|
402
|
Economy / Securities / Re: Verifing account of GLBSE discussion
|
on: October 10, 2012, 08:50:50 AM
|
Q:I'm a GLBSE user, what about my assets and my bitcoin?
You will be able to get back your bitcoin, and if you want to reveal your username, email, and a bitcoin address to accept payments with, you can continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold. reveal your username, email and a bitcoin address to continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold.... Nowhere does it say more than full AML/KYC Smoke and mirrors, half truths and (incomplete) lies.... |
|
|
|
|
404
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It
|
on: October 09, 2012, 08:01:17 PM
|
If you don't have a csv backup and timestamps for your asicminer transactions, naturally you're second in line.
How should this work? If someone has bought some A shares and later sold some B and bought later some C shares again and would delete the line with (B) would the get how many shares? And i am not aware if there are/were GLBSE trade data avaiable on the net that could be used to fake CSV files. Or other than that, i someone made his last backab after B. Given that B were smaller than C would it morally legit to delete the sell line to get at least A shares instead the fewer A-B shares? The result of such a puzzle would be that the data will be containing a lot of questionable data. Yes. That's why you have to construct a tree. You assume that the ASICMINER csv file is accurate, then you have to traverse the tree down. Each transaction involves two parties, thus each sell has to correspond to a buy in another CSV file with the correct amount and timestamp. If a CSV record has been altered you should detect that by not being able to match the corresponding transaction with the remainder of the network. It's a hell of a job, but that's the most reliable thing you can do. If a certain branch clears without contradictions with the remainder of the tree, you have high confidence that the data is correct. Let's only do that if GLBSE doesn't provide any means to resolve the claims. In the meantime, please make sure that you have a recent copy of your csv transaction file. Of course, there will be a lot of dispute for trades which were done a few days before GLBSE closed down. But if you have a sufficiently complete copy of the CSV file history you can work your way towards a reliable version of the shareholder database. May take a month though... And if you dont have a csv file... We cant log in anymore to download one.... |
|
|
|
|
405
|
Economy / Securities / Re: GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday.
|
on: October 09, 2012, 07:58:46 PM
|
Re: GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday.
I don't care any more about all my assets in GLBSE. All I care from now on is who, how and when will be able to get Nefario(us) convicted.
Maybe this subject is worth of another thread.
To be fair, they did update us With information that raised more questions Just like the guy with the eye–patch does |
|
|
|
|
406
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It
|
on: October 09, 2012, 02:38:28 PM
|
Friedcat, from the above conversation I understand that Nefario has not contacted ASICMINER (i.e. you) yet with how to proceed
Makes it all seems very dodgy as the GLBSE website says they are closing accounts and refunding BTC since late last night UK time
Obviously they should talk to asset issuers first !
We mailed the information listed on the requirements on the announce page when it was first displayed. Till now no information is received from GLBSE. There are two possibilities: 1. They will release an automatic claiming system so they don't process mail requests. 2. They haven't started refunding yet. Fingers crossed ! |
|
|
|
|
408
|
Economy / Securities / Re: GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday.
|
on: October 09, 2012, 07:54:12 AM
|
Update:we will begin processing account closures and returning bitcoin later today.
I think this message has been up all day. Has anybody gotten any money back yet? Maybe they can put up a counter like pira Update:we will begin processing account closures and returning bitcoin later today.
I think this message has been up all day. Has anybody gotten any money back yet? Maybe they can put up a counter like pirate: 0 / xxx accounts Have been paid ;-) |
|
|
|
|
409
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It
|
on: October 08, 2012, 07:06:04 PM
|
Update from OgNasty over in his thread.... if true is important to all of us https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.msg1256637#msg1256637"It is my understanding that GLBSE will begin collecting BTC addresses from users in order to link your BTC address to the amount of shares you own. I would like to urge users to provide a BTC address that you own the private key to (i.e. an address from your Bitcoin client and not a 3rd party). This may become an important factor for the future ownership of your NASTY shares, as the ability to send BTC from the given address may be required in order to confirm ownership." DutchBrat - This is due to a possible solution I'm looking at implementing to continue operations for NASTY. It doesn't effect any other securities. Although it would most likely be good advice to follow regardless. Ah, sorry about that, I jumped the gun thinking it was a generic solution. As people probably own more than 1 asset in their portfolio, a generic solution would be the best. |
|
|
|
|
411
|
Economy / Securities / Re: GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday.
|
on: October 08, 2012, 05:31:03 PM
|
From GLBSE Website:
Update:we will begin processing account closures and returning bitcoin later today.
I wish Nefario would open a thread or something so we could ask questions. He says they will return bitcoins. Where are they sending them? I sent in coins from various webwallets, so using the sending address would be a bad thing. My latest withdrawls were payments directly from GLBSE to other people, so the withdrawl addresses would be a bad thing. I don't remember ever giving a "In case GLBSE shuts down send funds here" address? Even worse: the Assets on GLBSE probably far outweigh the Bitcoins... I don't see them mention anything about that, yet they are talking about account-closures.... |
|
|
|
|
412
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: here's just how screwed ASIC buyers are - READ THIS if you have a preorder
|
on: October 08, 2012, 03:48:15 PM
|
And we all know that the cost of the ASIC devices will plummet as the marginal cost of producing the chips after the initial investment is close to zero (or very low)
Everyone seems to be throwing that around but I don't see it happening. The 3 manufacturers almost have a monopoly. BFL will release first in all likelihood and they have a monopoly on "budget" hardware that's a bit slower but more affordable. bASIC will have a monopoly on larger rigs that are actually built well. All the pics I've seen suggest BFL uses REALLY sketchy parts like cheap fans and stuff. And Avalon is releasing their products so unbelievably late, they're not even in the picture. So that means they can all charge whatever they want. Here's my theory. Once a company has sold XX amount of mining hardware up front, jack up the price. That's because for every ASIC miner you sell, you devalue your product. The less people mining, the more you can charge because people's ROI calculations will result in a smaller time period. Let's say it takes $50 to build a Jalapeno. If the price is $300, less people will buy it but they'll be willing to pay more seeing as how less people are buying them. Then it's just a cost of manufacturing thing. You contradict your own post where you say that people buying an SIC now will not make their money back... So how does increasing the price afterwards make more people buy your product if they can't even make their money back on the earlier bought models.... Apart from Avalaon, bASIC and BFL there's also Tycho coming with an ASIC in Q1 2013 and ASICMINER will be heads on with BFL in rolling out the first ASICs albeit they will use the 1st 15TH wordt of chips to mine for their shareholders and then start selling them. With an increasing network speed prices will have to come down or no-one will buy |
|
|
|
|
417
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Paladon Green Mining [PGM] (including ASIC upgrade) (no bond!)
|
on: October 07, 2012, 12:44:53 PM
|
No PGM didn't invested in assets in GLBSE, PGM's hardware is still live and generating BTC. I only had a small change of the latest dividend payment (<0.1btc) in GLBSE when it went offline. I guess DutchBrat is talking about FDBF but that is a different operation.
@Jurek: Of course I will look in all possible means to let PGM go to a new trading system. But at the moment we have first to get more information of GLBSE and the way the shutdown goes.
Yes, sorry, was late at night and posted in the wrong thread/responded to somthing I tought was in a different threadh |
|
|
|
|
419
|
Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [800 GH] Ozcoin Pooled Mining | DGM | PPS |AU mining Temporary Fee Reduction
|
on: October 07, 2012, 10:56:46 AM
|
I think the confusion lies in the fact that OzCoin shows the found block was worth 157 BTC while the pool only paid out 47 BTC, so the questions is then where did the 110 BTC go ? As you describe DGM; a share that is being submitted at time T is scored compared to the other shares based on the value of the transaction that is submitted to the network at time T, even if the pool does not find the block that transaction is included in. If someone includes a transaction fee of 100.000 BTC, each share submitted at that time would have an abnormally high score value whether or not OzCoin finds the block. Seeing as this score is only to determine how much of the total generated BTC a share is worth to a miner compared to other shares submitted by miners, the question remains if the transaction fee received by OzCoin is 10.000 BTC then 10.000 BTC + blockreward should be divided amongst all all the shares submitted within the scoring period. As I started out saying, now it looks like OzCoin received 157 BTC and only paid out 47 BTC. Regardless of any reward system, the payout on each share should have been roughly 3 times at high as it usually is (with DGM less so than with PPS, but higher over a longer period of submitted shares). This is how I see it at least  |
|
|
|
|
420
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Paladon Green Mining [PGM] (including ASIC upgrade) (no bond!)
|
on: October 06, 2012, 10:25:12 PM
|
You want to continue operating directly, without GLBSE? Are you aware that this makes all of your shareholders basically stuck with this investment indefinitely? How do you see it, how it's gonna be? Our money invested with you will be stuck, while the shares will continue to drop value with time, and you at the same time will continue to profit. Please reconsider your plans as the way you want to do it would be practically robbing us, there is a huge difference between buying and managing a share on stock market and doing it directly, on the forums...
Some of the assets the fund invested in may choose not to honor their contracts or they may choose not to get identified toNefario.... They will be wortjless,whereas other investments might not list on another exchange So how do you propose they do a buyback ? Going to take a lot of time to figure out what the next step will be.... Edit: sorry, late at night and posted in the wrong thread |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
