None: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21732.0

With 16 hexadecimal digits in every position, you have one chance out of 16 to have one matching digit, 1/256 for two matching digits, 1/4096 for three, 1/65536 for four.

Not stored on an electronic device, but regularly entered into one to sign transactions, right?

As often in the Free Software world, when users take time to properly report bugs or ask for useful features, developers are more than happy to oblige. Kudos to brainwallet team and you for doing the right things.

As just discussed on IRC:

2 BTC
1H73yKJToXHG5AuJ4um85AyXETxoDLwC2T
No comment

That would be my bet.

Since your original transaction has not been broadcasted, and will probably never be, maybe you should double spend it.

I just did and it got accepted.

Was the transaction signed before or after modifying the JSON to include the miners fees? If it is before, of course the signature will be invalid, but you know that already, I just want to make sure.

Rebroadcasting the very same transaction will not create any double-spending.

This one is rejected by bitcoind sendrawtransaction with "TX rejected", because the previous transaction (3b66d0317f) is not found.

The transaction has not been relayed to my bitcoind (it's not in the blockchain, obviously, neither in the mempool). I wonder if blockchain's pushtx works correctly. If the miners don't receive the transaction, they aren't going to include it.

If it doesn't appear, you can have someone reinject it into the network and see if it makes a difference (PM me with the raw transaction if you want me to reinject it).

Edit: the transaction itself is probably to blame, as pushtx is used by all blockchain.info wallets if I understand correctly

So, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), one investor, which is not you, who owned more than 70% of the shares, asked to be out and was reimbursed 0.95 BTC per share, without the other investors being asked or even told about it.

This is a serious wind down of the fund, which should have been acknowledge in a motion (which would have passed, since he had more than 67% of the votes) according to the terms of the contract. At least, other investors should have been warned, as a fund with less liquidities is probably much less efficient because of the limited leverage capabilities.

Can you clarify your offer to buy shares at 0.95 BTC at any time in the future? Will the money come from your personal wallet, or will it be a fund wind down (which, again, requires a vote as per your terms)? Reimbursing shares with the fund money may require that you liquidate assets at less than ideal conditions, and the remaining investors will suffer from this.

I'm sorry to bother you with so many questions, but the current way you are handling the fund is much too opaque in my opinion, and those questions and the corresponding answers should probably put in a FAQ in this thread. Also, I would hate to discover later from GLBSE admins that you were indeed the beneficiary of the buy back and that you concealed this information from investors.

Hi.

There is something I don't understand though when looking at the numbers on GLBSE:

Payment date	Total paid	Shares paid	Payment per share
2012-08-14 11:22	1.326	663	0.002
2012-08-15 10:42	1.33	665	0.002
2012-08-16 09:48	1.334	667	0.002
2012-08-17 11:33	1.338	669	0.002
2012-09-03 12:38	1.11276	198	0.00562

The number of shares in the fund has decreased. As far as I know, this is only possible if the fund operator buys back shares in the fund capacity, which reduces the value of the fund. I don't see that anywhere in the contract, and this also goes against the purpose of using GLBSE for an investment fund, which is to prevent withdrawals from drying up the fund liquidities.

Could you please explain how at least 471 shares out of 669 (more than 70% of the shares!) were paid back, to whom (especially if this is to you as the fund operator) and at which price, especially when you denied my request as in investor to return the funds when you chose to stop the IPO?


Here, you talk about putting a bid to buy shares back at .95, but you would do so as an individual, right? Doing it by diminishing the fund value would be detrimental for the other investors. Moreover, reducing the number of fund shares by exchanging private messages would certainly qualify as an "under the table deal".   

One of your selling points was the absence of under the table deals and insider trading, as well as transparency of operations (I quote those parts below for easy reference). Also, you said that a wind down of the assets would require 67% of the votes, while it appears that a wind down did occur (going from 669 shares to 198) without any motion being presented and voted.

I sincerely hope that this is all a misunderstanding on my side and that you stuck to the terms agreed to by your investors, but your lack of communication especially regarding the apparent wind down makes it hard to assert what's really going on here.

Live feature works, thanks again.

Seems to be working fine now, thanks (at least it displays that it is subscribed to the wallet). I have no liquid bitcoin online right now, but I'll have GLBSE send me a bitcent and confirm it appears live, but that usually takes a few minutes.

Interest payment received, on time as usual, and OTC rating increased.

But my browser does support websockets, so this is not the issue.

I understood "the borrowing part" as "how we will borrow money so that we can lend it for higher interest rates". It makes more sense than your interpretation.

Of course, but that hinders usability a lot.

I get the "disconnected" version with Firefox 14.0.1.

It would be great to have a flag asking to prefer IPv6 over IPv4 when selecting outgoing peers to connect to.