Well, I'll keep watching, then, but until that hardware diversification happens, there's really no risk mitigation by investing with you compared to any other mining operation, unless I diversify on my own and choose a bunch of miners that use different suppliers (but, as I said before, pure mining plays aren't really all that attractive to me.) If (once) you provide true hardware diversification, you might get my attention.

by single-sourcing the chips, your supply chain is at the mercy of that single supplier, making you effectively no more attractive than any other of the many pure-mining plays. Since pure mining plays aren't all that interesting to me, I won't even think about investing here unless you differentiate yourselves by doing one (or both!) of the following:

1.) You become your own supplier of chips
2.) You sign a contract with at least one other chip supplier

And in any event, the "shareholder protection" clauses where the issuer will deploy additional hash power "at no cost to the investor"  in the event of a missed deadline is highly, HIGHLY suspect. Where does the money for this additional hash power come from, if not from the profits of the company? You know, the profits that dividends are pulled from? Something doesn't smell right about the way this is being described in the contract.

This is not a bad compromise. I'm not of the opinion that this is a big deal myself, but that's a pretty good idea for those who do think it is.

If I had to make an assumption on this, I'd say it's an issue between the web frontend server(s) and the actual application server running trades and/or the bitcoin daemon. What specifically, I couldn't hazard a guess, since I don't know the method being used for communication, but that's not really important to me as an end user anyway.

I'd advise everyone to just be patient, I guarantee burnside knows all about what's going on and I'm confident he is entirely capable of fixing it.

So... future versions of bitcoin miners will be capable of launching ICBMs, I guess?

I'm sure you have a long list of suggestions (I haven't read the whole thread), but if I may offer one that would probably be a pretty low priority, more of a "oh, this'd be nice" than a bug or something - and apologies if it's already been mentioned:

Currently, when you wish to take advantage of the DRIP-like reinvestment feature, you have to have already received a dividend payment from the security you want to set up. (For instance, right now LABCOIN has not paid dividends, but they plan to pay biweekly. I cannot set my account to reinvest the first round of dividends, because the option is not present until after the first dividend is paid.) I noticed this also applies to account holders who buy into a security even after the security has already paid dividends at least once - the new shareholders must wait for one dividend cycle to complete while they own shares (or units or whatever you want to call them) before they are able to set up the DRIP.

I gotta say, though, man - you're successfully pulling off what a lot of online brokerage firms can't seem to get right after spending a metric acrefoot of time and money on, and I'm really impressed with how smoothly you're doing it. Cheers.

And, to dooglus - I'm sorry MPOE had to come and shit in your thread, although I suppose it's to be expected by now. I'll try to leave well enough alone, but there's just something about him/her that grates me to the point that I can't help myself sometimes. Sorry for my part in feeding his/her trolling, at any rate.

Just got back from playing with my kids for a few hours (which is, I daresay, a much more valuable use of time than you would ever understand, since you don't know my kids.) I pity your flaccid mind if you think there's anything more valuable than that.

At any rate, since you still want to keep your little self-aggrandizing and attention-flagging song and dance going, let's look again at your continuation of your failure to apply simple logic. By repeatedly refusing to defend yourself against it, I'll take a bit of liberty and assume, to your credit, that you conceded to my claim that you put words into my mouth, upon which the rest of this discussion is based. If that's your intent, fine. Not exactly rational thought on your end, but I'll spot you a pity point just so you have something on the board. We're still stuck with the languishing agony of reading the repeated but still false claims that I said what I did not say. That, in and of itself, is a failure of logic as an informal fallacy often dubbed "staying on message" or "the big lie"... namely, the hope that repeating the same false statement over and over again will convince the audience that it's true. Works well in centrally-controlled places where the truth cannot be freely discussed, like China controlling news about the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, etc., but to the detriment of your whole position in this exchange, it is not useful on a public forum such as this. Then there's the instant false dilemma that "the only way out" is for me to disprove your already identified failed logic. Finally, there's the appeal to age where you suppose that somehow the age of an account grants validity to the contained arguments. If anything, this exchange suggests an inverse relationship. Perhaps you might do well to start a new account, then, if there does turn out to be an actual correlation.

Well, look at that... it's movie time. With the kids. Gotta go use up my comparatively "valueless time", I guess, while you're stuck spending your considerably "more valuable" time reading this post. I'm pretty sure I win, no matter what you do.

Clearly, you don't understand simple logical constructs. Well, I'll give you (another) benefit of the doubt, and limit that to the possibility that you simply don't understand the idea that arguing against a statement not actually made is a fundamental failure of logic. I made a statement, you incorrectly pretended it was a different statement, then you made an improper argument based on your inference (and I'm being generous here by calling it an inference. Seeing a small portion of your posting history, it was likely an outright but indefensible attempt to appear clever while also trying to direct attention to your alter ego dear leader.) Repeating the argument which was based on the failure of logic, such as in the quote above, could be taken as an indication that you concede the failure of logic but are trying to divert attention again from the failure by simply repeating the same failed argument again (which is, in itself, an informal fallacy.)

The "bubble argument" you are improperly making may even be defensible (although I don't at all think it's true), but the method you're using here to try and make it is laughably bad. Use real logic, you might even win an argument from time to time.

It certainly does.

What the hell are you talking about? This is a clear-cut, textbook example of a strawman failure of logic. I in no way implied anything of the sort. The fact that you think it's even remotely logical to infer what you did would frankly be hilarious if it weren't so abjectly sad.

I agree almost completely. I was kinda on the fence about increasing risk on investing, and in any case my thoughts were that 5% was a rather high ceiling, but I think you just clarified my gut instinct rather well. There is necessarily a distinction between investors and bettors, and I think 5% is too much. What is the actual delineating line? I dunno. Perhaps more than 1%, I'm open to that. But too much may encourage losing the bankroll.

That's reasonable.

Such a change would only benefit the early investors insomuch as they already reaped the greater reward. It wouldn't give additional benefit to early investors on an ongoing basis (like how AM IPO holders have an enormous advantage due to 35x rise in share price making a larger barrier to entry for new investors on an absolute basis), because as the way it's set up, all just-dice investors will always share equally in benefit on each roll, proportional to the amount risked into the site bankroll. The longer you hold, the more the benefit is compounded. There's really no way to give a benefit to early investors at the expense of newer investors without some sort of literal bonus applied to accounts with an ID number smaller than {insert arbitrary cutoff here}. And that will do nothing except deter newer investors from coming in, which is bad - investors should want more investors to come in, because if the winning pool is large enough, it will encourage larger bets. Since all investors share equally in the profits of each bet proportionally to the amount bankrolled, it's a net win for all investors. Granted, you're not going to make much if you only hold .001% of the pool, since the pool size is variable, but over time it's better for everyone to have a large bankroll to attract larger bets. And everyone knows that the high rollers are what makes a casino profitable... basically, a big payout pool will result in a positive feedback loop, generating higher payouts attracting higher bets, while simultaneously generating higher losses and therefore higher fees for investors.

I've been toying with a concept of a gambling site that allows direct investing, but this is a MUCH more elegant solution than what I had in mind. Really, really brilliant implementation.

I gotta echo the trust issue. Until some established company with actual legal recourse to investors in the event of a default becomes available on the BTC markets, investors will demand a vehicle for return of capital in forms such as dividends.

There's not going to be a Berkshire Hathaway of BTC for a very, very long time. (I was going to use Apple as an example, but even they are paying dividends now, despite Jobs' longstanding vehement opposition to the idea.)

Exactly. Volume, especially on large wagers, is key. Plus, if the operator is sharing profits with investors, some investors will pull out if they see whatever they think is "too much" being diverted to operating costs/operator skimming, and that will lower the available winnings pool, preventing larger wagers. There's simply not enough data yet to determine long-term volume and the effect on dooglus' net rake.

I'd say give it another week or five, then SLOWLY and incrementally raise it if needed so as not to spook the bankrollers. And be willing to lower it later, too

Remember - the risk is to the folks who have put in BTC (and I'm certain dooglus has put in a sizeable share, don't get me wrong...) and dooglus' risk is limited to his minimal recurring operating costs (at most a couple hundred bucks a month for hosting services, apparently at Amazon) plus his initial BTC, which he may have already taken back out for all I know. Well, that and the risk of getting the wallets hacked and having to repay, but I'm sure he's thought of that already

This, this - a thousand times, this.

Did I miss a vote somewhere?

Comedy gold, that