Since most people have never signed an NDA, this seems to be a convenient way to avoid answering questions.

NDA's only cover information, given in confidence, by a disclosing party to a receiving party. In other words, Ken is not able to share confidential information disclosed to him by eAsic, and vice-versa. Unless eAsic handled the bitcoin conversion itself, and disclosed the details of said conversion to Ken in confidence, it's simply ridiculous to assert that it is covered by the eAsic NDA.

Perhaps there are other reasons to keep that information confidential, but blaming it on an NDA with a vendor is rather unnecessary, and does nothing but raise more questions among people with knowledge of these matters.

Really nice work blackswan. Why, oh why, doesn't Bitfunder have an API so you add it?

Looking forward to supporting you with the pro version.

Here's something maybe you can both agree on, and call a truce.

Asic Miner - Amazing company!

Labcoin - Hopefully amazing company!

I can't speak for him, obviously, but I think his point was that competition was a real threat to AM's lofty valuation at the time. AM's margins were almost certain to fall, followed by its share price, when it was no longer the only game in town.

In the case of LC, the share price is relatively low, so competition is less of an issue right now. Even if LC captures a very small portion of the network, the shares have room to grow. The risk with LC now isn't competition, it is that it's a total failure... any other outcome should provide at least a small return, with the possibility for a 10x payday.

So, considered in the short term, I don't think his arguments are logically inconsistent. In the long term, it seems like one guess is as good as another.

Edit: that's what I get for refilling my coffee before saving my post. Mabsark has already answered above.

Why is this so hard to understand?

AM is the gold standard, and it would be foolish to underestimate it.

LC is a newbie, and it would be foolish to blindly believe in its success.

Still, if you are looking to triple or quadruple your investment, and you have a high tolerance for risk, you should invest (some might say gamble) in Labcoin. AM will not be tripling anytime soon.

Allocate funds according to your risk appetite, and remember that it isn't an either / or proposal. All the rest of the bullshit in this thread is just clutter, but admittedly, very profitable for traders with strong stomachs.

Well, certainly the sentiment, if not the phrasing, is shared by many.

You are not issuing securities in real world companies, or securities that offer ownership in anything other than "virtual identities." So, what exactly are you representing that they are? In your offering documents you refer to "ASICMINER Mining Company" and "Ministry of Games Corporation" as the underlying entities in which you hold backing securities, yet you know full well that no such legal entities exist. Are those lies to extract value?

How about lies of omission to extract value? Do they constitute fraud? Your xBond prospectus enumerates several "Disclaimers & Risks," including the fact that Bitcoin may be subject to "unique regulations" in some jurisdictions. You failed, however, to inform investors that your own bond issue is subject to very common regulations in your own jurisdiction, and that your failure to properly register the issue is a significant risk. Did you think it would be a hindrance to extracting maximum value to list the most obvious risk of all?

The point is, you have consistently used the same techniques you now call fraud, when in truth, you probably didn't and don't intend to defraud anyone. You might consider that burnside is similarly situated as you step down off your high horse.


Yes, your stunning hypocrisy was a real eye opener, but putting that aside, your ideas are not at all important to anyone but you. They appear to be creatures of your own naiveté, and they have no practical use other than to harm the entire nascent Bitcoin securities market.

These exchanges, and the majority of listed assets will never be compliant in the U.S., so if you are on a mission to create some kind of Bitcoin denominated OTCBB, you are incredibly misguided. It simply will not happen for reasons that should be apparent, and even if it were possible, what makes you think there is investor demand for such a thing?


Excellent, I'm sure it will take several dozen billable hours before you are disabused of your intention to "go legit," but in the interim, consider that your business might be best served by keeping a cooler head.

Your attitude in this thread has been abominable, but having read your IRC message bragging that you were going to come here and "tear into burnside," I'm guessing that your lack of judgment is explained by your need to impress MP and his #bitcoin-assets fan club.

Well, here's something to ponder after you've calmed down and apologized to burnside for your inflammatory screed. Even if you spend whatever it takes and jump through all of the hoops to issue a legitimate, compliant security, you have only addressed half of the problem. Securities law is not only a club wielded by government agencies, but it is wonderfully convenient for civil actions, as well. Once you throw off the cloak of anonymity, you are inviting all manor of actions based on past violations of securities law, not to mention other torts such as negligence, unfair competition / unfair business practices, and unjust enrichment.

Just something to consider as you execute your plan to "set higher standards for bitcoin investments."

Collapsing? I guess we'll call that poetic license.

It's no more a scam than the exchange with which you are affiliated, your use of magic GPG contracts, and jurisdictional obscurity notwithstanding.

The frequency with which you incorrectly, and with malice, throw around the word "scam" has rendered it as meaningless as the supposed PR services for which you're famous.

So let me get this straight...

• You yourself have issued what you believe are "actual securities" on this and other non-compliant exchanges.
• Your securities have not been properly registered with either the SEC, CFTC, or your state regulator, and do not qualify for an exemption under Regulation D.
• There has never been any question as to the legality of your own securities, but now that you have sought legal counsel, you presumably have actual knowledge that you are in violation of Reg. D, among others.
• You are a "board member" of "virtual identity company" with, at the very least, early access to non-public information, while simultaneously freely trading in the security of said company, with no disclosure of your trades. You have even issued a derivative of the company's stock... that is, virtual shares backed by virtual shares of a virtual company.

-
Now, after having been happy to operate for so long on a wink and a nod, you are here throwing around terms like fraud, as if, all of the sudden, the "shoddy legalize" under which you've issued securities is now repellant to you.

Here's news... if Burnside's characterization of his exchange constitutes fraud, so does your issuance of securities on any exchange that you know to be non-compliant. You can't have it both ways.

I have no idea what you think is to be gained by making these completely unhelpful accusations, but as an issuer of securities on multiple non-compliant exchanges, you should know better.

Anyone with even minimal knowledge in these matters knows that absolutely everything is non-compliant. Perhaps you are naive enough to believe that you really are going to bring yourself into compliance, but either way, your judgment is now seriously in question.

I had a problem with a Ripple transaction as well and the support ticket sat untouched for quite some time. I eventually caught up with Ukyo on #bitfunder on Freenode and he took care of it.

It's not exactly convenient, but it seems to be the fastest way to get a problem with WeEx resolved.

LOL, OK you've obviously made up your mind, but I would urge you to run some numbers. Consider everything! :-)

Anyway, none of this detracts from the fact that these guys have a great business and seem to have executed really well. Personally, I'm impressed with their growth and think there is a big opportunity to pick up a lot more market share. So, considering all of that potential, there's no reason to gloss over risks that might not be apparent to everyone on first glance.

Great point. Of course, the problem is that it's very difficult to predict which horse might stumble, especially among the newcomers. All manner of problems could derail any of them, which is why the most logical bet has to be a company that has proven it can deliver, and there is only one of those open to public investment.

Which brings us to valuation. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that margins aren't going to fall across the board, so picking a profitable entry / exit point may be just as important as the horse you choose to bet on.

It's not that at all. It's really just basic mathematics.


I believe that is exactly what Deprived is pointing out. When the price of BTC goes up, you sell LESS BTC, even if your USD sales are the same or growing.

Your profits may look the same (or better) in USD, but dividends (shareholder portion of profits) are paid out in BTC, so you will end up paying out less BTC to shareholders.

In his post, Ascension seems to be looking at this only from the standpoint of profits in USD, but shareholders only care about the amount of profit once it's converted back to BTC and paid out. Therefore, as with all businesses earning USD and paying dividends in BTC, shareholders must weigh the potential returns against simply holding BTC.

Once everyone is on board with this concept, it might be worthwhile to discuss possible ways to protect shareholders by hedging against the currency risk.

Yep, same error here.

Yes, but the same can be said about quoting Stuart, whose manic belligerence has damaged the level of discourse in this thread as much as any other poster.

Full regulation = Bernie Madoff

Your personal vendettas are childish and useless. Go do something productive with your life.

He he, I think this thread has given you a persecution complex. I was referring to tehelsper in my post.

People are panicky, but we have to admit that this is a very uncertain time in mining game. There are numerous well funded competitors and lots of hashrate coming online seemingly every day. At the very least, someone could rationally conclude that AM's margins have to fall.

There's no question in my mind that AM is still the least risky bet out there, but I find it difficult to predict much of anything in this shifting market, and the lack of solid information makes it that much harder.

A bit nasty for someone so WRONG. A vaguely worded press release may assuage the uninformed, but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

You could do with further research yourself. Start by visiting the Service Discussion forum and counting the number of people screaming because they can't get their money.