Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2018, 02:23:31 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [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 ... 194 »
  Print  
Author Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012)  (Read 923977 times)
Bastone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 07:25:09 PM
 #261

@Bastone

Sorry, I was rewording that last paragraph when you posted your response just now.

As for your request, I don't understand why the OP or the GLBSE contract should be changed to state anything differently, other than clarification on the subject of operating costs (currently, it is quite vague)



I looked around on the market for equivalent of 20MH/s worth of "mining bond" or similar. There aren't really any out there with ownership in the company and/or voting rights like this. Also, price checked various ones that state at or around 1 MH/s (since we're currently operating closer to that)

Maybe prices have changed in the past 2 months I will look again and check how many are actually DELIVERING DIVIDENDS ant what the rates are. (and will also consider liquidity / rate at which they are being traded, etc.)

Pretty sure I WILL NOT be dumping all my shares of nasty mining in favor of something else, and at most will diversify into other mining-type companies and contracts. The business plan here was the best one around when I bought my first share a few weeks ago (more than a month at this point, perhaps two?)

Ah whatever, we're already getting more transparency and better returns here than with most traded companies (which are typically traded on fiat currency, not bitcoin.)

This asset currently pays less then 0.5 Mh/s per share, for awhile it didn't pay at all.  Most ASIC companies will be paying 100+ MH/s for the same value as this, which only guarantees 20 Mh/s per share.

Look at Gigamining for example its been paying 5Mh/s per share for a long time, and will upgrade to 100 Mh/s (Giga is first in line too for ASIC).  It trades for approximately the same price as NASTY, that is insanity.  Either Gigamining is radically undervalued, or this is radically overvalued.  

1534602211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534602211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534602211
Reply with quote  #2

1534602211
Report to moderator
1534602211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534602211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534602211
Reply with quote  #2

1534602211
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534602211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534602211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534602211
Reply with quote  #2

1534602211
Report to moderator
1534602211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534602211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534602211
Reply with quote  #2

1534602211
Report to moderator
1534602211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534602211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534602211
Reply with quote  #2

1534602211
Report to moderator
kuzetsa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 08:44:12 PM
 #262

Wasn't my imagination. The math REALLY DOESN'T add up. The operating costs are being paid out of pocket currently.
From what I understood, there is no company pocket, only OgNasty's pocket.

We have "Ownership of Mining Equipment", not of any pocket.

lol indeed.

I was just quoting ognasty, and as such "out of pocket" wasn't my own wording.

Ideally it is true, though sometimes it's not that simple, and someone uses their own "out of pocket" funding to settle things in lieu of a more formalized and structured approach where the numbers all add up and the budget is truely self-sustaining... It's the kind of thing a lot of small businesses and start-ups do / quite common for one or more ranking officers or founding members to put their own money in.



@OGNasty:

Thanks for telling me what was going on / I really appreciate knowing now that this is (currently) the case for electricity and other operating costs. Sorry for posting a quote of you saying as much without asking first. I just figure other people would appreciate knowing what was going on with our operating costs at this stage.

Please don't silently do stuff like this. While I appreciate your initially using your own money to pay for the electricity budget, it still looks awfully suspicious when the business plan is vague in such areas.

(nobody here wants to see another impossible business model suddenly falling apart because it was all smoke and mirrors, or underhanded undisclosed shady dealings or other types of mysterious activity lol this is nothing like that. probably... I'd rather not let my imagination run too far though, or I really might say something paranoid)
Timbo925
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 352
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 03, 2012, 08:53:05 PM
 #263


This asset currently pays less then 0.5 Mh/s per share, for awhile it didn't pay at all.  Most ASIC companies will be paying 100+ MH/s for the same value as this, which only guarantees 20 Mh/s per share.

Look at Gigamining for example its been paying 5Mh/s per share for a long time, and will upgrade to 100 Mh/s (Giga is first in line too for ASIC).  It trades for approximately the same price as NASTY, that is insanity.  Either Gigamining is radically undervalued, or this is radically overvalued.  



Ok I got this form the gigamining topic.

Code:
                GIGAMINING   TERAMINING
Total Gh/s      200Gh        5,400Gh
Mh/s per bond   5Mh/s        9Mh/s
Total bonds     40,000       600,000

Each gigamining share will get you 4 terramining shares. At the current rate for 1BTC you'll get 65Mh/s/BTC
NASTY got 648,832MH/s ordered and a total of 25000 shares. At the current rate 1BTC will get you 54Mh/s/BTC

Also it isn't sure how much shares will be sold when all the equipment is working so the actual Mh/s might be higher.
Not such a big difference imo.

Graphic Designer for hire (Ads/Logos/Banners...)   0.25 BTC  --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78924.msg878727#msg878727
BTC address: 1TimbojaydbZs1x5ptPVovsb9rATH3JSU
Bastone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 09:08:04 PM
 #264


This asset currently pays less then 0.5 Mh/s per share, for awhile it didn't pay at all.  Most ASIC companies will be paying 100+ MH/s for the same value as this, which only guarantees 20 Mh/s per share.

Look at Gigamining for example its been paying 5Mh/s per share for a long time, and will upgrade to 100 Mh/s (Giga is first in line too for ASIC).  It trades for approximately the same price as NASTY, that is insanity.  Either Gigamining is radically undervalued, or this is radically overvalued.  



Ok I got this form the gigamining topic.

Code:
               GIGAMINING   TERAMINING
Total Gh/s      200Gh        5,400Gh
Mh/s per bond   5Mh/s        9Mh/s
Total bonds     40,000       600,000

Each gigamining share will get you 4 terramining shares. At the current rate for 1BTC you'll get 65Mh/s/BTC
NASTY got 648,832MH/s ordered and a total of 25000 shares. At the current rate 1BTC will get you 54Mh/s/BTC

Also it isn't sure how much shares will be sold when all the equipment is working so the actual Mh/s might be higher.
Not such a big difference imo.


Nasty won't upgrade the OP or contract to reflect 648Gh/s / 25000 = 25.9 Mh/s per share.  It still remains 20 Mh/s per share.  Until the OP or contract change Nasty isn't obligated to pay more.

Last Nasty share sold for .49 BTC  

1 BTC = 20MH/s/.49 = 40.8 MH/s per BTC

Giga is 15 shares of Tera with paid upgrade of .29 BTC.  135 MH/s per upgraded share.

Last Giga share sold for .5598 BTC

1 BTC = 135 MH/s/(.5598+.29) = 158.8 MH/s per BTC

Giga is 158.8/40.8= 3.89 times better deal then Nasty, if you go by the contracts and OP's.
Timbo925
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 352
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 03, 2012, 09:24:14 PM
 #265

Hmm I stand corrected  Smiley

Only problem for me personally is this.

Quote
The right to the upgrade is proportional to the number of GIGAMINING bonds held. The PAID UPGRADE is not transferrable.

So if I buy 100 giga shares I won't be sure I'll have the option to use the paid upgrade. (or did I misunderstood that?)

Graphic Designer for hire (Ads/Logos/Banners...)   0.25 BTC  --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78924.msg878727#msg878727
BTC address: 1TimbojaydbZs1x5ptPVovsb9rATH3JSU
Bastone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 09:31:06 PM
 #266

Hmm I stand corrected  Smiley

Only problem for me personally is this.

Quote
The right to the upgrade is proportional to the number of GIGAMINING bonds held. The PAID UPGRADE is not transferrable.

So if I buy 100 giga shares I won't be sure I'll have the option to use the paid upgrade. (or did I misunderstood that?)

I think it means that once you pay for the upgrade you can't transfer it to a different gigamining bond holder, but ask giga, I'm sure he'll clarify.
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1309


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile WWW
October 03, 2012, 09:33:02 PM
 #267

I just thought I'd point out that gigamining shares are not backed by enough hardware to provide the claimed hashing power per bond. Gigamining shareholders are buying debt that is tied to difficulty, nothing more. NASTY is a real mining operation and shareholders own the equipment that backs the dividend.

As far as Bastone's constant digs at why I don't want to put up a motion to alter the contract. I underpromise and overdeliver. So while NASTY shares will be backed by more shareholder owned hashing power than claimed, gigamining is backed by less hashing power than is listed in the MH/s per share claim and shareholders don't own it.

Bastone
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 29
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 09:40:32 PM
 #268

I underpromise and overdeliver. So while NASTY shares will be backed by more shareholder owned hashing power than claimed, gigamining is backed by less hashing power than is listed in the MH/s per share claim and shareholders don't own it.

So far you haven't delivered anything except a few token dividends.  Time will tell if you overdeliver.

Giga has a proven track record of delivering exactly as promised for 6 months.

What exactly happened with your dividend on September 15th?  Why was it so low?  Overdelivered?
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1309


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile WWW
October 03, 2012, 09:48:45 PM
 #269

Giga has a proven track record of delivering exactly as promised for 6 months.

What exactly happened with your dividend on September 15th?  Why was it so low?  Overdelivered?

1) I've been delivering regular dividends on GLBSE far longer than Giga.
2) This is a real mining operation. The 9/15 dividend was a result of real world factors.

DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 03, 2012, 10:31:32 PM
 #270

Disclaimer: I bought Nasty shares last week below 0.40

Gigamining is paying out 0.0123 per share dividend
Nasty is paying out 0.002027 per share dividend

Adjusting for share price, Giga pays 5.5 - 6 times as much dividend per share as Nasty

Nasty has a 246 week payback time (shareprice / weekly dividend)
Gigamining has a 45 week payback time (shareprice / weekly dividend)

It doesn't really matter how much they state the mining contract is worth... these are the cold hard facts

Why did I buy Nasty and not Gigamining would you ask....

1. I did not do the comparison until now  Shocked (How bad is that lol)
2. I don't like mining bonds as they will decrease in value when difficulty goes up, no matter what (hence I did not compare the 2)
3. I do like the fact that Nasty is backed by hardware
4. I am also invested in ASICMINER, in my mind either ASICMINER or BFL is first to get ASICs hashing, so I needed BFL exposure to offset the ASICMINER risk

That's my reasoning... I am sure others will have other reasoning for buying or not buying Nasty shares
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2012, 05:02:50 AM
 #271

1. I did not do the comparison until now  Shocked (How bad is that lol)
2. I don't like mining bonds as they will decrease in value when difficulty goes up, no matter what (hence I did not compare the 2)
3. I do like the fact that Nasty is backed by hardware
4. I am also invested in ASICMINER, in my mind either ASICMINER or BFL is first to get ASICs hashing, so I needed BFL exposure to offset the ASICMINER risk
1. I did way back in July - and I'm still confident. Up to a price of 0.7 BTC I will hold NASTY shares, though block halving is coming two weeks earlier than I expected then.
2. It would be nice if there would be real bonds available.
I only know of perpetual bonds, like Gigamining, and worse, they have an unfair call mechanism (not even providing a guarantee on principle). Finally, some have unsettling similarities with ponzi-schemes, when they mix real MHash/s and virtual MHash/s, therefore would probably default, if difficulty would not rise enough.



I saw this proposed offering and believe they are "real" bonds because they hold the principal and have a specified buyback time. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112232.0

Yogafan00000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 314
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 04, 2012, 04:41:09 PM
 #272

Hi,  I am a minor (12) holder of Nasty shares on GLBSE and I had every intention of increasing my holdings of this security over the next several months.

This GLBSE debacle now has me spooked.  I've studied OGNasty's posts and determined that from the professionalism and composure of his posts that he is honest and genuine in his BitCoin endeavors.

I'm interest to know OGNasty's opinion on the whole sordid GLBSE affair and what it might mean for holders of Nasty shares.

Thank you.

1YogAFA... (oh, nevermind)
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1309


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 12:11:41 AM
 #273

I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday. 

segabtc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 05, 2012, 04:25:06 AM
 #274

If anyone wants to sell some NASTY share let me know.
kuzetsa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 05, 2012, 05:45:09 PM
 #275

I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday.  

What's all this now?

Is nefario or GLBSE-related somebody or other is making an announcement? What?



Placeholder for link if I can find more info... potentially (( if I'm not being lazy playing minecraft all weekend ))


^ and now I have inserted the "more info":

Edited to add: "more info"



((...snip...))

if security issuers refuse to AMl they wont get access to their shareholder info.

Oh, awesome. Is that all? Do you actually have a reliable non-confidential / public-type source for that statement?

I'll gladly cough up AML-type identification to the security issuers and/or any regulating agencies for my jurisdiction (and that of GLBSE, and of the security issuer) if that's all it takes to un-freze my GLBSE portfolio
novusordo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 05, 2012, 06:25:20 PM
 #276

I don't want to speculate on anything until I've seen the announcement on Saturday.  

What's all this now?

Is nefario or GLBSE-related somebody or other is making an announcement? What?



Placeholder for link if I can find more info... potentially (( if I'm not being lazy playing minecraft all weekend ))

Check out glbse.com.



░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███▄
░░░░░░░░░░▄███▀░▀███▄
░░░░░░░▄███▀░░░░░░░▀███▄
░░░░▄███▀░░░░█████░░░░▀███▄
▄███▀░░░░███████████░░░░▀███▄
██▀░░░░█████████▀▀▀█████░░░░▀██
██░░██████████▀░░░░░▀▀▀███▄░░██
██░░███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░███████▄▄▄▄█▄░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░███████████████▄░░░░░░░░░██
██░░█████████████████▄░░░░░░░██
██░░███████████████▄░███▄░░░░██
██░░████████████▄░███▄░░██▄░░██
██▄░░░░██████▄░███▄░░██░░░░░▄██
▀███▄░░░░█████▄░░██░░░░░▄███▀
░░░░▀███▄░░░░████░░░░░▄███▀
░░░░░░░▀███▄░░░░░░░▄███▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀███▄░▄███▀
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀███▀
EAR1000 ACT TOKEN


░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄███▄
░░░░░░░░░░▄███▀░▀███▄
░░░░░░░▄███▀░░░░░░░▀███▄
░░░░▄███▀░░░░█████░░░░▀███▄
▄███▀░░░░███████████░░░░▀███▄
██▀░░░░█████████▀▀▀█████░░░░▀██
██░░██████████▀░░░░░▀▀▀███▄░░██
██░░███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░███████▄▄▄▄█▄░░░░░░░░░░░░██
██░░███████████████▄░░░░░░░░░██
██░░█████████████████▄░░░░░░░██
██░░███████████████▄░███▄░░░░██
██░░████████████▄░███▄░░██▄░░██
██▄░░░░██████▄░███▄░░██░░░░░▄██
▀███▄░░░░█████▄░░██░░░░░▄███▀
░░░░▀███▄░░░░████░░░░░▄███▀
░░░░░░░▀███▄░░░░░░░▄███▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀███▄░▄███▀
░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀███▀
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 1309


I 💚 Bitcoin


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2012, 01:48:39 AM
 #277

GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.

Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.

He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.

I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.

Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.

This is concerning... 

kuzetsa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 06, 2012, 02:47:35 AM
 #278

GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.

Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.

He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.

I'm very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.

Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.

This is concerning... 

Yes, perhaps.

Didn't you say at one point... like weren't you were privately handling not-held-in-GLBSE shares for someone and directly paying dividends?

... Really wish I had some way to prove that my GLBSE stake in nasty is "12 shares" right about now. Ah well, I'm sure it'll get sorted somehow / at some point.

I'm assuming you withdrew all the IPO funds already, and as such, any money paid into GLBSE ticker "NASTY" is actually already in-play for hardware?





somebody accidentally sent me a private message and I responded with this:

Indeed...

All I know for certain is that GLBSE is unavailable, theymos is pissed at nefario as a result (level of communication, etc.)

... and there is probably some degree of "lawyering up" going on.

The only companies I have shares which were traded on GLBSE the owners / operators are pretty cool

some will even allow you to hold your shares outside of GLBSE, still get dividends, etc. so all is not lost.

What is it they say / suggest about never investing more than you can afford to lose?

I'm personally not "dead in the water" as a result of (temporarily?) being unable to manage any assets via GLBSE. I have not been "scammed" as far as I'm aware.
kuzetsa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 368
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 06, 2012, 02:49:29 AM
 #279

If anyone wants to sell some NASTY share let me know.

lol the timing for that is (I believe) AFTER the "oops GLBSE broke"

... I want to BUY some more actually. Was planning to pick up a couple more shares before dividends tomorrow, but now I'm not sure how to even track my portfolio or how dividends will work.
jasonharty24
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 06, 2012, 02:53:52 AM
 #280

I would assume that the dividends would be suspended for now since Ognasty has no way to send them out.
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 ... 194 »
  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!