Lol.  Don't remember that part in the contract -- either version.

I 'd guess operating expense runs somewhere around $3k a week. So, I'd guess that somewhere around $200/btc, there is no bonus, and lower ends up being Bad news.  In the endgame, Zach would forego his comp, to see if btc snaps back.  If it doesnt, then things start going dark, since electric bill couldnt be met.  Theres potential that things get ugly quickly.  But, btc is incredibly volatile. Its insane to do forecasts, since normal range corrections in either direction is massive.

Maybe, maybe not.  It's a sign that btc:usd is down.  If btc continues down, then that bonus erodes.  Now, that margin is precariously thin.

Take a look at the pm market.  Thats getting smacked as well.

The usd is "strengthening" with downtrend in us unemployment, and there is no sign of inflation despite fed low interest policy.  In other words, the spec trade is off.  People will roll usd into equities or remain in usd going into the gift giving holidays.

Btc is volatile - it might go up.  I suspect it will flatten or go down for the remainder of the year, but that's just me.  At the end of the day, btc mining is too cheap and easy at this exchange rate.  A shake up will come to marginalize devices like the antminers.  Home farmers are just about done, but hopefully labrat has sufficient optimization.

If people want btc to go up, they should buy some btc, to absorb the otherwise cheap and abundant supply.

No one will be able to give a definitive answer.  The glib answer is that there are more sellers than buyers.

 Id guess its dollar strengthening, same reason gold and silver.  Btc are more speculative than the pms, and have seen that in monstrous downward pressure.  Inefficient miners will get shaken out if they need to convert btc to usd to cover operating expenses.   Of course, this creates a vicious circle of more btc being sold on the market, driving prices lower.  Weak hand miners have got to be getting nervous.

Curiously, alts, particularly doge, have made gains in btc terms.  I shouldve hedged more in doge than I did, but its all largely a guessing game.

It wouldnt be proportional, since operating expenses are covered through the bonus pool.  Worse, those expenses occur in usd, and btc has been down.  The irony is if btc were up, we'd all receive more btc...

This, plus I dont think bfl produced the devices to use in a surreptitious mining scheme.

They screwed the pooch, it seems.  If they had sold in batches, like everyone else did/does, they wouldve been, imo, a more successful company.  I suspect they got overwhelmed by the volume, and then noticed the big piles of cash, and said, "screw it.  We cant deliver, so we may as well turn up the bass until if and when we get shut down."

I still want my cup warmer, usb powered jally.  That wouldve been a cool little toy.

Wouldnt it be interesting if bfl were mining with unshipped equipment to fund refunds, and now with the receivership, no more mining, and btc hashrate stabilizes, making the difficulty not rise so dramatically?

Pure, outrageous speculation, but fun thought none the less.

Nartz.  Maybe I wont receive that refund I've been waiting on.   

This.

One makes a lot of assumptions to get to the conclusion that brandon's lawsuit is good.

Brandon is out for one person.  If you seriously think this will play to your benefit, I've got a pile of lrm shares to sell you.

[/quote]

We've all been had. Best wishes to the plaintiffs in the case. Perhaps they can achieve justice here.
[/quote]

Fwiw, I don't wish the plaintiffs well in the case.  Brandon isnt being altruistic in his pursuit.  His intention no doubt is to get what he put in, plus, at the expense of everyone else.  If he prevails, we all get screwed with nothing, labrat might get seriously damaged, and brandon ends up with all of the chips.

Even if brandon doesnt prevail, we are all in a position of being far from breaking even.

I'll be 7th.  I think zach meant 10th or 11th inquiry -- it wasnt a reference to a date... ;-p

 

drop the intensity to 13.  you're throwing nothing but hw errors.

I doubt the altcoin concept offers any advantage apart from maybe getting it listed on a dubious exchange.

it opens up issues like what happens if my hd crashes, and I lose my lrm wallet?   
what if i made a private sale? while the transaction happens without an issue, both parties still have to go back to grnbrg to pay him his fee to update the ledger?? meanwhile the blockchain should be proof enough, right?  doesnt seem to fix anything apart from having it listed on an exchange of ill repute and exposing it to increased volatility and buyers who will have no idea what the heck they just bought.  and I all but guarantee that they'll have zero clue on how to digitally sign a message.
would lr pay divs on lrm coin fractions?
if lrm bonds are replaced by a dividend paying alt coin, does lr draw scrutiny for coining money? 

if I wanted to buy fakecoin, or whatever, I wouldve bought one of the lamecoins.  I bought btc dividend paying bonds in lrm.  I'm not willing to restructure the holding just to buy some dubious beta.

well, the solving share would be higher, so you would see a little more.

mmerlin -- you're spot on.  The data that I'm aggregating should not be regarded as financial advice or even technical analysis even in a future state.  The amount of data are sparse, and, frankly, it's so sparse that it would be difficult to even calculate an appropriate margin for error.  From a statistical perspective, the whole data set would likely fall into margins for error.  There simply is insufficient data.  But, I will start tracking volume, shares traded, pricing, and yield so that people have *something* tangible.  Ultimately, however, people will have to consider their own risk tolerance.

grnbrg -- thanks for the pointer to when we were capturing to bitfunder data on greater frequency.  Maybe I can find an explanation for those 127 shares.  I happened to have worked for one of "those" audit firms in one of my past lives, so it'll be an interesting exercise.

Also, total distributions from 8/10 have amounted to BTC0.012719305.  Assuming the IPO price of BTC.15, yield to date is just shy of 8.5%.

In formulating a model to look at bonds and give individuals a sense of how they may want to position a trade, I noticed an interesting niggling error.

The last "official" excel sheet that LR has posted noted 55472 bonds held.  In the most recent dividend distribution, BTC31.01295233 was distributed, at a per bond rate of BTC.000557995.  I calculate that to imply that held bonds total 55579.  So, 127 bonds in the overall scheme of things isn't so many, but it still amounts to a 2.2% discrepancy from the "official" total when compared to what was distributed.  Not sure how that works out.

I haven't fully mined the bitfunder data, so I don't have numbers there, but for some preliminary numbers, I noted that the week ending 11/9 (our "business week" basically ends on Saturdays, since that's the distribution day), there were 4 transactions that amounted to 183 bonds in open interest.  Total BTC volume was 9.9635, with an average price, therefore, being .0544453552.  That would imply an average yield for that week to be 1.0249%.

This week (week ending 11/16) is not yet done, obviously, but thusfar, volume already surpasses the previous week (up to 5 transactions), with open interest also exceeding, at 209.  Price action, however, is down to .0507093301, down nearly 6.9%.  The downtick on the bond pricing, however, should be taken with a grain of salt since we have many trading days ahead of us.

Anyway, as more data becomes available, I'll see about making the reporting more meaningful.

PM me any thoughts or comments on metrics that might be useful, and I'll see about building some spreadsheets.

meh.  throwing in usd valuation muddies the calculations.  the bonds are priced in btc, divs are in btc, and the whole point is to mine btc.  converting to usd, euro, renminbi, yen, real etc. becomes a rationalizing game.  either the bonds perform on their merits or they don't.

not sure how trusted I am, or how smart, but I could see if I can come up with a semblance of a model per rusty's thoughts and share it.

full disclosure: I own bonds and intend to accumulate.

if you assume no additional hardware will be added, you are correct.  that .15 will never be seen again, and a block erupter would've been a better investment.

on the other hand, if you believe that lr will bring the represented bitfury hw online, and he executes on his strategy going into 2014, then we'll be just fine.  you might have difficulty trading the bonds, but the divs may well return the investment and then some.

well played, grnbrg.  well played.

It's a proprietary scoring system, similar enough to pplns.