ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[2weiX]

I know we all just suffered a blow because of GLBSE, and you may ask how Havelock would be different. This is a good question, and I encourage you to ask them yourselves. I've been using their services for a few months now.

I think the first question which should be answered is whether ASICMINER should do the listing with a legally blessed entity or with a website which exists outside of any jurisdiction. Given that ASICMINER is an officially registered company, the first choice would be better in the long run. Then shareholders can create pass-through offers on other exchanges (but that might be illegal again...).

I wouldn't really recommend to create a custom shareholder exchange or an order book, because ASICMINER is not in the business of creating safe and secure exchanges. A mediocre solution for an exchange is a liability to shareholders.

I don't care much about being able to trade - I got in because I wanted to help fund this ASIC project, and reap profits (if any) from it. In hindsight, a pre-order approach akin to BFL and Avalon would have eliminated the risk of intermediary (GLBSE) going titsup. So, from my perspective, it'd be perfect if ASICMINER simply acquired information on shareholders, and paid them dividends if and when the profits start flowing in. Shareholders can work out "trading" among themselves as they see fit.

I understand, however, that others may have invested with the hopes of being able to actively trade shares, and that is why I suggested you consider alternative exchanges such as Havelock, which leans heavily towards transparency and regulatory compliance.

Finally, I absolutely agree that ASICMINER should remain focused on engineering and mining, and not engage in offering an orderbook or any trade management services.

+1000

Freaky, I was just going to type exactly the same, wording and sentiment

yep, I just wanna keep my 200-odd shares investment thing in ASICMINER, any which way.

[1715213334]

1715213334

[1715213334]

1715213334

[1715213334]

1715213334

[matauc12]

I don't understand... all you guys saying you buy shares strictly for dividends and not for company growth value? Why did you even buy during IPO?

[friedcat]

Update

This is a short update.

We are working on getting the information of shareholders from GLBSE. Till now no new replies are heard from GLBSE yet.

[Bogart]

I don't understand... all you guys saying you buy shares strictly for dividends and not for company growth value? Why did you even buy during IPO?

I don't understand the question.  Can you clarify please?

[SebastianJu]

Thanks for info friedcat. I dont think they want to scam because it looks like only 600BTC of customermoney were in glbse. So i think it isnt enough to create such big scam. I think they will give the details at some point. Hopefully soon.

matauc12... when you invest you always do it because you will promise yourself something from it isnt it? Dividends, bonus at early IPO or asics. Even when crowdfunding something the backers get something.

[Gabit]

BTC-devs should implement easy interface to the client so we could use the blockchain for holding/trading stocks asap. This is so god damn annoying.

[Jutarul]

BTC-devs should implement easy interface to the client so we could use the blockchain for holding/trading stocks asap. This is so god damn annoying.

Actually the fact that the shares are NOT stored in some form in the blockchain may be an advantage. Otherwise shares which were online at GLBSE at the time of the shutdown would be locked into GLBSE funds.

[Gabit]

BTC-devs should implement easy interface to the client so we could use the blockchain for holding/trading stocks asap. This is so god damn annoying.

Actually the fact that the shares are NOT stored in some form in the blockchain may be an advantage. Otherwise shares which were online at GLBSE at the time of the shutdown would be locked into GLBSE funds.

AFAIK, it would be more like a "company" would only use one Bitcoin (or less if wanted) to issue all shares, as in percentage of that particular coin. For example holding a certain "colored" 0.3 BTC in my wallet would be 30% of those shares. You could use the same mechanism for voting too. Send those shares back and forth, and those would register as votes.  I haven't read all too much bout it, but that is how I have understood it. Correct if I'm wrong.

[Jutarul]

BTC-devs should implement easy interface to the client so we could use the blockchain for holding/trading stocks asap. This is so god damn annoying.

Actually the fact that the shares are NOT stored in some form in the blockchain may be an advantage. Otherwise shares which were online at GLBSE at the time of the shutdown would be locked into GLBSE funds.

AFAIK, it would be more like a "company" would only use one Bitcoin (or less if wanted) to issue all shares, as in percentage of that particular coin. For example holding a certain "colored" 0.3 BTC in my wallet would be 30% of those shares. You could use the same mechanism for voting too. Send those shares back and forth, and those would register as votes.  I haven't read all too much bout it, but that is how I have understood it. Correct if I'm wrong.

sounds about right. Like everything in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to certain approaches. Having your assets represented as colored coins makes them more portable, but they can also easily be held hostage by other entities like exchanges. Right now "all" shares are held hostage in GLBSE, so bitfountain has a considerable incentive to resolve the issue. But if the shares would be spread out throughout 10s of exchanges because colored coins were used, and one goes bad, the shareholders on that particular exchange would have less prospective of getting the situation resolved with the help of bitfountain.

[markm]

Except that exchanging using coloured coins would presumably be by "atomic transactions", so that the trading platform would construct transactions that, once signed by both parties to the transaction, would result in each party holding themselves directly what they traded for. Likely with the transaction having included some outputs to the platform as fees.

-MarkM-

[Jutarul]

Except that exchanging using coloured coins would presumably be by "atomic transactions", so that the trading platform would construct transactions that, once signed by both parties to the transaction, would result in each party holding themselves directly what they traded for. Likely with the transaction having included some outputs to the platform as fees.

Yes. that very much depends on how the exchange implements it.

[tucenaber]

Thanks for info friedcat. I dont think they want to scam because it looks like only 600BTC of customermoney were in glbse. So i think it isnt enough to create such big scam. I think they will give the details at some point. Hopefully soon.

I don't think it's a scam either but you're wrong about the amount of bitcoin. The 600 BTC is only the amount Theymos has control over. He has said that the total probably is somewhere around 6000-8000 BTC.

[SebastianJu]

Thanks for info friedcat. I dont think they want to scam because it looks like only 600BTC of customermoney were in glbse. So i think it isnt enough to create such big scam. I think they will give the details at some point. Hopefully soon.

I don't think it's a scam either but you're wrong about the amount of bitcoin. The 600 BTC is only the amount Theymos has control over. He has said that the total probably is somewhere around 6000-8000 BTC.

Hm... ok, that sounds more like a scam would be worth the work and time. But then... nefario is known in person. He would have a hard time running away with the money.

[markm]

Right. Like Pirate, and whatzisface, and whoozit, and that other chap, oh and that gang of them, and those others before that, and on and on...

-MarkM-

[SebastianJu]

Pirate wasnt known in person am i right? If he would i guess he wouldnt be happy now with all the persons following him to get the money. And chance would be some of them arent the normal user type and would use different "approaches" to get their money back.

[Bogart]

Please excuse me if these questions have already been answered.  I have not read this entire thread.

Was the plan originally to distribute the proceeds from mining with the ASICs to shareholders by paying a dividend (through the exchange)?

Now that the exchange is gone, how would this be expected to work?  Could you instead maybe point a proportionally appropriate amount of hashing power at each shareholders' designated pool account?

I'm still interested in buying into this effort if the loss of the exchange can be overcome, and would love to hear how I might be able to do so.

[niko]

Please excuse me if these questions have already been answered.  I have not read this entire thread.

Was the plan originally to distribute the proceeds from mining with the ASICs to shareholders by paying a dividend (through the exchange)?

Now that the exchange is gone, how would this be expected to work?  Could you instead maybe point a proportionally appropriate amount of hashing power at each shareholders' designated pool account?

I'm still interested in buying into this effort if the loss of the exchange can be overcome, and would love to hear how I might be able to do so.

The original plan is in the OP, and Q&A in post #2. As for your other questions, we'll need to wait for GLBSE shareholders to work out their internal issues and provide some mechanism for GLBSE users to claim their ownership of shares with the issuers.

[DutchBrat]

Update from OgNasty over in his thread.... if true is important to all of us

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.msg1256637#msg1256637

"It is my understanding that GLBSE will begin collecting BTC addresses from users in order to link your BTC address to the amount of shares you own. I would like to urge users to provide a BTC address that you own the private key to (i.e. an address from your Bitcoin client and not a 3rd party). This may become an important factor for the future ownership of your NASTY shares, as the ability to send BTC from the given address may be required in order to confirm ownership."

[VeeMiner]

well I guess that if GLBSE won't send information about the addresses and number of shares of the people that invested in ASICMINER then we're screwed. Otherwise it's not such a big problem and it can be solved...

[DutchBrat]

Update from OgNasty over in his thread.... if true is important to all of us

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.msg1256637#msg1256637

"It is my understanding that GLBSE will begin collecting BTC addresses from users in order to link your BTC address to the amount of shares you own. I would like to urge users to provide a BTC address that you own the private key to (i.e. an address from your Bitcoin client and not a 3rd party). This may become an important factor for the future ownership of your NASTY shares, as the ability to send BTC from the given address may be required in order to confirm ownership."

DutchBrat - This is due to a possible solution I'm looking at implementing to continue operations for NASTY. It doesn't effect any other securities. Although it would most likely be good advice to follow regardless.

Ah, sorry about that, I jumped the gun thinking it was a generic solution. As people probably own more than 1 asset in their portfolio, a generic solution would be the best.