Topic: [BTC-TC] CIPHERMINE-PT - Industrial Mining & High Performance Computing - page 2. (Read 44684 times)

With the recent price rise mining seems to be very profitable, which immediently resulted in a sharp rise in (Litecoin's) hashrate.



In most online stores the prominent GPUs (7950/7970) are not available anymore or are up for sale with a premium of 50-100 EUR, almost all market place subboards in forums (and not only here or in the Litecoin forum) are filled with "looking for GPU x". My guess is that there is more incoming.

This weeks dividend

We received a total dividend of 19.38941136 LTC for 5369 shares. This results in 10.35414067 LTC and 0.29227723 BTC dividend for this pass-through, given an exchange rate of 0.0362614 LTC/BTC and a 0.96947056 LTC fee.

Transaction: 31bf49c14e2b27283b2c4fa92e55ecabd8794d1cf322360eb62c3b3df32d8133

The incoming dividend more than halfed in terms of Litecoins compared to last week (45.8 LTC vs. 19.39 LTC), but the recent Litecoin price rise affected the LTC/BTC exchange rate very positively (0.0134 vs. 0.0362).

> late 2013
> mining

rofl.

This weeks dividend

We received a total dividend of 45.79854618 LTC for 5369 shares. This results in 24.45688429 LTC and 0.25567152 BTC dividend for this pass-through, given an exchange rate of 0.01341986 LTC/BTC and a 2.28992730 LTC fee. I know it may be strange, but if you prefer to receive your dividend in LTC, I'm fine with that.

Transaction: b6ff3ce080c9db62fe5bf4afcb1dc5a1e7ac981643fda0d1822879ff61648a03

What Kate said on the Litecoin forums:

Yep, received with thanks -- and no problem at all. 

Sorry, see PM. 

Gosh, there's a warm and inclusive welcome. 

Dude what's your problem?  You need to put your mind to something else.

Ah, bingo -- there is value being added here, because you're providing trading between PT shares. And I hadn't quite twigged that Kate's reactions to the whole situation had gone so far as to include forced lock-in by freezing the shareholder register altogether.

Surely folks have to wonder: why on Earth didn't CM convert the entire shareholder base to your PT -- or, alternatively, hand over management of their shareholder register to you while dropping the PT altogether -- since you're apparently offering their shareholders something that they themselves refuse to offer?

(I'm not looking for an answer -- just marvelling at this latest reminder of the eccentricities of CM management.)


PT shares which are not redeemable for the underlying...only in CM-land...

No, I don't want my dividend in LTC.  I don't need special treatment.   Was just curious if PT <> PT was tradable.
Thanks

I'm excited about the announcement of the new excahgne, I don't think I'll be selling anything but I like the idea it's housed somewhere people can sell and of course buy.

good times 

CM <> CM-PT is still not possible and will probably not be before CipherTrade goes live according to Kate's statements, but if you are asking about CM-PT <> CM-PT, then yes, that's possible.

If you prefer Litecoin over Bitcoin I can make another proposal though. Would you like to receive your dividend rather in Litecoin?

DexX7, are you saying the PT can be traded now?

Ah, that's actually a great example.

First off, I think the broader question is "what are potential reasons to justify a second instance" rather than focusing on the need of two exchanges. Generalized I would answer this with "whenever there is a difference between the two instances, there might be a justification". This also applies to direct shares, especially when the operator fulfills some roles of an exchange.

As mentioned before, the current form of this PT is not the one I intended to create in the first place, but the result of the LTCG/BTCT shutdown. I decided to continue simply (but not only) because there were shareholders left who didn't convert to CM. From my point of view that's justification enough, even if you think there is "no need to". I'm not the one who makes that call, but shareholders do, based on their own reasoning and the given circumstances.

It's also worth to mention that this PT is tradable in the sense that I do process transfers from one user to another, which CM as direct share provider never did and never will with the note that users should wait for CipherTrade. By the way, I'm happy about any meaningful suggestion, if you like to contribute.

Yep, I get that. I even referred to it in my original question.

What I don't get is why there is still a pass-through that isn't adding any passing through.

Generally speaking, for a pass-through to offer some value, one needs two exchanges: a primary exchange, where an asset itself is listed, and a secondary exchange where the pass-through is listed. The secondary exchange is, for whatever reason, more valuable to some segment of the population than the primary exchange where an asset is listed. For example, the secondary exchange might be denominated in a different currency, it might offer a different interface, or it might provide better liquidity. (There are other scenarios where a PT might be appropriate, but bridging two exchanges is the main one.) So, once you take away the secondary exchange, a PT loses its reason for being.

Suppose I said to you "hey, I'm going to run a new 'direct' pass-through for ASICMiner, so you can now get shares of ASICMiner directly from Friedcat, or you can get pass-through shares directly from me". Why on Earth would you buy them from me? Suppose someone now said "hey, did you know ASICMiner is finally going to be listed on an exchange again?" Then the question becomes even more pressing: why on Earth would you buy them from me instead?

Greg, there is an exchange on the horizon - the UK one, CipherTrade (with both BTC and LTC). Should be run by woodrake with Deprived and others. More info: https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,7176.0.html

That was actually the point: the original purpose of the PT is not and cannot be the purpose now. There is no second exchange on the horizon; there is not even a first exchange. Since the whole point of a PT is typically to provide a bridge from what is available on one exchange to what is available on another, when you take away not just one exchange but both, it's hard to understand why there's still a bridge.

(Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a "first exchange" were to appear. Would there be some reason to keep holding and paying for an illiquid "direct pass-through" while waiting for a mysterious "second exchange" to appear somewhere, just so you could avoid using the first exchange? We're not talking about LTC versus BTC, of course, since there is no exchange at all, whether denominated in LTC, BTC, or Fruit Roll-Ups...)

I took it that the "bridge going nowhere" aspect would be fairly uncontroversial and had assumed there must be some other compelling rationale behind it that I just couldn't figure out. From dexX7's original reply, however (before all the "he said, she said"), I take it that actually, no, there isn't any other additional rationale.

I welcomed this pass through when it was first introduced and was happy with DexX7 quick responses and turn around time.  BTC-TC abrupt shut down made it difficult if not impossible to shut this pass through down completely and thus it is still operating.  When Ciphertrade gets up and running it would be convenient to have this PT continuing to serve BTC investors on a second exchange.

I think DexX7 adequately explained the purpose of this PT earlier in this very thread.

I don't see any thing odd here.

Huh?


On the contrary, I have no interest at all in rehashing selectively quoted snippets of your discussion with TAT, Mircea Popescu and others. If I was entirely mistaken, and you weren't really talking with them at all but were merely contemporaneously poring through low-grade information sources to try and verify my identity, then clearly I had the wrong impression, and I certainly do apologise.

(Remember I only mentioned this at all because I hesitated even to raise a question in your thread, given the flavour of those previous discussions and my preference not to experience a "shoot the messenger" reaction.)

The main point here is not a "he said, she said". The main point is the oddity of an ongoing "direct pass-through". That's far more worth the time to discuss, don't you think?

I'd apprechiate, if you drop that sarcastic tone, but if that's your thing, that's your thing. My intention was not and is not to attack or ridicule you.

My IRC nick is registred and dexX7 is indeed me and not someone else.

I think I found the logs to the conversation you are referring to, so let's reflect on what was said on that day during your IPO. Everything I said in context of BTC Growth or you as person is included, nicknames shortened and non-relevant comments from others inbetween were removed due to their non-relevance and to make it easier to focus:


Is this what you are referring to?

No need to apologize. The way you expressed your feelings shows that you have a strong interest in taking about this, especially given the fact, that the above quoted conversation took place more than three months ago. Your claim is somewhat strong and offending and therefore I like to represent my point of view, too.

Yes, that was exactly the puzzle, since a "direct" pass-through is something of an oxymoron. As far as I can tell, holders of the pass-through get all the disadvantages of holding a pass-through (expense, counterparty risk, etc.) and none of the advantages of the sort of structure that would usually be dubbed a pass-through (namely, the feature of actually passing through from somewhere, such as another exchange).


Maybe it was a different user named 'dexX7' who was hobnobbing with TAT, Mircea Popescu and others on IRC in the midst of the BTC Growth IPO? (If so, I do apologise for assuming you were that dexX7.) The comically ill-informed condescension from the hobnobbers so thick you could cut it with a knife. I seem to remember the 'dexX7' user ridiculing those participating in the BTC Growth fund -- oh, and even unearthing a deliberately obscure (and obscured) Facebook page and thinking it was somehow relevant. (Gaaawwwwd I despise Facebook.) In retrospect, it's quite funny how some of the folks laughed at those selling ASICMiner to buy into BTC Growth, given that at the end of the day, those who adopted exactly that strategy wound up with roughly 275% as much money in their accounts than those who stuck with the former darling of the mining world.


I can assure you I didn't need to ask how to establish a short position. You were responding to someone else's question in the thread.


Okey dokey -- must have been a different 'dexX7', so I must apologise again for assuming the handle in two completely different contexts was owned by the same user. (Heck, for all I know there could be someone posing as me on IRC, since I have about as much interest in spending time on IRC as I have in Facebook -- there ya go, scammers, there's your opportunity to pretend to be me...) And in fact my original parenthetical comment for context risks hijacking your thread, so sorry about that too!