What size of star is required to implode in order to create the element Unobtanium?
About seven times the mass of our own sun, I can sell you some for bitcoins. You sell massive stars or unobtanium? |
|
|
|
|
Bump for any interest.
Anybody taking chemistry classes? Lots of people say chemistry is a really hard subject, maybe I could help?
|
|
|
|
In place of VIRES IN NUMERIS, they'd say 0.01 BITCOIN.[...[
[...]
I'd just make them available as roll-your-owns, with the spot on the back for a private key).
[...]
The only thing stopping me is
I'ld be more concerned about being the "issuer" of a coin marked 0.01 BTC (where 0.01 BTC is worth about twenty cents today) which is [potentially going to be] floating around without any 0.01 BTCs on it. Maybe you could set aside the bitcoin, but not actually put it on the coins? So if you make 100, then you would put 1 btc in a safe place. Then if sometime in the future somebody wants to redeem it for the 0.01 btc worth 500 usd, you can just raid the stash instead of buying new expensive bitcoins? |
|
|
|
So, MP lost the first case, which any sane person would have judged against him, and rather than changing policies so that this would not happen again (I actually think he did this, by changing the wording of his terms?) or learning from the experience and being nicer to people in the future, he throw a fit and shuts down the whole court? Seems rather odd. |
|
|
|
... could have already sold his shares (if he wanted to) for (0.00468334/0.0032)*1000 = 1,463.54375 BTC. This all comes to a 56% return on investment, or 560.884485598 BTC in cold, hard liquid profit....
How does one sell 1463btc worth of share at 0.0046 when buy depth has only 156 000 shares going as low as 0.0018 ,,, for a possible sell of ~550btc ? You don't seem to understand how these markets work. One could place an order of 1463btc worth of shares at 0.0046 and then when the order is filled they have 1463btc. The stuff on the order book is just what you could get if you sell right now, it does not stop you from placing your own order higher on the order book. |
|
|
|
Kludge: Maybe it's time you splurged the hefty sum of 20 bitcoin to move over to the one exchange that actually works. By "actually works" I mean charges 1/4 as much per transaction as GLBSE does, is down an infinity percent less and in general has an infinity percent fewer issues, troubles, problems, defects and so forth. I was reading this, thinking, maybe I'll give it a look, but then Nefario: You are obviously unqualified to be anywhere near a project of the complexity of an exchange, even for play money (which I suspect BTC are, for most of you here, at least judging on behavior records). I will make you precisely one offer to buy the thing from you, so you get to actually make some money for all your effort over the past year, as misguided and mismanaged as it may have been, rather than have to walk away from a worthless wreck (like Zou Thong/Amir&co have with Bitcoinica). If you have half the maturity you should have to be involved in all this you will take this offer seriously, and consider your options carefully. Feel free to make contact via pm or in #bitcoin-otc-eu.
thought again. And good that you did, eh. ...
If that is the way you speak to someone of Nefario's standing in the community I wonder what you speak to your customers like. There is no need to descend into a slanging match. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. This is the same Nefario who used to be a moderator here, but then left the forum in a huff over some schoolyard drama. Then when nobody else joined him at whatever backwater forum he picked, he kinda slunk back and proceeded to continue his horrible PR before suddenly pulling the plug on the GLBSE. This community has a sad record of picking people to hold up as having "standing in the community" |
|
|
|
1. The M&G Shares cant vote and nobody can vote with them.
I agree not voting would make things easier and it seems to be what people want. but, why? Why should these shares abstain and the fund not have an input, especially considering the next suggestion of creating a board. Shouldn't this board use the voting power to help steer the company? I am not personally against just considering the shares inert, but I want to make sure the decision is well reasoned. Are there any regular wall st examples of how this should be done? 2. a Supervisory Board elected from the shareholder check and allow expenses and investments!
greets chuck
Assuming we decide to go down this route, how do you guys think we could effectively create a board with the tools available to us in bitcoin land here? I agree with Deprived, there is no reason for these shares to exist. Any uses of the growth fund should be passed by a shareholder vote. Instead of having a "board" of the largest shareholders, have a board consisting of all shareholders. Have shareholders join in meetings held in IRC or somewhere. |
|
|
|
1. The M&G Shares cant vote and nobody can vote with them.
2. a Supervisory Board elected from the shareholder check and allow expenses and investments!
greets chuck
+1 |
|
|
|
All original shares from the IPO have now been sold.
Congratulations on a successfull IPO. Now that you are quite a bit richer (or rather, your assets are more liquid now) what sort of stuff are you going to do with all those bitcoins (if you would like to share)? A nice 8% jump in price has been nice for those of us holding shares. Where are all those people saying this was a horrible stock to hold? Cause it would take "like 10 years to make any money!"? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the warning. I never would have purchased any shares/dumped all my shares if I knew that you would move to BF. Glad to hear there's solid reasons for the move - otherwise people may have suspected it was just to avoid having negative remarks showing up on the asset.
Did I miss something? Weex is not a solid reason at all. He had the worst rated asset on BTCT. That is why he moved. Heh, sarcasm never comes across clearly on the internet - sorry. Actually it is pretty obvious. I am just too tired.  I totally missed the sarcasm and was totally confused  I guess this has the benefit of showing how easily assets can be moved between exchanges now? I just hope this does not become a fad, it will be hard to keep track of everything if people start jumping between exchanges all willy-nilly. |
|
|
|
Some one once told me that in the game monopoly is that it is the inflation that causes there to be a winner. If all the players were given enough money to afford all the properties, and then when passing Go instead of new money being issued, the other players forked over the $200 on a pro-rata basis, the game instead would go on almost forever, until a player was unlucky enough to land on other peoples property on many successive roles. You see stable prices lead to a stable economy.
Don't know if its true or not.
There are various house rules one can implement to increase or decrease the monopoly money supply. There are also strategies which can make the game go faster or slower. It would be an interesting academic exercise to study. Here are a couple extremes of games I have experienced. Fastest game I have ever seen: normal rules, about 4 or five people playing, the game was over in less than 20 minutes. The guy who won, he focused on a single monopoly, and building it up as quick as possible. Addmittedly, it took some luck for a monopoly to be owned within the first few turns (I think it was the red one), then he traded to get all three of the properties from the other players, giving what seemed very lopsided deals (two or more properties for just one). With a bit more luck on his side people actually landed on his monopoly, and the high rent quickly expanded his empire and knocked out everybody else. In this case, quickly rising prices caused bankruptcies for everybody else. Slow game: Me and my sibblings don't like to let the other guy ahead, at all, ever. So when we would play we would do everything in our power to keep each other from getting monopolies. So it was like in your proposed change, we all had enough money to pay rent wherever we landed (since nobody could build houses cause they didn't have any monopolies). The game just went on and on and on, nobody could make any money but people hardly ever went bankrupt, we were all just struggling on the same dollars over and over again. Things were different when we played with our friends down the street. They had this house rule where instead of paying the bank, any money owed would go into a lottery you won when you land on "free parking". Basically what this does is instill massive inflation over the course of the game. At the beginning it is like any other game, if you land on a property you really have to consider if you want to spend that $100 to buy it or not, but after a few times around the board you wouldn't even notice that $100 anymore. Pretty soon everybody is sitting on giant piles of cash because they run out of things to do with it, all the houses are built and the game just keeps going and going. |
|
|
|
I found one mistake: Legal tender laws make it so that only debts in dollars are enforceable by the courts. It is actually the other way around, should be: "Legal tender laws make it so that debts are only enforceable by the courts in dollars." The way it is said in the article implies that only debts denominated in dollars can be brought before the court, when in fact any debt can be brought before the court, but all judgement are made in dollars. |
|
|
|
Update
The samples passed all functionality tests. The power consumption is also within the expected range. And as our overclocking tests had shown, they still have a lot of potentials compared to our original spec. This means that the biggest risk of our project is gone and our NRE is a fruitful spend.
The first production batch of chips will be out of the packaging service tomorrow. Our deploying is on its way.
Briefly yes. But the new platform is not owned by us. We have more control to it than other third-party platforms. It's also more secure and easier to audit/monitor than others. We couldn't give an exact timeline but also as said before it will be before our first dividend payment, which is in the very near future since the first mining farm using self-designed ICs in the world is about to be born.
It is a shame that the shares are not actively trading so we could see the price jump upward on this news. |
|
|
|
BAKEWELL took advantage of the current market and bought back 200 on the market shares today.
200 * .15 = 30 , however we were able to purchase them back for 22.23
The remaining BTC7.77 was sent to our growth and maintenance fund
BAKEWELL then balanced in Ian and Growth & Maintenance against the 500 sold shares in the tranche.
300 additional shares are considered active for Growth & Maintenance (now totalling 1800) and 200 were sent to Ian's personal portfolio.
This tranche will be labelled the "transitional tranche" and is now closed.
BAKEWELL now has 6000 Shares outstanding.
Share sales are suspended until a new system for raising capital and balancing in is determined and put in place.
I might be confused here, but if the number of outstanding shares goes down (because the company bought them back), then shouldn't the number of founders' shares also go down, not up ?!?!? |
|
|
|
The FAQ mentions about having to pay a 20 BTC amount to register your GPG key with them. So does this mean that it would cost each person 20 BTC just to put in a bid for the shares? Yes. Also by the end of next week GLBSE will have options available (and the ability to make options) on all assets listed on GLBSE. I was just looking back at the start of the thread and this post made me laugh. We never did see any options available on the GLBSE. |
|
|
|
|
It looks like this is now up and trading on BitFunder, is the plan still to also have it traded on BTCT.co?
|
|
|
|
I just put in 111.1111 mBTC. I will get to my pledge eventually.  Every bit helps, Bear. I'll never judge the size of any donation, nor chastise anyone for not contributing. Next time, though, consider stating your donation is satoshis to make it look more impressive.  ~Bruno K~ I think we should get everybody used to mBTC, then later moving to satoshis will be easier. |
|
|
|
|
Why are there shares for growth and maintenance? Profit should just be multiplied by 0.7 and the remaining 30% sent to a publicly announced bitcoin address for safe keeping. Since these shares are owned by the company, they should not vote, or they should at least vote how the rest of the shares vote for them to vote (now that is getting a bit complicated). They should in no way ever be represented as being owned by Ian, they are owned by the company. Which is just silly, why would a company own itself?
|
|
|
|
I just put in 111.1111 mBTC. I will get to my pledge eventually. |
|
|
|
|
Is it still available? I will take it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
