Latest posts of: Deprived

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 130 »

781

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTCT][BFMINES] - Mining Contracts Now Available - Bonus Divs First Months

on: July 07, 2013, 06:49:44 PM

I think you've made a trap for yourself furuknap - and risk losing all credibility for the sake of making some profit on effectively reselling your hardware. The following quote from your news post on BTC-TC pretty much sums it up : "Also, I don’t speculate in difficulty changes as a policy, but I’ve chosen to account for 15% per month for the next two months when comparing the numbers. This may or may not be right but regardless, it shouldn’t affect the comparison of assets too much, only mining investments in general." I can see no rational basis for assuming a 15% rise per month in the next 2 months for difficulty. Even a quick look at current trends shows that in recent months the rise is consistently around double that. That's with only 3 companies providing ASICs - and one of them (BFL) only just really getting going. By the time your hardware arrives there MUST be a 4th company shipping hardware - as yours comes from them. Yet somehow you believe the rate of increase is going to halve? Claiming the rate of increase whilst other bonds mine and yours doesn't is somehow not important in comparisons is just ludicrous. It's the second most important factor when calculating the relative competitiveness your offering to PMBs already mining (the most important, of course being price per MH/s). The faster difficulty rises, the harder it is for your offering to ever make up for the dividends it missed before your hardware arrived (perhaps, more accurately, the greater the margin yours has to be cheaper by to represent equal value). That's true regardless of how you model difficulty AFTER your hardware arrives. And, of course, if you're blatantly underestimating short-term difficulty rises then it has to be considered likely you're doing the same on long-term ones when you confidently predict profitability for investors. For your 15% per month prediction to be correct just for this month (without ANY KNC deliveries) would mean zero new ASICs added to the network for the remainder of the month. It smells very much like you pulled out a figure that matched the results you wanted rather than looking at what's actually been happening. And that's where you've gone wrong. If you'd just acted like most other PMB issuers - and kept your mouth shut about what your bond would do - then if (more likely when tbh) it became apparent that investors would never make their money back at least you wouldn't have misled them. But now you have a thread and various posts in which you attempt to argue the indefensible - that current rate of difficulty increase will drop in the short-term (next few months) despite a new manufacturer HAVING to enter the fray (for you bond to even come to life) with no apparent reason beyond the fact that you'd like it to be true because it makes your bond look better value were it the case. The argument you've made a few times about difficulty having to stop rising because of the cost of hardware ignores three things: 1. The price of hardware WILL fall - and massively so. Current prices are a massive markup on cost (after NRE has been recovered) and will inevitably drop through competition once supply becomes reliable and demand becomes somewhat satiated. 2. If the price of Bitcoin rises then that immediately allows more hardware to be added without problem. Long-term the price of Bitcoin has to rise or it will stagnate and die (the cause/effect is actually the other way round). 3. All the time people can sell unprofitable bonds/shares to the public they'll continue buying hardware and selling shares in it. That it isn't rational for investors to buy their crap doesn't make it irrational for them to sell it - and it will continue even if mining is unprofitable before the issuers have taken their own (risk-free) cut. You've put your credibility on the line for a very small sum - I hope that works out well for you.

782

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 07, 2013, 04:02:35 PM

Sold 297 Swapped 0 Total 297 Price 0.049083 Total 14.577651 Less Fee 14.5484957 Man Fee 0.436454871 BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1191.387766 13100 LTC-ATF.B1 131.00000000 Coinlenders CD 201.09903051 Just-Dice Balance 104.17936680 TOTAL ASSETS 1,627.66616302 Outstanding MINING 34227 Outstanding SELLING 34227 Outstanding PURCHASE 568 Effective Units 34795 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 1,623.56530471 NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.04666088 Days Dividend Post Div 395.91 SELLING Dividend - NAV Post SELLING Div 1,623.56530471 NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.04666088 PURCHASE selling price 0.04899392 PURCHASE buy-back price 0.04572766

783

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc.

on: July 07, 2013, 11:43:38 AM

Quote from: EskimoBob on July 07, 2013, 11:34:30 AM Because of all the security drama, I proposed a bit more secure PIN system for bitfunder Here is the copy from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=251051.msg2673044#msg2673044 Can you generate PIN's that can be used only once? Question is, how to deliver the list of keys to your client so "they" (bad guys) do not have them Code: 1) 11975 2) 14975 3) 07277 4) 06680 5) 14321 6) 28753 7) 90415 8) 91468 9) 99442 10) 95016 ... None of the numbers can be reused. When I log in and start a transfer or any other operation, where coin/shares move, system ask for a PIN #?. Lets sat I have used 1-3 so it asks for PIN 4 and then for #5 etc. If I screw up and enter PIN #4 incorrectly, PIN #5 will be asked and so on. If you add a delay, that starts to grow after every wrong entry, brute force becomes pointless. Even better, lock the account down after 5 wrong PIN entries and send out an e-mail. Google Authenticator or Yubikey both do what you propose already - without you having to generate and remember a long list of PINs. Every time I do a trade or transfer on BTC-TC I have to touch my Yubikey to get it to generate a new 'PIN' which is longer than your 5-digit ones and can't be calculated or generated by anyone without the actual Yubikey. There's no need to invent a square wheel when round ones already exist.

784

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] LTC-ATF.B2 (Bond paying 0.05% per day interest)

on: July 06, 2013, 11:25:10 PM

Quote from: ThickAsThieves on July 06, 2013, 11:15:19 PM "sexurities". Typo of the day! Nice catch

785

Economy / Lending / Re: Wanted, 10 to 200 BTC loan at 1% per week, ~3 weeks (breakable)

on: July 06, 2013, 10:06:00 PM

Quote from: usagi on July 06, 2013, 09:41:14 PM Quote from: danieldaniel on July 06, 2013, 09:26:34 PM Quote from: usagi on July 06, 2013, 09:03:03 PM Quote from: nimda on July 06, 2013, 05:12:30 PM Wow... I never thought that there would be a scenario in which I feel more comfortable loaning without a loan reason. Well it's true there's never been a worse time to ask for a loan, 1% a week is small compared to the pirate-like returns you can get in certain vehicles these days (ASICMINER, etc). But if you've ever tried to pull money out and send it to Japan you know the price can change drastically in a matter of days. That is what I am trying to avoid. If I can get the BTC now, then I have the luxury of playing the exchange rate for 3 weeks until I buy BTC. It's kind of like leveraged trading; i'm leveraging the cost of 1% of the loan for the high likelyhood the price will move more than 1% over the next 3 weeks. I don't think you quite understand what you're doing... If you want to lock in the exchange rate, which is what you're describing, you take out a USD loan (or a USD denominated loan) and buy BTC. I don't get how getting a loan of BTC would lock in the exchange rate. it's been explained a couple times already If the price of BTC goes up, I simply pay off the loan with the loan itself plus 1%. I end up not losing very much since I don't pay transfer fees on the fiat. if the price of BTC goes down, I can buy more BTC which covers the 1%. But in both cases you're worse off than if you hadn't taken the loan at all (by the amount of interest you paid). Everyone except you can see that - maybe if you wrote it all down then compared it to a scenario where you didn't have the loan you'd finally get it. Only time the loan makes sense is if you're deliberately shorting BTC - so selling them (as opposed to the buying you claimed) in which case your own USD is irrelevant. Or, of course, you're just not being honest about the purpose of the loan - e.g. your plan is to deposit it into Just-Dice and earn more than 1% per week. As usual with you, noone else can tell whether you're being stupid or lying : just that it's definitely one of them.

786

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 06, 2013, 09:24:52 PM

LTC-ATF.B1 dividend received and converted back to BTC. 0.797266 BTC this week (less than last week as we sold off some of them).

787

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] LTC-ATF.B2 (Bond paying 0.05% per day interest)

on: July 06, 2013, 09:16:59 PM

I should add to the above that, at present, Just-Dice represents a statistically better investment than EITHER of Coinlenders/LTC-ATF.B2 - provided you have equal trust in dooglus to TF/myself and don't mind the risk of loss (you CAN lose capital with Just-Dice but the EV of it is still higher). DMS (which I run) invests in both Coinlenders AND Just-Dice - so I personally consider both fine risk-wise and accept both will be better options for some (maybe many) people. It's not my intention to claim this is the best investment around - that would be silly as LTC-ATF.B1 is definitely superior (if you can get it at face value) for one thing. I'm trying to pay the lowest I can whilst still selling as much as I want to (which isn't a lot) - if I'm wrong then I'll raise the rate until it sells. I make no bones about the fact I'm trying to get capital cheaply - I would be doing a disservice to investors in LTC-ATF were I to do otherwise.

788

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] LTC-ATF.B2 (Bond paying 0.05% per day interest)

on: July 06, 2013, 09:06:39 PM

Quote from: eltopo on July 06, 2013, 08:59:50 PM Are there any advantages over coinlenders (0.061% per day)? Transparency of backing assets - LTC-ATF publshes a weekly report detailing what backs the bonds. Details of specific securities held is NOT listed but the vast majority of assets (usually 85%+) are specifically detailed (cash holdings and shares which we also run pass-throughs to). So I don't just say I have enough assets, I also explain exactly what the majority of them are (and it's nearly all cash). Likely we also have a higher ratio of total assets to debt. But if you're absolutely certain TF has enough assets to back Coinlenders in all likely circumstances then it DOES offer a better rate of return at present. Which is the other point - Coinlenders' rate may change in the future : likely downwards if he gets enough users for input.io (where he can use deposited cash without having to pay interest). Right now if you believe Coinlenders and LTC-ATF have equal risk and equal backing capital per borrowed BTC then Coinlenders IS the better option for you.

789

Economy / Securities / Re: [Cross post] BitFunder.com has been hacked and IT IS BitFunder's fault

on: July 06, 2013, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: Ukyo on July 06, 2013, 08:48:21 PM Once the desktop is hacked there are limitations to what can be done. It is not hard to use a background trojan to intercept 2-factor keys either at setup times. This can effect any site. I actually deleted my post before you replied to it - as I didn't want to get into arguing details of the difference between referring to an active session and being made by an active session. On the quoted part, this is one reason I far prefer Yubikey to Google Authenticator. There's nothing a trojan can log that allows them to duplicate output from a Yubikey - and no way to force one that's plugged in to generate a code even with full desktop control. Other reason I prefer Yubikey is it's far faster just to touch it to generate a code than to take my smartphone out of standby (which needs a password as the memory is encrypted), lookup and then type a Google 2FA code. Downside of Yubikey is you can't use it on smartphones - so users have to turn it off if they plan to access the site via mobile.

790

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] LTC-ATF.B2 (Bond paying 0.05% per day interest)

on: July 06, 2013, 08:29:00 PM

Quote from: twentyseventy on July 06, 2013, 08:21:52 PM Glad to see this on BTC-TC. It will be nice to have another solid option for BTC-denominated investing besides Just-Dice and AM. It will be interesting to see how the 'daily interest payment' nature of this security will affect the price of PMBs (this is obviously a true bond, not a Perpetual Mining Bond). Doubt it'll have much impact on PMBs as: 1. There won't be much of it for sale - LTC-ATF doesn't increase BTC-denominated capital requirements that much (there's a few specific reasons why it's increasing right now). 2. It'll pay less per day than a PMB - which is about as far as most purchasers of PMBs look (or they wouldn't be buying them at the prices most sell for in the first place).

791

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] LTC-ATF.B2 (Bond paying 0.05% per day interest)

on: July 06, 2013, 08:07:45 PM

At present the bond is awaiting moderator approval - which usually takes a few days.

792

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 06, 2013, 08:02:59 PM

Quote from: Rannasha on July 06, 2013, 07:47:59 PM bitcoin.sipa.be hasn't been updating recently. I keep http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/ open; it has various stats including the expected next difficulty (the calculation algorithm estimates too low early in the round though and the estimate moves closer to the final value as the readjustment approaches) and network hashrate. Unfortunately bitcoincharts takes its graph from sipa.be - so is also out of date on that. And yeah, bitcoincharts seems to work on a rolling average - so early on in a period it's still mainly using data from the previous difficulty so tends to underestimate change (in an environment of increasing difficulty).

793

Economy / Securities / [BTC-TC] LTC-ATF.B2 (Bond paying 0.05% per day interest)

on: July 06, 2013, 07:58:59 PM

INTRODUCTION LTC-ATF.B2 is the second bond issued by the fund I manage (LTC-ATF). The first bond (you'd never guess it was LTC-ATF.B1) has been on offer since last year on LTC-Global and pays a higher rate of interest than this one. Once this is launched it is intended that no further LTC-ATF.B1 will be sold (none have been placed for a while already). This one is being issued for two reasons: 1. To reduce the cost of capital. Whilst LTC-ATF could comfortably continue paying the rate we do on LTC-ATF.B1 there is no reason for us to do so if we can raise capital at a lower rate. 2. To make maintenance easier. With this bond being transacted in BTC rather than LTC we are able to leave bids and asks up unattended without having to worry about exchange-rate movements making the prices wrong. Capital raised from these bonds is used to enable LTC-ATF to trade BTC-denominated securities whilst maintaining minimal BTC exposure (by balancing the majority of BTC-denominated assets against BTC-denominated liabilities). OVERVIEW OF TERMS Each bond has a face value of 0.01 BTC. Bonds will be sold at face value (or into such higher bids as exist). A daily dividend will be paid of 0.05% of face value - so .35% per week, about 18.2% per year (assuming no compounding). Bonds are backed by all assets of LTC-ATF (though LTC-ATF.B1 has a senior claim on them). The bond has no fixed expiry date but a bid-wall will be maintained at 99% of face value to provide liquidity even if there are no bids from others. The bond IS callable - at 105% of face value. That option is only intended to be used if circumstances change such that the bonds can no longer be maintained - it will NOT, for example, be used to try to sell cheaper bonds in the future (hence LTC-ATF.B1 not being recalled now). If LTC-ATF closes down then bonds will be paid out at 100% of face value - an exception to the general terms for calling the bond. BACKING LTC-ATF is contractually obliged to ensure the following : That it holds more BTC-denominated assets than it has BTC-denominated liabilities. That it holds total assets (excluding securities held on behalf of pass-throughs) with a value of at least 166.666% of all liabilities. That is to say that liabilities may not exceed 150% of net assets. In practice I aim to keep liabilities below100% of net assets (right now they're at 41.81%). LTC-ATF predominantly trades/speculates rather than invests and so maintains very high liquidity compared to investment funds. Typically 85-90% of all assets are cash (BTC or LTC) - at this instant 91.46% of assets are in cash. Although we are heavy in cash that does mean the capital is inactive - most is backing Bids of securities or currency orders (to maintain our target currency ratios even when exchange-rate moves whilst I'm afk) with the remainder providing cover against short-term liquidity needs. As of this instant LC-ATF's situation is (all numbers approximate): Gross Assets : 849 BTC Liabilities : 251.5 BTC (LTC-ATF.B1 - 250 capital plus 1.5 dividend due for payment shortly) Net Assets : 598 BTC Cash position (mixed BTC/LTC - just under half of it BTC) : 776 BTC Our position is VERY sound financially. RISK This is addressed in more detail in the contract. But briefly: LTC-ATF bears all exchange-rate risk - this is mitigated to near zero (for bonds) by holding BTC-denominated assets exceeding BTC-denominated liabilities. LTC-ATF bears all trading-related risk - this is mitigated as far as possible by spreading trading widely, avoiding multiple exposure to the same CP and not holding positions for long. It would take massive - and rapid - losses for any trading loss to impact bonds. Trading Platform Risk - this cannot be mitigated : we cannot avoid CP risk in respect of trading platforms (exchanges) that we use. This risk IS shared with bond-holders (who accept such risk when they first deposit to exchanges) but if losses arise from this then they are then recouped from future LTC-ATF profits (but only after LTC-ATF.B1 has been fully repaired). QUANTITY TO BE ISSUED Initially 5000 bonds will be sold (50 BTC worth at face value) with there likely to be another similar quantity released later in the week. There MAY be more released shortly after that - depending on certain other developments. In general these will be issued whenever LTC-ATF needs (and can afford without risk of having to sell more units) more capital and/or when we manage to buy back LTC-ATF.B1 (reducing cost of existing debt). RELEVANT LINKS Listing for this bond : https://btct.co/security/LTC-ATF.B2 The below links provide further information on LTC-ATF. The listing for the fund at https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/LTC-ATF The LitecoinTalk thread for the fund at http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,657.0.html The Bitcoin forums thread for the fund at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112876.0 If viewing LTC-ATF on the market please be aware that there was a 100:1 split on it executed today - it has NOT suffered some massive losses.

794

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 06, 2013, 06:54:58 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on July 06, 2013, 06:50:04 PM Quote from: Lohoris on July 06, 2013, 06:20:18 PM Quote from: odolvlobo on July 06, 2013, 04:47:11 PM I don't agree with the valuation based on dividends because the value of SELLING would be the same even if it paid no dividends. If SELLING paid no dividends at all, what would be the point of buying it? If SELLING paid no dividends, then there would be a point at which SELLING would vote to close the fund and receive a distribution of the remaining assets. The point of buying it depends on whether or not that distribution would be more than the investment. I did consider doing it that way (so no payments at all for SELLING until the end). I decided against it for a few reasons: 1. It increases the amount of capital exposed to me with no benefit in return. That's actually harmful for ME - as some of whatever limit of capital people will trust me with is being used up to generate no income. 2. Whilst it may appear to give more cover to MINING in practice it doesn't (SELLING would vote to close before any such extra cover actually came into play). 3. It unduly pushes SELLING towards closure when they'd prefer not to - were it not for the unused capital diluting their effective returns. 4. It's wasteful - all of the above combine to mean its capital tied up for no benefit to anyone and direct harm (cost) to myself and SELLING holders. But yeah - in theory DMS could run exactly the same without ever paying a dividend to SELLING until closure.

795

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 06, 2013, 06:41:11 PM

Quote from: Lohoris on July 06, 2013, 06:20:18 PM Quote from: odolvlobo on July 06, 2013, 04:47:11 PM I don't agree with the valuation based on dividends because the value of SELLING would be the same even if it paid no dividends. If SELLING paid no dividends at all, what would be the point of buying it? Quote from: Deprived on July 06, 2013, 04:57:43 PM It has to be remembered that if/when difficulty levels off the fund will likely end with a final distibution in which MINING will receive at LEAST 90% of remaining capital This bit always confuses me. If MINING would get the bulk of the liquidation, why would SELLING vote for closing the fund? Unless you imply difficulty would have skyrocketed so much that 365 days of dividends would be a negligible part of the capital, and in that case SELLING would still get most of it... The scenario I discuss is one where difficulty stops rising or rises slower than dividends are paid out to MINING. In that circumstance the number of days cover after each difficulty rise would be LESS than after the previous difficulty change - meaning no dividends ever again for SELLING. In that situation SELLING has to (rationally) vote for closure before the number of days (of dividend payment) cover reduces below 365 and they receive absolutely nothing. As capital can never exceed 410 days cover (or it would have been dividended out) the maximum SELLING can receive on closure is 45 days of MINING dividends (with MINING receiving 365). That would mean SELLING received just under 11% of remaining capital - hence my reference to MINING receiving at least 90% (as in practice it's unlikely that a maximum payment for SELLING would occur). Under current conditions that seems highly unlikely - but if/when ASIC adoption nears saturation we could easily go back to sub-3% growth where it becomes a reality. In practice I'd expect such a change to be gradual - and evident from a gradual increase in MINING's value (as a percentage of PURCHASE). Short version is that if you look at what happens on closure you'll see that MINING always gets most (or all) of what's left. Unless you believe the fund will run forever that means at some point MINING will receive most (or all) of what's left. If you believe that end point is in the short/mid term then it should have a significant impact on how you value the securities. If you believe it won't arise until difficukty is order(s) of magnitude larger then you can discount it for practical purposes as the residual capital (per share) by then will be trivial compared to current value.

796

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 06, 2013, 04:57:43 PM

Valuation based on dividends is an interesting concept - and my personal calculation of value DOES take it into account (as one of 3 seperate calculations of value I use). Dividends are, however, only part of the story. Valuation based on dividends WOULD be accurate were the following assumptions ALL correct : Income from investments/sales of PURCHASE will remain the same (as a percentage of current capital). The fund will run forever. Future difficulty rises will remain the same as the average of past ones (since the fund started). If those were all true then the fund could be considered as gradually returning all capital in a ratio able to be calculated from past dividends. In practice it's likely NONE of those assumptions are correct. It has to be remembered that if/when difficulty levels off the fund will likely end with a final distibution in which MINING will receive at LEAST 90% of remaining capital (it's essentially impossible for it to be less than that - due to only holding at most 410 days' dividend and MINING received the lower of 365 days' dividends or the whole balance). IF you believe that point is likely to be far enough in the future that the vast majority of capital would already have been returned then valuing on dividends DOES work reasonably well NOW (but will cease to do so if/when the rate of difficulty increase slows down). I have my own views on what's likely to happen in terms of difficulty - the assumptions you (anyone trying to value PMBs) make in terms of future difficulty are by far the main factor deciding the valuation you reach. Obviously different people have different views - or we'd have no trade occurring (just walls of bids/asks seperated by the minimum return people wanted to accept) other than where people needed to cash out urgently.

797

Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)

on: July 06, 2013, 04:02:57 PM

Sold 635 Swapped 0 Total 635 Price 0.049181 Total 31.229935 Less Fee 31.16747513 Man Fee 0.935024254 BTC Balance (BTC-TC) 1180.544338 13100 LTC-ATF.B1 131.00000000 Coinlenders CD 200.97626972 Just-Dice Balance 104.18817092 TOTAL ASSETS 1,616.70877890 Outstanding MINING 33860 Outstanding SELLING 33860 Outstanding PURCHASE 638 Effective Units 34498 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 1,612.64292433 NAV/U Post MINING Div 0.04674598 Days Dividend Post Div 396.63 SELLING Dividend - NAV Post SELLING Div 1,612.64292433 NAV/U Post Selling Div 0.04674598 PURCHASE selling price 0.04908328 PURCHASE buy-back price 0.04581106

798

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors

on: July 06, 2013, 02:42:41 PM

Quote from: usagi on June 08, 2013, 01:18:47 PM The Truth Thread In a way I am sorry I have to do this. I really would prefer to ignore trolls. But look what happened when I ignored Deprived and friends in 2012 -- he and trolls just like him -- Ian Bakewell, BitcoinOZ and EskimoBob, among others -- caused enough damage that mods started harassing me and I could not get listed in BTC-TC for the first six months of 2013. Now the truth is out, Ian Bakewell is tagged a scammer, BitcoinOZ is known to have stolen NYAN's shares and abandoned his asset on BTC-TC, and EskimoBob's security immediately crashed 99.5% of it's value, these people still continue to bother me. Deprived in particular does not know when to stop. After reading this you may wonder whether or not Deprived is mentally insane. Why does he bother me so much? It could be because I have discovered many discrepancies in the books for LTC-ATF (for example, see see here). Perhaps it is because I market make his security LTC-ATF.B1 and prevent him from selling shares at far above their book value as I have shown he has done in the past. But whatever the reason, I have had to suffer his malicious criminal libel for about an entire year now. There's really not much I can do except expose him as a liar. Hence this one, simple post. To keep it simple this post will contain accusations issued by Deprived since June of this year when I relaunched BMF, and will mainly contain accusations regarding BMF. ===== 1. Deprived claims that a list of assets stated to belong to BMF actually belongs to TU.SILVER "Are you saying that those assets belong to BMF? Or are those assets that belong to various of your assets (including TU.SILVER)?" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2385638#msg2385638 Response: There is no logical reason for him to come to the conclusion, or even have the idea that the assets belong to TU.SILVER. Despite a rebuke in a following post, he goes on to harp on this several times as if I hadn't said anything. 2. Deprived claims I am refusing to provide information necessary to calculate any value for BMF. "So you're asking for approval for an asset that has SOME assets but which refuses to provide information necessary to calculate any value for it." (ibid) Response: Given that I had posted a list of assets, it is illogical for him to assume I am refusing to provide information necessary to calculate value for BMF. 3. He claims I am mixing personal funds with those of my companies. "Usagi doesn't properly segregate assets belonging to different companies." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2386676#msg2386676 Response: DeaDTerra and cusdog (and notably, pigeons, and notably twice, deprived(!!!)) have seen the TU.SILVER spreadsheets and it is exceedingly obvious that I keep meticulous records for TU.SILVER. Second, now that BMF is trading again it has been moved to a separate BTC-TC account. 4. He berates me because NYAN owns shares of BMF: "It's doubly stupid when you consider that some of the other assets actually own shares in BMF" (ibid) Response: I don't see a problem with this. In fact, DMS (Deprived's new issue) owns shares of LTC-ATF.B1. Looks fine to me. 5. Deprived claims I previously manipulated investors of my companies (and therefore I will do it again). "...he did it before - manipulating share price up so as to justify (off-market) sales of his own shares by his own companies (in the process reducing the real value for all other investors AND destroying a contractual obligation..." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2405911#msg2405911 "BMF had already been screwed to try to help CPA" (etc.) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2407113#msg2407113 Response: The claims that I was manipulating share prices have been conclusively proven false by an investigation performed by BCB. Deprived agreed to give ALL evidence he had to BCB. After an extensive review which included me giving Theymos permission for BCB to undelete as many of my posts as he wanted, BCB and I had a chat on IRC where BCB stated in so many words that I am not a scammer, and that Deprived was likely part of an organized campaign to defame me. He then dropped the case after withdrawing that charge. In short anything Deprived says about how I misled, misrepresented, scammed, etc. anyone from when I was on GLBSE is a blatant lie. (That is also why I am mainly sticking to things he has said just this June, but he did say the above on June 7th. So be it.) 6. Deprived claims I am avoiding paying out on NYAN.A with the assets I have on hand. "The BitVPS belong to Nyan not BMF. If he's saying all BMF has left is cash then there's absolutely no reason why he couldn't liquidate - or at least buy back the shares held by Nyan/CPA with their portion of that cash. To NOT do so is unnecessarily adding delay to paying Nyan off. He's just stated BMF has no assets of significance left - so the only thing stopping him paying out Nyan is his own attempt to use the threat of delayed/non-payment as a crude tool to try to bludgeon moderators into voting yes." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2406732#msg2406732 Response: The problem is I only have $10,000 but I have promised to bail out the investors for $100,000. Now, besides the fact that I am a really nice guy for saying I was going to do that, and Deprived is being a jerk for chastising me over not paying it immediately, the simple fact is that running my companies again and making money with them (which is why people run companies) is the cornerstone of the plan I have to pay back investors in NYAN and CPA. I am NOT "un-neccessarily adding delay to paying NYAN off". I am being extremely careful and wise with the resources I have left. If you notice, I have successfully gone after Brendio and gotten our BIB.BVPS shares back (Brendio was cordial). Next we went after Ian Bakewell and I can't talk about the proceedings but I am in fact involved. I started the thread for it too, go check. I obviously can't discuss who we are going after next or what information I have. But to state that I am avoiding paying people back is ludicrous. CPA just settled a 1100+ pirate contract and I am in active negotiations with several shareholders of NYAN and other companies. It is what it is, but it is not me avoiding paying any debts. I already sold $3,000 of my own personal gold and silver, my gibson guitar, etc. to help pay people off. To state I am avoiding paying people is really dumb. Sorry for saying that but Deprived really makes me mad with his lies. 7. He claims I abandoned NYAN/NYAN didn't do it's job/I essentially stole from Nyan/etc. "Nyan sold its holdings of Nyan.A/B/C in off the market transactions then gave the cash back to CPA in return for cancellation of the shares in it. In one fell swoop usagi totally removed a protection that Nyan.A and Nyan.B were contractually entitled to - to try to bail out CPA." "Removing those assets - that were contractually supposed to protect Nyan.A/B - is little short of outright theft." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.0 Response: Wat? NYAN still owns about 160 shares of BMF and 80 shares of NYAN.A (and NYAN.A is basically made up of 2000+ BMF shares and 30,000 BITVPS shares plus associated debts). So NYAN is another great example of why BMF needs to be unwound first. NYAN didn't sell anything, I don't know why Deprived is saying that. I didn't steal anything, don't know why he is lying about that either. Deprived is also clueless as to the relationship of NYAN and CPA. Contractually CPA insured NYAN, not the other way around. NYAN has gone nowhere since the crash. It's still there. It will be unwound along with NYAN.A and everything else once I get BMF back on it's feet. I have no clue why Deprived is babbling about NYAN. 8. He claims I am attempting to facilitate insider trading by charging people for access to BMF's books. "Quote from: usagi on June 08, 2013, 01:18:10 PM 5. We publish our spreadsheets. You must request access, and you may not publish or distribute the information to any other party. This has two problems: 1. It directly faciliates insider-trading. There will be a privileged (to the extent anyone sending BTC to usagi can be considered privileged) class of investors able to see accurate information on the state of the fund - and use it to trade with an advantage on the market. 2, It creates an asymmetry of information. If someone selling shares has access to the financical information then anyone without such information who wants to buy is forced into acting based on a much lower level of information/knowledge. That means that they are forced to compete on the market and enter into trades at an unfair disadvantage." Response: Deprived misread point 5, as I am not charging anyone. He then attempted to state what he "really meant" "he believes I'm accusing him of charging people to see his books. I'm not." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2416619#msg2416619 I had to point to him several times that point 5 is not limited to shareholders. But beyond this, no, it does not create two classes of investors, facilitate insider trading, or any else of his ridiculous claims. In fact, Deprived is on record stating that significant shareholders of LTC-ATF can ask to see it's books (although this may have been a lie; as a 12% shareholder he refused to show me his books). And what's even more unbelievable is that he states in this message: "The contract listed in BMF is not the one currently active - NOR is it the one he intends to have. He has posted asking for advice on what should be in the contract - i.e. he wants approval before he's even ready to determine what the contract is. So you're being asked to approve something that isn't even defined." Yet in the post above this one he quotes the new contract for BMF which is listed on BTC-TC (html and all!) Is that nuts or wat? 9. Deprived claims I lied about providing liquidity to TU.SILVER/My advice to Tu.SILVER investors is to guess what the price is "His advice to investors, BTW, is just to guess what the price is - put up an order and if he likes it he'll fill it. ... he long since gave up the pretence that he was going to provide visible liquidity..." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2563958#msg2563958 Response: This is extremely disingenuous given my advice to investors in the TU.SILVER reports, archived here. It is clear that Deprived cannot read, because according to these reports not only do we publish (mostly) IFSA-compliant financial reports and give management guidance, we also advise investors to do due dilligence when investing in TU.SILVER and explain several possible scenarios. Just for example? Page 4 here. Just for example. That's from February, too. Is Deprived insane, or just trolling? I do not know. I know this. He states this about his own security DMS: "1. Work out a range within which they believe the correct valuation for each lies. That means taking best and worse-scenarios... 2. You then need to consider what alternative investments exist that offer returns you can rely on... 3. You can then work out the zones above and below which investment makes sense. ..." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228327.msg2547675#msg2547675 This does not sound different at all from why I have said. I do not like hypocrites like Deprived. Regarding liquidity, this and this (a quote from deprived!!!") "The reason for ANY change in the price of MINING/SELLING (other than a reduction because of a dividend being paid) is that the market (i.e. everyone investing collectively) has decided that the previous price was wrong." And this: Quote from: Deprived on June 06, 2013, 02:00:48 AM LTC-ATF is undoubtedly the better investment if you can buy it at a reasonable price - and therein lies your problem : noone wants to sell LTC-ATF at a reasonable price. So we see Deprived understands market forces and liquidity very well, why is he attacking me over the same issues LTC-ATF, his own fund, is experiencing? There is no difference between TU.SILVER, DMS, BMF and LTC-ATF here. No asset issuer can control what people set their bids and asks for. All we can do as issuers is our best. TU.SILVER is a great example. We have over 20 people holding over 1100 outstanding shares and none of them wants to place an ask less than 2x NAV. That is not my fault. That is a sign that I am doing an exceedingly good job. Why is Deprived attacking me over that point when he has the same problem himself with LTC-ATF? Is he stupid? Nevermind the repeated number of times I have published in the TU.SILVER reports that people with large sale orders should contact me so I can fortify the bid. Mind that Deprived understands that you can't force people to pay a low or high price, and spouts this fact to anyone who will listen (such as this poor sap) when it suits him, yet, he will turn around and use the anti-logic to condemn me for manipulating the price of my securities. I will say it again: I do not like hypocrites. 10. He claims I'm stealing from my companies "Buy-backs (likely undisclosed) to drain cash (if you ever get any) to your other companies/yourself." (etc.) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2574325#msg2574325 It's a little ridiculous for Deprived to misread "..personal account..me..I.." as myself using company funds to buy back units at an inflated price, but what's really unbelievable is that doing so will somehow transfer(drain) money to myself. So let me get this straight. Using my personal funds to buy shares in TU.SILVER from people at above market prices, is somehow transferring company funds to myself. This guy is a lunatic. 11. He claims I attempt to mislead investors by stating BMF is the top performing mining stock. "Historically he's always claimed that BMF outperformed ALL mining stocks." "He still continues to compare BMF to just about anyhting other than other funds. At present he's trying to compare it to PMBs, bonds etc - but not a single fund. Where are the meaningful comparisons - to things like BTCInvest or LTC-ATF?" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226650.msg2583755#msg2583755 The problem is, I didn't say stock, I said fund. See the FAQ. No, BMF was not the best share issue of all time, that is ridiculous and it is not what I said. Deprived knows this and is misquoting me to make me look bad. Read the FAQ (and the original quote in the OP) for yourself. Furthermore, regarding mining bonds, which is the historical comparison I make, it is very clear that BMF performed better than the PMBs from GLBSE and that it has performed better than them both recently and on a long term basis. GIGAMINING and YABMC being the classic examples. When Deprived posted this, he was fully aware of this chart, which he had deleted it from his moderated thread. He then made the above post. Unbelievable. 12. He claims it is difficult or impossible to determine how many outstanding shares exist for BMF. Quote from: Deprived on July 06, 2013, 11:16:37 AM It's now next to impossible to work out how many hsares of BMF are outstanding...the issuing account holds assets of Nyan/CPA as well as those of BMF...Usagi placed shares up for sale (and sold some) but it's impossible to tell whether they were new shares sold or ones that previously belonged to Nyan/CPA...I'll be making a request for trading to be halted if the outstanding shares issue isn't sorted - it's just not acceptable for something to run where there's no visibility of how many shares are outstanding. The issue of how many shares are outstanding is an exceedingly simple one. The total number of shares is listed on our public disclosure page. This information is contained in our FAQ, so it is inexcusable for Deprived to pretend there is any issue whatsoever regarding the number of outstanding shares. He makes a number of other claims in this post, such as "the issuing account holds assets of Nyan/CPA as well as those of BMF". This is a favorite tactic of Deprived, yet we know he is lying because he is aware the final claims thread (and similar threads). For example, he is aware of the disclosure of assets via his participation in the NYAN liquidation auction. He has also been made fully aware that the assets of BMF have been moved to the usagiBMF account while the assets of NYAN/etc. are in a different account. So this is not merely a mistake -- he is deliberately lying in order to defame me. He's right on one thing though -- I placed shares up for sale, and sold some, and that it is impossible to tell whether they were new shares or sold ones that previously pelonged to Nyan/CPA. Let us all take a moment to thank Deprived, aka Dr. Obvious. Of course you don't know who is putting shares up for sale or who they belong to. Only I know that information because only I have access to the list of investors (and burnside I suppose). You can probably glean from the total number of outstanding shares listed whether or not the company has sold any (and it has, maybe 860 shares, not sure) -- but beyond that this information is confidential or I suppose BTC-TC would e-mail a list of shareholders to every investor. Unfortunately for Deprived this simply isn't an issue. Don't you wish he would just go away and stop making a fool of himself? Request to halt trading on BMF? Don't make me laugh, after the last 12 lies he told about me and BMF, he has less than zero credibility, it's actually gone negative. Quoting the lot so we can see what gets changed/deleted/back-pedalled on.

799

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors

on: July 06, 2013, 02:39:01 PM

Quote from: EskimoBob on July 06, 2013, 02:31:18 PM Quote from: usagi on July 06, 2013, 10:49:52 AM Quote from: EskimoBob on July 06, 2013, 10:42:37 AM Any news? All the NYAN's and CPA are still locked. If you're looking for news, check out the official thread. Deprived deletes everything I post here, so there's no point talking about it in this thread. And the official thread for NYAN's and CPA is which one? URL please. Thank you You need to read his TRUTH post. The situation with nyan.a would appear to be that because he can't pay back it all he's not bothering to pay back any. He even says he intends to continue running it despite: The CPA guarantee not existing any more in any useful form. Most of Nyan's assets having been sold. Nyan.b and c being entitled to profit from it - whilst offering no security in return. Basically he's desperate to avoid paying out - knowing full well that if he does most won't reinvest - so you're shit out of luck on getting your cash back. Not just the promised full repayment but the cash he already has of yours from dividends/sales. That's if he still actually has it of course.

800

Economy / Securities / Re: Attention BMF/NYAN/TU.SILVER investors

on: July 06, 2013, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: usagi on July 06, 2013, 01:59:16 PM Quote from: Deprived on July 06, 2013, 11:16:37 AM I'll be making a request for trading to be halted if the outstanding shares issue isn't sorted - it's just not acceptable for something to run where there's no visibility of how many shares are outstanding. Please see Lie #12 in the BMF Truth Thread. Does that answer all your lies, or are there any other lies you would like to tell about me? Will address this one briefly. Will get to rest when I have time (from a quick reading on ne arly all of them you're arguing against strawmen rather than against what I actually said). Quote from: usagi on June 08, 2013, 01:18:47 PM He's right on one thing though -- I placed shares up for sale, and sold some, and that it is impossible to tell whether they were new shares or sold ones that previously pelonged to Nyan/CPA. Let us all take a moment to thank Deprived, aka Dr. Obvious. Of course you don't know who is putting shares up for sale or who they belong to. Only I know that information because only I have access to the list of investors (and burnside I suppose). You can probably glean from the total number of outstanding shares listed whether or not the company has sold any (and it has, maybe 860 shares, not sure) -- but beyond that this information is confidential or I suppose BTC-TC would e-mail a list of shareholders to every investor. Unfortunately for Deprived this simply isn't an issue. Don't you wish he would just go away and stop making a fool of himself? Request to halt trading on BMF? Don't make me laugh, after the last 12 lies he told about me and BMF, he has less than zero credibility, it's actually gone negative. It has nothing to do with which which investors hold what shares - but with how many shares are sold in total. If the fund itself sells a share then outstanding shares should rise by 1. If nyan.a/CPA/whatever sells a share then outstanding shares shouldn't change - as the same number of shares is in circulation. The whole response is a total attack on a strawman as at no stage did I suggest the identity of the seller (or purchaser) or shares that were already outstanding should be disclosed. Just that investors (current or potential) should be able to tell when a sale was by the fund itself rather than by a current investor - something every other asset on BTC-TC does. For those who don't want to wait for my reponse just look carefully at what usagi quotes me as saying - then at what he argues against. And you'll find in most cases that he's arguing aginst something other than what I actually posted.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 ... 130 »