Except you won't.   If BFL delivers on those specs expect difficulty to increase at least 1000% probably closer to 3000%.  Combine that with the subsidy drop that 40GH/s "monster" will likely generate less than a 2GH/s GPU rig does today.  Now I am not saying "don't buy a BFL ASIC".  If the above happens GPU mining will be completely obsolete and at least with a 40GH/s rig you might be making 1% a week or so but don't think it is a just as easy as buy 3 rigs and make 100x what you do now.  Mining is a fixed sum game.  The same limitations you have now (in terms of time, resources, capital) will exist in the future too.

If you have any debt use the $5K to pay down debt. 
Much easier to make money when you aren't continually giving other people all your money.

You said owners.  Directors & officers aren't owners (although a director/officer can certainly also be an owner).  Now it does look like Texas doesn't provide as much privacy for LLC  members as they do shareholders of a Corporation. Pretty strange Texas would require disclosure of members of an LLC but not shareholders of a corporation.  Kinda makes LLC a second class citizen in TX IMHO.  Looks like members only need to be disclosed if the LLC is member managed.

I don't think you understand why our banking fees are so high so that is a promise you can't deliver on. Still even if it were true you don't really think we would still be in business if we setup accounts so an unknown person on the internet in another continent would be the sole signatory on an account containing tens of thousands of dollars of company property?

Well you are missing at least a half dozen states from your list.  In VA for example no owners are even listed with the state corporation commission.  Directors and officers are but members (LLC) and shareholders (corp) are not.  There is nothing the state could give you even if they wanted to.  Tell you what you get me a list of owners of Tangible Cryptography LLC and I will pay you 5,000% of your costs.  

Still I somewhat doubt your assertion of getting complete owner info from the state of TX as it contradicts what their site indicates:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/managementinfofaqs.shtml#mgmt7


Also looked at the filing docs for registering a LLC or Corp in TX.  They don't even ask ownership information so how exactly did the state give you something they don't even keep records of?

The issue is a voluntary buyback doesn't resolve the issue of people like Goat committing fraud in the future trying to sell the worthless shares for 10, 100, 1,000 BTC, and then the people saying why didn't GLBSE prevent this.  This all came up again when there was a thread where people were once again attempted to unload the worthless shares.

Maybe there is a typo in there.  You correct me and say #1 is easy and then go on to post how owner info is confidential and won't be released without a court order, which would imply #1 is anything but easy.  So which is it "easy" or requires a court order?  In most states unless you can show cause you aren't getting owner info.  If a person has a dispute with the corporation or it is employees the dispute is with the corporation/LLC not the owners.  Only in the event there is need to pierce the corporate veil does the owner's interest need to be known.  The post I responded to amounted to little more than a fishing expedition.  In most (all?) states, the state isn't going to release owner information simply because a third party "wants to know".

1) Where do you get this mistaken idea that owners of a privately held corporation are public knowledge?
2) Why would the "contract" (corporate bylaws) of a privately held corporation be public knowledge?

Neither of those are true in the US, unless you mean a "US" other than these United States.

Goat never stated or even implied he bought shares for 10 BTC ea.  He did however sell fake shares he knew were worthless for 10 BTC to unsuspecting fools.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109660.msg1212459#msg1212459

I think you misunderstand a couple of ideas.  It is certainly possible to be "too greedy".  If your prices are too high you are more likely to face more competition.  So keeping prices lower makes the market less attractive to potential competitors.  Generally late movers will have to compete on price.  The first mover can attempt to make it very difficult for competitors by keeping margins relatively low.  Take MtGox for example.  There prices aren't excessively high.  Actually they are so low that a smaller exchange trying to compete on price will find themselves in a position where they are taking a huge risk for a tiny amount of net profit ($10K or so a year).   Now if MtGox charged 5% per trade it would be much easier for viable, cash flow positive competitors to emerge and the high margins would allow them to pay for improvements, security, and support staff even with small margin.

Essentially a high margin is a low barrier for entry.  Competitors need to risk less capital and the return on that capital is more attractive.  So it is possible to be too greedy.  That being said business is all about calculated risks.  Margin too high?  More risk of competition.  Margin too low?  More risk of buisiness failure.  Remember any startup has capital and early employees are either working only for equity or are taking a reduced salary to improve the financial outlook of the company.   The perfect margin is one where it is neither too high nor too low.  Of course that is somewhat subject and varies from enterprise to enterprise.

There are substantial risks to this too.  What happens if you have a major loss?  You just close up shop? Dig into your own pocket?  What happens if you reach a point where expansion requires real capital (say hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) by pricing your product/service so low you make it unattractive to potential investors?  Worse what happens if you underestimate the cost and have to raise prices later (generally it is less disruptive to start with higher prices and offer better deals over time than the reverse)?

When you say "considerable amount" what do you mean?  $1,000 is a considerable amount to some people but utterly useless for the capital expansion for any real enterprise.  
Are you looking for revenue share or actual equity?  I am sure you understand any equity stake is going to involve registration and thus taxation.  Given than companies are legal constructs of the state you can't have real ownership outside the state so that means playing by the rules of the state to include regulation, registration, and taxation. 

That is naive.  If you invest in 100 high risk but legit deals the odds are the 1 or 2 will pay for the 98 or 99.  That is essentially what venture capitalists do.  However if you invested in 100 Pirate ponzis you will lose 100 times.    To use an analogy it would be like pretending that if you are involved in 100 muggings at least 1 or 2 will be profitable enough for muggings to be +EV for the victim.

Tangible handled the repayment of TheBitMan's creditors because he had no low cost mechanism to convert USD to BTC and repay creditors.  The Bitfloor, Inc doesn't have that problem so I don't think Bitfloor, Inc needs our assistance in handling repayment.  I did (acting individually unrelated to Tangible Cryptography LLC) offer to provide some capital towards a restart if certain conditions were met.   So far Roman has not accepted that offer.  I only have to assume he has either secured other investors at more favorable terms or intends to handle repayment himself and thus avoid dilution.

I do hope Roman realizes that to restore confidence in the market there are a couple of thing he can do:
1) The creditors deserve to know the exact amount (down to the Saotshi) owed.  This is useful in projecting repayment and considering offers.

2) There should be a mechanism for the debt to be traded.  As an insolvent debtor Bitfloor, Inc doesn't have the right to not assist its creditors.  Bitfloor can certainly charge a fee for its time and can put conditions on the transfer of debt but it needs to be transferable.  All parties benefit from open markets (even in debt).  Some creditors are unwilling to wait and by making it impossible to sell that obligation Bitfloor inadvertently makes their only recourse legal action.  This is counter productive and expensive and can be avoided because there are others who are willing to purchase debt and thus become voluntary creditors of Bitfloor.  Bitfloor also benefits from an open market because it allows price discovery and give Bitfloor the option to repurchase its own debt in a fair and transparent manner.

3) Bitfloor likely needs more outside capital however raising $224K USD to simply pay $224K in debts isn't really an investment strategy.  It leaves the company in the exact same situation it was prior to the hack.  Bitfloor needs to be capitalized and thus have the working capital and funds for capital expenditures that allow it to ignore short term profitability and work on growing revenues in a sustainable manner.  I am not saying Bitfloor shouldn't repay creditors but repayment in full upfront simply doesn't make economic sense.  However if hypothetically Bitfloor raised say $150K to $200K in capital it could make a one time payment of 30% of face value of the debt and use the rest to pay for salary, datecenter space, etc.

4) Bitfloor should attempt to get creditors to voluntarily sign to new terms.   Before someone freaks out notice the "V" world in the prior sentence.  The unknown status and terms of debt is a legal risk (and one reason I made this a condition for any investment).  By offering creditors the option to agree to repayment terms the debt would no longer be in default.  The upfront payment in #3 could be used a carrot and likely most creditors would sign to the new terms.  This puts Bitfloor on a more stable legal and financial footing and makes it more attractive to outside capital.  The terms could specify the repayment schedule, even if the repayment is based on net profits it could contain certain provisions which guarantee a minimum repayment and at the same time protect new investors.  For example if repayment was "done once a month based on 50% of the net profits from the prior capped at 5% per month with a guaranteed minimum of 1% per month" that would provide creditors with some assurances and allow better price discover of the debt.   Investors would be more confident in the success of Bitfloor investment as it limits the cash drain from the company.  The terms could also put a min & max exchange rate which caps the debt in USD terms (say $5 and $20 USD:BTC) protecting both parties from extreme changes in value.

Anyways just my ramblings on the subject.

TL/DR:
Roman,
Transparency, liquidity, and defined terms (voluntarily accepted) can only improve the outlook for all parties (bitfloor, potential investors, and existing creditors).

Wait so the standard for being a "good manager" is to lose less money than idiots?
Tell you what send me 10,000 BTC.  In a year I will send you back 8,000 BTC.  A loss of only 20%.  That should get me fund manager of a year award right?

No none of that is correct.  GLBSE has never been publicly traded.  Foolishly nefario never blocked the ticker symbol GLBSE.  Another scammer, registered a contract under the ticker GLBSE and sold about 30 BTC worth of shares before it was delisted.   At this point neither the fake listing nor the real GLBSE shares are available for trade.   Anyone who had fake GLBSE shares at the point it was delisted has them in their accont.  They can be transfered to another account. 

Goat has some (? number) of shares of the fake stock.  He knew they were the fake stock when he bought them, he knows they are the fake stock now.  He ripped off other users selling what he knew was fake stock for 10 BTC a share (a 10,000% profit for himself).  Nefario has said the fake GLBSE shares will be removed from everyone's accounts and they will be given the IPO price (0.1 BTC).  Goat (the only scammer in the thread) calls that a scam.

Why are you assuming goat lost money.  Reading between the lines Goat bought shares at the IPO price, shares he knew were worthless.  He then sold a few of them for 10 BTC ea (a 10,000% profit) to victims and now will get reimbursed in full for the remaining shares.  So please tell me exactly what Goat "lost"?

Can the forum software be modified to auto-lock threads after say 180 days of inactivity?  Lately it seems there seems to be a rash of pointless thread necros.
If a thread is really that important mods could have the ability to unlock it.

There is no such thing as enormous amounts.  In a free market is the prices are too high competitors will join and drive down prices or the demand will be reduced as potential customers are turned off by the high prices.  Entities looking to maximize their return is what leads to price discovery.

If a price is too low show a buyer avoid it and offer to pay more?  That is the reverse of a company lowering their price despite demand at the current price.

Consumer looks for the lowest price for the goods/service and company seeks the highest price.  That dynamic leads to more participants.  With lots of buyers and sellers you get a better price discovery, a clearer view of what "the market" in aggregate considers an acceptable price.

Which is why they pay taxes to the SEC to handle their responsibilities for them.  Entities like the SEC ensure that even idiots are shielded from the true risks of blindly investing.
So getting a little meta either you give over responsibility for the state OR you take person responsibility.  You can't have it both ways.  Nefario seems to be taking some of that "SEC like" role.  By putting up min requirements and specifying default contracts it would provide at least some protection.

Also I would point out in a community each shareholder isn't a "island" they can ask questions.  While the responsibility is still personal they can draw from the knowledge and expertise of others.  Community members can provide explanations.  Members can point out the risks of a contract saying X or not specifying Y.  At least putting it in writing creates a starting point.  Better and better contracts will be built by looking at prior contracts.  Simply having all rights undefined and nebulous prevents any sort of "best practices" to emerge.  

Essentially.  People have this mistaken conception that the "law" (and we will use third party arbitration in place of the courts here) defines every aspect of every scenario imaginable.  The reality is it doesn't.  The law, contracts, regulations are more like guidelines.  A lot falls between the cracks.  Most of the time all parties can reach an equitable solution even when something isn't explicitly defined.  If multiple parties can't reach an equitable consensus then it falls on an independent third party to make a decision.

So lets take Matt's idiot bet.  I am 100% convinced that any third party arbiter would squash his "reason" for nothing paying.  It was nonsensical.  The contract doesn't have to define that the example isn't binding and is just an example in order to make that so. 

Look I am not saying it "should" be done this way or that way.  I am just saying that in the real world contracts do need to be revised, and amended.  The idea that you can't have that without allowing 51% of shareholders to rob the 49% is just silly.  As Bitcoin "grows up" it will need to forge its own standards otherwise things like GLBSE are merely toys where nerds rob other nerds pretending to be doing real business.  In other words GLBSE is just Eve Online without the starships.