well, no matter.
Same thing happened on one of the other two SELLING dividends - the contract was written to pay based on difficulty 16 hours earlier so that, on average, MINING got slightly more than strict PPS without the messier math of working out an exact dividend based on the precise time a difficulty change occurred at. I subsequently added a personal commitment that where the change occurs prior to midnight (but after 16:00 the previous day) I'd personally pay the difference between old and new dividends to MINING (which I did on one occasion so far). That wouldn't, of course, have changed SELLING's entitlement to a dividend today had difficulty changed a bit earlier. The personal commitment was made so as to allow more direct comparison to TAT.VM - but having exactly same dividend payment (other than rounding of the last digit on occasions). It's simpler this way - once you realise how it's done - but more confusing UNTIL you realise how it's done. |
|
|
|
|
NOT AN ACTUAL REPORT - ESTIMATE OF TOMORROW'S
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1444.673373
12581 LTC-ATF.B1 125.81000000
Coinlenders CD 201.75000000
Just-Dice Balance 108.03255545
TOTAL ASSETS 1,880.26592824
Outstanding MINING 39813
Outstanding SELLING 39813
Outstanding PURCHASE 675
Effective Units 40488
Block reward 25
Difficulty 26,162,876
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00009611
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00480554
100 days (Forced Close) 0.00961107
365 days (Buyback) 0.03508041
405 days (IPO) 0.03892484
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.03844428
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.03940539
NAV Post MINING Div 1,876.37459782
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.04634397
Days Dividend Post Div 482.19
SELLING Dividend 0.00789968
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,556.53216697
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.03844428
PURCHASE selling price 0.04036650
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.03767540
This excludes any profit/loss from J-D and also any increase in NAV from sales of PURCHASE.
Projected SELLING dividend is just under .008 - had the difficulty change occured an hour earlier then the dividend would have been today and been just over .008 (difference is 1 day of MINING dividend at the old rate).
Total SELLING dividend paid (to SELLING + PURCHASE) should be around 320 BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Sold 2306
Swapped 0
Total 2306
Price 0.048832
Total 112.606592
Less Fee 112.3813788
Man Fee 3.371441364
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1449.445288
12581 LTC-ATF.B1 125.81000000
Coinlenders CD 201.63041398
Just-Dice Balance 108.03255545
TOTAL ASSETS 1,884.91825790
Outstanding MINING 39813
Outstanding SELLING 39813
Outstanding PURCHASE 675
Effective Units 40488
Block reward 25
Difficulty 21,335,329
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00011786
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00589288
100 days (Forced Close) 0.01178577
365 days (Buyback) 0.04301806
405 days (IPO) 0.04773236
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.04714308
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.04832165
NAV Post MINING Div 1,880.14643576
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.04643713
Days Dividend Post Div 394.01
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,880.14643576
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.04643713
PURCHASE selling price 0.04875898
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.04550839
|
|
|
|
Yeah SELLING dividend won't be tomorrow.
After I do tomorrow's dividend I'll post a dummy report for the next day - showing what dividend would be assuming no further profit from investments and no further sales of PURCHASE.
It definitely looks like being around .008 - unless investments go up or down a lot (J-D can fall as well as rise - at present it's slightly up from last report).
This post is confusing due to the time it was posted. Just to clear things up, will SELLING be paying out on Friday or Saturday? It'll pay out tomorrow at a bit after 16:00 GMT - that's 1 day and half an hour from now. EDIT : That's Friday for me and for most time-zones. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah SELLING dividend won't be tomorrow.
After I do tomorrow's dividend I'll post a dummy report for the next day - showing what dividend would be assuming no further profit from investments and no further sales of PURCHASE.
It definitely looks like being around .008 - unless investments go up or down a lot (J-D can fall as well as rise - at present it's slightly up from last report).
|
|
|
|
Deprived, not sure if you answered this already, but have you looked into automating the transfer of PURCHASE to MINING+SELLING shares?
I did have a quick look around a few days back but couldn't find any Oauth 2 libraries I could use to do it quickly, so as I'll likely have to learn some new language to do it it'll have to wait until I've finished what I'm currently working in. You should be able to do it pretty easily with Python using urllib2 and google's oauth2 library. If you don't know python yet, it is one of the easier languages to learn and very expressive / powerful. I don't know python but it did seem to be the one I was likely to end up using. I'll probably sling up a bounty for someone else to do it - then amend whatever they produce to add in the extra functionality I'll want later. Had hoped to find a C++ library for it but doesn't seem to be a decent one around. The issue isn't so much learning another language as learning all the different libraries for things like building a GUI, interfacing with a database etc. |
|
|
|
I like how that presentation says to pick hi or lo and then not change it again.
Because obviously changing between the two really messes up the karma and makes you lose ^^
Most amusing part is the "you want to lose" idea - that losing small bets is good because you get to bet bigger and win more. If that were true then logically you should just skip the small bets and start off big in the first place. I'm still not sure whether it was intended to be serious or was an intentional parody of various "betting system" sites/pages. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah - kind of expected this to happen but quite to that extreme.
It's a very common issue with offerings that :
Look reliable
Have a small market cap
There's handful on LTC-Global that are trading in totally artifical price-ranges - where one person grabbed a large number, placed high asks, placed a few small bids to fill the gap then buys from their own sales to make it look like the range is actively being traded in. One of the things I plan to cover on my website is the securities where this is the case - as well as the mining companies where the arrival of a few ASICs has massively increased the price to a point where they're actually demonstrably worse value than even over-priced PMBs (let alone the more reasonably priced ones).
|
|
|
|
|
Sold 1800
Swapped 0
Total 1800
Price 0.048913
Total 88.0434
Less Fee 87.8673132
Man Fee 2.636019396
BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1344.93544
12581 LTC-ATF.B1 125.81000000
Coinlenders CD 201.50404624
Just-Dice Balance 107.95682578
TOTAL ASSETS 1,780.20631212
Outstanding MINING 37561
Outstanding SELLING 37561
Outstanding PURCHASE 621
Effective Units 38182
Block reward 25
Difficulty 21,335,329
Hashes per MINING 5000000
Daily Dividend 0.00011786
50 days (Min Liquid) 0.00589288
100 days (Forced Close) 0.01178577
365 days (Buyback) 0.04301806
405 days (IPO) 0.04773236
400 days (Post SELLING div) 0.04714308
410 days (Pre SELLING div) 0.04832165
NAV Post MINING Div 1,775.70626982
NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.04650637
Days Dividend Post Div 394.60
SELLING Dividend -
NAV Post SELLING Div 1,775.70626982
NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.04650637
PURCHASE selling price 0.04883169
PURCHASE buy-back price 0.04557624
|
|
|
|
|
Well they sold out in less than an hour.
And already someone bought a few at 40% over face value from a reseller - it would take years to make back that 40% from the interest.
I'd put up an order myself to stop massive over-charging but:
1. I only sell at face value unless there's bids up.
2. I'd be accused of profiteering - even if the intention was just to stop people losing more by buying higher from resellers.
3. They'd just get bought out and resold higher anyway.
If bids rise high I WILL sell into them - but the fund won't place Asks other than at .01 itself (and will NEVER try to drive the price up by bidding itself above face value without advance disclosure). Reason I'll sell into bids is simple : I already know I'll be selling another batch in a week or two (once our next security is launched - but before that I have some other things that need to be done). So if bids rise to a level where they cover more than a few weeks interest then the fund is better off selling now and returning some of the extra as dividends than waiting until the cash is actually needed.
DO NOT BUY THESE AT A LARGE MARKUP TO FACE VALE - YOU'RE GIVING AWAY MONEY YOU WON'T GET BACK.
I'd recommend against paying more than a few percent over face value and never pay more than 5% over face - you should never buy ANY security at above the price the issuer is entitled to do a call at unless there's a guarantee of some kind that there won't be a call for a significant period of time (or it's as part of a short-term trade).
|
|
|
|
[...]. The point is odds are in our favor 30 losses in a row will not happen on a 33% bet (again 3x example). [...] He totally understands probabilities ;P Heh yeah - 25 losses happened, but 30 losses? That's impossible. But let's not tap the tank. |
|
|
|
|
The initial 5000 are up for sale now - as expected there weren't many orders waiting (which is why I wasn't going to bother scheduling release until someone asked).
First dividend will be later today.
There won't be any news relating to these - so I won't be bumping the thread at all other than if A new batch is placed or if the interest rate is increased (unlikely at present as the cash isn't needed badly).
LTC-ATF's results (and the ratios relevant to bonds) can of course be checked in its thread - though those will be moving to my own website before long where I'll be able to give more detailed and up to date reporting (I'm hoping to use an embedded spreadsheet so anyone can see the valuation and breakdown at any time not just when I produce weekly reports).
|
|
|
|
Deprived, not sure if you answered this already, but have you looked into automating the transfer of PURCHASE to MINING+SELLING shares?
Yeah - I'm going to be looking at getting that done once I've finished work on my website (mentioned it a few pages back). I did have a quick look around a few days back but couldn't find any Oauth 2 libraries I could use to do it quickly, so as I'll likely have to learn some new language to do it it'll have to wait until I've finished what I'm currently working in. Most of what I could find is only designed to use on a website - when, ideally, I want something to run stand alone (would set up a laptop I'm not currently using to run it with its own mobile broadband dongle in so it wasn't even using same IP as anything else). I can't just upload it to my hosting as no way I'm going to leave anything that can access the account on a computer someone else (hosting provider's staff) could look at. It's definitely something I want done - not just for DMS but for some other projects I have in mind. |
|
|
|
Why has 1% of the total invested been chosen as the max bet amount? It seems very conservative. Would be nice if there could be a voting mechanism (with weight of votes based on weight of % of bankroll your investment represents) where investors select what they would like the max bet to be (maybe between 0% and 5% being choices). Then the max bet can be chosen in real-time as a weighted average. Any thoughts?
Suggest you look at the big bets in the high-score list. There's no sign of any volume of betting where people are risking large sums of cash to win anything like the current max bet. There may be small (losing) bets that are targetting near the max but, as an investor, increasing the max to accomodate those isn't actually tempting - it adds tons of variance for very little profit. If there were a queue of people wanting to bet 500 BTC or 1K BTC on 50.5/49.5 rolls then I'd be all for it - but there's no sign suggesting that those exist, so no real need to cater for them. |
|
|
|
|
FUrther to the above here's the average selling price of MINING for each day since 18th June (3rd column is MINING price - 2nd was the PURCHASE selling price). The 2 difficulty changes were on 22nd June and 30th June. And right up to yesterday trades were still occurring at an average price around same as before the first of those 2 drops. I've excluded the first 6 days as those were price-discovery combined with someone who obviously didn't understand how it worked trying to manipulate the market up (then giving up and selling at a loss).
18/06/2013 0.054609 0.019510
19/06/2013 0.054589 0.020090
20/06/2013 0.054499 0.018390
21/06/2013 0.054412 0.018290
22/06/2013 0.054282 0.014690
23/06/2013 0.054190 0.014630
24/06/2013 0.054100 0.016650
25/06/2013 0.053963 0.019900
26/06/2013 0.053891 0.020450
27/06/2013 0.053794 0.021120
28/06/2013 0.053705 0.022220
29/06/2013 0.053583 0.022380
30/06/2013 0.053474 0.020990
01/07/2013 0.049500 0.019600
02/07/2013 0.049418 0.019730
03/07/2013 0.049338 0.020270
04/07/2013 0.049273 0.020580
05/07/2013 0.049263 0.019980
06/07/2013 0.049181 0.019910
07/07/2013 0.049083 0.018870
08/07/2013 0.048994 0.018280
09/07/2013 0.048997 0.019460
MINING prices are an average for last 24 hours taken at around the time I paid out dividends each day - not done precisely on time but within an hour of it on all occasions (usually just before, sometimes just after).
|
|
|
|
Main argument I've seen from him is that it has more price volatility - by which I assume he means its price is more likely to drop to realistic levels because people who don't already hold shares can push it down. But that's irrelevant to actual investors - who buy for the dividends (which are unaffected by its price) - and in fact is beneficial for them as if they believe the price is already good then if it gets pushed lower they get to buy more at an absolute bargain price.
You are using realistic as if it didn't have an aspect of predicting the future by the herd. I don't find that comforting. My main argument for not comparing against DMS.Mining is that it has a higher volatility caused by shifts in difficulty. This is completely rrelevant for people who buy for dividends only and intends to hold on until the contracts or funds close. On what basis do you decide it has a higher volatilty? Here's the graph for MINING (go to 30-day): http://www.coinflow.co/chart/DMS.MININGIndeed there WAS a big drop after the difficulty rise on 22nd June. But thing is, the price rebounded back up again afterwards. In fact the price now (1 day before a large rise in difficulty) is basically exactly the same as it was on 21st June (the day before the large difficulty rise 2 rises ago). The evidence just doesn't support your agrument that DMS.MINING has more volatilty. Compare it to TAT.VM : http://www.coinflow.co/chart/TAT.VIRTUALMINEThat had a larger drop at the large difficulty rise and never rose back quite so well. There's barely any trade on the other PMBs to compare to. On the last drop there was barely a budge in MINING price - just 1 or 2 people sold shares and the price then rebounded (same thing happened in the middle between the two rises). It's all fine and well arguing about how volatility effects things - but the data just doesn't support that it exists of the type you were referring to. Sure some people will panic - but there's no reason to believe they'll do it more than will on other assets. And they can't over-correct downwards every time anyway - or they'd be giving away the shares in no time at all. Fact is the price now is within 5% of where it was 3 weeks ago - with 2 difficulty changes having occurred in between. And I'm sure you'd agree that logically the price SHOULD be falling a bit anyway - regardless of herd mentality - as the dividends already paid will never be paid again. If you compare MINING to other PMBs you'll also find that the trades occur in a much narrower band - which is far better for those who want to buy as investment with the opportunity to sell again later. Your volatility appears to be a mythical beast. I have to admit until I just looked at the graphs I hadn't realised just how wrong it was - I'd assumed the price had fallen significantly when in fact it hasn't (after the initial correction when the person trying to pump the price gave up). Oh - and even if the 'volatility' WAS real it still wouldn't matter for comparisons anyway. As if MINING dropped to a lot cheaper then SOME of those investing would realise they could sell their BFM, buy MINING and get the same returns with cash left in their wallet : and that would bring the 'volatility' over to BFM anyway. Hell ,I've even seen at least one ISSUER of a PMB sell more of their own shares then buy some MINING. |
|
|
|
Can you share more details about the REIT?
Can you share your business proposal?
What kind of funding do you have or are you capable of raising or have access to?
Where will you be purchasing?
Will you be only purchasing in canada? Will you only be purchasing in locations that you are physically near?
What will you be purchasing?
houses, condos, commercial, land, etc., etc.
Will you be renting, leasing or selling these properties or a combination of all 3?
Will the REIT be publicly traded and listed on an exchange? BitFunder, BTCT.CO, TSE(Candian Stock Exchange), CNSX etc, etc.
1) We are capable of funding the deposit, the incorporation fees, legal fees and the hiring of an accountant, however paying the down payment and the like would require us to delve into purchasing credit. 2) Initally we will be purchasing commercial rental properties as they are what we know and will be purchasing locally to us (Nova Scotia, Canada). 3) We will be primarily purchasing, renting, rennovating, and selling, the unitholder of each investment has the right to vote on what happens to their investments, you decide when to sell, we provide monthly reports on exactly how the current real estate environment is doing and what it means for your investment. 4) Interestingly, we don't need an exchange to start with, we are developing multi-sig support for trading bitcoins for investment "units", this allows for completely p2p trading of shares without directly needing our involvement, all information regarding who owns what will be automatically uploaded in ledger format to the bitcoin blockchain for all to see. I'm interested to see how number 4, works out. With the degree of control you propose giving to investors, listing on an exchange wouldn't be feasible anyway - as the individual investments are not likely to have a common fungible unit. |
|
|
|
How the asset is backed isn't really relevant to what contract holders get. I could be growing pot in my back yard to get funds for all the contract is concerned (sans the transaction fees and luck, of course).
I included the backing as part of the contract as an added insurance to contract holders that I have taken steps to ensure an operating margin so that there won't be any nasty surprises. Like I said, I designed this with the attitude of protecting contract holders.
I'm surprised you don't ask what happens to the surplus funds if or when the contracts terminate, however. To be pro-active, I'll answer it in any case and say that I don't want to discuss the details of that at this point.
I didn't ask because it's already implicit in the contract that you get any surplus. That's because, as you noted, above all investors are entitled to is the output of 1 MH/s. Any payment above that (other, debatably, than the surplus for first 6 months) is effectively a gift from you to which they have no entitlement and in respect of which they should have no expectation. I'd recommend investors vote YES to the change btw - now it's quoted and can't be changed. There's a VERY significant benefit to them that hasn't been mentioned at all (and is pretty subtle). As undoing it would very definitely be against the interest of investors that can't be done unilaterally. |
|
|
|
That's a lot of waffle to totally miss the point.
Either the changes DO alter what investors get or they don't.
They don't. The contract states (and will state, barring undeniably beneficial updates) that investors get the mining output from 1mhs of Bitcoin mining power. If you're saying they get extra but it doesn't come from you then where is it coming from? Or was there some cash that would be sent to a null address in the old contract? The surplus is used to cover costs that YOU have responsibility for - so anything coming from that IS coming from you indirectly (as YOU have to cover the costs - so if less gos to that from the surplus then more has to go to it from you).
How the asset is backed isn't really relevant to what contract holders get. I could be growing pot in my back yard to get funds for all the contract is concerned (sans the transaction fees and luck, of course). I included the backing as part of the contract as an added insurance to contract holders that I have taken steps to ensure an operating margin so that there won't be any nasty surprises. Like I said, I designed this with the attitude of protecting contract holders. I'm surprised you don't ask what happens to the surplus funds if or when the contracts terminate, however. To be pro-active, I'll answer it in any case and say that I don't want to discuss the details of that at this point. And it isn't legitimate to have a motion where the content of the motion is hosted elsewhere and so able to be amended during or even after the vote. The contract to be voted on should be posted in the motion OR cryptographically signed and the hash posted in the motion.
Agreed, I'll post the proposed changes here, and ask someone to quote it for reference. I realize that because this is a self-moderated topic, I can delete those quotes, so feel free to post the quote below in other threads or elsewhere for the record if someone feels that is required. The proposed new contract is as such (I'll remove the note on rebranding and the stricken out use of PMB from the BTCT contract if approved). Contract Overview BFMines is a perpetual mining bond (PMB) mining contract backed by physical hardware. The contract pays a dividend equivalent to 1 megahashes per second (mh/s) of mining power. Note: The initial term used for this type of asset was perpetual mining bond, but as the term is somewhat misleading, I have rebranded it as a mining contract. Please read the following article to understand what mining contracts are: http://coin.furuknap.net/understanding-mining-bonds/ In summary, however, please note the following: 1.This is a mining contract, not a share in a company. You receive no voting rights and no other income than the stated dividend. 2.The mining contract is perpetual, which means it will continue to generate dividend until terminated following one of the below conditions. There is no defined termination date of the contract. 3.The mining contract pays the equivalent of income from 1 mh/s. Any excess payments not explicitly stated in this contract is solely at the discretion of the operator and should not be expected. A total of 100,000 contracts will be issued backed by no less than 120 GH/s of mining power. The excess mining power will be held in reserve to account for operational cost, hardware failure, or other problems. Revenue from the excess mining power will not be paid out to contract holders. Each contract pays exactly 100% of 1mh/s of BTC mining power. All expenses related to the operation will be carried by the operator. Changes to Contract This contract may be updated at any time by the operator if it is to the reasonably undeniable benefit or of no consequence to contract holders. Changes that do not work in favor of existing contracts may be implemented only if the changes are accompanied by an offer to buy back contracts at the terms specified in this contract. Operation and Buyback The mine will operate perpetually and pay daily dividends, to be scheduled at or around the time of difficulty changes. The term perpetual is unlikely for practical reasons, and as such, there exists provisions to close the contracts for one of the following reasons: 1.The operator becomes incapable of operating the contracts over an extended period 2.The overhead of operating the contracts becomes greater than its profits 3.Permanent and irreparable damage to hardware 4.The operator must close the contract for other reasons If the contract must close for any of the above reasons, the operator or a duly appointed representative, in case the operator is permanently unavailable, can buy back contracts at no less than 110% of the average trading price at BTCT over the previous 7 (seven) days. Please note that this buy-back is a right of the operator, not a duty. Any buy-back is solely at the discretion of the operator. In any case of permanent and irreparable damage to hardware, the operator will pursue any means available to replace hardware as quickly as possible at no cost to contract holders. However, if replacement hardware cannot be obtained at reasonable costs, the operator may choose to suspend operation and dividends and start liquidation of the contract as explained above. Pre-Release Terms: Please note that these terms apply only until the mining hardware has been delivered. Upon delivery, these terms will be removed from the contract. The contracts are backed by miners that have yet to be released. The scheduled release is September 2013. All funds received as part of the IPO process at BTC Trading Corporation (BTCT) will be held in escrow until said mining hardware is delivered and made operational (the release date). In case the mining hardware fails completely, all funds will be repaid fully at the listing price of 0.004BTC/bond. No dividends will be paid until delivery. On the release date, the IPO funds will be released from escrow. Upon delivery, any excess capacity from the mining hardware will be used to pay contract holders additional dividends for six months. The additional dividends is intended to compensate contract holders for not receiving dividends until the mining hardware has been delivered. Expansion of Operation This contract will always be backed by real mining hardware or equivalent mining assets. In case of expansion of the contracts, those contracts will be offered at a rate not lower than the lowest trading price at BTCT over the previous 30 days. Any expansion will be backed by mining hardware or mining assets. Caveats Please be aware of the following before investing: A mining contract decreases in value as Bitcoin mining difficulty climbs. The biggest return on investment will happen early in the contract’s existence and gradually decline as the Bitcoin mining climbs. Mining contracts are not shares, they are effectively contracts where the mining operator mines bitcoin on your behalf, to be rewarded in dividends based on mining power. The price paid for a mining contract will under normal circumstances not be repaid so your sole income will be from the dividend paid daily. Due to the buy-back clause of this contract, please be careful of paying too much for this mining contract, especially when there are sudden price spikes. The operator may choose to buy back contracts at 110% of trading price so if you pay more than this, you may theoretically lose anything you pay above that. Pre-release only (will be removed once mining hardware is operational): This contract does not pay dividends until the release date. To compensate for this, the first six months of operation will give approximately 20% higher dividends depending on the final performance of the miner. In case the hardware fails completely, the contracts will be repaid for 0.004BTC per bond. Quoting for a record of the proposed new contract. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
