Get ready for lift off. If you haven't bought in lower than .003, you will miss the train. Seeya.  I just sold 1500 shares at 0.0024 which I brought yesterday at 0.0021, hate myself. should avoid day trading. Now I'm holding 13K shares. .... and now the tax man knows how much to charge. There are no taxes because its not regulated. It's income taxed only if you cash out. |
|
|
|
Lots of bullish buying, some insider must know something we don't.  Maybe mining has started? |
|
|
|
I (for one) don't plan to use Windows 8 because, well, I don't like it - but that aside, I'd NEVER store my bitcoin wallet on any Windows system. It's trivial to setup an old crusty laptop or virtual machine with Ubuntu and Armory, then set that machine in the closet. Then store a small amount of coin in an online wallet where you can have quick/easy access for day to day transactions. I hope (and will plan to contribute to) that people write more articles and how tos covering this topic!
Now fast forward 5 or 10 years when we are not using the BETA version of the bitcoin wallets and bitcoins are worth $500 this will be a different discussion. It's Moores Law in hyperdrive. The bitcoin network is roughly 4 years old and it's eclipsed (in relative computing power) EVERY other super computer and distributed computing power project on the planet. Imagine if all of that power were focused on attacking wallets directly!... ugh...
Lastly - if you think that TPM is the only way to encrypt drives, your crazy! Today there are plenty of options, not the least of which is truecrypt (a free, open solution that works VERY well on Windows).
OK, this is the last thing - this is going to really open the market for hardware based wallet devices.
You don't understand information security. The TPM provides hard ware mechanisms precisely because you don't want to trust a software implementation of a random number generator or private key storage or encryption if it can be done in hardware. TPM is about having a hardware specification for handling private keys, cryptography and information security. It's not a government plot and anyone with any knowledge of information security can tell you what TPM is. If you would prefer to put your faith in truecrypt then go ahead. I understand TPM well enough to know it's better than truecrypt and I have nothing against truecrypt I'm just saying using truecrypt combined with TPM is better than using just truecrypt because there are all kinds of side channel attacks which beat any kind of software programming. |
|
|
|
The trusted platform module is good. Windows 8 maybe not. Do not confuse the two. Trusted platform module is how private keys can be secured and is necessary for stuff like secure random number, key security, and so on. It's something we want. Windows 8 is not something you have to use and because it's closed source I recommend you use Linux instead. TPM can be used with open source software and in my opinion should be. |
|
|
|
As some of you may know, mtrlt stepped up to make a GPU miner for PrimeCoin by creating a thread announcing that he will work on a GPU miner, in which he put a "Donation address" "that will also get you early private beta access to the miner". [1][4]It has now been one month and three days since he created the thread [1], he has 75 of our BTC[2], and his last update of any sort was given out on August 14, 2013, 07:10:25 PM, Six days, and 20 hours ago. [3]We still have no GPU Miner.[1] We might have been BFL'd. [No citation needed] Since he was accepting "Donations", it means that he technically CAN legally run away with the BTC, AND the GPU miner and we would have absolutely nothing to prosecute him in court with. Although I am doubtful he will do this. It is possible that he is mining with his GPU miner for a long while, stashing large amounts of coins to then dump, and THEN maybe release the GPU miner. It is also possible that he had a heart attack and died mysteriously. Or maybe there never existed a GPU miner to begin with? I place no opinion on this subject. Just being objective here. I am just making this information clearly available and understandable to the public. You decide on how you feel about this situation. Sources: [1] - Original Thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258540.0[2] - Blockchain.Info for his donation address - https://blockchain.info/address/1FKfgFQeZCpjGDn7ocgj26nk4K2TNiVJyD[3] - His second thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=273637[4] - Quote of the original text of his first post in his original thread. - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258540.msg2931303#msg2931303You're welcome. Why would he scam people and ruin his ability to potentially make millions of dollars to make a few thousand? |
|
|
|
They will: Produce, Mine, Sell, full package!
Nobody is going to buy 130nm chips when there will be multiple companies at 28nm, ASICMINER producing 65nm, etc. I think the best you can hope for is mining with the chips at cost, or of course short term speculation which has been very profitable for me. People buy whatever is cheapest for the hash rate. Wrong.. you should know better. Look at asicminer USBs. In the individual hobbyist market, you can mark things up very nicely to the point where ROI doesn't mean shit. Most of the people who bought those only bought it to resell it. Do you know anyone mining with them? |
|
|
|
They will: Produce, Mine, Sell, full package!
Nobody is going to buy 130nm chips when there will be multiple companies at 28nm, ASICMINER producing 65nm, etc. I think the best you can hope for is mining with the chips at cost, or of course short term speculation which has been very profitable for me. People buy whatever is cheapest for the hash rate. |
|
|
|
I would bet that even if you added up the net worth of both of these people it would not even equal 100 BTC
What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums. It matters because it is downright arrogant to assume people with far more at stake, greater intelligence and who did the due diligence, have SOMEHOW overlooked the concerns of some dimwit with a handful of peanuts.. this guy is asking the most irrelevant, useless and meaningless questions. It is seriously like a six year old getting caught up in the semantics of a childrens book, interrupting class over and over about how eggs cant be green. I take it you're talking about JB? How does JB talking shite justify thinking you are better and more intelligent than someone simply because you have more wealth than them? If JB never made a single comment, snobs would still be snobs, looking down their noses at those less wealthy and disregarding their opinions as worthless. It's called social darwinism. The idea that if you don't have enough wealth that you're a useless eater who is a waste of molecular space. I guess it was only a matter of time before the wallstreet attitude found its way into the Bitcoin community. |
|
|
|
End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.
That is not the same as owning the company!Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares! For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off. Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security. Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights. Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company. "I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. " "We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors." "Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company." The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls. But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share. Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company. How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much? Nobody is disputing that. But true ownership requires equity and a lot of official procedures. What I'm saying is that Labcoin will have to become platform agnostic like how Asicminer is and offer direct shares and then you'd have a point but even then it's not something which can be regulated by the SEC because Labcoin is not an American company. It does not need to be regulated by the SEC! it's regulated by universal contract law which almost every country in the world recognizes. You have virtual ownership, in this virtual company, and you will get paid out profits in virtual currency. If I say Lucky, I have an imaginary virtual company, and it has 10,000,000 shares. I will give you 7,000,000 shares for x amount of money. It does not matter that this is done person to person, on NasDAQ, on BtCT, or anywhere else. It does not matter that it's a virtual company, a legal binding contract has been formed, and you are required by law to honor your end of the contract, even that it's virtual. You have ownership through the legal contract that was established. I never said it wasn't a legally binding contract. I said it's not equity. Anyway have a look at this relevant article which specifically mentions Labcoin and asks some of the same questions you did. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-20/bitcoin-spawns-china-virtual-ipos-as-u-s-scrutiny-grows.html |
|
|
|
What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums.
Net worth has relevance in the investing world considering it shows that they have a proven track record of good decision making, maybe its sad to you but to me a lot of my peers consider net worth something that matters It proves nothing. Some people are just born into wealth and the more money you have the easier it is to make more money, as I've directly experienced over the past couple of months I'd like to get a bunch of people like you and give them a small amount to trade with and see how well they do compared to some homeless person with the same amount. If the homeless person made more profit than the rich snobs would you then hold their opinion higher than the snobs opinion? Of course he would, he is talking about it in the constructs of trading. If homeless person was a better trader, I would hold him in higher opinion, even though his networth might be low, but given time his networth will grow. High networth means that these people invested properly, and given enough time the homeless man will achieve a high networth also. Trade has more to do with connections and access to information than anything else. None of you could even get in on the IPO of Google. |
|
|
|
End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.
That is not the same as owning the company!Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares! For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off. Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security. Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights. Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company. "I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. " "We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors." "Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company." The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls. But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share. Doesn't need to be on NASDAQ, it can be on myballz.com, it is still a legal binding agreement that is represented as such that the founders shares and the public's shares are the same, hence the public owns 70% of the company. How do you know how many shares I own or don't own? Make wild speculations much? Nobody is disputing that. But true ownership requires equity and a lot of official procedures. What I'm saying is that Labcoin will have to become platform agnostic like how Asicminer is and offer direct shares and then you'd have a point but even then it's not something which can be regulated by the SEC because Labcoin is not an American company. |
|
|
|
Social darwinism.
Sure... there is reason why people blindly follow people like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet, considering that they are worth billions of dollars probably has nothing to do with that right? right?? I'm not a sheep, are you? If you are then why are you playing with Bitcoins? After all the Warren Buffets and Carl Ichan types don't consider this to be real money yet. |
|
|
|
End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money.
That is not the same as owning the company!Nobody said you don't have any legal claims, or that you don't have a contract with them. But you don't own their company, because these are not regular stock exchange shares! For fucks sake, really. I'm putting you back on my ignore list, you're pissing me off. Yes get mad, when children lose they get mad, according the the SEC yes you do have ownership as the virtual offering is considered a security. Only issue is you might not have ownership according to Hong Kong where the company is established and therefore have to rely on another country to protect your legal ownership rights. Secondly, when the company itself writes about ownership, it therefore becomes ownership as they their language is representing it as such. Since the Owners own the same Virtual shares of the company that the other 70% own, therefor there is ownership. Given the fact that they declare their shares make them 30% owners of the company, and that the other 70% owned by the public are the same identical shares, we own 70% of the company. "I believe we have decided that we will be selling a form of 'Board Seats'. A board seat share holder will be any share holder that owns 200.000 shares at any point. If the ownership falls below 200.000 shares the owner will no longer be considered a 'board seat' owner. " "We place all available IPO shares on the market initially and retain a far lower percentage of ownership, we also have no plans of selling any secondary offering and will not dilute ownership with additional shares post IPO. Because of this, we do not feel that any dividend incentive is needed for investors." "Important to remember is that the entire Labcoin team has a vested interest in the success of the company through their ownership and have every reason to maximize profitability and longevity of the company." The End I've found my own answer again, as you and Volcanic again have proven to be completely useless and trolls. But let's not act like this company is on NASDAQ. You don't even own a direct share. |
|
|
|
I would bet that even if you added up the net worth of both of these people it would not even equal 100 BTC
What relevance does that have? Anyone who judges people based on their wealth is a complete and utter arsehole. Sadly, that applies to far too many people on these forums. Social darwinism. |
|
|
|
End of the day If I say John, I will give you 5% of profits from my operations paid in Virtual Currency, if you invest x amount of money. Even though it's virtual you can go to court and sue for your promised virtual goods, since you have made a binding contract.
But NAW yo, cause I'm superior than governments, and even though they say otherwise I say NAW
You made your point. They are going to be made to uphold their end of the virtual contract or whatever it is. The problem is in defining it as a stock though because I'm not sure if it fits the definition. It's for sure that people who play the game by the rules and terms have a right to what was promised even in the context of the game rules. So whether its a game or not should not matter. |
|
|
|
its pointless to argue with either of you, regardless of whether its a game or not money is involved and works like the stock market
the company issues shares and promise we invest based on that then the valuation will find itself once they are selling hardware and mining, I am not saying they are obligated to do anything but this is how it works and calling it a game isnt going to save it from scrutiny if the govt decides to do anything
both of you are just bantering uselessly,
Never said it would save them from any scrutiny. If they turn out to be a scam then there will be scrutiny whether it's a game or not. Even games aren't allowed to completely scam people. If blizzard offered people a new game and didn't follow their own terms then even if its a game there are consequences. My point is that we don't have any precedent to know what it is legally and that is the main reason why it is so much risk and why people want ROI ASAP. ROI builds trust and if people have essentially got back what they initially put into it then there is no more risk on their part. |
|
|
|
This kid isn't going to make it far..
I tried.
Nah your just fucking completely dumb. When your virtual fake money goes and gets used for real business, and real assets, it leaves the realm of "virtual keiser stock exchange". There are legalities no matter what your half retarded brain says, the only problem is there is probably no regulation in Hong Kong. At some point you will be right and the game could eventually be regulated. It's still an alternate reality game by definition. An alternate reality game can have real world benefits, just like any serious game. The serious games movement is what you shoudl research before posting further. As far as trying to legally define it, that is impossible right now. There is no legal definition but it certainly isn't a stock in the traditional sense. You do not have voter rights. You do not necessarily get equity either. It's more a profit sharing virtual stock ticket. Labcoin is agreeing to share it's profits. Agreeing to pay you dividends on profits for x amount of ownership you own, is a legal binding contract. That is closer to what it is. It's legally binding similar to how Cloudhashing or any of the other mining contracts are. But it's not a stock because you don't really get voting rights or own Labcoin legally because Labcoin is a company which issued itself on a virtual platform rather than a traditional IPO. Honestly, the laws have to be updated eventually to include this kind of business crowd funding or alternate reality platform or whatever it turns out to be. Right now there is no agreed upon legal definition so you're essentially gambling with virtual stocks until there is a law set up to define virtual stocks as assets. |
|
|
|
This kid isn't going to make it far..
I tried.
Nah your just fucking completely dumb. When your virtual fake money goes and gets used for real business, and real assets, it leaves the realm of "virtual keiser stock exchange". There are legalities no matter what your half retarded brain says, the only problem is there is probably no regulation in Hong Kong. At some point you will be right and the game could eventually be regulated. It's still an alternate reality game by definition. An alternate reality game can have real world benefits, just like any serious game. The serious games movement is what you shoudl research before posting further. As far as trying to legally define it, that is impossible right now. There is no legal definition but it certainly isn't a stock in the traditional sense. You do not have voter rights. You do not necessarily get equity either. It's more a profit sharing virtual stock ticket. Labcoin is agreeing to share it's profits. Bitcoin is real money of course. Labcoin is a real company. But the platform it operates on is entirely virtual and it's currently an alternate reality rather than a real asset. The moment you make it into a real asset then you have to legally define and regulate it and we cannot do that yet because its too new. Maybe in 5 years if Labcoin still exists then these virtual stocks might be convertable to some real stock or maybe they'll do what Satoshi dice did and sell and give some dividends, who knows? |
|
|
|
From BTCT FAQ
•No assets on the site are to be considered real.
•The use of this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
•If an asset issuer on this site defaults, you have ZERO RECOURSE. (not like you have any recourse in most international BTC situations anyway.)
That pretty much sums it up right there. Listen and learn.
That's great nobody gives a shit what BTCT says on their website. End of the day you are purchasing shares of LabCoin and those shares are transferred under your ownership. Again: “Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States. Shavers also contends that his transactions were all Bitcoin transactions and that no money ever exchanged hands. The SEC argues that the BTCST investments are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.” He argues what BTCT is arguing just because they say so doesn't mean shit when the government says otherwise lol. I can say selling drugs is not a crime, doesn't mean I'm right. It's not a stock in the traditional sense of the word. It's a completely new definition of a new kind of contract which does not currently exist in the legal lexicon. It is based around a sort of smart contract in the context of a virtual reality game. Now, if you lose your virtual currency in Second Life it's not exactly the same thing as real stock. As for what it is, we don't really know yet because it has not yet been defined yet. That is the risk and until it is defined legally it exists as a game with real world benefits. It should be considered an alternate reality game with real world benefits. An alternate reality game is what it is according to the technological definition. The legal definition? Ask a lawyer. |
|
|
|
From BTCT FAQ
•No assets on the site are to be considered real.
•The use of this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
•If an asset issuer on this site defaults, you have ZERO RECOURSE. (not like you have any recourse in most international BTC situations anyway.)
That pretty much sums it up right there. Listen and learn.
the SEC won't help you just because you're a US citizen. Give your head a big shake. US is not the world.
It's about as fake as Max Keiser's virtual hollywood stock exchange. But this is why people want to get their ROI as soon as possible so that they don't lose anything if Labcoin or anything else turns into a scam. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
