Topic: Hashrates of mining securities (Read 3948 times)

No, would you like me to?

Mistake I made was thinking you'd finally seen sense and had shares on the exchange matching yoru spreadsheet.

2013-08-06 16:00    ฿ 0.07540800    4713    0.00001600    COMPLETE
2013-08-06 16:00    ฿ 0.03804800    --    --    CANCELED
2013-08-05 17:10    ฿ 0.03682373    4679    0.00000787    COMPLETE
2013-08-05 16:00    ฿ 0.03804800    4679    0.00000813    COMPLETE
2013-08-04 16:01    ฿ 0.03804800    2375    0.00001602    COMPLETE

Dividend record shows that (when I made my post) outstanding shares recorded on the exchange rose from 4679 to 4713 on 6th August (the large rise prior to that was the disclosed movement of Nyan's holdings from the wrong account to the right one).  Easy to make mistakes when the outstanding shares are being fiddled with by holdings that aren't reflected on the exchange.

Have you calculated (and published) how much NAV/U remaining investors lost from you buying back at over current NAV/U?

As usual you screw up simple facts and figures. Here's a complete record of all buys and sells done on the BMF account since the repurchase plan was announced:


Notice that all buybacks were done above NAV. Notice that no action that BMF took in any way increased the number of outstanding shares. In fact, the number of outstanding shares has fallen by 222 shares from 4,687 to 4,465 as a result of these buybacks. You can see that on our disclosure page.


Seriously dude? Just shut the fuck up and have another beer.

Below quote is from usagi's reddit post - just to show how retarded he is.


PURCHASE does NOT take a management fee on income from investment - only from initial purchases.

The 'mysterious' 0.4% isn't actually all that mysterious at all.  It's a 0.2% BTC-TC fee for buying PURCHASE plus a 0.2% BTC-TC fee for SELLING it.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything else.  So long as it makes enough to cover the site fees you don't make a loss - and it's made plenty more than that.

I'm not sure what the fascination is with investment into LTC-ATF.B1 anyway.  DMS has nearly 2K BTC in capital.  Just over 100 BTC is invested in LTC-ATF.B1 - and nothing has EVER been invested in LTC-ATF itself or LTC-ATF.B2 (even though usagi seems to think it has).  The main source of loss (or not making a profit) for investors in PURCHASE (which isn't recommended as an investment anyway - it only exists because there's no other way to easily sell pairs of MINING/SELLING) is the majority of capital which just sits totally unused in its account (which is verifiable due to the API url to view it being published - which anyone can check at any time).

Eventually you - and other retards - will get it into their heads that DMS.Mining is a bet with those who hold DMS.Selling.  My role is mainly to act as an escrow allowing them to speculate against one another.  I don't sell DMS.Mining OR DMS.Selling - so holders of neither are investing (to any large extent) with me.  I qualify it with "any large extent" as they ARE investing with me to the degree that I invest some of the capital to generate modest returns - but I have no control over the prices traded at or the amount of dividend each receives.

So when I refer to people as retards or idiots it's for entering into a bet at a bad price with whoever they bought their MINING from.  It has nothing to do with investing in me - as they AREN'T investing in me : nothing I do is going to change what those holding MINING receive (unless I do something really stupid with the capital).

I could have made a lot more profit if I'd set the prices myself rather than allowing anyone who wants to market-make (i.e. kept MINING priced just under the lowest-priced competitor).  But I don't run investments like that - anything I run which relies on my judgment is going to be designed to make all investors profit.

As for your question of whether I'm breaking the asset-issuers' terms of service.  No I'm not.  Read them more carefully - hint: the rule isn't a blanket ban on investing in securities with same issuer (there's a qualifier).

Rest of your reddit post is just you showing your usual lack of understanding : somewhere you seem to have got the mistaken impression that LTC-ATF/B1/B2 invest in coinlenders - they don't.  You also seem to believe that DMS mainly invests in my own securities - it doesn't (it has less in mine than in either of Coinlenders or J-D).  You also seem to believe investors in PURCHASE make a loss because of my 3% management fee - they don't (you can check what it started selling at, take off dividends to date and compare to current price - you'll find it's made a profit).  In short you've got none of your facts correct on which you base your conclusions.  Which is about par for the course.

Haven't you got better things to be doing?  Like:

Paying back the Nyan.A investors who were promised their money back in Q1.
Continuing your 'buy-back' offer on BMF which strangely results in outstanding shares count increasing.  As with previous buy-backs seems it's just a feeble attempt to pump the price for you to sell into.
Try to devise ways to explain why an investment fund that is only mandated to invest in Mining securities ends up with way more in non-mining than mining-related.  All BMF seems to be is a vehicle to invest across bonds issued by other people with the occasion spell of chucking away some cash on overpriced PMBs.
Try to find ways to pump your valuation of assets.  Valuing fixed-rate bonds at the compulsory buy-backs was a good start - but that's only inflated it a little bit.

And if my investmetns are so dodgy why is it you always seem to end up holding them?

Grab prices from BTCT using API.

Sometimes when I get upset I like to blow off steam by "typing angry". Then I inevitably think better of it and go back and edit the post. *shrug* Deprived's posts here calling his investors idiots and retards struck a nerve. Yes people make mistakes and sometimes people should know better. But even when you are running a mining security you do your best. I run BMF and I find myself fleeing mining bonds and getting into face value to save my investors. Because I want to protect them. I do not think of my investors as idiots and retards.

I could go into all sorts of reasons why selling a virtual security below the cost of actual production is a ridiculously dangerous idea (and it is -- it is bound to have severe, unforeseen economic consequences) but that is not the topic of this discussion. I've decided to just condense it into this:

"Is DMS in violation of the BTC-TC terms of service?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinStocks/comments/1k3cft/is_dms_in_violation_of_the_btctc_terms_of_service/

Thank you for your time, dear readers.

Wow, Deprived gets drunk and has a melt-down, calling his investors idiots and retards.


So when people lost money on BMF, I am a bad fund manager, and I am personally liable, and you spend a year lying about me and trying to get me delisted,

but when people lose money on DMS.MINING, they're idiots?

Well fuck you mr trollypants. I warned people about you.

And I hope your security gets canceled, because you are breaking BTC-TC terms of service. DMS invests into LTC-ATF both directly and via under the table loans. I cannot believe LTC-GLOBAL administrators approved your contract. You are a real piece of shit.

It wasn't intended as an excuse - but as an explanation.

Potentially what I said costs me BTC - as it encourages people think about how horrible PMBs/Mining investments in general are as investment - and so may reduce my sales of MINING and hence PURCHASE.

I neither seek nor need an excuse - as all I've done is told an uncomfortable truth.  If it costs me a few BTC in management fees I'm sure I'll live with it.  Fact is I've bitten my tongue a fair few times to avoid pointing out just how stupid people buying PMBs were - I have no regrets that a few beers made me (more accurately encouraged me to - as it in no way compelled me to do something I had no desire to do) say things the way they are.

Only apology I owe is to those of my investors selling DMS.SELLING who may find it harder to find a market now - but in truth the price of DMS.MINING has finally dropped to a point where it's no longer certain DMS.SELLING is the better bet anyway.

Think you're getting confused here.

MY investors are people who bought DMS.PURCHASE - the only DMS security I sell or set the price for.  How they then bet amonst themselves on MINING/SELLING is out of my control.  The ones who bought MINING early on were fucking stupid.  I could be polite about it and say they misjudged the situation but fact is they behaved liked retards.  However they did so in their dealings with other people - not as investors of mine.  If they'd just kept the PURCHASE they bought from me they'd have made a profit (that's a concept your own 'investors' will only have theoretical familiarity with).  I can't help that they were stupid enough to think that a PMB was worth whatever they paid (to a fellow investor) for similar output from DMS.MINING - not would/should I WANT to help/stop it.

They lost less than if they'd bought actual PMBs - so hopefully learned their lession (more) cheaply.

One of the main objectives of DMS was (and it was openly stated) to try to determine what the market thought true value was for PMBs (by allowing trade on something similar to one).  That was always going to result in some fools losing money (some of whom run investment funds selling to bigger fools).  But overall I'm certain it reduced the cash lost in PMB-like investment.

I make no apologies at all for idiots losing money on DMS.MINING to less stupid people.  Those idiots were going to lose that (or more) anyway - all I changed is who they lost it to (whoever happened to sell them the DMS.MINING rather than some near-scammer pretending selling a PMB or similar was an investment) and the degree to which is was obvious the loss was through stupidity not bad luck.

It may shock you but I'm actually not that bothered if my post -and you quoting it - deters idiots from investing in me in the future.  Idiots generally don't get to keep their money.  If I need/ask for funds where the return depends on my judgement (which isn't the case for DMS MINING/SELLING) then I'm totally confident the non-idiots will provide what I want/need.  The idiots can buy YOUR shares.

Its output is comparable to that of a PMB.  It isn't actually a PMB.  It's a way to bet on the value of something that's PMB-like - giving similar returns to a PMB without actually being one (the end-conditions stop it being a PMB as you've correctly pointed out yourself).

Originally it sold at price where anyone investing was thrwoing away money (same as with actucal PMBs).  Now it's trading in a range where the outcome isn't so certain.  Most actual PMBs/minign contracts are still trading at prices where it's a guaranteed loss for retards investors.

I don't (and never have) set the price for DMS.MINING - the market sets that.  That the price happens to show how badly overpriced PMBs/contracts are is amusing but not under my control.

I want it to be considered as comparable in value (potential dividends paid) to a PMB but don't want it to be considered to BE a PMB : I've argued why it can be considered similar to a PMB on value but never argued that it should be considered to actually BE one.

If you fancy arguing there's any chance that your 'investment' will ever make a profit for investors then all I need are three things:

1.  The amount you want to bet
2.  The odds you want
3.  The escrow you want to use

There's no "4. rhetoric".  I may well refuse based on 2 (as the return wouldn't justify tieing up the capital) but if you feel the need to ask for odds then that tells its own story anyway.

I'm actually just going to quote the whole thing for the record. I'm frankly a bit shocked at what you just wrote; not about BFMines but about your own investors.

.b

Wow. You're operating an asset you want to be perceived as a PMB and refuse any argument that it isn't a PMB.

Now you're calling those investors retards.

I've always had great respect for you, Deprived, but I'm sorry to say that respect took a beating just now.


Not sure that's an excuse.

.b

Indeed, both are worth less than PMBs that are actually mining.  DMS.MINING by an amount depending on when you think difficulty rises will level out (5-20%), BFMINES based on when you think they'll receive delivery (if you think tomorrow then it's worth maybe 10-20% more than a PMB, if you think not until after next difficulty change then less than a PMB).

Which isn't to say that any PMBs or mining investments are worthwhile at current prices - I wouldn't want anyone to think I recommended throwing money away buying any of them.  My personal advice is that just about everyone is better off NOT buying anything which is MINING or virtual mining or investing in Mining ot anything at all to do with mining.  On average you'll end up far better off just holding Bitcoins.  I remain convinced that Bitcoin investors have lost more coins investing in mining than being scammed - just it isn't so obvious (and the boundary between the two is a bit blurred - many mining 'investments' have given totally shit projections that are tantamount to scamming due to having no basis in reality).

Getting back to the topic, if you invest in BFMINEs at current price you WILL make a loss.  If you invest in DMS.Mining at current price you MAY make a loss (it's priced in the area where it could go either way).  If you hold the bitcoins you WON'T make a loss.  Now run along and buy your PMBs like a bunch of retards.

And yeah - I've been drinking or I'd just keep my mouth shut

So are scraps of paper, but neither that nor DMS.Mining is a PMB or even a mining operation. Neither is BFMines a PMB.

.b

Today's update.
DMS.MINING is cheaper than running the ASICMINER USB...

AMC has been hashing at 220GH/s on BTCGuild for two weeks now (0.0055 MH/share, 6.96 MH/BTC using BTC0.0007901/share).

"Team AMC" https://www.btcguild.com/index.php?page=rankings§ion=teams

I'm aware of that

I'm quite sure that most people who have a position in PAJKA.BOND are not holding it because it mines 3MH/s but because it promises 15MH/s when BFL delivers. In the same way people value ASIC.COOP differently etc.

@ryan1894: PAJKA.BOND is mining at 3 MH/s, the 15 MH/s is promised when his BFL order (from February, if I remember correctly) is delivered.

Believe JAH on Bitfunder now pays significantly more than 1 MH per bond - he increased it for free.  Not logged into Bitfunder and can't remember exactly what he pays - but pretty sure he bumped it up a lot.

DMC can be removed - it's never been a mining company, just an investment fund.

I also wouldn't include ASICMINER or AMC - if you try to value them based on hashing you'd be doing the wrong thing.

Shares you CAN compare to PMBs - but any reinvestment percentage has to be treated as though it were paid out in dividends when working out the effective hash per share.  Exception being companies that produce (or claim to intend to produce) their own hardware - those can't reasonably be compared based on hashing power.

This list should also note whether it is actively paying dividends as well.

EDIT: I'm too slow!

And YABMC is only a bit over 0.6 MH/s per share not 1.  Contract says 1 - but two of the partners in it scammed so the only hashspower currently being paid out is from what the honest partner in it pays.

If anyone wonders why ASIC.COOP is so cheap the issuer of it also ran a bond - which he defaulted on.  Supposedly the cash from bonds was being used for various things - including mining.  When he defaulted it turned out he had no mining (or had some and lied saying he didn't).  Not sure how it turned out as he stopped responding in the forums.  But potential investors should be aware there IS a reason why it looks such a good deal (aside from it being pre-orders anyway).

It may be useful to note which ones are already paying dividends and which are still waiting for hardware before they start.

Comparison of mining securities

Since I cannot embed the document directly, and cannot export from google docs as an image - I have screenshotted the output manually.

https://i.imgur.com/y0JsAGK.png

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgJpAFrm8wAzdHpXbGFsQ1lVX0h2YkNXSTNSQi1LRmc#gid=0

Good luck with this list, it's a lot to keep updated.   

Could you also include how many GH/TH they have on order, and how much current/future hashpower each provides for 1BTC?

H.I.M ?
RSM?
bASIC?

Edit: Seems to be better info downthread, so removed