Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 269. (Read 1079974 times)
September 20, 2013, 11:24:46 PM
I also thought as a exchange,burnside's attitude must be neutral!Why do such unfair to Labcoin compare to PETA-MINE or other irresponsible company?
September 20, 2013, 11:23:18 PM
Burnside posting that is like posting careful BlackBerry has missed all of its earnings be careful buying their shares. People know what is going on reading the thread here, since 95% of the investors come here, but when you go and post that during a FUD induced panic is just reckless.
Hes lucky hes pretty much the only exchange outside of bitfunder. Even though his intentions are probably good it's still a very dumb move to randomly discriminate against one company.
Hes lucky hes pretty much the only exchange outside of bitfunder. Even though his intentions are probably good it's still a very dumb move to randomly discriminate against one company.
September 20, 2013, 11:20:59 PM
If Burnside's warning gets Labcoin to be more forthcoming, the it was all worth it.
September 20, 2013, 11:14:29 PM
No. Peta-Mine has broke the contract. Why did not they get the warning?
Again alot of companies on there should get a warning, its just burnside over reacting, and for some reason he decided to do it with Labcoin.
Post what you just said in his thread to hear some bullshit response on why he is picking only Labcoin to discriminate against. They didn't reply big deal, probably pretty busy working on trying to get things to work. Or the email got buried in the thousands of emails they probably recieved from concerned people.
September 20, 2013, 11:06:47 PM
No. Peta-Mine has broke the contract. Why did not they get the warning?
September 20, 2013, 10:29:15 PM
September 20, 2013, 10:20:10 PM
It impacts day traders who want to scam people / take advantage of those with less info. That is what this fuss is about.
September 20, 2013, 10:18:10 PM
Go back and read my post. If you invested in Labcoin based on fundamentals none of those things you said matter at all.
Of course we've since been given lots of reasons to doubt that original fundamental valuation, but Burnside's post wasn't one of em.
I didn't say it would have no impact on the market. I said Burnside's post didn't affect fundamentals. And it doesn't.
I'll say it again: the value of a security is equal to its discounted future cash flows. If you don't know this much you really shouldn't be investing.
Of course we've since been given lots of reasons to doubt that original fundamental valuation, but Burnside's post wasn't one of em.
I didn't say it would have no impact on the market. I said Burnside's post didn't affect fundamentals. And it doesn't.
I'll say it again: the value of a security is equal to its discounted future cash flows. If you don't know this much you really shouldn't be investing.
September 20, 2013, 10:15:01 PM
People complaining about Burnside's warning message 'destroying value' - the value of a share is equal to its discounted future cash flows. Nothing Burnside posts on the page for the Labcoin security page directly affects this, and I'm struggling to see how it indirectly affects it.
Either you're a value investor who bought Labcoin on fundamentals, in which case all that matter si reality, not commentary, or you're a day trader, in which case you realy need to learn to take fluctuations due to temporary sentiment in your stride.
I hope that you're the former - and if you still believe labcoin to be a good value proposition the current volatility is an opportunity, not a problem.
Of course, as more info emerges (or doesn't!) we each reassess what we think the value of this security is. But Burnside's post didn' contain any new information, so didn't affect fundamentals.
Either you're a value investor who bought Labcoin on fundamentals, in which case all that matter si reality, not commentary, or you're a day trader, in which case you realy need to learn to take fluctuations due to temporary sentiment in your stride.
I hope that you're the former - and if you still believe labcoin to be a good value proposition the current volatility is an opportunity, not a problem.
Of course, as more info emerges (or doesn't!) we each reassess what we think the value of this security is. But Burnside's post didn' contain any new information, so didn't affect fundamentals.
What the fuck are you smoking? Of course the warning message affected general sentiment. If I am someone who just threw a few Bitcoins in this based on what I read in the description, and then I popped in there today to find that the price had dropped, and noticed this scary message sitting on top of the page indicating that "There is a lot of controversy..." I would most certainly be dumping what I had. Now, whether Burnside's actions were justifiable is debatable, but to delude yourself into thinking that this has no impact on the market is just plain ignorance.
September 20, 2013, 10:10:04 PM
But Burnside's post didn' contain any new information
Ah hah! You found the main point at hand.
That was the problem.
There was no information a continued to spread unconfirmed controversy.
The main point was not that it should not have been made but the information contained therein and how that information could effect the asset itself.
So at least the main point got across.
September 20, 2013, 10:06:58 PM
People complaining about Burnside's warning message 'destroying value' - the value of a share is equal to its discounted future cash flows. Nothing Burnside posts on the page for the Labcoin security page directly affects this, and I'm struggling to see how it indirectly affects it.
Either you're a value investor who bought Labcoin on fundamentals, in which case all that matter is reality, not commentary, or you're a day trader, in which case you really need to learn to take fluctuations due to temporary sentiment in your stride.
I hope that you're the former - and if you still believe labcoin to be a good value proposition the current volatility is an opportunity, not a problem.
Of course, as more info emerges (or doesn't!) we each reassess what we think the value of this security is. But Burnside's post didn't contain any new information, so didn't affect fundamentals.
Edit: spelling
Either you're a value investor who bought Labcoin on fundamentals, in which case all that matter is reality, not commentary, or you're a day trader, in which case you really need to learn to take fluctuations due to temporary sentiment in your stride.
I hope that you're the former - and if you still believe labcoin to be a good value proposition the current volatility is an opportunity, not a problem.
Of course, as more info emerges (or doesn't!) we each reassess what we think the value of this security is. But Burnside's post didn't contain any new information, so didn't affect fundamentals.
Edit: spelling
September 20, 2013, 10:01:12 PM
The whole Avalom theory is completely flawed, avalons work they could of had them running the whole time. There is no point logically for them to not run them until now. Makes no sense.
The reason they would start now is due to the fact that prior to now they hadn't posted a public address, and didn't need to do it.
Also, the first payment was 3.2BTC from slush, which - if using 3 Avalons, would have taken 3 days to accumulate.
September 20, 2013, 09:58:03 PM
I didn't come online until this morning, it seems labcoin has came across a huge fluctuation due to lack of communication and explanation to the mining address.
All I want to say is yesterday and the day before that is Chinese Mid-autumn Festival, which is a very important holiday for Chinese (family reunion and most of the people don't work during these three days). This holiday might be the reason for no response or not hashing. Alhough it's not surprise to see these reaction from investors since labcoin is already at the bottom of credibility, I still suggest people wait for their official response and clam down. Some speculation might not be right since we don't have sufficient information to make that judgement and this is why I request labcoin enhance their communication.
Sorry to miss the chance to buy low
, but I was on Mid-autumn Festival Holiday
EDIT: Burnside's message is clearly negative, as an exchange it should be remain neutral especially when there is nothing come from Labcoin. If Burnside intend to do this to protect the investors, he should do some investigations before the security IPO, not after.
All I want to say is yesterday and the day before that is Chinese Mid-autumn Festival, which is a very important holiday for Chinese (family reunion and most of the people don't work during these three days). This holiday might be the reason for no response or not hashing. Alhough it's not surprise to see these reaction from investors since labcoin is already at the bottom of credibility, I still suggest people wait for their official response and clam down. Some speculation might not be right since we don't have sufficient information to make that judgement and this is why I request labcoin enhance their communication.
Sorry to miss the chance to buy low
, but I was on Mid-autumn Festival Holiday EDIT: Burnside's message is clearly negative, as an exchange it should be remain neutral especially when there is nothing come from Labcoin. If Burnside intend to do this to protect the investors, he should do some investigations before the security IPO, not after.
September 20, 2013, 09:51:03 PM
Where's our update? Any explanation as to why mining output is so low?
People thought they might be mining with the 3 Avalons that one of them had, or it was possible that someone might be sending their BTCGuild payments to their address to pump the price up. Except, they'd need to have a ton of hash power to keep doing it.
Up until now it did look like their hashrate was consistent with the 3 avalon theory, but this latest one is equivalent to 4.8 Avalons. We still can't say for sure, but it's looking less likely. We also can't rule out the 'outsider sending his payments to pump the price' theory. But the longer these payments go on, the less likely that is, and the more hash power that person would need to have.
They're up to 5.87 BTC right now. So, while it would be possible to make that much flipping the stock with the crazy fluxuations lately, it's less likely.
Still, I'm not suggesting anyone buy this stock with anything other then money they feel like gambling. I would still consider it extremely high risk at this point.
The whole Avalom theory is completely flawed, avalons work they could of had them running the whole time. There is no point logically for them to not run them until now. Makes no sense.
September 20, 2013, 09:46:24 PM
yeah, it's the same ol' thing. People are trolling that address.
You know what's funny, though? The only money Labcon's made is from people trolling them!
You know what's funny, though? The only money Labcon's made is from people trolling them!
hahahah
Seriously though, they've been online - if these transactions aren't from them why haven't they told anyone about it?
Similarly, why are they not saying "HAH! See?? We ARE mining _something_! Equipment issues though.
".That is the discouraging part.
September 20, 2013, 09:44:28 PM
yeah, it's the same ol' thing. People are trolling that address.
You know what's funny, though? The only money Labcon's made is from people trolling them!
You know what's funny, though? The only money Labcon's made is from people trolling them!
hahahah
Seriously though, they've been online - if these transactions aren't from them why haven't they told anyone about it?
Good point.
September 20, 2013, 09:41:45 PM
Here's a table of payments to the accounts with hashrate estimates based on the interval (I guess I was off on the last one)
Time Payment Δt BTC/h Gh/s estimate
9/18/2013 23:13 3.26386497
9/19/2013 5:04 0.12772021 5.86 0.021798358 129.9974778
9/19/2013 6:02 0.11982820 0.97 0.123216658 734.8193429
9/19/2013 7:02 0.11047558 1.00 0.11047558 658.8361861
9/19/2013 17:17 0.37057639 10.24 0.03619401 215.8479125
9/20/2013 14:17 0.53291462 21.00 0.025376215 151.3345206
9/20/2013 17:47 0.10686873 3.50 0.030533923 182.0932127
9/20/2013 23:17 0.20705550 5.50 0.037646455 224.5097653
9/21/2013 2:07 0.20000000 2.84 0.070436314 420.0565625
Although as you can see, the last payment is rounded off, while the others were not. I know my auto payments from BTC guild are rounded off, if you're over your threshold they actually don't send the extra, that gets kept for the next payout. I'm not sure why the old ones were irregular like that.
EDIT: Quick note, Hashrate calculation is based on 1 B2 Avalon doing making 0.33 BTC in the past 24 hours on BTCGuild.
Time Payment Δt BTC/h Gh/s estimate
9/18/2013 23:13 3.26386497
9/19/2013 5:04 0.12772021 5.86 0.021798358 129.9974778
9/19/2013 6:02 0.11982820 0.97 0.123216658 734.8193429
9/19/2013 7:02 0.11047558 1.00 0.11047558 658.8361861
9/19/2013 17:17 0.37057639 10.24 0.03619401 215.8479125
9/20/2013 14:17 0.53291462 21.00 0.025376215 151.3345206
9/20/2013 17:47 0.10686873 3.50 0.030533923 182.0932127
9/20/2013 23:17 0.20705550 5.50 0.037646455 224.5097653
9/21/2013 2:07 0.20000000 2.84 0.070436314 420.0565625
Although as you can see, the last payment is rounded off, while the others were not. I know my auto payments from BTC guild are rounded off, if you're over your threshold they actually don't send the extra, that gets kept for the next payout. I'm not sure why the old ones were irregular like that.
EDIT: Quick note, Hashrate calculation is based on 1 B2 Avalon doing making 0.33 BTC in the past 24 hours on BTCGuild.
September 20, 2013, 09:41:36 PM
^
I'd like to point at that with LB, the CEO made the decision to disclose or not, and not the NYSE. The exchange has no place in these matters. Once it has decided to list a security it is up to the shareholders to decide what to do. Make a scammer thread on Bitcointalk, make a Reddit post, shout from the rooftops. Whatever floats your boat is within your rights as a holder, but the exchange is not the appropriate entity to be labeling securities as anything after they have been approved.
Edit: If I were Burnside I wouldn't even set the precedent that it is somehow the exchange's responsibility to inform shareholders that they may be investing in a scam. That could come back to bite.
I think his point may be that regardless of who lays the truth out, it should be. Even if this is not currently the way things operate in the 'real world'.
September 20, 2013, 09:40:38 PM
You must realize that a lot of people read news from Labcoin stating "Congratulations! We are now fully hashing. The IPO is a success" and they bought shares. That announcement was never redacted. Right now the entire stock is operating by deceiving shareholders. The warning is appropriate.
News Updates is a feature of the site that is completely handled by the securities operator. The exchange is not liable for that information. If a security operator is lying stop buying his stock. Again, it isn't the exchanges responsibility. Ukyo is right. If Burnside, for some reason, feels that he is obligated then he ought to do it right and launch a full investigation that lists facts.
September 20, 2013, 09:37:28 PM
You must realize that a lot of people read news from Labcoin stating "Congratulations! We are now fully hashing. The IPO is a success" and they bought shares. That announcement was never redacted. Right now the entire stock is operating by deceiving shareholders. The warning is appropriate.
You have just merged two different things.
A. They made a post about mining that was not redacted. (Does the exchange have proof one way or another to force a redact?)
If proof has been requested and no responsive given in a timely manner, then the Exchange should make note of that to the investors and/or halt trading.
B. The warning is that there is controversial speculation. Nothing about if any news post is or is not a fact or fallacy. And therefore as is, unwarranted.
Jump to: