At some point its going to become so competitive that Labcoin will not maintain 10% of the network and that will probably happen within 3 years.
To be honest, I think it's highly optimistic that they will ever at any point in time have 10% of the network. I'd like them to surprise me in that regard, but I'm also totally happy if they just get 5%. Just for comparison... ASICMINER is at about 8% now. Asicminer was at almost 20% at one point. You're right it is highly optimistic but not impossible. They could secure 10% of the network with a bond offering and if whenever they fall below 10% we buy the bond to give them a loan so they can push it up. This feedback mechanism would not require voting rights and would allow the community to push the hashrate up to maintain 10% or higher. The loaned money would simply be used to buy more chips until they do have 10%. They could use the reinvestment mechanism, that probably will work for the next few years and they might get 10% of the network just on that if sales are good. Asicminer didn't keep above 10% of the network because they don't want to, they have 1000TH in reserve. If Labcoin can build up a similar reserve then they'll have some level of security. It's not about cash though, it's about chips. |
|
|
|
You have a point, but I think you're overlooking that growth is not only determined by how much money you can throw at it. LC has way more money than they need right now, they have said so multiple times. The chips currently on its way were already payed before all of us even knew LC existed, and the IPO money goes to development of the next generation (65nm) ASIC.
For right now they have plenty of money which means they can sell their chips for cheaper if necessary and that is all good. It also means they can produce more chips if difficulty goes up and that is also good. Right now they are on target and there are no complaints about that right now but 2014 is a new year with new competition and much higher difficulty. When they use 30% of their mining income to fund further growth, I believe it will be enough by far. For a couple years maybe. It wont be enough for as long as people think. They wont be able to make more efficient chips after physical limits are reached and nothing stops a big player from deciding a few years from now to get in on ASICs. If that happens everything can change overnight. What if a video game company like Nintendo decided to release a successor to the Wii which mines Bitcoins and lets the user download free games? What if Sony gets in on it? There are a lot of chip companies with a lot of money who could decide to mine Bitcoins. If we pool our resources together to give them, say, another million dollars, that won't necessarily speed up anything. These things not only take money, they take time and skill. I'm not talking about speeding anything up. I'm talking about security in knowing that Labcoin will survive the next 5-6 years. Right now I can only see it maintaining its position for 2-3 years and that is if everything this year goes how they plan. The speed can be increased by increasing infrasctructure, hiring more personel etc., but still only at a limited rate. I was not talking about that. I'm talking about cheaper chips, not just smaller. If they calculate that the income from 30% of the mining&hardware sales is enough to sustain their growth, then that's fine. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be.
Speculating that Intel and AMD might jump into this and kill all the current ASIC companies in bitcoin is really a bit far-fetched IMHO.
It's far fetched in 2013, it's not far fetched in 2016. ASICs were far fetched in 2012 back when everyone was GPU mining. Intel, AMD or anyone could flood the market with chips and hashrate. Any chip company can make an ASIC and lower the price down to a level so everyone has to buy theirs. I don't think that will happen for the next 3 years but after that it's anyones guess. |
|
|
|
Using 30% of initial income to accelerate sale, development, production and mining capability is a growth strategy and what sets Labcoin apart from a set-hash rate mining bond. If you want to make a comparison you can compare the business model of asicminer and a set-hash rate bond without reinvestment strategy.
The long term plan and intention is to use the reinvestment fund to over time increase dividend payments (profits) to surpass what shareholders would earn if 100% dividends would be paid out from day-1 as the team of course believes that Labcoin can invest at far greater profit in development, production, sales and mining power then individual investors.
Why only 30%? I'm sure that people would be worried if you didn't pay out anything, they'd think it might be a big scam or something - but you can also prove your hashrate. What I'd like to see is is the opportunity for people to have their dividends reinvested directly into the company if they want: Dividends payed in new stock rather then BTC. That way, you'd be able to have more money to spend on growth, and more quickly increase your hashrate and thus the profits. The 30% achieves the same thing as reinvesting dividends. The people who usually reinvest dividends are companies that pay a very small portion not 70% that's just crazy lol. You can't also get paid in new stock that would dilute shareholders. Secondly, there's not enough shares and volume to allow everyone to reinvest safely as prices will go up from all the buys, and as mentioned before the company can't make new shares as it will dilute ownership. Imagine you own stock in a company that has $1000 and does nothing with it. There are 1,000 shares and they are each worth $1. Then, the company issues 500 new shares and charges one dollar a share. They do nothing with the money. Now the company is worth $1500, there are 1500 shares, and each share is now still worth $1. If the company gave shareholders the option of taking dividends in new stock, the value of the stock wouldn't change - the company would increase by however much they didn't pay out in dividends. However, if that money was re-invested in more hashpower the value of the company would increase at a faster rate, and the % of the company owned by the shareholder would increase as well. The problem is, if the hashpower of the company doesn't keep up with difficulty growth, then the value of the company actually goes down, because their revenues decrease.
Allowing share-holders to reinvest 'as they see fit' by issuing bonds or more shares just seems like a more complicated way of achieving the same thing - continuous growth. Labcoin feels that 70% direct dividend is more than a fair share of earnings while allowing for long term development and a 'treasury' to enable the project to maximize earnings over time. To be crass: If an investor feels like they could invest an extra 30% better themselves then Labcoin can being able to buy/develop/sell and mine at wholesale rates maybe investing in the project is not the right choice. To me at least, its not all about short term profit, but also about long term viability and trust. Something that I believe Labcoin will prove over time. I personally think this goes for any investment that is not simply an interest bearing bond or finite mining operation delivering a set hash rate. Again, this is to a large part personal opinion and I do not mean to insult anyone or step on any toes. Here is a long term problem though, at some point we will reach the physical limits of ASIC chip technology. When those limits are reached then the only way to maintain a 10% of the network hashrate and outpace the continuous difficulty increase will be to make massive amounts of chips. A company with a lot more money will be able to make a lot more chips, so that would mean Nvidia, AMD or Intel could come in at the last minute and start mining themselves and because they have billions to spend on chips they could easily do a 51% attack by having the money to spend on it. Right now we assume Bitcoin wont be big enough for them to spend that kind of money and that is correct. If Labcoin is to exist beyond the race to 20nm (because eventually there will not be any more efficiency left in chip design), then how will Labcoin compete with the company who can spend a few hundred million on chips? For this reason it is worth considering releasing a long term growth bond that people can buy into which gives Labcoin a loan for the long term future. This would guarantee that as long as there are enough people who support Labcoin within the community by buying the bond that Labcoin could maintain 10% of the network. It would remove the risks I outline above. Ciphermine is considering this approach. I wouldn't be surprised if Asicminer eventually does something similar. I see it as one of the few ways to leverage the advantages of being first. I don't think Labcoin will be able to rely on chip efficiency increases for longer than a few years and then the race will be to see who can make the most chips the fastest and sell the most chips for the chapest (and mine). Labcoin will have stiff competition in making and selling chips and the profit margins could shrink. Again, this can be accomplished simply by voting on suspending dividends, or lowering them, to raise the needed capital to continue to maintain 10% hashrate. Adding bonds, dividend reimbursement plans, or anything else just complicates the issue. No, why should you vote to lower dividends when you can keep paying dividends and use the bond? Do shares even have voting rights? Voting to cut dividends will make people go into Asicminer or whatever competition is willing to use the bond or complicated method. People aren't going to like losing dividends collectively but I think if some people want to invest their dividends into a loan via a bond then they can just buy the bond and as individuals make that choice. At some point its going to become so competitive that Labcoin will not maintain 10% of the network and that will probably happen within 3 years. How much more efficient can chips get? |
|
|
|
You may be giving Active Mining too little credit, there is the argument Labcoin is working with old technology that is already being phased out, and in a couple months obsolete... while ActM is at the very forefront and poised to be first company to the market with 28nm technology. We will see how it plays out, but there will be a time that Labcoin can fall into a deep disadvantage
That is why I am saying the race isn't to smaller and more efficient chips. The race is actually to mass produce as many chips as possible and for as cheap as possible. The more chips you have the more TH you can mine with. The more chips you have the more you can sell and if the chips are cheaper to produce you can profit more. The winner will be the company that can produce the most chips for cheapest price regardless of the efficiency of the chip. Eventually all the chips will meet the physical limits of efficiency anyway and then the only way to make money will be mass production of chips for the low cost. |
|
|
|
Using 30% of initial income to accelerate sale, development, production and mining capability is a growth strategy and what sets Labcoin apart from a set-hash rate mining bond. If you want to make a comparison you can compare the business model of asicminer and a set-hash rate bond without reinvestment strategy.
The long term plan and intention is to use the reinvestment fund to over time increase dividend payments (profits) to surpass what shareholders would earn if 100% dividends would be paid out from day-1 as the team of course believes that Labcoin can invest at far greater profit in development, production, sales and mining power then individual investors.
Why only 30%? I'm sure that people would be worried if you didn't pay out anything, they'd think it might be a big scam or something - but you can also prove your hashrate. What I'd like to see is is the opportunity for people to have their dividends reinvested directly into the company if they want: Dividends payed in new stock rather then BTC. That way, you'd be able to have more money to spend on growth, and more quickly increase your hashrate and thus the profits. The 30% achieves the same thing as reinvesting dividends. The people who usually reinvest dividends are companies that pay a very small portion not 70% that's just crazy lol. You can't also get paid in new stock that would dilute shareholders. Secondly, there's not enough shares and volume to allow everyone to reinvest safely as prices will go up from all the buys, and as mentioned before the company can't make new shares as it will dilute ownership. Imagine you own stock in a company that has $1000 and does nothing with it. There are 1,000 shares and they are each worth $1. Then, the company issues 500 new shares and charges one dollar a share. They do nothing with the money. Now the company is worth $1500, there are 1500 shares, and each share is now still worth $1. If the company gave shareholders the option of taking dividends in new stock, the value of the stock wouldn't change - the company would increase by however much they didn't pay out in dividends. However, if that money was re-invested in more hashpower the value of the company would increase at a faster rate, and the % of the company owned by the shareholder would increase as well. The problem is, if the hashpower of the company doesn't keep up with difficulty growth, then the value of the company actually goes down, because their revenues decrease.
Allowing share-holders to reinvest 'as they see fit' by issuing bonds or more shares just seems like a more complicated way of achieving the same thing - continuous growth. Labcoin feels that 70% direct dividend is more than a fair share of earnings while allowing for long term development and a 'treasury' to enable the project to maximize earnings over time. To be crass: If an investor feels like they could invest an extra 30% better themselves then Labcoin can being able to buy/develop/sell and mine at wholesale rates maybe investing in the project is not the right choice. To me at least, its not all about short term profit, but also about long term viability and trust. Something that I believe Labcoin will prove over time. I personally think this goes for any investment that is not simply an interest bearing bond or finite mining operation delivering a set hash rate. Again, this is to a large part personal opinion and I do not mean to insult anyone or step on any toes. Here is a long term problem though, at some point we will reach the physical limits of ASIC chip technology. When those limits are reached then the only way to maintain a 10% of the network hashrate and outpace the continuous difficulty increase will be to make massive amounts of chips. A company with a lot more money will be able to make a lot more chips, so that would mean Nvidia, AMD or Intel could come in at the last minute and start mining themselves and because they have billions to spend on chips they could easily do a 51% attack by having the money to spend on it. Right now we assume Bitcoin wont be big enough for them to spend that kind of money and that is correct. If Labcoin is to exist beyond the race to 20nm (because eventually there will not be any more efficiency left in chip design), then how will Labcoin compete with the company who can spend a few hundred million on chips? For this reason it is worth considering releasing a long term growth bond that people can buy into which gives Labcoin a loan for the long term future. This would guarantee that as long as there are enough people who support Labcoin within the community by buying the bond that Labcoin could maintain 10% of the network. It would remove the risks I outline above. Ciphermine is considering this approach. I wouldn't be surprised if Asicminer eventually does something similar. I see it as one of the few ways to leverage the advantages of being first. I don't think Labcoin will be able to rely on chip efficiency increases for longer than a few years and then the race will be to see who can make the most chips the fastest and sell the most chips for the chapest (and mine). Labcoin will have stiff competition in making and selling chips and the profit margins could shrink. |
|
|
|
Using 30% of initial income to accelerate sale, development, production and mining capability is a growth strategy and what sets Labcoin apart from a set-hash rate mining bond. If you want to make a comparison you can compare the business model of asicminer and a set-hash rate bond without reinvestment strategy.
The long term plan and intention is to use the reinvestment fund to over time increase dividend payments (profits) to surpass what shareholders would earn if 100% dividends would be paid out from day-1 as the team of course believes that Labcoin can invest at far greater profit in development, production, sales and mining power then individual investors.
Why only 30%? I'm sure that people would be worried if you didn't pay out anything, they'd think it might be a big scam or something - but you can also prove your hashrate. What I'd like to see is is the opportunity for people to have their dividends reinvested directly into the company if they want: Dividends payed in new stock rather then BTC. That way, you'd be able to have more money to spend on growth, and more quickly increase your hashrate and thus the profits. It would have to be in the form of a loan. The people who do this should get something back. The bond idea is being floated by Ciphermine. Kate from Ciphermine is talking about offering a growth bond. Nothing would stop Labcoin from offering a similar growth/reinvestment bond and it's not such a bad idea to offer it once the share price is high enough that the bond makes sense. The bond price would have to be a flat price, relatively cheap and guaranteed to be paid back, and then many people would invest at least something into it. New investors who miss out on the Labcoin IPO prices could buy the bond instead and it would have lower risk. |
|
|
|
Secret transactions don't benefit anybody. In a world where massive gangs have a monopoly on violence, "secret transactions" benefit everyone. Secrets only benefit the corrupt. Secret transactions don't benefit ordinary people people. What sort of organization thrives the most on secrecy? Governments. Organized crime. Terrorists. Governments sponsor terrorism. Terrorist organizations operate in secret. Corrupt people require secrets. Blackmail is based around secrets. So the answer to that is not to promote secrecy and anyone who is promoting secrecy is promoting corruption. |
|
|
|
Wow, a lot of people are very uptight about this issue. Elwar was speculating about the effect of a given event on price. It belongs in this section, it should not be locked/deleted, and YES good can come of this discussion. Stop being dipshits, guys. If the discussion scares you and gets your panties all up in a bunch, DON'T PARTICIPATE. Don't come in here and whine about it. "Oh noes Elwar is gonna give the terrorists some ideas..."
BACK ON TOPIC
Bitcoin is a fucking honey badger. Buying bombs with bitcoin and setting it off in public places will plaster it all over the news, sure, but price will certainly go up. Remember, increased scrutiny and increased regulation/intervention RAISES prices, not lowers them.
A lot of people are still convinced that this kind of thing would hurt bitcoin. Meanwhile, bitcoin is being battered left and right by banks, Paypal, regulators, etc and price is over 10 times what it was in December. How long is it going to be before people finally get it through their heads that no matter how many times they say "lol buttcon mass adoption will fail if it gets bad press and super regulated by gov't," the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening and has been happening for years.
I can guarantee there are terrorists and criminals already using guns, RPGs, etc purchased with bitcoin. Ever heard of the darknet? There are weapons sites shipping guns and other illegal weapons all over the world. Get your head out of the sand. It's internet cash, what did you THINK it was going to be used for? Refusing to talk about uncomfortable things doesn't make them just go away.
It hasn't been on the news too much yet because reporting on one specific instance of a "bitcoin funded terrorist attack" is, in TPTB's opinion, the "trump card" that they will only pull as a last resort. Problem is, it will have the opposite intended effect.
"If terrorists can buy bombs with bitcoin and not get caught, I can launder my millions of dollars offshore with bitcoin, and not get taxed!" -A bunch of rich people who have known about bitcoin for a while but keep hearing about it gaining legitimacy on the news - eventually they reach a breaking point and decide maybe it is worth using to get government off their backs or out of their bank accounts. Maybe not the super-rich so much but the wealthy are already interested.
So why not do something about this? Make it hard to finance terrorism with Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Someone wants to buy cheap shares......  I agree it's a bubble. Nothing has really happened to change anything and everyone is throwing their money in, that is a bubble. When we hear they received chips and the chips work then it will make sense. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry current BTC price they equate to $1.20/share without hardware sales, with hardware sales I guess $2-3/share dividends which seems like utter bullshit.
I guess you missed the part where it says "Dividend Per Share Per Year". That works out to 0.00019231 BTC per week. Why does that seem like utter bullshit? I guess you also missed the fact that those numbers are not official and are just one persons guess. Yes still works out to $1/Share per year, wtf are you even trying to argue? It seems like Utter bullshit because the rate of return is insanely high. For my 4K invested I will get $20K net profit, and that's without hardware sales, add hardware sales and double that to $2/share. That means I will make 10X my initial investment and rack in $40,000 this is all at 10% of course. You act like $1 per share per year is bad? You buy 100,000 shares and it becomes $100,000 in a year and you're saying it's a bad investment? I'm not saying it's bad, it's very good I'm saying will LabCoin hit these numbers, are these numbers reasonable or extremely exaggerated It's reasonable. If they meet their goals it's highly probable. In Bitcoin anything can happen, but you'll almost certainly get your profit. Share price will at least double your investment if not triple, and dividends will bring in profit for potentially years. Thank god a real answer, was that so hard. lol, I had to fight and banter for fuckin 20 posts to get a simple fucking answer. Don't take my post as a recommendation to buy. Do so at your own risk and be prepared to lose your $4000 but if you're willing to risk it then you can get richly rewarded. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry current BTC price they equate to $1.20/share without hardware sales, with hardware sales I guess $2-3/share dividends which seems like utter bullshit.
I guess you missed the part where it says "Dividend Per Share Per Year". That works out to 0.00019231 BTC per week. Why does that seem like utter bullshit? I guess you also missed the fact that those numbers are not official and are just one persons guess. Yes still works out to $1/Share per year, wtf are you even trying to argue? It seems like Utter bullshit because the rate of return is insanely high. For my 4K invested I will get $20K net profit, and that's without hardware sales, add hardware sales and double that to $2/share. That means I will make 10X my initial investment and rack in $40,000 this is all at 10% of course. You act like $1 per share per year is bad? You buy 100,000 shares and it becomes $100,000 in a year and you're saying it's a bad investment? I'm not saying it's bad, it's very good I'm saying will LabCoin hit these numbers, are these numbers reasonable or extremely exaggerated It's reasonable. If they meet their goals it's highly probable. In Bitcoin anything can happen, but you'll almost certainly get your profit. Share price will at least double your investment if not triple, and dividends will bring in profit for potentially years. |
|
|
|
Yes still works out to $1/Share per year, wtf are you even trying to argue? It seems like Utter bullshit because the rate of return is insanely high. For my 4K invested I will get $20K net profit, and that's without hardware sales, add hardware sales and double that to $2/share.
That means I will make 10X my initial investment and rack in $40,000 this is all at 10% of course.
OK I'm completely confused now. Are you saying that "it's too good to be true" or is making 10x your investment somehow not good enough for you? too good to be true, unless LABCoin does not stand behind those numbers. Bitcoin itself is too good to be true. I guess you can't believe that Bitcoins are real money phase? |
|
|
|
I'm sorry current BTC price they equate to $1.20/share without hardware sales, with hardware sales I guess $2-3/share dividends which seems like utter bullshit.
I guess you missed the part where it says "Dividend Per Share Per Year". That works out to 0.00019231 BTC per week. Why does that seem like utter bullshit? I guess you also missed the fact that those numbers are not official and are just one persons guess. Yes still works out to $1/Share per year, wtf are you even trying to argue? It seems like Utter bullshit because the rate of return is insanely high. For my 4K invested I will get $20K net profit, and that's without hardware sales, add hardware sales and double that to $2/share. That means I will make 10X my initial investment and rack in $40,000 this is all at 10% of course. You act like $1 per share per year is bad? You buy 100,000 shares and it becomes $100,000 in a year and you're saying it's a bad investment? |
|
|
|
While I'm here, I'd just like to give a shout-out to everyone from two weeks ago who felt they were left holding the bag when the price was nearing IPO-
Hope y'all held on - cheers, boys!
I've been thinking of all those people in such a rush last week to sell at 0.0015 or so. Amazing what a few days of patience can do for you sometimes. These prices wont stay up for long. It's just because there was news. In a couple weeks the price will be down again. It's not worth buying unless under 0.002. |
|
|
|
Network Hash Rate = 450 Th/s
Mine Hash Rate = 50 Th/s
50 * 100 / 450 = 11.11%
Blocks/Round = 2016
Bitcoin/Block = 25 BTC
Bitcoin/Round = 2016 * 25 = 50,400 BTC
50,400 * 11.11% = 5,599.44 BTC
5,599.44 BTC / 10,000,000 shares = 0.00055994 BTC per share per round.
So, even if Labcoin had 50 Th/s right now, divs (twice a week) from mining would be about 0.00013 BTC.
Or about 0.00028 per week. 80% of that is 0.000223976 per week, which is about 9% of share price of 0.00248 ... per week This seems about right. |
|
|
|
My back of the envelope calculations put the value of the 6TH running on 10/1 at .000605 / share and the remaining 44TH running on 10/15 at .002435/share, for an expected value of at least .0031
EDIT: These calculations assume 35% increase per Difficulty Increase
.000605 / share per what timeframe? Total expected value of the mining capability - basically I've charted it out until June 2015 Perhaps you worded it wrong. Perhaps you meant to say 0.000605 / share dividend in October and then I'd agree with you. Perhaps you mean 0.024 is the value of the stock price and then I'd agree with you. But you worded it confusing. Network Hash Rate = 450 Th/s Mine Hash Rate = 50 Th/s 50 * 100 / 450 = 11.11% Blocks/Round = 2016 Bitcoin/Block = 25 BTC Bitcoin/Round = 2016 * 25 = 50,400 BTC 50,400 * 11.11% = 5,599.44 BTC 5,599.44 BTC / 10,000,000 shares = 0.00055994 BTC per share per round. So, even if Labcoin had 50 Th/s right now, divs (twice a week) from mining would be about 0.00013 BTC. That is basically what I was saying. Although I think it would be 0.0009 per month dividend. So yeah our numbers match up. But I don't think they will get 11% of the network right away, that is the target. 50TH probably wont even be 5% of the network but who knows. |
|
|
|
Do i see it correctly that you think the actual shareprice is already overvalued before the real hashing starts? Are the 50TH the end? I guess with the rule to pay out the shareholders first there will be no new investment in new TH soon, so the 50TH will remain for a while right?
@Luckybit... you forgot 0 zero in decimals.
-Pay regular dividends amounting to a percentual share of ownership in the company on a bi-weekly basis. The dividends paid will consist of between 70-80% all profits while 20-30% of profits will be held as a reinvestment fund for development, marketing and manufacturing. ALL share holders have the right to an equal share of dividends directly based on their ownerhsip. From their details.. So i assume 50 is not the end station. I would expect that they would hash with as many chips as they can afford which don't get sold off. That will have to be a lot more than 50TH but I think they are doing it in stages of 50TH to build up to hundreds of TH and eventually thousands of TH. Difficulty will force this to happen and I think they said the goal was 10% of the network. |
|
|
|
My back of the envelope calculations put the value of the 6TH running on 10/1 at .000605 / share and the remaining 44TH running on 10/15 at .002435/share, for an expected value of at least .0031
EDIT: These calculations assume 35% increase per Difficulty Increase
.000605 / share per what timeframe? Total expected value of the mining capability - basically I've charted it out until June 2015 Perhaps you worded it wrong. Perhaps you meant to say 0.000605 / share dividend? in October and then I'd agree with you it's possible if unlikely. Perhaps you mean 0.024 is the current value of the stock price and then I'd agree with you. But you worded it confusing. |
|
|
|
My back of the envelope calculations put the value of the 6TH running on 10/1 at .000605 / share and the remaining 44TH running on 10/15 at .002435/share, for an expected value of at least .0031
EDIT: These calculations assume 35% increase per Difficulty Increase
The number I got was a lot less than your numbers. 0.0006/share is possible with 50TH. 0.0024/share is not possible with 50TH. I predict Labcoin will achieve around 1% of the network and get 0.000084/share in the first few weeks which will eventually be around 0.0005/share by October when they have closer to 50TH. Anyone else want to do a calculation? |
|
|
|
Something on US soil would permanently kill Bitcoin, at least in the West. It would be unpatrotic to use or accept BTC. Banks would immediately block the money flow to and from, there would be sweeping, bi-partisan legislation. All American allies would follow suit. Price would collapse. Mass adoption = DEAD
but being patriotic is racist, nobody is patriotic anymore, they'd all want to adopt bitcoins to apologise to the poor terrorists who we obviously wronged to make them attack us *rolls eyes* just 3 more years... You don't even have to be a patriot to want what is best for the Bitcoin community. It's not in the best interest of the vast majority of the Bitcoin community to have association with or support terrorists in any way. It is in the best interest of the community to actively deter, intercept, stop, or track down terrorists. Terrorists will bring violence to a currently mostly non-violent community and ruin it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
