|
Can you provide any references?
|
|
|
|
|
Go dump some tea in a harbor, might make you feel better.
|
|
|
|
If the money isn't that important to you and it's just a logistical problem you could try myriadcoins.com. If the 1.19 is a small fraction of the total you'll likely win. If you lose you have to wait till you can get more, but you already have to wait.
He asks for a loan, you suggest gambling? sc00bysnax, I'd be glad to loan if you're willing to provide additional information, e.g. what you intend to buy and some proof of identity. I found the most concerning part the lack of a plan to pay it back..... Yes, that would also be under the list of "required information". I thought it was obvious, but you're right, better make that clear. |
|
|
|
If the money isn't that important to you and it's just a logistical problem you could try myriadcoins.com. If the 1.19 is a small fraction of the total you'll likely win. If you lose you have to wait till you can get more, but you already have to wait.
He asks for a loan, you suggest gambling? sc00bysnax, I'd be glad to loan if you're willing to provide additional information, e.g. what you intend to buy and some proof of identity. |
|
|
|
Eclipse mining lets you mine for both namecoins and bitcoins. But does your miner's processing power have to allocate half to each if you wanted to do both at the same time?
No, it reuses your hashes. It's free money. Thanks. Was arguing over this on a different board. There appears to be other online currencies starting up as well...Litecoin, Devcoin, IXCoin, I0Coin, Liquidcoin...will any of these work with merged mining as well? the same proof of work is submitted to the different *coinds BTC and NMC use a different algorythm to Litecoin, Devcoin, IXCoin, I0Coin, so they cannot be merge mined together the scrypt based coins could be merge mined to work with the other scrypt based coins if the work was done to make it possible No, Devcoin, IXCoin, and IOCoin can be merge mined - http://mmpool.bitparking.com offers those three plus Bitcoin and Namecoin. |
|
|
|
|
So much pessimism. Enjoy your mountain climbing, Goat!
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure I agree with the pricing plan.
YARR pays 1% per day, or 7.214% compounded per week.
This proposed asset would pay 5.5% per week, or a bit over 30% less than YARR.
I suspect both asset issuers are trusted by most of the general population, or at least trusted enough not to hinder purchase of these bonds. Given that, I think the trust difference, if one exists, would have a negligible effect.
YARR's current market price is around ~1.7 BTC. Given that one share of YARR pays the equivalent of 1.31164 shares of this bond, one would conclude that this bond should be priced at around ~1.3 BTC, not ~1.5 to 1.6 BTC.
This is wrong, YARR doesn't pay on Sunday. Its 6.15% (1.01^6) compounded per week. Blech, my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I retract my statement. Best of luck with your venture Goat. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure I agree with the pricing plan.
YARR pays 1% per day, or 7.214% compounded per week.
This proposed asset would pay 5.5% per week, or a bit over 30% less than YARR.
I suspect both asset issuers are trusted by most of the general population, or at least trusted enough not to hinder purchase of these bonds. Given that, I think the trust difference, if one exists, would have a negligible effect.
YARR's current market price is around ~1.7 BTC. Given that one share of YARR pays the equivalent of 1.31164 shares of this bond, one would conclude that this bond should be priced at around ~1.3 BTC, not ~1.5 to 1.6 BTC.
|
|
|
|
David_Benz had a GPUMax passthrough here (I know that it was a GPUMax passthrough because I signed up and he told me via PM); Pirate made him shut it down. Yup. The point of invites at GPUMAX is to limit volume, as opposed to BS&T, where Pirate wants to ensure trustworthiness. In the former case, a passthrough would not be conducive to the functionality of the service. In the latter it wouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
|
I think the order numbers didn't start at 1. There's no way 1655 other people ordered before I did.
I suspect they just continued BFL's preexisting order numbering system. ~1650 prior orders for Singles/Mini Rigs seems perfectly reasonable to me. |
|
|
|
Are those order numbers correct? Looks like over 2000 already.  Where do you see those numbers ? I think those are BitPay order numbers. My order number is in the 1600s. I think not, as I ordered via bank wire and got an order number in the same range. (1701  ) |
|
|
|
|
Seems reasonable. Thanks BFL.
|
|
|
|
What's the reason for the crash in your opinion?
Some people just cashing out, shifts of investments to pirate, increase in difficulty, what?
Increase in BTC price, increase in difficulty, BFL's ASIC announcements. Mining bond prices were hit especially hard by all three, and so many of the assets on GLBSE are in some way dependent/related to/invested in mining bonds that nearly everything crashed. Also (IMO) some recovery from extreme overvaluation, which (IMO) isn't yet complete. Some bonds were (IMO) ridiculously inflated; a few shocks are bringing them much closer to their actual value. |
|
|
|
My solution:
Open up a pre–order list from Monday till mid–july, then close it.
This will give everyone ample time to order
Make an inventory of what has been ordered and start producing exactly that amount
When all the pre–Orders have been produced, pack them and ship them off at the same day in october, be it jalapenos, singles or rigs.
That way everone will receive their products around the same time
This is the most fair proposal I've heard. +1. Announcing a preorder a day before you do it and not even posting the announcement on your website is a little.. weird. +2. Fair for everyone. |
|
|
|
I've read every posts and I'm wondering if I wasted my time again. I'm feeling sick.
Take a break. Read a book. Watch a movie. (Blade Runner's always a good choice) It helps, trust me. |
|
|
|
We've been working with Bit-Pay for a BTC exclusive order form. This is meant to both promote the good services of Bit-Pay and give dedicated miners a bit of an advantage in getting in position. We'll have that posted later tonight. Alternate payment methods of Dwolla and BankWire will come shortly thereafter.
Please help... We're respectful of the significance of order position, but we can't think of any good way to organize it other than opening it up to orders and letting it go as it may.
Another alternative is to go odd / even. Odd being consecutive down the priority list and even being a random selection from orders that month.
Any thoughts on this?
One thought. It's kinda cool that you asked for such feedback. To address the issue: # Since BFL will allow trade-ins to remain in miners possession (for mining) upto the time the ASIC products are ready to ship, there shouldn't be any complaints. There's no reason to penalize the people that did not buy BFL stuff simply because they were reasonably skeptical of this new company. And it's not like the ASIC hardware will saturate the network by the end of the year. # Randomizing deliveries per month doesn't seem the right path. People like orderliness more than randomness when they have to wait. What would you prefer, knowing for sure your plane will be late or knowing it has a 50/50 chance of being late? My opinion is it is simple & reasonable to do first-come first-serve on the orders. No drama should neccessarily develop - imo. ||bit The difference between receiving a few SC Singles a week before everyone else could equate to thousands of dollars. The difference in receiving a 1TH/s machine, tens of thousands. And the network will be saturated very quickly, considering it would only take 12 of the 1TH/s minirigs to double the difficulty. That's why people are clamoring to be the first in line. I am too.  If they open pre-orders, they should do so at a set date and time. I don't want to miss out just because I'm sleeping in my timezone while other people are awake. I agree with this. Just opening them with no prior notice makes it a game of chance. On that note, make sure to shore up your web infrastructure; the load could be an issue. |
|
|
|
Excellent, I think that clarifies things very well!
Indeed. Thank you Inaba, and my apologies for jumping to conclusions. |
|
|
|
I have a large farm, and trying to manage it individually based on the type and location was proving to be almost impossible and still maintain and efficient operation. As such, I pooled all of my mining resources one giant bucket, so they all mine to the same place and all the resulting revenues are generated together. The odd share arrangement are shares that I have allocated to myself for the hardware I have in the bucket at a rate of 826 MH/s per 200 shares, minus some fudge factor (so I end up shorting myself a few shares).
As I slowly sell off my GPU holdings, I am returning those shares to the BFLS bucket of unallocated shares (which is why you see the share count going down), and it will increase again when BFL finally gets me my remaining units.
That is reasonable, though I am surprised that GPUs are now part of BFLS. My only concern would be if electricity costs are being taken out of BFLS gross profits. GPUs are much more power hungry than Singles so the presence of GPUs would drag net profits down. Depending on rates, a GPU's mining profits would be reduced by ~25% due to electricity cost. So, essentially, to net 826Mhps out of a GPU you'd actually need it to hash as 1100Mhps. If this is the case, and you are paying for electricity out of BFLS gross profits, then I would submit that only 200 shares per 1100Mhps worth of GPUs should be allocated (not 200 per 826Mhps). Of course, the specific numbers depend on your electricity rates and the BTC exchange rate, but this is a reasonable ballpark. The initial offering in the OP states that BFLS was an FPGA mining company and mentions Singles specifically. I think one of the reasons shareholders were attracted to this was specifically that there would be no GPUs involved, thus little overhead costs, and a high percentage of the gross profits would be distributed to shareholders rather than the electric company. You had asked everyone's thoughts on adding GPUs to the BFLS farm before in this thread and I've presented my concerns here ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75433.msg904121#msg904121). There was one additional negative response to the idea, and no positives. I think the message was that GPUs should only be added as a separate listing from BFLS, so they do not to drag down net profits. But if you are not paying electricity out of BFLS income, then this is moot. From the OP: 200 Shares per BFL Single unit will be issued, with 30 (15%) being kept by the operator to cover operational costs, maintenance, and unit replacement.
That would include electricity. I am also somewhat concerned that some of the hardware backing this is not singles as was indicated, but as long as Inaba provides the equivalent hashrate/profits and honors the trade-in option, the difference is functionally nonexistent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
