Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It - page 787. (Read 3917635 times)

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:36:13 PM

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:25:33 PM

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.

Mausini

full member

Activity: 177

Merit: 100

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:36:13 PM

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:25:33 PM

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:39:06 AM

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?

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

101111

hero member

Activity: 525

Merit: 500

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.

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:39:06 AM

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.

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:39:06 AM

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.

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: velacreations on August 18, 2013, 12:27:32 AM

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:26:44 AM

... 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.

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: 101111 on August 18, 2013, 12:13:59 AM

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.

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.

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".

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.

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:26:44 AM

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.

velacreations

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

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

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: velacreations on August 18, 2013, 12:24:22 AM

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:19:29 AM

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

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:24:03 AM

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

velacreations

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vycid on August 18, 2013, 12:19:29 AM

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?

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: Rodyland on August 18, 2013, 12:18:16 AM

Quote from: 101111 on August 18, 2013, 12:22:36 AM

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.

Quote from: Vycid on August 17, 2013, 10:44:37 PM

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.

101111

hero member

Activity: 525

Merit: 500

Quote from: Vycid on August 17, 2013, 10:44:37 PM

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

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: velacreations on August 18, 2013, 12:09:28 AM

Quote from: Vycid on August 17, 2013, 11:43:36 PM

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

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/alternate-implementation-of-colored-bitcoins-237501

that's great, what exchange uses that protocol?

Rodyland

hero member

Activity: 499

Merit: 500

101111

hero member

Activity: 525

Merit: 500

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.

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?

Quote from: Vycid on August 17, 2013, 11:43:36 PM

Critical thinking, for or against, is very much appreciated and more than welcome. I'd love to see some.

velacreations

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

that's great, what exchange uses that protocol?

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:39:06 PM

I'm a lot more skeptical these days of anyone who asks you to accept their word on faith.

FC has never asked me anything, so I don't know wtf you are talking about. Does FC message you asking you to take his word on faith?

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:36:13 PM

Isn't the point of Bitcoin the decentralization of trust? We're not supposed to have to trust individuals (or groups), because individuals (or groups) can be scammers. But here we are anyway.

some level of trust is always required for a transaction. Someone has to go first, even with an escrow.

I don't know how you run a security exchange without even a basic level of trust, at least of the software running the system (provided that you took out all humans along the way). I'm sure it exists, but every BTC exchange market requires you to at least trust the exchange itself.

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:25:33 PM

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?

velacreations

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

I'm a lot more skeptical these days of anyone who asks you to accept their word on faith.

FC has never asked me anything, so I don't know wtf you are talking about. Does FC message you asking you to take his word on faith?

Isn't the point of Bitcoin the decentralization of trust? We're not supposed to have to trust individuals (or groups), because individuals (or groups) can be scammers. But here we are anyway.

velacreations

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:25:33 PM

Quote from: velacreations on August 17, 2013, 11:25:33 PM

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?

Vycid

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

♫ the AM bear who cares ♫