Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2017, 06:12:58 PM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 914 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)  (Read 1041697 times)
vlaoou321
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:33:26 AM
 #201

OMG  SO CRAZY

Reputation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198808.new#new
Tip: 1CtNCGTyhVkp6AzRwhTsqjkWgwCqk1vSjA
1508609578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508609578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508609578
Reply with quote  #2

1508609578
Report to moderator
1508609578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508609578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508609578
Reply with quote  #2

1508609578
Report to moderator
1508609578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508609578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508609578
Reply with quote  #2

1508609578
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508609578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508609578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508609578
Reply with quote  #2

1508609578
Report to moderator
1508609578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508609578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508609578
Reply with quote  #2

1508609578
Report to moderator
1508609578
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508609578

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508609578
Reply with quote  #2

1508609578
Report to moderator
KCBitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:33:51 AM
 #202

OMG  SO CRAZY
+1111111
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
July 31, 2013, 07:36:09 AM
 #203

As long as the total number of shares on the bid side @ or above .001 is <= 7,000,000 then you are fine.  Once 7,000,000 shares have been bid on, you may end up having to bid more in order to fill your order.  As of right now we are at 4.21 million bids @ or above .001

Would love to see the order book open.  Are we really going to have to wait 16 hours+?

Ugh, what a pain.

navitatl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:41:15 AM
 #204

So this is essentially being run like an auction?
I'd have no problem with this if it was made clear in the contract from the beginning. But as it is I think they should wipe the books and stick with the plan. Or is that unrealistic...
yxxyun
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:41:51 AM
 #205

4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....

1Yxx3GinTkNHtodDpSKioBBsTYdW9zZAK
jackcc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:42:17 AM
 #206

Who manages the matter? Quickly put IPO shares
limbaugh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:42:37 AM
 #207

4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....


I bet very few will be filled at .001
Franktank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


For Science


View Profile WWW
July 31, 2013, 07:43:30 AM
 #208

So this is essentially being run like an auction?
I'd have no problem with this if it was made clear in the contract from the beginning. But as it is I think they should wipe the books and stick with the plan. Or is that unrealistic...

Any and all suggestions for "fair distribution", I will direct to burnside.
jackcc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:43:46 AM
 #209

Where TheSwede75? U.S. OR Hong Kong?
yxxyun
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 100



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:44:00 AM
 #210

4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....


I bet very few will be filled at .001


5287518 now.

1Yxx3GinTkNHtodDpSKioBBsTYdW9zZAK
Vigil
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:44:57 AM
 #211

So, placing a bid means nothing. We have to sit around and refresh our screens over and over to see how many bids are placed on top of our bid. One guy come in at the last second and bids .0010001 and gets shares over someone who placed a .001 bid when the bids started.

What is the point of a starting IPO share price if they can't necessarily be bought at that price?
jackcc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:45:08 AM
 #212

4986223 share filled @ &> 0.001
crazy.....

no pain.IS torment Satan
maxmint
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:45:41 AM
 #213

@burnside and @TheSwede75:
I really would like to get some clarifications on how this IPO is handled BEFORE the first shares are released.

My PGP-Key: 462D02D8
Verify my messages using keybase: https://keybase.io/maxmint
burnside
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008



View Profile WWW
July 31, 2013, 07:45:58 AM
 #214

I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/

It's:

1. Top-Down
2. First-In

That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information.

I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares?  In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue?

There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO.  Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.

I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.

It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?

Cheers.


I'm not a Coinbase fan -- I placed a buy order, they took the funds out of my account, then a week later the price went up and they canceled the buy and closed my account.  You've been warned.  Use a different exchange.
limbaugh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:46:50 AM
 #215



There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO.  Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.

I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.

It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?

Cheers.



Oh man a blood bath
jackcc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:47:51 AM
 #216

I think I need to address this again, because of my vague words. :/

It's:

1. Top-Down
2. First-In

That's how it would work if the IPO was executed like any other sell order - It's unclear if there are special rules in place for IPOs or not, and different people are posting conflicting information.

I mean, what happens if you have an early order at 0.001, and enough bids come out at or above 0.001001 to buy up all the shares?  In that case would it be better to cancel your order and put in a new one at a higher price, or keep your bid in order to stay at the top of the queue?

There is nothing special about the initial ask an issuer makes in their IPO.  Thus the bids will get filled auction style, first by price, then at each price by whomever got their order in soonest.

I understand there are questions around the fairness of this, but I don't have time to rewrite anything special.

It seems to me that this method of filling the ask is in the best interest of the company filling the IPO anyway?

Cheers.


You are responsible for the person in charge of this thing do? This is how the case? Auction?
Vigil
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:48:41 AM
 #217

No point in setting an IPO share price if that is how it works.
navitatl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:49:08 AM
 #218

The only way to make this fair for investors is to set a time at which those 7 million shares will hit. Anything less would be a real slap in the face to those interested in participating.
jackcc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:51:26 AM
 #219

This matter continues to cause great dissatisfaction, the responsible person must take responsibility for
grimholt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 07:52:37 AM
 #220

Can some dev's address Vbs' concerns/claims?

A 130nm chip at 4.5-5GH/s with that power draw? Roll Eyes

So, an 110nm avalon chip is 282MH/s, but you guys somehow can create a chip with bigger transistors (130nm) that is equivalent to 16-17 avalon chips?

Not only that, but you claim you've optimized the logic so much that any competing chips using similar die-sizes are left in the dust?

Size of chip die area? Operating frequency? Number of cores?

Sorry, too many red flags in the key technical aspects. Sad

According to the preliminary specs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=241033.msg2664903#msg2664903) this chip should perform better than the BFL ASIC (65 nm) while occupying even smaller silicon area. I'm a total noob when it comes to chip designing, so can't even guess if it's possible. Any idea?

BFL - 65 nm, 16 cores, 250 MH/s each, 4 GH/s total, die size 7.1 x 7.1 mm, 12.8 W total
Labcoin - 130 nm, 16 cores, 300 MH/s each, 4.8 GH/s total, die size 6.5 x 6.5 mm, 12.8 W total

By no means I don't want to make any hints to the BFL performance as a company. On the contrary, the labcoin chip has enormous potential if everything goes well.


If those are the correct specs, then I'm sorry but... LOL!!!

For that to be possible, not only each Labcoin core would have to be ~42% smaller [65/130*(6.5^2)/(7.1^2)] than each BFL core but also the Labcoin chip would magically operate at a higher frequency (300MHz vs 250MHz) while keeping the same power draw... Roll Eyes


Since there are several new companies going for the 130nm route with the excuse that manufacturing costs are much cheaper, might as well burst that bubble too: It's not. Nothing beats going 28nm now, except for the fact that the upfront NRE cost is much higher.



Also, what's the time frame here? Are we looking at 130nm being completed in Q4 2013 as the image below indicates?


YinCoin YangCoin ☯☯First Ever POS/POW Alternator! Multipool! ☯ ☯ http://yinyangpool.com/ 
Free Distribution! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623937
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 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!