Hi. I tried to buy some G.sdice shares on bitfunder and this is what is showing "
"Status: Temporary suspension of trading for user protection"
Anybody know what's going on? Last recorded trade.
2013-06-22 03:57:42 SELL ฿0.00195100 99 ฿0.19314900
You should check out the thread for G.SDICE, there is more information there. |
|
|
|
If you really like to issue a security that can be called a bond, you need to get few things right.
1) Understand, that bond is a loan. Issuer (you) borrows X coins from investors and promises to pay it all back by predetermined date XYZ - maturity date + interest payments.
2) Bonds are called (bought back by issuer) at predetermined price. Usually at par value (face value).
3) If you like to make weekly payments, your bonds have a weekly coupon.
4) Coupon payment (interest payment) is calculated from par value. Coupon is fixed (there are partially floating coupons but those are notes and are called Floating rate notes (FRNs))
5) If you fuck up and you have to close down, bond holders must be paid out before anyone else (because bond is dept).
All this information is nicely available in the net. Read and ask questions.
Pleas, stop issuing and buying this perpetual junk disguised as bonds.
Right. Do we really need to reinvent a bunch of terms for things? The existing structure is so astonishingly lucrative for the issuers that there will always be unscrupulous operators who want to issue this garbage. TAT made a quick $20k off his venture. Then he doubled that by using the money to buy ASICMINER.
It really has to fall to the exchange operators. If they want their operation to be a place where investors can make an honest buck by funding startup ventures, they will ban new issues of PMBs. The existing ones will bleed out over the next 6 months, and then we will be done with the horror show for good.
If PMBs aren't banned, I have to assume the exchange operators want their sites to be venues for sharks to slaughter the sheep investors.
Notice that there are no "mining companies" or "mining bonds" listed on the MPEx. |
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of ways to have Bitcoin keep its value, instead of always fluctuating up and down. As far as I know, it rises because lots of people buy coins, and once it hits a certain point, someone decides to sell a large amount, so the price drops a little bit, causing everyone else to sell, dropping the price lots. It falls down, until it hits a low enough value that people wish to "buy back in", and then the price begins to rise again, and the cycle repeats.
My idea is that instead of waiting for the price to rise to sell coins, wait for the price to rise to buy something with coins. Go to coingig, or bitcoinstore, and find an item that you want, and tell yourself "When Bitcoin hits 120$ (or any price), I'm going to buy this item instead of selling to an exchange.".
I think that this would help keep the price stable, as well as distribute the coins more, instead of keeping them all locked up in an exchange.
EDIT:: My knowledge of economics is minimal, so I could be way off.
If you go to a store and use your bitcoins to buy something, the guy who just got them will dump them in the market, so the overall effect on the price is very small. Just to be clear, there is a very small effect, since there is that 1 hour wait for confirmations before the other guy can dump them on the market, but like I said it is a very small effect. |
|
|
|
Fascinating. I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner? There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,... Who else completely defaulted on these securities?
This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond. By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.
No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher. That is what discount means. A lower price to account for the default risk. Net, I don't think you can come up with a pricing model that justifies fair value of a mining bond greater than the cost of hashing hardware available at present. And since it wouldn't be rational to sell a bond at that price, it isn't possible to offer mining bonds at fair value. Sorry, misread what you were saying, I edited my previous post. |
|
|
|
|
Any news on this?
You must be overpaying that programmer, because it is taking alot longer to get the site running than you said it would.
|
|
|
|
Fascinating. I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner? There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,... Who else completely defaulted on these securities?
This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond. By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.
No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher. EDIT: Wait, the first time I read it I thought you were saying that the risk of default makes the high price OK. Nevermind. Take a look back through the securities section of the forum and you will find plenty of other examples. It was not just mining bonds either. Remember UBX raised something like 1250 btc. And bitcointorrents was paying regular monthly dividends but I think they disappeared when the GLBSE went down. And then there is FZB, I am not sure whether to call that a scam? |
|
|
|
Pretty much pointless to continue this discussion. Everyone has already made their mind based on their way of looking into things and what they value most.
One problem with trying to value companies in this way (P/B) is that it is so hard to figure out what the book value is. This should be pretty straightforward check of previous company statements, but it seems to be hard for some of the companies around here to actually say what their assets are. |
|
|
|
...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.
I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0From the second post there, it appears there were others ahead of him with the scam concept. Ok, it seems this thread got moved from "Marketplace" here. Sorry to have caused any confusion or trouble.
The original reasoning to put it there was that dishwara + SIN also have their threads regarding their mining contract sales in that other area.
Yeah, I had forgotten exactly who was doing what. Dishwara was more of a mining company, I think, SIN was a "perpetual" mining bond, and CM400 was a mining bond with a limited lifetime. CM400 payed much less back than was originally invested. SIN the operator took off with everybodies money, Dishwara ran into trouble of some sort with the mining, but he bought back the outstanding shares eventually. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is somebody trying to manipulate the price upward?
|
|
|
|
...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.
I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0 |
|
|
|
No, I mean there is nothing currently available, but there are people who would use such a thing if it existed. It is a 'potential market'.
So if there is nothing there then the divisor is 0. The market is what the market is, not what the market could be. I guess that depends on if you are looking at past figures or future projections. |
|
|
|
I would say there is some sort of potential market for bitcoin games, so the divisor here is non-zero.
What exactly do you have in mind, the Dragon Tale thing? It's kinda dead/abandoned from what I've seen last. No, I mean there is nothing currently available, but there are people who would use such a thing if it existed. It is a 'potential market'. |
|
|
|
Added.
Posts when started: 201
19S51M1kLwVJ4Njbhmp32RqRhh15UKyNM3
I had to check, and the fact that your posts match your activity level is pretty cool. Yeah, I found that kind of interesting as well. Not really that interesting, since activity is just your post count or the time you have been using the forum, whichever is lower. |
|
|
|
So am I reading this correctly?
$800,000 has been invested in a company that has no business, assets or firm plans, other than a 'desire' to get involved in Bitcoin games........
You are reading this wrongly. 8,799.0657479 BTC were invested in MP's game venture. It's not "a" company, and dollars aren't involved. Furthermore, the corp does have assets: 8,799.0657479 BTC, in cash, and it does have plans, as discussed in the OP. Apparently "you are reading this wrongly" was not actually accurate. Should have said "every single thing you think is wrong". To help piss you off further: 38k BTC were invested in S.MPOE too. Now, you were saying? LOL. PR just got trolled hard, or somebody stupid just walked into a good drubbing. Sometimes it is hard to tell about sarcasm on the internet? Right now they have 0%, which will continue until they release something.
Indeed. Of the 10bn dollar video game market (significantly larger than the movie market, for that matter), 0%. Of the 0 BTC video game market, an unspecified % (as the result of dividing zero by zero is undefined). I would say there is some sort of potential market for bitcoin games, so the divisor here is non-zero. So it is more accurate to say you have 0% of the market, which puts you in top place next to all the other people thinking about making bitcoin games. The difference is you visibly have funding, which is one step ahead of anybody else. |
|
|
|
How much marketshare do you have? 2%? 5%? 10%?
Right now they have 0%, which will continue until they release something. |
|
|
|
Why is this in bitcoin discussion? It should be moved to offtopic, it's about a forum!
+1 Or at least put it over in "project developement", but it definitely should be out of "general bitcoin" I am not sure having a standalone application
No one said anything about a stand alone client application. The application on the *server* is intended to be a stand alone application in that it doesn't need a bunch of plugins installed or even an httpd server. Oh, I guess that was not clearly laid out in the OP. So you will still access this through a web browser? |
|
|
|
I think bitcointalk.org is the absolute worst place to talk about Bitcoin, except for all the other places.
There's something about this place that keeps it relevant in spite of its warts, and I'm not sure that whatever it is would move to a new forum. It's been tried before.
The thing you are looking for is "the network effect". This community thrives because this is where the people are. I tried to use some other forums in the past, but since there were few other users it quickly devolved into interesting links back to this forum. I am not sure having a standalone application is the best way to go. I find it convenient that I can log into the forum from any computer. Having to install software is a big turn-off for many of the less-technically inclined. |
|
|
|
|
I might be interested in this, but only if we get past the first price tier.
If the price of bitcoins changes before you send in the order would that affect the prices we get?
|
|
|
|
There is already a well-funded group developing proprietary gateway software to integrate a BTC economy into several major game platforms. If you are still at the stage of raising capital you have probably already missed the boat. It should have been obvious for at least a year that BTC is ideally suited to replace in-game currencies, especially if you want to migrate assets between platforms. The only sticking point has been the resistance to abandoning control of the value of current proprietary game currencies for a self-regulating one. But that resistance is beginning to crumble as the benefits begin to make themselves apparent. They are doing quite a bit behind the scenes on this, and whether they are successful will be for the future to determine. Please take this with a grain of salt, I can offer no proof, so just consider it a random rumor, and just another datapoint.
I am under NDA to really say anything else, so don't ask.
Until this "well-funded group" actually releases something it is still a wide open field. S.MG is past the stage of raising capital, or didn't you notice that the IPO is already done? |
|
|
|
I entered 0.01 btc - 6000 xrp (per united price) = 60 xrp
and confirmed.
The order was accepted and then something strange happened:
Under "my orders" the were the following entries:
Type Pair Price Amount
sell XRP 0.00016 BTC 60 XRP
BTC (Bitstamp deposit) CANCEL
So what's going on with the "price" is that a bitstamp fee or what does that mean?
Can I see my order anywhere in the order book?
It is just showing you the price of XRP in bitcoins, when you entered the order you were using the price of bitcoins in XRP. It is the same price, just flipped upside down. It is like how BTC cost 112.3 USD, and USD cost 0.008905 BTC. Same price, just looking at it from two different sides. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
