Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 781. (Read 1079974 times)

You have an extremely rough future ahead of you if we're getting an accurate representation of who you are.

I would bet that even if you added up the net worth of both of these people it would not even equal 100 BTC

These are actual legal cases going on now, while these trolls reply with no because I said, that's usually the first sign of mental retardation.

You are right every since I came here and posted actual concerns, they respond with an elitist sense of entitlement, it's ok though arrogance doesn't usually get people very far.

Nah you're clearly fucking morons, im posting actual legal cases while you guys just say naw cause I said so, fucking idiot trolls. Adults post actual arguments backed up by facts, kids say NAW cause.

Agreeing to pay you dividends on profits for x amount of ownership you own, is a legal binding contract.

At some point you will be right and the game could eventually be regulated. It's still an alternate reality game by definition. An alternate reality game can have real world benefits, just like any serious game. The serious games movement is what you shoudl research before posting further.

As far as trying to legally define it, that is impossible right now. There is no legal definition but it certainly isn't a stock in the traditional sense. You do not have voter rights. You do not necessarily get equity either. It's more a profit sharing virtual stock ticket. Labcoin is agreeing to share it's profits.

Bitcoin is real money of course. Labcoin is a real company. But the platform it operates on is entirely virtual and it's currently an alternate reality rather than a real asset. The moment you make it into a real asset then you have to legally define and regulate it and we cannot do that yet because its too new.

Maybe in 5 years if Labcoin still exists then these virtual stocks might be convertable to some real stock or maybe they'll do what Satoshi dice did and sell and give some dividends, who knows?

It's just absolutely hopeless.


You should really stop talking here, and just fucking lurk moar.
If you listen enough to the adults, maybe you'll figure a few things out.

“Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States. Shavers also contends that his transactions were all Bitcoin transactions and that no money ever exchanged hands. The SEC argues that the BTCST investments are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.”

“It is clear that Bitcoin can be used as money,” Mazzant wrote. “It can be used to purchase goods or services, and as Shavers stated, used to pay for individual living expenses. The only limitation of Bitcoin is that it is limited to those places that accept it as currency. However, it can also be exchanged for conventional currencies, such as the US dollar, Euro, Yen and Yuan. Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an investment of money.”

Bitcoin investments "meet the definition of investment contract, and as such, are securities,” the judge added.

See above if you still think it's "virtual", Germany also classified it as a real currency.

What has JB said that was incorrect because most of what I read was pretty dead on,

this also coming from the same person who said that Asicminer was done? it seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing and you are only embarrassing yourself by replying regardless of whether it is called a "game" 70% of the company was sold to the public hence that is what we own of the company,

it is extremely disheartening to read your posts considering that all you seem to do is talk down to people who are probably better off than you,

Just to clarify, when I was talking about "speed" in my post, i meant speed of growth.
Growth is basically what you're arguing about. That they as a company need to grow fast enough to be able to keep up with the competition.
And yes, that is true, but that is something for them to evaluate. And for the foreseeable future, growth will not be hindered by lack of money.
And should the need for money arise, there are ways for them to get it. Issue new shares, make a loan...
But again, that is for them to decide and evaluate and it depends on how well they'll be able to lead this company. It's really not something you should be worrying about now.

Nah your just fucking completely dumb. When your virtual fake money goes and gets used for real business, and real assets, it leaves the realm of "virtual keiser stock exchange".

There are legalities no matter what your half retarded brain says, the only problem is there is probably no regulation in Hong Kong.

It's not a stock in the traditional sense of the word. It's a completely new definition of a new kind of contract which does not currently exist in the legal lexicon. It is based around a sort of smart contract in the context of a virtual reality game.

Now, if you lose your virtual currency in Second Life it's not exactly the same thing as real stock. As for what it is, we don't really know yet because it has not yet been defined yet. That is the risk and until it is defined legally it exists as a game with real world benefits. It should be considered an alternate reality game with real world benefits.

An alternate reality game is what it is according to the technological definition. The legal definition? Ask a lawyer.

This kid isn't going to make it far..
I tried.

It's about as fake as Max Keiser's virtual hollywood stock exchange.

But this is why people want to get their ROI as soon as possible so that they don't lose anything if Labcoin or anything else turns into a scam.

That's great nobody gives a shit what BTCT says on their website. End of the day you are purchasing shares of LabCoin and those shares are transferred under your ownership.

Again: “Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States. Shavers also contends that his transactions were all Bitcoin transactions and that no money ever exchanged hands. The SEC argues that the BTCST investments are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.”

He argues what BTCT is arguing just because they say so doesn't mean shit when the government says otherwise lol.

I can say selling drugs is not a crime, doesn't mean I'm right.

Nobody said the SEC will help me, but other countries might take similar regulations. Secondly, the US can indict you and extradite your and freeze all your assets, and bring them into this country, in-case you haven't figured that out by now.

The US is the world, but keep denying that fact if it gives you warm fuzzies inside.

Asicminer was at almost 20% at one point. You're right it is highly optimistic but not impossible. They could secure 10% of the network with a bond offering and if whenever they fall below 10% we buy the bond to give them a loan so they can push it up. This feedback mechanism would not require voting rights and would allow the community to push the hashrate up to maintain 10% or higher. The loaned money would simply be used to buy more chips until they do have 10%.

They could use the reinvestment mechanism, that probably will work for the next few years and they might get 10% of the network just on that if sales are good. Asicminer didn't keep above 10% of the network because they don't want to, they have 1000TH in reserve. If Labcoin can build up a similar reserve then they'll have some level of security.

It's not about cash though, it's about chips.

Nothing like Bitcoin Stock Trading.  I love it.

From BTCT FAQ
•No assets on the site are to be considered real.
•The use of this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
•If an asset issuer on this site defaults, you have ZERO RECOURSE. (not like you have any recourse in most international BTC situations anyway.)


That pretty much sums it up right there.  Listen and learn.
the SEC won't help you just because you're a US citizen.  Give your head a big shake.  US is not the world.

For right now they have plenty of money which means they can sell their chips for cheaper if necessary and that is all good. It also means they can produce more chips if difficulty goes up and that is also good. Right now they are on target and there are no complaints about that right now but 2014 is a new year with new competition and much higher difficulty.  

For a couple years maybe. It wont be enough for as long as people think. They wont be able to make more efficient chips after physical limits are reached and nothing stops a big player from deciding a few years from now to get in on ASICs. If that happens everything can change overnight. What if a video game company like Nintendo decided to release a successor to the Wii which mines Bitcoins and lets the user download free games? What if Sony gets in on it? There are a lot of chip companies with a lot of money who could decide to mine Bitcoins.

I'm not talking about speeding anything up. I'm talking about security in knowing that Labcoin will survive the next 5-6 years. Right now I can only see it maintaining its position for 2-3 years and that is if everything this year goes how they plan.
I was not talking about that. I'm talking about cheaper chips, not just smaller.


It's far fetched in 2013, it's not far fetched in 2016. ASICs were far fetched in 2012 back when everyone was GPU mining. Intel, AMD or anyone could flood the market with chips and hashrate. Any chip company can make an ASIC and lower the price down to a level so everyone has to buy theirs. I don't think that will happen for the next 3 years but after that it's anyones guess.

You miss the point that you think it's virtual.

"In announcing the Ponzi allegations the SEC also took the opportunity to remind the public that all securities investments within the US fall under its jurisdiction, regardless of whether these are made using US dollars or virtual currency. "

“The SEC asserts that Shavers made a number of misrepresentations to investors regarding the nature of the investments and that he defrauded investors. However, the question currently before the Court is whether the BTCST investments in this case are securities as defined by Federal Securities Laws,”

“Shavers argues that the BTCST investments are not securities because Bitcoin is not money, and is not part of anything regulated by the United States. Shavers also contends that his transactions were all Bitcoin transactions and that no money ever exchanged hands. The SEC argues that the BTCST investments are both investment contracts and notes, and, thus, are securities.”

Bitcoin investments "meet the definition of investment contract, and as such, are securities,” the judge added.

In the US you have legal regulations, maybe not in Hong Kong, but clearly they are considered securities virtual or otherwise.