Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 186. (Read 452224 times)
November 10, 2013, 09:04:21 PM
He needs to make a document available with google docs or any other tool that we can check and he can update easily.
November 10, 2013, 08:39:43 PM
I'm in the list of .. You signed with the wrong.. I tried Brainwallet and it indeed tells you that.
Can you please post the link to an updated list of share owners please when you have time?.
Can you please post the link to an updated list of share owners please when you have time?.
I'll see if I can beat that out of @Lab_Rat this evening...
grnbrg.
November 10, 2013, 08:38:33 PM
I'm in the list of .. You signed with the wrong.. I tried Brainwallet and it indeed tells you that.
Can you please post the link to an updated list of share owners please when you have time?.
Can you please post the link to an updated list of share owners please when you have time?.
November 10, 2013, 07:44:33 PM
If you're using any other client, you'll need to use 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo as the signing key.
Where does 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo come from? Maybe I'm not understanding, but how can a signed message from 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo validate you own 1grnbrg3Ea4t6bxHvQKRvorbBeLNDXv2N?
grnbrg.
November 10, 2013, 07:36:53 PM
Is it about time the website was updated to reflect the current situation? A lot of mis-information on there since Bitfunder went tits up!
http://labratmining.com/Bonds/buyBondsInfo.html
http://labratmining.com/Bonds/buyBondsInfo.html
November 10, 2013, 07:28:52 PM
If you're using any other client, you'll need to use 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo as the signing key.
Where does 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo come from? Maybe I'm not understanding, but how can a signed message from 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo validate you own 1grnbrg3Ea4t6bxHvQKRvorbBeLNDXv2N?
November 10, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
A Blockchain.info/wallet rant....
I've been running to problems verifying transactions for the last few days. I finally figured out why people kept signing messages with the wrong keys. It turns out blockchain.info/wallet chokes on large messages. Check this out...
Test message. All one line.
This is a long rambling test message with no other purpose but to run on for a few lines. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. But that repetition has nothing to do with the issue.
Signature: HKN4F75obmCWAtL3llCeThwtfSnPgHlGs6Hz5QJv/FDxNHycHSYBTdoSMo3jWq/9+vkD83Ol1pM+fFG3ajRYDfg=
Now, if you're using blockchain.info/wallet to verify the message, you'll need to use 1grnbrg3Ea4t6bxHvQKRvorbBeLNDXv2N as the signing key.
If you're using any other client, you'll need to use 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo as the signing key.
Seems to only affect large messages. Anyone have any guesses?
grnbrg.
(Apologies to anyone who I've frustrated in the last week with "But you signed it with the wrong key!!!"....)
I've been running to problems verifying transactions for the last few days. I finally figured out why people kept signing messages with the wrong keys. It turns out blockchain.info/wallet chokes on large messages. Check this out...
Test message. All one line.
This is a long rambling test message with no other purpose but to run on for a few lines. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. There may even be some repetition. But that repetition has nothing to do with the issue.
Signature: HKN4F75obmCWAtL3llCeThwtfSnPgHlGs6Hz5QJv/FDxNHycHSYBTdoSMo3jWq/9+vkD83Ol1pM+fFG3ajRYDfg=
Now, if you're using blockchain.info/wallet to verify the message, you'll need to use 1grnbrg3Ea4t6bxHvQKRvorbBeLNDXv2N as the signing key.
If you're using any other client, you'll need to use 18CytRmXCt8ue7oTVHrsNp2hzymEwG2kJo as the signing key.
Seems to only affect large messages. Anyone have any guesses?
grnbrg.
(Apologies to anyone who I've frustrated in the last week with "But you signed it with the wrong key!!!"....)
November 10, 2013, 05:59:41 PM
The purchases did not outpace difficulty. What makes you think second round funding will be any better?
The future expansion plans are outlined specifically in the IPO T&Cs. Any future expansion will not be diluting; the hash-rate per bond will not drop when further new shares are sold. I think it's pretty clear in the initial document, so if we assume that those terms will be stuck to then that's what makes me think that the second round will be "better".
Obviously if they're not stuck to then that's a different story, but for now I'm just working with what is out there. If we assume that those words will be gone back on then we may as well also assume that divs will stop being paid and that the share price will then go to zero... But that is what makes me think there will be no dilution.
In practice, the funding rounds precede the actual arrival of hardware by months. So from the time the new bonds are sold to the time the hardware arrives, there is most certainly dilution of the dividends. Because of the 3x value of Bitcoin since the IPO, LabRat may not need another significant funding round to hit 100TH. But only he knows whether he plans on selling more bonds in the near future (which will dilute current dividends for weeks or months).
When the new BitFury hardware starts paying dividends, I hope that IPO bond holders recognize their contribution (a 3+ month loan to a future bond holder) and build that into their asking price.
This is a very good point - there is a limit on the rate at which new bonds are released for precisely this reason. Whilst it doesn't fix the problem entirely, it does limit its magnitude considerably, and it also increases demand for the bonds themselves by limiting supply, thus boosting the price and thereby the benefit to current bondholders as well.
November 10, 2013, 05:28:36 PM
The purchases did not outpace difficulty. What makes you think second round funding will be any better?
The future expansion plans are outlined specifically in the IPO T&Cs. Any future expansion will not be diluting; the hash-rate per bond will not drop when further new shares are sold. I think it's pretty clear in the initial document, so if we assume that those terms will be stuck to then that's what makes me think that the second round will be "better".
Obviously if they're not stuck to then that's a different story, but for now I'm just working with what is out there. If we assume that those words will be gone back on then we may as well also assume that divs will stop being paid and that the share price will then go to zero... But that is what makes me think there will be no dilution.
In practice, the funding rounds precede the actual arrival of hardware by months. So from the time the new bonds are sold to the time the hardware arrives, there is most certainly dilution of the dividends. Because of the 3x value of Bitcoin since the IPO, LabRat may not need another significant funding round to hit 100TH. But only he knows whether he plans on selling more bonds in the near future (which will dilute current dividends for weeks or months).
When the new BitFury hardware starts paying dividends, I hope that IPO bond holders recognize their contribution (a 3+ month loan to a future bond holder) and build that into their asking price.
November 10, 2013, 12:30:01 PM
I really hope LabRat work with more Hardware sellers than Bitfury or BFL...
Bitfury for the moment is OK but LRM should not depend on a single vendor...it can be very hurting...(delays, out of stock, bankruptcy, etc, etc...)
At the moment ~ 5.5 TH/s is 10 KNCminer Jupiter...and i think LabRat underrated KNCminer.
A word from LabRat about futur hardware purchase is more than welcome
Bitfury for the moment is OK but LRM should not depend on a single vendor...it can be very hurting...(delays, out of stock, bankruptcy, etc, etc...)
At the moment ~ 5.5 TH/s is 10 KNCminer Jupiter...and i think LabRat underrated KNCminer.
A word from LabRat about futur hardware purchase is more than welcome
Pretty sure CoinTerra are also in the cross-hairs at a very minimum...
November 10, 2013, 11:22:17 AM
I really hope LabRat work with more Hardware sellers than Bitfury or BFL...
Bitfury for the moment is OK but LRM should not depend on a single vendor...it can be very hurting...(delays, out of stock, bankruptcy, etc, etc...)
At the moment ~ 5.5 TH/s is 10 KNCminer Jupiter...and i think LabRat underrated KNCminer.
A word from LabRat about futur hardware purchase is more than welcome
Bitfury for the moment is OK but LRM should not depend on a single vendor...it can be very hurting...(delays, out of stock, bankruptcy, etc, etc...)
At the moment ~ 5.5 TH/s is 10 KNCminer Jupiter...and i think LabRat underrated KNCminer.
A word from LabRat about futur hardware purchase is more than welcome
November 10, 2013, 10:49:33 AM
The purchases did not outpace difficulty. What makes you think second round funding will be any better?
The future expansion plans are outlined specifically in the IPO T&Cs. Any future expansion will not be diluting; the hash-rate per bond will not drop when further new shares are sold. I think it's pretty clear in the initial document, so if we assume that those terms will be stuck to then that's what makes me think that the second round will be "better".
Obviously if they're not stuck to then that's a different story, but for now I'm just working with what is out there. If we assume that those words will be gone back on then we may as well also assume that divs will stop being paid and that the share price will then go to zero... But that is what makes me think there will be no dilution.
November 10, 2013, 10:42:02 AM
General point about the selling of new bonds:
Any new bonds sold will always increase the hashrate per bond for initial bond holders and therefore shouldn't be referred to as a "dilution". Bonds will never be sold in situations when the amount got for them buys less hashing power than currently issued bonds hold, and so will only increase the rate per bond for existing holders. This was a fundamental part of the initial offering and what attracted many people to this whole operation.
You should not fear future expansion, it is only to be embraced!
Any new bonds sold will always increase the hashrate per bond for initial bond holders and therefore shouldn't be referred to as a "dilution". Bonds will never be sold in situations when the amount got for them buys less hashing power than currently issued bonds hold, and so will only increase the rate per bond for existing holders. This was a fundamental part of the initial offering and what attracted many people to this whole operation.
You should not fear future expansion, it is only to be embraced!
Labrat took your 0.15 btc and invested it to become 0.07 btc (before bitfunder announced anything). The purchases did not outpace difficulty. What makes you think second round funding will be any better?
Combine that with a lack of transparency and no accountability, and a history of poor management (new mandatory fees, no accounting statements, months with no update to hashrate or hardware info), and competition that is doing all the above - I think it best LR shows he can succeed with the 1 million USD we gave him before he asks for more.
November 10, 2013, 07:49:03 AM
General point about the selling of new bonds:
Any new bonds sold will always increase the hashrate per bond for initial bond holders and therefore shouldn't be referred to as a "dilution". Bonds will never be sold in situations when the amount got for them buys less hashing power than currently issued bonds hold, and so will only increase the rate per bond for existing holders. This was a fundamental part of the initial offering and what attracted many people to this whole operation.
You should not fear future expansion, it is only to be embraced!
Any new bonds sold will always increase the hashrate per bond for initial bond holders and therefore shouldn't be referred to as a "dilution". Bonds will never be sold in situations when the amount got for them buys less hashing power than currently issued bonds hold, and so will only increase the rate per bond for existing holders. This was a fundamental part of the initial offering and what attracted many people to this whole operation.
You should not fear future expansion, it is only to be embraced!
November 10, 2013, 06:56:19 AM
Hi LabRat,
Thanks for the new info. Can you give any estimates of the speed per bond by the time you reach ~100THs?
I was kinda disappointed with this weeks payout (almost half of last week) but I guess it's due to the diff jump.
Thanks for the new info. Can you give any estimates of the speed per bond by the time you reach ~100THs?
I was kinda disappointed with this weeks payout (almost half of last week) but I guess it's due to the diff jump.
The hashrate per bond must be more than 1GH/s to attract new bonds holders.
Because right now, we can have 1GH/s on CEX.IO for 0.095BTC (still overpriced as hell...)
Hashrate per bonds at the moment on LRM is 81MH/s per bond...
After the "14 days", maybe around 493MH/s per bonds.
LabRat must make them competitive/attractive before selling more bonds.
I know it's a pretty damn hard work for LabRat (and BitFunder fiasco didn't help)...but i'm pretty confident for futur of LRM (and my wallet
) 
November 10, 2013, 06:29:14 AM
Hi LabRat,
Thanks for the new info. Can you give any estimates of the speed per bond by the time you reach ~100THs?
I was kinda disappointed with this weeks payout (almost half of last week) but I guess it's due to the diff jump.
Thanks for the new info. Can you give any estimates of the speed per bond by the time you reach ~100THs?
I was kinda disappointed with this weeks payout (almost half of last week) but I guess it's due to the diff jump.
Also I would like to know if Lab_Rat plans to issue further new bonds ? which may further dilute dividends per share but at this point should not be the case as he is getting to mine for 14 + days on newly revived hardware.
November 10, 2013, 06:15:05 AM
Hi LabRat,
Thanks for the new info. Can you give any estimates of the speed per bond by the time you reach ~100THs?
I was kinda disappointed with this weeks payout (almost half of last week) but I guess it's due to the diff jump.
Thanks for the new info. Can you give any estimates of the speed per bond by the time you reach ~100THs?
I was kinda disappointed with this weeks payout (almost half of last week) but I guess it's due to the diff jump.
November 10, 2013, 02:12:57 AM
I need a little clarity,
I thought it would only be 14 days total of dividends (minus the ~5TH) going to LRM directly but now it seems that it's all the days until "All the boards come in" + 14 Days so it actually ends up being over 21 days or am I misunderstanding.
I thought it would only be 14 days total of dividends (minus the ~5TH) going to LRM directly but now it seems that it's all the days until "All the boards come in" + 14 Days so it actually ends up being over 21 days or am I misunderstanding.
I ask the same question but no answer so I assume answer is yes
Whatever the answer - it is all going to hardware. Curious also if any is the November KNC batch - sorely tempted to pull the trigger on that
November 10, 2013, 12:25:06 AM
I need a little clarity,
I thought it would only be 14 days total of dividends (minus the ~5TH) going to LRM directly but now it seems that it's all the days until "All the boards come in" + 14 Days so it actually ends up being over 21 days or am I misunderstanding.
I thought it would only be 14 days total of dividends (minus the ~5TH) going to LRM directly but now it seems that it's all the days until "All the boards come in" + 14 Days so it actually ends up being over 21 days or am I misunderstanding.
I ask the same question but no answer so I assume answer is yes
November 09, 2013, 10:10:51 PM
My goal is to have 100+TH up by the end of the year, but I'm thinking Feb is a more likely estimate.
Woohoo! Jump to: