|
Someones hate for NVC was level :10
Or.... I cant believe I am gonna say this... a long con? That goes well with the pre-mined and immediate adoption of nvc on btc-e and price dumps and coinotron non-payments? :OOOOO
(btw, this is a joke...)
|
|
|
|
Some of you guys are hilarious! I'm looking forward to updates as much as anyone, but if they really are busy getting all of the machines online, I can wait until the Thursday update!
You feel its a compromise? BTW, I am not crying as loud as my wall of texts might suggest, it is for that reason they turned into wall of texts. Just explaining that there is not really a downside to give a yes or no at very least, but some upsides. If everything is always fine as a shareholder, you have no voice. In other businesses (as some like to compare it) people have 24/7 access to financial data and can monitor the operations, we unfortunately don't have that luxury, so these boards are the only thing we got. And not being able to know if a product on your market is yours is somewhat underwhelming. |
|
|
|
|
If someone wants to buy 50 shares, PM me. Need a bit of bitcoins and its just faster/simpler this way. 0.5bitcoin per share. selling 50 only and whole.
|
|
|
|
Especially, this being a race, why wait to announce the winner 5 days after the race is over?
Because it's so much more EXCITING to watch people's blood pressure go through the roof in speculation and anticipation! It is quite fun to watch the drama in the threads heat up with speculation and accusations. These companies have your money already. They've funded their development/production. No amount of news posts will speed up the process or decrease the chances of it being a scam. If they deliver, people will be lined up to throw money at them no matter how badly they acted on the first batch. Step back, take a breath, relax  . Lets hope for a 1 week delay in the next presidential elections and use that argument to pacify. |
|
|
|
At the end of the day, what does it matter? People around here are so fuckin needy for no real gain.
When the the trading platform is live and dividends are coming I hope to see an update from friedcat.
Until then, don't you think he has better shit to do than update you about how many wires have been plugged in and debate over the pool (non)issue?
I was the first to say it doesn't make an actual difference to know or not. But these were supposed to be online by November. And in a community that has been scammed over and over, communication becomes more important for confidence. I am not saying this is a scam, I am saying taking that 5minutes when you are again overdue on the deadlines is not asking much. I agree knowing won't change much, but information is information, I tell you that you will have less information about your life tomorrow than you do today, you wouldn't see the point to see tomorrow. Especially, this being a race, why wait to announce the winner 5 days after the race is over? |
|
|
|
Thats one thing i dont like with the communication of friedcat. He really only will write an update once a week. While im sure every day many things happen. So whats the problem to make a really short daily update like "Today wiring cables and testing software." or something. That would mean 5 minutes max each day. That should be possible. But so the thread grows with speculation only.
this is how real companies work though, a week is actually quite often and we are really only getting these kind of updates "because bitcoin" The thing is we had claims that "updates should be more frequent as milestones are reached" and also "expect good news very soon". Although soon has no meaning itself, it somewhat implies that it would be before the expected update of Thursday. So basically, all in all, the current state of communication implies that nothing important really happened. Which raises the question of deadlines (although not specific dates, time frames being over extended) not being met, which in themselves sort of require communication. If that isn't true, well, what was it to say "yes its us" "no it isn't" "small delay".... I just see a lose-lose scenario in term of shareholder confidence (not that it really has any bearing at this point since shares cant be traded) when approaching claimed important time frames and communication being scarce. |
|
|
|
reduce variance. for a publicly owned miner, this is the only way to go.
I think it's the opposite, it is the only way to go for the individual miner. Being publicly owned has nothing to do with it. If you have a high enough hashrate (more than a few percent of the network) and have to produce dividends in a long enough period (e.g. weekly), that already reduces variance. Why reduce efficiency, introduce an intermediary and increase vulnerability? Makes no sense. Sounds about right. Asicminer would probably be better served by making its own pool than by trying to making its own exchange. I was gonna say "damn I like that idea" (seriously, no sarcasm), but then I realized a one man pool is just the same as solo mining with "rpcuser" |
|
|
|
|
140$/hr, no biggie.
Damn I would make silk road sold out! (Jk, I don't even use the site or stuff)
|
|
|
|
|
The main red flag here (as other things are really technicalities that don't really say much on if someone were to invest) is you come and ask 25000$ without having a very detailed report on the intent of those funds. As a financial entity you owe yourself and potential investors to know the exact amount you need and for exactly what. Of course a "cushion fund" is granted, but the whole lot can't be a cushion.
|
|
|
|
|
It does look like the type of deployment we should expect from asicminer, although do we really have to wait for the Thursday update for confirmation? Rofl.
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time in #btcguild... <KuKzz> now we have a single user with 800gh? 0_0
<Eleuthria> Yes.
<Eleuthria> Welcome to the future.
800gh just hit the network. What more to say? That there is 3 competitors currently that no one is really sure of anything because of all the lying, speculation, rescheduling and question dodging that has surrounded the events (note that this isn't a hidden message towards asicminer). Those 800ghash has absolutely no relevance until their beneficiary is declared. |
|
|
|
Just warning: User 67117 is NOT 3 TH/s right now. I'm helping the user with some internal setup and reset their cached speed calculations, which caused a huge spike in hash rate to show up. Do not panic . For a second I thought someone from BFL is mining at your pool. You're not too far off. I'll just leave this here. That doesn't say much.... Plus there is no reason for the crypticness. |
|
|
|
|
I assumed good news would rain being well into the revised timeline.
And before someone says it, yeah, I'd rather have the 5minutes update than the 5minutes working at this.
And I am an advocate of "who cares, it will come when it will come". But I don't know, at one point kinda wanna know what's up. Being late in the revised timeline.
|
|
|
|
I've got nothing against LTC, and I like alternative cryptocurrencies and wish them well. I don't see any value added by trying to make a coin "GPU-mining resistant," so given that that seemed to be one of the LTC design goals I wasn't as interested as I might have been.
except it isn't GPU resistant, but at least CPU mining isn't 100% obsolete. Makes use of the whole computer which is surely something someone can appreciate. |
|
|
|
Peeping over one of our subracks:  What, no fans? These ASICS need moar fans. Everyone knows ASICS use lots of fans. Check out my operation, IceASIC Inc:  Fans are far from the only thing missing in there, and fans are literally the last thing you put. |
|
|
|
I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.
And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.
And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.
My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?
So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.
In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.
Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?
Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.
Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution. I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers. Hmm. The spirit of the initial discussion around the IPO, IIRC, what % would be available to the public in exchange for financing. Me bringing this point up again has little to do with take-overs, or wanting to buy that 12% cheaply as Sabastian accused me of. Since ASICMiner is in a fortunate position to have an extra 12% of shares what are they being used for? Are they being retained and not receiving dividends? If what you say is correct, and if it is I completely agree with your point of view, that dividends will be distributed to a smaller number of shares - GREAT! If not and these shares receive dividends where is this money going? Re-investment? Ok, good. Not a bad thing at all. But if they take dividends of 12% of shares for OpEx and R/D, but then down the road say 'Hey, we don't have enough money we need to withhold dividends to gain capital,' well, wouldn't that be crap. A pretty good reason to cry foul. If you look at Jatarul's comments below it leaves me in a confused state as to whether or not shares are retained, earn dividends and if those dividends are used for re-investment. Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them.... And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital. Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs. obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message. Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives. You seem to imply it isn't a relative matter. If its used for operation and R&D, there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient. If it isn't, you still need to retain dividends, but to a lesser extent, which is still a win. The only venue that those extra shares doesn't benefit shareholders is if bitfountain pockets them and that's the end of it. Where the operation and R&D cost would be full cost and no extra dividends (if it would have been redistributed, which has been implied that it is not the plan). |
|
|
|
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them.... And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital. Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs. obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message. Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives. |
|
|
|
Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them.... And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital. |
|
|
|
Has there ever been a confirmation on what will happen with the excess BTC that was not convertd to $
The exchange rate doubled since, will go a long way towards designing a next-gen chip, or will it b distributed as a special dividnd?
Operational cash is the most likely scenario. Could be used for R&D or for covering utility bills. Technically, these shares belong to ASICMINER itself - it thus acts like a shareholder who invests all dividends back into the business. So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares?
No. That wouldn't make sense. The unsold shares of ASICMINER act as potential equity in future financing rounds. The availability of unsold shares has the advantage that dilution can be avoided if the 12% cover financing needs. oh, OK... |
|
|
|
Were there any ASICMINER stocks not purchases (owned by friedcat/the company) before GLBSE went down? If so, how will these be priced upon the exchange being brought back up? Will the value be at the same (0.1000BTC/per) or will it be adjusted based on market value//trade price after X days?
The IPO was finished long before GLBSE went down. Not all 200`000 IPO shares were sold before sufficient funds were raised, and the IPO closed. Initially, hundred percent of the profits will be diverted to dividends until 0.1 btc per share is paid out. From there on, each public share's dividend is worth 1/400`000 of the profits, regardless of how many shares were sold originally. It's all buried somewhere in this thread. The only thing I fail to comprehend is if its 1/400000 of the profit per share, isn't 12% of the profits not gonna be distributed? I'm not sure how you get to 12%. That would require 24% of the ASICMINER shares to be unsold and withdrawn from sale. I imagine ASICMINER"s parent company owns the unsold amount in addition to the other 50% of the profits. There is about 150k share from the 200k IPO sold, so its 350k/400k, if you decide the profit by 1/400k per share, there would be 12% of the profit bit distributed. Shouldn't the profit dived by 1/350k per share? No, because the definition at launch was 1/400k per share. Had exchange-rate moved the other direction (or costs been higher than predicted) and they needed to sell more than 200k then the extra would have come from Bitfountain's share - so only fair they get the surplus when it moved the way it did. Our cut was defined before we bought the shares - so no reason why it should be changed. I do not mean to imply it should be done otherwise. I just didn't really conclude how it worked from available information (either by my incomprehension or maybe it is not possible to conclude without abstraction). So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
