Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 501. (Read 3917531 times)

numbers are numbers and they are low, when future plans are REAL and hashing, it is a different story.

This week divs REALLY sucked. Which makes the gamble on the future 3 times more risky!

p.s.: the near future that is.

Someone, or even a few just lost their nerves on Havelock.
I know it's no sugary pie-land, but I still feel a lot better than the days and weeks before friedcat's latest announcement. How about you guys?

What were you expecting? Everyone knows the divs will be rubbish for another month or so. And yet another sell off at havelock ... sigh .... I can't believe how short-sighted people are. Its laughable.

Roll on March (likely the end of March but still that is just next month!)  I would be shocked if the share price nosedived this month on the back of low dividends knowing what is waiting just around the corner.

I believe that next week we will see half of this week divs

I see, that you jump-in in exactly same time as me ... yeah... i know, how you feel 

Yuck

Here are the past dividends if anyone is interested as this information may be hard to find.

12-Jun-13   0.03628311 19-Jun-13   0.01810108 26-Jun-13   0.01938069 03-Jul-13   0.02297025 10-Jul-13   0.02075485 17-Jul-13   0.02536692 24-Jul-13   0.02405901 31-Jul-13   0.01858868 07-Aug-13   0.02457145 14-Aug-13   0.024597289 21-Aug-13   0.01226019 28-Aug-13   0.01239987 04-Sep-13   0.01404192 11-Sep-13   0.01355608 18-Sep-13   0.00967485 25-Sep-13   0.00879957 02-Oct-13   0.00800337 09-Oct-13   0.00486048 16-Oct-13   0.00403284 23-Oct-13   0.00374772 30-Oct-13   0.0035336 06-Nov-13   0.00290692 13-Nov-13   0.00299 20-Nov-13   0.00132577 27-Nov-13   0.00199664 04-Dec-13   0.00198945 11-Dec-13   0.00134945 18-Dec-13   0.0012171 25-Dec-13   0.00061248 01-Jan-14   0.00081605 08-Jan-14   0.00066897 15-Jan-14   0.00096215 22-Jan-14   0.00026655 29-Jan-14   0.00061457 05-Feb-14   0.00027377

We're rich!

Confirmed

Dividend: 0.00027377

Thanks for pointing out. That's probably why I perceived your argument as a straw man, but you may indeed be right.


Well, my now bitrotten WoT design has become a victim of too ambitious goals. Obviously it's time to go back to the drawing board and work on something realistic, instead of whining.

When and if someone designs and implements a decentralized securities exchange that fulfills all of the expected functions, it will become self-evident. Just as bitcoin did.

When the Nazi propaganda team put out a book "100 scientists prove Einstein is wrong", the press asked the physicist for comment. He said simply: "If I were wrong it would only take one."

My point is, when the correct solution is created, we will each recognize it, one at a time.

Dex have two huge benefits :
- It reduce risk (less trust needed)
- It reduce work

Both work and risk generate costs. So it boils down to a cost reduction benefit.

A lot of people thought Bitcoin doesn't have any advantage. Well, the main appeal of Bitcoin is cost reduction. And because efficiency is vital in a competitive environment, the whole economy will adopt it. As Dex...

People are not excited by decentralization for the sake of decentralization. They think decentralization is great because it's the medium of a drastic improvement in efficiency.

First, I have little interest in debating the finer points of decentralization as an initiative, nor laboring to defend my interpretations of it. This is mostly because it's all moot. People are working on decentralization, and it will either be useful or it won't. I'm okay with either outcome.

Second, while I didn't do a good job separating out the concepts, it was a rant after all, there were distinct concepts being described. For example, I don't think decentralization is particularly useful for stock exchanges, but I do think it has its uses. So yes, "vetting and auditing process has nothing to do with on what system the shares are traded". That was implied within my arguments.

Third, the scope of me saying "Having to trust 3 people instead of 1 is not decentralization" was intentional. Token decentralization is not enough. You call this notion childish, but I have serious concerns about Bitcoin not being up to the task of sufficiently defending itself from mining centralization and luring people into a false sense of security. Bitcoin is not untouchable, but it may become so.

Fourth, while I understand that breaking a thing into pieces does, in a literal sense, decentralize it, it does not do so in the way most forumites and reddites perceive it to when it comes to stock exchanges. What they are looking for is not protection from government shutdown, that has yet to even affect them. They are looking for a safe haven to gamble away their bitcoins attempting to make money by mistake (because it's easier and more entertaining than learning how to earn more responsibly), while not having to worry about the issuer or exchange scamming them. Again, this is a trust issue (with vetting/auditing falling into the same category), not a centralization one.

This leads me to...

Fifth, I wholeheartedly disagree with your estimation of the crowd's comprehension of the things they support. Maybe I'm just jaded, but that's what I observe. This crowd exhibits swarm behavior, is anti-intellectual, and hostile toward any disruption on sight.

Sixth, your response to me wondering why people aren't working on a decentralized WoT is system amounts to, "because they don't know how". Well, that's my point too, no? Of course, we're both being a little silly by assigning a "they" and then assuming it does what we "think" is "best".

Finally, I do appreciate your notion of design through iteration in regards to all these things evolving over time. We all get so excited and start pathing through our brains to possible futures, that we forget humans have to actually sit down and make this stuff, and that won't come without errors and iterations. People better keep that in mind about Bitcoin as the choice protocol too.

Actually, moving to a mature exchange saves a lot of their jobs. This is not a near-term objective since there's no mature Dex yet anyway.

These discussions are great, but AM is just entering a phase of intense work with Gen3 chips, signing up partners, getting their own mining operation back on track etc etc.

Why not table a question to FC first, see if AM is even considering moving forward with a blockchain-based exchange in the near future? My guess is they simply won't want to put the time in. They don't have a website either still. Or report dividends to this thread. Or have a PR person ..... a new exchange is a bigger job than all these put together.

I think that's doable with multi-sig support of BTC. The issuer can just send certain amount BTC to an address can only be spent by n of m creditable escrows.

This, however, just move the trust of issuer to n of m escrows, only slightly better. At least, the issuer has to bribe n of m escrows, and if n is large enough the cost could be high.

Anyone know the current maximum number of sigs the multi-sig allows? If it's large enough, the list could even include the whole IPO investors.

Are you seriously calling me the troll while simultaneously agreeing with me?

Its hilarious that you think I'm a troll because I said havelock wasn't a scam and you thought it was. And now you are using havelock and giving them your money. A bit hypocritical don't you think?

About the fact that we still have to trust the issuer with a DEX, can we imagine that the issuer puts BTC somewhere the blockchain as collateral and if he default the BTC would be redeem to the creditors?