Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 164. (Read 958972 times)

Careful - it starts with only two, then you have a hundred!

Sounds like standard BFL vagueness.

It's sad that that is the only thing we can hope for.





* Achievement unlocked - Awkward grammar; use a double-that correctly in a sentence.

new post by BFL

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-3.html

Not much has changed from the last pic. Just a tower of singles and a mess of wires. I'll get it looking sexy over the next month or so and post some nice pics.

Seconded.

We always love to see rig pr0n.

@OgNasty,
Would it be possible to see some up to date pictures of our operation?  Before and after would be great!

I have no problem with rushing the first few units and paying a higher power cost. We can always sell them at a profit and order more if it becomes a huge deal. I also don't think any additional donations will be necessary. The extra heat however does concern me. For that reason, today I've ordered a standalone air conditioning unit and will be paying a professional to install an exhaust duct in our dedicated mining area. In addition, I am also looking at having a custom electrical circuit installed to allow for additional expansion along with some security improvements. Things are going to start getting really exciting, and there are still two rabbits waiting to be pulled out of my hat.

yes, but naturally, we would have to donate back for that (the extra power), out of our donations we get from OgNasty

I personally agree; however OgNasty pays for the power out of his pocket so I would like to hear his opinion.

totally agree!

The sooner the better. We're way ahead in the queue, so let's use that to our advantage before the difficulty skyrockets. We could earn those ASICs back in matter of weeks right now.

The sooner the better is for sure the best option imo

wow, that is some really good news!..

question then comes, shall we go with the sub-optimal energy consumption and get them delivered way before everyone else, thus getting them online and start mining asap to maximize the potential advantage we get there.. or wait for the tweaked, less power consuming ones..?


I say option 1, that we get them asap and maybe OgNasty is a tech genius and be able to optimize himself later on, or we can maybe replace them later as we first exhaust our "out of the starting block" advantage?

Finally some positive news from BFL: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

Did OgNasty control distribution of treasury seats on GLBSE? Yes.

Did OgNasty have majority voting power on GLBSE? Yes because OgNasty only provided motions where shareholders may choose action.

With nastyfans I attempt a honest effort to keep us together after GLBSE joke. I think we will have much fun in the next 12 months. I think it is good that you mention the voting issue but I prefer we keep it at appropriate level. Things are not so broken like you claim. They certainly are not more broken then with GLBSE.

1) Was there any digital signature with a timestamp proving this list is unmodified, and originated from GLBSE?
2) If not, is there a money trail / evidence in the blockchain with transactions to support actual purchase of this number?
3) If not, are there posts on this thread backing up or suggesting that OgNasty had personally bought and paid for 15k+ shares while [NASTY] was still on GLBSE?
4) If not, what about evidence of mining hardware purchased by OgNasty which is proportional to the amount of hash power equivalent to this many seats / shares?

On point #4, assuming IPO prices, and $5/bitcoin, that represents considerably more than 10x BFL ASICs... This $5/btc number is pretty generous considering things have been trading at higher than $5/btc since the IPO, and the IPO was at something like 0.2 BTC per share (shouldn't be too hard to do a real estimate / audit on this... I only request that someone please sanity-check the number of seats OgNasty currently has, even if the findings are not fully disclosed)

I stand by what I was originally implying:

Undisclosed / non-transparent decisions were made.

... without transparency, discussion, and accountability, this sort of thing is only going to lead to further confusion about everyone's intentions.

This inquiry doesn't involve any sort of lie on my part, so I do not appreciate getting an inbox message titled "stop the lies" because of these oversights.

Hello kuzetsa. I try to answer your comments. I only speak for nastyfans.


You are correct. But maybe members do not have time to vote. Or maybe they are not available for some months. In such case it may be in the interest that they automatically vote for no action. This supports a model where changes only occur when a majority actively agrees. I thought this is a safe model for the first policy version.


I am author of nastyfans policy and website. I pondered each policy item for a long time. The policy was nearly more work than the website.


Yes. I preferred a model where "no action" is easy and change is hard. I believe this helps us to make better decisions longterm.


Correct. I preferred a model where only active voting can cause action.


The initial number of seats given to members matches the GLBSE list I received. On that list OgNasty had many seats.


That is the choice of OgNasty.


The fanclub does not have treasury seats. All seats are the same. Just like you OgNasty received the number of seats on the GLBSE list. I think you agree that it is very generous that OgNasty does not accept donations for those seats. Maybe you want OgNasty to abstain from voting also? Sometimes OgNasty abstains. Somtimes not. Maybe OgNasty has insights to some issues that we do not know. Example of BTCFPGA: without OgNasty votes the results of the BTCFPGA order poll is not cancel. But this is obvious scam now. I trust OgNasty and I think most fans do. If OgNasty forces a poll result then maybe there are good reasons. But as president I choose polls carefully because I know OgNasty can push a majority.

Maybe in the future OgNasty does not have so many seats. We have several members with many seats and are growing.


We have a member with many many seats. We can ask OgNasty to abstain from voting. But there are some members like stan.distortion that prefer OgNasty handles the important decisions. They maybe have no disagreement with OgNasty voting. As president I would appreciate knowing before if OgNasty will vote on a poll. Because then there is no need for that poll.


With voting we can change nastyfans policy. With dialogue we can work with OgNasty to start polls where we know OgNasty abstains.

I have much respect for OgNasty and the NASTY MINING work. I trust OgNasty. As president of nastyfans I also see the problem with seat distribution. I believe this problem will fix itself as NASTY MINING and nastyfans matures.

Thank you. Your confidence in my ability to navigate this fast changing BTC environment is appreciated. I will continue to do my best to keep things running in a way that benefits everyone.

@OgNasty: The treasury seats were never meant to have voting privileges, and having control of them now to swing a vote is not proportional to the amount of money you put into NastyMining during the IPO on GLBSE, nor are these seats proportional to any further investment(s) made by you on any later date thus far.

---

---

Just wanted to point out that nowhere in the nastyfans policy was there any specification / written understanding or documentation (nor any post on this forum) to authorize OgNasty to suddenly have control over treasury seats, complete with voting rights:


And with no justification for how / why the treasury seats now have voting power, OgNasty acknowledged full control of this unbalanced ability to overrule pretty much any and all votes:


TLDR
(Too long / didn't read... basically, this section is a summary)

So really, we have a mockery of a voting system:

1) abstention is instead automatically treated like a veto / converted to a vote of "take no action which can be used to fix or amend broken policy"
2) the mining operations manager (or whatever OgNasty's title is) basically has full veto power for everything
(treasury seats are no longer treated separately like they're supposed to be)
3) there is no "3" ... I'll just add that while technically, the 75% "majority vote" requirement isn't inherently abnormal, it's easily abused in light of point number 2