This weeks dividendWe received a total dividend of 45.79854618 LTC for 5369 shares. This results in 24.45688429 LTC and 0.25567152 BTC dividend for this pass-through, given an exchange rate of 0.01341986 LTC/BTC and a 2.28992730 LTC fee. I know it may be strange, but if you prefer to receive your dividend in LTC, I'm fine with that. Transaction: b6ff3ce080c9db62fe5bf4afcb1dc5a1e7ac981643fda0d1822879ff61648a03What Kate said on the Litecoin forums: Evening All,
This week our revenues were €16,956, mainly from BTC mining. After depreciation, power/hosting and bond interest that leaves a profit of €15,228. 50% of this has been distributed as a dividend payment of €7,614 in the form of 938.32 LTC (@ €8.10/LTC - derived from BitStamp's BTC/USD price, BTC-E's BTC/LTC price and xe.com).
After the CoinTerra purchases last week the hardware fund was on €-1,010. This week we have added €8,361 to the fund, so we have a net total of €7,351. I'm going to discuss whether we should be spending this or hoarding it waiting for GPGPUs (as previously agreed) with Giles (evilscoop) next week. The recent price increases have changed things rather, assuming they will remain at this level, and as Benny pointed out there remains skepticism as to whether the "LTC ASICs" are real.
Kate.
|
|
|
|
783 gone, if I'm not mistaken. /watching  |
|
|
|
You realise you can replace the btc you spend with more btc right? Any fiat is potential btc! So spending fiat is really spending btc. Awesome! Whenever you want to buy something, which you also can buy with BTC, and you have fiat, take your fiat and buy BTC and pay in BTC instead. |
|
|
|
so in 1-2 days the security will be delisted from cryptostocks, what happenes after that? Is there public list like Bitfunder/btct used to keep?
What's the source for this statement? |
|
|
|
So you are saying ActM has currently mined 0 bitcoins? If so, its not a great track record compared with AM. No, of course I don't compare them in that way. Sorry, if this was not clear. The price spiked based on the press release (which was foreseeable), tumbled and then slowely slided down and might come back up, if ActM delivers. The similarity is that AM made an announcement of gen 3, the market reacted, but if there is nothing new in the mid-term, I see the same happening till AM delivers. Yes, plus there is at least 9000 btc incoming from cube sales. Preorder? Yeah, a preorder that pays you nice divs while waiting for the motherload.
3000 out of 9000 were ordered. Though Carnary's 100 were sold within 24 hours, so it takes probably only a short timeframe. |
|
|
|
Well basically buying now is doing a Gen3 preorder. It isn't entirely wrong - but it is risky.
Unless I'm missing some of what you're saying, Vycid?
Do you remember the press release from eASIC/ActM and the market reaction and trading afterwards? Kinda reminds me of that. |
|
|
|
I was under the assumption that 40nm was gen2 and 28nm was gen3. Either way next gen chips are coming. Not now. Not january 20th. But they are coming.
I think no one denied that. And I also think that teh baked cat will present something neat and shiny in some weeks or months. Not sure why your assumption is that people think AM that will fail at all. I'm very happy about the news. A timeline is finally something solid. It's a trillion BTC years till then though, but at least this fact is known now and the uncertainty ends.  |
|
|
|
|
Alphi: why do you think that dividends were paid from Africa at all?
|
|
|
|
any update on the progress of this?
The test run with smallish amounts goes well with no problems till now. http://mastercoin-faucet.com/A few more days and then going live? What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering.. the only source that gen2 was droped was the Chinese girl?
|
|
|
|
"<0.2W per G on low power mode and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost. "
Can someone let us know how this fares against the best competition around at the moment? thx
CoinTerra announced their chip is going to hash with a power consumption of less than 0.6 W per GH. A March batch miner with 2 TH has a retail price of $5999, that's $2.9995 per GH. Though the price is probably not really comparable. |
|
|
|
Next Gen Chips
The projected time of taping out of Gen3 is January 20. Power consumption target estimation is <0.2W per G on low power mode and <0.2$ per G on wafer cost. Please notice that the timeline is of course subject to change/adjust, and the estimation on power and cost is also based on software tool/simulation results. So the hardware arrives probably in February or March. Current Hardware Sales
The number of cubes left for sale/deployment is 9000. About 1/3 are ordered already. All older devices (USBs/new blades) are sold out.
3000/9000 were sold in a few days/weeks, right? I assume that the remaining 6000 cubes are sold out pretty fast, too. What happens after that? |
|
|
|
At this point I'm baffled that share price is even at this measly 0.4BTC price point.
Well, the mining wallet has already 278.67567769 BTC. For the last dividend 329.70382331 BTC were transfered from the mining wallet. |
|
|
|
look at blocks found
cube sells
red blades
friedcat plans
What are red blades? |
|
|
|
DexX7, are you saying the PT can be traded now?
CM <> CM-PT is still not possible and will probably not be before CipherTrade goes live according to Kate's statements, but if you are asking about CM-PT <> CM-PT, then yes, that's possible. If you prefer Litecoin over Bitcoin I can make another proposal though. Would you like to receive your dividend rather in Litecoin? |
|
|
|
Suppose I said to you "hey, I'm going to run a new 'direct' pass-through for ASICMiner, so you can now get shares of ASICMiner directly from Friedcat, or you can get pass-through shares directly from me". Why on Earth would you buy them from me? Suppose someone now said "hey, did you know ASICMiner is finally going to be listed on an exchange again?" Then the question becomes even more pressing: why on Earth would you buy them from me instead?
Ah, that's actually a great example. First off, I think the broader question is "what are potential reasons to justify a second instance" rather than focusing on the need of two exchanges. Generalized I would answer this with "whenever there is a difference between the two instances, there might be a justification". This also applies to direct shares, especially when the operator fulfills some roles of an exchange. As mentioned before, the current form of this PT is not the one I intended to create in the first place, but the result of the LTCG/BTCT shutdown. I decided to continue simply (but not only) because there were shareholders left who didn't convert to CM. From my point of view that's justification enough, even if you think there is "no need to". I'm not the one who makes that call, but shareholders do, based on their own reasoning and the given circumstances. It's also worth to mention that this PT is tradable in the sense that I do process transfers from one user to another, which CM as direct share provider never did and never will with the note that users should wait for CipherTrade. By the way, I'm happy about any meaningful suggestion, if you like to contribute. |
|
|
|
any div confirms?
0.00132577  |
|
|
|
I'd apprechiate, if you drop that sarcastic tone, but if that's your thing, that's your thing. My intention was not and is not to attack or ridicule you. My IRC nick is registred and dexX7 is indeed me and not someone else. I think I found the logs to the conversation you are referring to, so let's reflect on what was said on that day during your IPO. Everything I said in context of BTC Growth or you as person is included, nicknames shortened and non-relevant comments from others inbetween were removed due to their non-relevance and to make it easier to focus: dexX7: hey guise. i liquidated all my amethyst shares to buy btcgrowth. who's with me? [1] T: i'm holding amethyst til the end! (... completely different topics for some hours ...) N: Ok, so there's btcgrowth.com which has the same design and everything as mulhauser.net/psychologicalinvestor.com, BUT, albeit mulhauser.net links to the other websites of the network, it doesn't link to btcgrowth.com N: Was any proof provided the guy is indeed the guy from mulhauser.net? dexX7: he claims his id was verified by a ltc mod N: The actual guy has been around long before the Bitcoin era according to domain registration. People seem to like his articles on finances. IF he can provide proofs of who he is, I guess 1500 BTC isn't too ridiculous. N: But an exchange mod is no proof. dexX7: what would you accept as proof of id? M: dexX7 it's trivial to verify you're X if x is well known. M: http://mytherapist.com/greg/about-counsellor.htmldexX7: should be him dexX7: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04455464 The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 30/11/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £1,708, 'liabilities' worth £10,696, 'net worth' of £-3,317 and 'assets' worth £4,926. Mulhauser Consulting Ltd's risk score was amended on 13/02/2013. dexX7: https://www.facebook.com/xxxxxxxxxxxxxx?ref=br_rs&fref=browse_search [2] << that's him [3] N: btcgrowth.com is hosted on the same IP as mulhauser.net and psychologicalinvestor.com J: unless someone used his photo for the profile, it's 100% him [4] dexX7: all domains registred via name.com dexX7: 3 people like his "offical" facebook page, a reverse search dumped 2 results.. one was a greg mulhauser. hm... :p [5] Notes: [1] Reference to the greatest BTC security ever[2] Link censored [3] Facebook profile without picture [4] Sarcasm, because the profile has no picture [5] The justification of why I'm sure that it's the correct profile, even without a picture Is this what you are referring to? No need to apologize. The way you expressed your feelings shows that you have a strong interest in taking about this, especially given the fact, that the above quoted conversation took place more than three months ago. Your claim is somewhat strong and offending and therefore I like to represent my point of view, too. |
|
|
|
Hi, I made those tx as a test, because I was looking into ways to reduce transportation cost for the faucet, but switched over to regular multisig tx, because they were marked as invalid on mastercoin-explorer, if I recall correctly. But I noticed that all outgoing transactions of 14hm8rTdknVCDpqXGY5nFqVWruU9UBeuHd are rendered as invalid on mastercoin-explorer.com since some hours: http://mastercoin-explorer.com/addresses/14hm8rTdknVCDpqXGY5nFqVWruU9UBeuHdmastercoin.info and masterchest.info still declare them as valid. Is this in anyway connected? The above quoted tx are derived from this address. |
|
|
|
Hi Greg! After all, the purpose of a pass-through is to add some sort of value, usually in the form of access via a different exchange, or occasionally to provide fractional shares, etc. However, in this case, the pass-through is not providing additional value via a presence on a different exchange, and I'm guessing that holders of the pass-through aren't holding it just to have someone else convert LTC to BTC for them. Is there some other raison d'etre that I've just plain missed along the way? I started this PT to offer BTCT users a way to invest into CM and my initial plan was to establish an autonomous share transfer system between the PT and the underlying, to build a bridge between LTCG and BTCT. After the announcement of BTCT's closure my first impulsive thought was to shut down this PT and suggested that people move over to LTCG. Though there were some users without an LTLG account and very soon later CM decided to go the direct share route. Some transfered their shares, others did not. At that point I decided to simply continue with direct shares as well and see where it all leads to. The PT is small and therefore the fee is marginal, but it's not a big deal and I like the idea of being involved. There is non hidden agenda or similar. Does this answer your question? For context, I mention all this as someone who wound up his own 2000 BTC fund swiftly in the aftermath of the exchange closures, specifically because I felt that was the right thing to do for participants. Now I get that you've been very public in bizarrely ridiculing me, my competence, and the very fact I ran a fund at all -- without the courtesy of ever speaking with me directly, or making any actual arguments, or even levelling your ridicule while I happened to be present. If that's your thing, that's your thing -- but I hope you will take this specific question about the pass-through as a critical but constructive one, and answer it directly, rather than merely taking another opportunity to dump on me personally. I'm shocked. This forum, Reddit and IRC are the only channels I use to communicate about something Bitcoin related. I crawled through my posts to see, if there is something that might be interpreted in a negative way, but I only stumbled this post I made in one of your threads where you asked about ways to "short mining". I followed your IPO passively, but stopped reading the thread after some time and with that you spaced out of my center of attention, so to speak. I never engaged knowingly in ridiculing or dumping on you and I'm confused now, so may I ask: what are you talking about or referring to?To make this clear, I never had or have a negative grudge against you and also I think most of your posts have a high amout of valuable information. I'm happy to clear any misunderstandings, if there are any. Edit: feel free to contact me via PM or email at dexx@bitwatch.co, if you prefer those. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
