-

[Ashitank]

I'm selling 130 shares cheap if anyone is interested.

I would like to know how we are going to trade the shares now.

Also interested, depending on price. PM with what you had in mind and perhaps we can work from there...

130 @ 0.085 BTC each, which is near the last price at BF.

Has Lab_rat approved of this trade outside bitfunder ?? who will take the responsibility of updating asset list of LRM ??

And 0.085 is not cheap , but that's just me I guess.

[fractal02]

the BFL forums used to be the primary place for LRM information... and more often than not info was posted on the BFL forum and not on BTCTalk.... can you please switch to BTCTalk permanently (as you appear to have done) and announce this as the place for all future news. Really frustrating and confusing trying to work out where to look.

+100!

I demand my LRM information to be written out in the sky, in big letters, by at least 2-3 planes, while raining down confetti.

Anything less is unacceptable!

ROFL

Guys....it's only 2 threads....2 website to check (3 with LabRat homepage) , is this so horrible? soooo hard ? Checking 2 website ?

[grnbrg]

Great, more fees limiting liquidity. 0.025 fee on shares which are going for 0.05-0.07 right now.

You're only hurting the little guy who wishes to buy 1 or 2 shares at a time with a limited mining income.

I hope this is not the final solution as to how trading is going to happen?

I'd rather offer my developer services to create you a decent automated way

Umm, 0.5% fee is OK. But 0.025BTC min fee seems quite much.

Besides that, hope there's a solution working soon.

It's not final, @Lab_Rat is looking into automated solutions.  (And the nastyfans website looks kind of cool....)

* grnbrg takes off any sort of "official" LRM hat.  My thoughts here.....

As far as the 0.025BTC fee....  I'll be honest and say that I suggested that.  Until there is an automated system that only needs to be reviewed occasionally, trades are going to have to be handled manually.  Between co-ordinating the emails, verifying signatures, re-requesting invalid signatures, hand-holding the users who don't really understand signatures, making and double-checking the changes to the master list, I figure that each transaction is going to take me 5-10 minutes, probably more.  If there is a transaction for 2 bonds at 0.08BTC each, the 0.5% fee would be 0.0008BTC, or roughly 15 cents.  To be perfectly honest, I don't want to bother with small transactions.  (I know there are people who want small transactions, and I understand their frustration.  But my time is worth more than $2 an hour.) Setting a minimum fee makes it worth my while to process trades.  $5 didn't seem like an unreasonable number.

But, as above.  The process isn't final.  Should the fee be smaller?  How small?  $2 per transaction?  Maybe a flat fee for a transaction of any number of bonds?  Again - until an automated system is set up, this will be manual....

I'm trying to foster some discussion here, and hopefully get away from the surprise changes... 



grnbrg.

[grnbrg]

I'm selling 130 shares cheap if anyone is interested.

I would like to know how we are going to trade the shares now.

Also interested, depending on price. PM with what you had in mind and perhaps we can work from there...

130 @ 0.085 BTC each, which is near the last price at BF.

Has Lab_rat approved of this trade outside bitfunder ?? who will take the responsibility of updating asset list of LRM ??

And 0.085 is not cheap , but that's just me I guess.

There is no longer any valid trading on BitFunder.  LRM has left the building.  Any transfers made there now will not be considered valid.

@Lab_Rat and I (and possibly a couple of other trusted users that I have heard nothing about) will (probably) shortly be able to approve trades.  That manual process is being worked on.  Slightly longer term is an automated system on labratmining.com.

To be clear:  Since Lab_Rat froze the asset on BitFunder yesterday, there are no valid trades unless you have a signed message from Lab_Rat saying it happened.


grnbrg.

[Lab_Rat]

It's the 3rd week into October and still no hardware or order placed. Compared to whatever prices were agreed to for an early October order placement, an eventual order will need to be reduced big time. Or find a new supplier.

I'm not sure where you're getting your news from, but what exactly do you think went down at the meeting between Dave and I?

I understand I haven't been the most vocal about everything, but please don't make assumptions.  Order was placed in person with Dave and hardware should be rolling in this week or first thing next week in large quantities.

Seems I made a mistake - sorry. I thought your lunch was reported just as a serendipitous lunch meetup. Also, I recalled (perhaps incorrectly) that you indicated no orders were placed a few days back. But I looked and apparently overlooked or forgot one of your more relevant comments.

Anyway, the the bulk of the comment, about hardware prices, was more of the point. It probably wouldn't matter much at all if the order was delayed for even a month from now, as long as the future purchase price of hardware canceled out any subsequent difficulty increase.

Dave stated he has a lot more room to work with pricing now that other companies are entering the market.  Tytus controls the pricing, Dave is along for the ride so to speak.

[Lab_Rat]

I will also be setting up a coinbase with a payment system to buy bonds straight from me which may be better for small quantities.

[maqifrnswa]

It's not final, @Lab_Rat is looking into automated solutions.  (And the nastyfans website looks kind of cool....)

* grnbrg takes off any sort of "official" LRM hat.  My thoughts here.....

As far as the 0.025BTC fee....  I'll be honest and say that I suggested that.  Until there is an automated system that only needs to be reviewed occasionally, trades are going to have to be handled manually.  Between co-ordinating the emails, verifying signatures, re-requesting invalid signatures, hand-holding the users who don't really understand signatures, making and double-checking the changes to the master list, I figure that each transaction is going to take me 5-10 minutes, probably more.  If there is a transaction for 2 bonds at 0.08BTC each, the 0.5% fee would be 0.0008BTC, or roughly 15 cents.  To be perfectly honest, I don't want to bother with small transactions.  (I know there are people who want small transactions, and I understand their frustration.  But my time is worth more than $2 an hour.) Setting a minimum fee makes it worth my while to process trades.  $5 didn't seem like an unreasonable number.

But, as above.  The process isn't final.  Should the fee be smaller?  How small?  $2 per transaction?  Maybe a flat fee for a transaction of any number of bonds?  Again - until an automated system is set up, this will be manual....

I'm trying to foster some discussion here, and hopefully get away from the surprise changes...  



grnbrg.

I've been critical of fees in the past, but I don't have problems with fees that are (1) temporary and (2) voluntary while things are being sorted out. This temporarily fee puts a clamp on liquidity, but not nearly as much as being forced to close the security on bitfunder did. As long as a system is in place to reduce that restriction on liquidity, then this is a nice band-aid. Since the situation is better with the band-aid than without (i.e., no trading at all), I think it's fine for the time being.

[Ashitank]

the BFL forums used to be the primary place for LRM information... and more often than not info was posted on the BFL forum and not on BTCTalk.... can you please switch to BTCTalk permanently (as you appear to have done) and announce this as the place for all future news. Really frustrating and confusing trying to work out where to look.

+100!

I demand my LRM information to be written out in the sky, in big letters, by at least 2-3 planes, while raining down confetti.

Anything less is unacceptable!

ROFL

Guys....it's only 2 threads....2 website to check (3 with LabRat homepage) , is this so horrible? soooo hard ? Checking 2 website ?

Trivial , petty things matter more than LRm closing down on bitfunder & lack of good dividends to the smart ones lol

[SuNr1s3]

I started on the list, got most of it done, but I don't want to put up a list that states "Haven't Received Verification" in a column where people may or may have not sent me an email already.  I'll finish it in the morning and post a link to it.

What about this list?
I would like to have some kind of confirmation that my mail was correct. 

[CumpsD]

Great, more fees limiting liquidity. 0.025 fee on shares which are going for 0.05-0.07 right now.

You're only hurting the little guy who wishes to buy 1 or 2 shares at a time with a limited mining income.

I hope this is not the final solution as to how trading is going to happen?

I'd rather offer my developer services to create you a decent automated way

Umm, 0.5% fee is OK. But 0.025BTC min fee seems quite much.

Besides that, hope there's a solution working soon.

It's not final, @Lab_Rat is looking into automated solutions.  (And the nastyfans website looks kind of cool....)

* grnbrg takes off any sort of "official" LRM hat.  My thoughts here.....

As far as the 0.025BTC fee....  I'll be honest and say that I suggested that.  Until there is an automated system that only needs to be reviewed occasionally, trades are going to have to be handled manually.  Between co-ordinating the emails, verifying signatures, re-requesting invalid signatures, hand-holding the users who don't really understand signatures, making and double-checking the changes to the master list, I figure that each transaction is going to take me 5-10 minutes, probably more.  If there is a transaction for 2 bonds at 0.08BTC each, the 0.5% fee would be 0.0008BTC, or roughly 15 cents.  To be perfectly honest, I don't want to bother with small transactions.  (I know there are people who want small transactions, and I understand their frustration.  But my time is worth more than $2 an hour.) Setting a minimum fee makes it worth my while to process trades.  $5 didn't seem like an unreasonable number.

But, as above.  The process isn't final.  Should the fee be smaller?  How small?  $2 per transaction?  Maybe a flat fee for a transaction of any number of bonds?  Again - until an automated system is set up, this will be manual....

I'm trying to foster some discussion here, and hopefully get away from the surprise changes... 

grnbrg.

Yes, I understand your reasoning because of the manual work, and it's fair, I agree. If it is temporary in nature I don't have much of a problem with it. Even not with the amounts specified.

In my personal case, it just means I'll hold off buying small bonds until the automated system is present, or until I can buy lots (unlikely to happen first :p)

[mufa23]

I started on the list, got most of it done, but I don't want to put up a list that states "Haven't Received Verification" in a column where people may or may have not sent me an email already.  I'll finish it in the morning and post a link to it.

What about this list?
I would like to have some kind of confirmation that my mail was correct. 

Same here. I am eagerly awaiting the creation of "The List".

[oldbushie]

Schindler's List? Or Santa's List?

*anxiously awaits Lab_Rat's list as well*

[||bit]

Great, more fees limiting liquidity. 0.025 fee on shares which are going for 0.05-0.07 right now.

You're only hurting the little guy who wishes to buy 1 or 2 shares at a time with a limited mining income.

I hope this is not the final solution as to how trading is going to happen?

I'd rather offer my developer services to create you a decent automated way

Umm, 0.5% fee is OK. But 0.025BTC min fee seems quite much.

Besides that, hope there's a solution working soon.

It's not final, @Lab_Rat is looking into automated solutions.  (And the nastyfans website looks kind of cool....)

* grnbrg takes off any sort of "official" LRM hat.  My thoughts here.....

As far as the 0.025BTC fee....  I'll be honest and say that I suggested that.  Until there is an automated system that only needs to be reviewed occasionally, trades are going to have to be handled manually.  Between co-ordinating the emails, verifying signatures, re-requesting invalid signatures, hand-holding the users who don't really understand signatures, making and double-checking the changes to the master list, I figure that each transaction is going to take me 5-10 minutes, probably more.  If there is a transaction for 2 bonds at 0.08BTC each, the 0.5% fee would be 0.0008BTC, or roughly 15 cents.  To be perfectly honest, I don't want to bother with small transactions.  (I know there are people who want small transactions, and I understand their frustration.  But my time is worth more than $2 an hour.) Setting a minimum fee makes it worth my while to process trades.  $5 didn't seem like an unreasonable number.

But, as above.  The process isn't final.  Should the fee be smaller?  How small?  $2 per transaction?  Maybe a flat fee for a transaction of any number of bonds?  Again - until an automated system is set up, this will be manual....

I'm trying to foster some discussion here, and hopefully get away from the surprise changes...  



grnbrg.

I don't think people should find it to be unfair if you or whoever is paid to do manual transactions for trades. Most brokerages, for example, charge a transaction fee (even if you trade one share).

A more legitimate complaint, I think, would be if fee's are taken from dividends to distribute dividends. There is already a 25% allotment of mined coins for any costs for fundamental LRM functions.

[fran2k]

There is no longer any valid trading on BitFunder.  LRM has left the building.  Any transfers made there now will not be considered valid.

@Lab_Rat and I (and possibly a couple of other trusted users that I have heard nothing about) will (probably) shortly be able to approve trades.  That manual process is being worked on.  Slightly longer term is an automated system on labratmining.com.

To be clear:  Since Lab_Rat froze the asset on BitFunder yesterday, there are no valid trades unless you have a signed message from Lab_Rat saying it happened.

grnbrg.

OK.

Great, more fees limiting liquidity. 0.025 fee on shares which are going for 0.05-0.07 right now.

You're only hurting the little guy who wishes to buy 1 or 2 shares at a time with a limited mining income.

I hope this is not the final solution as to how trading is going to happen?

I'd rather offer my developer services to create you a decent automated way

Umm, 0.5% fee is OK. But 0.025BTC min fee seems quite much.

Besides that, hope there's a solution working soon.

It's not final, @Lab_Rat is looking into automated solutions.  (And the nastyfans website looks kind of cool....)

* grnbrg takes off any sort of "official" LRM hat.  My thoughts here.....

As far as the 0.025BTC fee....  I'll be honest and say that I suggested that.  Until there is an automated system that only needs to be reviewed occasionally, trades are going to have to be handled manually.  Between co-ordinating the emails, verifying signatures, re-requesting invalid signatures, hand-holding the users who don't really understand signatures, making and double-checking the changes to the master list, I figure that each transaction is going to take me 5-10 minutes, probably more.  If there is a transaction for 2 bonds at 0.08BTC each, the 0.5% fee would be 0.0008BTC, or roughly 15 cents.  To be perfectly honest, I don't want to bother with small transactions.  (I know there are people who want small transactions, and I understand their frustration.  But my time is worth more than $2 an hour.) Setting a minimum fee makes it worth my while to process trades.  $5 didn't seem like an unreasonable number.

But, as above.  The process isn't final.  Should the fee be smaller?  How small?  $2 per transaction?  Maybe a flat fee for a transaction of any number of bonds?  Again - until an automated system is set up, this will be manual....

I'm trying to foster some discussion here, and hopefully get away from the surprise changes... 

grnbrg.

Yes, I understand your reasoning because of the manual work, and it's fair, I agree. If it is temporary in nature I don't have much of a problem with it. Even not with the amounts specified.

In my personal case, it just means I'll hold off buying small bonds until the automated system is present, or until I can buy lots (unlikely to happen first :p)

Change my mind, sounds reasonable.

[John122]

Yeah, I'm ok with that fee until an automated system is in place.
I'm also eagerly waiting for the list!

[Lab_Rat]

"The List" -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwZCh0jtSZkwNGVkRk50Wno3Q00/edit?usp=sharing

If you Failed Verification, that means one of many things.  You didn't put in the required info, you sent me an armory signature, or you did some weird stuff that I couldn't figure out.

This does not mean you can't send me another email!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you sent me an armory one, I just didn't get a chance to set up an armory.  Send me the email again as I lost track of which were armory.

Some individuals left the body of the signed message blank or added carriage returns to the end, and I figured out some of them that I should have gave up on sooner.  Those of you who failed... Just put EXACTLY  what you put in the signed message in the email and give the message signature.

[Lab_Rat]

If you go through grnbrg or I, you can make trades as of right now.  Other than that, DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT transfer bonds to someone on BitFunder and think that counts as a sale/purchase!!!!

[Delitus]

Hmm, the list says my verification e-mail was not received. However, I did send the e-mail five days ago - to the address labratATlabratmining.com. Is this not the correct e-mail address, or are some verifications still pending? Thank you.

[fractal02]

@LabRat : email sent, please confirm.

confirmed, yours and about 84 others.

Labrat or grnbrg....

From the list :

"242 1NY4JjTBJuj6EgA9BQ6bXyKdyVThrDRuQk Did Not Receive"

Come on guys...  

[Ashitank]

@LabRat : email sent, please confirm.

confirmed, yours and about 84 others.

Labrat or grnbrg....

From the list :

"242 1NY4JjTBJuj6EgA9BQ6bXyKdyVThrDRuQk Did Not Receive"

Come on...  

You gota stop humping ..... your avatar...  stop... stop. humping my screen