|
I am testing a setup for a new cloud service.
I am looking for beta testers / volunteers, to help me shape the service, to help me give people what they want.
The service costs 0.01 per 50GB per month (0.0002/GB/month). You get 20% off if you pay 6 months in advance, and 50% off if you pay 1 year in advance. Beta testers get 80% off. Money back guarantee (tied to WoT/OTC or your forum name). Send me a PM.
It's really simple stuff. You get a login and a password and a hostname. 24 hour support.
I've calculated that even at a monthly rate we're cheaper than the cheapest non-bitcoin solution. Not sure about what services people want though, which is why I am offering this beta.
Contact me in PM and we can discuss what you need. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
It's by now impractical for any serious company contemplating being listed in BTC to forego the significant capital available on MPEx in order to favor a different venue...
There are too many examples I could bring up which would inform a more restrained enthusiasm. But there's no point in bringing them up if you're wrong on logical grounds; If on the other hand you have a legitimate business you have no chance making it outside of MPEx. This is a point of fact, not a point of argument: there have been bet sites coming and going for about two years. Once one listed on MPEx that was the end of that market, BitBet now dominates it. Same with dice games, same with everything else: kids can play around and pretend they're doing things until the adult exchange lists some adults.
are you really claiming that one of the primary reasons BitBet was successful is because it listed on MPEX? |
|
|
|
1) Leave US access open, continue collecting that revenue, and maintain exposure to tail-risk shut-down event.
or
2) Block US IP access to the website, and greatly reduce the catastrophic tail risk.
I understand the sentiment here is negative. I would encourage everyone involved in Bitcoin to start playing the long game, and I'll leave it at that.
No I completely agree, this was necessary and playing the "long game" is indeed the best way to drive total adoption. In the long run, this actually makes S.DICE a more attractive investment by removing risk. Once the price falls to where it belongs (about a 90% haircut all-in-all, I wager, before staging a small recovery) I might think about throwing some serious money at it. There are still a lot of issues with the platform though, which need to be resolved. Kudos for taking a great first step though! I'll keep my eye on it. |
|
|
|
What a bizarre decision.
I guess that's what you ge with non-voting shares.
Eh, Erik / others still have a majority.. Historically the only reason a company puts out non-voting shares is so that when they decide to restructure the company they can cut out the shareholders. I wouldn't buy non-voting shares of /anything/ unless my life depended on it. Just look at what happened to Yellow Media in Canada last year or two for a really great example. In short, don't pay attention to what the clowns in the white shirts say on TV. Just watch what the company does and come to your own decision based on that. |
|
|
|
|
Update:
I'm pleased to announce, our recent order from Amagi Metals has arrived!
100x 1g Canadian Rounds (individually wrapped in tiny zip lock bags!)
20x 1oz Lakota Nation's "Crazy Horse" rounds
20x 1oz Freedom Girl Rounds
We have now placed a new order with Amagi Metals for:
80x 1/2oz Lakota National "Sitting Bull" rounds.
20x 1oz John Galt rounds (in honor of the closure of John Galt Asset Management)
600 units have been issued representing these 60oz. of silver.
The first 100 units (10oz.) have been placed on sale for cost + shipping only (i.e. no markup).
Happy stacking!
|
|
|
|
I still remember how surprised I was when the price changed by exactly 0% the day the block reward halved. I really expected something, up or down, but you would have never been able to tell such a significant milestone Bitcoin's history had occurred from looking at the price history.
the price did change, up until the block reward halved there was a huge price movement of approximately 100%. |
|
|
|
I don't know what all of the securities invested in are, but disclosed ones are namworld's BTC-BOND and my LTC-ATB.B1. Both of those have a fixed face value in BTC, pay fixed interest/dividends based on that face value and are redeemable at (or very near) face value.
I can confirm those are currently our only two investments. Nothing else i'm aware of fits our risk profile. |
|
|
|
I took a look at this and cusdog has done an amazing job. It looks like it checks out. I am a little swamped these days at work but in about a week I will be able to get back on this and maybe we can chat a bit about what I can do to make the accounting easier (i.e. presenting the data in a modified form? a different organization of spreadsheets?) Around that time I will be expanding the fund. I just need to wait for the silver we've ordered to arrive before placing another order. Perhaps I'm being a little too paranoid with that policy but, better safe than sorry! |
|
|
|
Does this have the Image Retention problem that many of the retinas have?
Wow that's a good question. Thanks. I'm actually surprised to hear there was a problem, I'd never heard of it before. Had I known I might not have bought it. Well, I looked it up here and here. I was pretty shocked. I kept reading, here for example. From what I read, the problem affects LG panels (SJA1, on mid-2012 models), and not the Samsung panels. This is the most recent 2013 model available -- dated 4/25/2013. I checked using 'ioreg -lw0 | grep EDID | sed "/[<]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6' and the panel ID is "LP154WT1-SJA2" (i.e. a LG model) but luckily it's a hardware revision model (SJA2). I also have an LG LP154WT1-SJA2 display. So far, no issues. I haven't been able to find anyone with an SJA2 display confirming the presence of IR/ghosting on the SJA2. (from https://discussions.apple.com/message/21614406#21614406) The SJA1's are the original LG displays known to be problematic. The SJA2's appear to be going into the second generation rMBP's, there do not seem to be reported problems with them, and is what I have in this one.
(from https://discussions.apple.com/message/21805138#21805138) As I said those pages are hundreds of pages long but the general consensus is that the 2013 hardware revisions fixed the problem. At any rate, according to the facebook page linked above, Apple is fully aware of the problem as they started ensuring anyone with an IR problem got a replacement Samsung (or SJA2) screen. And again, this is a 1 day old model with 3 years of Apple Care. There isn't going to be a problem with it and if there is, they will fix it. Apparently these SJA2 screens are even better than the Samsung ones they used to replace the SJA1's originally. In fact, the latest trend is that the Samsung screens suck and people want the hardware revision LG's now  I recently bought a 2nd retina macbook 15, production week 2(April) 2013. Samsung screen. suffered non-uniform backlight, left side was yellowish and darker than the right side of the screen. Brought to Apple store, the genius was happy to replace the screen for me, but they didn't have any spare parts, took 3-5 days to order a new screen. Got it replaced with another samsung screen, same issue. The genius agreed to replace the screen again.
I decided to e-mail Apple. Explained this screen issues(non-uniform backlight, IR), and asked if I could have a SJA2 screen instead of samsung screen,since SJA2 seems to have fixed the IR issue and has no non-uniform backlight issue.
(from https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4034848?start=7770&tstart=0) Here's another post comparing the Samsung models to the new SJA2's: AT LAST, I have finally received a flawless Samsung display rMBP after 13 attempts prior to this one. There is no backlight bleeding, yellow/pinkish tints, or dead pixels. I'm absolutely blown away with this machine, however, because I still have possession of my LG rMBP for a few more days before the 14 return period, I compared the two. The Samsung seems to be more washed out in colors, somewhat giving a matte feel to it, whereas the LG has BEAUTIFUL contrast levels and appears more color accurate, especially the blacks. I have also noticed the Samsung display is extremely sharp with texts and textures, almost as if it were illuding forward. In addition, the Samsung is slightly brighter than the LG by 1 bar. Nonetheless though, despite the benefits the LG has, I truly am happy with the Samsung for not possessing IR, which I have been frustrated with when working on my animation projects.
My unit was built on the 44th week and I'm hoping the rest of you guys will be fortunate in receiving one. Let's hope I won't be needing to return to this thread again and finally enjoy my machine that I have been longing for since 3 months ago
(from https://discussions.apple.com/message/20164983#20164983) Anyways yeah those threads are hundreds of pages long but the issues seem to revolve around the first string of rMBP's they put out. I'm happy to confirm the date on this model is 4/25/2013 and that after using it for a day or two now there are no issues. I can provide photos of the box and so forth if you need. Thing is, at this point I am really on the fence on whether I should sell it or not. It's an amazing and beautiful machine. I love the gestures, the way it does notifications, and the way it does e-mail. The new Office 2013 upgrade is going to make this my go-to machine. The thing friggen talks to me in Japanese and Chinese (it even has more than four different Chinese dialects/accents). I can talk back to it in various languages too. It's all configurable. It has dozens of English voices too including voices with accents, like a London accent, an Irish accent, an Australian accent, an India accent, a South African accent.. amazing. Funny story. I walk into the Apple store on Wednesday. I went to a big one. The #1 one in the city over. I ask them for their top of the line model. I wanted everything. So they say they don't have it. But, actually, after 15 minutes of looking around the store they come back and say they just got a top of the line model in only thing is it has the 512GB hard drive not the 768GB one. It's the only one left in the country, do I want it. I say oh wow really, and they get a guy to send it over to the store in about 10 min. Just as I am paying for it someone phones in and tries to buy it. Too late! So I feel lucky to have the most powerful and recent macbook pro in the country  Actually I've been using it for the last couple days as I said above and it's a kick ass machine. I copied over 400gigs of backup video to it yesterday in like an hour, which blew me away. The display is much brighter and clearer than the benq 24inch I use at home. In fact it looks horribly dim to me now, dim and old. Beware. Using a retina will spoil you forever. You can't go back to a normal screen after using a retina. BTW, check out Parallels. It runs programs about twice as fast as Virtualbox and it runs them side by side with the mac programs. It's second only to dual booting. Oh and yes you can dual boot this with windows or linux (ubuntu) and there is a reasonable amount of support out there for it. I also just bought a thunderbolt to VGA adapter for use with projectors at work. You might want to wait a couple of days and I'll report any screen issues (or confirm that there aren't any). But by that time I might decide to keep it for myself. |
|
|
|
|
Hey all!
I'm selling my 0 day old 15" macbook pro which is in absolutely perfect condition with a 3 year warranty still intact (Apple Care)!
Specs:
RETINA MACBOOK PRO (10,1 Early 2013)
15" 2.7GHZ CORE I7 (4 CORE)
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM
512GB SSD
Intel HD4000 and NVIDIA 650M graphics
MAC OS MOUNTAIN LION 10.8.3
3 YEAR WARRANTY STILL INTACT
Extras: + Thunderbolt to Ethernet adapter!
Extras: + ALL original materials included, receipts, stickers, boxes, etc! inc'l original shipping box!
Extras: + VIP service (ex. burn test, pre-install with VirtualBox and Office 2012, whatever)
Looking for a minimum of 30 BTC or best offer, as BTC is highly volatile if the price is significantly above or below 120 USD we can renegotiate BTC price upon confirmation.
I am not new to posting here, but if you don't feel comfortable sending the BTC first I am totally open to using escrow (John K.).
|
|
|
|
My assumptions:
1. Fiat value of bitcoin = mining cost + speculation value added. I stopped reading here. $100 bill production cost is $0.096 (1). Does it mean that 99.9% of dollar value is a “speculation value added”? You also stopped thinking -- "$100 bill production cost is $0.096 (1). Does it mean that 99.9% of dollar value is a “speculation value added”?" Yes. Yes, it does. |
|
|
|
Yes I understand that random numbers can be put there, but there is no way to reveal proof without revealing my trading strategy.
Oh for fuck sakes. OBSI IS BACK! |
|
|
|
Indeed, 0.03% and not 3%.
x 365 days, it comes to 10.95% per year that I pay on that loan.
FWIW... in Excel, (POWER(1 + (0.000003/0.01), 365.249) - 1) = 11.5785% |
|
|
|
|
Update on BMF.
We have received a payment which appears to represent the value of a BFL FPGA single plus the cost of shipping, originating from a BitPay address.
We are operating under the impression this is the refund for the BFL single which had never arrived. We sincerely thank BFL for working with us on this one and don't mind at all that it took so long -- it's been a crazy couple of months!
This is great news. Now, our hardware has all been recovered, and we are only waiting on the final liquidation of one or two securities. We would hope as well that some other issues such as BTC-MINING/BITBOND would be resolved.
We encourage all LTC-GLOBAL moderators to take another look at the BMF security and vote YES, so that we may properly serve our investors. If anyone has any issue, with BMF, feel free to PM me and I will resolve it quickly and amicably. We're probably going to get enough votes to go live someday, and wouldn't it be better if you gave us your input so that we can make something better, and do a better job, for all BTC-TC investors? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
If the demand for more backing shares manifests itself, why not have potential investors pre-order? Of course this also begs the question (which usagi may have already answered) - are storage costs variable or are they a flat percentage of the value stored?
There's a minimum fee of around $30 US /month, but beyond that it is about 1/2 to 1% of the spot value of the silver. |
|
|
|
You do know you cant offer an internship legally in the US, right?
No, but it doesn't have anything to do with me. It's like saying you can't chew gum in Singapore. Well, I'm not from Singapore. |
|
|
|
These are entry level positions, although experience in the community surrounding asset management is preferred. One position is for the collection and management of news related to bitcoin, including the monitoring of bitcointalk, reddit, and mainstream news sources for bitcoin-related news. Another is for securities analysis (which is the most part time of the two). Depending on your experience and work ethic you can be paid either in company shares or bitcoins or a combination. You can be paid 0 or 1 BTC per week to start with raises to 2, 3 and possibly 4 BTC/week and up as the business develops. This is perfect for someone who wants to get in on the ground floor of something big. Yes, this is that important. We have some BIG stuff going on PM me, even if you've PM'd me on similar offers in the past. I will respond to all inquiries. Thanks and good luck. |
|
|
|
Let me just say that first off, this conversation has taken a huge leap in a positive direction and the 3-5 of us are actually sounding somewhat like a real mgmt team.
Thanks. I really appreciate your positive energy here. As a result of that, and of Deprived making a good suggestion, I'm holding a shareholder vote to see whether or not current holders want us to drop the free shipping policy. It has it's benefits, but, it is one of the most dead-weight aspects of the fund right now. I am a big fan of "baby steps". We will see how that motion goes, and I will continue to pay out excess BTC, and we will see how that ends us up in a couple weeks |
|
|
|
|
TU.SILVER Motion #1
Regarding our free shipping policy
BACKGROUND
We currently offer a free shipping policy. As a result we must retain approximately 7% of the value of our silver in BTC. This causes units of the fund to lose leverage to the price of silver and make us less attractive to new investment. The question has become; is the added value of free shipping worth keeping 7% of the fund in BTC? Maybe we should cancel this policy and return the money to our investors?
MOTION
Vote YES to retain the free shipping policy. No changes will be made to the free shipping policy if you vote YES.
Vote NO to cancel the free shipping policy. In such a case, we will revert to a shipping policy calculated on a per-order basis (contract will be updated). Additionally we will pay out a one-time distribution of 0.004/share, or approximately 7%, representing the amount of money we keep on hand to maintain the free shipping policy.
HOW TO VOTE
Open your bitcoin-qt or other client and enter the following message:
"<<DATE/TIME>> TU.SILVER-MOTION-1 VOTE YES" or "<<DATE/TIME>> TU.SILVER-MOTION-1 VOTE NO". Sign this message with the bitcoin key listed on the BitFunder asset list. Post your message and signature here, or in PM if you wish to vote anonymously. We will add a hash of your signature into this post so that the voting can be proven fair.
PASSING THE MOTION
A quorum of 50% is required or the motion will expire.
You have 1 week (7 days) from the timestamp on this post to change your vote.
Feel free to discuss your vote here and make arguments to others why they should change their vote.
All posts regarding this motion except this one will be deleted after the vote, however, noteworthy comments will be immortalized in a "best quotes" section in this post.
OTHER
by fiat.
GUIDANCE
If you don't plan to redeem units of the fund, you should vote NO because that will allow you to buy more units of the fund with your money, thus increasing the amount of silver you own.
If you do plan to redeem units in the future, you should vote YES, because we will be able to ship you your silver even if you find yourself in the unlucky situation of not being able to pay for shipping.
If you are a silver bull, vote NO, because you will be able to have a higher leverage to the price of silver when investing in units of our fund.
If you are a silver bear, vote YES, so that you will be protected against price declines by a larger position in BTC.
If you believe BTC will rise against the US dollar vote YES to maintain leverage to BTC in the value of your units.
If you believe BTC will fall against the US dollar vote NO to take profits on our BTC position and protect against loss on the way down.
|
|
|
|
Isn't that like saying no one would ever invest in LTC-ATF because they don't know what the individual holdings are? I'm not sure that's right. Anyways, anyone can calculate the non-silver component of the fund by subtracting spot silver, coin premium, and shipping cost from the fund. Vault storage is a marginal cost. An experienced investor will have these numbers on hand but in any case they are easy to research. We don't need to publish them so long as they are disclosed.
Nah the LTC-ATF comparison is a different issue. With LTC-ATF they don't know the specific securities being traded but they DO know that the fund's exposure constantly remains within a few percent of 85% LTC, 15% BTC. With TU.SILVER the point is that we don't know what X and Y are if it's X% Silver, Y% BTC investments - knowing the detail of the BTC investments is a seperate issue (and not actually one that massively concerns me). Not sure -- you could invest in a BTC denominated bond like BTC-BOND, and you would still retain full exposure to BTC. I don't think there is anything magical about currency or silver or hardware or any other asset class that changes how you can value a security based on what % of the asset it is. If you are unaware of the exact percentage of silver in TU.SILVER, and make the argument that you can't value it based on that, then I can say the same thing about LTC-ATF because I don't know what % of the fund is invested in any particular security, which is in turn exposed to currency. I get what you are saying about 85% though -- we're after a similar ratio in silver, so at least once we return the fund to equilibrium the same principles will apply. Yes - I COULD calculate what X and Y are right now. But the problem is that I have no way of knowing whether those percentages will be the same tomorrow, next week or next month - or what impact an exchange-rate move will have on those percentages. It's what will hapen in the future that I care about - NOT what a current snap-shot is. I don't invest because of what something's current price/composition is - but because of how I expect that to change over the period of my investment. Without a clear stated policy on those percentages there's zero way I can predict the extent to which changes in the price of silver and/or BTC/USD exchange-rate will impact the price of your shares.
Yes and no. The silver portion cannot go to zero, so if you feel that our units are priced close to the spot price of silver, it is a good time to invest. Unknown upside potential is never a bad thing. You can find information on how much is in what area in our monthly financial report, where we separate the value of silver from the investment position and short term cash accounts of the company. Since you think that a pure silver fund is what people really want, you're more than welcome to start one. My question is, why you think people even want one, seeing as how both LTC-SILVER and GOLD collapsed due to lack of demand... I mean it seems from where I'm standing that I'm the one who is giving people what they want, why would I want to change what I am doing? What is the case you are making exactly? Increased profits? Greater demand?
Well there clearly IS some demand for one - as some people have actually redeemed silver from you. ... But if your argument is that there isn't much demand for one - then what makes you believe demand for your shares would be lower if you didn't bother holding any silver at all? Simple, if we didn't hold any silver we could only offer a subset of the services we offer now, and we could not guarantee the ability to buy back all of the units of TU.SILVER upon demand. Right now, in an emergency, we can offer cash settlement on all units by selling the silver ourselves and buying units back with BTC. In fact, as a silver investor myself, I am more than willing to be a buyer of last resort and repurchase all existing silver of the fund with my own cash at any time. Or, we can simply redeem ALL units as silver. Both of these scenarios would be impossible if we did not bother holding any silver at all, and we would not be as attractive as an investment vehicle for silver. If you believe people want to own a mix of silver/BTC-denominated assets then a pure silver asset satisfies that BETTER than a mixed one - as it adds the ability for them to choose the percentage of each they hold. A hybrid one gives the worst of all worlds - the inability to invest in just one or the other AND the inability to choose the extent of your holdings in each.
So if there IS interest in silver then a pure asset is attractive to more people (e.g. those who want to own/trade/deal options on silver).
If there isn't interest in silver then you should drop the silver totally - as it's deterring investors who may like your trading but don't want silver.
You widen your potential pool of investors from those who want a fairly random mix of silver/BTC holdings in an asset (they can still get that buy buying shares in both assets). That's the benefit of splitting it.
Now we're getting somewhere. I agree with what you're saying. However if I ran the fund that way, then we would have to charge investors when they wanted to redeem silver and that may create a situation where someone is unable to ever redeem their silver. I believe our investors recognize and appreciate why we offer this policy. Secondly, if we split the fund like you suggest we could not preserve the long-term value of our investor's silver. There is simply no realistic alternative to the servcie we offer -- someone can buy shares of TU.SILVER and walk away for 20 years and there is a very real financial incentive for us to watch over the silver for our customer that whole time. Say the customer falls upon hard times and calls us up. We can give him his silver even if he has no money to pay for shipping. Out of all the reasons you presented for people owning TU.SILVER, you missed that one and any kind of "silver story" or "silver singularity" event. That is why we exist and if I were to change how we operate I am willing to bet we'd lose our existing customers. I don't mind starting a secondary "pure silver" fund, maybe, but it would have nothing to do with TU.SILVER. The real problem with something like that is I just don't see the point -- after another week or two, you will see the price of TU.SILVER pushed very close to spot + coin premium. What would the point of a pure fund be? to beat the price by 5% and then have to pay a 5% shipping charge? I don't think it calls for an entirely new asset. I could always just change the company policy, but at this point I'd probably run a motion to do so. In fact, just running motions to change the policy is probably a much better option than creating an entirely new asset. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
