-

[bittymitty]

I have a great idea! Thank me later. LR should keep withholding dividends to pay for new hardware until the end of 2014...maybe even 2015. Think of how much hashing power your bonds will be representing. By that time, you will realize the genius of it, and refuse dividends in lieu of more hardware. It's tough being a mastermind sometimes...again, thank me later.   

If we do this we could hit over 50% of the network and would have won Bitcoin.  I think you can rename bitcoin if you get over 51% of the network, we could change its name to lab-coin.

[M31]

Smells like a lot of FUD unnecessarily brewing!

My thoughts are that LR is obviously busy as hell or he'd have more time to spend here with the cranky mob so take that as a good sign!  Didn't he say he had a bunch of hardware arriving?  I can imagine that takes a ton of time to set up and tweak. 

I'd actually like to see, once our dividends return to normal after any 2-week periods, a great increase in the amount of BTC we reinvest.  I think a percentage of the 25% deduction is not enough at this stage, and we need to get a leg up as soon as possible despite the increase in BTC value.

Might I suggest 50%?

LR can take the same as he does now for management, so that wouldn't change, but we could crank up the hardware buying power by quite a lot.

Things are changing fast in the mining world, and there may be a tipping point at which we cannot keep up - I don't know if it's 25%, 50% or even more, but I'd rather stay ahead than not.

Thoughts?

[bittymitty]

Smells like a lot of FUD unnecessarily brewing!

My thoughts are that LR is obviously busy as hell or he'd have more time to spend here with the cranky mob so take that as a good sign!  Didn't he say he had a bunch of hardware arriving?  I can imagine that takes a ton of time to set up and tweak. 

I'd actually like to see, once our dividends return to normal after any 2-week periods, a great increase in the amount of BTC we reinvest.  I think a percentage of the 25% deduction is not enough at this stage, and we need to get a leg up as soon as possible despite the increase in BTC value.

Might I suggest 50%?

LR can take the same as he does now for management, so that wouldn't change, but we could crank up the hardware buying power by quite a lot.

Things are changing fast in the mining world, and there may be a tipping point at which we cannot keep up - I don't know if it's 25%, 50% or even more, but I'd rather stay ahead than not.

Thoughts?

This has already been talked about in the early days.  The expansion plan involves Labrat selling more bonds, he has only sold half of the amount planned so far.  I don't think investors taking a dividend haircut would go down too well

[Ashitank]

Smells like a lot of FUD unnecessarily brewing!

My thoughts are that LR is obviously busy as hell or he'd have more time to spend here with the cranky mob so take that as a good sign!  Didn't he say he had a bunch of hardware arriving?  I can imagine that takes a ton of time to set up and tweak.  

I'd actually like to see, once our dividends return to normal after any 2-week periods, a great increase in the amount of BTC we reinvest.  I think a percentage of the 25% deduction is not enough at this stage, and we need to get a leg up as soon as possible despite the increase in BTC value.

Might I suggest 50%?

LR can take the same as he does now for management, so that wouldn't change, but we could crank up the hardware buying power by quite a lot.

Things are changing fast in the mining world, and there may be a tipping point at which we cannot keep up - I don't know if it's 25%, 50% or even more, but I'd rather stay ahead than not.

Thoughts?

We all are asking serious & honest questions here so no FUD is being spread. Please read through post above many of the investors have doubts which needs answering. Also some posters get carried away , Lab_rat is not a scam but lack of clarity & info from Lab_rat is root cause of all the un-rest here, If I was investing in LRM as Hobby of earning BTC then I would not have bothered but that's not the case.

No dis-respect but WTF! 50%  I hope you have read the post which shows how much of initial IPO price has been paid back to investors in dividends.

[maqifrnswa]

Smells like a lot of FUD unnecessarily brewing!

My thoughts are that LR is obviously busy as hell or he'd have more time to spend here with the cranky mob so take that as a good sign!  Didn't he say he had a bunch of hardware arriving?  I can imagine that takes a ton of time to set up and tweak. 

I'd actually like to see, once our dividends return to normal after any 2-week periods, a great increase in the amount of BTC we reinvest.  I think a percentage of the 25% deduction is not enough at this stage, and we need to get a leg up as soon as possible despite the increase in BTC value.

Might I suggest 50%?

LR can take the same as he does now for management, so that wouldn't change, but we could crank up the hardware buying power by quite a lot.

Things are changing fast in the mining world, and there may be a tipping point at which we cannot keep up - I don't know if it's 25%, 50% or even more, but I'd rather stay ahead than not.

Thoughts?

where are we on the laffer curve? (i.e., what is the theoretical justification of 50% versus 25%?) I'd be for it if LR can mathematically argue it. But he doesn't have to argue it, he can either follow through with what he promised investors (25%) or just say screw it and do whatever he wants anyways. There is no accounting, he can re-appropriate whatever he wants where ever and just keep on not telling us.

[||bit]

Is there a list of people wanting to buy/sell yet?

[grnbrg]

Is there a list of people wanting to buy/sell yet?

There's a whole thread for it.....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320578.0



grnbrg.

[M31]

Smells like a lot of FUD unnecessarily brewing!

My thoughts are that LR is obviously busy as hell or he'd have more time to spend here with the cranky mob so take that as a good sign!  Didn't he say he had a bunch of hardware arriving?  I can imagine that takes a ton of time to set up and tweak. 

I'd actually like to see, once our dividends return to normal after any 2-week periods, a great increase in the amount of BTC we reinvest.  I think a percentage of the 25% deduction is not enough at this stage, and we need to get a leg up as soon as possible despite the increase in BTC value.

Might I suggest 50%?

LR can take the same as he does now for management, so that wouldn't change, but we could crank up the hardware buying power by quite a lot.

Things are changing fast in the mining world, and there may be a tipping point at which we cannot keep up - I don't know if it's 25%, 50% or even more, but I'd rather stay ahead than not.

Thoughts?

where are we on the laffer curve? (i.e., what is the theoretical justification of 50% versus 25%?) I'd be for it if LR can mathematically argue it. But he doesn't have to argue it, he can either follow through with what he promised investors (25%) or just say screw it and do whatever he wants anyways. There is no accounting, he can re-appropriate whatever he wants where ever and just keep on not telling us.

That's the question... what is the point of optimal efficiency in terms of reinvestment?  Too little and we have a mining box that slowly loses capacity as difficulty moves ahead of it, too much and we never get anything back.  I don't have a good answer, and I don't think anyone could show a good answer mathematically either (due to the unknowns).  We have to make best guesses based on the information we have, which isn't much to go on.

Sorry, this doesn't amount to much of an explanation. 

I do know that once LR points the miners at us, and we get our 75% of the new hashing rate, the attitudes will change around here pretty fast.  Almost there... Almost there...  Maybe then we can reconsider increasing reinvestment, or maybe it's already optimal with the 2-weeks of dedicated mining up front.

[M31]

Smells like a lot of FUD unnecessarily brewing!

My thoughts are that LR is obviously busy as hell or he'd have more time to spend here with the cranky mob so take that as a good sign!  Didn't he say he had a bunch of hardware arriving?  I can imagine that takes a ton of time to set up and tweak.  

I'd actually like to see, once our dividends return to normal after any 2-week periods, a great increase in the amount of BTC we reinvest.  I think a percentage of the 25% deduction is not enough at this stage, and we need to get a leg up as soon as possible despite the increase in BTC value.

Might I suggest 50%?

LR can take the same as he does now for management, so that wouldn't change, but we could crank up the hardware buying power by quite a lot.

Things are changing fast in the mining world, and there may be a tipping point at which we cannot keep up - I don't know if it's 25%, 50% or even more, but I'd rather stay ahead than not.

Thoughts?

We all are asking serious & honest questions here so no FUD is being spread. Please read through post above many of the investors have doubts which needs answering. Also some posters get carried away , Lab_rat is not a scam but lack of clarity & info from Lab_rat is root cause of all the un-rest here, If I was investing in LRM as Hobby of earning BTC then I would not have bothered but that's not the case.

No dis-respect but WTF! 50%  I hope you have read the post which shows how much of initial IPO price has been paid back to investors in dividends.

WTF! 50% indeed  I'm not sure where the best return % is, but think it should be a little higher than it is.  I do find it an interesting question though and would love to hear from those with a greater understanding of the issue.  I suppose any individual could do a personal version of this by simply reinvesting more.

I agree with you re LR.  He's definitely not a scammer in the slightest.  He's quite the opposite and I too look forward very much to some updates just as much as everyone else, but in the meantime I'm content to wait without worry.  I just don't understand why people assume the worst when there is little info.  We have all the basic facts and know what LR is up to -- why are people getting so wound up over not hearing from him?  They will, and it will be good news.  BTW, this is not a hobby for me either; I really need things to work out

[||bit]

Is there a list of people wanting to buy/sell yet?

There's a whole thread for it.....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320578.0



grnbrg.

Thanks.

From there. Rule #6 reads [with my bold emphasis]: "6.  Buyer sends BTC to the escrow address.  Once the coins are received in escrow, the manual trading fee of 0.5% or 0.025BTC, whichever is greater, will be deducted from the escrow address."

Just to put this in perspective. BTC0.025 = $10 ... That seems a fair deal for the labor to verify a transaction.

Why would LR et.al. charge more for larger buy/sell transactions? We should be of one mind on this, and working together more - especially for those that actually funded the company. Isn't that profiteering in the face other's difficulty? With this fee structure, LR et.al. would have no great incentive to find an automated & free solution. I apologize if this sounds trivial, but the principle matters. Plus, I saw some hefty transactions on the asks on there (e.g. 500@0.20). If that got filled, LR or whoever would be paid  equivalent of $200 to do for that person no more than was done for another at a cost of $10. Just saying - principle matters. Unless, the escrow person see's it as a risk on his part to handle that amount of bitcoin.

Regarding escrow. It might be late in the game to comment on this (not sure if suggestions were taken), but instead of doing escrow, why not just use the blockchain to verify the transaction between the two parties (buyer and seller)? That would cut out a step, and reduce the risk of the escrow handler sending the wrong amount or sending to the wrong address. All liability would rest on the buyer & seller. All you would have to do is verify a message & the blockchain, then update the ledger/list if those pass verification.

[||bit]

JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:

29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com

If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.  

[CumpsD]

Is there a list of people wanting to buy/sell yet?

There's a whole thread for it.....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320578.0



grnbrg.

Thanks.

From there. Rule #6 reads [with my bold emphasis]: "6.  Buyer sends BTC to the escrow address.  Once the coins are received in escrow, the manual trading fee of 0.5% or 0.025BTC, whichever is greater, will be deducted from the escrow address."

Just to put this in perspective. BTC0.025 = $10 ... That seems a fair deal for the labor to verify a transaction.

Why would LR et.al. charge more for larger buy/sell transactions? We should be of one mind on this, and working together more - especially for those that actually funded the company. Isn't that profiteering in the face other's difficulty? With this fee structure, LR et.al. would have no great incentive to find an automated & free solution. I apologize if this sounds trivial, but the principle matters. Plus, I saw some hefty transactions on the asks on there (e.g. 500@0.20). If that got filled, LR or whoever would be paid  equivalent of $200 to do for that person no more than was done for another at a cost of $10. Just saying - principle matters. Unless, the escrow person see's it as a risk on his part to handle that amount of bitcoin.

Regarding escrow. It might be late in the game to comment on this (not sure if suggestions were taken), but instead of doing escrow, why not just use the blockchain to verify the transaction between the two parties (buyer and seller)? That would cut out a step, and reduce the risk of the escrow handler sending the wrong amount or sending to the wrong address. All liability would rest on the buyer & seller. All you would have to do is verify a message & the blockchain, then update the ledger/list if those pass verification.

It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price

[f4tal1ty]

Today I could finally verify my Labratmining assets from Bitfunder, after there have been some problems with the adress assignment.

So how does this forum-based asset management, away from bitfunder work, will I receive the backdated payouts from the past weeks and the coming ones via the verified adress?

Is there a list of the past dividends and an estimation on the coming ones?

I ve seen there is a trading thread for Labrat bonds, I guess that's just a transitional solution, are there already any plans for a trading platform in future?

[grnbrg]

Just to put this in perspective. BTC0.025 = $10 ... That seems a fair deal for the labor to verify a transaction.

Why would LR et.al. charge more for larger buy/sell transactions? We should be of one mind on this, and working together more - especially for those that actually funded the company. Isn't that profiteering in the face other's difficulty? With this fee structure, LR et.al. would have no great incentive to find an automated & free solution. I apologize if this sounds trivial, but the principle matters. Plus, I saw some hefty transactions on the asks on there (e.g. 500@0.20). If that got filled, LR or whoever would be paid  equivalent of $200 to do for that person no more than was done for another at a cost of $10. Just saying - principle matters. Unless, the escrow person see's it as a risk on his part to handle that amount of bitcoin.

Regarding escrow. It might be late in the game to comment on this (not sure if suggestions were taken), but instead of doing escrow, why not just use the blockchain to verify the transaction between the two parties (buyer and seller)? That would cut out a step, and reduce the risk of the escrow handler sending the wrong amount or sending to the wrong address. All liability would rest on the buyer & seller. All you would have to do is verify a message & the blockchain, then update the ledger/list if those pass verification.

Good points.  It's worth keeping in mind that this was set up in the distant past, when BTC was only worth around $200....    I think I will change the fee, and just do a flat 0.025BTC transaction.  Transactions take more time than I expected, but BTC has also gone up in value.  It balances out.  For information, most transactions seem to take 6-8 emails, spread out over a day or so...

And as far as escrow, it just seems to be the easiest approach for 2 people who don't really know each other.  With that said, as long as the two parties can agree on a payment system that can be verified, I don't mind.


grnbrg.

[grnbrg]

It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price

While I understand that frustration, that is exactly the intent of the minimum fee.  Verifying and registering a trade is currently a manual and fairly labour intensive process, and it's not worth my time to oversee trades for a $0.25 fee.

Lab_Rat has indicated he is looking into an automated trading solution of some sort, which will have a much lower fee for small trades.  I don't have an ETA.



grnbrg.

[ICantThinkOfaName]

JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:

29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com

If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.  

http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%. 

[Bargraphics]

JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:

29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com

If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.  

http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%. 

Eligius has a bot that is usually pretty accurate as we get closer to the Jump Date.

Current Blocks: 269749
Current Difficulty: 510929738.01615
Next Difficulty At Block: 270143
Next Difficulty In: 394 blocks
Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes, and 0 seconds
Next Difficulty Estimate: 589022083.29066402
Estimated Percent Change: 15.2843609334

[Frankthechicken]

JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:

29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com

If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.  

http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%. 

Eligius has a bot that is usually pretty accurate as we get closer to the Jump Date.

Current Blocks: 269749
Current Difficulty: 510929738.01615
Next Difficulty At Block: 270143
Next Difficulty In: 394 blocks
Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes, and 0 seconds
Next Difficulty Estimate: 589022083.29066402
Estimated Percent Change: 15.2843609334

A welcome break.  Hmm... the trend would indicate the next difficulty jump will be 0% then -15% ;-) 

Hey, one can dream.

[Doff]

It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price

While I understand that frustration, that is exactly the intent of the minimum fee.  Verifying and registering a trade is currently a manual and fairly labour intensive process, and it's not worth my time to oversee trades for a $0.25 fee.

Lab_Rat has indicated he is looking into an automated trading solution of some sort, which will have a much lower fee for small trades.  I don't have an ETA.



grnbrg.

If this is the case and we get an automated trading solution there should be 0 fee for a long while until things get back to normal. The fee just reduces the already low liquidity.

[BKM]

It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price

While I understand that frustration, that is exactly the intent of the minimum fee.  Verifying and registering a trade is currently a manual and fairly labour intensive process, and it's not worth my time to oversee trades for a $0.25 fee.

Lab_Rat has indicated he is looking into an automated trading solution of some sort, which will have a much lower fee for small trades.  I don't have an ETA.



grnbrg.

Just maybe the Bitfunder dude will give the backend to LR as some form of recompense for the massive FUBAR - that'd be great.

In fact, perhaps he could license the setup to other companies so they can manage their own structures. I think this is a deficit for private companies at the moment and some form of donation based semi open sourced licensed config like Bitfunder would help a lot