Starting a new FPGA mining farm/contract! Cognitive Resurrected on[Havelock]

[MPOE-PR]

Correct. This money will be placed in redundantly backed up and sufficiently secure cold storage. I hope we all learned from the PatrickHarnett incident!

Or amazingrando. Or that other guy. Or etc.

[Garr255]

Correct. This money will be placed in redundantly backed up and sufficiently secure cold storage. I hope we all learned from the PatrickHarnett incident!

Or amazingrando. Or that other guy. Or etc.

Yes. The reason I specifically bring up PatrickHarnett is because Cognitive is/was invested in it.

[MPOE-PR]

Yes. The reason I specifically bring up PatrickHarnett is because Cognitive is/was invested in it.

Ah, I missed that, my bad.

[Code_red]

does it have to be 50 percent? Seems high to me but I also see whether or not I reinvest my divs as a way of voting on whether I agree with the direction the company is taking.

[Monster Tent]

I suppose eventually Cognitive will get large enough that the retained mining income can support the growth on its own and not have to rely on additional investment that will dilute initial shareholders.  I would like to see a plan on where Garr sees Cognitive in 2-5 years.

How many weeks would it required with the 50% dividend to grow the mining company by buying ASIC from, for example, butterfly labs when they actually exist?

I would love to grow Cognitive to the point where it will be totally self sustainable and capable of expanding significantly without issuing any additional securities. This, of course, would only be possible via a growth plan.

Currently, we're producing ~10 coins weekly, so we will be growing at the rate of ~5 coins per week. I just went on the BFL order page, and it currently costs BTC9.1123 for a Jalapeno, so we could have adequate funds for expansion after only two weeks of the growth plan! The next step up is the Little SC Single, which currently costs BTC38.2374, so we would have enough funds for this in roughly two months.

Personally, I'd like to see cognitive growing faster than that. This is why I'd love to see large, share issuance induced, expansion until we get to such a point.

And to more directly answer your question, I want Cognitive to be at this point within a year. For the past months our sole reason for this lack of growth activity has been the lack of ASICs in the wild. When they come, I see Cognitive flourishing.

Edit: Actually, a viable option for immediate expansion would be to purchase FPGA Singles, and order ASIC upgrades for them via BFL. I have talked to them and they have said they will allow me to expand my ASIC order that is currently first in the cue, so we would have first priority with these boards, which is largely advantageous especially at the beginning of ASIC mining

When BFL turns out to be a scam bigger than pirate it wont look so good 

[Garr255]

does it have to be 50 percent? Seems high to me but I also see whether or not I reinvest my divs as a way of voting on whether I agree with the direction the company is taking.

I believe that 50% is a good ratio for growth while Cognitive is still relatively small. In the future, when our total hashrate is much larger, we might want to consider paying more of our revenue as dividends

When BFL turns out to be a scam bigger than pirate it wont look so good 

You know, that's definitely something to take into account. So right now we know that FPGA Singles are in the wild and do exist, so how about we buy these, and we hold bitcoins for upgrades until BFL has proven themselves to be true?

[stochastic]

You know, that's definitely something to take into account. So right now we know that FPGA Singles are in the wild and do exist, so how about we buy these, and we hold bitcoins for upgrades until BFL has proven themselves to be true?

Sounds like a good idea.  If BFL doesn't deliver in Feb like they said then growing via more FPGA is a good plan, IMO.  It would also be good to diversify FPGA platforms.

[jayson3]

A classic dilemma when a disruptive technology comes along. 
a) Wait too long to get on board, and you get left behind (see Blackberry and Nokia re smartphones)
or
b) jump in too soon, and you may get cut by the bleeding edge and die before the technology is ready for prime time. (see Myspace and Freindster)

Unless one thinks ASICs will never arrive, we have to assume FPGAs have a very short useful lifetime remaining.  From what I understand, the ASIC technology is nearly 80x as powerful as the FPGA (832MH  vs 60,000MH in the case of BFL projectons).  This means that the difficulty level will skyrocket as soon as ASICs are deployed, eventually causing a 80X increase, rendering FPGA returns 1/80 of what they are today.  Any new investment in FPGAs needs to pay-back very quickly, perhaps in just 30-90 days, before they are scrap.  Can they be bought very very cheaply now?

You currently have FPGAs making money, and you have a bet placed with BFL.  Seems the only way you might lose is if BFL fails (or is very late) and some other ASIC dominates the market before you can hold of some.  What are the chances of placing a bet on early ASIC hardware with someone else as a hedge?

[Garr255]

A classic dilemma when a disruptive technology comes along. 
a) Wait too long to get on board, and you get left behind (see Blackberry and Nokia re smartphones)
or
b) jump in too soon, and you may get cut by the bleeding edge and die before the technology is ready for prime time. (see Myspace and Freindster)

Unless one thinks ASICs will never arrive, we have to assume FPGAs have a very short useful lifetime remaining.  From what I understand, the ASIC technology is nearly 80x as powerful as the FPGA (832MH  vs 60,000MH in the case of BFL projectons).  This means that the difficulty level will skyrocket as soon as ASICs are deployed, eventually causing a 80X increase, rendering FPGA returns 1/80 of what they are today.  Any new investment in FPGAs needs to pay-back very quickly, perhaps in just 30-90 days, before they are scrap.  Can they be bought very very cheaply now?

You currently have FPGAs making money, and you have a bet placed with BFL.  Seems the only way you might lose is if BFL fails (or is very late) and some other ASIC dominates the market before you can hold of some.  What are the chances of placing a bet on early ASIC hardware with someone else as a hedge?

The way I see it, BFL FPGAs are the way to go if you can buy them below their trade-in value, and you plan to execute a trade-in. Does this make sense?

As for diversifying our "bets" on these ASIC companies (giving them funds now instead of later), I am growing hesitant of supporting this. It seems like you never know who's going to close up shop and either give you your money back or run away with it :/

[Newar]

[...] So right now we know that FPGA Singles are in the wild and do exist, so how about we buy these, and we hold bitcoins for upgrades until BFL has proven themselves to be true?

Which ones can you buy apart from BFL? Avalon is sold out, bASIC gone, ASICMINER mine only for their shareholders initially... Any others out there?

[creativex]

Avalon. Thursday. If you dare. Halloween in January.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139704.0

[Code_red]

So does growth fund start with this dividend or the next one?

[stochastic]

So does growth fund start with this dividend or the next one?

It won't happen unless there are ~2000 more votes for the motion.

[Code_red]

Vote is over and 4043 voted for and 351 voted no and 5 abstained seems like more than 70 percent to me?

[stochastic]

Vote is over and 4043 voted for and 351 voted no and 5 abstained seems like more than 70 percent to me?

If this motion passes with a 70% majority,

From what I understand there are 8614 shares outstanding.  I interpret the above quote from the motion to mean it needs a 70% majority of shareholders to vote YES for the motion to pass, and not mean that it needs 70% of voters to vote YES to pass the motion.  Voting NO or ABSTAIN or not replying to this motion is a vote for NO in this motion, IMO.

I voted YES, so your interpretation means 50% of the dividend will held Feb. 2.  In my interpretation the motion will probably fail to pass since it still needs 2000 more YES votes and the holders have had plenty of time to vote.

So which interpretation is correct Garr?

[Deprived]

Vote is over and 4043 voted for and 351 voted no and 5 abstained seems like more than 70 percent to me?

If this motion passes with a 70% majority,

From what I understand there are 8614 shares outstanding.  I interpret the above quote from the motion to mean it needs a 70% majority of shareholders to vote YES for the motion to pass, and not mean that it needs 70% of voters to vote YES to pass the motion.  Voting NO or ABSTAIN or not replying to this motion is a vote for NO in this motion, IMO.

I voted YES, so your interpretation means 50% of the dividend will held Feb. 2.  In my interpretation the motion will probably fail to pass since it still needs 2000 more YES votes and the holders have had plenty of time to vote.

So which interpretation is correct Garr?

Believe from memory burnside's default rule is majority of outstanding shares (if the contract specifices differently then I ASSUME that would be OK).

The problem of not enough votes usually arises because of a mix of voter apathy plus many investors not checking the forums/site often enough to even notice there was a motion - so votes need to be up a lot longer to get a majority.  In theory that makes sense - as a minority of shareholders shouldn't be able to change a contract just because the rest didn't notice there was even a motion.  But in practice it becomes a problem if a decent chunk of shareholders rarely if ever check here/the exchange.

Abstains work differently on BTC.CO.  They get removed from the number of available votes - so work in practice as going along with the majority vote.  So if there were 1000 shares then 501 would usually be needed to pass something (unless higher that 50% was required).  If 100 shares voted abstain then only 451 votes would be needed to show a 50%+ result (as the 100 have effectively asked to have their shares ignored in the vote).  Look at the votes on the LTC-Trading pass-through to see this in practice.

I'd also tend towards the motion not having passed - a contract change needs the support of a majority of shareholders, not the support of a minority whilst the majority didn't even express an opinion.  At same time it seems unlikely ALL those who didn't vote would vote no - so it would hardly be a grave injustice if it as considered to have passed: it would just set a precedent where a motion to do something daft could be passed with 10% of votes if it was run for 1 day and not publicised.

[burnside]

Believe from memory burnside's default rule is majority of outstanding shares (if the contract specifices differently then I ASSUME that would be OK).

I try to provide lots of numbers in terms of how people voted, but I don't really interpret the results.  It's up to the asset issuer and/or shareholders to determine what is the pass/fail scenario.

You're also correct that when you abstain, rather than counting as a NO, it removes your shares from consideration on the final approval percentages.  I figured if you want to say no, you can just say no. 

Based on what Garr stated, I'd call this one a fail.  And I agree, a week would probably be my minimum run on something trying to get 70%, with a notification and reminder post on the forums a few days before it closes to remind everyone.  (a notification emails everyone.)

Cheers.

[Deprived]

Believe from memory burnside's default rule is majority of outstanding shares (if the contract specifices differently then I ASSUME that would be OK).

I try to provide lots of numbers in terms of how people voted, but I don't really interpret the results.  It's up to the asset issuer and/or shareholders to determine what is the pass/fail scenario.

You're also correct that when you abstain, rather than counting as a NO, it removes your shares from consideration on the final approval percentages.  I figured if you want to say no, you can just say no. 

Based on what Garr stated, I'd call this one a fail.  And I agree, a week would probably be my minimum run on something trying to get 70%, with a notification and reminder post on the forums a few days before it closes to remind everyone.  (a notification emails everyone.)

Cheers.

I'd tend to think there were two seperate criteria for this one to pass (both of which needed to be met):

1.  That half or more of shareholders approve the change (50% of outstanding shares less abstains) - that should be a requirement for just about any change to a contract: a majority of investors (weighted by shares)  stating that they would like the change.
2.  Garr's own requirement of 70% that he imposed - which would only require 70% of those who voted to approve.

It's possible to meet #1 and fail #2 - if most investors vote and the results are close.
It's also possible to meet #2 but fail #1 (which happened here) - if the vote ends before a large chunk of investors have even voted.

[GeoRW]

vote should be considered as failed; such a contract change needs more shareholders to participate

[stochastic]

Believe from memory burnside's default rule is majority of outstanding shares (if the contract specifices differently then I ASSUME that would be OK).

I try to provide lots of numbers in terms of how people voted, but I don't really interpret the results.  It's up to the asset issuer and/or shareholders to determine what is the pass/fail scenario.

You're also correct that when you abstain, rather than counting as a NO, it removes your shares from consideration on the final approval percentages.  I figured if you want to say no, you can just say no. 

Based on what Garr stated, I'd call this one a fail.  And I agree, a week would probably be my minimum run on something trying to get 70%, with a notification and reminder post on the forums a few days before it closes to remind everyone.  (a notification emails everyone.)

Cheers.

Should a shareholder that does not want to vote be considered an ABSTAIN vote?

vote should be considered as failed; such a contract change needs more shareholders to participate

That is a good criteria.  A quorum of at least 50% of the shareholders need to participate and >50% of the voting participants is required to pass the motion.