|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
 |
February 25, 2012, 04:06:50 PM |
|
I'm glad you brought this up
You're correct, though we didn't forsee the butterflylabs gear as a possibility when forming the bylaws. I will be raising a motion if we choose to pursue that hardware method (based on the poll being carried out now) to alter the bylaws to increase the GHash limit significantly. The intent was to keep it close to 1 year for the loan, and we'll adjust accordingly to match that. (provided the motion passes, and I assure you as the largest current shareholder I will be voting for this motion, I want to see the syndicate succeed, and I will continue to contribute my hardware to ensure that).
In addition, most of the founding members have stated they intend to continue mining for the syndicate with their GPU rigs (And even spinning up additional GPU rigs not part of the loan and contributing them to the syndicate free of charge) to give things a boost, and ensure success and rapid growth. I know that's not defined in a hard way in the bylaws. But we really do just want this to succeed.
As I said, once the poll completes, if the BFL gear gets chosen as our course of action for the IPO funds, I'll immediately raise a motion to extend the terms of the bylaws to reflect that (based on growth forecasts adjusted to account for the BFL gear in the beginning).
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 25, 2012, 04:08:26 PM |
|
I've raised a motion after careful review, which reccomends we switch our mining power to P2Pool going forward. The motion ID is 79, and it will run until Feb 29th 2012. Please log into GLBSE and vote on the motion Motion Text: Motion to switch our mining power over to P2Pool. We think this is beneficial overall, and will result in higher mining profits. It's also inline with our goals as an organization to support Bitcoin and it's success. Please see the implementation plan at http://forum.btcsyn.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18 for further details. This poll cutoff date is Feb 29, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 25, 2012, 09:06:41 PM |
|
A few people asked if I could post my growth forecasts. Well I've revised them and updated with current data. They are posted here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Aua5nCpbs-RcdEpUeWExN1h2RFZPVWRnZjdMa25UOUEIf anyone wants to take a look. Note that with the BFL option (even using a Single) at our current rate a 0.25BTC investment in the Syndicate will result in a nearly 600% ROI after 24months. And that's assuming no other sources of revenue, and that we don't have any other "positive" developments (which I fully expect we will). The BFL Rig options both assume a loan to finance the Rig, since we won't have enough capital from the IPO alone to buy one. This isn't likely to happen right away (unless there is anyone out there who has $6KBTC kicking around) lol... So we'll likely re-visit that option once we've grown a bit. But it's interesting to see that even with a loan, we can recoup the investment remarkably quickly. Hope someone finds these interesting. |
|
|
|
|
BinaryMage
|
|
February 25, 2012, 10:44:24 PM |
|
A few people asked if I could post my growth forecasts. Well I've revised them and updated with current data. They are posted here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Aua5nCpbs-RcdEpUeWExN1h2RFZPVWRnZjdMa25UOUEIf anyone wants to take a look. Note that with the BFL option (even using a Single) at our current rate a 0.25BTC investment in the Syndicate will result in a nearly 600% ROI after 24months. And that's assuming no other sources of revenue, and that we don't have any other "positive" developments (which I fully expect we will). The BFL Rig options both assume a loan to finance the Rig, since we won't have enough capital from the IPO alone to buy one. This isn't likely to happen right away (unless there is anyone out there who has $6KBTC kicking around) lol... So we'll likely re-visit that option once we've grown a bit. But it's interesting to see that even with a loan, we can recoup the investment remarkably quickly. Hope someone finds these interesting. Quite impressive. Those seem well thought-out. The only thing I cannot find is difficulty estimates. Are you assuming a constant difficulty, and if so, what? |
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2012, 02:48:41 PM |
|
Not so much constant difficulty as "constant profitability" I'm assuming that the current profitability of bitcoin will be more or less maintained, with a drop of X% (the dropoff in dec) at that time. So if difficulty rises, price will balance it out. (to some degree we can control this by timing any purchases that rely on exchange to be at beneficial times). Trying to predict the actual rate of increase/fluctuation of difficulty is a bit futile since it seems to have reached a plateau and is now more affected by market situation, public opinion and other factors. (at least for now, I have some ideas on that). Much like the markets, it's dependant on too many "environmental" factors (such as the release of cheap fast mining hardware by a certain company lol). That's all just my opinion of course, but it's the basis for how I've done those forecasts. (and I'll likely continue to revise them, and leverage some additional tools as I can to hopefully help in making informed decisions going forward). Does that help?  |
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2012, 03:23:26 PM |
|
I've reaised a motion based on the decision to use BFL Singles for our initial wave of mining gear. Since there is no benefit to doing large bulk orders (and such orders are actually complicated further by mtgox payment method) I'm raising a motion to purchase an initial 7 BFL Single mining rigs immediately based on the funds available from the IPO so far. Then as the IPO completes, we can use the remaining funds to buy a second batch. This is important I think to get things rolling early. And to avoid possible delays due to high demand. Lastly, having them actually on-order, (and once they arrive) may help kickstart the remainder of the shares to sell quickly, allowing us to bring the IPO to a close, and begin normal operations and dividend payouts.
The motion ID is #80 and will run until tomorrow due to the high priority of this purchase. (Feb 27th 2012).
Please log into GLBSE and vote on the motion ASAP.
Motion Text:
BTCSYN Motion: Motion to purchase 7 Butterfly Labs Single Mining Rigs using capital raised so far from IPO. ($4227 USD at exchange rate at the time or purchase). Purchase will be made via MTGox USD Code. Since there is no volume discount at all offered, there is no benefit to waiting for IPO completion, we should purchase what we can now, to get the miners operating earlier, and increase our throughput now. (and to avoid potentially longer lead times due to high demand)
|
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2012, 03:24:05 PM |
|
Since the decision has been made via poll to work with BFL mining gear at least for the initial batch. This brings the unexpected side effect of possibly adding as much as 12GHash of mining power in the next month. This would essentially end the shareholder loan under the current terms. The original clause was not intended to end the loan so early. It was intended to carry a loan approximately one year. So this motion is to alter that clause to reflect a more reasonable GHash target based on current growth forecasts (50GHash).
The Motion ID is #81 and it will run until Monday Feb 27th 2012
Please log into GLBSE and Vote ASAP.
Motion Text:
BTCSYN Motion: Motion to alter bylaws to increase the MHash limit on the terms of the founder hardware loan. Since we did not forsee the availability of gear with the growth potential that the BFL gear offers, our initial wording would potentially end the founder loan early. This was not the intent of this clause. I would like to re-word this clause to reflect a more realistic number based on current growth forecasts. Based on current forecasts we can reach 50GHash in just under a year. I suggest we re-target the GHash clause in the second bullet point of paragraph 2 section 5.1 of the bylaws to read "The average mining power of hardware fully owned by the Syndicate (measured and averaged over a 30 day period) exceeds 50 GHash/s"
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
February 27, 2012, 07:50:14 PM |
|
tx id 1a19fe903bf52623df85ef4c80b3ebd0adc39c3b8f23706aaf6585f919e05d47 says that IPO funds were moved from glbse and you write that they go to gox to pay for the cards. so far so good. you missed .005 glbse fee somewhere. is the 2ac884cb91edf79f3208964ebee3b78960bf9a35ba8fc1a32c1a3cfd21bed1db source of the error? talking about this page http://www.btcsyn.com/financialthat is not in line with blockchain. how exactly is the treasurer in the loop ; ) & btw the fees glbse paid to miners for this tx were .008 (ipo funds to syndicate) & thanks for fixing the expiry date of the loaned mining power from the founding members |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 27, 2012, 08:39:14 PM |
|
Yes, sorry I forgot to mention the .005 glbse fee in my list. The web interface is rounding down to 2 decimal places for all numbers right now. I'll likely adjust that to go higher.
I had thought that forcing all 8 decimal places would look too busy when most transactions are in whole bitcoins, or bitcents. But it turns out the rounding is going to cause a problem. I'll play with the code to get it to display better.
The treasurer is aware of every transaction. As I said the error is merely a display rounding error on the web interface.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
February 27, 2012, 11:33:32 PM |
|
i'm already suspicious about myself, nitpicking for .005 btc
i call it "help to find sw errors" ; )
|
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 28, 2012, 12:36:06 AM |
|
lol, ok the difficulty spelling is fixed. Thanks for the heads up!
As for the 2 digit issue, it appears my code which is pushing the data up from the wallet is sending it as 2 decimal places. I'm looking into it. (the data in the wallet/blockchain is of course accurate, but the way the site is interpreting it is a problem). I'm looking into the problem now. Once I correct it, it should update all the transactions on the site.
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
February 28, 2012, 12:39:04 AM |
|
just a quick math exercise. there are 9100 shares ruling 11.6 GH/s of power
how much is (will be) that per share?
|
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
February 28, 2012, 01:06:44 AM |
|
I will suffer through the flash animation later today ... I know that site and google syntax for calculator emulation. I used that post as note to myself. sorry for spamming the forum. Elsewhere I posted the math to prove some other user not telling the whole truth and pimped the hash rate per stock by counting only sold shares and counting imaginary mining capacity as capacity available. dirty ol' tricks but newbies should be trained to see the difference and avoid (if possible) |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
BinaryMage
|
|
February 28, 2012, 01:20:56 AM |
|
I will suffer through the flash animation later today ... I know that site and google syntax for calculator emulation. I used that post as note to myself. sorry for spamming the forum. Elsewhere I posted the math to prove some other user not telling the whole truth and pimped the hash rate per stock by counting only sold shares and counting imaginary mining capacity as capacity available. dirty ol' tricks but newbies should be trained to see the difference and avoid (if possible) I was just giving you a hard time, no worries.  |
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
February 28, 2012, 01:23:57 AM |
|
I was just giving you a hard time, no worries. I refuse to sit next to you on the next shareholders meeting : ( |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
BinaryMage
|
|
February 28, 2012, 01:26:06 AM |
|
I was just giving you a hard time, no worries. I refuse to sit next to you on the next shareholders meeting : ( My, that was harsh. It would be more of a threat if having a physical meeting was remotely likely... |
|
|
|
|
mila
|
|
February 28, 2012, 01:43:25 AM |
|
I was just giving you a hard time, no worries. I refuse to sit next to you on the next shareholders meeting : ( My, that was harsh. It would be more of a threat if having a physical meeting was remotely likely... relax, we could sit opposite each other but on likeliness of a physical meeting, we could for sure rent a space in second life and meet there once the syndic rapes the first % |
your ad here:
|
|
|
|
Glasswalker (OP)
|
|
February 28, 2012, 03:10:35 PM |
|
Lol, I saw mila's post last night, and was going to come and reply this morning, only to see this exchange lol... Nice. And why secondlife? I could setup our own opensim server fairly easily (which still works with the secondlife client and it's opensource forks), and run our own virtual meeting space... Amusingly enough, that's not that bad of an idea lol... Anyway, I'm too busy to tackle that right now, once the syndicate is into "operational" mode, my work load will reduce. Right now lots of work in orchistrating everything, and piled on top of my work in R&D on our own FPGA mining solution, as well as sorting out a few of the other things I already had started. (and of course my full time day job) lol... But yeah I kinda like that idea. Anyway, you may resume your feigned political intrigue now (also I'll have an update later today about our first order of mining gear!) |
|
|
|
|
