Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 05:03:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 914 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)  (Read 1058520 times)
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
July 31, 2013, 02:15:23 PM
 #381

It won't make that much of a difference if the order book is wiped or not.  People are going to run the price way up either way.

1) If the order book isn't wiped there's going to be a slow run up in price as we get closer to 8:00 PM, a herd mentality might start to come into play and the actual offer price might end up being a lot higher then is really warranted. Labcoin might get a lot more cash, but they won't have anything specific to spend it on and might have trouble offering a good dividend payout ratio for their shareholders. OTOH if they can figure out how to use the money to increase their profits it could work out OK

2) If the order book is cleared, basically you're going to have everyone try to bid at the exact same moment.  It would be completely chaotic, and who the shares go too might basically be determined by when they refresh the page, and if it brings down the site that's going to completely suck.

___

If it was me, what I would do would be to re-do the prospectus and instead of a fixed, 10m shares, have the option of creating enough shares to fill all orders up to 0.001.  That way, you don't have the issue of a limited supply driving up prices artificially, and at the same time - you still get more money if more people are interested

On the other hand, between the options of keeping the current order book or starting with a blank one at exactly 8:00 PM, I would go with keeping the order book open.  Wiping the book will just result in a totally chaotic process.

1513530212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513530212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513530212
Reply with quote  #2

1513530212
Report to moderator
1513530212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513530212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513530212
Reply with quote  #2

1513530212
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513530212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513530212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513530212
Reply with quote  #2

1513530212
Report to moderator
1513530212
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513530212

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513530212
Reply with quote  #2

1513530212
Report to moderator
grimholt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 104



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:16:12 PM
 #382

@TheSwede75

As the person in charge of PR/communication at the moment, can you please address the following posts? They are important claims/questions that need to be answered so that possible investors can get a better sense of the potential of your venture.

TECHNICAL ASPECTS (needs to be addressed by a dev):

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.


ACTM wait up to six months. . LOL. . . Time is money

It is of course up to all investors to draw their own conclusions and believe what they want regarding what density (130, 110, 65, 55 or 28 nm) deliver the best ROI over time.

labcoin has made the choice to go with 130 nm as gen 1 and 65 nm as gen 2 for several reasons. Some of these reasons are NRE costs, fabrication costs, available developer resources, capital procurement and availability of Foundry shuttles and production slots.

We are certainly not claiming that 28 nm is a "bad choice" by default, but for a smaller project not wanting to be forced to raise millions of dollars and bet "everything" on a single development project or risk total failure (Bitfury did this, and it seems they were lucky enough to actually come out with positive results). Then staying with lesser density that is cheaper and offer far more flexible production options just makes sense.

Maybe worth pointing out that the graph you pasted has almost no relation to ANY ASIC manufacturer as it refers to large scale generalized production of IC. As as much as I would like to think that Labcoin shortly will be ordering $100 million dollar IC production runs I doubt that is very closely connected with reality.

The cost of a 28nm wafer is more or less the same as a 130nm wafer. The only real difference is NRE cost and having the expertise to develop on 28nm, that's the real bet.

Bitfury went full-custom standard cell and it worked OK for them, but that's the risk of going full-custom at first. You have the same risk, since your 130nm chip has a lot of sketchy specs. I would rather you commented on those, especially on the part where you claim to develop a faster and more power efficient chip than BFL (also standard cell) with transistors that have DOUBLE the size (130nm vs 65nm) and require much higher voltages (power consumption scales with the square of voltage).

The graph above is for ANY ASIC manufacturer, as it compares a Normalized Transistor Cost (wafer cost + packaging + etc) to a timeline, based on yields/wafer, die sizes and wafer cost. The production costs on new die sizes quickly go down after some time.


TIME FRAME:

Is your 130nm chip set to being finished in Q4 2013? If so, do you plan on rolling out mining hardware from other manufacturers in the mean time (as ACTM is doing)?

And you make a valid point, really. The question is timing. Look at BFL and potentially KnC. Avalon and ASICMiner went with the larger die size. ASICMiner deployed en mass first. Avalon shipped their miners first. Sure, go for the 28 nm but if it takes you 2-4 months longer to receive and deploy, do you still have the advantage? Those that chose the larger die have been mining and now have funds for more R & D. Pick your poison.

Indeed, time to market is very important (especially with bigger dies), but their 130nm delivery estimates are on Q4 2013, right where every 28nm chip maker is also going also...

The last months of 2013 are going to be pretty interesting indeed. Grin

http://labcoin.com/docs/2.jpg


YinCoin YangCoin ☯☯First Ever POS/POW Alternator! Multipool! ☯ ☯ http://yinyangpool.com/ 
Free Distribution! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623937
reactor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:16:14 PM
 #383

It seems like every IPO becomes a cash and grab with very little actual interest in the IPO itself until the massive upsell dies down.

Don't know why exchanges don't put a hard limit on #shares/buyer to ensure that people who are actually interested in LabCoin/NextIPO can get shares and not just the big fish who will flip it ten seconds later (Sandstorm?).
Ytterbium
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238



View Profile WWW
July 31, 2013, 02:17:24 PM
 #384

Then the big buyers will make multiple accounts and afterwards transfer all shares to the main account.

They can only realistically make so many accounts.  I mean, no one is going to sit there and create 100 accounts. They might be able to do it if they had time to write software but at this point?

They can just buy shares from people trying to flip the stock after it IPOs.

But, it sounds like btct.co is not going to write any new code to do things like that for this IPO.

hammurabi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:17:38 PM
 #385

So the one with the biggest pockets get his required number of shares. i.e. I want to buy 10000, put a order @ 100000 just because I have the funds, and get my 10000.
Not sure if that's very fair either.

Currently people are outbidding each other so it isn't any more different because the highest bidder wins as well.
In my proposal when you are small you get at least small amount of shares instead of nothing.

It can be combined with upper fund shares limit to make it fairer for smaller people.

This way there won't be problem with timing and the whole process can be spanned over 24h without the problem.
Which could allow TheSwede to keep his word on 16-24h time before ipo. Which he changed to 8h.

Reduction can be calculated on the fly and showed on the page so everybody can see live how things develops. Even throw in some more money.


BTC:    1Hpk4rWpP3gACJhXHn8VkeNp4usdQmfuVY
LTC:    LM5p7X9dTsWj14G2VQeJKuntVUc6GsPnDp
4ju5tice
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 111



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:20:36 PM
 #386

The shares will be released AT IPO PRICE 0.001  BTC in 12 HOURS.

Does that mean that higher than .001 BTC bids will be filled first?  Currently, no one with a bid at .001 will get any shares.

I am currently trying to reach Burnside. The best solution here is likely to halt the asset (issuer lock), cancel ALL current orders and then reopen it at 8 PM. I will need burnside's advice on this though.



Agree 100%. There was no promise of pre-IPO bidding, and I think that cancelling all the bid orders is in no way a conflicting with anything that has been said by you.

Coming from someone with a large bid higher than the IPO, this is the best, most fair option for labcoin.

Hi.
blackswan
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:24:27 PM
 #387

The shares will be released AT IPO PRICE 0.001  BTC in 12 HOURS.

Does that mean that higher than .001 BTC bids will be filled first?  Currently, no one with a bid at .001 will get any shares.

I am currently trying to reach Burnside. The best solution here is likely to halt the asset (issuer lock), cancel ALL current orders and then reopen it at 8 PM. I will need burnside's advice on this though.



Agree 100%. There was no promise of pre-IPO bidding, and I think that cancelling all the bid orders is in no way a conflicting with anything that has been said by you.

Coming from someone with a large bid higher than the IPO, this is the best, most fair option for labcoin.
+1

Live trade feeds and tools Kryptotrader.
Creative Director at Pixelmess.  Personal work:  Behance
bitcoiner49er
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 457



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:25:22 PM
 #388

Well, intentional or not, Labcoin certainly knows their IPO will go well.  Sad

Labcoin has been given a glimpse into the future, they should reward those backing them at this point with their bids.

Homo doctus is se semper divitias habet
cix888
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:26:00 PM
 #389

The shares will be released AT IPO PRICE 0.001  BTC in 12 HOURS.

Does that mean that higher than .001 BTC bids will be filled first?  Currently, no one with a bid at .001 will get any shares.

I am currently trying to reach Burnside. The best solution here is likely to halt the asset (issuer lock), cancel ALL current orders and then reopen it at 8 PM. I will need burnside's advice on this though.



Agree 100%. There was no promise of pre-IPO bidding, and I think that cancelling all the bid orders is in no way a conflicting with anything that has been said by you.

Coming from someone with a large bid higher than the IPO, this is the best, most fair option for labcoin.

-1

I vote to hit the book now :p
yuansuyi
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:26:54 PM
 #390

seems labcoin would make more money and it would be fairer to just let the market decide the price by leaving the orderbook open. with the mad rush in about 11 hours it will be mr.apache server that determines who can get shares and labcoin will make a lot less from this IPO (and more frustrated peeps).

Please tell me at least three reaons why free bidding would be fairer than the release at a fixed time with prior announcement? It isn't even about fair or not. There is a shareholder agreement and things were set in stone even before this discussion. "IPO at fixed time with enough time before release". Statements like this are binding.

I advise those who disagree to adjust and rethink their attitude instead of calling this "bad start" which it really isn't.
+1. I think it's good start to stick to IPO contract.
TaxReturn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 67


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:27:03 PM
 #391

The shares will be released AT IPO PRICE 0.001  BTC in 12 HOURS.

Does that mean that higher than .001 BTC bids will be filled first?  Currently, no one with a bid at .001 will get any shares.

I am currently trying to reach Burnside. The best solution here is likely to halt the asset (issuer lock), cancel ALL current orders and then reopen it at 8 PM. I will need burnside's advice on this though.



Agree 100%. There was no promise of pre-IPO bidding, and I think that cancelling all the bid orders is in no way a conflicting with anything that has been said by you.

Coming from someone with a large bid higher than the IPO, this is the best, most fair option for labcoin.

BTCT can barely handle the bidding right now, following that plan would mean the server comes to a screeching halt: tears, blood, whiny kids everywhere. Bad idea.
TheSwede75
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
 #392

CLARIFICATION:

Burnside is working on presenting a few possible solution to the 'problem' at hand. Before he can weight in as an impartial party I don't want to speculate. Right now, anything we say or do runs the risk of being considered unfair or biased. I sincerely hope people understand that it is in the interest of Labcoin that we handle this as well as possible for all investors.

If there is a way of doing so by not resetting order books and disbursing shares as evenly as possible and as close as possible to IPO price we will do so. We are NOT interested in gauging our investors or raising the IPO price.

"BTCT can barely handle the bidding right now, following that plan would mean the server comes to a screeching halt: tears, blood, whiny kids everywhere. Bad idea."

This is part of the reason we are relying on Ethans advice on how to proceed. The last thing we want is a technical failure or server crash.
Exocyst
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


Science!


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:31:29 PM
 #393

All this negativity regarding high bid prices is derivative of profit-seeking speculation. If you really value Labcoin and are not just profit-seeking from a quick turn on shares, then you should be happy that the increased price will put coin into the company's coffers and not into the wallets of speculators. Labcoin needs to make decisions for the good of the company, not the good of speculators. Don't try and regulate the free market.

hammurabi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:31:58 PM
 #394

To summarize the idea:

1. Halt the IPO due to technical difficulties.
2. Issue a fund type security with fixed price of 0.001 and unlimited supply.
3. Set new date for this IPO and span it across much more timeframe.
4. After time is up "mr apache" makes calculations of proportions based on how many fund-like shares a person bought.

Pros:
1. No server crash as trades are distributed over whole timeframe.
2. No unfairness, everybody has same and equal chance to get involved into this IPO.
3. If fund shares are traded for at least 24h no single time zone is punished.
4. Cheaters who plan on ddosing our beloved btct.co by creating more accounts etc won't get any advantage.

Cons:
More money needed to buy same amount of shares.


below the orginal idea:

In regular stock exchanges there is a reduction mechanism which is a bit unfair to small investors, but it works.
You put much more money to buy the shares and the amount you commited is used to calculate proportion what you get out of the whole pie.
Then the excess/unused money is returned.

Example:
Share price is 0.001
You want to buy 10000 shares. You pay 10000 * 0.001 = 10BTC

But demand is 10 times higher then supply, so what you get is:
1000 shares and return of 9000 * 0.001 = 9 BTC.

BTC:    1Hpk4rWpP3gACJhXHn8VkeNp4usdQmfuVY
LTC:    LM5p7X9dTsWj14G2VQeJKuntVUc6GsPnDp
TheSwede75
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:33:35 PM
 #395

To summarize the idea:

1. Halt the IPO due to technical difficulties.
2. Issue a fund type security with fixed price of 0.001 and unlimited supply.
3. Set new date for this IPO and span it across much more timeframe.
4. After time is up "mr apache" makes calculations of proportions based on how many fund-like shares a person bought.

Pros:
1. No server crash as trades are distributed over whole timeframe.
2. No unfairness, everybody has same and equal chance to get involved into this IPO.
3. If fund shares are traded for at least 24h no single time zone is punished.
4. Cheaters who plan on ddosing our beloved btct.co by creating more accounts etc won't get any advantage.

Cons:
More money needed to buy same amount of shares.


below the orginal idea:

In regular stock exchanges there is a reduction mechanism which is a bit unfair to small investors, but it works.
You put much more money to buy the shares and the amount you commited is used to calculate proportion what you get out of the whole pie.
Then the excess/unused money is returned.

Example:
Share price is 0.001
You want to buy 10000 shares. You pay 10000 * 0.001 = 10BTC

But demand is 10 times higher then supply, so what you get is:
1000 shares and return of 9000 * 0.001 = 9 BTC.


We are looking into several different 'ideas' on how to solve the situation fairly. Update coming.
dexX7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile WWW
July 31, 2013, 02:34:23 PM
 #396

The unfair point I see with the initial plan (and thus wipeing + fix timed start) is a possible server crash but that would have happend anyway, if there would be the same demand. The difference: now we know about it.

Thanks for providing constant information and trying to stick to the initial plan.


Can you make a statement like "potential shareholders don't miss anything, if they don't read the thread for the next x hours"?

foxykah
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:35:23 PM
 #397

The shares will be released AT IPO PRICE 0.001  BTC in 12 HOURS.

Does that mean that higher than .001 BTC bids will be filled first?  Currently, no one with a bid at .001 will get any shares.

I am currently trying to reach Burnside. The best solution here is likely to halt the asset (issuer lock), cancel ALL current orders and then reopen it at 8 PM. I will need burnside's advice on this though.



Agree 100%. There was no promise of pre-IPO bidding, and I think that cancelling all the bid orders is in no way a conflicting with anything that has been said by you.

Coming from someone with a large bid higher than the IPO, this is the best, most fair option for labcoin.

-1

I vote to hit the book now :p

+1

Wiping the book and opening it @ 8PM is not an option as BTCT won't be able to handle the load.
Wiping the book and opening it 1 hour before 8 PM is not an option as the load will be nearly as big as the one mentioned above.

Not wiping the book and letting this bloodbath continue with prices breaching the roof is not an option as this would be kind of a contract breach, as nobody will get their shares @ or even around the designated IPO price.

IMHO, after several hours, but way before the designated IPO time, the asset should be locked @ a random, unannounced time, and shares should be sold according to the bids at the time of the asset lock, this way BTCT would not suffer an unbearable load, and the "randomity" of the lock will provide fairness, as nobody will know the exact time of the lock, therefore no rush, no Apache crash, no server lag, no randomly filled orders.

Good things come to those who wait.
cix888
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:36:34 PM
 #398

To summarize the idea:

1. Halt the IPO due to technical difficulties.
2. Issue a fund type security with fixed price of 0.001 and unlimited supply.
3. Set new date for this IPO and span it across much more timeframe.
4. After time is up "mr apache" makes calculations of proportions based on how many fund-like shares a person bought.

Pros:
1. No server crash as trades are distributed over whole timeframe.
2. No unfairness, everybody has same and equal chance to get involved into this IPO.
3. If fund shares are traded for at least 24h no single time zone is punished.
4. Cheaters who plan on ddosing our beloved btct.co by creating more accounts etc won't get any advantage.

Cons:
More money needed to buy same amount of shares.


below the orginal idea:

In regular stock exchanges there is a reduction mechanism which is a bit unfair to small investors, but it works.
You put much more money to buy the shares and the amount you commited is used to calculate proportion what you get out of the whole pie.
Then the excess/unused money is returned.

Example:
Share price is 0.001
You want to buy 10000 shares. You pay 10000 * 0.001 = 10BTC

But demand is 10 times higher then supply, so what you get is:
1000 shares and return of 9000 * 0.001 = 9 BTC.


+1 that's a good Solution
zy02264
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 116



View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:36:59 PM
 #399

CLARIFICATION:

Burnside is working on presenting a few possible solution to the 'problem' at hand. Before he can weight in as an impartial party I don't want to speculate. Right now, anything we say or do runs the risk of being considered unfair or biased. I sincerely hope people understand that it is in the interest of Labcoin that we handle this as well as possible for all investors.

If there is a way of doing so by not resetting order books and disbursing shares as evenly as possible and as close as possible to IPO price we will do so. We are NOT interested in gauging our investors or raising the IPO price.

"BTCT can barely handle the bidding right now, following that plan would mean the server comes to a screeching halt: tears, blood, whiny kids everywhere. Bad idea."

This is part of the reason we are relying on Ethans advice on how to proceed. The last thing we want is a technical failure or server crash.

You did your best man! Any plan would be unfair to somebody. Just pick a plan ASAP after you guys think through. I'm sure that a lot people are keep hitting F5 (or Ctrl + R) to see your final plan. In or Out, investors will make their own decision.

Keep good working!
jackcc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


View Profile
July 31, 2013, 02:38:37 PM
 #400

CLARIFICATION:

Burnside is working on presenting a few possible solution to the 'problem' at hand. Before he can weight in as an impartial party I don't want to speculate. Right now, anything we say or do runs the risk of being considered unfair or biased. I sincerely hope people understand that it is in the interest of Labcoin that we handle this as well as possible for all investors.

If there is a way of doing so by not resetting order books and disbursing shares as evenly as possible and as close as possible to IPO price we will do so. We are NOT interested in gauging our investors or raising the IPO price.

"BTCT can barely handle the bidding right now, following that plan would mean the server comes to a screeching halt: tears, blood, whiny kids everywhere. Bad idea."

This is part of the reason we are relying on Ethans advice on how to proceed. The last thing we want is a technical failure or server crash.

You did your best man! Any plan would be unfair to somebody. Just pick a plan ASAP after you guys think through. I'm sure that a lot people are keep hitting F5 (or Ctrl + R) to see your final plan. In or Out, investors will make their own decision.

Keep good working!
agree +1111111 A lot of things is not fair
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 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 ... 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!