Quote from: velacreations on January 04, 2014, 07:40:01 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on January 04, 2014, 06:12:49 PM

You said that 6 months ago as well when you were claiming shares were worth at least 5 BTC and I explained why such prices were insane.

and yet, I was right, we did hit 5 btc.

Yes it did hit 5 BTC, but my argument was not that it wouldn't hit 5 BTC, it was that all the upcoming competition would force AM to sell hardware at lower prices and decrease AM's network share as well. This would obviously cause divs to decrease which in turn would cause the share price to decrease.

So, was my argument wrong?

Quote from: velacreations on January 04, 2014, 07:40:01 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on January 04, 2014, 06:12:49 PM

The arguments I recently made are also perfectly valid.

and how about your arguments saying that Labcon would be worth 10x what they were sold for? Those didn't hold up, either.

Of course it didn't hold up, Labcoin was a scam. If it was legit though, the shares would have easily sold for 10x IPO.

Quote from: velacreations on January 04, 2014, 07:40:01 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on January 04, 2014, 06:12:49 PM

Also, why would me telling people to do the maths themselves push the price down? Wouldn't that only be the case if the maths showed that the shares were overpriced?

you and I both know you can make the math say whatever you want to say, because you selectively pick data and numbers for calculations. Kinda like you saying Labcon would hit 1btc or more. You had math to back that up as well.

It seems like your math and reality don't match up too well.

As far as I can remember I never claimed Labcoin would hit 1 BTC, so I'll you you to quote me on that one. No, in fact don't bother, because it's completely irrelevant. You are just trying to distract people from my actual argument.

Sure, you can use crazy numbers in your equation if you want to get some specific result, but people will challenge the validity of those numbers. Is that what you think I've been doing with my arguments here? I told you were my numbers came from:

* the genesis block for network hash rate,
* friedcat for gen 3 hash rate, and
* previous manufacturers time frames for time from tape out to receiving sample chips.

What numbers are you claiming I'm selectively picking?

Just because the maths gives results you don't want to see, doesn't mean those are wrong.