[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]

[kleeck]

I read the Coindesk article on 'taxable vouchers' and the impression I get is that the UK Gov don't, at this time, want to commit to classifying Bitcoin.  Once they've decided on their rules, this CIPHERTRADE exchange will either get the go ahead or not.  It rests on the toss of a coin, but either way, the new exchange offers no protection for US investors from the SEC and therefore is not a viable solution for ActM.

That is also my conclusion as well, unless there is more data to take into account that I am unaware of.

Stereotype took it upon himself to chase down the answers to questions I posed in this thread. See here:

https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg55118.html#msg55118

"Actually, there's a way around this. BuyAHash has already sought legal counsel on this issue, and there are ways to make your company compatible with the SEC I will work to advise Kate on this issue, to ensure that CipherTrade and their securities can work inside the SEC's current and future framework." -Benny

[1714885309]

1714885309

[minerpart]

Yes, it was a big favor not to have appointed me for PR guy. In anycase, unlike Streets, I would have expected compensation.

Why don't you crawl back under your rock and take your vain and quite sad little blog with you.

[somestranger]

Run the numbers. We don't want more sales, we want more mining power. The more I crunch the numbers and probable price per chip the more I'm OK with Ken's poor marketing tactics. We need just enough cash/BTC to fill our obligation to customers as well as about ~6K chips to kick us off into the ~100Th/s range.

That'd be a nice start.

Yeah the biggest reason the preorders were needed was to provide capital to order a large amount of chips. Now that we have around $2 million in preorders I'm sure a lot of chips are en route or in fabrication so the bat cave will be screaming soon enough.

[LorenzoMoney]

Let's say Ken does pull it off.

He announces loads of terramonsters under Active Mining control are mining for ActM.
And he gets an alternative exchange up and running.
And let's say each share of ActM goes for .009
After all, AsicMiner went from under a btc to 4 btc in a short time.
And let's say Bitcoin prices keep climbing and stabilize at $600 US
That would mean that if you own 10K shares of ActM, and sell it when those aforementioned events come to pass,
you will have $54,000 US.

Imagine that, selling your 10K shares of ActM and then selling the bitcoin proceeds and transferring $54,000 to your checking account.

What if you have 50,000 shares of ActM (unsecured loan)?
Then you would have $270,000 US

And, if you are one of those foolish people who has 100K of ActM shares (of unsecured loan),
you would be able to sell it all for $540,000 US.

[LorenzoMoney]

Thank you, it is always good to have fans.

Next time, I will use monosyllabic words, easier words so that you do not have such a hard time reading it.

You shouldn't be so angry, though. It is not our fault you risked so much on LabCoin.

Yes, it was a big favor not to have appointed me for PR guy. In anycase, unlike Streets, I would have expected compensation.

Why don't you crawl back under your rock and take your vain and quite sad little blog with you.

[kslaughter]

Backed by comments of HMRC.....

http://www.coindesk.com/hmrc-uk-bitcoin-exchanges-dont-have-to-register-under-money-laundering-regulations/

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-uk-hmrc-suggests-bitcoins-taxable-vouchers/

Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Wrong, Maybe, in the UK by law they are "beans" or in other words a commodity.  I think this is what they should be in the US too.  So, in the UK it would be trading contracts or a barter transaction.

[zumzero]

I read the Coindesk article on 'taxable vouchers' and the impression I get is that the UK Gov don't, at this time, want to commit to classifying Bitcoin.  Once they've decided on their rules, this CIPHERTRADE exchange will either get the go ahead or not.  It rests on the toss of a coin, but either way, the new exchange offers no protection for US investors from the SEC and therefore is not a viable solution for ActM.

That is also my conclusion as well, unless there is more data to take into account that I am unaware of.

Stereotype took it upon himself to chase down the answers to questions I posed in this thread. See here:

https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg55118.html#msg55118

"Actually, there's a way around this. BuyAHash has already sought legal counsel on this issue, and there are ways to make your company compatible with the SEC I will work to advise Kate on this issue, to ensure that CipherTrade and their securities can work inside the SEC's current and future framework." -Benny

Here's a quote from the Coindesk article;


A voucher

As Tom Gullen described on his blog, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) seems to be classifying bitcoins as vouchers, which means VAT would be due on any sales.

A 20% mark-up on bitcoin prices would make UK exchanges untenable. In addition to Gullen’s statement, an independent source told us that HMRC had given them the same classification.

We also spoke to Dr Tom Robinson of the UK-based bitcoin exchange BitPrice and consulting firm Blockchain Consulting, who recently attended the Financial Innovators Summit at 10 Downing Street.

At the time, it was said that he “left the meeting feeling largely optimistic”.

However, his subsequent communications yielded the following statement from HMRC: “Our Policy teams’ view is that these are not currency. It is our view that the provision of bitcoins is the sale of vouchers. These are likely to be ‘single purpose’ vouchers.”

-     -     -     -

So if they are vouchers, this new exchange is workable in terms of SEC acceptance, however the '20% markup on prices' will make the business 'untenable'.

I must be missing something here.  Could some kind soul put me out of my misery please? (I'd guess it could be to do with the fact that the 20% markup on prices would apply to a btc/fiat exchange and not a securities exchange?)

[kslaughter]

Colored Coins Almost Beta

[Bargraphics]

Let's say Ken does pull it off.

He announces loads of terramonsters under Active Mining control are mining for ActM.
And he gets an alternative exchange up and running.
And let's say each share of ActM goes for .009
After all, AsicMiner went from under a btc to 4 btc in a short time.
And let's say Bitcoin prices keep climbing and stabilize at $600 US
That would mean that if you own 10K shares of ActM, and sell it when those aforementioned events come to pass,
you will have $54,000 US.

Imagine that, selling your 10K shares of ActM and then selling the bitcoin proceeds and transferring $54,000 to your checking account.

What if you have 50,000 shares of ActM (unsecured loan)?
Then you would have $270,000 US

And, if you are one of those foolish people who has 100K of ActM shares (of unsecured loan),
you would be able to sell it all for $540,000 US.

For the price to reach this high, dividends would have to be enormous. If dividends are enormous why would you sell? If BTC is $600/each (in your scenario) then ActMs chips would be good for much much longer than anticipated and Ken could literally have PHs of equipment running before hitting the similar roadblock ASICMiner hit with space/power/cooling/etc...

The potential is still very good for ActM, it all relies on if this chip works at spec and how quickly eASIC can pump them out and how fact ActM can deploy them.

[stereotype]

Colored Coins Almost Beta

Mastercoin racing to get there, also..... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=324102.msg3471958#msg3471958

[minerpart]

you risked so much on LabCoin.

Are you serious? I didn't go near them.

Do you often make stuff up off the top of your head?

[LorenzoMoney]

Of course you didn't buy any LabCoin.

No need to embarrass you. You can save face.

Obviously, your investment in ActM has been enough of an embarrassment for you.

you risked so much on LabCoin.

Are you serious? I didn't go near them.

Do you often make stuff up off the top of your head?

[LorenzoMoney]

Enormous dividends? Short memory!
Prices of ActM shot up with rumors in the past without need for dividends.

Why would someone sell if dividends are good? To pay for a new motorcycle or for a new pair of cool shoes, of course.

Why would you sell?

Let's say Ken does pull it off.

He announces loads of terramonsters under Active Mining control are mining for ActM.
And he gets an alternative exchange up and running.
And let's say each share of ActM goes for .009
After all, AsicMiner went from under a btc to 4 btc in a short time.
And let's say Bitcoin prices keep climbing and stabilize at $600 US
That would mean that if you own 10K shares of ActM, and sell it when those aforementioned events come to pass,
you will have $54,000 US.

Imagine that, selling your 10K shares of ActM and then selling the bitcoin proceeds and transferring $54,000 to your checking account.

What if you have 50,000 shares of ActM (unsecured loan)?
Then you would have $270,000 US

And, if you are one of those foolish people who has 100K of ActM shares (of unsecured loan),
you would be able to sell it all for $540,000 US.

For the price to reach this high, dividends would have to be enormous. If dividends are enormous why would you sell? If BTC is $600/each (in your scenario) then ActMs chips would be good for much much longer than anticipated and Ken could literally have PHs of equipment running before hitting the similar roadblock ASICMiner hit with space/power/cooling/etc...

The potential is still very good for ActM, it all relies on if this chip works at spec and how quickly eASIC can pump them out and how fact ActM can deploy them.

[minerpart]

Wrong, Maybe, in the UK by law they are "beans" or in other words a commodity.  I think this is what they should be in the US too.  So, in the UK it would be trading contracts or a barter transaction.

You should take some UK based legal advice on that rather than the opinion of an interested party. Officially BTC's have not been classified except as 'single use vouchers' which means VAT is payable on them making a UK btc exchange impossible to run profitably.
https://www.scirra.com/blog/tom/4/bitcoins-uk-future-looks-bleak


In a tax information and impact note HMRC said: ‘VAT on single purpose face value vouchers will now become due, if applicable, when they are issued rather than when they are used to purchase goods or services. Tax will also be due on each subsequent sale of the voucher, subject to the usual rules on liability and place of supply.’
http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/articles/vat-and-vouchers-uk-announces-rule-change-ec-proposes-reform-46131


However registering a company (PLC) that can issue tradeable shares in the UK is I believe is a simple affair costing under a hundred pounds, but I've never done it.
http://www.companylawsolutions.co.uk/topics/issuing_shares.shtml

[kleeck]

Backed by comments of HMRC.....

http://www.coindesk.com/hmrc-uk-bitcoin-exchanges-dont-have-to-register-under-money-laundering-regulations/

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-uk-hmrc-suggests-bitcoins-taxable-vouchers/

Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Wrong, Maybe, in the UK by law they are "beans" or in other words a commodity.  I think this is what they should be in the US too.  So, in the UK it would be trading contracts or a barter transaction.

I'm not sure this placates the fear of the SEC where US investors are involved. Again, regardless of the individual country's law and vision of Bitcoin, the government of each party involved will dictate the legality of each parties involvement. So, regardless of how the UK views Bitcon, if I, as a US investor, want to use CipherTrade and the SEC gets wind of a US citizen investing in an unregulated security via the exchange, then the SEC is inclined to investigate the matter.

Again, if I'm wrong I'd like to see some source material that shows that this isn't how the SEC would operate in this scenario. This is nearly exactly what seems to have happened with Bitfunder. I see no reason to expect it to be avoided, short of playing ball with the SEC. (Which, btw, CipherTrade is talking about doing. See below.)

This whole line of conversation could be moot. See Benny's response here:

https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg55131.html#msg55131

[kslaughter]

Backed by comments of HMRC.....

http://www.coindesk.com/hmrc-uk-bitcoin-exchanges-dont-have-to-register-under-money-laundering-regulations/

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-uk-hmrc-suggests-bitcoins-taxable-vouchers/

Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Wrong, Maybe, in the UK by law they are "beans" or in other words a commodity.  I think this is what they should be in the US too.  So, in the UK it would be trading contracts or a barter transaction.

I'm not sure this placates the fear of the SEC where US investors are involved. Again, regardless of the individual country's law and vision of Bitcoin, the government of each party involved will dictate the legality of each parties involvement. So, regardless of how the UK views Bitcon, if I, as a US investor, want to use CipherTrade and the SEC gets wind of a US citizen investing in an unregulated security via the exchange, then the SEC is inclined to investigate the matter.

Again, if I'm wrong I'd like to see some source material that shows that this isn't how the SEC would operate in this scenario. This is nearly exactly what seems to have happened with Bitfunder. I see no reason to expect it to be avoided, short of playing ball with the SEC. (Which, btw, CipherTrade is talking about doing. See below.)

This whole line of conversation could be moot. See Benny's response here:

https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg55131.html#msg55131

Yes, it does not sound good for the UK exchange. 

It looks like we can start testing Colored Coins in next few weeks.

[kleeck]

Backed by comments of HMRC.....

http://www.coindesk.com/hmrc-uk-bitcoin-exchanges-dont-have-to-register-under-money-laundering-regulations/

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-uk-hmrc-suggests-bitcoins-taxable-vouchers/

Ok, but aren't we right back in the same boat then, for US investors? The SEC says that US investors can't do business with unregistered securities. If you do business with US residents then the SEC will come-a-knockin'. Same scenario with Bitfunder, no?

Correct me where I'm wrong.

Wrong, Maybe, in the UK by law they are "beans" or in other words a commodity.  I think this is what they should be in the US too.  So, in the UK it would be trading contracts or a barter transaction.

I'm not sure this placates the fear of the SEC where US investors are involved. Again, regardless of the individual country's law and vision of Bitcoin, the government of each party involved will dictate the legality of each parties involvement. So, regardless of how the UK views Bitcon, if I, as a US investor, want to use CipherTrade and the SEC gets wind of a US citizen investing in an unregulated security via the exchange, then the SEC is inclined to investigate the matter.

Again, if I'm wrong I'd like to see some source material that shows that this isn't how the SEC would operate in this scenario. This is nearly exactly what seems to have happened with Bitfunder. I see no reason to expect it to be avoided, short of playing ball with the SEC. (Which, btw, CipherTrade is talking about doing. See below.)

This whole line of conversation could be moot. See Benny's response here:

https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.msg55131.html#msg55131

Yes, it does not sound good for the UK exchange. 

It looks like we can start testing Colored Coins in next few weeks.

That sounds promising. Decentralized is the best route, however if CipherTrade does find some reasonable way to list that is in compliance with the SEC I would not be opposed to that option.

[drawingthesun]

Yes, it does not sound good for the UK exchange. 

It looks like we can start testing Colored Coins in next few weeks.

What options do we have to trade shares in the next few weeks? Are we allowed to do direct share transfers on the forum?

[minerpart]

Yes, it does not sound good for the UK exchange.  

It looks like we can start testing Colored Coins in next few weeks.

What options do we have to trade shares in the next few weeks? Are we allowed to do direct share transfers on the forum?

Ken is not a stockbroker and he can't be held responsible should one of these forum transfers go wrong. You need to wait for an exchange to open, like we all do.

[auto2nr1]

So let's play some speculation.
What if Ken really does come through and within a month or so, or at least not too long after the competition, he begins mining TerraHash speeds and puts all the ordered chips onto boards and mines away, and what if, additionally, Ken manages to find a viable exchange to trade ActM shares.

Isn't that what we all want? These two things: 1) A viable exchange to trade shares and 2) for Ken to succeed in producing miners and to begin mining large scale. And, what do you want? For Ken to reveal as much as he can about a viable exchange and definite dates for producing those miners.

But, back to the top, What if Ken succeeds with 1 and 2? Then Active Mining shares will shoot up in value and people who hold shares will make loads of money from mining dividends and from the sale of shares.

Oh, by the way, we all do not really own shares of a company. We have no voting rights and no ownership of the company. What we have are shares of unsecured loans. Yes, my friends, yes, my Brother in Satoshi, we do not actually own stock. We share in shares of a great big unsubstantiated loan.

Let us just hope and Pray to Lord Satoshi that Ken succeeds with both 1 and 2 above.

+1  Hoping that Ken succeeds in these two things.