Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2017, 08:18:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3823815 times)
scrybe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 07, 2013, 09:05:25 PM
 #1421

I assume you powered up one of these 'rackable units' as an interim step with one or more boards in it.
How did it do?
WOuld assume that's the good news Wink
Yes, you're probably right. Smiley

Reckon I just got somewhat confused by the pictures and don't really understand what I'm seeing in them.

Looking at the top image I had the impression they were full length boards and assumed that each one was a 'hashing board'. However, in the bottom row of the bottom image it is clear to see that these take up only about a half of the cage depth at most.

Perhaps what we're seeing here is ten power supply modules (psm) in each cage?
Awaiting the addition of ten hashing boards?
(But they don't, to me, look like the picture of a psm posted in:
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1493791#msg1493791)

If so, I don't see where the hashing boards will be inserted.

Hmmm, perhaps that front 'black bar' is a two slot 'back plane'? And each hashing board plugs in next to each psm?

Regardless, all idle speculation. We will know all we need to know soon enough.  Cheesy

Those look like the board in the front-left back-right of the photo, the hashing boards with no VM connectors or heatsinks. (EDIT: I just saw the heatsinks, they are on the opposite side of the PCB from the camera and don't stand out, but they have heatsinks!) I'd say they are either real boards or engineering samples from the PCB layout process used to validate components fit in the case.

I'm assuming that the final unit will look like a lot of blade-server or telco systems with a mid-plane/backplane behind these boards that connects to one or more VRM modules as well as a controller or other upstream connection.

This is very good news for upgradability with newer generations of hashing boards (they could even make them hot-swap if they wanted to spend the effort)

Very nice work guys!

"...as simple as possible, but no simpler" -AE
BTC/TRC/FRC: 1ScrybeSNcjqgpPeYNgvdxANArqoC6i5u Ripple:rf9gutfmGB8CH39W2PCeRbLWMKRauYyVfx LTC:LadmiD6tXq7gFZvMibhFUZegUHKXgbu1Gb
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506068296
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506068296

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506068296
Reply with quote  #2

1506068296
Report to moderator
1506068296
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506068296

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506068296
Reply with quote  #2

1506068296
Report to moderator
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
February 07, 2013, 09:51:11 PM
 #1422

I must be getting old.  The longer I look at those pictures, the more they look like renderings to me.

Anyhow, they do appear to be built for a backplane.  That should be the white connector on the back of each board.  The white things at the top and bottom appear to be just guides.

More interesting, they are built for vertical airflow.  Either they are planning to put a fan module at the top of each stack, or they are built for a datacenter with ducted cabinets.

Looks like 40 or 48 chips per blade, and using the PCB for heat conduction, which fits with the QFN package shown earlier.  Or the ASIC is on the side under the heatsink and we are seeing a rectangular grid of something else.  It is hard to tell from these angles.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
eb3full
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 198


View Profile
February 07, 2013, 10:05:07 PM
 #1423

I must be getting old.  The longer I look at those pictures, the more they look like renderings to me.

Anyhow, they do appear to be built for a backplane.  That should be the white connector on the back of each board.  The white things at the top and bottom appear to be just guides.

More interesting, they are built for vertical airflow.  Either they are planning to put a fan module at the top of each stack, or they are built for a datacenter with ducted cabinets.

Looks like 40 or 48 chips per blade, and using the PCB for heat conduction, which fits with the QFN package shown earlier.  Or the ASIC is on the side under the heatsink and we are seeing a rectangular grid of something else.  It is hard to tell from these angles.

Maybe you didn't see the picture from a couple pages ago:


"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann
buy me beer: 1HG9cBBYME4HUVhfAqQvW9Vqwh3PLioHcU
meowmeowbrowncow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
February 07, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
 #1424



I hate to be a d*ck, but...


I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.



Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.



"Bitcoin has been an amazing ride, but the most fascinating part to me is the seemingly universal tendency of libertarians to immediately become authoritarians the very moment they are given any measure of power to silence the dissent of others."  - The Bible
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
February 07, 2013, 11:14:57 PM
 #1425



I hate to be a d*ck, but...


I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.



Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.




It honestly make no odds.  Imagine the shares were split exactly 50/50.  If Bitfountain all vote for something what would be the odds that EVERY shareholder would vote no?  About 0%.

If you don't trust them to act in good faith you shouldn't invest in the first place - it's not like there's some SEC equivalent with any power to do anything is there?

Even if every single shareholder voted, with a 50/50 split bitfountain would only need to hold 1 share of the ones sold on GLBSE to get a majority.  So it makes no practical odds as far as voting is concerned that they hold 4/7 instead of 1/2.  The single biggest difference not selling those shares makes is that the original 0.1 BTC/share paid gets repaid faster.

And at some point down the line it will almost certainly make sense to suspend or cut-back on dividends to fund growth/R&D -
that's why we bought equity in a company rather than some shitty mining bond/company that will pay out dividends whilst losing value at a faster rate than it pays out.
scrybe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 08, 2013, 12:27:02 AM
 #1426



I hate to be a d*ck, but...


I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.



Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.




Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs

"...as simple as possible, but no simpler" -AE
BTC/TRC/FRC: 1ScrybeSNcjqgpPeYNgvdxANArqoC6i5u Ripple:rf9gutfmGB8CH39W2PCeRbLWMKRauYyVfx LTC:LadmiD6tXq7gFZvMibhFUZegUHKXgbu1Gb
meowmeowbrowncow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
February 08, 2013, 02:14:04 AM
 #1427



I hate to be a d*ck, but...


I'm trying to decide if it's a bad thing that asicminer will own, at a minimum, just above 4/7 of the company when the IPO was designed as an even split.



Keep this in mind if an issue is brought to the asicminer board about suspending dividends to accumulate capital for R/D.

In a situation like that I'd say, why not just sell those extra 50k shares you decided to keep indefinitely.




Retained Earnings are good for us as shareholders and will lead to a faster payback.
http://bit.ly/W15QPs



I agree on both points.  Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.  


My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?  

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.'  It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set.  Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.


Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer.  But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right?  Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?



Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion.  We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.

"Bitcoin has been an amazing ride, but the most fascinating part to me is the seemingly universal tendency of libertarians to immediately become authoritarians the very moment they are given any measure of power to silence the dissent of others."  - The Bible
scrybe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 08, 2013, 02:42:27 AM
 #1428


I agree on both points.  Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.  


My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?  

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.'  It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set.  Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.


Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer.  But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right?  Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?



Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion.  We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.

Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.

I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.

"...as simple as possible, but no simpler" -AE
BTC/TRC/FRC: 1ScrybeSNcjqgpPeYNgvdxANArqoC6i5u Ripple:rf9gutfmGB8CH39W2PCeRbLWMKRauYyVfx LTC:LadmiD6tXq7gFZvMibhFUZegUHKXgbu1Gb
matauc12
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 08, 2013, 05:20:37 AM
 #1429

Has there ever been a confirmation on what will happen with the excess BTC that was not convertd to $

The exchange rate doubled since, will go a long way towards designing a next-gen chip, or will it b distributed as a special dividnd?
Operational cash is the most likely scenario. Could be used for R&D or for covering utility bills.

Technically, these shares belong to ASICMINER itself - it thus acts like a shareholder who invests all dividends back into the business.

So if I understand correctly, from what you say, bitfountain now effectively owns 250k shares?
No. That wouldn't make sense. The unsold shares of ASICMINER act as potential equity in future financing rounds. The availability of unsold shares has the advantage that dilution can be avoided if the 12% cover financing needs.
oh, OK...
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
February 08, 2013, 05:29:03 AM
 #1430

Update



Peeping over one of our subracks:




Four of them waiting to populate on racks:




Very PROFESSIONAL looking,  like the spirit  Cheesy

SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2013, 11:19:22 AM
 #1431

What would change when the rest of the shares would sell? There would only one or more shareholders. So what should that be good for? The dividends now go to bitfountain and if the shares are sold these dividends would go to a shareholder. You wouldnt have an advantage.

I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.
VJain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 305


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2013, 04:43:49 PM
 #1432

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?

Making Apps and Websites for people. I charge reasonable rates ($30-40/hour in BTC).
matauc12
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 08, 2013, 08:28:10 PM
 #1433

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
niko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.


View Profile
February 08, 2013, 10:51:22 PM
 #1434

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.

They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
matauc12
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 09, 2013, 01:15:15 AM
 #1435

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.
obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message.

Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.
meowmeowbrowncow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
February 09, 2013, 10:52:20 PM
 #1436

What would change when the rest of the shares would sell? There would only one or more shareholders. So what should that be good for? The dividends now go to bitfountain and if the shares are sold these dividends would go to a shareholder. You wouldnt have an advantage.

I mean you could have bought when the ipo was. To claim that these shares has to be sold now sounds a bit like you want to invest in a sure profit for low money. I dont think that is worth to discuss.


In short, no.  Not my point or intention at all.  Nice accusation, though, thanks.

"Bitcoin has been an amazing ride, but the most fascinating part to me is the seemingly universal tendency of libertarians to immediately become authoritarians the very moment they are given any measure of power to silence the dissent of others."  - The Bible
meowmeowbrowncow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
February 09, 2013, 11:07:05 PM
 #1437


I agree on both points.  Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.  


My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?  

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.'  It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set.  Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.


Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer.  But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right?  Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?



Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion.  We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.

Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.

I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.


Hmm.  The spirit of the initial discussion around the IPO, IIRC, what % would be available to the public in exchange for financing.  Me bringing this point up again has little to do with take-overs, or wanting to buy that 12% cheaply as Sabastian accused me of.

Since ASICMiner is in a fortunate position to have an extra 12% of shares what are they being used for?
Are they being retained and not receiving dividends?

If what you say is correct, and if it is I completely agree with your point of view, that dividends will be distributed to a smaller number of shares - GREAT!

If not and these shares receive dividends where is this money going?  Re-investment?  Ok, good.  Not a bad thing at all.  But if they take dividends of 12% of shares for OpEx and R/D, but then down the road say 'Hey, we don't have enough money we need to withhold dividends to gain capital,' well, wouldn't that be crap.  A pretty good reason to cry foul.


If you look at comments below it leaves me in a confused state as to whether or not shares are retained, earn dividends and if those dividends are used for re-investment.

obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message.

Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.


Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.

No. That wouldn't make sense. The unsold shares of ASICMINER act as potential equity in future financing rounds. The availability of unsold shares has the advantage that dilution can be avoided if the 12% cover financing needs.


Edited to clean up the quotes

"Bitcoin has been an amazing ride, but the most fascinating part to me is the seemingly universal tendency of libertarians to immediately become authoritarians the very moment they are given any measure of power to silence the dissent of others."  - The Bible
matauc12
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
February 09, 2013, 11:16:59 PM
 #1438


I agree on both points.  Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.

And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.

And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.  


My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?  

So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.'  It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.

In my mind that was the expectation set.  Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.


Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer.  But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right?  Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?



Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion.  We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.

Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.

I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.


Hmm.  The spirit of the initial discussion around the IPO, IIRC, what % would be available to the public in exchange for financing.  Me bringing this point up again has little to do with take-overs, or wanting to buy that 12% cheaply as Sabastian accused me of.

Since ASICMiner is in a fortunate position to have an extra 12% of shares what are they being used for?
Are they being retained and not receiving dividends?

If what you say is correct, and if it is I completely agree with your point of view, that dividends will be distributed to a smaller number of shares - GREAT!

If not and these shares receive dividends where is this money going?  Re-investment?  Ok, good.  Not a bad thing at all.  But if they take dividends of 12% of shares for OpEx and R/D, but then down the road say 'Hey, we don't have enough money we need to withhold dividends to gain capital,' well, wouldn't that be crap.  A pretty good reason to cry foul.


If you look at Jatarul's comments below it leaves me in a confused state as to whether or not shares are retained, earn dividends and if those dividends are used for re-investment.

Might as well hold off on issuing the rest of the shares till more funds are needed for expansion? I'm assuming the entire batch of chips/materials ordered were already funded - so any additional funding would not be in the best interest of ASICMINER Shareholders?
It has been confirmed that there is currently no plan to issue them....

And the "option" the reissue them has no effect on ownership or dividends since its 1/400000 either way. The only reason to sell them would be for quick capital.
Still, the important question is: what is the fate of profits belonging to the unsold shares? This does have effect on my shares - Bitfountain simply scooping these profits is different from these profits being accumulated and used to maintain ASICMINER's competitive advantage through re-investment, upgrades, and covering operating costs.
obviously, but that wasn't part of my quoted message.

Since it was agreed upon by us that it was split 1/400000, there is not much to argue about here, but IMO, those unsold shares should be a direct fund for operation cost. Which, I believe is fair to all shareholders, as opposed to some alternatives.
You seem to imply it isn't a relative matter. If its used for operation and R&D, there is no guarantee that it will be sufficient. If it isn't, you still need to retain dividends, but to a lesser extent, which is still a win.

The only venue that those extra shares doesn't benefit shareholders is if bitfountain pockets them and that's the end of it. Where the operation and R&D cost would be full cost and no extra dividends (if it would have been redistributed, which has been implied that it is not the plan).
meowmeowbrowncow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile
February 09, 2013, 11:41:29 PM
 #1439



The only venue that those extra shares doesn't benefit shareholders is if bitfountain pockets them and that's the end of it. Where the operation and R&D cost would be full cost and no extra dividends (if it would have been redistributed, which has been implied that it is not the plan).



Ok, thanks.  That gives me a little more clarity about if retained shares earn dividends and for what purpose the proceeds would be used.


Let's hope "implied" as you said is the real deal.  And that %12 of shares could equate to a very large amount of money.  I will raise an eyebrow if dividends are suspended.


I'll just concede in regards to the 50/50 matter.  



"Bitcoin has been an amazing ride, but the most fascinating part to me is the seemingly universal tendency of libertarians to immediately become authoritarians the very moment they are given any measure of power to silence the dissent of others."  - The Bible
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
February 09, 2013, 11:42:26 PM
 #1440

Peeping over one of our subracks:


What, no fans?  These ASICS need moar fans.  Everyone knows ASICS use lots of fans.

Check out my operation, IceASIC Inc:


The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Pages: « 1 ... 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 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 ... 1348 »
  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!