I wonder how it can be fixed?

Perhaps the client once seeing two similar chains is put into safe mode until an obvious longer chain emerges. Once one chain is perhaps 6 confirm ahead then automatically go out of safe mode and resume using the longest chain.

This solution would require no central control and can be automated by the nodes.

The important aspect would be the detection mechanism and watching two chains until there is a clear winner.

By the way, If Ken can get those 5,000 boards online, we would be looking at about 8,000 bitcoin mined in their lifetime.

This isn't bad at all, We need about 50,000 mined bitcoin to give 25,000 to shareholders before the other 15,000,000 shares activate as normal shares.

19TH/s will mine about 80 - 90 bitcoin in it's lifetime.

That equals 0.000008 per share and 0.000004 after 50% reinvestment. This does not take tax into consideration.

Also we will hopefully have 100TH/s online soon and much more after!

I would like Ken to let us know how much of the hardware sales will turn into dividends for the investor.

I have no idea how it works, but someone did tell me that only the issuer needs XCP and that you only need about $20 worth to make millions of shares.

The dividends have been stored here:

https://blockchain.info/address/1DJpsvnM7xTnQbWEhLYyCyfxQyxwupEzCa

They have been relatively flat but now we are putting more power online we might see more.

I don't remember if we get all the dividend from this address once we are trading, some must be used for reinvestment.

Nothing, we are waiting to be allowed to trade on either counterparty, coloured coins or cryptotrade. So far it's wait and see.

Yeah I was refering too Bitcoin's status in regards to the law of the land. Of course it's to be expected that private entities threatened by a new competitor take to trashing it.


Outlawed would mean the law of a particular country has struck it down and made it illegal for any entity on that land to partake in Bitcoin based activities.

Outlawed does not mean some private vested interests seeing a threat and striking it down.

Of course the Banks are going to revolt against this technology, it directly competes with them. If Bitcoin succeeds they lose a lot. It's of no surprise they will try to shut Bitcoin out. The old guard always do.

Take a company A, and newer more technologically advanced company B. Both companies operate in the same field. It makes perfect sense that company A will do everything in its power to crush company B. It doesn't mean B is outlawed, it just means B has to put up a fight.

By the way, putting up a fight doesn't mean becoming Ripple 2.0 or otherwise know as company A's bitch. (Which is what Ripple is, the bankers bitch)

I have no idea what you are talking about and I think you are being deceptive.

I live in Australia, but regardless there is current research that shows the legal status of Bitcoin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Bitcoins_by_country

http://bitlegal.io/

In addition to the lack of Bitcoin being outlawed in most nations, I wouldn't be surprised that during a CryptoCurrencies rise to trillion dollar status for it to be banned at least for a year or more. Before the country realised its mistake. However this hasn't happened so far and that war is a long way off.

Also, what the hell? The current most successful digital 'e-currency' or 'cryptocurrency' to exist throughout all of history is the decentralised Bitcoin. Please note that all other 'e-cash' systems that relied on the blessing from old white men have failed in comparison.

Bitcoin has not been outlawed and has not become Ripple 2.0. Obviously there is a third option which evades you; be like Bitcoin but better. And that is what I hoped Ethereum was going to be.

I don't really care if the organisation is outlawed, Satoshi was so confident he realised he was no longer needed and left us to our own devices.

Once the code is ready and the system operational, if the core team fail another can take it's place.

However now I see that the Ethereum core team are making themselves as much apart of ethereum as the code. Therefore the only logical conclusion is a fork is made with decentralisation in mind.

Again, why can't they make the release and offer pre-mine coins for an IPO? I do not want to keep investing in companies, I keep losing my money.

I am now getting really confused with the IPO. I was always under the impression we invest bitcoin and in return we get ether. The ether comes from a pre-mine or something.

Now I was talking with someone the other day who is confident the IPO is now about investing in the company itself, so we invest in shares or something. Now to me that sounds like i'm buying into a centralized arm or something. I was content with purchasing a share of the first ether but the investing in a company seems less than ideal.

Can someone explain this please? I really am not interested in another organization that can be targeted and attacked and I certainly do not want to invest in such a target.

Haha Just another day in Perth.

How embarrassing. I hope that site is satire.

Can you list the names of the coins please? I have no idea what all those acronyms mean.

Maybe when you click on a coin, just above the chart or something have the full coin name displayed.

You make a good point. I would like Ken to be transparent now about how much he lost to Peoples ASIC and eASIC.

Regarding dividends, If Ken spent 1000 bitcoin on all this hardware, and we expect a lifetime 30% profit, 1300 / 10,000,000 = 0.00013 per share.

That means for every IPO (0.0025) bitcoin we get 0.05 back in return.

Many of us need Ken to keep reinvestment high to have a chance of a reasonable return.

If we now pay out 50% to shareholders as a dividend I fear Ken will never ROI on this hardware and we will be lucky to last until 2015.

Basically, if we pay out too soon and ActiveMining can't get it's own profit for reinvestment + the ROI then the shares MUST fall in value. Capital is being lost and it will not return.

If we demand that ActiveMining gets itself sqaure by mining and selling it's hardware before reinvestment and dividend, the shares must RISE in value because ActiveMining will be adding capital back into operations.

Capital lets Ken buy more bulk, so cheaper $/gh and also lets Ken pursue a full custom chip.

I am actually uncomfortable with ActiveMining having less than 3,000 Bitcoin to it's name, it doesn't give us a lot of space to work.

I want money now as much as anyone. I put a lot into this, but I also know that ActiveMining is not rich and paying out too much too soon will mean I never get my ROI.

Just remember one thing, all money that gets paid out as a dividend will never ever return to ActiveMining, the company had its IPO and it's unlikely to have a third one.

I have no problem with the ROI funds sitting in a wallet for months. Worst case scenario Ken one day closes the company and pays out the wallet funds as a final dividend.

If we have 1000 bitcoin, and then use all of it for 5,000 boards/chips, now after 3 months we have ROI, so now we have 1000 bitcoin again, this is good. Now 50% goes back to the company and we the shareholders are getting profit from the dividend.

It's profit because the company is no longer losing value. The warchest is the same base it was by the time we get a dividend so our share value remains constant as we get paid out profit. In fact the value of the share shall rise because of the 50% reinvestment.

Now if Ken pays out funds before ROI, the shares MUST fall in value because capital is being lost back to shareholders (This isn't sustainable either)

The whole point of buying hashfast was to make profit. So that in the future both ActiveMining and the shareholders will be better off. If we pay out before ROI we risk ruin by taking valuable capital away from the company.

This is why I think it's important to get full ROI before splitting the dividend 50/50 (reinvestment+shareholder profit).

If we don't get the full ROI back before sending shareholder their profit, this company will bleed money.

I really want to hear Ken's opinion on this matter.

I think the process needs to be:

Mining until FULL ROI. --> Now split 50% shareholder dividend, and 50% reinvestment for even more money so the company can make great progress.

I'm not sure where my old simulator went, but high reinvestment ALWAYS ended up with the shareholder making more money from dividends in the long run.

Hey Ken good work.

Do you have a timeline for our custom 28nm? Are you designing it to be similar to hashfast chip?