Sold   1011
Swapped   0
Total   1011
Price   0.054589
Total   55.189479
Less Fee   55.07910004
Man Fee   1.652373001

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    898.03505875
12500 LTC-ATF.B1    125.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS    1,023.03505875
   
Outstanding MINING   19450
Outstanding SELLING   19450
Outstanding PURCHASE   211
Effective Units   19661
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   19,339,258
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00013002
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00650111
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01300222
365 days (Buyback)    0.04745810
405 days (IPO)    0.05265898
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.05200887
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.05330910
   
NAV Post MINING Div    1,020.47869257
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05190370
Days Dividend Post Div   399.19
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    1,020.47869257
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.05190370
PURCHASE selling price    0.05449889
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.05086563

There have been a couple of compromised accounts on BTC-TC lately - ones without 2FA of course.

I haven't stated it here (I have in other threads) but ALL accounts of mine which have 2FA available have 2FA enabled.

Where possible I use yubikey - where that isn't possible I use Google Authenticator.  My Google one-time passes are generated on a smart-phone NOT on any computer I use.

My yukikey is attached to the key-ring with my front-door key on and I carry my smartphone with me.  So even knowledge of my passwords AND physical access to the computers I use (none of which are public ones) would NOT allow access to my accounts.  Gaining access to an email account COULD allow changing/recovering a password but that would be useless without 2FA - which, of course, is why 2FA is absolutely essential.

Just clearing that up in case anyone was concerned.

EDIT: And I'm off to bed now - so any more transfers in won't get handled until an hour or so before today's dividend.

Hope you mean other way round.

Maker should get the lower or zero fee (for adding liquidity), taker the larger (or whole) fee for removing liquidty.  It's great for removing spreads - with people buying bidding 1 satoshi below ask rather than buying so as to avoid a fee.

The other way round (which you said) works to discourage people placing orders - leaving empty order books.

Believe JAH on Bitfunder now pays significantly more than 1 MH per bond - he increased it for free.  Not logged into Bitfunder and can't remember exactly what he pays - but pretty sure he bumped it up a lot.

DMC can be removed - it's never been a mining company, just an investment fund.

I also wouldn't include ASICMINER or AMC - if you try to value them based on hashing you'd be doing the wrong thing.

Shares you CAN compare to PMBs - but any reinvestment percentage has to be treated as though it were paid out in dividends when working out the effective hash per share.  Exception being companies that produce (or claim to intend to produce) their own hardware - those can't reasonably be compared based on hashing power.

And YABMC is only a bit over 0.6 MH/s per share not 1.  Contract says 1 - but two of the partners in it scammed so the only hashspower currently being paid out is from what the honest partner in it pays.

If anyone wonders why ASIC.COOP is so cheap the issuer of it also ran a bond - which he defaulted on.  Supposedly the cash from bonds was being used for various things - including mining.  When he defaulted it turned out he had no mining (or had some and lied saying he didn't).  Not sure how it turned out as he stopped responding in the forums.  But potential investors should be aware there IS a reason why it looks such a good deal (aside from it being pre-orders anyway).

It may be useful to note which ones are already paying dividends and which are still waiting for hardware before they start.

I'm not sure it's correct to say DMS.MINING carries additional risk - it has risks other PMBs don't, but also misses lacks risks in PMBs with physical miners.  In all likely scenarios it will pay out the same as a PMB for a long time.  The single notable exception is if difficulty stays the same, drops or rises by only a  tiny amount for a protracted period of time - when after about a year it would close down with a final lump payment of 100 weeks.  But if that happens it would almost certainly mean you never got your hardware - as its hard to see a scenario in which your miner gets shipped but difficulty isn't rising much.

Anyway, good luck with the asset.  The contract's clear - and it's certainly better value than a lot of other 'PMBs' around.  I'm not a moderator but if I was I'd vote yes - but with a note that it is NOT a  loan and that capital will NOT be repaid (there's no guarantee of it ever being fully returned - just a definition of a buyout option).  Beyond that investors have to do their own valuations and comparison shopping.

Nah it won't be repaid.  It'll be bought out.  Not the same thing.

I'd certainly agree that there's people who over-estimate the likely growth of difficulty as well as those who underestimate it.  Most of those argue based on a period of time starting when ASICs began arriving - and ignore the much flatter period before it.

I think it would be a mistake, however, to assume costs now reflect where prices will be in 6 months time or even in 3 months time.  Pricing now is set to try to cover NRE - and to try to milk as much cash as possible from the shortage of actual ASICs (as opposed to vapourware ones).  Once NRE is recovered, costs per unit after that are pretty tiny compared to current prices - so there's definitely scope of heavy price cuts.  And those who have recovered NREs are likely to make such cuts - in part to cripple any attempts from others to enter the market.

The argument that people would need to spend more than the value (in terms of output) of ASICs would warrant is meaningless.  Just look at what's happening right now - people are happily buying bonds, shares and hardware that will never pay for itself.  Don't underestimate the willingness of Bitcoiners to throw away coins in pursuit of the delusion that mining is automatically profitable.

And don't discount the possibility of a rise in price of BTC - which changes all the math.

But yes - there are overly pessimistic views as well as the (far more common) overly optimistic ones.

As you make no claims that investors will make a profit that isn't, in my view, an issue in assessing whether you can list or not.  Investors have to make their own decision on that.

One last point.  If you're listing now but escrowing until hardware arrives (and refunding if it doesn't arrive) then what benefit is there to investors in buying shares now rather than when the hardware arrives?  If you waited until then you could look at ACTUAL difficulty and adjust your price in either direction to compete with the market - and likely output - rather than having to guess now.  Plus avoid all the lost transaction fees on sales if the hardware never arrives.  And the investors would have the cash to use - with no CP risk - for that period rather than it sitting around idle earning noone anything.

I don't think it is.  I'd say fund is the closest of the three available (I agree it isn't exactly any of them).

Bonds are debt - you certainly aren't selling debt.

You're selling equity in hashing power owned by the company.  If you consider the hashing power to be an asset then investors are buying it and being paid based on its performance (albeit an idealised performance rather than an actual one).

If you look at what the key elements of bonds are this (and other PMBs) don't match at all.  A fund is closer - as each share represents ownership of an (intangible) asset which will vary (usually downwards) in value over time and generate income.

It's by no means the only term being widely abused.  Just look at how ROI is being widely misused.  A few people use it incorrectly (apparently believing it means Return OF Investment), sheep trying to look clever parrot that use without any real knowledge and now it's widely used to mean the period it take for investment to be returned.  When of course it stands for Return ON investment and cannot be specified as a period of time.

With multiple orders on exact same price the oldest DOES get filled first.

I'm fine with limiting decimals based on price - that doesn't have any obvious flaws (provided it allows reasonable definition).  I'm still not seeing what the big problem is - other than people being offended that they weren't outbid by much.  The only time you have the right to top bid is if you place a bid that noone else is willing to beat.  That's rarely the case - usually if you get top bid it's because noone else was around or paying attention, not because they wouldn't go higher.  I don't see the change actually achieving much other than maybe narrowing spreads slightly faster (which is good) - bots (and low-income people who can sit there refreshing) will still outbid you all the time you're below their maximum bid price.  Just by slightly more.

So if I want to put a small bid I just put a large fake one, put my small one on top then cancel the large one.

And if there's no bids at all you can't put one if it's small?

Really not seeing why so many people think they have some entitlement not to be over-bid.  Making it harder for higher bids to be placed isn't helping anyone or adding liquidity.

You've given a solution - but not explained what problem it is solving or how it solves it.

EDIT: Let me explain one of the problems with this solution (assuming it actually solves something).  A not uncommon scenario is a share with an enormous spread between bid and ask - usually after someone panic sold.  With this solution noone could put up a small bid at anywhere near a reasonable price - they'd either have to pile on the 10,0000 units at .00001 bid or buy from the ask.  With a tight spread it would do no harm (and no good) - with a wide spread it's positively terrible.  The only person who benefits is whoever has the top bid - who now can't be outbid by small traders no matter how ridiculously low their bid is.  For everyone else the bid is either neutral or bad.

Yes - that's about the only sane way of doing it.  I'm not convinced it's a real problem myself - but I'd actually benefit from it so certainly don't object (only bots and people in low-income countries can afford to sit there constantly updating orders).

I disagree with some of this.  It DOES add liquidity because, even if we consider his bid to be the same as yours, by placing his bid he's increased liquidity at that price-point.  Problem with arbitrary limits is they add more serious problems - not the least of which is that valid orders can get rejected if someone else makes the same valid order at the same time.

Increasing minimum increment will either make a difference or it won't.

If it's too small to make a difference (i.e. they have to bid .03351 instead of .033501) then it's pointless.
But at the other extreme where it makes too big a difference (e.g. they have to bid .0345) then it distorts the market - as you can place a bid which allows profitable arbitrage and at the same time blocks others narrowing the margin.

On an aside it's a total waste of time anyway as it wouldn't stop anything.  I'd better explain why - as it isn't entirely obvious.

Any restriction on Bid increments could only be applied to the TOP bid - not to bids elsewhere in the book.

So you have you bid at .0335 and I want to bid .033501 but can't - as I have to bid more.

Fine my bot bids for 1 unit at .034, places my real order at .033501 (now legal as .0335 isn't top bid) then cancels my .034 order.  The system can't start cancelling existing bids if they would break the rules if new - or I could UNDERbid you by .000001 and force YOUR order to be cancelled.

Reducing the precision allowed on bids is what burnside tried - but that has its own problems.  Not the least of which is that if BTC rises anything with an underlieing USD element is going to need those extra digits.  Every time difficulty rises by a factor of 10 all mining bonds SHOULD have their value shifted 1 place to the right, needing 1 more digit.

The best hope for it to stop is actually for MORE bots to join - and let them keep outbidding one another until the spread closes to nothing.  Then just give them a nudge in the right direction with a temporary bid and let them trade with one another at a spread below the exchange's fees.

Also it's worth looking at what they respond to.  Some only respond to overbids worth more than X - and can be fooled into not adjusting price just by staggering your own bids in chunks just under X.  Also once you know X and know the size of their bid you can work out the potential cost of trying to force them into a bid you'd willingly fill.  All of which reminds me I really need to get my own GLBSE bot converted - though with BTC-TC's caching it won't be practical to strip cash from bots as efficiently as you could on GLBSE (a bot to raid other bots would need to read market data from uncached web-pages rather than cached API).

Think what he was asking is whether ASICMINER's hashing reducing would affect difficulty - and hence dividends.  Answer to that is if ASICMINER's hashing stays low then difficulty will increase by less than had that hashing power been working.  Whether that's enough for difficulty to actually fall is debatable - at present, if hashing doesn't rise from other sources (and ASICMINER's hash-rate stays depressed), next difficulty change would be a miniscule rise and so a tiny drop in dividend/day.  Without knowing WHY ASICMINER's hash-rate has fallen there's no way to know how long it will stay low - and whether there's any likelihood of it falling further. 

Most reasons why ASICMINER hashing power has dropped would only generate a short-term drop -e.g. relocating or upgrading some equipment, but there are some possible reasons that could lead to a greater reduction - e.g. chips failing or enforcement action against them.  The short-term ones seem the most likely to me.

They can't really do 2 - as everyone can work out what they should be paying for the hashing power per contract.  That's why it almost certainly isn't a ponzi - as they won't ever be paying out the 500% to anyone.

Hit and run would be if they took in the money and didn't pay anything.  That's also unlikely in the short-term - as they make more by paying out and continuing to sell more contracts.  Don't underestimate the stupidity of people here - they'll continue reinvesting in crap that will never make a profit even after the proof it won't make a profit has been rubbed in their face by the tiny returns they've actually got.

I'd bet investors on this forum have lost more BTC investing in mining companies than they've lost in all the actual scams put together (including Pirate).  If you run a mining company you don't have to steal - you just skim a big margin off turnover leaving investors with a loss.  Mining is only marginally profitale most of the time - it's impossible for investors to make a profit if the operator takes any sort of significant cut from turnover rather than from profit.  There HAVE been a few exceptions to that - but anything that isn't already mining (or manufacturing chips) isn't one of them at this point in the cycle.

It IS possible that they will make a 'profit' (in USD) for investors if BTC rises a lot.  But that's deceptive and irrelevant for users of this forum (returns need to be compared to just buying and holding BTC - with 0 counter-party exposure to both cloudhashing AND their hardware suppliers).  For those buying in USD it may be more relevant - but is still horrible value compared to buying and holding BTC.

Actually it almost certainly is NOT a ponzi.

Nowhere do they promise to pay out 500% - that's just the fairy-tale projection they make.  They can pay out what they actually promise (output of X hashes) and still pocket a load of cash - no need to be paying from future investments.

Of course their projections are total bullshit - investors will be lucky if they ever even get back what they invested.  But that doesn't actually make it a scam - as that's true of nearly all mining companies (just not to such a great extent).  Where it probably IS a scam is because they give projections which are totally implausible - but try convincing Trading Standards of that if you make a complaint.

Ponzi - No.
Profitable - No.
Scam - Depends on how you define it.  Of course they COULD just run and pay out nothing - but that makes little sense, at least until sales dry up.

A lot of the time it's bots doing that.  There are a few bots that are just trading the spread with small volumes.

Annoying though it can be, I disagree with you.  If you want top bid or lowest ask then put a price that they won't outbid/undercut.  Alternatively you can force them to a price where you're happy to fill their order then move your own order.  Once you figure out their ranges it isn't hard to outmanouver them - for example on Bid side the most active bot won't outbid anything that's within 20% of the lowest Ask - so you can either bid at 19.9% below lowest ask or put a 1 unit ask yourself to reduce that range.  On very illiquid securities with large spreads you can even force the bots into selling to you then buying back at a higher price - and repeat until the owner notices.

Reason I disagree is simply that the process of outbidding - even at tiny increments - is a discovery process.  It's working out who won't go higher (or lower).  If you have a problem because of it, it means you aren't bidding/asking near the edge of your range.  If that's the case for both of you then reducing the minimum won't stop it happening - it'll just reduce the number of iterations before you get to the edge (the point where one of you won't change their order any more).  Either of you can already speed up that process - by using larger increments themselves.

0.1% may sound tiny - but that's half the trading fee.  i.e. it's half the cost that needs to be covered to make an arbitrage opportunity break-even or profitable.  If you were to raise the limit to 1% then you'd end up in a situation where someone could bid 1.1% below the arb point and, despite there being a 0.9% profitable range left noone else could outbid them without risking loss.

Because of that, if limits were to be imposed they'd need to be based on a percentage of SPREAD not PRICE.  So where the spread was small minimum overbids would be fine - where spread was large a more significant increment would be demanded.  But that makes it hard to understand.  And any such limit is a real pain on any active security - as if two or more people are trying to adjust prices at the same time, some of them may have orders rejected even though they met the criteria based on the information they had when they were entering their order.

In short I'd say No.  If another trader's actions are annoying then either:

1.  Live with it - the market IS (in part) for making profit from other traders.  On most trades someone is losing money (IPO sales aside) - a bit of butt-hurt is irrelevant compared to that.
2.  Do the same thing but better.
3.  Exploit it.
4.  Prevent it by being more aggressive in your own orders - force them to make hard decisions rather than just letting them keep outbidding in tiny increments.

Sold   2415
Swapped   0
Total   2415
Price   0.054609
Total   131.880735
Less Fee   131.6169735
Man Fee   3.948509206

Management fee of 3.948 transferred

BTC Balance (BTC-TC)    847.03313166
12500 LTC-ATF.B1    125.00000000
TOTAL ASSETS    972.03313166
   
Outstanding MINING   18423
Outstanding SELLING   18423
Outstanding PURCHASE   227
Effective Units   18650
   
Block reward   25
Difficulty   19,339,258
Hashes per MINING   5000000
   
Daily Dividend    0.00013002
50 days (Min Liquid)    0.00650111
100 days (Forced Close)    0.01300222
365 days (Buyback)    0.04745810
405 days (IPO)    0.05265898
400 days (Post SELLING div)    0.05200887
410 days (Pre SELLING div)    0.05330910
   
NAV Post MINING Div    969.60821791
NAV/U Post MINING Div    0.05198972
Days Dividend Post Div   399.85
SELLING Dividend    -         
NAV Post SELLING Div    969.60821791
NAV/U Post Selling Div    0.05198972
PURCHASE selling price    0.05458920
PURCHASE buy-back price    0.05094992

If the market pricing was correct then ALL of the dividend would have gone off the SELLING price afterwards.

I'm not seeing that MINING+SELLING is cheaper than PURCHASE.  Yeah - the Bids are, but the Asks aren't - you can't buy a MINING+SELLING for less than a PURCHASE.  You need to compare bids to bids and asks to asks.

The big drop in MINING isn't at all unexpected - I'd actually expected it to drop lower before recovering.  The prices of these are going to swing around a LOT more than for PMBs - as people can sell MINING or SELLING without having ever bought one : and the potential for panic selling is far higher.

With a normal PMB, if someone thinks its losing value or they paid too much they can just try to sell slightly below the Issuer's price.  You can see that happening on TAT.VM - where people are trying to sell just under his own .007 Ask (and pray he doesn't decide to sell cheaper himself of course).  They can't afford to wait and try to do that on MINING if they decide they paid too much as :

1.  There's no issuer's Ask wall to put Asks below.  I only sell PURCHASE - I've never sold MINING or SELLING and there's never been an official price for them.
2.  Anyone who thinks MINING is overpriced can just buy PURCHASE, split it and sell MINING - there's no restriction on who can undercut you so far more chance of it happening.  
3.  With TAT.VM (And all PMBs) all shares were bought at the initial price - so if they're sold below it then someone has made a loss on it.  With MINING that isn't the case - it could be a share straight from a split where the seller believes they're making (or locking in) a profit on the sale.

In short - the market will move to a new range much more quickly and stay there all the time that's where the general belief is that it belongs.  That makes it potentially far more profitable if you get it right - but also far more brutal when you get it wrong.

The price also can't be fixed in the same way it can on some PMBs.  Having a small number of shares issued allows someone with a good chunk of them to move the range to where they want.  That just can't be done on MINING and SELLING - as if you move the price to a wrong range then anyone who wants can just buy in and clear out your walls that were artifically propping the price up.  Usually such fixes are to raise the price after accumulating a lot - where noone else can break down your bid walls as there aren't enough shares.  That forces trading to be above the walls - making it look like it's the real range and fooling those not paying attention into believing the market set the price.

The only way that could be done here is if I was in on it - and I think if I refused to sell more PURCHASE or to split them there'd soon be threads pointing out that I was fixing the market by limiting supply.