Divs have paid out. Using Math™, I make it 0.000731358BTC per bond.
grnbrg.
Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 181. (Read 452224 times)
November 16, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
November 16, 2013, 02:34:53 PM
Hey LabRat !
We need our weekly news
Bring us some good news (and coins
)
We need our weekly news
Bring us some good news (and coins
)How long did you look for a gif like this one that would fit the situation so perfectly?
November 16, 2013, 02:06:33 PM
Hey LabRat !
We need our weekly news
Bring us some good news (and coins )
We need our weekly news
Bring us some good news (and coins
)lol ... funny gif ... cute.
November 16, 2013, 02:02:36 PM
LabRat need some people to help him i think...
It's just pretty hard if he make all this work alone (Hardware management, trading BTC, etc, etc...)
I really hope he have some backup guys with him.
Look grnbrg, he helped a lot for the bonds trading and entertained us very well.
It's just pretty hard if he make all this work alone (Hardware management, trading BTC, etc, etc...)
I really hope he have some backup guys with him.
Look grnbrg, he helped a lot for the bonds trading and entertained us very well
. November 16, 2013, 12:52:18 PM
Just got an email from @Lab_Rat -- he's been ill for the last couple of days. Divs will be late today. (But will go out today.)
grnbrg.
grnbrg.
November 16, 2013, 11:25:17 AM
Its always quite before the storm , hope it is good news storm !
November 16, 2013, 06:53:53 AM
Hey LabRat !
We need our weekly news
Bring us some good news (and coins )
We need our weekly news
Bring us some good news (and coins
) November 16, 2013, 04:19:07 AM
If LR manages to get 1GH per bond online by December. And difficulty increases at ~20% per cycle (about +73% per month). In the below, the cummulative return is in bitcoins. But the hasrate is set at 100,000GH (that was done to see results in the return as greater than zero). So, divide what you see in the monthly return of December by 100,000, and that is what 1GH/s should yield for the total of December. It reads 1710. Divided that by 100,000 and you see BTC0.0171/GH.
Assuming BTC.15 bonds, that is 11.4% return on investment for December. And a bit over 6% more in January, unless LR get's more hardware online by then.
If LR delivered 500MH/bond, then scale that value down proportionately (in the case of 500MH, half the return).
Assuming BTC.15 bonds, that is 11.4% return on investment for December. And a bit over 6% more in January, unless LR get's more hardware online by then.
If LR delivered 500MH/bond, then scale that value down proportionately (in the case of 500MH, half the return).
November 15, 2013, 11:42:10 PM
JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%.
Eligius has a bot that is usually pretty accurate as we get closer to the Jump Date.
Current Blocks: 269749
Current Difficulty: 510929738.01615
Next Difficulty At Block: 270143
Next Difficulty In: 394 blocks
Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes, and 0 seconds
Next Difficulty Estimate: 589022083.29066402
Estimated Percent Change: 15.2843609334
A welcome break. Hmm... the trend would indicate the next difficulty jump will be 0% then -15% ;-)
Hey, one can dream.
Yes, indeed. Well, at least that's about half of what it has been. People here might be able to squeeze by and break even via dividends alone after-all.
It is interesting that difficulty jump-size would reduce by about 15% percentage points two times in a row. It could be another sequecne... like reducing from prior difficulty jump-size by 30% the next reduced by 50%... then the next might be something like 75%....which would equate to 15% x 0.25 = +3.75% jump..or small skip... feeding the dream.
But I liked your trend better, with the negative percentage following that. November 15, 2013, 11:33:31 PM
Just to put this in perspective. BTC0.025 = $10 ... That seems a fair deal for the labor to verify a transaction.
Why would LR et.al. charge more for larger buy/sell transactions? We should be of one mind on this, and working together more - especially for those that actually funded the company. Isn't that profiteering in the face other's difficulty? With this fee structure, LR et.al. would have no great incentive to find an automated & free solution. I apologize if this sounds trivial, but the principle matters. Plus, I saw some hefty transactions on the asks on there (e.g. [email protected]). If that got filled, LR or whoever would be paid equivalent of $200 to do for that person no more than was done for another at a cost of $10. Just saying - principle matters. Unless, the escrow person see's it as a risk on his part to handle that amount of bitcoin.
Regarding escrow. It might be late in the game to comment on this (not sure if suggestions were taken), but instead of doing escrow, why not just use the blockchain to verify the transaction between the two parties (buyer and seller)? That would cut out a step, and reduce the risk of the escrow handler sending the wrong amount or sending to the wrong address. All liability would rest on the buyer & seller. All you would have to do is verify a message & the blockchain, then update the ledger/list if those pass verification.
Good points. It's worth keeping in mind that this was set up in the distant past, when BTC was only worth around $200....
I think I will change the fee, and just do a flat 0.025BTC transaction. Transactions take more time than I expected, but BTC has also gone up in value. It balances out. For information, most transactions seem to take 6-8 emails, spread out over a day or so...And as far as escrow, it just seems to be the easiest approach for 2 people who don't really know each other. With that said, as long as the two parties can agree on a payment system that can be verified, I don't mind.
grnbrg.
Thanks grnbrg. A glimmer of humanity in the LRM circle of friends. You gained respect with me - for whatever that's worth to ya.
November 15, 2013, 09:35:45 PM
It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price
While I understand that frustration, that is exactly the intent of the minimum fee. Verifying and registering a trade is currently a manual and fairly labour intensive process, and it's not worth my time to oversee trades for a $0.25 fee.
Lab_Rat has indicated he is looking into an automated trading solution of some sort, which will have a much lower fee for small trades. I don't have an ETA.
grnbrg.
Just maybe the Bitfunder dude will give the backend to LR as some form of recompense for the massive FUBAR - that'd be great.
In fact, perhaps he could license the setup to other companies so they can manage their own structures. I think this is a deficit for private companies at the moment and some form of donation based semi open sourced licensed config like Bitfunder would help a lot
November 15, 2013, 12:04:40 PM
It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price
While I understand that frustration, that is exactly the intent of the minimum fee. Verifying and registering a trade is currently a manual and fairly labour intensive process, and it's not worth my time to oversee trades for a $0.25 fee.
Lab_Rat has indicated he is looking into an automated trading solution of some sort, which will have a much lower fee for small trades. I don't have an ETA.
grnbrg.
If this is the case and we get an automated trading solution there should be 0 fee for a long while until things get back to normal. The fee just reduces the already low liquidity.
November 15, 2013, 11:30:33 AM
JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%.
Eligius has a bot that is usually pretty accurate as we get closer to the Jump Date.
Current Blocks: 269749
Current Difficulty: 510929738.01615
Next Difficulty At Block: 270143
Next Difficulty In: 394 blocks
Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes, and 0 seconds
Next Difficulty Estimate: 589022083.29066402
Estimated Percent Change: 15.2843609334
A welcome break. Hmm... the trend would indicate the next difficulty jump will be 0% then -15% ;-)
Hey, one can dream.
November 15, 2013, 09:40:55 AM
JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%.
Eligius has a bot that is usually pretty accurate as we get closer to the Jump Date.
Current Blocks: 269749
Current Difficulty: 510929738.01615
Next Difficulty At Block: 270143
Next Difficulty In: 394 blocks
Next Difficulty In About: 2 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes, and 0 seconds
Next Difficulty Estimate: 589022083.29066402
Estimated Percent Change: 15.2843609334
November 15, 2013, 09:36:14 AM
JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
http://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty estimates 18%.
November 15, 2013, 08:55:38 AM
It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price
While I understand that frustration, that is exactly the intent of the minimum fee. Verifying and registering a trade is currently a manual and fairly labour intensive process, and it's not worth my time to oversee trades for a $0.25 fee.
Lab_Rat has indicated he is looking into an automated trading solution of some sort, which will have a much lower fee for small trades. I don't have an ETA.
grnbrg.
November 15, 2013, 08:48:14 AM
Just to put this in perspective. BTC0.025 = $10 ... That seems a fair deal for the labor to verify a transaction.
Why would LR et.al. charge more for larger buy/sell transactions? We should be of one mind on this, and working together more - especially for those that actually funded the company. Isn't that profiteering in the face other's difficulty? With this fee structure, LR et.al. would have no great incentive to find an automated & free solution. I apologize if this sounds trivial, but the principle matters. Plus, I saw some hefty transactions on the asks on there (e.g. [email protected]). If that got filled, LR or whoever would be paid equivalent of $200 to do for that person no more than was done for another at a cost of $10. Just saying - principle matters. Unless, the escrow person see's it as a risk on his part to handle that amount of bitcoin.
Regarding escrow. It might be late in the game to comment on this (not sure if suggestions were taken), but instead of doing escrow, why not just use the blockchain to verify the transaction between the two parties (buyer and seller)? That would cut out a step, and reduce the risk of the escrow handler sending the wrong amount or sending to the wrong address. All liability would rest on the buyer & seller. All you would have to do is verify a message & the blockchain, then update the ledger/list if those pass verification.
Good points. It's worth keeping in mind that this was set up in the distant past, when BTC was only worth around $200....
I think I will change the fee, and just do a flat 0.025BTC transaction. Transactions take more time than I expected, but BTC has also gone up in value. It balances out. For information, most transactions seem to take 6-8 emails, spread out over a day or so...And as far as escrow, it just seems to be the easiest approach for 2 people who don't really know each other. With that said, as long as the two parties can agree on a payment system that can be verified, I don't mind.
grnbrg.
November 15, 2013, 06:18:01 AM
Today I could finally verify my Labratmining assets from Bitfunder, after there have been some problems with the adress assignment.
So how does this forum-based asset management, away from bitfunder work, will I receive the backdated payouts from the past weeks and the coming ones via the verified adress?
Is there a list of the past dividends and an estimation on the coming ones?
I ve seen there is a trading thread for Labrat bonds, I guess that's just a transitional solution, are there already any plans for a trading platform in future?
So how does this forum-based asset management, away from bitfunder work, will I receive the backdated payouts from the past weeks and the coming ones via the verified adress?
Is there a list of the past dividends and an estimation on the coming ones?
I ve seen there is a trading thread for Labrat bonds, I guess that's just a transitional solution, are there already any plans for a trading platform in future?
November 15, 2013, 04:57:33 AM
Is there a list of people wanting to buy/sell yet?
There's a whole thread for it.....
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/official-labrat-mining-lrm-share-trading-thread-320578
grnbrg.
Thanks.
From there. Rule #6 reads [with my bold emphasis]: "6. Buyer sends BTC to the escrow address. Once the coins are received in escrow, the manual trading fee of 0.5% or 0.025BTC, whichever is greater, will be deducted from the escrow address."
Just to put this in perspective. BTC0.025 = $10 ... That seems a fair deal for the labor to verify a transaction.
Why would LR et.al. charge more for larger buy/sell transactions? We should be of one mind on this, and working together more - especially for those that actually funded the company. Isn't that profiteering in the face other's difficulty? With this fee structure, LR et.al. would have no great incentive to find an automated & free solution. I apologize if this sounds trivial, but the principle matters. Plus, I saw some hefty transactions on the asks on there (e.g. [email protected]). If that got filled, LR or whoever would be paid equivalent of $200 to do for that person no more than was done for another at a cost of $10. Just saying - principle matters. Unless, the escrow person see's it as a risk on his part to handle that amount of bitcoin.
Regarding escrow. It might be late in the game to comment on this (not sure if suggestions were taken), but instead of doing escrow, why not just use the blockchain to verify the transaction between the two parties (buyer and seller)? That would cut out a step, and reduce the risk of the escrow handler sending the wrong amount or sending to the wrong address. All liability would rest on the buyer & seller. All you would have to do is verify a message & the blockchain, then update the ledger/list if those pass verification.
It prevents people like me who don't have a lot of BTC to increase our share count in LRM, as 0.025 on 1 or 2 shares is a lot, compared to their selling price
November 15, 2013, 01:30:21 AM
JFYI on difficulty. For whoever cares. Last eight difficulty percentage increase, and next estimated difficulty:
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
29%
32%
29%
32%
27%
41%
46%
30%
12% <-- based on estimated difficulty from bitcoincharts.com
If true, we might see a well reduced jump in difficulty. That would be nice.
Jump to: