Weekly loss of N% guaranteed - Enjoy perpetual loss with fixed Mh/s mining turds - page 11.

Meni Rosenfeld

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1054

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:03:23 PM

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on August 04, 2012, 01:08:48 PM

The OP is completely nonsensical.

Buying mining equipment has two components - choosing and operating hardware, and speculating on the future of price/difficulty ratio.

Having these two components as a bundle is inefficient.

Mining bonds allow each component to be carried out most efficiently - one side buys bonds thus investing in the concept of mining profitability without having to physically operate hardware, and the other side uses the money to buy equipment without taking speculative risk.

The OP is right. You are making the mistake that he pointed out. It looks like he has facts on his side. These instruments may be efficient (for the seller??) but that does not make them BONDS. A bond has a specific meaning, and no matter how many times it is used wrong, that does not make it right.

I am not commenting on the usefulness of the instruments, just the terminology. They are not bonds. Calling them such makes them sound much safer then they really are.

If you're commenting on terminology you should have quoted the part of my reply where I talked about terminology.

Are BTC-denominated bonds with a specified BTC face value and returns "safe"? No, because BTC itself is highly speculative, volatile, and could crash any minute. Mining bonds have a fixed face value and return denominated in MH/s, which is also speculative.

From Wikipedia:

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:26:38 PM

Quote from: imsaguy on August 05, 2012, 07:17:53 PM

I think calling them perpetual mining contracts would probably be the most appropriate.

+1 Contract makes sense.

To me contract seems more descriptive of what Vladimir et al were offering, which was not publicly tradeable. A publicly tradeable debt instrument is a bond.

Electricbees

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

We are bees, and we hate you.

How much for these mining turds?

My German Shepard is interested in eating them...

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on August 05, 2012, 08:38:46 PM

All I will say is I wish you could buy mining bonds using usd

But you can. Take the USD you want to buy the bonds with, convert to BTC, and buy the bonds. Maybe you meant something else.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

All I will say is I wish you could buy mining bonds using usd

cuz0882

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:26:38 PM

Quote from: imsaguy on August 05, 2012, 07:17:53 PM

Quote from: jamesg on August 05, 2012, 07:13:47 PM

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:03:23 PM

I am not commenting on the usefulness of the instruments, just the terminology. They are not bonds. Calling them such makes them sound much safer then they really are.

What should we call them? I am not really excited about using EskimoBob's current terminology and it is quite offensive.

I think calling them perpetual mining contracts would probably be the most appropriate.

+1 Contract makes sense.

Bonds are not required to have a fixed return rate or a maturity date. You can call them whatever you like. It won't change what they are. Even if we decided to call them something else, wording on glbse can't be changed.

Willowbitcoin

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 12

For someone such as myself who are semi active in the (non bit coin )stock markets and own hybrid bonds and other bonds in the past.
I have never heard of floating rates called turds before.

It elicited a laugh from me so for that i thank you Wink

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: imsaguy on August 05, 2012, 07:17:53 PM

Quote from: jamesg on August 05, 2012, 07:13:47 PM

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:03:23 PM

I am not commenting on the usefulness of the instruments, just the terminology. They are not bonds. Calling them such makes them sound much safer then they really are.

What should we call them? I am not really excited about using EskimoBob's current terminology and it is quite offensive.

I think calling them perpetual mining contracts would probably be the most appropriate.

+1 Contract makes sense.

imsaguy

vip

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.

Quote from: jamesg on August 05, 2012, 07:13:47 PM

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:03:23 PM

I am not commenting on the usefulness of the instruments, just the terminology. They are not bonds. Calling them such makes them sound much safer then they really are.

What should we call them? I am not really excited about using EskimoBob's current terminology and it is quite offensive.

I think calling them perpetual mining contracts would probably be the most appropriate.

jamesg

vip

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1000

AKA: gigavps

Quote from: Littleshop on August 05, 2012, 07:03:23 PM

I am not commenting on the usefulness of the instruments, just the terminology. They are not bonds. Calling them such makes them sound much safer then they really are.

What should we call them? I am not really excited about using EskimoBob's current terminology and it is quite offensive.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on August 04, 2012, 01:08:48 PM

The OP is completely nonsensical.

Buying mining equipment has two components - choosing and operating hardware, and speculating on the future of price/difficulty ratio.

Having these two components as a bundle is inefficient.

Mining bonds allow each component to be carried out most efficiently - one side buys bonds thus investing in the concept of mining profitability without having to physically operate hardware, and the other side uses the money to buy equipment without taking speculative risk.

The OP is right. You are making the mistake that he pointed out. It looks like he has facts on his side. These instruments may be efficient (for the seller??) but that does not make them BONDS. A bond has a specific meaning, and no matter how many times it is used wrong, that does not make it right.

I am not commenting on the usefulness of the instruments, just the terminology. They are not bonds. Calling them such makes them sound much safer then they really are.

racerguy

sr. member

Activity: 270

Merit: 250

If you want to increase your real wealth mining shares are awesome, if you check your numbers you'll find nearly all bonds have increased in real world value though maybe decreased when priced in bitcoins, what you're forgetting is that if the price of bitcoin crashes mining bonds will probably maintain their real world purchasing power and still payout a nice weekly dividend whilst storing your wealth in just bitcoins will net you a huge loss.

cuz0882

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: EskimoBob on August 05, 2012, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: cuz0882 on August 05, 2012, 02:55:32 PM

Now that you have got back and changed all your replies I'm just going to write my response here. When you purchase a single for $600 its not going to be worth $1200 because the price of bitcoin goes up. The bonds have not lost value in dollars. When it comes to saying power prices are irrelevant to bond holders. It's always better for a company to have lower expenses.

stop trolling boy, I have changed nothing in my replies. What if I did not use US dollars to buy my BTC and I have no use for USD at all?
Stop fooling yourself! If I invest my BTC and like to preserve invested capital (my BTC) then this is what I like to see happening.
You can always pull another fiat currency out of your ass, after you have lost 25% of your BTC, and tell yourself: "bb.. bbu... bbub.. but in currency X, I actually made money"
In this case, please ask yourself: How much would I have earned, if I did not buy a those turds in the first place? Yes, those same ones that wiped out 1/4 of your BTC holdings?
What's next? "Bbb.. bbb... but BTC can lose its value...." defence?

LOL

If your want your investment to follow the value of btc then keep it in btc. Mining equipment has always been valued in dollars just like your house your car and everything else. The price of bitcoin does not effect the value of mining equipment. It's still valued at X dollars. Butterfly is not going to sell singles for $300 dollars because the price of bitcoin doubled. This is all common sense.

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

Quote from: EskimoBob on August 05, 2012, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: cuz0882 on August 05, 2012, 02:55:32 PM

Now that you have got back and changed all your replies I'm just going to write my response here. When you purchase a single for $600 its not going to be worth $1200 because the price of bitcoin goes up. The bonds have not lost value in dollars. When it comes to saying power prices are irrelevant to bond holders. It's always better for a company to have lower expenses.

stop trolling boy, I have changed nothing in my replies. What if I did not use US dollars to buy my BTC and I have no use for USD at all?
Stop fooling yourself! If I invest my BTC and like to preserve invested capital (my BTC) then this is what I like to see happening.
You can always pull another fiat currency out of your ass, after you have lost 25% of your BTC, and tell yourself: "bb.. bbu... bbub.. but in currency X, I actually made money"
In this case, please ask yourself: How much would I have earned, if I did not buy a those turds in the first place? Yes, those same ones that wiped out 1/4 of your BTC holdings?
What's next? "Bbb.. bbb... but BTC can lose its value...." defence?

LOL

Buying mining bonds is shorting BTC as others have posted. Something that might be useful is if a mining company started that let you invest fiat and earn btc. But then the SEC would be on your ass like a fly on shit.

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

Quote from: cuz0882 on August 05, 2012, 02:55:32 PM

Now that you have got back and changed all your replies I'm just going to write my response here. When you purchase a single for $600 its not going to be worth $1200 because the price of bitcoin goes up. The bonds have not lost value in dollars. When it comes to saying power prices are irrelevant to bond holders. It's always better for a company to have lower expenses.

stop trolling boy, I have changed nothing in my replies. What if I did not use US dollars to buy my BTC and I have no use for USD at all?
Stop fooling yourself! If I invest my BTC and like to preserve invested capital (my BTC) then this is what I like to see happening.
You can always pull another fiat currency out of your ass, after you have lost 25% of your BTC, and tell yourself: "bb.. bbu... bbub.. but in currency X, I actually made money"
In this case, please ask yourself: How much would I have earned, if I did not buy a those turds in the first place? Yes, those same ones that wiped out 1/4 of your BTC holdings?
What's next? "Bbb.. bbb... but BTC can lose its value...." defence?

LOL

cuz0882

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Now that you have got back and changed all your replies I'm just going to write my response here. When you purchase a single for $600 its not going to be worth $1200 because the price of bitcoin goes up. The bonds have not lost value in dollars. When it comes to saying power prices are irrelevant to bond holders. It's always better for a company to have lower expenses.

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Quote from: EskimoBob on August 05, 2012, 03:42:59 AM

Quote from: cuz0882 on August 04, 2012, 07:37:30 PM

It's highly profitable even with the dividend returns likely lowering over time. Hydro bonds has been paying out almost 2.5% weekly. This will most likely increase when butterfly delivers the new ASIC's. I keep the price about $1.45 -$1.50 per mhash or currently .13 btc. Apparently you need to brush up on your math, because that is a highly profitable return rate. If you want your payouts to increase every week you need to reinvest some of your dividends. The same way miners reinvest into their farms. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also calling something a bond or a share has little relevance. The contract is all that matters.

BTW, I like your upgrade path because you have no additional rip off fee attached to it. Interesting, how you brought the fiat into this equation but this is is irrelevant.

Really?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/buying-mining-assets-is-like-shorting-btcusd-88756 - and still no real counter arguments so far!

Just wait for the crash down to 5 USD, then suddenly "x MH/s contracts" will become more attractive again.

cuz0882

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: EskimoBob on August 05, 2012, 05:08:23 AM

Quote from: cuz0882 on August 04, 2012, 07:37:30 PM

It's highly profitable even with the dividend returns likely lowering over time. Hydro bonds has been paying out almost 2.5% weekly. This will most likely increase when butterfly delivers the new ASIC's. I keep the price about $1.45 -$1.50 per mhash or currently .13 btc. Apparently you need to brush up on your math, because that is a highly profitable return rate. If you want your payouts to increase every week you need to reinvest some of your dividends. The same way miners reinvest into their farms. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also calling something a bond or a share has little relevance. The contract is all that matters.

No, I have not asked for increase in div's every week.

I am talking about how bonds work in the real world - usually principal is preserved and dividends are fixed to a some % from par value.
I am not so much against those strange mining ~~bonds~~ contracts pers se, but more against that they are called bonds.
It actually is important, how you call something. Especially when the word used has a very specific meaning in the real world - secure investment, (yes, there is lots of junk out there but still, bond are considered safe) with guaranteed income form coupon - preserve capital and generates regular income (usually tax free, if you go for gov. issues)

If I want to share your risks, I'll buy equity in your mining farm. If I want fixed steady income, I'll look for a bond. Do you see the difference?
You go belly up, at least bondholders are (because it is debt in your books) paid before owners of equity and so on. Stop confusing investment in equity and investment in debt.

I'm not confused with what your saying. Bond holders are guaranteed a hashrate instead of a dollar amount. Removing the word "bond" from the contract changes nothing. Dividends and ownership would still be the same. Clearly no one is going to guarantee a fixed return on mining, it would make no sense from a business stand point. There is no golden rule that says a bonds are only secure debt investments.

Bond holders are paid before owners. It's written right into the contract.

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

Quote from: cuz0882 on August 04, 2012, 07:37:30 PM

It's highly profitable even with the dividend returns likely lowering over time. Hydro bonds has been paying out almost 2.5% weekly. This will most likely increase when butterfly delivers the new ASIC's. I keep the price about $1.45 -$1.50 per mhash or currently .13 btc. Apparently you need to brush up on your math, because that is a highly profitable return rate. If you want your payouts to increase every week you need to reinvest some of your dividends. The same way miners reinvest into their farms. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also calling something a bond or a share has little relevance. The contract is all that matters.

No, I have not asked for increase in div's every week.

I am talking about how bonds work in the real world - usually principal is preserved and dividends are fixed to a some % from par value.
I am not so much against those strange mining ~~bonds~~ contracts pers se, but more against that they are called bonds.
It actually is important, how you call something. Especially when the word used has a very specific meaning in the real world - secure investment, (yes, there is lots of junk out there but still, bond are considered safe) with guaranteed income form coupon - preserve capital and generates regular income (usually tax free, if you go for gov. issues)

If I want to share your risks, I'll buy equity in your mining farm. If I want fixed steady income, I'll look for a bond. Do you see the difference?
You go belly up, at least bondholders are (because it is debt in your books) paid before owners of equity and so on. Stop confusing investment in equity and investment in debt.

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Quote from: ?? on ??

edit: the horse's mouth : https://github.com/znort987/glbse-googledoc-macro

Hm, I got an unspecified error there... how can I debug this properly and let you know the necessary info?

Topic: Weekly loss of N% guaranteed - Enjoy perpetual loss with fixed Mh/s mining turds - page 11. (Read 14714 times)