[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[utens]

for me makes sense, that their are first starting on another pool.

Europe and Asia are quite far away

[1714195751]

1714195751

[1714195751]

1714195751

[1714195751]

1714195751

[1714195751]

1714195751

[1714195751]

1714195751

[Ytterbium]

Okay I barely tolerated you even though you were promoting your own put shares but this outright stupidity has forced me to ignore you.

Bye.

[Anotheranonlol]

For what concerns the hashrate, as soon as we reach stability with another batch, we will merge it on btcguild

Quoting for reference..

Obviusly some of you can not read statements.
Another batch is mining but it is still not stable so it's not merged yet with team "labcoin" on btcguild, hence the bigger payouts.

sure, it's no problem to read it, but doesn't make it true

[physalis]

People can't handle that Labcoin is succeeding.

YAAWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

Just lol

edit: oh wow, looking at your recent posts I don't think you were kidding. Unbelievable

[physalis]

For what concerns the hashrate, as soon as we reach stability with another batch, we will merge it on btcguild

Quoting for reference..

Obviusly some of you can not read statements.
Another batch is mining but it is still not stable so it's not merged yet with team "labcoin" on btcguild, hence the bigger payouts.

What do you think is so difficult about "merging" with the other account on btcguild? 
You mine, you point your miner at the worker in the pool. Creating another one if you already have your "labcoin" account is completely stupid and pointless.
Why do they do that then?
Hint: They don't.

[velacreations]

Making some progress is not success. Being late at even starting to mine, and still being less than 20% of the goal? Not success.

+1

if making small steps is now considered succeeding, BFL is a giant success.

[Ytterbium]

You think LC is doomed but you don't think the price will drop even with the exchange closing in two weeks?  SRSLY?

I made no comment on price and I don't care at all. Yet your post is focused on that.
What I care about is scammers like you.

I even said Labcoin made progress. Please just do not lie.

People can't handle that Labcoin is succeeding.

Making some progress is not success. Being late at even starting to mine, and still being less than 20% of the goal? Not success.

You seriously think I, personally, have 400Gh/s pointed at their account? All I'm doing is looking at the payments to the address and estimating a hashrate from it. I never said I was certain it was them, I specifically said it could be a desperate pumper. I just happen to think that's unlikely.

There is clearly more then 750Gh/s pointed at that address on BTCGuild, and they said they would "merge" the miner after it "stabilized", which I assume means have it pointed at an account on the labcoin team.

What is it you think I'm lying about, exactly? As far as I can tell, I'm not saying anything that isn't externally verifiable.

[Mabsark]

UPDATE:

I just woke up to the information that BTCT.CO is "winding down" (Shutting down, I haven't even had time to read the full release or catch up on the information thread).

Burnside has previously informed the team (at listing) that complete ownership registry is kept up-to-date (as per previous discussions reg. direct shares), and while this obviously is something no one was expecting I expect all shares to be accounted for.

As to alternate listing, direct share conversion and other alternatives for share holders i currently have not had time to consider this yet but of course we will start working ASAP on a solution.

I think most of us would like to see you guys move to bitfunder.

That has my vote.

Mine too.

[velacreations]

Here's an updated table, with 4 period sliding windows:

UTC             Payment       Gh/s estimate

9/23/2013  8:07   0.1         553.6089029
9/23/2013  9:07   0.1         553.6473506
9/23/2013 10:07   0.1         553.5704605
9/23/2013 11:07   0.1         596.3636364
9/23/2013 12:07   0.1         553.6473506
9/23/2013 12:47   0.12248177  638.6066053
9/23/2013 13:07   0.1         779.487881
9/23/2013 14:07   0.1         779.5600491
9/23/2013 15:07   0.15        871.9003811
9/23/2013 15:47   0.15263979  927.5528756
9/23/2013 16:17   0.29072199  1214.078822
9/23/2013 17:07   0.15        1372.026411   

UTC             Payment       Gh/s estimate
9/23/2013 18:07   0           

[Ytterbium]

UTC             Payment       Gh/s estimate
9/23/2013 18:07   0           

You remember story problems from math class, right? here's one for you?

"A bitcoin miner on btcguild has a hashrate of 740 Gh/s mining on one account. They set their manual payment threshold to 0.15 In order to get 0.15 bitcoins every hour, they would need 830 Gh/s per second

If their most recent hourly payment drops their balance to less then 0.0162651 btc, what will their next hourly payment be?"

[Ytterbium]

What is it you think I'm lying about, exactly? As far as I can tell, I'm not saying anything that isn't externally verifiable.

You're trying to say Labcoin has a particular hashrate now, where the source is extremely weak. It could be someone else mining or just variance. Any short-term estimate is simply stupid.

I said that there is a particular amount of hashrate pointed at that address, on BTCguild.  Which is clearly the case.

I said I think it's likely labcoin. I also said it could be someone else, same thing I said a couple days ago before Labcoin confirmed it's hashrate.

[dhenson]

UTC             Payment       Gh/s estimate
9/23/2013 18:07   0           

You remember story problems from math class, right? here's one for you?

"A bitcoin miner on btcguild has a hashrate of 740 Gh/s mining on one account. They set their manual payment threshold to 0.15 In order to get 0.15 bitcoins every hour, they would need 830 Gh/s per second

If their most recent hourly payment drops their balance to less then 0.0162651 btc, what will their next hourly payment be?"

12th place on BTCGUILD.COM here we come 

[velacreations]

"A bitcoin miner on btcguild has a hashrate of 740 Gh/s mining on one account. They set their manual payment threshold to 0.15 In order to get 0.15 bitcoins every hour, they would need 830 Gh/s per second

If their most recent hourly payment drops their balance to less then 0.0162651 btc, what will their next hourly payment be?"

I thought you said they had 1372 GH/s?

So, we can assume they have less than 830 GH/s?

[Ytterbium]

"A bitcoin miner on btcguild has a hashrate of 740 Gh/s mining on one account. They set their manual payment threshold to 0.15 In order to get 0.15 bitcoins every hour, they would need 830 Gh/s per second

If their most recent hourly payment drops their balance to less then 0.0162651 btc, what will their next hourly payment be?"

I thought you said they had 1372 GH/s?

So, we can assume they have less than 830 GH/s?

On that account. Which we know can't possibly be more then 750Gh/s, or it would show up on the team page.

I said the average hashrate needed to generate the payments seen to the address over the past four payment periods was 1372.026411 on 9/23/2013 17:07 UTC, and it was.

[velacreations]

On that account. Which we know can't possibly be more then 750Gh/s, or it would show up on the team page.

right, though you gave them an estimate of 1.3 TH/s previously, which is obviously not the case, or they would have had more payments by now.

So, here's the next line in your table:

UTC             Payment       Gh/s estimate
9/23/2013 18:07   0        < 830   

[superduh]

dang it, wish i was able to catch the fire sale: 0.00025

holly molly what a good deal. someone got lucky

[twentyseventy]

Pretty impressed by the price pumping here - someone must have a BIG position to unwind....

[TMAN]

dang it, wish i was able to catch the fire sale: 0.00025

holly molly what a good deal. someone got lucky

That was me selling, I didn't get a warning that I was dumping... A wel sh*t happens

[Ytterbium]

I said that there is a particular amount of hashrate pointed at that address, on BTCguild.  Which is clearly the case.

No, this is wrong. You cannot compute hashrate from such pool payouts, as they are subject to the pool's variance in finding blocks, in such a short time.

That's why it's an estimate.  

BTCguild's PPLNs payouts are pretty stable, but they keep stats on all their shifts. If you want to go back and calculate the PPS rate for all of their recent payments go ahead.

On that account. Which we know can't possibly be more then 750Gh/s, or it would show up on the team page.

right, though you gave them an estimate of 1.3 TH/s previously, which is obviously not the case, or they would have had more payments by now.

So, here's the next line in your table:

UTC             Payment       Gh/s estimate
9/23/2013 18:07   0        < 830   

Except it's a four pay period window, remember? I'm pretty sure I made that clear.   If I actually include a 0 payout at 18:07 the four-period window estimate would be 1097.202923 Gh/s.

We'll see if they get another 0.15 payment in 2 minutes

[Zakryze]

didnt they promise dividends for today?