Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 08:06:03 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 »
241  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] BTC Growth: Capital Growth via Hedge Fund-Style Investing on: August 31, 2013, 02:01:03 AM
The SEC also doesn't allow non-qualified investors to invest in Hedge Funds either.
That's one of those "wink-wink" rules that the SEC puts in place to keep the good old boys' club intact... they claim it's to protect the retiree from losing it all in one swipe, but it's really about keeping the big money where the big money can watch over it.  The rules are written by the ones with the most to lose, after all.
242  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: August 31, 2013, 01:55:39 AM
I added a section at the bottom of the 'invest' tab giving some signature code that can be used on these forums to advertise the site.

Quote
Please help advertise the site. The more players we have, the faster your investment will grow. If you have a BitcoinTalk.org forum account, please consider adding the following to your signature there:

Code:
[size=14pt][font=Arial][b][glow=#6a6,2,300][url=https://just-dice.com][color=#fff] ♦  Just-Dice.com  ♦ [/color][/url][/glow]  [glow=#6a6,2,300][url=https://just-dice.com][color=#fff] ♦  1% House Edge Dice Game  ♦ [/color][/url][/glow]  [glow=#6a6,2,300][url=https://just-dice.com][color=#fff] ♦  Play or Invest  ♦ [/color][/url][/glow][/b][/font][/size]

To edit your BitcoinTalk signature, visit https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile then click the "Forum Profile Information" link under "Modify Profile" in the top left. Copy/paste the above code into the "Signature" box, and click "Change profile" at the bottom of the page to save the new signature.

It's in investors' interest to try to attract more players to the site.
Have you tried an A/B test of "1% house edge" versus "99% payout"? When you go to a casino, the slots never post odds in terms of house edge, they post odds in terms of what the player can hope for ("up to 98.4% payout!", etc.)
243  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 29, 2013, 10:57:39 PM
Sum of costs taken from sum of income is profit. Costs are easily controllable by not going with bleeding edge technology. Income is not easily controllable, but is dependant on the market, and the market wants hashrate regardless of the type of technology. If you can make a device that hashes faster NOW cheaper or at the same price as a "better technology" device 2 months from now, you will gain market share and therefore more profit. The key here is that the hash rate per chip is not as important as the cost of manufacturing that same hash rate with the cheapest method possible.
I don't think you're thinking clearly. Better technology is better because it's cheaper to manufacture (Per GH/s). Why else would people even use it?
Again, I don't think you see my main point - and I'm sorry if I'm not making it more clear, I'm not really sure how to put it much differently. You're arguing the merits of feature size (the "better technology" that everyone keeps talking about) as an automatic higher output for cost/watt, as opposed to total all-in cost of production. My point is that the all-in cost per hash is what matters, no matter what the technology is. I was only half kidding when I said they could use vacuum tubes if it made financial sense - if that's the cheapest way to get the highest hash rate commercially, then guess what the market will buy? Vacuum tubes.
Quote
The difference is the up-front cost. It might cost few hundred thousand dollars to design a 130nm chip, while costing about $2m to produce a 28nm chip.

But, the chips will cost (about?) the same per mm2 to manufacture.

You can't say all that matters is manufacturing cost, and then say that feature size doesn't matter, because manufacturing cost depends on feature size.  The smaller the feature size, the cheaper the chips per hash.
Actually, no - the smaller the feature size, the more transistors per wafer - but again, if the engineering layout of the chip is better even at a larger size (which is what LC contends with their specific design), then it's absolutely possible to have a better hash rate at larger sizes for less absolute dollars (or yuan or BTC or whatever.)
Quote
Now, the one catch with that may be the demand for 28nm fabs.  AMD and Nvidia and lots of other companies are all going to be wanting access to a limited number of wafer runs.  So the cost for 28nm might be slightly higher then other levels. So 40 or 65nm chips may be cost competitive.

And, of course, there's turn around time.  Bitcoin mining, unlike pretty much everything else, time to market is absolutely critical.  One month of delay can mean the difference between success and failure. That's where 130nm tech is superior at the moment.  Labcoin may pay for all of it's 130nm chips, plus profit in the month or two before 28nm chips flood the market.
I think you just accidentally made my point for me after all. And again, Labcoin is not hanging their hat on 130nm - first comes proof of concept and getting the assembly process worked out so they can ramp up on the next best cost combination of size, time to manufacture, and design. It's not an engineering race, it's a business race.
Quote
And furthermore, the MFG price of the chips isn't that important, at this point.  Next year, though it will start to matter more.
But it is absolutely important - for investors with coins ready to drop on some company, all-in cost per hash (remember, they're not selling technology specifics to end users, they're selling hash rate) is very, very important to the success of the company. It matters now for people investing now.
244  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 29, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
Everyone, just stop with the die size comparisons. They're completely useless for differentiating profitability. They'd be useful for expressing differences in package size or interface speeds, but they do not belong in the conversation for profitability.

Do you mean die size or feature size?  28nm and 130nm are feature sizes, how big the transistors are.  Die sizes are how big the chips themselves are, and thus how much they cost to manufacture.

Smaller feature size means you can cram more transistors per mm2, which means you can get the same hash power with smaller, cheaper dies.

So in other words, the shipping company with the electric trucks and solar panels will have a much higher startup cost, but in the long run they will be able to charge less in the long run once that cost is amortized because they won't have to pay for gas or electricity.  They can continue to charge less until their competitors go out of business, if they feel like it.

But anyway, that doesn't really matter that much at this point, because there is so much profit available everyone can make money.  For now. But labcoin is going to have to keep up with the technology curve in the long run.
You missed the point entirely - forest for the trees, I think, so let me try to explain it differently. Die size, feature size, color of the box, etc. are irrelevant to profitability.

Sum of costs taken from sum of income is profit. Costs are easily controllable by not going with bleeding edge technology. Income is not easily controllable, but is dependant on the market, and the market wants hashrate regardless of the type of technology. If you can make a device that hashes faster NOW cheaper or at the same price as a "better technology" device 2 months from now, you will gain market share and therefore more profit. The key here is that the hash rate per chip is not as important as the cost of manufacturing that same hash rate with the cheapest method possible. To simplify the example, if I can ship (pulling numbers out of my ass for simplicity) 10 chips at 10 Gigahashes/sec/watt at a cost of 10BTC, or I can ship 1 chip at 10 Gigahashes/sec/watt at a cost of 12BTC, I make more money shipping the 10 chips - because the market price would be the same, as people are buying the hash/power rate, not the chip count. This is ESPECIALLY true if I can ship them sooner rather than later. Remember, this is not an engineering race to find the smallest single chip, this is a business race to find the most efficient devices for the power, which is what matters to the market - and 130nm versus 65/28/whatever nm is not the important variable. It is a variable, yes - but it's a small piece of the big picture.

Additionally, it's considerably more important to have an efficient chip design than it is to have smaller transistors - just because a race car uses a carbon fiber frame doesn't mean jack if there's insufficient engineering in the motor. This is what the Labcoin folks are promising: speed to market, superior engineering in the layout, and a price point as good as *future* deliveries of what is billed by others as "better" technology simply based on the technology size. Success is not predicated on 28nm, it's all on whether or not the devices have the best rate of return for the end customer (be that self mining or selling hardware.) Whether they deliver is another matter entirely, but that's what they're putting it out as.

And no, of course they're not going to rest forever on what works best for the market today - they're going to chase after the most efficient manufacturing source as quickly as possible whenever the cost to manufacture supports that change.

---

merv's anecdotal quip about the NASA pen versus the Soviet solution of using a pencil is spot on - I saw it while reviewing new posts after I started to reply. Probably should have used that example rather than the shipping truck one for brevity. And no, it's not exactly true from an historical standpoint, but look at the story there, which is absolutely relevant: sometimes it's not as useful to spend a lot of money developing a new solution when there's a cheaper alternative already available.
245  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 29, 2013, 02:52:53 PM
Everyone, just stop with the die size comparisons. They're completely useless for differentiating profitability. They'd be useful for expressing differences in package size or interface speeds, but they do not belong in the conversation for profitability.

Let me put it to you as an illustration:

There are two shipping companies that go into business at the same time, OldShip and NewShip. OldShip buys older planes and used diesel trucks, warehouses relatively far out from airports in a cheap industrial zone, and tries to be as lean and nimble as they can to compete, even if that means using older but reliable equipment to save on costs. NewShip uses brand new planes and electric trucks, puts their solar-powered warehouses right on the high-rent flightline for super-fast loading and unloading of their cargo planes, and emphasizes the use of new technology whenever possible.

Assuming both can get the undamaged package delivered in the same amount of time, which company do you choose to ship a critical 10-pound package overnight from Miami to Seattle?

If you said "well, that depends - what does it cost?", you're exactly right. People don't buy shipping services for the company's brand new planes or their electric trucks or their solar-powered warehouses, they buy shipping services to get a package of a certain size across the country undamaged in the time allotted. Similarly, serious bitcoin miners don't buy die size or flashy packaging (unless you want a shiny AsicMiner USB stick for the lulz), they buy hashrate per [insert currency here] from whatever costs the least amount today. So, to put this on investment terms, who makes more money, OldShip or NewShip? Well, that depends on their effective costs. If OldShip can provide the same service as NewShip for less per package and can therefore charge less, they're going to get the bulk of the business and probably the bulk of the profits. (It's more complicated than this, but this is just an illustration.)

As I'm sure you can guess, I'm suggesting Labcoin is like OldShip, using tried but true technology that's available virtually off-the-shelf. They're focusing on the end result being the fastest hash rate for the least amount of capital. Companies such as ActiveMiner are like NewShip, striving for bleeding-edge technology, but they have to wait in line for the factory to fulfill their infrastructure orders before they can start shipping, and they lose out on the few months they could have been in business while waiting. That 10 pound box is like 10 gigahashes/second - as a buyer, it doesn't matter how you get it, what kind of label is on it, or if you sign a paper or electronic clipboard on delivery... you just want the most hash rate for the least amount of money ASAP.

So, please - enough with the emphasis on die size. As long as Labcoin's design can provide the same hashrate for less money, even if it means using more physical chips to do it, they can use vacuum tubes* for all I care.

*Very, very small vacuum tubes. Or maybe orphans with a bunch of abacuses, that would probably be less heat to dissipate.
246  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: August 29, 2013, 01:27:48 PM
<stuff>...</stuff>
I know this was rather long-winded, sorry - but I do have a specific purpose in saying all of this.
On top of the reputation feature, DealCoin offers an additional feature to enable its members to find out more about unknow dealers; we call it Need-to-know Privacy. We encourage dealers to link their account to up to 4 different social network profiles from LinkedIn, Google+, Facebook or Twitter. This private information is made available only to members about to trade with a dealer. Prior to accepting a deal, our members may choose to connect with and get to know a dealer via their social network of choice. The most transparent dealers will probably be the most requested ones.

Additionally we are planning to launch a series of premium services to add additional layers of security for our members, starting with a BTC escrow service in November 2013.

As for price fluctuations taking place while the payment takes place, I understand this may be an issue for active speculators like day traders. For such speculators, soon-to-be regulated exchanges like Mt Gox would be the place where they maybe able to turn around quickly. I suspect most of the dealers on DealCoin (and LocalBitcoins) would probably also have an account with Mt Gox or one of their competitors. But in my opinion, Bitcoin is useful for more than just day traders. Consider people travelling in foreign places who prefer using bitcoins instead of carrying cash or travelers cheques. Upon arrival in their travel destinations, they probably won't have access to a local bank account to connect to Mt Gox. Consider also the unbanked who do not have access to a bank account and may wish to participate in the Bitcoin economy or may wish to sell bitcoins sent to them by family members abroad. We are still in the early days of Bitcoin and as more people recognize the benefits of this currency, some will be guided to use regulated exchanges while some will choose to use services like DealCoin.
The primary purpose of that long rant I posted was to see how you'd respond, really - it was more to gauge your professionalism in a response, and to see if those (relatively simple) questions had been thought through before you brought this to market; it was only a secondary goal to get actual answers. A lot of recent IPOs seem to be rather hastily thrown together with a good idea but very shallow implementation plans; this was my attempt to flush you out if this was the case here. I'm rather pleased with your response, it does a lot for your credibility in my mind. Thanks. Smiley
247  Economy / Securities / Re: [CLOSED] Hosted-Mining (revenue shares) / BTCT.co on: August 29, 2013, 05:02:14 AM
UPDATE: 8.29 05:28

Trading is closed and the buyback is complete.

Thank you everyone for your support. We are sorry we were not able to make this happen.

HOSTED-MINING
left positive trust rating for you regarding the buyback. I hope this doesn't deter you from trying again (after, of course, getting a little perspective on how to do it better next time.) You had a good idea, only the valuation was off. Might try publicly showing some of your own skin in the game first to reassure investors you're putting your money where your mouth is. Smiley
248  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: August 28, 2013, 07:11:50 PM
Feature request, and maybe this is silly / has been brought up before, but I'd love to be able to schedule purchases at market rate with a spending limit. E.G. : If I have the funds in the site wallet to be able to say "purchase as many shares of X as possible on Fridays 4PM, <TIMEZONE. at the market rate, with a limit @ YBTC/share and a limit of ZBTC total."
Sounds like something an API trade would be perfect for.
249  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 28, 2013, 07:10:16 PM
Allocate funds according to your risk appetite, and remember that it isn't an either / or proposal.
SO VERY MUCH OF THIS.

I find it really sad that people believe that "this is a great investment" or "this is a horrible investment" is true for everyone else on Earth because it doesn't fit their own ideal. There are a number of highly respected posters on this board (and loathed ones, too) who are of the mindset that their opinion is the only one that matters... but it's logically unsound to project a subjective decision onto others.

Everyone has different goals and methods. What's good for you may not be for someone else, and vice versa. Keep this in mind when you guys talk in absolute terms.
250  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: August 28, 2013, 07:03:08 PM
Hello radiumsoup,
Dealers and members can make the fiat transaction through other means than face-to-face. They may use any payment channels they agree on be it direct bank wire, paypal, etc.
The fact for Dealcoin not to be involved in these fiat transactions means much lesser risk of a regulatory clampdown which seems to be one of Mt.Gox main issues till now. Withdrawing USD on MtGox is not so easy at the moment...
Regarding the risk of mugging in face-to-face, we advise members to conduct their transactions in a bank lobby, preferably the bank of the seller where it will be safe, and convenient for the seller to have the notes checked while being deposited in their account.
Additionally DealCoin features a reputation system to help members deal with the most reliable dealers only.
OK, I didn't realize that it's more than the localbitcoins model, but that actually raises even more questions...

If you're going to pitch this as an online alternative to the large exchanges, then you're going to have a HUGE trust issue to overcome. Not your trust, mind you, but the trust that buyers and sellers have with each other, and that's not always easily overcome with a trust/reputation rating. When bitcoin started, almost all transactions were either between people who knew each other or via small online traders that tried to make a reputation for themselves through volume and good service. Eventually, people got burned (or scared) enough by theft that they wanted to start meeting in person to overcome the problem with trusting anonymous folks online, and localbitcoins was born as a method for finding those local people (who had largely used sites like Craigslist to find each other - this still happens quite often, btw.) This was not a perfect setup either, so the market started to demand large exchanges to provide easy, fast, and trustworthy providers as opposed to the small, independant anonymous dealers online, and the major exchanges started popping up, providing exactly that. Today, due to the regulatory crackdowns on the larger exchanges, you're now offering this service as some sort of hybrid that allows buyers and sellers to more easily meet each other, either online or in person, without the overhang of regulation. A good idea on the surface, but that negates the single biggest draws that the major exchanges have: the speed of a transaction, and reliable trustworthiness over many millions of dollars' worth of transactions. It's no different from an individual trust perspective than meeting face to face, but at least with an in-person meeting you have the knowledge that you have a lot greater control over the transaction (you can get up and walk away if you feel uneasy.)

So really what you're proposing is more akin to a specialized Craigslist (or eBay, not really sure how you're going to present the data) to help bitcoin buyers and sellers match up with each other, who can then choose to meet up in person or not depending on their mutual needs. Fine - if you can brand it well enough somehow, you've got a fighting chance at success just from volume, which is what my original post was really getting at. But it isn't a novel solution, really, and reintroduces some of the problems already mitigated by other existing transaction methods.

There is a popular programming mantra, that you can pick exactly two of the following: Good, Fast, or Cheap. You can't have all three - if it's good and fast, it's not cheap; if it's good and cheap, it's not fast, and if it's fast and cheap, it's not good. (Yes, it's variation of a false dichotomy if taken literally, but the general pattern is sound empirically.)

To paraphrase that saying for this situation, pick two of: Trustworthy, Fast, or Best price. If you want trustworthy and fast, as either a buyer or seller, you're not going to get your best price. If you want trustworthy and the best price, it's going to take a while to look through all the listings finding your perfect trading partner, by which time the price may have changed. If you want the best price immediately, you're going to have to take the first person available and roll the dice on their trustworthiness. Additionally, by decentralizing the exchange, you're inherently lowering both the trustworthiness (the sum of trust of all transactions on the site does not imply trustworthiness of the individual with the best price) and the speed at which the transactions can take place. Best price is always fluctuating, so you can sometimes get lucky on that, but you're still limiting the market (compared to what's already out there) in two of three basic criteria.

That brings us back to the idea of localbitcoins and their (largely) face-to-face model as the alternative. The market for face-to-face sales is still quite limited compared to the major exchanges, and it seems from your last post that your primary market will be those users. The only real advantage you appear to have, then, will be the tracking of trust/reputation, which is difficult at best due to subjectiveness. Again, great idea on the surface, but it's not going to be the driving criteria for all transactions.

As for the risk of mugging, I think you missed the point I was making: it's not about the safety of the transaction itself, it's about the choice the buyer or seller has to make regarding the method used for the transaction; again, weighing trustworthiness, price, and speed... for the in-person transaction, the decision on trustworthiness would include trust that you won't get murdered.

I know this was rather long-winded, sorry - but I do have a specific purpose in saying all of this.
251  Economy / Securities / Re: [HAVELOCK] Dealcoin Official Thread on: August 28, 2013, 05:24:23 PM
Thanks for the link. I do think your valuation is still very aggressive for something that essentially hasn't launched yet, but I do find your plans for expanding your business via augmenting services interesting - especially the VOIP & sms packages. It's a smart way of profiting off in-person transactions, the most difficult type of transaction to profit from. Smiley

In terms of convincing dealers to use your site, why would they use dealco.in over localbitcoins.com?  I think it will be difficult convincing dealers to use your service over localbitcoins, since localbitcoins already has more users (potential purchasers), and is free to use (no monthly fee).
The only incentive I see would be potential volume from marketing. But the number of people who are paranoid enough to require face-to-face meetings for fiat<->BTC transactions is small enough that I'm not sure the volume is there for any provider, be it Dealcoin or someone else. (I'm not saying the paranoid are the only users of localbitcoins, but let's face it - if you're going to buy regularly, and you're not paranoid, it's easier [and faster!] to get an account with an online seller like Gox or what have you than it would be to arrange a face-to-face meeting, drive there, and hope you don't get stood up - or worse, mugged.) I don't see that paradigm changing by any appreciable extent any time soon.
252  Economy / Securities / Re: [ANN] Hosted-Mining (revenue shares) / BTCT.co on: August 28, 2013, 05:10:01 PM
You need about $360k in shares purblchases

Quite abit less than that..1 million shares would be close enough to at least negotiate.
Wait, I thought negotiations were already done?
253  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 28, 2013, 02:48:32 PM
so you guys want a picture of some chips; so after that you can photoshop it and say; thats a fake picture?
hahahahaha

Here have some:
OK, I'll bite:


/q&d
254  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: August 27, 2013, 10:12:49 PM
Your perspective is short-sighted, in my opinion.

Yes, it is easier to think and behave how you recommend, but that does not make it healthy or right or smart or necessary.

This is not a question of shoddy legalese, it is calling a duck a spade for the preservation of the duck trade.

He can afford KYC hoops, and there are services that can help with that. Why assume he has made any effort at all in that regard?

No one expects a bitcoin financial service effort to be totally SEC-proof at this point, but the SEC does indeed value good faith efforts to operate within the law. They do not, however, respect deception and the contrary.

Yes, I can acknowledge that legal developments take time, I know this first hand. But I do not see how asserting a false position is wise, nor how a legal team could recommend such.
I don't think it is short sighted, actually - if I were impatient, I'd yield to the short-sightedness of it... but I'm not. I'm actually advocating patience. Nothing happens overnight, and while I understand and even appreciate the view you have on the matter, you came off (to me, anyway) as demanding instant results instead of making a suggestion. That's the only reason I spoke up, really - you came across as being unreasonably offensive (not offensive as in smell, offensive as in opposite of defense. There's probably a better word for that, but I'm in a hurry right now.) The sentiment is right, the delivery was a bit over the top. That's all.

/dinner time
255  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: August 27, 2013, 02:10:03 PM
Wow, this just went from splitting hairs to outright accusations of willful lying and an oblique reference to it possibly being fraud (and then something else by someone who is ignored... I can't be bothered to read that self-fellating dribble)

Get over it, we all know what it is, we all know the risks. All he's really doing is making sure people don't just stumble in without getting an eyeful of what the risks actually are. So it's not in perfect legalese in fine print on the back of the monthly paper account statement - so what?

He's said before that he can't afford to go through the KYC hoops of the US regulatory system, which is why it's registered in Belize... knowing that, folks still expect SEC-audit-proof systems and contractual terms that will hold up in US courts?  Huh

And as for the part about Bitcoin growing up without Burnside, he's already said that he's speaking to a "legal team" (whatever that means, to be fair) for advice and future revisions of the ToS in the upcoming months. So it appears he has anticipated your attitudes and has already made plans to revisit the whole thing before the conversation even came up.

Take a breath, everyone. I have a feeling people are getting too used to the idea of things happening at Warp 9 in Bitcoinland, and forget that sometimes people have a day job, too.
256  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 27, 2013, 02:01:13 AM
Honestly not trying to spread FUD, but do you really think upcoming news is going to spike the stock?  They are going to receive MAYBE 6TH in chips, which an unknown amount has already been sold via private sales. This will translate into x (single digit) TH and mining divs measured in the satoshi's.  IMO the stock is as high as it's going to get until maybe a week before the 50TH comes online.  And even then the Network TH might be so high as to make the 50TH a joke.  Most likely we will just steadily decline for the next month.

I want Labcoin to succeed, I just don't see it spiking up from here.
I see a stair-step walk up at each news stage... "we have the chips in hand" will bump it 10%, "we've tested a few chips on the boards" another 10%, "we're hashing fully assembled rigs" another 10%, but the real baseline price won't be known until dividends have been paid at least once, with a bump in price after every dividend as people reinvest them and a slow rise in between. I especially see appreciable jumps when the bulk hardware starts to be sold. Honestly, I see a striking resemblance to the AM pattern all over again, but the absolute ceiling on this (according to my math, YMMV) will only be about 30x from IPO price if everything goes perfectly and the market overall stays strong... but that's many months out yet. I already have about 4 soft exit points set myself, but I need the baseline price to be established after dividends are paid before I commit to them with standing orders.

But my concern isn't any potential near-term spike, it's how the long term price will track after the initial market expectations are set. For this play, I'm going to track dividend yield - once it levels off, it's time to sell 75% for me. If I'm lucky, and if the market is strong, and if I time it right, that'll be a 40-bagger (after dividend reinvestment) and I'll just let the rest sit and bring in dividends until the stone bleeds no more.
257  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 27, 2013, 12:37:10 AM
I think someone has some info the rest of us dont  Smiley
it's only about 100BTC or so being added (eyeballing the graph)
258  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: August 26, 2013, 08:57:10 PM
hey, I have a question about how IPOs are handled... does the issuer have access to funds as they come in, or is there some lockout period where they don't get any funds until they reach their contractual threshold for a "successful" IPO?

Specifically, I'm looking at the recent HOSTED-MINING security - it looks to me like they're not going to reach their "success" mark, and I'm wondering if there's any safeguard to ensure they don't just walk away with whatever they do raise instead of refunding like they proposed in their contract. (Because hell - if it's a risk-free proposition to me if they don't make their goal and I can be assured that it's not possible for them to run with it, it might just be worth throwing them a bone to see if they can get their hardware purchase done.)
259  Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) on: August 26, 2013, 05:22:16 PM
Might be a good idea to sell now and double up in a few hours, we are hitting 0.002 soon!
It would take someone dumping 270,000 shares and buyers getting hit for 750+ bitcoins to retrace to 0.002 based on existing orders alone. Barring really horrible news, if that dump happened, it would bounce back so hard your teeth would hurt just watching shares fly by.

Now, if there's no really horrible news, it's EXTREMELY unlikely to hit 0.002 in a few hours - and if for some reason it does, it'll bounce back pretty much instantly, and doubling up would be VERY unlikely.

Conversely, if there is really horrible news and it hits 0.002, it's unlikely to bounce, and doubling up would not make sense.

TL;DR: I reject your premise.
260  Economy / Securities / Re: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange w/ Options, DRIP, 2FA, API, CSV, etc. on: August 26, 2013, 05:09:28 PM
is there a explanation of what the 'trade analysis' section is all about?

I was scratching an itch.  It's a new feature, shows your all-time trades split out by asset.  Also includes revenues from the assets, so you can get a feel for your overall trade prowess.  You can click the headers to hide individual assets and it will remember which ones you have hidden.

Because it is pretty heavy it has a one hour cache time on it.  IE, don't expect real-time updates.  Wink

Cheers.
I like it - can you do the same roll-up feature on the Value Analysis and Dividends tabs? There's stuff on mine that I'll never get back into that takes up a lot of real estate
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!