|
radiumsoup
|
 |
October 28, 2013, 03:25:38 PM |
|
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. |
PGP fingerprint: 0x85beeabd110803b93d408b502d39b8875b282f86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mobile
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 400
Merit: 250
the sun is shining, but the ice is still slippery
|
|
October 28, 2013, 03:37:37 PM |
|
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... |
1 MoBi1eNbqh8QMuvtZjYzQGV8NEckJJYcT rep| GnuPG <3 CLAM <3 |
|
|
well.attenuated
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
|
|
October 28, 2013, 03:52:41 PM
Last edit: October 28, 2013, 04:05:34 PM by well.attenuated |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 38
Merit: 0
|
|
October 28, 2013, 04:00:07 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1025
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 28, 2013, 08:29:28 PM |
|
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
Activity: 60
Merit: 10
|
|
October 29, 2013, 12:30:52 AM |
|
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
|
|
October 29, 2013, 12:36:39 AM |
|
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: At this point, if someone has suffered a paper 90% loss, why not hold on and see if a rabbit does indeed pop up? |
PGP fingerprint: 0x85beeabd110803b93d408b502d39b8875b282f86
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
October 29, 2013, 08:39:11 AM |
|
SEC appears to be gathering info on bitcoin denominated asset issuers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg3430985#msg3430985I 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
Activity: 60
Merit: 10
|
|
October 29, 2013, 09:45:29 AM |
|
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
|
|
October 29, 2013, 10:23:10 AM |
|
SEC appears to be gathering info on bitcoin denominated asset issuers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg3430985#msg3430985I 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
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
October 29, 2013, 12:59:47 PM
Last edit: October 29, 2013, 01:13:28 PM by Puppet |
|
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.shtmlonce 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
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:10:35 PM |
|
I have some fears that polluting the blockchain with asset management may put bitcoin as a whole at risk.
Why and how? |
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:12:35 PM |
|
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
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:19:30 PM |
|
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! |
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:22:31 PM |
|
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
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:28:09 PM |
|
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? |
|
|
|
Sou
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
(Bitcoin related text here)
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:34:17 PM |
|
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? Don't encourage him, man. |
|
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:36:36 PM |
|
And what could they do about that, exactly?
They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous. Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ytterbium
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:47:19 PM |
|
And what could they do about that, exactly?
They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous. Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do. You think the SEC has control over what software people install on their computers? Bitcoin can already be used to transfer money to terrorists and drug dealers. If you think those things are less of a problem for the government then unregulated securities you're definitely smoking crack. |
|
|
|
|
Lohoris
|
|
October 29, 2013, 01:49:51 PM |
|
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? Don't encourage him, man. I'm not sure he's trolling, actually I think he isn't, that's why I'm answering  And what could they do about that, exactly?
They wouldnt be able to stop everyone from installing it obviously, but the damage that could be done to bitcoin if just running the bitcoin client is deemed illegal is enormous. Im not looking forward being put at risk of breaking laws from just about every regulator in the world and Id rather not risk finding out what exactly it is they could do. Irrelevant: they might decide to do anything for any random reason, so we shouldn't really care about what they "might" do. Anyway it's not possible to prevent colored coins from being implemented, there's much interest and they'll hopefully be sooner or later, so it's again even more irrelevant to worry about that. |
|
|
|
|
