Finally some positive news from BFL: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942
Topic: 📈 NastyFans: The Bitcoin Enthusiast Fan Club (est. 2012) - page 165. (Read 959381 times)
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.
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.
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.
3) why does OgNasty have control of greater than 25% of the seats, and with it, the ability to unilaterally veto any and all polls
The initial number of seats given to members matches the GLBSE list I received. On that list OgNasty had many seats.
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.
At the most basic level, "not voting" is the very definition of abstention:
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.
Quote from: http://www.nastyfans.org/policy -- section: polls / voting
any members that do not vote within thirty days of a poll begin will automatically vote for the "no action" choice
At the most basic level, "not voting" is the very definition of abstention:
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.
Who wrote the original policy?
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.
1) it only takes a vote of 25% "no action" to veto any policy changes (a vote with 75% in favor is required to change policy)
Yes. I preferred a model where "no action" is easy and change is hard. I believe this helps us to make better decisions longterm.
2) the policy redefines abstention, and then hijacks / mis-counts actual, literal acts of abstention (formally defined as not voting) and then changes any true abstention to instead be a vote for "no action"
Correct. I preferred a model where only active voting can cause action.
3) why does OgNasty have control of greater than 25% of the seats, and with it, the ability to unilaterally veto any and all polls
The initial number of seats given to members matches the GLBSE list I received. On that list OgNasty had many seats.
Two earlier polls under this new system where ognasty's action was basically the only one that mattered (the outcome of the vote would have been reversed by a significant margin)
That is the choice of OgNasty.
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:
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.
So really, we have a mockery of a voting system:
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.
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" ... though I guess I'll add that technically, the 75% majority vote requirement isn't all that abnormal, but in light of point number 2, it's easily abused.
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" ... though I guess I'll add that technically, the 75% majority vote requirement isn't all that abnormal, but in light of point number 2, it's easily abused.
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.
I've a lot of confidence in OgNasty so would link my votes to his decisions. It never made sense to me that organisations base important decisions on who has the most money to buy shares :/
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.
I've a lot of confidence in OgNasty so would link my votes to his decisions. It never made sense to me that organisations base important decisions on who has the most money to buy shares :/
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.
Doubt this is possible with the way nastyfans works but I'd like to be able to link my votes to another user, ie. I've a lot of confidence in OgNasty so would link my votes to his decisions. It never made sense to me that organisations base important decisions on who has the most money to buy shares :/
We had a poll for this:
[policy change] add configurable automatic votes
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1513325
It did not pass. In that poll 1393 seats did not vote. If they abstained it would passed.
[member opinion] cancel bASIC orders with BTCFPGA
no: 2650 (10.8%)
yes: 21867 (89.2%)
abstain: 145
RESULT: CANCEL bASIC ORDERS WITH BTCFPGA
no: 2650 (10.8%)
yes: 21867 (89.2%)
abstain: 145
RESULT: CANCEL bASIC ORDERS WITH BTCFPGA
[unowned seats] lottery for unclaimed seats
no: 2655 (10.8%)
yes: 21963 (89.2%)
abstain: 44
RESULT: HOST A LOTTERY FOR UNOWNED SEATS
no: 2655 (10.8%)
yes: 21963 (89.2%)
abstain: 44
RESULT: HOST A LOTTERY FOR UNOWNED SEATS
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:
Previously, the majority were "treasury shares" back on GLBSE with no voting power or dividends (distributions of donation in the new nastyfans fanclub thingy) ... who is controlling the votes on these "seats" now that everything is on nastyfans.org? It's very different than the way things were handled previously -- On GLBSE, things were more "normal-like" where a distinction was made between:
- outstanding shares (regular members / users / shareholders)
- treasury shares (no voting rights or distributions / dividends)
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:
... who is controlling the votes on these "seats" now that everything is on nastyfans.org?
I am.
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
Doubt this is possible with the way nastyfans works but I'd like to be able to link my votes to another user, ie. I've a lot of confidence in OgNasty so would link my votes to his decisions. It never made sense to me that organisations base important decisions on who has the most money to buy shares :/
We had a poll for this:
[policy change] add configurable automatic votes
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1513325
It did not pass. In that poll 1393 seats did not vote. If they abstained it would passed.
1 poll opened
[policy change] send 25% of donations to NASTY MINING
[policy change] send 25% of donations to NASTY MINING
[member opinion] percentage of donations for fundraising
0%: 2310 (33.8%)
10%: 903 (13.2%)
25%: 2434 (35.6%)
50%: 1115 (16.3%)
75%: 76 (1.1%)
100%: 1 (0.0%)
abstain: 18161
RESULT: 25% OF DONATIONS SHOULD BE USED FOR FUNDRAISING
In this poll there are 1724 seats that did not vote. With so many no voting members it is difficult to pass any polls with 75% majority. Maybe these members do not want any changes. Or maybe they do not care about nastyfans.
I add a new settings option to automatically abstain from polls. This is for members that do not care about nastyfans.
Dear no voting member! If you do not care about nastyfans please enable this option so the rest of us can make decisions.
0%: 2310 (33.8%)
10%: 903 (13.2%)
25%: 2434 (35.6%)
50%: 1115 (16.3%)
75%: 76 (1.1%)
100%: 1 (0.0%)
abstain: 18161
RESULT: 25% OF DONATIONS SHOULD BE USED FOR FUNDRAISING
In this poll there are 1724 seats that did not vote. With so many no voting members it is difficult to pass any polls with 75% majority. Maybe these members do not want any changes. Or maybe they do not care about nastyfans.
I add a new settings option to automatically abstain from polls. This is for members that do not care about nastyfans.
Dear no voting member! If you do not care about nastyfans please enable this option so the rest of us can make decisions.
the value of the shares from last confirmed sale \ btc\$ is not updating
Thank you for reporting. The chart on nastyfans.org shows only values when a buy happens. From https://nastyfans.org/buys.csv you see there are no buys since 2.5 days.
The chart on nastyfans.org is ugly. I know this. It will be replaced with a better chart like OgNasty has on NASTY MINING OP. But right now I work on other features.
the value of the shares from last confirmed sale \ btc\$ is not updating
I see the transaction history is up and running. Thanks for that!
Yeah thanks! Awesome feature.
I see the transaction history is up and running. Thanks for that!
Wait a few hundred more blocks, then it's really going to hurt. Either way, thanks for the div. Looking forward to the day that BFL actually delivers.
Distribution 227437 is complete.
24 seats on probation.
nastyfans starts to feel some pain. Patience for ASICs.
24 seats on probation.
nastyfans starts to feel some pain. Patience for ASICs.
@OgNasty
Which method are we using?
...Have you received any similar email or communication from BFL?
Which method are we using?
...Have you received any similar email or communication from BFL?
We'll be using the regular trade-in method. I'll ship our FPGAs out to BFL as soon as I get the word. As of yet, I have received no communication from them.
Ah, really? They haven't sent you a notice? I wonder what the source was for that post by the "BFL Update" blogger
... and like, when BFL is sending out the trade-in announcements, etc...
We spent a total of BTC177.86 which at the time was worth $2,198.00. We received a BTC38 refund which is currently worth $1,818.30.
I suppose I'll share some good news.... bitcoin prices have increased since last week when our 38 BTC bASIC refund seemed to be "not very good"...
(just checked the volume-weighted average price a few minutes ago, and the following timestamps are Local NY time / Friday March 22, 2013)
Quote from: gribble, the friendly bitcoin utility-bot on freenode IRC / channel
[11:08:42] ticker
[11:08:43] BTCUSD ticker | Best bid: 72.40936, Best ask: 72.80000, Bid-ask spread: 0.39064, Last trade: 72.87000, 24 hour volume: 87271.17967281, 24 hour low: 68.11000, 24 hour high: 74.90000, 24 hour vwap: 71.57408
[11:11:08] calc 38 * [ticker --avg]
[11:11:09] 2720.59442
[11:08:43]
[11:11:08]
[11:11:09]
I think... like... isn't $2,720.59 USD something like 20% higher than the USD value of the 177.86 bitcoins which we originally paid for the bASIC orders?
...I just love what the bitcoin exchange rates have done since BFL announced their ASICs are working:
15 March 2013 Update (The following info was on BFL's forum last week)
Quote from: BFL_Josh
((...snip...))
In some other positive news, we've not found a single bad chip yet, which could mean our yield rate will be exceptionally high... maybe we just got lucky out of the 50 chips we have available on boards so far, but it seems unlikely. So that may mean the vast majority of our chips will be usable.
So the good news is the boards work, the chips work, the bumping works, the substrate works. We just need to nail down a bit more with the firmware and we should be able to conduct a full test and start shipping.
((...snip...))
In some other positive news, we've not found a single bad chip yet, which could mean our yield rate will be exceptionally high... maybe we just got lucky out of the 50 chips we have available on boards so far, but it seems unlikely. So that may mean the vast majority of our chips will be usable.
So the good news is the boards work, the chips work, the bumping works, the substrate works. We just need to nail down a bit more with the firmware and we should be able to conduct a full test and start shipping.
((...snip...))
@OgNasty
Which method are we using?
...Have you received any similar email or communication from BFL?
Which method are we using?
...Have you received any similar email or communication from BFL?
We'll be using the regular trade-in method. I'll ship our FPGAs out to BFL as soon as I get the word. As of yet, I have received no communication from them.
Wow, finally time for the FPGA to ASIC trade-in procedure
(I'm assuming this was cut-copy-pasted from an email)
Based solely on my own opinion, it looks legit... See link:
MAR 15, 2013: Send your FPGA Trade-Ins
@OgNasty
Which method are we using?
...Have you received any similar email or communication from BFL?
(I'm assuming this was cut-copy-pasted from an email)
Quote from: sourced from BFLUPDATE.INFO blogger
Dear FPGA Upgrade Customer,
We are nearly ready to begin shipping and we want to give you time to arrange your trade-in so you won’t lose any time getting into ASIC mining. We are putting forth 3 ways to help you get your miner as quickly as possible...
((...snip...))
We are nearly ready to begin shipping and we want to give you time to arrange your trade-in so you won’t lose any time getting into ASIC mining. We are putting forth 3 ways to help you get your miner as quickly as possible...
((...snip...))
Based solely on my own opinion, it looks legit... See link:
MAR 15, 2013: Send your FPGA Trade-Ins
@OgNasty
Which method are we using?
...Have you received any similar email or communication from BFL?
Then it will be a good opportunity to buy 
but to be, perhaps, overly correct, Bitcoin always has a good buying price when transacted from fiat paper
Jump to: