[TAT.VIRTUALMINE]

[TECHICENINE]

Not that I want to derail all this great discussion   but alot of people are ignoring (or at least not talking about) a major factor. The whole point of TAT.VM was a way to simulate buying hashing power instead of buying the hardware itself....now I'm not trying to say that mining hardware is at a reasonable price right now, as I think it definitely will come down once more supply is available....but let's say for a moment that you wanted to start "mining" but you don't have enough money for a suitable machine. Just for the sake of an argument, lets say you decide that you want to try a USB miner.
Most USB miners are being sold for around 2BTC if not a little more. (as i said, i think this is too high)
For 330 shares of TAT.VM (the equivalent of a USB miner) i would have to pay 1.15BTC right now.
Not only is this cheaper, but the dividends would pay out the next day instead of waiting for shipping and setup. Not to mention dealing with internet downtime, power outtages, etc. And there is no overhead to keep TAT.VM shares.

Yes, you have to watch your investments if you are worried about losing value. No one is saying you should go and buy blindly. But to say that no one should ever buy any of these types of shares, and that they are overvalued pieces of crap is just dishonest, shortsighted, or ignorant.

With the line of thinking that some people have you should just never buy any mining hardware either unless you are "promised" to get a ROI in less than 2 weeks.

If you think something is overpriced, fine, that is a fair point to make. But to say there is no reason at all to own this type of asset is the same as saying you should never buy any mining hardware. Yes, it's a risk to buy into something, everything about bitcoin is risky. Decide if it's a risk for you or not, and if not don't buy it. But don't rage at everyone else that does know how to watch their money just because they can succeed while you are scared of failure.

You're a little behind the news.  USB miners are 0.99 BTC now.

And you shouldn't buy mining bonds at 20x the hardware price.  Or, as in this case, bonds that are backed by no hardware at all.

I haven't been looking around the past few days, i guess they have gone down some in price, but my point stands the same that it is not a useless asset. It might be overpriced, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
And for the point of the bonds not being backed by physical hardware, that is another issue altogether =P
I am fairly sure it was said from the beginning that it wasn't backed by physical hardware. Personally I think this is better, if it is a person you can trust..He is not saying you are buying 1MH of a specific piece of hardware that could fail, he is saying he will pay you for a days worth of hashing. Now if you want to say TAT isn't trustworthy to pay this, I won't even get into that argument as I haven't been around these forums long enough to see what all he has done. But from what I have seen, I have no problem buying these shares if they are what I see as a good price. Which is basically what I would be willing to pay for physical hardware too. I'm not trying to claim a certain price point, I'm simply saying there is a price point where this can make it as good if not a better investment than physical hardware.

And are they .99BTC for just a single one? I know that you can get this price for a bulk shipment, I was talking about a single (not that it matters much)
Where are you getting 20x the hardware price?

the whole concept here is based on mere puffery which is perfectly fine as long as everyone is welcome to participate , however when you restrict participants and  btct cant even keeo their server up obviously that presents issues..hmmm

[TECHICENINE]

shoul i sell my tat.virtualmine bonds right now or what? seems this isn't going anywhere :S

anyone who holds anything like this overnight has balls imo..lol

[Lytse]

From the contract:

Backing of Bonds
The total amount of bonds issued will always be backed by a quantity of ASICMINER shares that represent an amount of hashing power that is equivalent to TAT.VIRTUALMINE’s total simulated hashing power, as determined by http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ or the most recent hashrate as verified by ASICMINER staff.

Can someone calculate how many ASICMINER shares should be held by TAT.

From the webpage referenced I am seeing a 43TH/s hashrate divided over 400000 shares, thats about 110MH/s per share, is this correct?

Since TAT issued 25655 bonds he should hold 25655 / 110 = 233 ASCIMINER shares. I don't think TAT has them does he?

Or am I missinterpreting the contract? 

Or did he ment the ASICMINER Passthrough .... puzzled

[TECHICENINE]

From the contract:

Backing of Bonds
The total amount of bonds issued will always be backed by a quantity of ASICMINER shares that represent an amount of hashing power that is equivalent to TAT.VIRTUALMINE’s total simulated hashing power, as determined by http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ or the most recent hashrate as verified by ASICMINER staff.

Can someone calculate how many ASICMINER shares should be held by TAT.

From the webpage referenced I am seeing a 43TH/s hashrate divided over 400000 shares, thats about 110MH/s per share, is this correct?

Since TAT issued 25655 bonds he should hold 25655 / 110 = 233 ASCIMINER shares. I don't think TAT has them does he?

Or am I missinterpreting the contract?  

its like oops they all went somewhere,,lol reboot > click back up we good

[Deprived]

From the contract:

Backing of Bonds
The total amount of bonds issued will always be backed by a quantity of ASICMINER shares that represent an amount of hashing power that is equivalent to TAT.VIRTUALMINE’s total simulated hashing power, as determined by http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ or the most recent hashrate as verified by ASICMINER staff.

Can someone calculate how many ASICMINER shares should be held by TAT.

From the webpage referenced I am seeing a 43TH/s hashrate divided over 400000 shares, thats about 110MH/s per share, is this correct?

Since TAT issued 25655 bonds he should hold 25655 / 110 = 233 ASCIMINER shares. I don't think TAT has them does he?

Or am I missinterpreting the contract? 

Or did he ment the ASICMINER Passthrough .... puzzled

TAT holds over 5k ASICMINER shares, so not sure why you think he doesn't hold 233.

[ThickAsThieves]

From the contract:

Backing of Bonds
The total amount of bonds issued will always be backed by a quantity of ASICMINER shares that represent an amount of hashing power that is equivalent to TAT.VIRTUALMINE’s total simulated hashing power, as determined by http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ or the most recent hashrate as verified by ASICMINER staff.

Can someone calculate how many ASICMINER shares should be held by TAT.

From the webpage referenced I am seeing a 43TH/s hashrate divided over 400000 shares, thats about 110MH/s per share, is this correct?

Since TAT issued 25655 bonds he should hold 25655 / 110 = 233 ASCIMINER shares. I don't think TAT has them does he?

Or am I missinterpreting the contract? 

Between my direct shares, AM-PT shares, and G.ASICMINER PT shares I have more than enough to back my assets. Later this week I will be applying for my board seat with AM, after which I will be issuing a full transparency report to make it easy for everyone to have an update on my holdings.

[TECHICENINE]

From the contract:

Backing of Bonds
The total amount of bonds issued will always be backed by a quantity of ASICMINER shares that represent an amount of hashing power that is equivalent to TAT.VIRTUALMINE’s total simulated hashing power, as determined by http://www.asicminercharts.com/live/ or the most recent hashrate as verified by ASICMINER staff.

Can someone calculate how many ASICMINER shares should be held by TAT.

From the webpage referenced I am seeing a 43TH/s hashrate divided over 400000 shares, thats about 110MH/s per share, is this correct?

Since TAT issued 25655 bonds he should hold 25655 / 110 = 233 ASCIMINER shares. I don't think TAT has them does he?

Or am I missinterpreting the contract? 

Between my direct shares, AM-PT shares, and G.ASICMINER PT shares I have more than enough to back my assets. Later this week I will be applying for my board seat with AM, after which I will be issuing a full transparency report to make it easy for everyone to have an update on my holdings.

where are these secured shares registered?..thanks

[Lytse]

Four values to choose from :
- expected coupons: 0.0027 (200 day range)
- buyback 1: 0.00698
- buyback 2: 0.0052
- buyers market price: 0.0008 - 0.003314

Backing not secured...

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm trying my hardest to take every question and concern seriously this weekend, but these posts are degenerating into baseless assumptions and unintelligible randomness.

Maybe it's the full moon throwing me off?

[TECHICENINE]

I'm trying my hardest to take every question and concern seriously this weekend, but these posts are degenerating into baseless assumptions and unintelligible randomness.

Maybe it's the full moon throwing me off?

no this is where the rubber hitz the road are you ready?..lol

[odolvlobo]

Why did you voted yes on BFMINES? this issuer and his PMB is more worse than all other PMBs currently in the market...I am not saying that other PMBs are good ,just BFMINES is the worsest of it...

I voted YES because despite the fact that it is a "perpetual mining bond" and it is probably a losing investment, Furuknap goes into great detail and explains everything fully, including the risks. I predict that the investment will lose money, but I could be wrong. Since I feel he has left no stone unturned and I do not base my approval on predicted performance, there was very little reason to not approve it.

[SOSLOVE868]

Why did you voted yes on BFMINES? this issuer and his PMB is more worse than all other PMBs currently in the market...I am not saying that other PMBs are good ,just BFMINES is the worsest of it...

I voted YES because despite the fact that it is a "perpetual mining bond" and it is probably a losing investment, Furuknap goes into great detail and explains everything fully, including the risks. I predict that the investment will lose money, but I could be wrong. Since I feel he has left no stone unturned and I do not base my approval on predicted performance, there was very little reason to not approve it.

 Approve a investment which absolutely will causing investors loss money is a wrong, that is nothing to do with how Furuknap write on its contracts bad or good.
We know that Friedcat never make effort in paronomasia, but everybody likes him.

You can't because someone write a nice cheating plan by into every detail, then you concluded this is a good plan.

If Furuknap is a person with moral integrity,  He should not issuing his bond before his devices delivered.  he should not issuing a bond at today's price but mining three months later.   He should not sell his pre-orders 20 times expensive than what he paid. If he take responsibility for his investors he should promise a maturity date for his bond... If he promised ,then this will greatly preventing his contracts losing its value, as well as protecting investors faith in BTCT.He should sell his contracts at 0.2 per M/hash which is 10 times than what he paid , and he can use the profit from this issuing to pay the overhead which relating to operating those miners, and still have some more to spend on  another miners  or doing other investment.By given a maturity date he need to promised what price he will pay back of its initial capital he received.  The term of perpetual is  unfair  which gives absolute predominance to the issuers, I know you are insiders of BTCT, you should make some effort on it to changes the way PMBs used to be, rather than explaining how good  he wrote his plan and how this affects you to derive your decision.


What you did is by helping those greedy people to exploiting on those less experienced investors, and you really should not argue with me , because  you have  made a wrong decision which you had approved it.
  

[radiumsoup]

Why did you voted yes on BFMINES? this issuer and his PMB is more worse than all other PMBs currently in the market...I am not saying that other PMBs are good ,just BFMINES is the worsest of it...

I voted YES because despite the fact that it is a "perpetual mining bond" and it is probably a losing investment, Furuknap goes into great detail and explains everything fully, including the risks. I predict that the investment will lose money, but I could be wrong. Since I feel he has left no stone unturned and I do not base my approval on predicted performance, there was very little reason to not approve it.

 Approve a investment which absolutely will causing investors loss money is a wrong, that is nothing to do with how Furuknap write on its contracts bad or good.

That would be true if and only if the investment will cause all investors to lose money. Here, the issuer is betting that the difficulty will change at a rate that will cause him to have a net positive return. Investors are betting that the difficulty will change at a rate that will cause THEM to have a net positive return. As long as neither is absolutely assured (and it's not), the bet is fair and it's up to the market to determine the appropriate price based on risk. If nobody thinks the issue price is fair, nobody will buy at IPO.

There's a lot of FUD about these. Transparency is the only remedy. But arm waving and hyperbole is not actual transparency.

[Lytse]

I'm trying my hardest to take every question and concern seriously this weekend, but these posts are degenerating into baseless assumptions and unintelligible randomness.

Maybe it's the full moon throwing me off?

Wow, someone sold below expected coupons.... That must me the buyers market price

[jjdub7]

What you did is by helping those greedy people to exploiting on those less experienced investors, and you really should not argue with me , because  you have  made a wrong decision which you had approved it.
  

If you don't know what you're doing with your damn money, here's some great advice: keep it in cold storage.  Don't spend it.  Its your own fault if you lose it on investments.  Its not anyone else's fault.  There's no room for excuses such as "lack of experience" in a free market.

When I first started out, I got scammed for 0.75 BTC on BTCjam.  I bitched and moaned about the shady users who scammed me, but it was by no means BTCjam's fault.  The issuer/intermediary simply gives you the information; you're the one who makes the decision.

[EskimoBob]

...

Something on the order of 25% of all mining security issuers have defaulted on their obligations.

That combined with the huge markup over buying mining hardware gives every mining security a negative expected value.

This could be remedied if the issuers were required to keep an amount equal to the market cap of the security in escrow.  Without such security against default all mining securities can be expected to lose money.  You can argue that a day trader might flip it for a profit, but that is not the purpose of a market.

Are you sure you did not confuse some terminology here?

IPO 100 shares at 1 = 100
One trade at 2 and your market cap is 200

[TECHICENINE]

...

Something on the order of 25% of all mining security issuers have defaulted on their obligations.

That combined with the huge markup over buying mining hardware gives every mining security a negative expected value.

This could be remedied if the issuers were required to keep an amount equal to the market cap of the security in escrow.  Without such security against default all mining securities can be expected to lose money.  You can argue that a day trader might flip it for a profit, but that is not the purpose of a market.

Are you sure you did not confuse some terminology here?

IPO 100 shares at 1 = 100
One trade at 2 and your market cap is 200

Yes, I understand that.  The escrow account would hold the IPO proceeds and funds would only be released as the 7 day moving average market cap drops below that level.

There would be no reason for the operator to escrow beyond the initial funding level.  If fools are going to pay higher that would be their risk.

Since the only function of mining bonds is to make a quick cash grab, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any issues to follow this course.

it's called "flipping" any real trader will take 50% when it doubles and ride free shares..thanks

[EskimoBob]

...

Something on the order of 25% of all mining security issuers have defaulted on their obligations.

That combined with the huge markup over buying mining hardware gives every mining security a negative expected value.

This could be remedied if the issuers were required to keep an amount equal to the market cap of the security in escrow.  Without such security against default all mining securities can be expected to lose money.  You can argue that a day trader might flip it for a profit, but that is not the purpose of a market.

Are you sure you did not confuse some terminology here?

IPO 100 shares at 1 = 100
One trade at 2 and your market cap is 200

Yes, I understand that.  The escrow account would hold the IPO proceeds and funds would only be released as the 7 day moving average market cap drops below that level.

There would be no reason for the operator to escrow beyond the initial funding level.  If fools are going to pay higher that would be their risk.

Since the only function of mining bonds is to make a quick cash grab, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any issues to follow this course.

Lets assume we have a honest business, who actually plans to spend the coin properly and buy the equipment.
If one escrows all the coin from IPO, how do you buy the equipment needed for mining? Unless you expect the third party to convert the coin and pay the bills etc.

[daCoops]

Have a quick question on the Dividends and how this bond works. At the moment I can see that the dividend per share is fixed at BTC0.00002600 . Will this be fixed per share no matter how many shares are purchased by an individual? e.g. If I bought 10,000 shares, then would it be a case that my dividend would be paid out at BTC0.26 per day?

[ArcticWolf]

Yes that is a fixed dividend PER SHARE, so if you buy n shares,the dividend will be ((div per share) x n).
Note that as the difficulty rises, the dividend per share will lower