No.

Difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks which is ~14 days when difficulty is relatively static.

If BFL numbers are to be believed difficulty will more than double just the first batch of pre-orders go out.  So even those who get a Jalapeno on day 0 won't be getting ~$84.69 for the first week.  More like (assuming rest of your # are right) ~$12 per day for the first 2 or 3 days and then difficulty will double. 

However if you buy now you aren't going to get your BFL product on day 0.  Take a look at the BFL Single's delivery thread for an idea of what kind of delays to expect.  If you get your Jalapeno 12 weeks later difficulty will have already tripled or possibly quadrupled by then, also factor in the 25 BTC drop and likely some future difficulty increases much more significant than 8% per adjustment.  If we compare the MH/W and MH/$ to GPUs difficulty could easily be 5x to 10x as high as it currently is within a few months if BFL can keep deliveries going out in bulk.

I am not saying "don't get a BFL Jalapeno" I am just saying your numbers are pie in the sky fantasy land.  Even those who get theirs on day #0 won't generate that kind of return.

Thank you for the kind words.
Thank you for the kind words.  We certainly always try to meet the needs of our clients.
Earning trust, one deposit at a time.


We have open and funded a PNC business deposit account but they messed up some of the options which need to be fixed before we can securely accept deposits from the public.  
I have a meeting this afternoon.  We should be accepting PNC deposits "soon". My best guess would be within 1 or 2 days by the end of the week, but when dealing with banks ... well they are banks.

On edit:  Another complication (screw up) by PNC.  Looks like accepting PNC deposits will be pushed back at least 3 business days.  I still hope it will be available by the end of the week.

None and none.  Got any other strawman arguments?

Matt's actions weren't a stunt.  How much I did or did not lose is irrelevant.

I didn't make a wager.  I didn't say I was doing anything.  Matt got scammer tag, his rep ruined, and he lost his job over it.  Nothing more is going to happen.
I was just pointing out that making a wager and then taking it back after losing is generally not considered a "stunt" anywhere.  It is fraud.
Still the debt is uncollectable, Matt has no intent on paying, and likely can't pay even if he wanted to.  So it is over.

This post-bet experience has been enlightening.  When I see people like you who defend it or minimize it, well it provides some insight into the way YOU think, your value systems, and you likelihood to walk away from an agreement.  An agreement is an agreement and should be honored.  You obviously disagree and look for ways for it to be "ok" to break your word.  That is your choice, I just don't feel doing business with someone who's word means nothing is good risk management.  I also notice the orange Ignore is accurately colored so (click).  


See that is just dumb.  

If I ask you to make a logo and agree to pay 5 BTC and then walk away after you finish is it "no harm"?

Likewise our company allows depositors to lock rates for up to 72 hours.  Obviously this can expose us to currency risk so we have a non-funding penalty (which we rarely need to enforce).
If a client locks a rate, doesn't deposit, and refuses to pay the penalty we will inform the community they are a scammer.

Your "no harm" comment makes me think you feel it is ok to make and break agreements as long as you don't directly steal from someone. I have to disagree.  If you agree to terms and then don't honor them and don't offer compensation then you are a scammer.  That simple.  People shouldn't make agreements they can't or won't honor.

Sadly there is really no good solution.  Methods like digital watermarking can be used but that just allows you to determine where the ID was leaked from.  It doesn't do anything to prevent the ID from being leaked/hacked to begin with.   The only solution to that problems is for only highly trusted people to have access and the number of people kept to a minimum.

What really needs to exist is a CA (or more likely multiple competing CA).  The CA would be bonded (so you can sue the living crap out of them in the event of negligence) backed by deep pockets and have full time security staff on the payroll.  You create a GPG keypair and submit your required docs/ID GPG signed and encrypted.  The CA could take additional steps like doing public records & credit report search to deter identity thieves.  The CA would be audited and adopt strong security policies (like never keeping ID/docs online, using hardened facilities, encrypted off-site backups, etc).

Third parties (like exchanges, OTC trading partners, merchants, etc) could then trust your ID if they trust the CA.  Of course in some instances this would require legislation (i.e. AML rules modified to say that if a FinSEC approved CA has confirmed the indentity then the bank/exchange can use the cert of CA as proof without original docs).   These kinds of problems exist simply because Bitcoin is on the cutting edge.

FYPFY.  Making an agreement for a wager and backing out isn't a stunt.  If you think so trying doing that in a casino.  Try losing a bet and just grabbing your chips and leaving.  Better yet try doing it in some underground poker game.

Meh.  Just get a google galaxy nexus.

Open support for apps (including MtGox trading app, blockchain.info, android spinner, and more).

I mean android has grown up a lot.  I just don't see why any bitcoin user will willingly choose a locked down product by a company who is outright hostile toward Bitcoin.  I mean Apple's market share and attacks on Bitcoin are a real threat to the expansion of Bitcoin in the mobile market.  Users who choose that platform simply make Apple more powerful and their attacks against Bitcoin more effective.

You can get cash from cardpool.  So instead of cash you opt for amazon giftcards that you then sell for 15% off (and just hours before this thread you were offering them for 50% off in the noob forum sorr wrong person, honest mistake).

Either you are really bad at math or ....

They placed their bets relatively early.  Looking back at Matt's posts I am convinced he created an honest bet to begin with.   The "technicality" he escpaed payment from (in his mind only) is so lame it can only be an afterthought.  He made an honest wager, was sure Pirate would pay and when it became clear he wouldn't rather than face the music he raised the cap racked up another 70K BTC in bets, and came up with his exist strategy.

If you look at his early posts he was selected in who he took bets from, requires some younger members to escrow their portion (why have someone escrow a bet you know you will lose).  That changed roughly 14 days ago when he raised the cap, and started accepted 1,000 BTC bets from Jr members.

This.  He isn't upset about what he did or who he affected.  He is simply upset that it had personal consequences for himself.  Reading between the lines if he could do it all over again without consequence he would.

Wait your analysis of an entire nation of 300 million people is based on TV?  Really?  This has to be the most stupid thing I have read in this thread.
What next?  You will blame Americans for their obsession robotics for the Cylon threat and the near genocide of the human race?

Actually in a partnership the partnership IS responsible for tracking the ownership changes failure to do so can render the partnership invalid  (with all the legal and tax nightmare than will cause).  Simply saying yeah a partner broke up his share and sold them off to a couple thousand unknown persons who didn't pay taxes on their profits is completely insufficient.  A partner can't really sell his equity stake on GLBSE and thus remains liable for any taxes due.  Of course GLBSE "shares" also wouldn't give the shareholders any legal or ownership rights over the partnership. 

So as far as legal liability is concerned, the issuer cannot strictly be at fault for brokers/traders who fail to ensure they are in compliance.

Of course they are.   They have no legal authority to issue securities which can be traded by a third party.  Doing so and then blaming the quasi-illegal exchange isn't going to impress a judge or IRS auditor.  In VA for example a partnership must record any time a new partner is added or anytime equity is transferred between partners.  Something that is simply impossible if you are issuing share on GLBSE.

Anyways I am going to let this go.  You obviously seem to think one can operate sole proprietorship or partnership and issue shares traded by anonymous entities on GLBSE while still meeting all regulatory and taxation requirements.  I disagree.  

How?  A partnership can't lawfully issue equity to be traded among anonymous shareholders on an unregulated exchange.  Your conclusion isn't supported by your points.

Blocks are timestamped by the person solving it.  The network does maintain a "network average time" which all nodes share so the timestamp of any new block can't deviate by more than 3 hours from network time.

The network attempts to solve one block per ten minutes.  Every 2016 blocks difficulty is recalculated.  The timestamp between the first and last block should be 2016 * 10 = 20,160 minutes (~14 days).  The difficulty necessary to make the prior 2016 blocks exactly 20,160 minutes is computed and that becomes the difficulty for the next 2016 blocks.

It is possible to spoof the timestamp of a block but only by so much.  An attacker can't really influence difficulty by any meaningful way because only the first and last block matter and they can only deviate from network time by more than 3 hours.

1) Sole proprietorship or partnership by it is very definition would rule out issuing share on GBLSE.  Not sure what bringing those equity structures up has to do with using GBLSE.

2) SEC exceptions for raising equity don't include raising equity from anonymous owners on unregulated exchanges.

3) The Jobs Act will (in 2013 if SEC ever finalizes rules) make is easier for smaller companies to raise equity from crowdfunded sources however the site offering the equity must A) be a registered broker-dealer and B) must NOT allow trading.  GBLSE fails on the second part and has no possible chance of becoming a registered broker dealer in the US. 

The post was about the non-viability of using GBLSE not a complete accounting of all small biz financing.  I am honestly not sure what the point of all that was.

Might be a good idea to rename the thread.  Having "low risk" and "guaranteed" in the title at this point just seems silly.

How about "NCKRAZZE's Deposits - In default.  Organizing repayment plan"

Sorry no I am going with the safer 20% offer.  It said "guaranteed" in the title.

Miner majority has no power in that case.  

If MtGox accepts tx from 25 BTC blocks and merchants accept tx from 25 BTC blocks and FastCash4Bitcoins only pays out on tx from 25 BTC blocks, and most wallet providers only show users 25 BTC blocks and full nodes reject everything but 25 BTC blocks, then the 100 BTC blocks won't have any value.

Now what would suddenly be very profitable would be the miners who broke from the "alliance" and continued to mine 25 BTC blocks.   There is significant economic value for them and with most of the miners gone the value per MH suddenly quadrupled.  

Legal and taxation.

Any company (and no I don't mean someone calling a bunch of rigs a mining "company") only exists because the state says it does.  So Tangible Cryptography LLC is only a legal distinct entity from its owners because the Commonwealth of Virginia says that it is.  Doing things contrary to the Articles of Organization and the laws of Virginia governing Limited Liability Companies jeapordizes that standing.  There are rules on LLC and S-Corp which limit who can be an owner and the process that ownership is established.  For example in an LLC an owner (member) can't simply sell ownership to an outsider.  It requires a vote of existing members to include the new investors as a member and then a transfer of ownership between existing members.  An S-Corp in the US can't have foreigners as shareholders.  Neither entity can legally offer public securities or solicit investment (other than to qualified investors).  Failure to follow the "rules" runs the risk of the entity being disallowed and any liability being placed directly on the owners.  Not a good thing.

The taxation is even more of an issue.  The "entity" (LLC, corp, partnership, etc) is legally obligated to report the profits of its owners.  How do you do that when you don't even know who owns your company?

There are other legal issues but those two are a deal killer.  So either you don't form a corporation or other legal entity and simply put a bunch of assets in a "company" online or you willfully break the law and likely suffer massive consequences when the law catches up to you.

For many entities which deal in the "fiat world", non-compliance with the law and taxation is simply impossible.  Tangible Cryptography LLC USD cashflow (not profits but cashflow) is on the order of ~$10M for this year.  If we continue to grow it could be closer to ~$15M.  Do you think the IRS hasn't already been notified by our banks?  We are almost guaranteed to be audited once the company files its return.  Our books have to be air tight.  Having quasi-illegal owners on some unregulated anonymous exchange is pretty much a guarantee the LLC would be dissolved as fraudulent and the known owners charged with tax evasion and other crimes.  

Anything worth investing in will never put "shares" up on GLBSE.  For the obvious reasons.