Also, people on the "Custom Hardware" board have been complaining about all the pre-orders. You guys should be able to make a killing selling miners on hand, rather then as pre-orders if you can do it in September  +1 Exactly, this is the right time to give the pre-order fueled companies a run for their money. Yes. The Labcoin team does realize how exceptionally valuable short time to market and in-hand products are and are definitely considering this. We are however also aware of the possible caveats of exporting high value electronics (as proven by the latest delays and problems that for example Avalon has experienced). Awesome. I'd love to see Labcoin beat HashFast/Cointerra's pricing on the one hand... on the other I'd rather not give away any profits unnecessarily. If you are actually going to sell units you have on hand, the best thing to do might be to auction them off. They could always do a franchise thing like what ASICMINER is trying to do. They can also do the HOSTED MINING thing where they mine for the customer and sell contracts. There are many ways to make money if they have a working chip. |
|
|
|
Cool beans.
Are the chips your sending out samples or paid orders? How are financials and dividends for chip sales going to be handled?
There will of course be more "hard numbers" on this posted as chips are received, tested etc. the general policy is to pay out all profits as dividends to share holders, though Labcoin also plans to reinvest when profitable. I have requested that customers that make "serious inquiries" be sent sample chips from first run and I am also trying to facilitate a miner and first run chips be send to me for review for the forum. More information will be available (including pictures and stats) as soon as first run chips lands in the hands of the team. What can shareholders do to promote Labcoin? Maybe advertising can be made to be cheaper? Why not just go to the forums where people are looking for ASIC miners and to reddit and promote the hell out of it? |
|
|
|
If that we're to happen, the value of BTC would drop through the floor. As it would almost cettainly no longer be possible for any bank linkex exchanges to exist so the currency would cease to exist.
Another crypto currency would take it's place. A commercial one perhaps
Perhaps the solution is to push for transparency instead of for secrecy. Secret transactions don't benefit anybody. Public transactions benefit everybody and increases the long term value and security of the concept of cryptocurrencies. What about in the case of fraud? Even if the person is pseudo-anonymous it should be possible to track all the transactions made by the pseudo-anonymous person. If a certain Bitcoin address is associated with terrorist activities then perhaps it should be flagged and transactions with that address could be avoided. That in my opinion would be the ideal way of dealing with it, it would be to remove the anonymous nature but maintain the pseudo-anonymous nature. If a certain address is obviously associated with terrorism then you'd be damn stupid to conduct any transactions with that particular address. I'm fairly certain that the addresses associated with Julian Assange and Snowden are being monitored and that isn't even terrorism. If it were terrorism then they would probably do a combination of social network analysis, counter intelligence operations, and monitoring of certain addresses associated with terrorism. The NSA would almost certainly be involved and if those addresses are associated with IP addresses then those IP addresses would be flagged to. On top of all that, most of the Bitcoin community would be assisting in tracking and tracing those addresses. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are mainly political issues and for that reason there is a diversity of responses to these situations, but when you have actual terrorist groups plotting to kill or put innocent people in danger I think the response would be entirely different. There would be a lot less diversity in the opinions and people would gang up on or use mobbing tactics to find the individual. It's very difficult to hide when the entire community is trying to track you down. Consider also that as Bitcoin becomes more valuable the users in the community will have a lot more to lose. When Bitcoins are worth only $100 each there aren't a lot of people with millions of dollars worth in Bitcoins or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth in Bitcoins. When the price is in the $1000 range this will begin to change. How many people do you think would sacrifice $100,000 or 100,000 euro in Bitcoin savings to have anonymity? The choice will be a Bitcoin where the price continues to rise and it becomes something mainstream someday, or anonymity which might be useful only to terrorist groups and no one one else which would drive the price way down as people move to other cryptocurrencies which wont be anonymous but which will be worth much more. What would happen is the people holding $100,000 in Bitcoin would immediately put their Bitcoins into another more transparent cryptocurrency to save their stash. Even people holding a few $1000 would do the same. Bitcoin price would go down from $2000 to $2 probably in a matter of days and the lucky people would be the ones who got out when the news first breaks. Bitcoin would probably never recover from this and while cryptocurrencies would still be used there would never again be anonymity as a feature. I think people promoting anonymity should be very careful what they are asking for and whether or not it's worth it. Pseudo-anonymity seems to work better than anonymity for honest use. |
|
|
|
I was only speculating on price. That is why I posted in the speculation forum. There have been several other threads about this topic in other subforums so it is not like I am giving any clue to terrorists. The media itself says Bitcoin is used to fund drugs and terrorists (however untrue that may be).
It is not a question of whether or not the USD has funded past attacks, they would point out that it is the anonymity of Bitcoin that allowed them to pull it off.
I agree that it is likely that the terrorists are not using Bitcoin as it still is mainly a computer geek currency, but our whole effort is to make it mainstream so that anyone can use it.
I think my personal opinion is that if the attack was 9/11 huge then I would trade my BTC for gold. If it was a Boston bombing type of size I would hold, maybe even buy into the short term panic.
I think something like Bitcoin would be fine because it's somewhat transparent and could be traced. I think Zerocoin and the push for anonymity would be forever linked with support of terrorism. I think Bitcoin would become less popular but I don't think it would kill the idea of cryptocurrencies, it would just remove the idea of anonymity being included. |
|
|
|
While this thread argues definitions, someone's happy to buy up a lot of shares.
We're on the verge of another btc/usd price discovery bubble. A lot of new Walstreet type investors are coming to bitcoin and are going to look for securities to start dumping btc into. This should be an interesting month. That all depends on the results of the congressional investigations and regulation talks. |
|
|
|
Let me start by saying I am not a "sophisticated investor". Then I'll say I like that the government is trying to protect little old ladies from unscrupulous snake oil salesmen. The basic idea is that people who are millionaires can better manage their money and even if they lose a large chunk they are not likely to see their lifestyle change whereas a little old person who is sold an investment by con artist (pirateat40) salesmen have more to lose.
I do not believe the "average joe" is not sophisticated in the ways of money and I believe he needs protection from snake oil salesmen.
That is the basic mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission. They were formed in response to Charles Ponzi's scheme and the great depression of 1929. They require that anyone offering a public security to non-sophisticated investors is forced to register that security.
The problem is they don't give people who aren't "average joe" or little old ladies any legal way around the cap. If they merely made it harder but not impossible then I would be fine with it. They put a cap, they could have put certification requirements, make people take a college course, but they put a cap. This reduces everyones liberty without providing any reasonable recourse to restore it, without any exemptions, so that the finance professor is in the same boat at the retired little old lady just because of their class. While I applaud the new program I honestly think hedge funds will manipulate the rules to steal peoples money and just like the Glas-Steagle Act we probably should have left the system alone. Without the cap in place the hedge funds would just take everyone's money. At least with the cap a little old person would need to be ripped off by 20 separate "salesmen" before they can get it all. (Another restriction is that a single investor can hold no more than 5% unless they are a director).
These restrictions are to steal away liberty and nothing else. It's fine to offer recommendations, it's fine to require a license for investors, or a certification, something which can be overcome by studying, or by hard work, or by becoming "sophisticated", but to make "sophisticated" be based entirely on net worth is to corrupt the entire economy to favor rich investors. It's true that rich investors have more to lose so they probably have a buffer, and they might also have more experience investing in most cases, but that doesn't make them any better at investing just because they have more. Ultimately I don't think the government should tell people what to do with their life savings, their money, etc. The government can make it difficult to lose it all, but a cap isn't just making it difficult, it's dictating what you can and cannot do with your money. That isn't about protecting people anymore, it's about control. You can protect people by requiring all investors get licensed. This cap is more like putting a cap on the amount of guns or bullets a person can buy and basing it on something like race, gender, age or some other arbitrary criteria. If you invest and lose a lot of money and you were licensed (which means you knew all the risks and got certified) then it's on you. You should be allowed to take risks in this world. |
|
|
|
^  is that mastercoin in binary? although, I would like a logo, professional but alludes to the biblical book of exodus some how. IMO, those designs are a bit too sterile for my personal liking. Regardless, they look cool! Yep! It says Mastercoin. The black and white makes them look really harsh. But I'll think about exodus and see if I can come up with anything. That's an interesting angle. Wow! That is awesome! For some reason the ones that look like radiation symbols appeal to me. I think maybe it is because I have always viewed this idea as potentially very destructive to existing money systems, like an atomic bomb. We haven't actually set a bounty amount for this logo yet, so we probably should! Anybody know what what bitcoin projects are paying for logos these days? Thanks! Here are a couple more added to the b/w sketches. I tried to go for an abstract representation of the parting of the red sea (exodus). Definitely not explicitly that because i tried to design it into an "M", but hopefully you can see it.  Whichever one is chosen, I'll provide vector/png formats for them and release them as open source. As far as what logos seem to be going for, I'm happy with whatever donations people would like to offer. Logos range in price so I don't really have a specific number, but typically it's between 1-2 btc. Obviously I'd love to have access to some mastercoins so that would be great too, except I would have to download the client onto my desktop, right? I vote for either 1 or 6. The others are a bit too abstract but all of them are cool and you're talented for sure. |
|
|
|
Go into more detail. I did not see any explanation of precisely which attack vector will work. It has already been covered that it is a pseudo-random process but it's not designed in such a way that there is an obviously simple attack. Please go in depth. |
|
|
|
These people want to be able to live on Bitcoins and you simply cannot do that if it's not regulated.
Unsupported assertion. Care to show your derivation? So all those people who are planning not to cash out into USD who already have thousands or tens of thousands of Bitcoins, you don't think they wont want to be able to pay their utility bills and rent? Bitcoin can become something we can all live off someday or it can get completely ruined by the crowd who under any circumstances are against regulation. At some point you have to weigh whether or not under-regulation will stifle the currency just as you have to weigh whether or not over-regulation will. I'm saying under-regulation is equally as bad as over-regulation and that the goal should be to find the proper balance. |
|
|
|
I also understand we need to delegate some responsabilities, and need people we trust to decide for us on small matters.
But I think everyone should be able to talk to those representants to complain or issue congratulations easily. Nations are way too big to acheive this.
All regulators and authorities are not equal. Some will understand what Bitcoin is and just sorta get it and some wont understand and wont be open minded enough to try to. So there will be some who are easier to work with. I think most of the regulation should somehow be done internally if it's possible and then bring in outside help to handle stuff like extortion and scammers. It's a balance that has to be found. Nations are made up of parts, and businesses influence those parts to bring favorable conditions to their special interests. I don't see why Bitcoin community cannot have it's friends in congress and law enforcement. It obviously should and that is how Apple went about it when trying to launch the personal computer. Apple managed to get the personal computer put in every school by working with the congress to pass laws which benefit children and that is when lawmakers finally got it. Apple was for the benefit of education of the children of America. And above all, those people who we trust to decide for us, should systematically evaluated by those who trusted them, once their time is over. And people should be allowed to vote on how many years the "leader" and his team should rot in prison, judging his overall performance in taking decisions. This is why we need complete transparency so all decisions can be reviewed. We need to know certain things like how money influences the political decisions of certain candidates and which candidates are pro cryptocurrency, which are against, and which just aren't educated enough on the subject to understand what they are saying. This would hopefully turn away all the greedy fucks that currently take decisions for you, and for me.
They who make decisions shouldn't be making decisions for you and me, but on our behalf and according to our standards. Just as there is an Internet defense fund and just how Facebook has fwd.us or whatever, there must be both think tanks and lobbyist groups for cryptocurrencies and virtual currencies. This should not be about Bitcoin but be about the technology. It should not be about radical libertarian or anarchist politcs but purely about protecting the technology itself. If people want to promote their political views they can join the libertarian party, or start a US version of the pirate party, but I don't think all cryptocurrencies should be linked to a specific political side because that will kill it in the womb. Most of America might be able to understand Bitcoin just fine, but they aren't going to understand some of the conspiracy theories and other stuff that gets talked about on here. |
|
|
|
For the record I don't trust the government either but I also don't agree with some of the extreme and stupid positions I read sometimes. Regulation for me wouldn't be so bad and if you're so afraid of regulation perhaps you have something you're trying to hide from the authorities but not all of us do.
So you don't trust governments, but want to be regulated by authorities. Care to give me a little more insight about those trusted authorities you're talking about? Yes. I accept some regulation otherwise we'd all be killing each other over road rage. That does not mean I want my personal life regulated, and if you can't see the difference then you're being an extremist about it. As far as trusted authorities go, you trust the authority of the red light to mean stop and you stop to avoid an accident or is that regulation worse than when there were no lights? Do you prefer we let drunk drivers get behind the wheel because it's a regulation expense? What about when you use SSL and you deal with the certificate authority, isn't that a trusted authority that you count on to encrypt your data? You cannot have any order and any system if there are no regulations at all. If there are no regulations then violence becomes the form of communication and regulation, and accidents are far more likely to happen when there are no rules. I don't want the government involved in my personal life, most people don't. There are places where I do want the government involved but those places are not my personal life. The final question for you is this, if you're so against regulation if you were facing extortion and threats would you call the police or would you deal with it yourself? If you expect to be able to call the police then you want regulation. |
|
|
|
Bitcointalk Discount. Save $100 on the Early Bird Special** PAY IN BITCOIN! https://bitpay.com/cart?id=r0B0BVJvtpYqRX0X7A3pdR6STWqZ3fFVjX-BGn_XcLU=**Discount expires August 11th. If you are a miner, run a bitcoin business or are contemplating a bitcoin business you won't want to miss this opportunity to meet and interact with experts, professionals, regulators and Money Transmitters in the Money Service and Money Transmitter space. Wednesday August 14, 2013 8:00 am - 8:30 pm The New York City Bar Association 42 West 44th Street New York City, NY 10036 For More Information Contact David Landsman The National Money Transmitters Association 516-829-2742 david@nmta.ushttp://nmta.us/site/VC3 Speaker Faculty Announced James H. Freis joined Cleary Gottlieb in their Washington Office in 2013 after serving ten years in the U.S. Treasury and at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Jim was Director of FinCEN from 2007 to 2012. There he led the development and enforcement of AML regulations and other financial crimes applicable to a broad range of financial institutions: banks, securities, insurance and money services businesses. He also led the expansion of these regulations to mortgage markets and emerging payment technologies. Judith Rinearson is a partner at Bryan Cave LLP. Ms. Rinearson is a recognized authority in the areas of payment systems, electronic payments, stored value, travelers checks and check processing. She has more than 20 years experience in the financial services industry, particularly in the areas of non-bank money services and payment products. Prior to her tenure with another New York law firm, Ms. Rinearson was group counsel for the American Express Global Travelers Cheque and Prepaid Service Group for more than 10 years. Marco Santori is a commercial litigator and business attorney at Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP in New York City. His business practice focuses on early-stage companies in the high-technology sector, including web, e-commerce and the burgeoning digital currency spaces. He advises his clients on regulatory matters, including the compliance with and avoidance of money services and securities regulations. Samuel Rosenthal is chair of Patton Boggs' Government Investigations and Litigation practice group and works out of both the New York and Washington offices. Mr. Rosenthal has more than 30 years of experience in federal litigation and white-collar defense and appellate matters. Before entering private practice, Mr. Rosenthal was employed with the DOJ in Washington, where he served as the chief of the Appellate Section, Criminal Division. Jean-Jacques (J) Cabou is a litigator and a partner at Perkins Coie in the firm’s Investigations & White Collar Defense practice. At both the trial and appellate level, J’s principal focus is on defending individuals and corporate entities against criminal and other government investigations, including in civil enforcement proceedings. J has particular experience in white collar matters and is a recognized authority on both state and federal civil forfeiture, seizure, and racketeering laws. Juan Llanos is co-founder, EVP and Compliance Officer of Unidos Financial Services, Inc., an innovative financial services and technology provider catering to merchants and under-banked end consumers in the US. He is responsible for the formulation and execution of the company’s technology strategy, as well as its AML and compliance risk management infrastructure. Previously, he was Chief Compliance Officer of Remesas Quisqueyana, Inc. in New York City. He is a member of the Bitcoin Foundation's Regulatory Affairs Committee, and writes about risk and virtual currencies in his blog ContrarianCompliance.com. Robert Pargac is the Director of Global Investigations and Compliance at Navigant Consulting. He is a lawyer and an MBA. His prior experience includes posts at 247 Card, Sigue Corporation and Western Union. He has significant international financial institution experience, and specializes in AML/CTF, OFAC, FCPA and white-collar defense, among many other areas. Connie Fenchel has graciously agreed to serve as Program Manager for VC3 (2013). Ms. Fenchel has a broad range of law enforcement, regulatory and management expertise in the areas of regulatory compliance, financial crimes and customs violations comprised of over 30 years of government and private sector experience. She is president of AML Experts, Inc., an independent consulting firm specializing in anti-money laundering, the Bank Secrecy Act and customs matters. David Landsman is an administrator who has worked his entire career in money transfer and specializes in BSA/AML compliance and state licensing. Executive Director of the National Money Transmitters Association since 2004, he has made strides in organizing the industry, promoting the image of licensed money transmitters and defending the industry’s right to maintain bank accounts. This news is actually very positive. Everyone involved with Bitcoin in New York should try to attend. These are the kind of contacts you want to have. |
|
|
|
While all this brouhaha sounds ominous, there is little they can really do. There is no legal standing (nor logical reasoning) to consider Bitcoin any more of a threat than any other payment system. There will soon be a tipping point where government is seen as bullying Bitcoiners and some other nation will step in as a voice of reason. Smart money will go there (hello France, Iceland, Japan, India, and others). Until there is more than breast-beating, this is a good time to get cheap bitcoins.
Here's a test: One of the greatest potential threats about Bitcoin is *gasp* kidnapping with a ransom in Bitcoin. It's the perfect crime, right? Yet nobody has done so. Why? Because Bitcoin is not good for that. If Bitcoin was so great for narcotics, then why aren't the cartels using it? Because it's not good for that. Bitcoin is not good for crime. It is not anonymous. It *is* private. There is a difference. Maybe they are more afraid of privacy than anything else. Are you listening NSA?
All of these posts are FUD. If the US was trying to stop Bitcoin so would all of it's allies so there would be no where to go. But the US wont try to stop Bitcoin for the same reason Russia and China haven't stopped the Internet. Bitcoin is just too useful, and too important to be stopped. Government regulation on the other hand is welcome. People who don't want any regulation are the ones fear mongering because they are worried about their Silkroad being shut down but the vast majority of people coming into Bitcoin now are speculators, investors, business owners, gamblers, but not the drug addicted paranoid of the government crowd who were into Bitcoin in 2011-2012. Bitcoin now is in a completely different era and while it's still early adopter innovator stage the attitudes will change over time. The originators were cypherpunk grad student and hacker types. Then you had the drug users and dark net types who came in right around the time when Bitcoin was announced to be supported by Wikileaks (which also happend to be the time that Satoshi left the scene). Then you had Gavin speaking with the CIA in 2012 right around the peak of the Bitcoin darknet era. That was also a few months after the FBI report which you can find on Wired. Now the era is changing into the more professional era where you have businesses forming, people actually are getting rich now and speculators and a new generation of innovators are becoming involved. The new generation have the goal of mainstreaming Bitcoin and of upping the price as much as possible because the new generation are businessmen. Previous generations who were more about being pseudo-revolutionaries (the darknet generation) or the technological intellectuals (the satoshi generation), have differing views. Some of the satoshi generation want Bitcoin to be mainstream because they have or will have millions of dollars worth in Bitcoin and its all useless if they cannot spend it anywhere except on Silkroad. These people want to be able to live on Bitcoins and you simply cannot do that if it's not regulated. Then you have the revolutionaries and darknet crowd who never intended to have any legitimate use for the currency and who just want some anonymous form of money for their revolution or to buy drugs. And the newest generation the professionals are busy trying to push Bitcoin into the mainstream so their businesses can profit and they can become millionaires like the satoshi generation, and generally speaking they don't care about Silkroad. There are different common reasons why people get involved with Bitcoin but I'll list some. 1. The beauty of the technology. (this reason attracts the college students and nerds) 2. The politics, how it protects civil liberties. (this is what attracted the darknet generation and they are concerned with Wikileaks, funding Snowden, and all that) 3. The people who want to start their own businesses and never have to work a 9-5 again (the people who saw Bitcoin as attractive to invest in, or who want to run businesses). It's possible to be part of all three camps but it's important to know there are different camps and all camps support Bitcoin for different reasons. The political darknet oriented camps are the only ones in my opinion who are terrified of regulation. For their camp it's an existential threat and goes against every reason they are involved with Bitcoin. It is my opinion that the governments are really only targeting that crowd. If you're into Bitcoin because you want to fund Wikileaks or give money to Snowden then don't be surprised if you get put on some FBI watch list. The regulation is not being put in place because the government is worried about Charlie Lee at Coinbase, or about mom and pop investor trying to shift some of their savings into Bitcoin. The FBI/DHS are targeting the people who are part of the dark net generation going around talking about how the government is evil and how revolution is necessary. For the record I don't trust the government either but I also don't agree with some of the extreme and stupid positions I read sometimes. Regulation for me wouldn't be so bad and if you're so afraid of regulation perhaps you have something you're trying to hide from the authorities but not all of us do. |
|
|
|
lol, nicely played amigo!  If only LAGCOIN's steampunk "technology" were as laudable as your sense of humor...  It's possible that HF's chips will cost less to HF then Labcoin's chips will cost to labcoin. But that doesn't mean that HF's customers will be better off then Labcoin's investors. Think about it dude: IceDrill is paying $14/GH. Labcoin will be paying about $2/gh if everything goes according to plan. That means, Labcoin's investors will have a much better chance of making a profit then IceDrill's. It doesn't matter how efficient the chips are at this point, and it won't matter how efficient they are until electricity is the major cost factor, and chips go for like 10 cents per chip. This is one of the wisest posts I've read on the subject. You must either be heavily invested in Labcoin or you've studied really hard on this topic. |
|
|
|
Okay I'd like some Mastercoins. Check out my signature, and I post quite a bit.
1FZ9VevcVXQseSAQPe3zuCzsWQavQpZo4g
Great idea! I assume you'll keep that signature through the end of the month when the giveaway ends? As with everybody's posts in this thread, I'll wait at least 72 hours in case you come up with more ways to promote the project in the meantime. Of course. |
|
|
|
Investors want the big pop of early investment in Labcoin vs. johnny come lately returns at ASICminer where the big early gains have already occurred. If they had wanted a mature stock they would have invested in ASICminer instead of BTCgarden to start with.
What makes you think people can afford ASICminer? ASICminer is almost 4BTC a share so at this point share price can't go up much more. The whole point is to get in early while shares are cheap. People who want to sell their entire positions give us cheaper shares. 4 BTC isn't that much money. Most people that should be investing can swing that, if you can't you should really rethink what you're doing. That's because you're rich. 4 BTC is a lot of money for one share, thats $400 a share and I'm being conservative. |
|
|
|
Investors want the big pop of early investment in Labcoin vs. johnny come lately returns at ASICminer where the big early gains have already occurred. If they had wanted a mature stock they would have invested in ASICminer instead of BTCgarden to start with.
What makes you think people can afford ASICminer? ASICminer is almost 4BTC a share so at this point share price can't go up much more. The whole point is to get in early while shares are cheap. People who want to sell their entire positions give us cheaper shares. |
|
|
|
Sounds interesting. I'll be inspecting this feature in future, hope it works out.
Um, you'll need to post a bitcoin address as described above if you want to participate in the giveaway!Plus, you need to do SOMETHING promotional (like tweet about this project) within 72 hours of your post (then edit your post to link to what you did). BTW, I haven't done anything deserving so far but here is my BTC address:
1Cu3gkevrm5bAJAWabwiWMWw8DsVujDbMD
Oh good, you updated your post. Thanks! Okay I'd like some Mastercoins. Check out my signature, and I post quite a bit. 1FZ9VevcVXQseSAQPe3zuCzsWQavQpZo4g |
|
|
|
If you could factor in difficulty that would be the most helpful. What impact could say 200m difficulty have if it happens by November to December? What if we have 150m diff in September to October? (these are worse case scenarios btw assuming every competitor floods the market with ASICs and starts mining.) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmXn4BnLUgYsdEF0TUtWUWtUaUUzR1F2aUhEWW9lN2c#gid=0If the initial test works then the green light signal and they can buy as many ICs as they can and sell as much as they can. I estimate the percentage of the network will rise as Labcoin operation grows in size and scope but that will take 6 months, does Labcoin have 6 months to grow into 10-15% of the network? |
|
|
|
Not insider info,
I was waiting around for .0013-.0014 but then JMG had to go and post that stupid chart and stop any downward momentum. What people aren't realizing is that this security should settle around 30% apr after everything is up and running.
Labcoin is set to initially hold ~5% when they first come online, this will spike the share price considerably allowing for an impressive mid-term gain.
The test run according to my understanding is just to see that everything works and get the initial mining rig set up. I don't think they'll be fully operational until mid November according to the language in the QA. I don't know the final hashrate they'll have or the difficulty by November. I know they'll be fully operation by sometime in October but I think November is the month when everything will either be in full gear or it fails. Even if they only get 5% of the network until November, they make their own chips and can always produce more to bring up the percentage to 10-15% later if they can last through December. I think the main thing investors should be concerned about is whether or not this Labcoin operation is being built to last. If it's built to last then everybody can win. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
