Vince worked out that half the profits so far are from sales and the other half from mining.

So we get 50% of all profit correct? So that means most of the mining address.

If this is the case then the People's ASIC team must truly believe we are onto something if they are sticking around.

People's ASIC have done good getting things moving and they are behind the ASIC IP but don't you think buying them for 150,000 shares is a little low?

I mean, did we just buy a small part of People's ASIC for $10,000 or the entire company?

I can understand if you sold them a million shares, but only 150k?

I am asking because that must mean something else was on the table right? Perhaps salary?

I feared this was the case, I assumed Ken had discussed this with you. It appears you two have not been in contact regarding the datacenter offer from Bargraphics.

Even if it cost us 5% - 10% of our profits, is it not worth getting that much power online?

1- I suspect we either have no plans to make that much hardware.
or
2- Hashfast is slowing chip production.
or
3- we are selling boards too fast to put them in our own data centers.

I hope 3 is the reason!

Good post Vince.

I still think Ken should, once money allows, attempt to build a PH/s datacentre. If we can gain 1% or 2% of the network come several months when the price soars past $1,000 again we will be very well off.

I wonder if Ken is better suited to hiring out an actual datacentre that is ready to go? Where we just have to install the miners and all cooling is taken care of.

Also Ken, are we going to keep profits from the hardware in USD or BTC?

(I'll also send this to ASKen too)

I think you should PM the askken account. It seems Ken will answer those questions first.

So PM askken and then wait for next week!

I kinda disagree.

I'm interested in reasons why Bitcoin is not implementing a feature designed for Bitcoin by Bitcoin developers and this feature is being used by a competitor.

The feature is immensely valuable and Bitcoins lack of privacy is insane. I can watch friends wallets and determine when they go to an exchange, JustDice or even blockchain.info (Blockchain is very tell tale because they always make the change address the address you send from.

Of course none of this is 100% certain, but it's worse privacy than a bank account.

You make a very good point. I think we are probably 5 - 10 years away from running a trustless web server/webapp/website.

However in the dice example, all the logic can be on the chain (See Ethereum) and you can either interact with the dice system in a direct way (send coins to the address with an encoded bit declaring the odds you intend to 'roll' at or you can interact through a front end for the trustless contract. There could be hundreds of websites providing a front end to the raw contract.

You have two options, interact with the company directly through the chain sending money and small amounts of data directly to the contract) or trust someones front end to do it for you.



This is a good point too. I am invested in both Nxt and Bitcoin (and soon Ethereum).

The way I see it is this: The contract will be in nxt for a nxt dice site, so you won't be able to use bitcoin as it's not native to the system. (I have heard that it may be possible to make a contract handle alternate currencies, I think Vitalik said one day Ethereum could become a "off the chain" transaction service for bitcoin in a trustless manner.

However, what I am hoping for is that Nxt and Ethereum prove that a turing complete language is a good thing and it then spurs the Bitcoin developers to think about upgrading Script to allow for this.

These asset exchanges are fascinating, but remember that you still have a single point of trust, the issuer.

An interesting future using either Bitcoin Script, Nxt's Automated transactions or Ethereum's contracts is building simple business logic and then issuing shares for a trustless organization.

Obviously not every company can become a trustless organization, but there are some examples where this is perhaps possible.

Imagine a dice site implemented as a turing complete contract (Nxt AE or Ethereum contract), the shares are issued on one of these distributed exchanges (Coloured coins/Nxt AE) are used to raise funds and the issuer is the automated contract. The contract/dice site then runs the game logic over the chain and all profits are dealt out to the shareholders via the trustless company.

I think this is a bright future, we just need to think outside the box.

I think there is a difference between Coinjoin and Zerocoin/Zerocash.

Zerocash is an entirely new way of anonymizing transactions but relies on an accumulator and new mathematics. Zero was developed at an Israeli university.

Coinjoin is less exotic and simply pools large amounts of same denominated transactions together and relies on core bitcoin transaction functions, no new math needed. Coinjoin was developed here by core bitcoin developers.

Now Darkcoin has simply taken all of the work done on Coinjoin because they feel that the lead developers of Bitcoin are scared of adding Coinjoin into the main client for fear of angering the USA.

I can understand if Coinjoin has some technical issue why it can't be put into the Bitcoin core, but how can there be when an entire Currency is using Coinjoin right now?

So DarkCoin is based on CoinJoin, a technology developed for Bitcoin as a response to ZeroCoin/ZeroCash.

So this alternative coin has taken CoinJoin and is now taking off as it's own CryptoCurrency.

http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdf

Many "speculators" believe that the Bitcoin core will never have CoinJoin implemented allowing for a huge chunk of the future market to be taken by this new coin.

Why is that? Do the Bitcoin core developers have an aversion to this technology?

I was very hopeful because of CoinJoin but it seems that it's now taboo in Bitcoin circles. We need this private transaction feature in the core client yesterday.

I find it funny that all the cutting edge tech some Bitcoin developers are making (CoinJoin) are not going to be implemented into the core and are just left on a silver platter for our competitors.

How does this make sense? Is there a technical reason that makes CoinJoin flawed? Or is it to appease uncle sam?

Ken, any views on https://www.coinprism.com/, it seems to be finally happening.

Thanks for letting us know. In the future when there is a small IPO I'll let you know so you can be "apart".

I must admit that when considering this investment I did not count "unable to delete old products that will never exist from webstore" being among the major hurdles this venture would have to overcome to be successful.

I agree that it would most likely be a mistake to buy any shares right now, however if the price keeps going lower and lower it'll approach the monthly dividend.

Also we are hashing at one thousandth of the network, I would say this venture is failing but I couldn't say it has failed. We have a decent hashrate.

We do need PHs level power online very soon though.

It's amazing to think I could almost double my entire stash of ActiveMining at these price points. Kinda sad.

Nxt now has a fully automated distributed exchange. Why not use that?

And that is 100% ok in my book.

The more shares Ken buys (if so) will encourage him to do well and in effect he will become rich if the company survives.

Because it's unlikely we'll ever get back the 0.0025, Ken needs to own as many of the original 10,000,000 shares so he has more skin in the game.

I hope it's Ken buying the cheap shares.

If Ken is buying the shares that would be a good thing, would mean that something big is coming and they are a good buy.

However I think it's shareholders that still believe that we'll get 1% of the hashrate who are buying up shares.

I wish Ken would be open about the state of the company. If I could get 50 bitcoin for my shares I would sell them asap. However I feel that is simply a dream now.

By the way bigdude, Ken has hinted that 120TH is our limit and we should be ok with the 1,000 bitcoin generated per year. (Due to bitcoin price increase in the future)

Therefore it seems their are no plans to increase our hashrate by the 10 to 100 times needed to make this a break even on the dollar value invested. We will need about 1,000 times our current hashrate by the end of the year to even have a chance of getting break even on our bitcoins.