|
I flashed my jally to go from 4.5 GH/s to 7. It was really easy - but singles were supposed to be harder since they already used the tweaks I applied to the jally, the benefit would be smaller. If you have a dragon, it's worth a try.
|
|
|
|
Maybe we could do it buttonwood style on a IRC session?
It's not looking good. Maybe, LR would do well to ask for help from Bitfunder on the back-end software, and install it at his site. Pay for it if necessary (from the 25% pool of course). Im sure there will be a way. I have seen a similar bond company advertise that they will be selling/trading on their own site... Its not that difficult to set up. Also, there are still a few other options, havlock or whatever, is still an option.. I agree, I got into this with idea to be able to sell shares, so there has to be a way.. check out how nastyfans does it, they do trading on their own site. 1) share owner lists how much they are willing to sell a share for, how many, and your bitcoin address. 2) buyer chooses to buy your seats, is given the seller's bitcoin address and how many bitcoin to send. The shares are "on hold" for a certain amount of time so two people don't end up buying the same shares. 3) the site checks the blockchain for that transaction. After 6 confirmations, the site moves the shares from one account to the other. upside: the site doesn't hold any bitcoins, so no risk of theft or shadiness. downside: only asks are listed, no bids -- there's a constant downward pressure on price Another thing nastyfans does that could be good to emulate: dividends are paid out once a week in one transaction with minimal transaction fees, essentially shared by everyone. Charging every account .0005 for transaction fees is ridiculous when you can make a single transaction with fees a few times bigger than that. Example: https://blockchain.info/tx/7c4d0999406c28ca71f67bd6c6b0d73ba75f43a565513b5d54ffe0ce480c7cb1total fees for 20,000 "shares" and smaller dividends than LRM: 0.0035 BTC. I don't see how .0005 per account per week is at all reasonable when others are doing 0.00000014 per share per week (for a similar number of shares as LRM). |
|
|
|
[snip]
Doog has 2 options right now imo
1. GO BIG, Get legal casino license, raise commission hire programmers to help with interface and design, offer rewards jackpots/affliates, become the biggest bitcoin gambling site ever
2. Keep it low key and try to let it run itself, dont do anything to site, raise commission to try to lower "Invested", try to get it about 1/3rd of the size it is - limit investments, lower max profit - whatever it is to contract the beast that is JD
** I think if he needs to make a choice and roll with it either way**
[snip]
option 3: sell the site to someone that wants to do option 1. Simple pricing model places the site at ~ BTC15k. |
|
|
|
1) 20% of all IPO (~$20,000, what did we get for that much money? Why did we have to pay for a lawyer? That's Zach's responsibility since we don't own the company)
This paid for setting up the mine including air con, installation etc( this process is still going on for the next batch of equipment).
2) 25% of weekly dividends (we get some hardware, but total is unknown - how much goes to management?)
This pays for electricity, maintenance, installation of new equipment and rent for mine. Not sure if Zach is going to divulge this but a public reinvestment fund wallet might be an option?
3) .025 BTC per account, one time
This was for the time to pay manually, I think Zach said he worked on the weekend to do this. Plus I think the cost included setting up an automatic process for next time.
4) .025 BTC per account per year is transaction fees
Not sure about this?
I think this is a full time job for Zach so you have to take into account the man hours involved to manage the mine. Zach also said that he used some of his own funds to set this all up before the IPO.
I do agree that more transparency would be better especially in this climate of closures and scams happening all around.
exactly, we don't know the answer to any of those questions - nor how much Zach personally invested, nor if this is a sustainable business model. I'm 100% confident LabRat is not running a scam, but I'm also 100% confident he has no private equity/start-up/entrepreneurial/finance experience. |
|
|
|
I know this is temporary. But this fee, taken out of bond holder dividends, appears to be wrong no matter how you slice it. For two seemingly obvious reasons:
1) 25% of all mining is taken out for exactly for this kind of expense. Labrat fee's and operational costs and whatever is left is suppose to be for re-investment. How could this not be a LabRat fee or operational cost? So, if it ends up that there is a little less for re-investment, that's just the way the 25% cut got allotted out this time.
2) Even if #1 could be explained away, which seems very unlikely, being paid more on (undisclosed) LabRat fee's an extra $700 to essentially do data entry for about two hundred bond holders seems very expensive. I imagine it could be done in three hours; and that would come out to about $230/hour doing essentially data entry.
All that said. I do think you wanted to be fair, or at the least wanted to do what is best for LRM. But this seems to be an oversight that directly conflicts with any such positive intention. So, if I'm missing something obvious or key, then sorry, but let us know.
Ok, so total fees: 1) 20% of all IPO (~$20,000, what did we get for that much money? Why did we have to pay for a lawyer? That's Zach's responsibility since we don't own the company) 2) 25% of weekly dividends (we get some hardware, but total is unknown - how much goes to management?) 3) .025 BTC per account, one time 4) .025 BTC per account per year is transaction fees |
|
|
|
I just hope I don't regret it... I feel pretty good about the LONG TERM opportunities here...
Paco, you put a smile on my face. I read your statement above about "feeling good about the long term opportunities", and then I took a look at your Avatar graph. As Inigo Montoya might say, I don't think that graph means what you think it means ...  an object in motion remains in motion buy buy buy! anyways, LRM is just a "toy" investment to me because it lacks the standard structure and level of transparency required by serious investments. Maybe the larger shareholders have seats at the big boy table and know what's going on to justify their investment. But, hey, bitcoin is the new wild west - if it works, it works - either trust Zach with your money or get out. It's a market, and there are other more transparent securities available as well. |
|
|
|
If you are mining I recommend you wait until your next P2Pool payout before switch to new server. Otherwise you lose any work credit since your last payout. This is special true for small miners with long payout interval.
Is this necessarily true? I thought p2pool was smart enough to payout no matter where you are hashing, it's just that the graphs would look inaccurate. Graphs only show the payout for the address that was mined on that specific server, but the payout you receive is for what you earned anywhere in the world on p2pool. |
|
|
|
my english is not THAT good, so i still dont understand part of the statement by them.
even we are not using weexchange to exchange btc into USD ( transfer from weexchange to my wallet directly ) still need get VERIFIED status to do that ? or they will not transfer the BTC to weexchange until our account get VERIFIED?
It appears so, weexchange exchanges BTC into credit on bitfunder. It looks like you will need to be verified even if you don't exchange to USD. |
|
|
|
PicoStock ?
Marshall Islands based.
bitfunder was Australian. It looks like it's going to be hard to find any public centralized exchange. |
|
|
|
Mining with 60Ghash so fine at moment.
At what point would it better for my variance if the pool split into 2?
Currently 2hrs to get a share and 8 for pool to get a block.
Once the pool is getting blocks 3 times more often than I get a share (so I miss out on some payments) would it at that point be benifical for me for the pool to split into 2?
ok, i'll take a shot - this is an approximation, I'm not 100% sure it's analytically correct but it may be close at least... assuming each share solved a day has the same value (i.e., constant pool rate, constant difficulty across the day) Payout events per day = the number of shares you find times the number of shares the pool finds, per day. number of shares you find = your_rate/pool_rate*2880 +/- sqrt(your_rate/pool_rate*2880) number of blocks pool solves = pool_rate/network_rate*144 +/- sqrt(pool_rate/network_rate*144) number of payout events in a day=your_rate/network_rate*414720 variance in payout events = sqrt(your_rate/pool_rate*2880+pool_rate/network_rate*144) variance has a minimum when pool_rate=20*sqrt(your_rate*pool_rate) for a 5 GH/s miner, optimal p2pool hash rate is around 50 TH/s 60 Gh/s, optimal p2pool hashrate is around 175 TH/s i did this on a cell phone, so there probably are errors, but I think it's all there I know of one: payout events per day is actually (# of shares found in a window = 3x the work needed for one block)/(length of a window) However, our window is now 1 day long, approximately on average, so the above approximation holds for the time being |
|
|
|
Keeping track of what exactly?
I suggested: vote weight = sum over: deposits * duration deposited.
This information is already there (go to your investment history. nothing more is needed).
Not saying it isn't some work to be implemented (some interface for voting, code that calculates the vote weight), but: no, there are no "additional variables" that need to be tracked.
additional variable = your vote that is an additional variable needed in both cases |
|
|
|
|
In the vote system, no one gets what they want (but everyone gets some average). In the market system, everyone gets exactly what they want.
Both introduce a similar amount of complexity (keeping track of additional variables for each user and the site as a whole).
|
|
|
|
"This is a privately held, nonpublicly traded company. This company and the PMB's being offered are not regulated by any governmental entities including the SEC or any other agency or board"
This is not regulated by any government entities or the SEC as per the statement above.
Did lab_Rat get confirmation from the government and SEC about this? Why is it unlikely to happen? What info have we been given about this apart from the above statement?
Zach specifically structured LRM and the number of bonds to be a limited offering of a PRIVATE COMPANY. LRM is not intended to be a publicly traded company. He did this in consultation with a legal advisor and was deliberate in the approach in order to avoid the issues that might arise from regulatory scrutiny. just because you put it in caps doesn't make it legal... Private companies are regulated by the SEC, too. http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#noregNon-public offering (private placement) exemption Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act exempts from registration "transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering." To qualify for this exemption, which is sometimes referred to as the “private placement” exemption, the purchasers of the securities must: - either have enough knowledge and experience in finance and business matters to be “sophisticated investors” (able to evaluate the risks and merits of the investment), or be able to bear the investment's economic risk;
- have access to the type of information normally provided in a prospectus for a registered securities offering; and
- agree not to resell or distribute the securities to the public.
In general, public advertising of the offering, and general solicitation of investors, is incompatible with the non-public offering exemption. The precise limits of the non-public offering exemption are not defined by rule. As the number of purchasers increases and their relationship to the company and its management becomes more remote, it is more difficult to show that the offering qualifies for this exemption. If your company offers securities to even one person who does not meet the necessary conditions, the entire offering may be in violation of the Securities Act. Rule 506 provides objective standards that your company can rely on to meet the requirements of the Section 4(a)(2) non-public offering exemption. Rule 506 is part of Regulation D, which is described more fully below. LRM is arguing that having threads on BFL forums and bitcointalk is not public advertising since it is a closed community of sophisticated investors, that they have made the prospectus available for on bitfunder, and that by keeping it on bitfunder it limits shares to a community of bitcoin experts. there are really in the grey area of all of these (I've sen plenty of people on bitcointalk with limited to no knowledge or experience in finance or business, the prospectus is missing important information such as what fees actually are, and bitfunder allows anyone in the public to sign up with a bitcoin account), but it would be a difficulty case for the SEC to go after for now, and there are much worse companies that they should be looking in to. LRM's real saving grace may be that they claim to be selling hardware derivatives. Your security is (in the eys of the SEC) worthless; LRM promises you no rights to assets nor facevalue. It will only generate derivative income off of bitcoin mining and is only worth what someone else is willing to pay you for it. |
|
|
|
|
while we're throwing out opinions:
1) I don't daytrade and don't care if people daytrade. I'd prefer less fees in general, so I'm against fees. I don't care about delays. I don't think a stable bankroll is a requirement for me... maybe for max bet gamblers, but as an investor I prefer smaller bankrolls.
2) There are perfectly good arguments for and against full kelly. IMO, the best compromise is to let people choose their own (i.e., Doog's market). I've seen several people claim that variance for the "little" kelly people goes up if you allow a market. Could someone explain that? I see variance staying the same (actually going down, depending on implementation) for the little kelly group. Variance is a function of amount wagered per bet and volume. If someone chooses 0.5 kelly per bet in the market, they will be wagering exactly the same as they are now for full bets and are wagering less than they are now for < full bets. Therefore, they have the same variance or less than they current have. Is the argument that people will do fewer bets but bigger bets in the market system, thus increasing variance? So little kelly people wager the same but there are less frequent bets?
|
|
|
|
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com I clicked and I didnt see any info about the RNG. if You know it and I missed it please let me know the RNG. is it a PRNG? thanks but what RNG is it? is this a PRNG? ofc it is prng. jd uses a sha512 hmac of a seed to generate the lucky numbers. for all intents and purposes this is absolutely random. if you find a pattern, it would imply a serious breakthrough in the field of cryptography (effectively breaking sha). thanks for clarifying. why is he not using a TRNG? trng? i assume you mean a 'truly' random generator. simply because obtaining random data is very hard (not 100% sure, but i have doubts that something like a TRNG exists). On the level JD is operating on (software on a server), you do not have random input with which your software can work with. OS random generators usually work by taking as inputs various pieces of information (such as time, etc.) and then applying algorithms to them. This results in seemingly random data, however, technically speaking, it is not truly random. If you want to come closer to pure/true randomness, you would need a special hardware-based generator (for example, one that measures micro turbulances in the air) and base your data off it. Randomness is a tricky topic  off-topic, ever see random.org? They get randomness from EM atmospheric fluctuations, like you say. But even they need to be concerned about cheating http://www.random.org/faq/#Q1.4 |
|
|
|
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
How does previous bets will impact future expected returns? Huh maybe a typo: I think he means the existence of whales raises the chances of high return (since they increase volume), but their existence may imply that they know something that gives them an edge. No typo. I said nothing about future. Expected profit = 1% house edge from amount gambled Expected return = Expected profit / amount invested Indeed due to whale a lot more is gambled and expected profit goes up. If amount invested does not increase equally, the expected return on your capital invested goes up. exactly, you wrote "whale being lucky" - which isn't accurate. Whether the whale is lucky doesn't effect you calculations, just the existence of the whale does. When you wrote "lucky," both I and naphto thought you meant that if a whale is winning (lucky) you have a greater chance of return (which isn't true). Just the fact that the whale is playing means you have a greater chance of return, whether he's lucky or not while playing doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
|
For those interested in the p2pool node, p2pool hashrate has just crossed 60 TH/s. variance will be close to (or at) an all-time low. Combined with the low fee, now's a good time to try out nastypool
|
|
|
|
|
Pool rate: 60.9TH/s (15% DOA+orphan) Share difficulty: 69700
Expected time to block: 2.92 hours
wow, haven't had that large of the network in a long time (ever?)
|
|
|
|
Due to the enormous turnover the past 2 days expected profit has become a lot higher, from an average of 150% expected returns annually since inception to now an average of 300% expected returns annually since inception. From this perspective increasing your investment makes sense.
So on one hand the whale being lucky raises the chances of high return, whereas it also raises the chances that he is cheating.
How does previous bets will impact future expected returns? Huh maybe a typo: I think he means the existence of whales raises the chances of high return (since they increase volume), but their existence may imply that they know something that gives them an edge. |
|
|
|
what RNG is JD using? did I miss it somewhere?
thanks
click on the "fair" tab at just-dice.com |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
