Quote from: ||bit on March 09, 2014, 01:29:13 AM

Quote from: Mindsync Miner on March 09, 2014, 01:04:57 AM

Quote from: fractal02 on March 09, 2014, 12:19:06 AM

Quote from: grnbrg on March 09, 2014, 12:08:37 AM

Quote from: BKM on March 08, 2014, 10:47:45 PM

I will add my voice to Epoch's to state that the only reasonable course in this process is to wind up the company rather than spending additional resources trying to fight your bondholders or somehow restructure the deal. All existing and inbound equipment needs to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the bondholders accordingly.

Lab_Rat's response on this has been that it will result in less value for the bond holders than ongoing operation with each original bond being worth 300 MH/s (including the 1->3 split).

grnbrg.

And why not 2 gh/s bond to reflect the futur hashrate ?
Why 300 mh/s when the issue is around the 100 mh/s bonds definition?

Something don't work here...

Absolutely right!

First of all if splitting now is appropriate can we look forward to future splits as new hardware comes in? I would be OK with that because it just makes the growth more staggered.

If future splits aren't possible then for god's sake split us 10 to 20 ways x100MH to account for the hardware we already financed with our bond purchases.

I can only hope that the news improves from here. Locked at 300MH is unacceptable. That IS theft and we will fight for what's ours.

Yeah, clumsy, but a very simple solution. If you want to call the mining bonds a fixed hash rate, for now, make it 1,000,000 PH. Done! And yes, it is THAT easy.
...or...
But a better solution is to call it a fixed PERCENTAGE based on total issued bonds, where bonds issued may vary. That is how it should have been structured from day one.

It really shouldn't be that complicated.

I've read over the OP a few times now, and I just can't see what the issue is. 100 is specified as the bare minimum. It also says that the intent was to increase value of the bonds by adding hashrate.

We've exhausted the analysis of the known info and are venturing into speculation now, but it would seem for whatever reason, LR has assigned a fixed 100MH to each bond since that was the minimum promised, then provided a three for one split because that roughly represents the amount of hardware in hand and active now minus the 25% portion for cost of running the company.

It would stand to reason, one of two things happens now:

Hardware comes in, new 100 MH bonds are issued for sale, existing bondholders are stuffed and see their holdings decline in value every 2016 blocks.
or
Hardware comes in, additional splits occur to bring existing bondholders up to their fair share of 100MH bonds for the new hardware.

I'm really really hoping it is the latter. I would be okay with bond splits.