I dont know. It happened a good couple of times now that someone sold shares for 0.1btc. Ok, maybe he was frightened, but short after a good message in this thread?

It doesnt make much sense to me. I mean its probably the same person otherwise i dont see really why so many different persons should buy at 0.1 and sell at different times for the same amount.

Im only a bit suspicious about this. At least the seller has to be one of the buyers from ipo because the number of shares isnt changing. So i think it cant be some kind of scam does it? I mean i dont see a hint that anything at this project is suspicious but bitcoin investments are a minefield.

/Theorise on
I mean when someone wants to run a scam he maybe makes a plan that looks like much money so that the investors think that he cant afford to lose the much money. While in fact he is targetting to get away with a small portion of money. So he can hide this fact because all think the big money insures it. So maybe at ipo sell shares and, because you are the owner, you move some shares to yourself. Then stop selling so that customers think thats cool... he doesnt buy more even though he could. Strong sign its not a scam. A scammer would take as much money as possible.
Then over time the shares that were moved to the private account are sold. But only to the point to let the course be stable. But you can earn money and run. All looks safe and normal while one can run with the money at some point. Leaving behind shares that never were planned to have value. Only to let investors think the securityissuer has something to lose.
/Theorise off

Im only thinking around what these sells are. They dont make sense to me. Against my theorising speaks that none of my 1000 shares were bought. I mean they could have been bought without letting the course fall. Or are the shares all sold?

Or maybe the sells for 0.1 was a mistake because the seller simply calculated the amount of shares in the bidsection and sold a round number of shares. But no... there were 100BTC sold for 0.1BTC. Thats no error. And unfortunately exactly the amount for the 1000 shares i offered. *grmbl* glbse...

The asics are a quantum leap for mining. So insanely profitable is not unlikely - at least for a few weeks. However, it's a race. The one who has the first working chips will be able to profit the most. Others will just get a fraction of those profits. The real question is the timelag between chip product and mining operation and the rate at which new chips can be added.

At least with ASICMINER the community has an opportunity to participate in the enterprise. AFAIK BFL doesn't offer this - but my guess is they will be doing the same behind the scences and keep all the profits for themselves.

For crying out loud. Are you the kinda guy who assumes a SINGLE paragraph can capture a complete market analysis based on a complete set of input data? That takes pages. The post was meant to point out the fact that the first in the market is pretty worthless if you can't compete on volume. I just used some numbers to indicate the magnitudes (*/10). It's a valid approach for napkin science.

Anyway to provide you with more constructive data I've created an excel sheet and put it online http://ubuntuone.com/7BapyGzeikNy4SVvGKDOax
Feed it with your own set of arbitrary data to get a feeling for how mining rewards work.

First, I didn't refute anything - just questioned the priority of being first. Second, you do realize that you're falling for the same kind of argumentative traps you're accusing me of here...

The above scripts provides a simple linear growth based yield analysis over 90 days with some arbitrary data (DISCLAIMER). It assumes the base TH to be 20 and two competitors A and B. A is first to the market and can add 1TH a day. A has 28 days head start before B starts putting out 2 TH a day. At day 28, A owns 60% hashrate. Hashrate of A and B is equal at day 55.
In this case total yield for A and B is 133K BTC and 91K BTC, respectively. To break even, B would have to add about 3TH a day instead of 2TH, leading to a yield of 118K BTC and 112K BTC for A and B, respectively.

Thus being second to the market by a month means you'd need to have a 3 fold volume output to break even with the profits of the leader on a 3 months schedule. It's less severe if you calculate on a 6 months schedule (only 2 fold volume required).

So yes first to the market is important, but if you can pump out a 10 fold volume, 1 month doesn't really matter in the long run.

With that attitude you never get a business started. You need ballpark figures to play with and get a feel for the market.

No, actually the prediction is 0<x<324K BTC for the 90 days beginning december. 20% is a conservative estimate for success. It's likely to be higher. Or 0% if it's a failure.

Calculating on a 3 month schedule with the 1THvs2TH scenario mentioned above the total split will be: 41% A, 28% B, 30% Base

Never claimed it and every individual who has a brain on its own is likely to get the picture. I am just sorry if I offended you in any way by providing some unsupported ballpark figures.

matauc12, I suggest you help us by providing a better analysis.  I would definitely appreciate it.  Thanks.

, Thanks At&T and Apple.

The real question is not who's first to the market, but who has the most sustained volume within e.g. a three month period december-februrary. The miners are competing for 25*(6*24*90) BTC = 324000 BTC which is about $3M at current exchange rates. So if ASICminer can sustain a 20% level, that's $600k profit. That's the big short term  prize where part of it get handed over as dividends and other parts are used to expand the production and bootstrap the hardware selling.
I doubt that BFL can pump out huge volumes. (e.g. 50 TH per month), so 20% is still a reasonable goal.

Even though only a very, very small investor, I would still love to hear at what stage you currently are and what the timeline for the next 2 months looks like. BFL still say that they will be shipping late october to early november, so if you manage to do go live at about the same time, that would be great news.

If you're so stupid that you didn't even understand my point, then you shouldn't even be using the internet. I never said to buy the card just so you could get the game, I was implying that there are huge amounts of unused DiRT codes because they went to people that didn't need them. In fact, I still have my code from my AMD purchase. You just gave me an idea.

Not to mention how iBuyPower gives out these codes for FREE to anyone who buys an AMD card with their computer and you can get it for 10 bucks or so when you're buying a bundle. The game itself, too, isn't worth 30 bucks.

It is necessary to mention that the number returned by the API doesn't have the manually maintained shares with private contracts included.

Personally, Our design is not created for Mobile devices at this time because we have a mobile site in development.

As for colour schemes, we have been experimenting with quite a few different colours, and we personally think the colours we chose in the blues were right for our design, its more of a pastel colour, just faded a bit, but, i will pass your notes onto our designer and see if he agrees or not.

still do not get it and I completely understand all the paypal concerns and have heard all the horror stories but...

-Its the buyers not the sellers setting the premium on Ebay (so its not like the seller is adding in a scam premium to his price - its an auction where price is determined by the buying community)

-There are lots and lots of ways to protect yourself on Ebay (including things like cancelling bids to low rated users, accepting different forms of payment besides paypal, only accepting verified payments etc.)

Do you really think everyone paying a $6 premium on Ebay for a Bitcoin is scamming?

Getting aged and verified Ebay and paypal accounts is not the easiest task and would most likely cost much more then a $7 scam is worth.