Bitcoin Forum
October 20, 2017, 09:03:59 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 [897] 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)  (Read 1041249 times)
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
October 28, 2013, 12:32:03 PM
 #17921

Seriously, a few more weeks and I'll have my entire purchase cost of 2 btc paid for.

So in a few weeks, you will have reaped enough profit from this scam, even though that profit is paid by defrauded IPO investors, that makes you happy and we shouldnt take any action against labcoin until after you got your share of the loot.

Who's "we?"  Are you personally going to spend a few $k to fly to Shenzhen and bust some kneecaps just because you care so much about labcoin shareholders?



I'll say it again, people who are still defending Labcoin are scammers too - or accomplices if you will.

Trying to get back the unspent IPO funds is the only way original investors aren't going to lose their shirts.

Well, you've done such a convincing job of illustrating your concern for IPO shareholders.   Are you saying people who bought at 0.001 and sold at 0.00015 should be reimbursed at the expense of people who bought at 0.00015? Or just the people who people who bought at 0.001 and still hold, at the expense of people who bought late?  What about people who bought at 0.002 and hold? What about people who bought at 0.0005?

You actually think something like that is going to happen? Someone is going to sit down and figure out who deserves what based and when they bought and when they sold? If people are going to be reimbursed, it's going to be the current shareholders.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508490239
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508490239

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508490239
Reply with quote  #2

1508490239
Report to moderator
1508490239
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508490239

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508490239
Reply with quote  #2

1508490239
Report to moderator
Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


Bitgoblin


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 12:37:04 PM
 #17922

very good post.

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 01:55:55 PM
 #17923

they're stubborn either because they've given up hope altogether and have written off their losses, or because they know there's an artificial floor propping the price up for them, and as long as they see bids on the book, they know they have someone else to give their bag to when they get really desperate. (The third alternative is they think Sam's going to pull a rabbit out of his hat in the third act.)
Actually, I'm still holding shares because I am getting an amazing dividend percent after buying dirt cheap when some of my ultra-low bids I placed on btct.co got filled at during the panic sell at the end. Seriously, a few more weeks and I'll have my entire purchase cost of 2 btc paid for.
Relevant part bolded. These dividends cannot be sustained without IMMEDIATE action by Sam to increase hashrate by 30%+ per week.

By the way, (since getting back in at cryptostocks using just a little tip money) I've made over 300% flipping this (which I promptly withdrew to throw at a few more low-hanging AM shares). But no way in hell I'm buying more with the current state of things. Labcoin is so far behind the curve of broken promises, it's laughable.
pedrog
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596



View Profile
October 28, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
 #17924

they're stubborn either because they've given up hope altogether and have written off their losses, or because they know there's an artificial floor propping the price up for them, and as long as they see bids on the book, they know they have someone else to give their bag to when they get really desperate. (The third alternative is they think Sam's going to pull a rabbit out of his hat in the third act.)
Actually, I'm still holding shares because I am getting an amazing dividend percent after buying dirt cheap when some of my ultra-low bids I placed on btct.co got filled at during the panic sell at the end. Seriously, a few more weeks and I'll have my entire purchase cost of 2 btc paid for.
Relevant part bolded. These dividends cannot be sustained without IMMEDIATE action by Sam to increase hashrate by 30%+ per week.

By the way, (since getting back in at cryptostocks using just a little tip money) I've made over 300% flipping this (which I promptly withdrew to throw at a few more low-hanging AM shares). But no way in hell I'm buying more with the current state of things. Labcoin is so far behind the curve of broken promises, it's laughable.

Well, at least for you Labcoin is good business and we're all very happy for you.

radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 03:25:38 PM
 #17925

Well, at least for you Labcoin is good business and we're all very happy for you.
No, trading Labcoin is (was) good business. But that nice return was for a very small investment, unfortunately.
mobile
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 403


the sun is shining, but the ice is still slippery


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 03:37:37 PM
 #17926

At this point, if someone has suffered a paper 90% loss, why not hold on and see if a rabbit does indeed pop up?
Because it's foolish.  http://www.fpanet.org/ToolsResources/ArticlesBooksChecklists/Articles/FinancialPlanning/TheFallacyofSunkCosts/

I hate reading shi* like this because there is truth to it. Im still mourning the wind down of the stock exchanges and all the BTC  loss that came from it.

Cheers...

1MoBi1eNbqh8QMuvtZjYzQGV8NEckJJYcT rep|GnuPG <3 CLAM <3
well.attenuated
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 03:52:41 PM
 #17927

Current output of 1TH=1.29BTC/day
Output of 1TH/s in 10days = 10.29
Geometric sum of 70% of 10.29 for 35 "difficulties" = 42.5 BTC/TH/Year

Annual Daily output of 1MH/s = 0.000001290BTC
Edit: Annual = 0.0000426 BTC

Current value of LC = 0.0003

Hashrate required to repay 0.0003BTC in 1year = 7MH/s/share

10,000,000 shares of Labcoin.

Hashrate required currently for Labcoin to justify 0.0003BTC price with 1 year breakeven=
7MH*10,000,000 = 70TH/s
____________________________

10TH/sec/10,000,000 shares = 1MH/s/share
annual output of 1MH/s = 0.0000426 BTC
breakeven for 1MH/s to pay 0.0003 BTC = 7 Years
____________________________

These are given 100% Mining revenue -> DIVs
Actual payout is "70-80%" to DIVs
remaining 20-30% is retained to pay for hash upgrades
as such "future upgrades" should not be reflected in Book Value as they will be paid out from asset income.
ferskvare
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 36


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 04:00:07 PM
 #17928

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed. But at this point, the sunk cost fallacy does not apply. Why? Because the fallacy implies you are stuck in a runt, with all previous investment already gone. Here, we still have shares, and today we know that we have been recieving dividends at a steady rate. Sure, there is still doubt surrounding the validity of this project/investment, but until it goes bust/is proven a scam/does not yield dividends, it is not, per definition, sunk cost.
kingcrimson
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1023


View Profile
October 28, 2013, 08:29:28 PM
 #17929

they're stubborn either because they've given up hope altogether and have written off their losses, or because they know there's an artificial floor propping the price up for them, and as long as they see bids on the book, they know they have someone else to give their bag to when they get really desperate. (The third alternative is they think Sam's going to pull a rabbit out of his hat in the third act.)
Actually, I'm still holding shares because I am getting an amazing dividend percent after buying dirt cheap when some of my ultra-low bids I placed on btct.co got filled at during the panic sell at the end. Seriously, a few more weeks and I'll have my entire purchase cost of 2 btc paid for.
Relevant part bolded. These dividends cannot be sustained without IMMEDIATE action by Sam to increase hashrate by 30%+ per week.

By the way, (since getting back in at cryptostocks using just a little tip money) I've made over 300% flipping this (which I promptly withdrew to throw at a few more low-hanging AM shares). But no way in hell I'm buying more with the current state of things. Labcoin is so far behind the curve of broken promises, it's laughable.

AM is no haven, it is the titanic. Mining securities are a black hole, we are all just hoping to dump on the next fool, but we are the fools.
jeffshed
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 12:30:52 AM
 #17930

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed. But at this point, the sunk cost fallacy does not apply. Why? Because the fallacy implies you are stuck in a runt, with all previous investment already gone. Here, we still have shares, and today we know that we have been recieving dividends at a steady rate. Sure, there is still doubt surrounding the validity of this project/investment, but until it goes bust/is proven a scam/does not yield dividends, it is not, per definition, sunk cost.

yeah i'd have to agree. my purchase is actually going fine. for anyone that bought in at .0002 wouldn't be at that state. the divs are coming in fast.

On the other hand if your still holding from .002-.004 it obviously applies
radiumsoup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 12:36:39 AM
 #17931

A few weeks ago, I would have agreed. But at this point, the sunk cost fallacy does not apply. Why? Because the fallacy implies you are stuck in a runt, with all previous investment already gone. Here, we still have shares, and today we know that we have been recieving dividends at a steady rate. Sure, there is still doubt surrounding the validity of this project/investment, but until it goes bust/is proven a scam/does not yield dividends, it is not, per definition, sunk cost.
yeah i'd have to agree. my purchase is actually going fine. for anyone that bought in at .0002 wouldn't be at that state. the divs are coming in fast.

On the other hand if your still holding from .002-.004 it obviously applies
both you guys apparently missed the point that the sunk cost fallacy post was in response to the following, and was not meant to apply to anyone who has bought at current levels:
Quote
At this point, if someone has suffered a paper 90% loss, why not hold on and see if a rabbit does indeed pop up?
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 08:39:11 AM
 #17932

SEC appears to be gathering info on bitcoin denominated asset issuers:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg3430985#msg3430985

I realize thats for bitfunder, but who in their right minds believes they wont track the assets down to the other exchanges where most of these assets moved to since ever since BF started refusing US investors. The clock is ticking.
jeffshed
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 09:45:29 AM
 #17933

who cares about the sec! the whole world doesn't revolve around the US!!

once a blockchain solution comes about it'll be all good!
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
October 29, 2013, 10:23:10 AM
 #17934

SEC appears to be gathering info on bitcoin denominated asset issuers:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg3430985#msg3430985

I realize thats for bitfunder, but who in their right minds believes they wont track the assets down to the other exchanges where most of these assets moved to since ever since BF started refusing US investors. The clock is ticking.

Good thing the SEC doesn't have jurisdiction outside of the US then!

Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 12:59:47 PM
 #17935

who cares about the sec!

Anyone soliciting funds from US investors had better care. Thats pretty much every bitcoin asset issuer out there.
Not that the situation is any different for European or Asian markets, where very similar laws exist.
ALso: http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_crossborder.shtml

Quote
once a blockchain solution comes about it'll be all good!

That could eliminate the need for exchanges, but wouldnt help anything for asset issuers, who would still be breaking the law. On top of that, I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


Bitgoblin


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 01:10:35 PM
 #17936

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Why and how?

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 01:12:35 PM
 #17937

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Why and how?


Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.
kleeck
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
October 29, 2013, 01:19:30 PM
 #17938

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Why and how?


Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.

Which would actually be true, with colored coins. It could be a security exchange, a car dealership, a drug bizarre, you name it. It'd almost be like something that you would lend you access to the world. It would connect you with people from all over the globe who were looking to buy or sell various things. Like, an electronic commerce network. Wouldn't that be neat? Think of it as a world wide web of people connected through this technology! 


Has one of my posts enriched your life? Has it made you feel warm and fuzzy?Tips here! 1KhmwZTDqNDKxm2Fnj9QgnfHgP6g7paqtc
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
October 29, 2013, 01:22:31 PM
 #17939

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Why and how?


Because he's an idiot.

Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


Bitgoblin


View Profile
October 29, 2013, 01:28:09 PM
 #17940

I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Why and how?


Regulators might try to argue that each bitcoin client is a security exchange.
And what could they do about that, exactly?

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
Pages: « 1 ... 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 [897] 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!