No it doesn't work that way.... pre-ordering something is usually done for the same price... even if you have to wait a long time... I paid exactly the same for my Black Ops II as someone who buys it in the store today.... Same goes for iPads, iPhones etc.... Sometimes you even pay more on pre-order than when it becomes readily available because of the exclusivity to have something first.
It worked that way for every game I was interested in. (And usually opted not to pre-order, since the discount didn't justify the risk of buying before trying a demo.) Alternatively, bonus items are often given to preorderers, still making the eventual value of what you receive greater than what you paid. Exclusivity is a bit more intangible and I don't presume to model the incentive structure of iPad preorderers. But I can certainly model the incentive structure of people who order mining devices. Excluding trade friction, a single available immediately will trade in the secondary market for more than what it costs to order a single to be delivered in a month; the difference will be roughly equal to the profit it can generate in this month. |
|
|
|
BTW same can be said for anything you pre-order.... my Call of Duty Black Ops II which I pre-ordered is not worth anything more than the ones people can buy directly from the store
I'll start with this because you've just proven my point. You pre-ordered CoDBO2, presumably for a discount. Let's say you paid for it $40, and now that's it out it costs $50. Is it worth $40 because you paid $40 for it? No, it it's worth $50 because that's what it trades for now (assuming friction-free exchangeability). You were willing to shell out $40 in advance in order to get something in the future which will then be worth $50. The mistake here is assuming that a mini-rig is worth $15295.
At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295.
At the same time $600 would get you a single within a few weeks. So a single is worth more than $600, but not by much.
So my Single ordered in November 2011 and delivered in April 2012 is worth more than a single ordered in July 2012 and delivered in September 2012, just because I had wait longer to get it.... This means that Inaba has to take into account the delivery time on the singles and then set a different price for every single according to the delivery time it took to get them.... Somehow you can see that your argument is not quite right.... This is not the direction of causality, but rather of deduction. It's not that the past delivery time causes the worth to be higher. It's that because of the delay, we deduce that its worth is higher. If people were willing to shell out $600 a month ago to get a single now, it must mean a single now is worth more than $600. Likewise for mini-rigs, and since the delay for them was higher, the implied worth is greater. With mining devices, the revenue they generate over time must be properly understood when doing valuation calculations. You paid for your single earlier than most, but that doesn't cause it to be worth now more than other singles; you cashed out the benefit of your early investment with the mining output it generated over the time since receiving it. On the same note, if people are willing to pay $600 to get a single within 4 weeks, they'd be willing to pay much more to get a single now and have it generate income over these 4 weeks. |
|
|
|
The block reward halving is upon us, and people celebrating need a way to be informed at the moment of the event. The go-to link right now is bitcoinclock.com, but AFAIK it doesn't actually do anything when the event happens. With the help of gweedo, I bring you the Block halving party countdown, as a service to those who wish a salient way to pinpoint the exact time to begin the festivities. You can set as a parameter the block you wish to celebrate (default is 209999, the last block with 50 BTC reward, after which the network starts working on a 25 BTC block). When the target block is found, the background becomes green and 3 beeps are sounded. A block before that the background is orange and 1 beep is sounded, and two blocks before the target the background is red. It uses blockexplorer.com data, so should be about as accurate as it. You can try it out with a nearby target to test it and become familiar with the functionality. The code consists of 2 files: getBlockHeight.php: <?php
$ch = curl_init("https://blockexplorer.com/q/getblockcount");
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, true);
echo curl_exec($ch);
curl_close($ch);
?>
index.php: <?php
$height=209999;
if(isset($_GET['i'])){
$height=$_GET['i'];
}
?>
<html>
<head>
<title>Block halving party countdown</title>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.3/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://raw.github.com/egonelbre/jsfx/master/lib/audio.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="https://raw.github.com/egonelbre/jsfx/master/lib/jsfx.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="https://raw.github.com/egonelbre/jsfx/master/lib/jsfxlib.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function(){
var height=parseInt('<?php echo $height; ?>');
var sound = jsfxlib.createWave(["saw",0.0000,0.4000,0.0000,0.1320,0.0000,0.1020,20.0000,638.0000,2400.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0100,0.0003,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.0000,1.0000,0.0000,0.0000,0.1000,0.0000]);
var lastheight=0;
var extrabeeps=0;
check();
self.setInterval(function(){check()},1000);
function check(){
var currentheight;
$.get('getBlockHeight.php', function(res) {
currentheight=parseInt(res);
if (extrabeeps>0)
{
sound.play();
extrabeeps--;
}
if(currentheight>lastheight&&lastheight<height)
{
if((height-2)>currentheight){
$('body').css("background-color","white");
}else if((height-2)==currentheight){
$('body').css("background-color","red");
}else if((height-1)==currentheight){
$('body').css("background-color","orange");
sound.play();
}else if(height<=currentheight){
$('body').css("background-color","green");
sound.play();
extrabeeps=2;
}
}
lastheight=currentheight;
if(height>currentheight){
$('#amount').html(height-currentheight);
}else if(height<=currentheight){
$('h1').html("HAPPY NEW REWARD!");
}
});
}
});
</script>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<p>
<h1>Blocks remaining: <span id="amount"></span></h1>
<form method="get" action="index.php">
Enter your block height: <input type="text" name="i" /><br />
<input type="submit" value="Set" />
</form>
</p>
</center>
</body>
</html>
Enjoy! |
|
|
|
@Binford 6100 - can you post the actual before and after texts? bitcoin -> Bitcoin - cause initial difficulty when comparing versions, sea of red : )
If you haven't already, you should pre-process by unifying the capitalization in both versions. |
|
|
|
Im just saying that people are in la-la land if they think it should have zero effect, as you are claiming.
I didn't say the effect should be zero. But it shouldn't be infinite as some people want. There should be repurcussions for lapses in judgement. Do you really believe youre going to be able to front another IPO ?
If you think so, you havent learnt a lesson.
You should be happy to know that I refused some offers to take an active role in IPO management and similar, in large part due to finding it inappropriate after the BDT case. (No big deal, they weren't very serious anyway.) But to say that I am forbidden from managing an IPO forever and ever and ever is silly. If after a cooldown period an opportunity will present itself I will consider it. But investors should be extra careful not to take my role for more than what it is, and I will make even more effort to clarify what my role is (and of course usual stuff like much enhanced background checks, etc.) I agree with an earlier observation of yours that the model of unrecognized people having their IPO managed by other people isn't working, so legitimate opportunities of this kind may not exist at all. But there could related opportunities. |
|
|
|
You fronted an operation that stole thousands of bitcoins. The way it works is that when you put your reputation on the line for someone and they do what bitscammer did then it damages your rep too.
I was the IPO manager. I clarified from the start what was my exact involvement (which was fairly minimal) and that investors are the ones who are responsible for their investment decisions. I did not guarantee it or profess intimate knowledge of the issuer. Trying to make it sound like I am somehow responsible for it does not make it true. I prefer to be productive rather than wallow in the past. The only reason this was even brought up here is that ciuciu was upset that I called him on his default of "guaranteed, low-risk bonds" (that is, exactly what Alberto did). You have no judgement.
People make mistakes. The particular mistake of placing undeserved trust has been extremely common in this community. And making a mostly emotional error has little bearing on my ability to contribute intellectually in my areas of expertise. Yes, the errors I've made should be acknowledged, but not to the level of character assassination that you want to bring it. This is all off topic for this thread. |
|
|
|
I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party.
So why don't you do it? I think the people in the BDT thread will be very happy to see it. And then you can start a new ASIC mining bond  . Nobody asked. It's not a bad idea, I'll think about it. |
|
|
|
You and Armando stole 10000 BTC
I lost about 2500 BTC and 100 hours of my time (and counting) in the context of the BDT bonds. Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. ..., and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.
Ok. I have considered your suggestion, and rejected it. Talk is cheap. How about proving your affirmations? I think I can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate this to a trusted 3rd party. |
|
|
|
You and Armando stole 10000 BTC
I lost about 2500 BTC and 100 hours of my time (and counting) in the context of the BDT bonds. Actually, I'm fed up with people like you, which think that speaking all the time will cover their past actions. ..., and now you play angel. More then that, you still try to share your "knowledge". Maybe is time for you to step back a bit from the keyboard.
Ok. I have considered your suggestion, and rejected it. Back on topic now. |
|
|
|
Meni your detailed analysis and judgment of things you have no interest in, is very dubious to say the least.
If you do not trust my judgement, take my argument at face value. Ad hominem attacks aren't helpful, and neither is derailing this thread. How it is going with your friend Armando?
I have never referred to Alberto Armandi as a friend, let alone after what he's done to me and others. You can follow publicly available details of the case at the BDT bonds thread. |
|
|
|
My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate.
Meni, this is the second time you mention hashrate in this conversation. I let it go the first time, but I think a clarification is in order. I mentioned it completely intentionally. Under the original contract terms of BFLS (which existed long before BFLS.RIG was even proposed), it was made clear that purchasers were buying shares of hardware, not hashrate. 1 share of BFLS represented exactly 1/200th of the cash value of a Single (that is, exactly $3).
It did not represent 1/200 of the cash value of a Single. It represented 1/200 of a Single. The two are not the same. If the value of a Single is >$600, the value of a BFLS share is >$3. Likewise, if for some reason the value of a single was now $50 (e.g., no upgrade plan with the advent of ASIC), the worth of a BFLS share would be $0.25. If I had enough BFLS shares, I could ask Inaba to convert them to a Single and ship it to me today.
Right. Now let's assume there were no ASICs, and FPGA BFL devices were sold out or only available with delays. A single would be worth, say, $700. A mini-rig would be worth about $21000. So if 200 BFLS shares can get you a Single, each is worth about $3.5. If 6058 BFLS.RIG shares can get you a mini-rig, each is worth $3.46. If Inaba were to merge the two, he should do it based on their worth, not based on some past ticket price. Why do I think a mini-rig would be worth about $21000? Because both devices exist to generate hashes. What you can get out of a device is proportional to its hashrate, so what it would go for in the market is proportional to its hashrate - with some slight discount to the rigs, because the coarser granularity makes them less attractive for some customers (on the other hand, they are more power-efficient and much easier to deploy by big players). And I could get a $600 discount under BFL's upgrade program for an ASIC upgrade today. Which makes a BFLS share worth exactly $3 today ($600/200 = $3).
And here is the crux, that ASICs are coming, there is an upgrade plan, and FPGA BFL devices are worth anything only inasmuch as they can be traded in. So their worth is whatever they can be traded in for. If these are the original ticket prices, there is a point in saying that this is their worth. However, by offering trade-in values equal to original ticket price, BFL is unfairly disadvantaging mini-rig purchasers. And I think it would be good for Inaba to correct for this, making sure that BFLS.RIG buyers are not disadvantaged compared to BFLS purchasers. And again, the objective measure of worth (in absence of market data) is proportional to hashrate. One can argue that to make sure nobody receives less than the letter of the contract, Inaba should credit all of the merged shares at $3 per share (so BFLS owners are par and BFLS.RIG owners get a bonus). You should also keep in mind that the upgrades aren't happening right now. There are still some dividends to be paid until then, which will on average be proportional to hashrate. By crediting BFLS.RIG owners at less than 1:1, they will get less dividends than the contract describes. So I guess the simplest solution that is fair for everyone is to wait with the merger until the upgrades; credit $3 per BFLS share; credit as much as possible (typically between $2.52 and $3) per BFLS.RIG share. Meni loves math, only when it is in his favor.
As said I have no stake in this debate, and I assure you my love for math is unconditional. |
|
|
|
Meni, I've always respected your analytical abilities and contributions to bitcoin (and continue to do so), but I'm not sure that argument applies here. What you describe happened in the past; it is not an accurate description of the current environment.
If I have 200 BFLS today, I can ask Inaba to convert them to a Single. He can do that immediately because he has the hardware. Similarly, I can ask Inaba to convert 6058 shares of BFLS.RIG (assuming I had them) into an actual MiniRig. Again, he can do that immediately with hardware in hand. There is the same amount of waiting involved in either case.
I understand that in the past there was more of a delay with the MiniRigs. But that was built-in to the market-driven bid/ask price of the shares. Today you can no longer order a MiniRig (or Single) from BFL according to their website so we can no longer use this as a comparison, but you can from Inaba if you have enough BFLS or BFLS.RIG shares.
My main point is that due to these events that happened in the past, the current worth of a mini-rig is more than what its ticket price implies. It is still impossible to put down $15295 and get an instant minirig. If there was no ASICs or hardware advances, a minirig would sell in the aftermarket for much more than $15295. Thus you cannot argue that 6058 BFLS.RIG shares are worth only 25.492 times as much as 200 BFLS shares. My argument is weakened by the existence of the upgrade plan, but I still claim that the most natural objective measure for the worth of such a share, which doesn't leave any party disadvantaged, is in proportion to hashrate. One other point to realize is that any 'disadvantage' the early BFLS.RIG adopters had due to longer wait times, exponentially decays with time. In the long run, the difference approaches 0 and we again reach the point of directly comparing # of shares vs. hardware cost. And under that comparison, 1 BFLS share is worth 1.19 BFLS.RIG shares.
BFLS.RIG owners will never get back the X BTC that the rig could have mined during the time of delay. Thus the manifestation of this loss and the speculative risks should remain until cashout. Denying them this right is a variation of Hershele's "Rolls and Doughnuts" story. FWIW, I have private arrangements with Inaba which should be unaffected by this, but hold roughly equal value in singles and mini-rigs. |
|
|
|
my thread has a solution, that's all what neede for search engine, but talking with a wise man is priceless ^)))
I'll take that as a compliment.  Android has many viruses it's not safe at all
I'm sure some people would disagree with you. I'm not into newfangled smartphone thingies myself. |
|
|
|
What do you think will happen to MtGox price over time with new ASIC-arms-race?
Why there is no bitcoin QT for Iphones\Ipads...
Derailing your own thread? The advent of ASIC should have very little effect on the BTC exchange rate. The block halving should put upward pressure which is mostly already priced in. Bitcoin-qt is the reference full node client. iPhones and probably also iPads can't run a full node. In addition Apple appears to ban Bitcoin-related apps. For open mobile devices such as Android you have lightweight- or hybrid- wallet apps such as Bitcoin Wallet and blockchain.info App. |
|
|
|
Lol, yes it's a new one.
But how do I create a more secure password like in armory, when I can set like 60 secs and 128MB and maybe more than 100 private keys?
I don't know of a weakness with Bitcoin-qt's wallet encryption, assuming you choose a strong password. (Note that any single-factor online wallet is vulnerable to keyloggers.) Some things can be configured with the GUI and more still with the command line; but if Armory is offering features you need and are not available in Bitcoin-qt, you should use Armory. |
|
|
|
Meni,
Many thanks for the WONDERFUL advice and HOW-TO. Just did a small test and it worked perfectly with MyWallet. I am wondering how long the "URL" can be that is pasted into the browser bar?!?
In a casual search I encountered numbers of 5000-6000 characters being mentioned for modern browsers. You can try with more but if that fails, splitting addresses to several groups and paying each separately could work around this limitation. |
|
|
|
latest QT
win7 64bit
I keep seeing wallet address in "receive coins"
That's old wallet. I had two of them. One disappeared after deleting all the folders. And one stays.
A wallet is a collection of addresses (and associated data). You can't delete addresses from a wallet without special tools such as PyWallet. So it is highly unlikely that you have the same wallet but one address was deleted from it. The best explanation by far is that this is a new wallet with a new address. Please do the following: 1. Write down the displayed address. 2. Quit bitcoin-qt. 3. Delete wallet.dat. 4. Run bitcoin-qt. 5. You should now have an address in "Receive coins" which is different from the one you wrote down, indicating that you now have a brand new wallet. Do this only if there are no coins in the wallet. Deleting a wallet.dat file with coins in it causes a loss of those coins! (This warning is not only for you but for any random observers.) |
|
|
|
I knew that, and that was deleted also.
Are you sure you're seeing your old wallet, and not a newly created wallet? If so what you are describing is strange and you need to provide some more information - OS, whether you're using a non-default data directory, bitcoin-qt version (you're using bitcoin-qt right?), screenshot, etc. |
|
|
|
I had assumed this to hold true for you, although the same could not be said for some most other bond issuers. I think you have managed your bond - even in the face of the shutdown of an exchange - in an entirely admirable manner, ensuring that your bond-holders are not out of pocket.
When I started to invest on GLBSE I made a "risk vs reward" list of bonds. I invested mainly in Puremining bonds because they were the lowest risk bond on my list and still provided a reasonable reward (ASICs notwithstanding). I'm quite happy about my choice.
Thank you for the positive comments. I think now I'm "allowed" to disclose that I think the traded price for PureMining was a bit high, even assuming 100% probability of being paid as described. Hmmm. I just realised I should have included GLBSE in my "risk vs reward" calculations.
GLBSE risk is something which I have always considered but always told myself, "come on, it won't really happen" (and I assumed a GLBSE shutdown would be cleaner). I can say the same about many other things lately... It's time the Bitcoin community realizes that risky counterparties are risky. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
