Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 238.

nwfella

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Well hello there!

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:35:23 PM

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:33:15 PM

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:27:02 PM

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 PM

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lowered my cost basis.

How many do you want, and at what price?

I wanted those 100 shares at .11872902

Is 0.15 too high? [tomorrows dividends should be close to 0.0019]

Sadly a wee bit to high for me ATM, was also hoping to get 1 of those at .1187 but my jally doesn't work so good no more (darn this difficulty stuff all to heck)...if you have any at that rate in another week or so though I'll be lookin you up :p

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:33:15 PM

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:27:02 PM

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 PM

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lowered my cost basis.

How many do you want, and at what price?

I wanted those 100 shares at .11872902

Is 0.15 too high? [tomorrows dividends should be close to 0.0019]

smracer

donator

Activity: 1057

Merit: 1021

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:27:02 PM

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 PM

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lowered my cost basis.

How many do you want, and at what price?

I wanted those 100 shares at .11872902

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:27:02 PM

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 PM

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lowered my cost basis.

How many do you want, and at what price?

I'll take all you want to sell at .05 (you don't get if you don't ask Wink

)

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 PM

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lower my cost basis.

Damn! Those went cheap..... I'll take lots more at that rate! Geez

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: bigasic on September 20, 2013, 09:46:51 PM

Wow, someone has listed their shares for .11 maybe its someone that wants to bring the price down or someone that got the bonds lower.. either way, thats not good, but I have faith...When the hashrate starts to go up, I believe so will the price of the bonds..

Interesting controversy about Activemining today and what is the result - cheap LRM bonds.... I think Zachary is working his plan and well capitalized to secure the required hashing power.

Undoubtedly the gear is hashing away and the reporting is not accurate.....

Off to shop for more!

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: smracer on September 20, 2013, 10:26:06 PM

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lowered my cost basis.

How many do you want, and at what price?

smracer

donator

Activity: 1057

Merit: 1021

Someone bought them before I could get the coins in there. I would have loved to lower my cost basis.

bigasic

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Wow, someone has listed their shares for .11 maybe its someone that wants to bring the price down or someone that got the bonds lower.. either way, thats not good, but I have faith...When the hashrate starts to go up, I believe so will the price of the bonds..

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: mmmerlin on September 20, 2013, 06:51:20 PM

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 06:21:25 PM

I was bullish before, but am leaning kind of bearish now about LRM. Bond liquidity is miserable. No significant demand to buy LRM bonds even at it's initial lowest price. Bond holders with more than a few bonds are practically stuck holding. That is, unless they don't mind to sell with a >90% loss. I suppose this is the nature of start-ups, and that the only significant demand from here forward will be from the limited few willing to buy and hold for a year (if the mining plan is seen as sustainable) And I admit sustainability is where I have the most doubts. If the mining plan isn't sustainable, it seems it's going to be a long term loss to all investors.

If anyone can crunch the numbers and show how the plan will provide a full ROI (based on bitcoins traded for bonds) and/or be sustainable, then please do. Feel free to even assume some kind of large discounts for hardware purchased (I hope LR got a big discounts from suppliers based on the amounts being spent). But if you have to assume bitcoin value goes up to see an ROI, then you've only achieved an ROI based on fiat. So, assume a constant bitcoin value of about $140 from here forward.

Lol, yes, any analysis has to assume constant bitcoin value, otherwise you can just buy bitcoin. That wouldn't be a return from LRM, that's just currency speculation.

It's also quite ironic that the main thing that's made you want to sell is the fact that you can't...

LRM was always a long term proposition, and the liquidity will return as soon as there is a) some news (hint hint LR Wink

) and b) the hashrate gets the big boost that's around the corner.

You're probably right that not being able to sell is what makes it more annoying, and I probably wouldn't sell if there was liquidity. But again, my biggest concern is the sustainability, and this does make me stay ready to bail on LRM. If I could calculate a reasonable chance of sustainability, liquidity wouldn't be as much of an issue. I'm thinking a complete ROI is possible, but not a long term benefit. Perhaps, it will be similar to BFL, where holding bitcoin for a year would have been the best choice in retrospect - I'm definitely open to seeing that proven wrong.

bigasic

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

i think you will see a significant change when LRM gets the hashrate that is expected soon. At least I hope so..

mmmerlin

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 06:21:25 PM

I was bullish before, but am leaning kind of bearish now about LRM. Bond liquidity is miserable. No significant demand to buy LRM bonds even at it's initial lowest price. Bond holders with more than a few bonds are practically stuck holding. That is, unless they don't mind to sell with a >90% loss. I suppose this is the nature of start-ups, and that the only significant demand from here forward will be from the limited few willing to buy and hold for a year (if the mining plan is seen as sustainable) And I admit sustainability is where I have the most doubts. If the mining plan isn't sustainable, it seems it's going to be a long term loss to all investors.

If anyone can crunch the numbers and show how the plan will provide a full ROI (based on bitcoins traded for bonds) and/or be sustainable, then please do. Feel free to even assume some kind of large discounts for hardware purchased (I hope LR got a big discounts from suppliers based on the amounts being spent). But if you have to assume bitcoin value goes up to see an ROI, then you've only achieved an ROI based on fiat. So, assume a constant bitcoin value of about $140 from here forward.

Lol, yes, any analysis has to assume constant bitcoin value, otherwise you can just buy bitcoin. That wouldn't be a return from LRM, that's just currency speculation.

It's also quite ironic that the main thing that's made you want to sell is the fact that you can't...

LRM was always a long term proposition, and the liquidity will return as soon as there is a) some news (hint hint LR Wink

) and b) the hashrate gets the big boost that's around the corner.

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

I was bullish before, but am leaning kind of bearish now about LRM. Bond liquidity is miserable. No significant demand to buy LRM bonds even at it's initial lowest price. Bond holders with more than a few bonds are practically stuck holding. That is, unless they don't mind to sell with a >90% loss. I suppose this is the nature of start-ups, and that the only significant demand from here forward will be from the limited few willing to buy and hold for a year (if the mining plan is seen as sustainable) And I admit sustainability is where I have the most doubts. If the mining plan isn't sustainable, it seems it's going to be a long term loss to all investors.

If anyone can crunch the numbers and show how the plan will provide a full ROI (based on bitcoins traded for bonds) and/or be sustainable, then please do. Feel free to even assume some kind of large discounts for hardware purchased (I hope LR got a big discounts from suppliers based on the amounts being spent). But if you have to assume bitcoin value goes up to see an ROI, then you've only achieved an ROI based on fiat. So, assume a constant bitcoin value of about $140 from here forward.

BKM

sr. member

Activity: 315

Merit: 250

Quote from: nwfella on September 20, 2013, 03:39:35 PM

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:40:59 AM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on September 18, 2013, 12:08:05 AM

I spoke with Dave Monday and everything was better than expected. Should have some more solidified dates that I will be able to pass on to you guys (and gals) soon.

Should have some good news tomorrow and some even better news within 2 weeks (Not a BFL pun)

How was the discussion with Dave better than expected? I hope that means hardware will be received in September

What was the good news? Was it the increased hash rate to 4.5TH? And was that due to Dave's contribution?

I'm seeing closer to ~4.2TH

Although I did see it as high as 4.7 early this morning

3.3 Now - hopefully that is a failover to EMC or reporting issue rather than an actual drop in hash rate

nwfella

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Well hello there!

Quote from: ||bit on September 20, 2013, 10:40:59 AM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on September 18, 2013, 12:08:05 AM

I spoke with Dave Monday and everything was better than expected. Should have some more solidified dates that I will be able to pass on to you guys (and gals) soon.

Should have some good news tomorrow and some even better news within 2 weeks (Not a BFL pun)

How was the discussion with Dave better than expected? I hope that means hardware will be received in September

What was the good news? Was it the increased hash rate to 4.5TH? And was that due to Dave's contribution?

I'm seeing closer to ~4.2TH

Although I did see it as high as 4.7 early this morning

||bit

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 506

Quote from: Lab_Rat on September 18, 2013, 12:08:05 AM

I spoke with Dave Monday and everything was better than expected. Should have some more solidified dates that I will be able to pass on to you guys (and gals) soon.

Should have some good news tomorrow and some even better news within 2 weeks (Not a BFL pun)

How was the discussion with Dave better than expected? I hope that means hardware will be received in September

What was the good news? Was it the increased hash rate to 4.5TH? And was that due to Dave's contribution?

mmmerlin

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: M31 on September 19, 2013, 05:22:15 PM

Quote from: mmmerlin on September 19, 2013, 03:42:03 PM

Quote from: M31 on September 19, 2013, 03:19:26 PM

Lab_Rat:

Are you able to make the 'hashrate per bond value' a function of 'Hashrate' such that it also yields a dynamic output?

Firstly, that will make it become wildly fluctuating, which is a bit of a problem, and secondly, is dividing by 50k really so difficult?

Personally, I would rather he spent his time doing pretty much everything else before updating that website, but that's just me.

Good points mmmerlin.

I was thinking that keeping the decimal places where they are, for example 58MH/s rather than .05834879GH/s would make it easy for a noob to read when hitting LR's site for the first time.

Remove what Lab keep from the calculations, and make it super simple: "1 Bond currently equals 314MH/s" for example. If bounce is an issue, take an average, but I actually enjoy watching the rate going up and down.

Of course, for us the calculations are easy as you say.

Regarding the time factor. Yes: only if LR has a moment, and in the long run it might actually save time, since he's doing the calculation and edit by hand right now.

True. And he is already implementing a moving average on the hashrate as that is quite worthwhile as it's pretty hard to gauge at the moment...

M31

full member

Activity: 139

Merit: 100

Quote from: mmmerlin on September 19, 2013, 03:42:03 PM

Quote from: M31 on September 19, 2013, 03:19:26 PM

Lab_Rat:

Are you able to make the 'hashrate per bond value' a function of 'Hashrate' such that it also yields a dynamic output?

Firstly, that will make it become wildly fluctuating, which is a bit of a problem, and secondly, is dividing by 50k really so difficult?

Personally, I would rather he spent his time doing pretty much everything else before updating that website, but that's just me.

Good points mmmerlin.

I was thinking of this more from the perspective of a noob showing up to LRM and seeing the readout.

Keeping the decimal places where they are works, as in 58MH/s, and would not wildly fluctuate in comparison to the total rate unless the total rate is changing a great deal.

Make it super simple: "1 Bond currently equals 314MH/s" for example. If bounce is an issue, take an average, or run an algorithm that keeps the readout the same unless a certain positive or negative delta is reached, but I actually enjoy watching the rate going up and down.

Of course, for us the calculations are easy as you say.

Regarding the time factor. Yes: only if LR has a moment, and it's not even a priority in the slightest, but in the long run it might actually save time, since he's doing the calculation and edit by hand right now.

mmmerlin

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: M31 on September 19, 2013, 03:19:26 PM

Lab_Rat:

Are you able to make the 'hashrate per bond value' a function of 'Hashrate' such that it also yields a dynamic output?

Firstly, that will make it become wildly fluctuating, which is a bit of a problem, and secondly, is dividing by 50k really so difficult?

Personally, I would rather he spent his time doing pretty much everything else before updating that website, but that's just me.

M31

full member

Activity: 139

Merit: 100

Lab_Rat:

Are you able to make the 'hashrate per bond value' a function of 'Hashrate' such that it also yields a dynamic output?

Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 238. (Read 452224 times)