[BTCT][BFMINES] - Mining Contracts Now Available - Bonus Divs First Months

[furuknap]

A Bond and you bet all on one Horse Bitfury, and only one Miner ?
what if Bitcoins mines you ?
No Expansion Strategy ?
first Photos from his Miner reminded me of an old Refrigerator with some old Electronics inside, but maybe i'm wrong.

and Pajaka pays now 3Mh/s as far as i understand.

I'm not certain I understand your questions. I understand that English may not be your native language, but could you try to rephrase or post your questions in your native language so I could use Google translate?

Thanks,

.b

[furuknap]

News update:
Bitfury has just announced that the chips that will be used in the BFMines asset has been shown to work, and work better than anticipated. Originally, the goal was to produce a chip that could hash at 1GH/s per watt of power, but the initial results show that with certain power configurations, the mining efficency is 0.39 watts per 1GH/s of power.

The final details are not yet available and testing is still underway.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2515472#msg2515472

In other news, the asset needs two more Yes votes from LTC-GLOBAL share holders (with more than 10 shares held for more than 7 days) before it is officially listed and trading can begin.

If you are such an investor, please review the contract and proposal and cast your vote as you deem correct.

https://btct.co/security/BFMINES

Thank you,

.b

[TheSwede75]

News update:
Bitfury has just announced that the chips that will be used in the BFMines asset has been shown to work, and work better than anticipated. Originally, the goal was to produce a chip that could hash at 1GH/s per watt of power, but the initial results show that with certain power configurations, the mining efficency is 0.39 watts per 1GH/s of power.

The final details are not yet available and testing is still underway.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2515472#msg2515472

In other news, the asset needs two more Yes votes from LTC-GLOBAL share holders (with more than 10 shares held for more than 7 days) before it is officially listed and trading can begin.

If you are such an investor, please review the contract and proposal and cast your vote as you deem correct.

https://btct.co/security/BFMINES

Thank you,

.b

Noob question, but how can I buy shares in the IPO?

[furuknap]

News update:
Bitfury has just announced that the chips that will be used in the BFMines asset has been shown to work, and work better than anticipated. Originally, the goal was to produce a chip that could hash at 1GH/s per watt of power, but the initial results show that with certain power configurations, the mining efficency is 0.39 watts per 1GH/s of power.

The final details are not yet available and testing is still underway.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2515472#msg2515472

In other news, the asset needs two more Yes votes from LTC-GLOBAL share holders (with more than 10 shares held for more than 7 days) before it is officially listed and trading can begin.

If you are such an investor, please review the contract and proposal and cast your vote as you deem correct.

https://btct.co/security/BFMINES

Thank you,

.b

Noob question, but how can I buy shares in the IPO?

The IPO is still awaiting peer approval, but check the first post in the thread for link to the asset.

.b

[TheSwede75]

News update:
Bitfury has just announced that the chips that will be used in the BFMines asset has been shown to work, and work better than anticipated. Originally, the goal was to produce a chip that could hash at 1GH/s per watt of power, but the initial results show that with certain power configurations, the mining efficency is 0.39 watts per 1GH/s of power.

The final details are not yet available and testing is still underway.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2515472#msg2515472

In other news, the asset needs two more Yes votes from LTC-GLOBAL share holders (with more than 10 shares held for more than 7 days) before it is officially listed and trading can begin.

If you are such an investor, please review the contract and proposal and cast your vote as you deem correct.

https://btct.co/security/BFMINES

Thank you,

.b

Noob question, but how can I buy shares in the IPO?

The IPO is still awaiting peer approval, but check the first post in the thread for link to the asset.

.b

Ah, ok. So if/when it is approved the Instrument will be open for trade and you will place the asset for sale at the IPO price on BTC.CO, is that correct?

[furuknap]

News update:
Bitfury has just announced that the chips that will be used in the BFMines asset has been shown to work, and work better than anticipated. Originally, the goal was to produce a chip that could hash at 1GH/s per watt of power, but the initial results show that with certain power configurations, the mining efficency is 0.39 watts per 1GH/s of power.

The final details are not yet available and testing is still underway.

Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=228677.msg2515472#msg2515472

In other news, the asset needs two more Yes votes from LTC-GLOBAL share holders (with more than 10 shares held for more than 7 days) before it is officially listed and trading can begin.

If you are such an investor, please review the contract and proposal and cast your vote as you deem correct.

https://btct.co/security/BFMINES

Thank you,

.b

Noob question, but how can I buy shares in the IPO?

The IPO is still awaiting peer approval, but check the first post in the thread for link to the asset.

.b

Ah, ok. So if/when it is approved the Instrument will be open for trade and you will place the asset for sale at the IPO price on BTC.CO, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct :-)

.b

[furuknap]

Contract update:

As per the discussion with Deprived, I have clarified the contract summary to include a clarification of the somewhat misleading use of the word bond. The summary now reads:

In summary, however, please note the following:

• The term bond is somewhat misleading because the debt never matures and it does not have a face value as such. It may be better to think of this as a mining contract but the term perpetual mining bond is understood in the mining community as having this particular behavior.
• This is a perpetual mining bond, not a share in a company. You receive no voting rights and no other income than the stated coupon/dividend.
• The mining bond is perpetual, which means it will continue to generate coupon/dividend until terminated following one of the below conditions. There is no defined repayment date of the bond.
• The mining bond pays the equivalent of income from 1 mh/s. Any excess payments not explicitly stated in this contract is solely at the discretion of the operator and should not be expected.

[furuknap]

Someone voted no.

Indeed, they did, but one more also voted yes, so with one more yes vote, the asset should be ready for IPO.

If you notice in the comment, the No was based on price, and I believe the market will decide whether the reduced price and bonus dividends will compensate for that. In other words, I take the No vote to heart but I think investors will need to decide for themselves whether the price is too high, too low, or just right.

.b

[radiumsoup]

Someone voted no.

Indeed, they did, but one more also voted yes, so with one more yes vote, the asset should be ready for IPO.

If you notice in the comment, the No was based on price, and I believe the market will decide whether the reduced price and bonus dividends will compensate for that. In other words, I take the No vote to heart but I think investors will need to decide for themselves whether the price is too high, too low, or just right.

.b

I think voting guidelines should be better defined, myself... yes/no should not be on the basis of "can I personally make money on this?" but rather "is this security good for the exchange as a whole?" and "does this pass the smell test?"

I'm tempted to grab a voting stake just to offset "nos" that obviously come from people who simply don't want to invest and vote "no" instead of simply abstaining... but the dividend is too low to justify locking up 2000 LTC or whatever the current price is.

[Deprived]

Someone voted no.

Indeed, they did, but one more also voted yes, so with one more yes vote, the asset should be ready for IPO.

If you notice in the comment, the No was based on price, and I believe the market will decide whether the reduced price and bonus dividends will compensate for that. In other words, I take the No vote to heart but I think investors will need to decide for themselves whether the price is too high, too low, or just right.

.b

I think voting guidelines should be better defined, myself... yes/no should not be on the basis of "can I personally make money on this?" but rather "is this security good for the exchange as a whole?" and "does this pass the smell test?"

I'm tempted to grab a voting stake just to offset "nos" that obviously come from people who simply don't want to invest and vote "no" instead of simply abstaining... but the dividend is too low to justify locking up 2000 LTC or whatever the current price is.

This argument has been had before.  Problem with defining guidelines is that they then have to be enforced.  If they're enforced then someone hasto decide whether the vote was correct or not.  If someone gets to decide that they may as well save time and just approve (or not) securities themselves.

Personally I wouldn't vote NO just because I believed something was likely to be unprofitable - but others may choose to and may be correct in doing so.  My main criteria (when I have a vote - which hasn't been the case for a while) are that the contract is clear and that I've no reason to believe the operator would act dishonestly or without integrity.  But to an extent I'm biased by self-interest - as I trade rather than invest so investments being unprofitable isn't that important to me.

Others may believe that an unprofitable investment is not just bad for investors - but also for the exchange (as it removes investment capital from play and potentially could put investors off further investment after they realise they lost money).  I see that as a valid reason to vote NO - if it's what voters believe.

If someone put up a bond with a clear contract that was going to sell shares at 1 BTC each but stated it would only ever pay back 0.1 BTC would YOU approve it?  If not, why not?  If you'd vote NO on that why would you approve one where investors would make a loss but it wasn't so clear? 

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying this is an unprofitable investment.  But if a voter genuinely believes it IS unprofitable is it actually wrong for them to vote NO?  Think carefully about my example where a bond was explicitly unprofitable - as it's very easy to fall into an irrational and inconsistent position where you'd vote NO to something explicitly unprofitable but vote YES to something unprrofitable but less obvious.  And that position, of course, would be directly rewarding deception.  And that's why whilst I wouldn't personally vote NO I'm totally fine with people voting NO where they believe something is unprofitable (AND they believe unprofitable investments are bad for the exchange).

And Furuknap always has the option of presenting a model explaining how it IS profitable - to persuade them to change their vote.  Far worse is where someone votes NO and gives no reason at all - as then the issuer can't do anything.

[radiumsoup]

This argument has been had before.  Problem with defining guidelines is that they then have to be enforced.  If they're enforced then someone hasto decide whether the vote was correct or not.  If someone gets to decide that they may as well save time and just approve (or not) securities themselves.

I don't know where you got the enforcement idea, but I think it's very overstated. Guidelines != rules, they're suggestions akin to "keep this in mind when voting, as the purpose of the vote is to (insert guidelines here)". Kinda like just giving voters a reminder, "hey, please don't ruin this for everyone else just because you're feeling stingy today."

Personally I wouldn't vote NO just because I believed something was likely to be unprofitable - but others may choose to and may be correct in doing so.  My main criteria (when I have a vote - which hasn't been the case for a while) are that the contract is clear and that I've no reason to believe the operator would act dishonestly or without integrity.  But to an extent I'm biased by self-interest - as I trade rather than invest so investments being unprofitable isn't that important to me.

The first part of that is most of my point - it may not be an investment that's attractive to you, but that's not a reason enough to prevent others from taking the risk.

Others may believe that an unprofitable investment is not just bad for investors - but also for the exchange (as it removes investment capital from play and potentially could put investors off further investment after they realise they lost money).  I see that as a valid reason to vote NO - if it's what voters believe.

If someone put up a bond with a clear contract that was going to sell shares at 1 BTC each but stated it would only ever pay back 0.1 BTC would YOU approve it?  If not, why not?  If you'd vote NO on that why would you approve one where investors would make a loss but it wasn't so clear? 

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying this is an unprofitable investment.  But if a voter genuinely believes it IS unprofitable is it actually wrong for them to vote NO?  Think carefully about my example where a bond was explicitly unprofitable - as it's very easy to fall into an irrational and inconsistent position where you'd vote NO to something explicitly unprofitable but vote YES to something unprrofitable but less obvious.  And that position, of course, would be directly rewarding deception.  And that's why whilst I wouldn't personally vote NO I'm totally fine with people voting NO where they believe something is unprofitable (AND they believe unprofitable investments are bad for the exchange).

That's EXACTLY what I meant by "good for the exchange" - if it's never going to be profitable for investors under any circumstances, that's a bad faith issuer, and that's not good for the exchange, as the risk of loss is pretty much guaranteed except to those who can convince someone else to hold the bag, and the exchange will start to be seen as a haven for scams and pyramid schemes. But if the security is something that's not personally attractive to a voter but that still could be profitable to investors, the fact that it's not personally attractive to the voter isn't itself a good reason to vote "no". Think about a speculative venture that is not backed by guaranteed assets at the time of issuance - like starting a literal real-world goldmine. If there is gold in the ground, it could succeed, but if there is no gold in the ground, it would certainly fail. You can't know until you start digging, so the contract cannot possibly guarantee a return on investment of any kind. It's a classic high risk/high reward scenario. If the issuer has a reasonable track record of profitably running goldmines, one's personal feeling about their own willingness to invest should not impact their vote on whether the security should be issued - the vote should be based on the reputation of the issuer, the clarity and terms of the contract, and the voter's opinion on whether or not the contract could reasonably be executed. It should NOT be based on the personal risk assessment of the voter, as it's up to the individual investor to assume risk. The goal of an exchange should not be to guarantee returns - it should be to provide a place for issuers and investors to meet, and to screen out obviously bad issuers from the system to protect the reputation of the exchange - not to protect the investors from their own informed decisions. A lack of return does not necessarily mean the issuer is bad - it could simply mean there was no gold in the ground after all, despite the good faith belief of the issuer.

I see voting as a safeguard against outright scams and immature/incapable issuers - not as a safeguard against what might be considered "risky" investments. A well informed market will price risk appropriately. Some will win, some will not. And that's OK. Case in point: ASICMiner. High risk for investors - too high of a risk for some at the beginning. But if it had hypothetically been listed at BTCT-CO at the beginning, would some of those potential voters have been correct to vote no because the risk was too high for them personally? Not at all - not unless they had information that led them to believe it was a scam or that the issuer was incapable of performing on the contract. But without adequate guidelines as to the reason for voting, they may very well have voted it down. And that's why I think the voting guidelines should be made more explicit.

And Furuknap always has the option of presenting a model explaining how it IS profitable - to persuade them to change their vote.  Far worse is where someone votes NO and gives no reason at all - as then the issuer can't do anything.

Great point.

[Deprived]

That's EXACTLY what I meant by "good for the exchange" - if it's never going to be profitable for investors under any circumstances, that's a bad faith issuer, and that's not good for the exchange,

But that's my point.  I read the NO vote as being that whoever made the vote (and I've no idea who it is) believed this investment would never make a profit.  In which case you must agree the vote is valid.  Whether you believe they're correct in that conclusion or not is irrelevant - you've accepted that if someone believes an investment is definitely not going to make a profit they should vote NO.

Or do you believe it's only right if YOU believe there's no chance of something making a profit?  If so, maybe all moderators should be told to PM and check with you before voting ...

You can't say voting for X reason is right - but then claim that a particular instance of voting for X reason is wrong just because YOU say so.  It's what the voters think that matters - that's why there's a bunch of them and not just you.

The vote explicitly says "This asset in almost guaranteed to be a loser for investors.".  None can ever be more sure than "almost guaranteed" - as with ANY asset there's always the chance of a profit if the issuer decides to hand out money for free.  If he's wrong then it doesn't make his reason for voting wrong - just the math he used to reach the conclusion.  And furkuknap OR yourself can easily disprove him if you want.  If an issuer doesn't explain how investors WILL (or CAN) make a profit then it's not fair to complain if people do the math themself and then reach a conclusion the issuer maybe doesn't like.  It's the issuer's job to sell the asset - to moderators then to investors.

[radiumsoup]

That's EXACTLY what I meant by "good for the exchange" - if it's never going to be profitable for investors under any circumstances, that's a bad faith issuer, and that's not good for the exchange,

But that's my point.  I read the NO vote as being that whoever made the vote (and I've no idea who it is) believed this investment would never make a profit.  In which case you must agree the vote is valid.  Whether you believe they're correct in that conclusion or not is irrelevant - you've accepted that if someone believes an investment is definitely not going to make a profit they should vote NO.

The comment on the "no" vote in question is: "This asset in almost guaranteed to be a loser for investors. Priced too high for the risk. Probably should wait until the equipment has shipped, then reapply."
(The emphasis is mine.)

Given the statement that the voter believes it's too high for the risk, they obviously believe there is a potential for profit, or they would have omitted that part entirely - their own value judgment has them believing that the security is not worthy of their own investment because the risk to the investor comes from the delivery timeframe of the hardware, not in the ability of the issuer to perform. If the voter believes there is a potential for profit, then the first sentence is a statement on the risk/reward proposition, and not on the fact that there is no chance for profit like you're making it out to be. The last sentence solidifies the idea even more: They encourage the issuer to reapply later - not because the believe the issuer is unable to execute on the contract, but because the subjective risk assessment makes them believe the security will not start returning a profit to investors in the timeframe they believe will provide a suitable return. Clearly, the voter is basing the decision on their own personal risk/reward calculations, not on "does this have zero chance of profit, and thus should be considered a sham?"

Or do you believe it's only right if YOU believe there's no chance of something making a profit?  If so, maybe all moderators should be told to PM and check with you before voting ...

I must assume you think I'm being obtuse, and so you're returning the favor by trying to be cute/coy/whatever. I am not. I've hopefully made myself more clear with my last statement.

You can't say voting for X reason is right - but then claim that a particular instance of voting for X reason is wrong just because YOU say so.  It's what the voters think that matters - that's why there's a bunch of them and not just you.

The vote explicitly says "This asset in almost guaranteed to be a loser for investors.".  None can ever be more sure than "almost guaranteed" - as with ANY asset there's always the chance of a profit if the issuer decides to hand out money for free.  If he's wrong then it doesn't make his reason for voting wrong - just the math he used to reach the conclusion.  And furkuknap OR yourself can easily disprove him if you want.  If an issuer doesn't explain how investors WILL (or CAN) make a profit then it's not fair to complain if people do the math themself and then reach a conclusion the issuer maybe doesn't like.  It's the issuer's job to sell the asset - to moderators then to investors.

That's not at all what I said. At the risk of repeating myself too many times, the vote in question was based on the subjective application of *value*, which should not be the case in voting for securities for approval on any exchange, (unless the exchange fancies themselves to be NYSE back in the mid 20th century when the name of the exchange influenced investors' willingness to buy a stock, and therefore correlated directly with market capitalization/value of the securities). Value is determined by the market; suitability for the exchange, based on the reasons I've stated earlier, should be the only thing the voters determine. I see no logical conflict with my position when that difference is understood. I'm open to correction, though - if the argument is based on what I actually said: Voting for approval to be listed on any exchange shouldn't be based on risk/reward assessments; they should be made on suitability to the exchange and to weed out obvious shams, scams, pyramids, etc. A potential loss is not in itself a sham investment, but a guaranteed loss is.

[ThickAsThieves]

lol, you guys!

Maybe just make a case with figures n stuff that shows potential for profit?

[furuknap]

And Furuknap always has the option of presenting a model explaining how it IS profitable - to persuade them to change their vote.  Far worse is where someone votes NO and gives no reason at all - as then the issuer can't do anything.

Great point.

I won't comment on the voting issue because I feel it's of a more general nature than related to this asset, but I'd like to address the question of profitability in particular.

First off, I have so far decided to avoid giving specifics or even scenarios. The question of profitability requires an understanding of topics that are complex for investors to understand, and especially in understanding whether to believe claims made by someone with a vested interest in selling an asset.

The more important question that nobody has asked so far, however, is: If I believe this is profitable, why would I list the asset at all rather than mining and keeping the proceeds myself?

It's not like this is a production where my ability to consume the output is limited. Selling a car made built from cheap raw materials makes sense because your ability to drive multiple cars are limited. That doesn't mean car manufacturers don't believe that buying a car isn't profitable to their customers. In the case of an asset like this, however, I can consume as much output as I can possibly produce, and the question would then be why I would give that away.

The answer to this question, at least from me, is time. I spend a lot of time learning, researching, calculating, and monitoring the asset markets, forums, websites, people, and so on. I believe that with that effort, I am able to reap a greater benefit from having cash at hand.

For a normal or casual investor, spending that time to be on top of everything all the time may not be an option. For those investors, I believe this asset will yield a reasonable to good return, depending on difficulty evolution, without having to add substantial time and risk to the picture.

So, I believe the asset will be profitable. I base this belief on my belief that difficulty growth will slow down and maybe even flatten out in the not-too-distant future. I've argued for this previously and I stand by those arguments still. I may very well be wrong and I cannot guarantee that I'm right.
 
I prefer to sleep good at night, not fearing meeting an angry investor who feels I've tricked them. I do everything within my reasonable power to ensure this is a fair asset and that everybody understands the risk and how to evaluate that risk. I promote the complexity of the profitability question long before I speculate in profitability or lack thereof.

.b

[furuknap]

Update: Escrow Details and IPO Process

BFMines is now just one Yes vote short of IPO, so I would like to prepare everyone to avoid any rushes or fears of being left behind.

Once (and assuming) the final Yes vote comes in, I will announce a date and time no less than 48 hours ahead when the IPO shares will be put on the market. I will announce this time on the offical web pages, the Bitcointalk thread, and on the BTCT news feed.

When that time happens, I will place an ASK order (meaning I sell) 100,000 shares at the announced price of 0.004BTC/share. Once that ASK has been placed, trading can commence.

Note that if burnside agrees and the platform can do so, you can pre-bid for the IPO any time after the final Yes vote and up until the announced IPO date by placing a BID order (meaning you want to buy) for any amount of shares. Those BIDs, up to the 100,000 shares offered, will be automatically filled if they are at 0.004 (or above, but don't do that unless you want to give me extra money). This allows you to get in line without having to fear being left behind if you are unable to attend the IPO time exactly.

At the IPO time and after the first ASK order has been placed, burnside, who has agreed to escrow the IPO funds, will lock the account so that funds that come in will remain in place until the equipment has been delivered and put into operation (the release date).

Until then, the holdings of the BFMines portfolio will be publicly visible through the URL https://btct.co/portfolio/gb80Dg==

Once the equipment is delivered, there will be a period until we can fully test, verify, and optimize the equipment. During this time, the operation will produce BTC from mining, although this is expected to be a small amount. However, if the equipment works and the mining commences as per the contract, these funds will be paid out as an added dividend during the first days of operation.

To recap what will happen over the next days (assuming final Yes vote comes in):

1. Announcement about IPO date with minimum 48 hour lead time.
2. IPO date with release of 100,000 shares at 0.004
3. Lock down of account and trading commences

.b

[Mabsark]

Why are you wasting your time and money trying to push this through at 0.004 BTC per share?  No investor will make a profit at that price at the current difficulty, never mind future difficulties. So, why would someone buy shares in your stock when they can already get better value right now from DMS?

Do you traders not understand anything about mining? By setting the value for these bonds at idiotic prices, all you are doing is trying to rip off your investors. You can compare your stock to TAT.VM and claim that you offer a competitive value, but that's just ignoring the fact that TAT.VM was insanely overpriced to begin with.

I challenge you right now to show how an investor could make a profit from your stock at 0.004 BTC per share.

[furuknap]

Why are you wasting your time and money trying to push this through at 0.004 BTC per share?  No investor will make a profit at that price at the current difficulty, never mind future difficulties. So, why would someone buy shares in your stock when they can already get better value right now from DMS?

Do you traders not understand anything about mining? By setting the value for these bonds at idiotic prices, all you are doing is trying to rip off your investors. You can compare your stock to TAT.VM and claim that you offer a competitive value, but that's just ignoring the fact that TAT.VM was insanely overpriced to begin with.

I challenge you right now to show how an investor could make a profit from your stock at 0.004 BTC per share.

Hi,

Thanks for your comment and challenge. I believe I have responded to the question on profitability already and why I'm hesitant to provide scenarios for profitability. However, I can tell you that I've run the numbers based on the same analysis model I did with 100TH (http://coin.furuknap.net/can-100th-really-be-the-next-asicminer/) and used that to design the asset to be fair to investors, with a reasonable chance of reasonable profit.

Obviously, if investors believe in the perpetual proportional growth theory, they should not invest in anything mining-related; there is no way for any mining investment to ever make a profit, including assets like ASICMiner (they won't have enough BTC income to pay off new investments in roughly 2 years, unless BTC/USD price reaches $1000).

.b

[Mabsark]

Why are you wasting your time and money trying to push this through at 0.004 BTC per share?  No investor will make a profit at that price at the current difficulty, never mind future difficulties. So, why would someone buy shares in your stock when they can already get better value right now from DMS?

Do you traders not understand anything about mining? By setting the value for these bonds at idiotic prices, all you are doing is trying to rip off your investors. You can compare your stock to TAT.VM and claim that you offer a competitive value, but that's just ignoring the fact that TAT.VM was insanely overpriced to begin with.

I challenge you right now to show how an investor could make a profit from your stock at 0.004 BTC per share.

Hi,

Thanks for your comment and challenge. I believe I have responded to the question on profitability already and why I'm hesitant to provide scenarios for profitability. However, I can tell you that I've run the numbers based on the same analysis model I did with 100TH (http://coin.furuknap.net/can-100th-really-be-the-next-asicminer/) and used that to design the asset to be fair to investors, with a reasonable chance of reasonable profit.

Obviously, if investors believe in the perpetual proportional growth theory, they should not invest in anything mining-related; there is no way for any mining investment to ever make a profit, including assets like ASICMiner (they won't have enough BTC income to pay off new investments in roughly 2 years, unless BTC/USD price reaches $1000).

.b

If we assume a 10% difficulty increase per round, then the next 10 rounds will take just 12.7 days each, so say 13 days of dividends for each round. So, over those 130 days, a total of 0.00207722 BTC would be mined. In fact, with a constant 10% difficulty increase each round, over the next 57 successive rounds (next 2 years), only 0.00336580 BTC would be mined.

I don't think that's a good way to predict difficulty myself, but it highlights the point I'm making. It's going to take a very long time, if ever, to make 0.004 BTC from a 1 Mh/s miner which starts mining at the beginning of the next difficulty round, never mind in a couple of months time. Sure, you can resell the share, but how much will they be going for 4 months later? How much will they be going for 2 years later?

A reasonable price right now would be around 0.002 as that should actually allow investors to make a profit. If you insist on that 0.004 BTC share price, then all you are going to do is waste 5 BTC on the listing fee.

[furuknap]

If we assume a 10% difficulty increase per round, then the next 10 rounds will take just 12.7 days each, so say 13 days of dividends for each round. So, over those 130 days, a total of 0.00207722 BTC would be mined. In fact, with a constant 10% difficulty increase each round, over the next 57 successive rounds (next 2 years), only 0.00336580 BTC would be mined.

To that point, any mining investment, hardware or security, would suffer exactly the same fate.

Keep in mind that 10% perpetual increase per change is insanely huge. In fact, if you extrapolate that, the network will reach 240+ PH/s by the next halving. Assuming that would be bought with the most efficient hardware scheduled today (KnC Jupiters) at a 50% discount, that would mean mining investments of $2.7 billion dollars, for an economy that is barely a third of that.

In fact, if you just account for 20% monthly increase over the next 12 months, you'll need $200 million worth of Jupters in fresh investments, or just over $15M per month. That will completely dwarf any mining investments so far. Even the 10K USB miners that AM spend 2 months not selling completely would be a drop in the ocean (20K BTC = $2M). You would need to sell the cash equivalent of 3,000 AM Erupter Blades per month for 12 months for that to happen.

Also keep in ming that a lot of the growth we see now has been sold months and years ago. Even combined, the entire natural growth of the network was wiped out when AM went down for service for a few hours.

I've previously argued against the perpetual growth theory in this article:
http://coin.furuknap.net/are-perpetual-mining-bonds-scams-not-really/

A reasonable price right now would be around 0.002 as that should actually allow investors to make a profit. If you insist on that 0.004 BTC share price, then all you are going to do is waste 5 BTC on the listing fee.

That will be your choice, and others will make their choices based on what they think is reasonable. Again, if you believe in the perpetual proportinal growth theory, stay away from any mining investments, hardware or assets.

.b