Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2022, 07:07:17 PM *
News: Bitcointalk Community Awards
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

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.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 [562] 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3914566 times)
101111
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:13:59 AM
 #11221

That's funny, because it seems to me that AM's current valuation is based primarily on red herrings, heavily biased opinion, and conjecture.
Very unoriginal.

AM as a company is extremely high-risk.
This is partly why you are so tiresome, the relentless spamming of risk at every possible opportunity. We know AM is risky. We get it, ok?

AM operates in a rapidly shifting competitive landscape; ok we get that, we know it's risky, as is any stock (the S&P 500 could easily plunge 50% from current levels); maybe risk is what we like, now move on.


Its revenue stream is demonstrably unstable (whatever happened to the 20% FC was going to maintain?).
So what, it's stable enough. Instability is a given in many industries. AM is not even 1 yr old; it's an emergent industry. We get that, now move on.


It is beset by competition with extremely low barriers to entry.
Disagree. Exremeley low barriers - rubbish.


It is publicly traded but does not release detailed financial documents. Its profit margins are shrinking even as its revenue decreases. Management is competent but barely transparent.
Then surely you are contradicting yourself. How can you comment on the financial position with such limited financial docs transparency?


Most importantly, the share price does not appear to appreciate the risk, and from a simple perspective:

1) There is no ability to short-sell the stock, enabling overvaluation

2) There are enormous dividends and few alternatives for diversification, resulting in a lot of dividend reinvestment and therefore overvaluation

As a reasonably successful value investor in the traditional exchanges, this is a textbook case of a company I'd continually buy put options on until adjustment.
Wrong on all points. Risk is an individual matter; I'm happy with the prevailing 30+%. Perhaps you feel more secure with 60%?

Enabling overvaluation does not mean it is overvalued. The S&P is shortable but that doesn't mean it is not overvalued.

Enormous divs and few alternatives does not in and of itself cause overvaluation. 

It is only in your opinion that AM is overvalued; I think it is undervalued.


If detracting opinions are tiresome to you, that's unfortunate, but I think it's healthy to have someone around here to disrupt the group-think. I assure you I am open to ideas I have not yet considered and my investment thesis is based on math and logic (or at least my version of those). If you disagree with me, and you can articulate why, I am happy to have that discussion.
Critical thinking, for or against, is very much appreciated and more than welcome. I'd love to see some.
1670267237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670267237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670267237
Reply with quote  #2

1670267237
Report to moderator
1670267237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670267237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670267237
Reply with quote  #2

1670267237
Report to moderator
1670267237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670267237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670267237
Reply with quote  #2

1670267237
Report to moderator
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1670267237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670267237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670267237
Reply with quote  #2

1670267237
Report to moderator
1670267237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670267237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670267237
Reply with quote  #2

1670267237
Report to moderator
1670267237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670267237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1670267237
Reply with quote  #2

1670267237
Report to moderator
Rodyland
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 499
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:18:16 AM
 #11222

... Uhhhhh... So, FC makes up some direct shares that don't exist, tells burnside they're legit shares belonging to some made-up usernames (which FC controls, of course) ...

...

I must be pretty dumb, because I'm not seeing the difficulty.

Yes.  Except all dividend payments are public, so any new shares added would be noticed within a week.

Nobody is saying it couldn't be done.  I'm saying it's a stupid idea.  If friedcat and his team wanted to screw the shareholders, they could do it in many, many ways that are simpler and less likely to be noticed than by issuing new shares.

Beware the weak hands!
1NcL6Mjm4qeiYYi2rpoCtQopPrH4PyKfUC
GPG ID: E3AA41E3
Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:19:29 AM
 #11223

Actually, there's some pretty cool discussion about using the Bitcoin protocol to enable trust-free exchanges with "colored coins".

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=237501.0

that's great, what exchange uses that protocol?

None do, not yet (hopefully in the future!). Hence you are operating on trust, like people were with Pirateat40, or Zhou Tong. The history of Bitcoin is rife with scams, so I'm a little taken aback that nobody understands the potential for one here.

101111
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:22:36 AM
 #11224

Now, that could be a ponzi scheme. So could AM, theoretically.
Assuming you understand what ponzi means, there goes any last remaining trace of credibility you may have had.
Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:24:03 AM
 #11225

... Uhhhhh... So, FC makes up some direct shares that don't exist, tells burnside they're legit shares belonging to some made-up usernames (which FC controls, of course) ...

...

I must be pretty dumb, because I'm not seeing the difficulty.

Yes.  Except all dividend payments are public, so any new shares added would be noticed within a week.

Nobody is saying it couldn't be done.  I'm saying it's a stupid idea.  If friedcat and his team wanted to screw the shareholders, they could do it in many, many ways that are simpler and less likely to be noticed than by issuing new shares.


Yeah, so they'd have to take one less dividend on their own shares for each one they'd manufactured. It'd be a long con, betting that the value of the dividends issued to the manufactured shares would be less than the value of those shares when sold.

You're right that this is not the real concern. If Friedcat was bent on defrauding shareholders, there would be many better options. But that potential IS there, and we've had so many past catastrophes (Bitcoinica, Pirateat40) and failures (BFL, now Avalon) that I'm surprised to see so little discussion of the risk.

Now, that could be a ponzi scheme. So could AM, theoretically.
Assuming you understand what ponzi means, there goes any last remaining trace of credibility you may have had.

I am devastated by the loss of your approval.

velacreations
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:24:22 AM
 #11226

None do, not yet (hopefully in the future!). Hence you are operating on trust, like people were with Pirateat40, or Zhou Tong. The history of Bitcoin is rife with scams, so I'm a little taken aback that nobody understands the potential for one here.

so, this is irrelevant to the discussion of AM, and merely a criticism of bitcoin investing in general, then?

what, exactly, is your purpose on this thread?

velacreations
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:26:41 AM
 #11227

But that potential IS there, and we've had so many past catastrophes (Bitcoinica, Pirateat40) and failures (BFL, now Avalon) that I'm surprised to see so little discussion of the risk.
it happened ~500 pages ago

Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:26:44 AM
 #11228

None do, not yet (hopefully in the future!). Hence you are operating on trust, like people were with Pirateat40, or Zhou Tong. The history of Bitcoin is rife with scams, so I'm a little taken aback that nobody understands the potential for one here.

so, this is irrelevant to the discussion of AM, and merely a criticism of bitcoin investing in general, then?

what, exactly, is your purpose on this thread?

... What??? AM IS a bitcoin investment. This is EXTREMELY relevant, even if it is just as applicable to SatoshiDice. I'd think you'd WANT to consider threats to your investment as part of your risk assessment.

velacreations
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:27:32 AM
 #11229

... What??? AM IS a bitcoin investment. This is EXTREMELY relevant, even if it is just as applicable to SatoshiDice. I'd think you'd WANT to consider threats to your investment as part of your risk assessment.

so, you'll be posting your latest revelation on all bitcoin investing threads, then?

Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:39:06 AM
 #11230

Quote
That's funny, because it seems to me that AM's current valuation is based primarily on red herrings, heavily biased opinion, and conjecture.
Very unoriginal.

Sorry, I'll try harder next time.

Quote
AM as a company is extremely high-risk.
This is partly why you are so tiresome, the relentless spamming of risk at every possible opportunity. We know AM is risky. We get it, ok?

AM operates in a rapidly shifting competitive landscape; ok we get that, we know it's risky, as is any stock (the S&P 500 could easily plunge 50% from current levels); maybe risk is what we like, now move on.

Well, I can't really respond to this. I'm glad you have an appreciation for the risk. It's hard to say how many others do.

Quote
Its revenue stream is demonstrably unstable (whatever happened to the 20% FC was going to maintain?).
So what, it's stable enough. Instability is a given in many industries. AM is not even 1 yr old; it's an emergent industry. We get that, now move on.
I guess that depends on your definition of "stable enough".

Quote
It is beset by competition with extremely low barriers to entry.
Disagree. Exremeley low barriers - rubbish.

Cointerra is operating on $1.5M startup funding without preorders. Considering AM has a market cap of $160M or so right now, I'd say that qualifies as "extremely low". Show me a company in another industry with the credible potential to displace $160M of market cap in a year on $1.5M startup funding, and I'll retract that statement.

Quote
It is publicly traded but does not release detailed financial documents. Its profit margins are shrinking even as its revenue decreases. Management is competent but barely transparent.
Then surely you are contradicting yourself. How can you comment on the financial position with such limited financial docs transparency?
Not at all. I said "detailed financial documents". I can see from the pricing of their hardware and their share of the hashrate what is happening to their margins. I just don't know how much they have shrunk.

Quote
Most importantly, the share price does not appear to appreciate the risk, and from a simple perspective:

1) There is no ability to short-sell the stock, enabling overvaluation

2) There are enormous dividends and few alternatives for diversification, resulting in a lot of dividend reinvestment and therefore overvaluation

As a reasonably successful value investor in the traditional exchanges, this is a textbook case of a company I'd continually buy put options on until adjustment.
Wrong on all points. Risk is an individual matter; I'm happy with the prevailing 30+%. Perhaps you feel more secure with 60%?

Enabling overvaluation does not mean it is overvalued. The S&P is shortable but that doesn't mean it is not overvalued.

Enormous divs and few alternatives does not in and of itself cause overvaluation. 

It is only in your opinion that AM is overvalued; I think it is undervalued.

Would you mind constructing a counterargument besides "that's wrong"? The S&P is indeed shortable and I believe it is closer to fair value than AM is. And enormous divs and few alternatives creates artificial positive demand - surely you can agree with that.

Quote
If detracting opinions are tiresome to you, that's unfortunate, but I think it's healthy to have someone around here to disrupt the group-think. I assure you I am open to ideas I have not yet considered and my investment thesis is based on math and logic (or at least my version of those). If you disagree with me, and you can articulate why, I am happy to have that discussion.
Critical thinking, for or against, is very much appreciated and more than welcome. I'd love to see some.

I again offer my humblest apology that I have not met your standards for critical thinking.

Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 05:41:29 AM
 #11231

... What??? AM IS a bitcoin investment. This is EXTREMELY relevant, even if it is just as applicable to SatoshiDice. I'd think you'd WANT to consider threats to your investment as part of your risk assessment.

so, you'll be posting your latest revelation on all bitcoin investing threads, then?

No, but you're welcome to share it, if you like. My security of interest is AM, since this is the one I follow and the one I have any understanding of. I don't consider myself the "masked market defender", but I do like to discuss these things, since often they lead to a better appreciation of the risks. For example, someone pointed out that creating fake shares would be caught in the accounting for the dividends, which makes that scam fairly impractical.

101111
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 06:13:43 AM
 #11232

Cointerra is operating on $1.5M startup funding without preorders. Considering AM has a market cap of $160M or so right now, I'd say that qualifies as "extremely low". Show me a company in another industry with the credible potential to displace $160M of market cap in a year on $1.5M startup funding, and I'll retract that statement.
Business plans are cheap.


Not at all. I said "detailed financial documents". I can see from the pricing of their hardware and their share of the hashrate what is happening to their margins. I just don't know how much they have shrunk.

That's right, you don't know.


Would you mind constructing a counterargument besides "that's wrong"? The S&P is indeed shortable and I believe it is closer to fair value than AM is. And enormous divs and few alternatives creates artificial positive demand - surely you can agree with that.

I did, it's there, read again. I disagree that it's 'artificial'. Shareholders are not forced into reinvesting, they receive divs in btc and they have other options, including converting to fiat if they choose.
Mausini
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 177
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 08:27:27 AM
 #11233

So now suddenly Friedcat is an idiot? Of course he wouldn't do it all at once...
oh, right, so now burnside is an idiot and would ignore magical shares in his account?

I'm still not clear on how Burnside would know they're magical. Isn't Friedcat the one who verifies them?

no, that's what I am trying to tell you.  FC handles direct shares.  To convert direct shares to an exchange, basically FC puts shares into burnsides name, then sends a message to burnside saying the shares have been transferred.  Burnside then enters those shares into his site software and attaches them to the correct username.

For your scheme to work, both burnside and FC have to be in on it (or alternative PT operator).

... Uhhhhh... So, FC makes up some direct shares that don't exist, tells burnside they're legit shares belonging to some made-up usernames (which FC controls, of course) ...

...

I must be pretty dumb, because I'm not seeing the difficulty.

yes you are pretty dumb. please stop spamming this thread with your stupid, irrelevant speculations!
Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 08:59:12 AM
 #11234

So now suddenly Friedcat is an idiot? Of course he wouldn't do it all at once...
oh, right, so now burnside is an idiot and would ignore magical shares in his account?

I'm still not clear on how Burnside would know they're magical. Isn't Friedcat the one who verifies them?

no, that's what I am trying to tell you.  FC handles direct shares.  To convert direct shares to an exchange, basically FC puts shares into burnsides name, then sends a message to burnside saying the shares have been transferred.  Burnside then enters those shares into his site software and attaches them to the correct username.

For your scheme to work, both burnside and FC have to be in on it (or alternative PT operator).

... Uhhhhh... So, FC makes up some direct shares that don't exist, tells burnside they're legit shares belonging to some made-up usernames (which FC controls, of course) ...

...

I must be pretty dumb, because I'm not seeing the difficulty.

yes you are pretty dumb. please stop spamming this thread with your stupid, irrelevant speculations!

Irrelevant? Gee whiz fellas, you forgot the "bullish sentiments only" sign!

So be it. I obviously have no cohesive argument for my bearish sentiment, and I should get out of the way to make space for all the honest folks who have nothing riding on their bullish sentiment.

All you guys need now is some Viton o-rings for this spaceship.

btcbot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 18, 2013, 09:15:15 AM
 #11235

So now suddenly Friedcat is an idiot? Of course he wouldn't do it all at once...
oh, right, so now burnside is an idiot and would ignore magical shares in his account?

I'm still not clear on how Burnside would know they're magical. Isn't Friedcat the one who verifies them?

no, that's what I am trying to tell you.  FC handles direct shares.  To convert direct shares to an exchange, basically FC puts shares into burnsides name, then sends a message to burnside saying the shares have been transferred.  Burnside then enters those shares into his site software and attaches them to the correct username.

For your scheme to work, both burnside and FC have to be in on it (or alternative PT operator).

... Uhhhhh... So, FC makes up some direct shares that don't exist, tells burnside they're legit shares belonging to some made-up usernames (which FC controls, of course) ...

...

I must be pretty dumb, because I'm not seeing the difficulty.

yes you are pretty dumb. please stop spamming this thread with your stupid, irrelevant speculations!

Irrelevant? Gee whiz fellas, you forgot the "bullish sentiments only" sign!

So be it. I obviously have no cohesive argument for my bearish sentiment, and I should get out of the way to make space for all the honest folks who have nothing riding on their bullish sentiment.

All you guys need now is some Viton o-rings for this spaceship.

You've made some good points, but the relentlessness of your arguing belies a need to rationalize your decision to sell AM.  Please moderate your tone... or even better... go away for a while until you can rid yourself of this compulsive need to repeat yourself. 

Don't tip me... tip the Riseup folks who protect activists around the world.
Mausini
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 177
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 10:18:11 AM
 #11236

So now suddenly Friedcat is an idiot? Of course he wouldn't do it all at once...
oh, right, so now burnside is an idiot and would ignore magical shares in his account?

I'm still not clear on how Burnside would know they're magical. Isn't Friedcat the one who verifies them?

no, that's what I am trying to tell you.  FC handles direct shares.  To convert direct shares to an exchange, basically FC puts shares into burnsides name, then sends a message to burnside saying the shares have been transferred.  Burnside then enters those shares into his site software and attaches them to the correct username.

For your scheme to work, both burnside and FC have to be in on it (or alternative PT operator).

... Uhhhhh... So, FC makes up some direct shares that don't exist, tells burnside they're legit shares belonging to some made-up usernames (which FC controls, of course) ...

...

I must be pretty dumb, because I'm not seeing the difficulty.

yes you are pretty dumb. please stop spamming this thread with your stupid, irrelevant speculations!

Irrelevant? Gee whiz fellas, you forgot the "bullish sentiments only" sign!

So be it. I obviously have no cohesive argument for my bearish sentiment, and I should get out of the way to make space for all the honest folks who have nothing riding on their bullish sentiment.

All you guys need now is some Viton o-rings for this spaceship.

now I see where you are coming from! what if friedcat builds a spaceship?
ex-trader
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 298
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 11:02:49 AM
 #11237


You've made some good points, but the relentlessness of your arguing belies a need to rationalize your decision to sell AM. 

It's important to have two sets of opinions, but there are three key questions for the bulls of AM:

1. Where are long-promised financial statements? They should take about 1 day for a competent person to complete, yet months have passed.

2. Why is AM only holding circa 10% of hash-rate?

3. What are the transaction fees earned that so many people are holding as being the holy grail for valuations?
btcbot
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 18, 2013, 11:07:03 AM
 #11238


You've made some good points, but the relentlessness of your arguing belies a need to rationalize your decision to sell AM.  

It's important to have two sets of opinions, but there are three key questions for the bulls of AM:

1. Where are long-promised financial statements? They should take about 1 day for a competent person to complete, yet months have passed.

2. Why is AM only holding circa 10% of hash-rate?

3. What are the transaction fees earned that so many people are holding as being the holy grail for valuations?

Have these been added to TAT's list already?  

About #2, I'm not sure we need to hear the moment by moment excuses for the ongoing problems,  setup and deployment issues, etc. of mining operations. 

Don't tip me... tip the Riseup folks who protect activists around the world.
Fabrizio89
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 18, 2013, 11:10:24 AM
 #11239


You've made some good points, but the relentlessness of your arguing belies a need to rationalize your decision to sell AM. 

It's important to have two sets of opinions, but there are three key questions for the bulls of AM:

1. Where are long-promised financial statements? They should take about 1 day for a competent person to complete, yet months have passed.

2. Why is AM only holding circa 10% of hash-rate?

3. What are the transaction fees earned that so many people are holding as being the holy grail for valuations?

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg2788821#msg2788821
2. This was the objective since the beginning.
3. Why are you holding bitcoins and investing in a mining venture if you don't understand the basics of the system?
bobboooiie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 656
Merit: 500



View Profile
August 18, 2013, 11:38:55 AM
 #11240

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276891.0

Well this will probably freeze or even hit share price pretty hard, but then again blade sales dividend craze might eat that wall pretty quickly if he provides good discount for big buyers
Pages: « 1 ... 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 [562] 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 ... 1348 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!