All you idiots that "invested" in PMBs:

[Peter Lambert]

...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.

I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0

[SOSLOVE868]

...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.

I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0

From the second post there, it appears there were others ahead of him with the scam concept.

Ok, it seems this thread got moved from "Marketplace" here. Sorry to have caused any confusion or trouble.

The original reasoning to put it there was that dishwara + SIN also have their threads regarding their mining contract sales in that other area.

What happening by that time ? ? I read over the thread ,but still can not understand what the story about it.

[Peter Lambert]

...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.

I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0

From the second post there, it appears there were others ahead of him with the scam concept.

Ok, it seems this thread got moved from "Marketplace" here. Sorry to have caused any confusion or trouble.

The original reasoning to put it there was that dishwara + SIN also have their threads regarding their mining contract sales in that other area.

Yeah, I had forgotten exactly who was doing what. Dishwara was more of a mining company, I think, SIN was a "perpetual" mining bond, and CM400 was a mining bond with a limited lifetime. CM400 payed much less back than was originally invested. SIN the operator took off with everybodies money, Dishwara ran into trouble of some sort with the mining, but he bought back the outstanding shares eventually.

[Entropy-uc]

...Who ever invented those nasty perpetual mining turds, was either a clueless fuck, who did not understand how bad it is for the investors or, he knew exactly! what it is and abused the nonexisting investing experience of BTC enthusiasts.

I think that honor would go to CentiMine, of the CentiMine400 stock on the GLBSE.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8642.0

From the second post there, it appears there were others ahead of him with the scam concept.

Ok, it seems this thread got moved from "Marketplace" here. Sorry to have caused any confusion or trouble.

The original reasoning to put it there was that dishwara + SIN also have their threads regarding their mining contract sales in that other area.

Yeah, I had forgotten exactly who was doing what. Dishwara was more of a mining company, I think, SIN was a "perpetual" mining bond, and CM400 was a mining bond with a limited lifetime. CM400 payed much less back than was originally invested. SIN the operator took off with everybodies money, Dishwara ran into trouble of some sort with the mining, but he bought back the outstanding shares eventually.

Fascinating.  I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner?  There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,...  Who else completely defaulted on these securities?

This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond.  By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.

[Peter Lambert]

Fascinating.  I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner?  There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,...  Who else completely defaulted on these securities?

This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond.  By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.

No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher. EDIT: Wait, the first time I read it I thought you were saying that the risk of default makes the high price OK. Nevermind.

Take a look back through the securities section of the forum and you will find plenty of other examples. It was not just mining bonds either. Remember UBX raised something like 1250 btc. And bitcointorrents was paying regular monthly dividends but I think they disappeared when the GLBSE went down. And then there is FZB, I am not sure whether to call that a scam?

[Deprived]

Fascinating.  I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner?  There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,...  Who else completely defaulted on these securities?

This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond.  By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.

No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher.

Take a look back through the securities section of the forum and you will find plenty of other examples. It was not just mining bonds either. Remember UBX raised something like 1250 btc. And bitcointorrents was paying regular monthly dividends but I think they disappeared when the GLBSE went down. And then there is FZB, I am not sure whether to call that a scam?

Heh, don't forget your own ones when you're discussing securities that vanished without giving back funds or producing accounts.

[Entropy-uc]

Fascinating.  I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner?  There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,...  Who else completely defaulted on these securities?

This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond.  By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.

No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher.

Take a look back through the securities section of the forum and you will find plenty of other examples. It was not just mining bonds either. Remember UBX raised something like 1250 btc. And bitcointorrents was paying regular monthly dividends but I think they disappeared when the GLBSE went down. And then there is FZB, I am not sure whether to call that a scam?

That is what discount means.  A lower price to account for the default risk.

Net, I don't think you can come up with a pricing model that justifies fair value of a mining bond greater than the cost of hashing hardware available at present.  And since it wouldn't be rational to sell a bond at that price, it isn't possible to offer mining bonds at fair value.

[Peter Lambert]

Fascinating.  I wonder what percentage of mining security issuers have taken a runner?  There's amazingrando, Ian Bakewell, SIN,...  Who else completely defaulted on these securities?

This is part of the fundamental reason I don't think it's possible to have a fairly priced mining bond.  By the time you discount the security for the risk of default, the price would be under the intrinsic value of the mining hardware.

No, the price should be LOWER for the security risk, not higher.

That is what discount means.  A lower price to account for the default risk.

Net, I don't think you can come up with a pricing model that justifies fair value of a mining bond greater than the cost of hashing hardware available at present.  And since it wouldn't be rational to sell a bond at that price, it isn't possible to offer mining bonds at fair value.

Sorry, misread what you were saying, I edited my previous post.

[EskimoBob]

If you really like to issue a security that can be called a bond, you need to get few things right.

1) Understand, that bond is a loan. Issuer (you) borrows X coins from investors and promises to pay it all back by predetermined date XYZ -  maturity date + interest payments.
2) Bonds are called (bought back by issuer) at predetermined price. Usually at par value (face value).
3) If you like to make weekly payments, your bonds have a weekly coupon.
4) Coupon payment (interest payment) is calculated from par value. Coupon is fixed (there are partially floating coupons but those are notes and are called Floating rate notes (FRNs))
5) If you fuck up and you have to close down, bond holders must be paid out before anyone else (because bond is dept).

All this information is nicely available in the net. Read and ask questions.

Pleas, stop issuing and buying this perpetual junk disguised as bonds.

[Peter Lambert]

If you really like to issue a security that can be called a bond, you need to get few things right.

1) Understand, that bond is a loan. Issuer (you) borrows X coins from investors and promises to pay it all back by predetermined date XYZ -  maturity date + interest payments.
2) Bonds are called (bought back by issuer) at predetermined price. Usually at par value (face value).
3) If you like to make weekly payments, your bonds have a weekly coupon.
4) Coupon payment (interest payment) is calculated from par value. Coupon is fixed (there are partially floating coupons but those are notes and are called Floating rate notes (FRNs))
5) If you fuck up and you have to close down, bond holders must be paid out before anyone else (because bond is dept).

All this information is nicely available in the net. Read and ask questions.

Pleas, stop issuing and buying this perpetual junk disguised as bonds.

Right. Do we really need to reinvent a bunch of terms for things?

The existing structure is so astonishingly lucrative for the issuers that there will always be unscrupulous operators who want to issue this garbage.  TAT made a quick $20k off his venture.  Then he doubled that by using the money to buy ASICMINER.

It really has to fall to the exchange operators.  If they want their operation to be a place where investors can make an honest buck by funding startup ventures, they will ban new issues of PMBs.  The existing ones will bleed out over the next 6 months, and then we will be done with the horror show for good.

If PMBs aren't banned, I have to assume the exchange operators want their sites to be venues for sharks to slaughter the sheep investors.

Notice that there are no "mining companies" or "mining bonds" listed on the MPEx.

[EskimoBob]

If you really like to issue a security that can be called a bond, you need to get few things right.

1) Understand, that bond is a loan. Issuer (you) borrows X coins from investors and promises to pay it all back by predetermined date XYZ -  maturity date + interest payments.
2) Bonds are called (bought back by issuer) at predetermined price. Usually at par value (face value).
3) If you like to make weekly payments, your bonds have a weekly coupon.
4) Coupon payment (interest payment) is calculated from par value. Coupon is fixed (there are partially floating coupons but those are notes and are called Floating rate notes (FRNs))
5) If you fuck up and you have to close down, bond holders must be paid out before anyone else (because bond is dept).

All this information is nicely available in the net. Read and ask questions.

Pleas, stop issuing and buying this perpetual junk disguised as bonds.

Right. Do we really need to reinvent a bunch of terms for things?

The existing structure is so astonishingly lucrative for the issuers that there will always be unscrupulous operators who want to issue this garbage.  TAT made a quick $20k off his venture.  Then he doubled that by using the money to buy ASICMINER.

It really has to fall to the exchange operators.  If they want their operation to be a place where investors can make an honest buck by funding startup ventures, they will ban new issues of PMBs.  The existing ones will bleed out over the next 6 months, and then we will be done with the horror show for good.

If PMBs aren't banned, I have to assume the exchange operators want their sites to be venues for sharks to slaughter the sheep investors.

Notice that there are no "mining companies" or "mining bonds" listed on the MPEx.

Correct, there is no need to invent new terminology at all. People need to understand how stuff actually works and then start improving it.

LOL at MPEx joke. Mr Dipshit (aka egomaniac Mircea Popescu) bazaar has listed few pathetic inventions by MP himself and S.DICE, that is starting to lose its shine.

[Peter Lambert]

If PMBs aren't banned, I have to assume the exchange operators want their sites to be venues for sharks to slaughter the sheep investors.

Notice that there are no "mining companies" or "mining bonds" listed on the MPEx.

LOL at MPEx joke. Mr Dipshit (aka egomaniac Mircea Popescu) bazaar has listed few pathetic inventions by MP himself and S.DICE, that is starting to lose its shine.

I was not using it as a joke, I was giving an example of an exchange which has managed to keep the mining crap out. I don't know why you have such hatred towards MP, he seems to be making decent money without your approval. Now, if only we could get him to embrace the balance sheet to go with the profit/loss statements we could all be happy.

[eltopo]

1) Understand, that bond is a loan. Issuer (you) borrows X coins from investors and promises to pay it all back by predetermined date XYZ -  maturity date + interest payments.

If that's the case for all bonds in the "real world", then please tell me what the predetermined date XYZ is for e.g. this General Electric bond:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40554/000093041312003482/c69940_fwp.htm

[EskimoBob]

1) Understand, that bond is a loan. Issuer (you) borrows X coins from investors and promises to pay it all back by predetermined date XYZ -  maturity date + interest payments.

If that's the case for all bonds in the "real world", then please tell me what the predetermined date XYZ is for e.g. this General Electric bond:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40554/000093041312003482/c69940_fwp.htm

Fixed-To-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A

stock is equity
bond is debt

 

[eltopo]

Oops, my fault. What about XS0546096800 ?

[MPOE-PR]

Now, if only we could get him to embrace the balance sheet to go with the profit/loss statements we could all be happy.

You realize MPOE/MPEx does not have a balance sheet, at all, as it owns nothing. S.DICE was doing its own reporting, but in general it's an advantage to have asset-free BTC corps as they cut out a major risk (review tawsix' thing for exactly why that is).

Right. Do we really need to reinvent a bunch of terms for things?

Bitcoin guts some concepts from classical (ie, fiat) finance and accounting and turns some others on their head. For this reason some terms will be discarded, some redefined and some new ones introduced. It is often dangerous to be calling different things the same, especially if people proceed on their presumptuous knowledge of fiat stuff and imagine the name identity means they're qualified to handle the Bitcoin counterparts (we're not discussing idiots proceeding on the notion that their recognizing of the terminology qualifies them a la Kludge & the rest of the "forum bankers" crowd, but actual professionals who historically bit a steel girder).

Our agitated clay oven scammer friend is not on the list of people who get to decide which is which, how the definitions sound etc. In fact, very few people are on that list, as butthurty as this may be. The list is pretty much dominated by MPEx mostly for the steel girder point above.

[EskimoBob]

Now, if only we could get him to embrace the balance sheet to go with the profit/loss statements we could all be happy.

You realize MPOE/MPEx does not have a balance sheet, at all, as it owns nothing. S.DICE was doing its own reporting, but in general it's an advantage to have asset-free BTC corps as they cut out a major risk (review tawsix' thing for exactly why that is).

Right. Do we really need to reinvent a bunch of terms for things?

Bitcoin guts some concepts from classical (ie, fiat) finance and accounting and turns some others on their head. For this reason some terms will be discarded, some redefined and some new ones introduced. It is often dangerous to be calling different things the same, especially if people proceed on their presumptuous knowledge of fiat stuff and imagine the name identity means they're qualified to handle the Bitcoin counterparts (we're not discussing idiots proceeding on the notion that their recognizing of the terminology qualifies them a la Kludge & the rest of the "forum bankers" crowd, but actual professionals who historically bit a steel girder).

Our agitated clay oven scammer friend is not on the list of people who get to decide which is which, how the definitions sound etc. In fact, very few people are on that list, as butthurty as this may be. The list is pretty much dominated by MPEx mostly for the steel girder point above.

Thank you for proving again, how limited your understanding of finances are. Pure comedy indeed.

PS! Enjoy your delusions, Popescu.

[Peter Lambert]

Now, if only we could get him to embrace the balance sheet to go with the profit/loss statements we could all be happy.

You realize MPOE/MPEx does not have a balance sheet, at all, as it owns nothing. S.DICE was doing its own reporting, but in general it's an advantage to have asset-free BTC corps as they cut out a major risk (review tawsix' thing for exactly why that is).

Right. Do we really need to reinvent a bunch of terms for things?

Bitcoin guts some concepts from classical (ie, fiat) finance and accounting and turns some others on their head. For this reason some terms will be discarded, some redefined and some new ones introduced. It is often dangerous to be calling different things the same, especially if people proceed on their presumptuous knowledge of fiat stuff and imagine the name identity means they're qualified to handle the Bitcoin counterparts (we're not discussing idiots proceeding on the notion that their recognizing of the terminology qualifies them a la Kludge & the rest of the "forum bankers" crowd, but actual professionals who historically bit a steel girder).

Our agitated clay oven scammer friend is not on the list of people who get to decide which is which, how the definitions sound etc. In fact, very few people are on that list, as butthurty as this may be. The list is pretty much dominated by MPEx mostly for the steel girder point above.

Will S.MG include a balance sheet along with the profit/loss statement?

Regardless of the love affair between you and EskimoBob, it does not really matter what you call these "Bonds", they are generally a bad investment.

[MPOE-PR]

Will S.MG include a balance sheet along with the profit/loss statement?

I guess we'll have to wait and see on that point.

Regardless of the love affair between you and EskimoBob,

It's not a love affair in any sense, immaterial idiots just latch on like barnacles to the ship. Before him there was some ciuciu wannabe miner scammer guy butthurt that his scam didn't go anywhere. There were others before, there were and will be others after.

Granted that this one is pretty funny with his notion that spending LTC to buy actual ovens rather than BTC to buy mining rigs makes him anything else than the WORST PMB op out there. "Just focus on making the waste heat, eschew hashing completely, what could possibly go wrong". I guess it'll pass, sadly, and he never got as good as Tortilla - in spite of trying for much longer. Ah well.

[burnside]

I was not using it as a joke, I was giving an example of an exchange which has managed to keep the mining crap out. I don't know why you have such hatred towards MP, he seems to be making decent money without your approval. Now, if only we could get him to embrace the balance sheet to go with the profit/loss statements we could all be happy.

It's out now.  That wasn't always the case though.

Gigamining was on MPEx as a PT.  MP declared it of zero value and shut it down when GLBSE shutdown, leaving those holding PT shares in a lurch because he did not (AFAIK, been a while since I re-read the thread) lay claim to the associated Gigamining shares post-shutdown.