While I'm on the topic. The original post is nothing but slander. I opened it expecting to see some, I don't know, charts and ties to bitcoin reward addresses which are then linked to IP addresses under BFL control. You know; EVIDENCE. Instead, the premise is horribly flawed when it's well known that minirigs and fpga singles have been flying out the door and there is strong motivation for people to crank up their dusty GPU rigs.

Where's the instantaneous 1TH/s jump in hashrate? Not a sloped line, a complete discontiguous jump.

If you're going to make an extrodinary claim, then fucking back it up. Otherwise, don't waste this forum's time.

Jesus, do people just sit around all day thinking up ways to complain about BFL? What is with this desire to put arbitrary restrictions on other people's actions?

I highly doubt BFL_Josh/Inaba is going to get hardware out of the order than BFL has promised and without some *actual proof* this post comes across as slander and extremely inappropriate to me.

If BFL_Josh/Inaba wants to mine, I don't see how there is a conflict of interest in him using BFL equipment. I'd be a hell of a lot more suspicious if he didn't have some equipment on order. That would be a bigger red flag than this.

Everybody calm down. You'll get your magic money boxes in due time.

At the time I wrote the sentence, I had asked a 3rd time. It's right there to the left.

You hadn't answered that question in your first post, just that you would be buying back with corporate funds, which implies nothing about the response to that question. You say naturally, but we really can't know what you're thinking unless you explain it.

Sorry for not realizing you were asleep. I thought that you had made a response between the 2nd and 3rd posting, but it seems not.

Usagi, will the remaining shareholder each get a larger dividend share? I've asked this 3 times, but it seems you are missing the question each time.

Maybe you won the weekly jackpot. I don't mathematically see a reason for a 20x increase simply by changing pools. Keep checking it.

Usagi's first point was that future projected cashflow (and thus dividends) and not NAV should determine value, and I agree. This is the standard by which other companies are held. Apple doesn't have 655.35B worth of assets.

If anyone cares, I can go into a deeper explanation of how future cashflow is the primary determination of company market capitalization. It's a pretty important concept if you hope to invest in securities.

This is ultimately the crux of the situation. You can either buy a mining company which will manage the reinvestment for you or buy mining bonds and perform the reinvestment yourself.

There are still some things about fixed MH/s bonds that are rather "turdy" in my opinion. This is in the short term, and will be corrected once ASIC is out and is established.

Basically, the argument is that what miners do is use real money (bitcoins) at a present day to purchase equipment with a fixed MH/s, thus a bond holder is really performing the same action that miner is now. However, just look at that statement. If you wanted to get into mining, would you buy equipment now? With ASIC difficulties coming along with the reward halving, I certainly wouldn't buy a GPU. I wouldn't even consider a non-BFL FPGA. So my option is a BFL FPGA.

However, BFL FPGAs are not spending a fixed amount now for a fixed MH/s because of the ASIC upgrade program. Right now, assuming BFL delivers on their specs, 830 MH/s can be traded for about 18,445 MH/s, a 2200% increase. Let's go back to GPUs, they have a secondary market, and so they could be sold to purchase ASICs as well. I could see 3,000 MH/s being traded for a 40,000 MH/s SC single, a 1333% increase.

But owners of fixed mining contracts right now have no promises to increase hashrate in the future. All of the outstanding bonds for gigamining could be fulfilled with a single $30,000 SC minirig, with hash power to spare, and all the existing equipment can be sold to the owner's profit. I'm not saying it's wrong: people went into that deal with a clear understanding of what they were going to get. I'm just saying that at the prices I've seen for these contracts, it's a horribly bad deal and I don't see how people are going to get an ROI.

So then remaining shareholders will each get a larger dividend share?

Are you doing the buy back with your own funds or with the corporate funds?

Typically when a corporation does a buy back, it undilutes the shares, giving each remaining shareholder a larger dividend. This is the cause of the price rising. Will this be the case in this buy back, or will shareholders just continue to receive a share of the profits as if those shares were still issued?

^mated with Meni Rosenfeld only to find that they couldn't produce offspring

Every time I've gone away from slush to another pool, I've been burned with downtime or even just delays in the long poll. You get what you pay for.

As far as i can tell gold doesnt hold actually wealth but is based on the worth of other currencies around the world.

As far as i can tell stocks and bonds dont hold actually wealth but is based on the worth of other currencies around the world.

As far as i can tell real estate doesnt hold actually wealth but is based on the worth of other currencies around the world.

As far as i can tell money doesnt hold actually wealth but is based on the worth of other currencies around the world.

As far as i can tell these statements make no sense. Everything has a value listed in other currencies. It doesn't mean there is a basis of value in those currencies. The value of bitcoin comes from the equilibrium of bitcoins offered for sale versus bitcoins requested to buy. I've written in the Economics forum on this topic.

^ Spies on us for Ben Bernanke.

I think it's more likely that it would start with credit unions. Credit unions don't promise a fixed payout, but they give a payout to the depositors of the lending profits they make in that month. Offering interest might be fine right now while bitcoin is inflationary, but once the rate of inflation falls, it would be hard to actually offer a fixed payout.

No company in the United States is allowed to run a retirement program the same way as social security is run. If they were, then, instead of having a managed pension account that is reconcilled against benefits, the companies could just make an assumption of future size and people paying into the program and at what levels, and then rely on those future workes to pay for the people retiring today. There would be some savings from overpayment of the workers, but then the company would be able to borrow against those to pay for ongoing operations. Meanwhile, the company itself would be taking on debt in excess of 5 times revenue.

It's a completely ridiculous system, and you can show all the articles you want about the solvency of the system" it is still a ponzi backed by the force of law. It is more stable than private ponzis because they have the ultimate two things every ponzi operator wants: 100% control over when people can begin withdrawing, 100% subscriber-ship with no option to back out.

On top of all of this, the system itself pays out far less than it really should. Taking the dollar value invested into Treasury bonds over the same period, taking out regular disbursements for life and disability insurance, and then converting at the end to an inflation adjusted annuity, gives a far greater monthly benefit than SS pays.

And yet it still seems they need to give an 18% haircut in 2038.

^ Had a failed internet startup that attempted to be the youtube of smells.

A 51% attack isn't needed to rip off a 0 confirm. In fact, in theory no hardware is needed at all. First you spend the coin where you want the good/service from, draining your address, and giving no transaction fee. Then you quickly spend the same amount of coin to an address you control but give a nice transaction fee. The second transaction is included in the blockchain quickly and first, so the second one is rejected.

I say in theory because most miners will pick up the first transaction anyway. In that case, you do need hardware to try to jump in and mine the second transaction to be included before the first.

I'm assuming you mean a brick and mortar store. An online store has no issues because a customer generally doesn't have an order fulfilled in the hour anyway.

However, for a grocery store, you might have a loyalty/rewards card that allows you to leave immediately. Businesses will like this because they are always trying to get customers to sign up for these things. If a customer does double spend, then they can be contacted and then sent to collections/have their bitcredit rating affected.

If not that, then I can see trusted 3rd parties (green addresses) being used for these purchases. If they see the coins coming from Mt Gox, they trust they will arrive. That sort of thing. I know it's not reasonable now, but when people start to get a reliable income in bitcoin, there will be credit card type things that you will use to spend coins you don't have and then you pay a monthly bill, just like with cash, and probably debit cards that pull coins from your account. Using these will hook you into a trusted network that will not only instantly confirm the coins to the grocer, but begin to mine the transaction with their own system.

Deflation is generally bad for a constant growth paradigm. If future dollars are worth more, then it reduces motivation to lend and invest. At the same time, it also makes it harder for debtors to repay their debts as their income streams are reducing. The net effect is that economic growth is hampered.

However, this just begs the question that constant growth is a good paradigm. I submit that it is not and instead what we need is an economy at equilibrium. Constant expansion has lead to us using up the resources of the planet and possibly already has us on a trajectory that will result in wide spread famine and loss. Part of the problem is the expansionary money system that makes it appear that we can just add new aspects to the economy without negative effects. An economy at equilibrium that readjusts when new real innovations are introduced is better equipped to handle the issues of a world with a finite limit of power input, finite water supply, and other resource limitations.

Oh noes, my retirement plan has failed. I guess I'll just live on Social Security...