ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[ThickAsThieves]

My SWAG is

Your wat?

SWAG = Strategic Wild Ass Guess

Stop Wasting Acronyms, Goddamit!

Single White Agoraphobic Gamer

[1715104977]

1715104977

[1715104977]

1715104977

[1715104977]

1715104977

[1715104977]

1715104977

[Vycid]

My SWAG is

Your wat?

"Scientific Wild Ass Guess"

Damn, I thought the "S" was "super".  

[wo0x]

But what i would like to know is if friedcat stopped his plans for an own exchange. If so i would think about finally move my shares to one or two exchanges so that i can react fast if i need to.

Expansion by outsourcing is probably the only option FC has. To have too much acceleration in this process will dilute the quality of service.

I would like to have some figures about income from franchising and reseller's protected areas.

And if you are bearish, ask for PUTs ,) so you won't need to move your shares or don't even need to own some ,)

[organofcorti]

Yeah 2 MW/h is a nonsense unit.  Maybe that is why we didn't want to ship them.

2 MW = measure of energy  power
2 MWh = measure of power energy
2 MW/h =

[um, some kind of measurement of acceleration / deceleration of power? For example the ability to ramp up hashrate rapidly? Or something?]


FTFY. Maybe.

[SOSLOVE868]

lot of people ,they sold AM ,they think that other like activitmining or labcoin might get more return for them.
after several days , they found AM still the asset pays highest dividend....

Please hold the price line , As long as AM pays highest dividends, it is no reason to be so panic....Guys!!!

[Vycid]

lot of people ,they sold AM ,they think that other like activitmining or labcoin might get more return for them.
after several days , they found AM still the asset pays highest dividend....

Please hold the price line , As long as AM pays highest dividends, it is no reason to be so panic....Guys!!!

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

You could make 0.1 BTC per share in dividends over the next 3 months - and then end up with shares worth less than 1 BTC.

Good deal, huh?  

There were a lot of people sputtering at 3.0 about how it was still a super profitable dividend security, too. OOPS.

[Vexual]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

Dividends have some reflection on profits, and those profits are used to remain competitive.

The share price has no reflection on the future ability of the company to remain competitive.

[101111]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

You could say that about most businesses.

You could make 0.1 BTC per share in dividends over the next 3 months - and then end up with shares worth less than 1 BTC.

Good deal, huh? 

Or they could be worth more than 10 BTC, we just don't know.

There were a lot of people sputtering at 3.0 about how it was still a super profitable dividend security, too. OOPS.

And there were plenty of skeptics at 0.2. OOPS.

I thought you were going to stop spamming the thread with your negative bullshit? Factual, rational argument is welcome, and you occasionally have some worthwhile contributions, but the relentless hyperbolic fear mongering drowns out anything useful, and smacks of a self-serving smear campaign.

[Vycid]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

Dividends have some reflection on profits, and those profits are used to remain competitive.

The share price has no reflection on the future ability of the company to remain competitive.

Indeed. Instead the share price is a reflection of the ability of the company to remain competitive in the future.

And the share price is a more significant factor in your ability to make money than the dividends are, given the degree of volatility.

[Vexual]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

Dividends have some reflection on profits, and those profits are used to remain competitive.

The share price has no reflection on the future ability of the company to remain competitive.

Indeed. Instead the share price is a reflection of the future ability of the company to remain competitive.

You say indeed, then disagree?

And the share price is a more significant factor in your ability to make money than the dividends are, given the degree of volatility.

So you are talking about the viability of being able to trade the shares on a week to week basis for profit, rather than the viability of the company?

[Vycid]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

You could say that about most businesses.

Hardly. Most businesses release product details, earnings guidance, business plans, etc. AM is supposed to be rolling out gen 2 "within the next couple months" and has shared no information. You are gambling here, and the downside is nasty - not to mention that gen 2 could launch as planned and still fail to compete, since we know next to nothing about the cost per unit or KW-h per GH or anything really.

Most companies that pay dividends provide some assurance of their ability to continue doing so in the future.

You could make 0.1 BTC per share in dividends over the next 3 months - and then end up with shares worth less than 1 BTC.

Good deal, huh? 

Or they could be worth more than 10 BTC, we just don't know.

I've made quantitative value arguments that 2 BTC is a fair price only if AM is successful at retaining a significant chunk of the hashrate for many years. 10 BTC is highly unlikely.

Sure, we don't know. I like my odds, though.

There were a lot of people sputtering at 3.0 about how it was still a super profitable dividend security, too. OOPS.

And there were plenty of skeptics at 0.2. OOPS.

I thought you were going to stop spamming the thread with your negative bullshit? Factual, rational argument is welcome, and you occasionally have some worthwhile contributions, but the relentless hyperbolic fear mongering drowns out anything useful, and smacks of a self-serving smear campaign.

There were skeptics at 0.2, yes. Rightfully so, since AM hadn't proven itself yet - but it is my understanding that at that point it DID share more of its business plan with the public. 0.2 was a decent bet, considering there was not much competition on the scene, and lots of coins up for grab until the rest of the competition could mobilize.

This is NOT a comparable scenario, since AM is LESS transparent and headed for extreme competition.

It's hardly a fear campaign. If someone says "this is ridiculous!!! how could you sell, AM has the highest dividends!!" I'm going to point out why that's not really important.

[Vycid]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

Dividends have some reflection on profits, and those profits are used to remain competitive.

The share price has no reflection on the future ability of the company to remain competitive.

Indeed. Instead the share price is a reflection of the future ability of the company to remain competitive.

You say indeed, then disagree?

And the share price is a more significant factor in your ability to make money than the dividends are, given the degree of volatility.

So you are talking about the viability of being able to trade the shares on a week to week basis for profit, rather than the viability of the company?

Not 'has a reflection on', but 'is a reflection of'. The forward earnings strongly influence share prices - that's the idea behind forward P/E ratios.

I am talking about the viability of holding AM shares, mid or long term, with the purpose of profiting from the dividends. It is highly likely those dividends will be nothing more than noise in the overriding signal of the price swings.

[Vexual]

Vycid, your special brand of pharisaic retardation is a joke.

[Vycid]

Vycid, your special brand of pharisaic retardation is a joke.

Surely you understand the difference. The first statement - 'share price has no reflection on ability to remain competitive' - implied that a change in share price does not have a causative influence on the ability of the company to be profitable. This is true and therefore I agree.

My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.

To be clear, X can cause Y without Y causing X.

You can go off and accuse me of being a pedant, but you're responsible for writing what you mean. English is funny sometimes and I can only read what you have written. I have not yet mastered mindreading.

Also, I'm not sure you meant to use 'pharisaic' -

phar·i·sa·ic  (fr-sk) also phar·i·sa·i·cal (-s-kl)
adj.
1. Pharisaic also Pharisaical Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.

unless you're referring to some hypocrisy I have missed.

[Vexual]

Yes, I understand the difference, and yes, I did mean pharisaic.

My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.

I didn't see the implication. I too can only read what is written.

You can truthfully say, that your valuation of a fair share price is a reflection of your speculation for future profitability.
Anything else is bullshit.

[btcbot]

Vycid, your special brand of pharisaic retardation is a joke.

Surely you understand the difference. The first statement - 'share price has no reflection on ability to remain competitive' - implied that a change in share price does not have a causative influence on the ability of the company to be profitable. This is true and therefore I agree.

My statement - 'share price is a reflection of future profitability' - implies a change in profitability causes a change in the share price. This is not incompatible.

To be clear, X can cause Y without Y causing X.

You can go off and accuse me of being a pedant, but you're responsible for writing what you mean. English is funny sometimes and I can only read what you have written. I have not yet mastered mindreading.

Also, I'm not sure you meant to use 'pharisaic' -

phar·i·sa·ic  (fr-sk) also phar·i·sa·i·cal (-s-kl)
adj.
1. Pharisaic also Pharisaical Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.

unless you're referring to some hypocrisy I have missed.

Vycid, if you're going to keep repeating yourself please do us all (and yourself) a favor if you wish to remain reputable.  Please state your short position or state that you have a short position at the end of every post. 

[101111]

How do you not understand that the current dividends are totally immaterial if the future ability of the company to remain competitive is in question?

You could say that about most businesses.

Hardly. Most businesses release product details, earnings guidance, business plans, etc. AM is supposed to be rolling out gen 2 "within the next couple months" and has shared no information. You are gambling here, and the downside is nasty - not to mention that gen 2 could launch as planned and still fail to compete, since we know next to nothing about the cost per unit or KW-h per GH or anything really.

Most companies that pay dividends provide some assurance of their ability to continue doing so in the future.

Obfuscate all you like, the fact remains that almost all businesses, and their shareholders, must continually question their competitive position.

We've all just been through the GFC so c'mon don't be so naive: earnings guidance? Assurance? Ha!

You could make 0.1 BTC per share in dividends over the next 3 months - and then end up with shares worth less than 1 BTC.

Good deal, huh?  

Or they could be worth more than 10 BTC, we just don't know.

I've made quantitative value arguments that 2 BTC is a fair price only if AM is successful at retaining a significant chunk of the hashrate for many years. 10 BTC is highly unlikely.

Sure, we don't know. I like my odds, though.

Good, making some progress here, please remember this bit.

There were a lot of people sputtering at 3.0 about how it was still a super profitable dividend security, too. OOPS.

And there were plenty of skeptics at 0.2. OOPS.

I thought you were going to stop spamming the thread with your negative bullshit? Factual, rational argument is welcome, and you occasionally have some worthwhile contributions, but the relentless hyperbolic fear mongering drowns out anything useful, and smacks of a self-serving smear campaign.

There were skeptics at 0.2, yes. Rightfully so, since AM hadn't proven itself yet - but it is my understanding that at that point it DID share more of its business plan with the public. 0.2 was a decent bet, considering there was not much competition on the scene, and lots of coins up for grab until the rest of the competition could mobilize.

This is NOT a comparable scenario, since AM is LESS transparent and headed for extreme competition.

It's hardly a fear campaign. If someone says "this is ridiculous!!! how could you sell, AM has the highest dividends!!" I'm going to point out why that's not really important.

Less transparent than what? Do you want FC to let the competition know his every move?

Neither of us know what the competitive landscape will look like 3 months from now let alone 1 year; we don't know if it will be extreme or how extreme; extreme is subjective anyway, your extreme is another person's 'weak', who knows. Maybe extreme is when the top 5 chip makers start getting into the game, not just a few throw away virtual business plans floating around the boards.

Yes I'm just exaggerating a bit here to get my point across that you Vycid simply do not know, yet you continue to spam the board with your pretentious declarations of doom.

[integrity42]

AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00

Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.

They're worth around 0.05 imo.

[tinus42]

AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00

Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.

They're worth around 0.05 imo.

Obvious troll (who joined on the first of this month) is obvious.

[BitAddict]

AM Shares slowly trending toward 0.00

Told you all they were overvalued at 0.5.

They're worth around 0.05 imo.

Nice point ROLF
Good luck buying them at 0.05