Bitcoin Forum

Economy => Securities => Topic started by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 05:42:32 AM



Title: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 05:42:32 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: wisard on March 26, 2013, 06:02:57 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 06:05:18 AM
He still expects to have more than 51% of the network hashpower?

::)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 06:07:28 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 06:09:42 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Did not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.
I can't get over how you managed to screw up a web hosting template up for axs.net


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 06:11:24 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Did not need the company any more, check the [Bitfunder] tread for why if you are interested.
Wrong we are selling ~8,000 shares at .01.
What is the return if you buy it for .01 BTC, yes 100X that which you can do now, when unfroze.
Investors get all of the .01 BTC back before I get anything.  


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 06:13:07 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 06:13:28 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Did not need the company an more, check the [Bitfunder] tread for why if you are interested.
Wrong we are selling ~8,000 shares at .01.
What is the return if you buy it for .01 BTC, yes 100X that which you can do now, when unfroze.
Investors get all of the .01 BTC back before I get anything.  
Not wrong. You specified that future shares will be only sold for at least 1 BTC.

Are you even planning to sell the shares at 1 BTC or is that simply to mislead investors in thinking they can quickly flip them?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 06:14:49 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Franktank on March 26, 2013, 06:18:30 AM
Do you have a timeline for your chip development? What makes your chip different and competitive to what is available? Are there plans in place if there are delays? You're coming late into the ASIC gen, delays mean significantly lower returns to investors. How will you account for that?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 06:25:22 AM
Do you have a timeline for your chip development? What makes your chip different and competitive to what is available? Are there plans in place if there are delays? You're coming late into the ASIC gen, delays mean significantly lower returns to investors. How will you account for that?

Working with a Major Semiconductor company right now.  I can get prototype is 5-10 weeks on the 45nm process and soon the 28nm process, and starting mining with them.  That is why I have a hybrid mining and development plan, you start getting dividends as soon a my 6 Avalon's arrive, well the next week.  Yes, but the chips will be faster and use less power.  Let me know if I did not answer all you question or you have any more.

Ken


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 06:25:55 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 26, 2013, 07:03:11 AM
He still expects to have more than 51% of the network hashpower?

::)

Either he has some crazy NSA resources on tap, or someone's a little detached from reality.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:08:37 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Did not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.
I can't get over how you managed to screw up a web hosting template up for axs.net

What do you mean? 


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:13:55 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Did not need the company an more, check the [Bitfunder] tread for why if you are interested.
Wrong we are selling ~8,000 shares at .01.
What is the return if you buy it for .01 BTC, yes 100X that which you can do now, when unfroze.
Investors get all of the .01 BTC back before I get anything.  
Not wrong. You specified that future shares will be only sold for at least 1 BTC.

Are you even planning to sell the shares at 1 BTC or is that simply to mislead investors in thinking they can quickly flip them?

The early-adopter shares will be sold for no less that .01, we are going to need capital for development of the 45nm chip, so we
will be selling a lot more at .01 if we can make a deal with the Major Semiconductor Company we are talking with.
Yes, if we need to sell them to raise capital for development.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:15:55 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.

Well, I won't say no yet.  Will you escrow it?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:18:37 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.

Getting ready to fix that 70% return, I screwed up trying to hurry when Avalon announced it 4X price increase and 3 day notice to batch 3.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: wisard on March 26, 2013, 07:21:08 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.

Well, I won't say no yet.  Will you escrow it?

Are you serious? You are willing to bet 100 BTC on your ability to own over 50% of total hashing power?
Whats the timeline for the bet? End of the year?
I would love to get in on it too. We can use escrow.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Franktank on March 26, 2013, 07:22:06 AM
John K Flag!!


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:24:17 AM
Do you have a timeline for your chip development? What makes your chip different and competitive to what is available? Are there plans in place if there are delays? You're coming late into the ASIC gen, delays mean significantly lower returns to investors. How will you account for that?

Franktank, if thing go right we can have prototype chips is 5-10 weeks after we finish the RTL, our chips will be on the 45nm process at bout 6-9 GH/s each.  Our plan is a hybrid plan which give Investors dividends as soon as be start getting income from our 6 ordered Avalon's.  Our chips will be much faster and lower power.  We will moving to the 28nm process soon also for even more hashing power and lower power.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:25:47 AM
He still expects to have more than 51% of the network hashpower?

::)

Either he has some crazy NSA resources on tap, or someone's a little detached from reality.

Your good burnside.  Still would like to know where your corp is registered or if it is registered.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 07:28:02 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.

Well, I won't say no yet.  Will you escrow it?

Are you serious? You are willing to bet 100 BTC on your ability to own over 50% of total hashing power?
Whats the timeline for the bet? End of the year?
I would love to get in on it too. We can use escrow.

No, not over 50% there is an or in there, delivering a 45nm chip/ASIC mining device.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 07:31:47 AM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.

Well, I won't say no yet.  Will you escrow it?
Sure, John or nanotube? Since you want escrow it would be your responsibility to pay the fees.

45nm ASIC mining device shipped
Each ASIC chip must have at least 6GH/s
Must correctly mine bitcoin.

Oh and "No, not over 50% there"? So you don't believe you will get over 50% of the network hashpower?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 26, 2013, 07:41:26 AM
He still expects to have more than 51% of the network hashpower?

::)

Either he has some crazy NSA resources on tap, or someone's a little detached from reality.

Your good burnside.  Still would like to know where your corp is registered or if it is registered.

I am good.  I maintain my corporate registrations and registered trademarks.

So.... crazy NSA resources then?  ;)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: usagi on March 26, 2013, 07:45:22 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.

What really nails this as a scam is not the ridiculous share pricing and the lack of contact info, although thats 90% of it right there, it's the fact that the issuer screwed up the contract so badly prior to listing that he had to freeze his security and re-do the contract.

What, he didn't think it thru before listing? I don't get it.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Deprived on March 26, 2013, 09:35:25 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.

What really nails this as a scam is not the ridiculous share pricing and the lack of contact info, although thats 90% of it right there, it's the fact that the issuer screwed up the contract so badly prior to listing that he had to freeze his security and re-do the contract.

What, he didn't think it thru before listing? I don't get it.

Think Ukyo probably froze it.

The first contract was so bad he was actually claiming he'd have over 100% of total hashpower - and would mine more bitcoins than would be mined in total during the year by all miners.  After that it's hard to take it at all seriously.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 26, 2013, 09:36:35 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.

What really nails this as a scam is not the ridiculous share pricing and the lack of contact info, although thats 90% of it right there, it's the fact that the issuer screwed up the contract so badly prior to listing that he had to freeze his security and re-do the contract.

What, he didn't think it thru before listing? I don't get it.

Think Ukyo probably froze it.

The first contract was so bad he was actually claiming he'd have over 100% of total hashpower - and would mine more bitcoins than would be mined in total during the year by all miners.  After that it's hard to take it at all seriously.
The current contract is still laughingly bad too.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Deprived on March 26, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.

What really nails this as a scam is not the ridiculous share pricing and the lack of contact info, although thats 90% of it right there, it's the fact that the issuer screwed up the contract so badly prior to listing that he had to freeze his security and re-do the contract.

What, he didn't think it thru before listing? I don't get it.

Think Ukyo probably froze it.

The first contract was so bad he was actually claiming he'd have over 100% of total hashpower - and would mine more bitcoins than would be mined in total during the year by all miners.  After that it's hard to take it at all seriously.
The current contract is still laughingly bad too.
I've no intention of wasting time reading it.  I find it impossible to take seriously anyone who claims to be developing ASICs but will happily post a contract as creative (putting it politely) as the original one he had up.  If someone is so confident they'll post a contract and start selling shares without any public discussion first then they'd better get it right first time.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 02:54:21 PM
He still expects to have more than 51% of the network hashpower?

::)

Either he has some crazy NSA resources on tap, or someone's a little detached from reality.

Your good burnside.  Still would like to know where your corp is registered or if it is registered.

I am good.  I maintain my corporate registrations and registered trademarks.

So.... crazy NSA resources then?  ;)


Working on it. :))


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 02:56:51 PM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.

What really nails this as a scam is not the ridiculous share pricing and the lack of contact info, although thats 90% of it right there, it's the fact that the issuer screwed up the contract so badly prior to listing that he had to freeze his security and re-do the contract.

What, he didn't think it thru before listing? I don't get it.

Think Ukyo probably froze it.

The first contract was so bad he was actually claiming he'd have over 100% of total hashpower - and would mine more bitcoins than would be mined in total during the year by all miners.  After that it's hard to take it at all seriously.

No, I froze it, no Ukto did not freeze it.  Also all the money from the sales of shares is still in the account and will stay there until I get this fixed today or tommorow.

Ken


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 03:01:38 PM
This thread is not self moderated, so people can actually express their opinions!

AMC is selling shares for at least 1 BTC with a 0.01 btc early bird special. ::)

Net Estimated Revenue/Year/Share 0.00708687 BTC

That is 0.7% a year if you buy it for 1 BTC.

Developing their own "Fast-Hash-240" miners ::)

Asset issuer ran a company that has being administratively dissolved ::)

Topic is self moderated  ::)

Didn't not need it any more.  Thinking about re registering it.

What really nails this as a scam is not the ridiculous share pricing and the lack of contact info, although thats 90% of it right there, it's the fact that the issuer screwed up the contract so badly prior to listing that he had to freeze his security and re-do the contract.

What, he didn't think it thru before listing? I don't get it.

Think Ukyo probably froze it.

The first contract was so bad he was actually claiming he'd have over 100% of total hashpower - and would mine more bitcoins than would be mined in total during the year by all miners.  After that it's hard to take it at all seriously.
The current contract is still laughingly bad too.
I've no intention of wasting time reading it.  I find it impossible to take seriously anyone who claims to be developing ASICs but will happily post a contract as creative (putting it politely) as the original one he had up.  If someone is so confident they'll post a contract and start selling shares without any public discussion first then they'd better get it right first time.

Deprive, You are right again, so do not read it and no Ukto did not freeze it.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Wisard, Yes, I would agree with you, so I just reworked the offer.  It is not posted yet, should be sometime today.

Ken


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 03:19:00 PM
He still expects to have more than 51% of the network hashpower?

::)

TradeFortress, Not really, I know everyone does not want one person to have over 50% of the hashing power.  I think the same way.  Yes, I would like to build a big mining and development company, but by the time I have that much hashing power the network will be 200TH-400TH who knows with all these ASIC machines coming out.

Ken


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 03:21:37 PM
Not sure if its a scam or its just a misguided security.

The numbers were reworked. He still expects to have more than 51% of the hashing power.

Quote
Est Gross(less power) Revenue 12 Months 708,686.98 BTC

If he is serious, then the best thing for him to do is rework the IPO for 6 Avalon units only - what he has already pre-ordered. And then fund his growth from there AFTER showing that he can successfully mine.

Well, Yes if I buy or develop that many machines I would have that much power.  Our 45nm chips are expected to 6GH/s each.
Cool, wanna do a 100 BTC bet (pirateat40 style) that you'll ship me a 45nm ASIC mining device before the end of the year? Better returns than the "70%" you mentioned.

Or that you'll get over 50% of the bitcoin network hashpower?

I know the answer already and you're going to say no.

Well, I won't say no yet.  Will you escrow it?

Are you serious? You are willing to bet 100 BTC on your ability to own over 50% of total hashing power?
Whats the timeline for the bet? End of the year?
I would love to get in on it too. We can use escrow.

Yes, when I am 100% sure I can deliver a 45nm, 6GH/s mining unit.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: MPOE-PR on March 26, 2013, 03:55:43 PM
The early-adopter shares will be sold for no less that .01, we are going to need capital for development of the 45nm chip, so we
will be selling a lot more at .01 if we can make a deal with the Major Semiconductor Company we are talking with.
Yes, if we need to sell them to raise capital for development.

How about you see here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124441.0) instead.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 04:57:55 PM
The early-adopter shares will be sold for no less that .01, we are going to need capital for development of the 45nm chip, so we
will be selling a lot more at .01 if we can make a deal with the Major Semiconductor Company we are talking with.
Yes, if we need to sell them to raise capital for development.

How about you see here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124441.0) instead.

Thanks, WOT? Web Of Trust?

Ken


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: iCEBREAKER on March 26, 2013, 08:51:21 PM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings.  

Why is it a harebrained scheme?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: ThickAsThieves on March 26, 2013, 09:34:53 PM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 

I'm with you on this one. I'm not so sure all those people would actually help, but I do think a team/consultant/soft-release process is due.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 26, 2013, 10:02:44 PM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 

I'm with you on this one. I'm not so sure all those people would actually help, but I do think a team/consultant/soft-release process is due.

ThickAsThieves, and you want to be on the team or be the consultant.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Deprived on March 26, 2013, 10:43:23 PM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 

Got to laugh at the idea of Ukyo paying MPOE-PR to vet security listings (and the idea of MPOE-PR accepting).

You DO realise who MPOE-PR works for?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: MPOE-PR on March 27, 2013, 12:15:48 AM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 

Got to laugh at the idea of Ukyo paying MPOE-PR to vet security listings (and the idea of MPOE-PR accepting).

You DO realise who MPOE-PR works for?

So what's the problem?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: ThickAsThieves on March 27, 2013, 12:40:02 AM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 

I'm with you on this one. I'm not so sure all those people would actually help, but I do think a team/consultant/soft-release process is due.

ThickAsThieves, and you want to be on the team or be the consultant.

I agreed with iCEBREAKER because, yes, I am putting out the feelers to get a consulting group together.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 27, 2013, 12:50:46 AM
BitFunder is way too awesome to let harebrained schemes like AMC ruin its reputation.   :-[

Ukyo, please pay DT, deprived, MPOE-PR, and TF to act as gatekeepers/benevolent dictators for you WRT new listings. 

I'm with you on this one. I'm not so sure all those people would actually help, but I do think a team/consultant/soft-release process is due.

ThickAsThieves, and you want to be on the team or be the consultant.

I agreed with iCEBREAKER because, yes, I am putting out the feelers to get a consulting group together.

Yes, and thank you for all of your help.  You really know what you are talking about.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 27, 2013, 01:34:17 AM
Wait, you are currently in the united states?

I want to know what Ukto was taking on the day he approved this asset


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 27, 2013, 02:35:08 AM
You are so smart, tell me how I was conducting business in the state of Missouri.  Also by the way you have not disclosed where your BTC Trading Corp is registered, because in my
opinion it is most likely not registrated. 

Honestly, I don't really think I am all that smart.  I'm actually very average.

Ordering online as Virtual Mining, INC... from Missouri, for delivery in Missouri, and operation in Missouri = conducting business in Missouri.  no?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 27, 2013, 02:19:05 PM
You are so smart, tell me how I was conducting business in the state of Missouri.  Also by the way you have not disclosed where your BTC Trading Corp is registered, because in my
opinion it is most likely not registrated. 

Honestly, I don't really think I am all that smart.  I'm actually very average.

Ordering online as Virtual Mining, INC... from Missouri, for delivery in Missouri, and operation in Missouri = conducting business in Missouri.  no?

No, just looked up the legal definition of a business, which is to do some activity to make a profit.  Ordering something online to be able to use, is not conducting
business.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 27, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
You are so smart, tell me how I was conducting business in the state of Missouri.  Also by the way you have not disclosed where your BTC Trading Corp is registered, because in my
opinion it is most likely not registrated. 

Honestly, I don't really think I am all that smart.  I'm actually very average.

Ordering online as Virtual Mining, INC... from Missouri, for delivery in Missouri, and operation in Missouri = conducting business in Missouri.  no?

No, just looked up the legal definition of a business, which is to do some activity to make a profit.  Ordering something online to be able to use, is not conducting
business.

Good to know you're not planning to make a profit.  Are you going to shut down the asset now?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 27, 2013, 04:22:21 PM
Hmm... google seems to disagree anyway:

Quote
busi·ness 
/ˈbiznis/
Noun

    A person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
    An activity that someone is engaged in.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 27, 2013, 04:27:10 PM
Hmm... google seems to disagree anyway:

Quote
busi·ness 
/ˈbiznis/
Noun

    A person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
    An activity that someone is engaged in.


That is not the Legal definition, you need to look it up in a Legal dictionary,

business n. any activity or enterprise entered into for profit. It does not mean it is a company, a corporation, partnership, or have any such formal organization, but it can range from a street peddler to General Motors. It is sometimes significant to determine if an accident, visit, travel, meal or other activity was part of "business" or for pleasure or no particular purpose.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: superbit on March 27, 2013, 04:31:42 PM
Hmm... google seems to disagree anyway:

Quote
busi·ness 
/ˈbiznis/
Noun

    A person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
    An activity that someone is engaged in.


That is not the Legal definition, you need to look it up in a Legal dictionary,

business n. any activity or enterprise entered into for profit. It does not mean it is a company, a corporation, partnership, or have any such formal organization, but it can range from a street peddler to General Motors. It is sometimes significant to determine if an accident, visit, travel, meal or other activity was part of "business" or for pleasure or no particular purpose.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business)

Is this argument relevant? 


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 27, 2013, 04:39:05 PM
Hmm... google seems to disagree anyway:

Quote
busi·ness 
/ˈbiznis/
Noun

    A person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
    An activity that someone is engaged in.


That is not the Legal definition, you need to look it up in a Legal dictionary,

business n. any activity or enterprise entered into for profit. It does not mean it is a company, a corporation, partnership, or have any such formal organization, but it can range from a street peddler to General Motors. It is sometimes significant to determine if an accident, visit, travel, meal or other activity was part of "business" or for pleasure or no particular purpose.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business)

Is this argument relevant? 

No too much, however burnside was questioning a corporation that I had.

I have just opened up the [BitFunder] AMC - The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion so you may want to post there
any questions there.  I won't be answer questions here just fighting fires here.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: chriswen on March 27, 2013, 07:02:28 PM
I think your 1 year revenue is not realistic.  Considering bitcoin production.

Unless you plan on selling mining units?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Mac65 on March 27, 2013, 08:49:40 PM
Regarding AMC: Hello everyone, I finally got my wings to post. I'd like to repost what I put in the newbie forum about AMC.

I'm a long time computer professional...Hardware, Software, etc. I have a Business friend/acquaintance who recently made and offering on BitFunder and I would like to contribute to the discussion. I personally have known the proprietor of AMC for over 30 years and can testify that he is serious about his business, has operated many businesses, some very successful. He has sent me info relating to his plans to build the mining machines, including diagrams. How many people would be as open as he has been about themselves if they were not serious! Some people have questioned his authenticity because of his grand plans. That is the way he always goes about things. He thinks bigger than most people. To me that is the mark of someone who has the ability to accomplish big things. What ever the human mind can conceive of and believe, it can achieve...(Quote from Conrad Hill, Think and Grow Rich)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 27, 2013, 09:01:52 PM
Is this argument relevant? 

No, not really.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Mac65 on March 27, 2013, 09:31:15 PM
May be you'd like to know a little more about kslaughter. In about 1983 I was programming manager for a team of 8 programmers. It was my job to hire and train C-programmers out of college. KSlaughter was the brightest of the bunch. At one time, I was his team leader. Today, I learn from him. I can't say whether he will accomplish all he has set forth, but I believe in him enough to invest some of my own funds in his AMC project. After all, all of his first profits are to go back to the original investors, the way I understand it, until they receive all their money back, and that's from machines that he has already paid for!!!. Even if he only part way accomplishes his goals, there is little risk and there is the possibility of a big score. My gosh! I feel like this guy who is trying to accomplish great things is getting torn to shreds because of a few hasty mistakes. Let him who is without mistakes cast the first critique! He moves fast and is more of a "Get it done" person than a detail person. If he took time to dot every i, and cross every t, then he would still be writing his proposal instead of working on making things happen.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 27, 2013, 09:54:36 PM
May be you'd like to know a little more about kslaughter. In about 1983 I was programming manager for a team of 8 programmers. It was my job to hire and train C-programmers out of college. KSlaughter was the brightest of the bunch. At one time, I was his team leader. Today, I learn from him. I can't say whether he will accomplish all he has set forth, but I believe in him enough to invest some of my own funds in his AMC project. After all, all of his first profits are to go back to the original investors, the way I understand it, until they receive all their money back, and that's from machines that he has already paid for!!!. Even if he only part way accomplishes his goals, there is little risk and there is the possibility of a big score. My gosh! I feel like this guy who is trying to accomplish great things is getting torn to shreds because of a few hasty mistakes. Let him who is without mistakes cast the first critique! He moves fast and is more of a "Get it done" person than a detail person. If he took time to dot every i, and cross every t, then he would still be writing his proposal instead of working on making things happen.
Date Registered:   March 26, 2013, 08:56:15 PM



Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 27, 2013, 10:27:01 PM
Date Registered: September 28, 2010, 01:16:14 PM


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 28, 2013, 12:13:37 AM
Date Registered: September 28, 2010, 01:16:14 PM
You were inactive for nearly 3 years.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 28, 2013, 12:53:20 AM
Date Registered: September 28, 2010, 01:16:14 PM
You were inactive for nearly 3 years.

No, I was not inactive, I have been reading this forum since 2009.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: usagi on March 28, 2013, 01:09:31 AM
Date Registered: September 28, 2010, 01:16:14 PM
You were inactive for nearly 3 years.

No, I was not inactive, I have been reading this forum since 2009.

Show us some of your C code. Then I will believe you. You're a brightest of the bunch C programmer? Ok, have you ever contributed anything to open source? What have you worked on?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 28, 2013, 01:37:36 AM
Date Registered: September 28, 2010, 01:16:14 PM
You were inactive for nearly 3 years.

No, I was not inactive, I have been reading this forum since 2009.

Show us some of your C code. Then I will believe you. You're a brightest of the bunch C programmer? Ok, have you ever contributed anything to open source? What have you worked on?

Ok, Here is a little c# code from my own tabbed browser called Internet Cruiser that I wrote about 10 years ago and submitted to Microsoft.

using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Data;
using System.Windows.Forms;

namespace ICruiser
{
   /// <summary>
   /// Summary description for BrowserWindow.
   /// </summary>
   public class BrowserWindow : System.Windows.Forms.UserControl
   {
      private AxSHDocVw.AxWebBrowser axWebBrowser1;
      private String strStartPage;
      /// <summary>
      /// Required designer variable.
      /// </summary>
      private System.ComponentModel.Container components = null;

      public BrowserWindow()
      {
         // This call is required by the Windows.Forms Form Designer.
         InitializeComponent();

         object o=null;
         axWebBrowser1.Navigate("http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=test&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images",ref o,ref o,ref o, ref o);

      }

      public BrowserWindow(String URL)
      {
         strStartPage = URL;
         // This call is required by the Windows.Forms Form Designer.
         InitializeComponent();

         object o=null;
         axWebBrowser1.Navigate(URL,ref o,ref o,ref o, ref o);

      }


      /// <summary>
      /// Clean up any resources being used.
      /// </summary>
      protected override void Dispose( bool disposing )
      {
         if( disposing )
         {
            if(components != null)
            {
               components.Dispose();
            }
         }
         base.Dispose( disposing );
      }

      #region Component Designer generated code
      /// <summary>
      /// Required method for Designer support - do not modify
      /// the contents of this method with the code editor.
      /// </summary>
      private void InitializeComponent()
      {
         System.Resources.ResourceManager resources = new System.Resources.ResourceManager(typeof(BrowserWindow));
         this.axWebBrowser1 = new AxSHDocVw.AxWebBrowser();
         ((System.ComponentModel.ISupportInitialize)(this.axWebBrowser1)).BeginInit();
         this.SuspendLayout();
         //
         // axWebBrowser1
         //
         this.axWebBrowser1.Enabled = true;
         this.axWebBrowser1.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(0, 0);
         this.axWebBrowser1.OcxState = ((System.Windows.Forms.AxHost.State)(resources.GetObject("axWebBrowser1.OcxState")));
         this.axWebBrowser1.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(1344, 600);
         this.axWebBrowser1.TabIndex = 0;
         //
         // BrowserWindow
         //
         this.Controls.Add(this.axWebBrowser1);
         this.Name = "BrowserWindow";
         this.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(1344, 592);
         ((System.ComponentModel.ISupportInitialize)(this.axWebBrowser1)).EndInit();
         this.ResumeLayout(false);

      }
      #endregion
   }
}


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 28, 2013, 04:49:04 AM
Asks for C code, confuses C with C# which is quite a lot different..


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: usagi on March 28, 2013, 07:44:04 AM
[snip code]

That code is boring! I mean, show us something interesting, like this:

Code:
   // mob tries to quaff us
    public boolean event_quaff(Engine e, Mobile mob) {
        e.msg.pline("You quaff " + aname() + ".");

        if (objkind == PotionData.WATER) {
            mob.hp += Dice.roll(1, 1);
            if (mob.hp > mob.hp_max) {
                mob.hp = mob.hp_max;
            }
            if (mob instanceof Player) {
                e.msg.pline("Ahh, a nice cool drink of water. You feel refreshed!");
                if (this.identified() == false) {
                    this.identify(true);
                    e.pc.score += 10;
                }
            }
        } else if (objkind == PotionData.HEALING) {
            mob.hp += Dice.roll("1d8");
            if (mob.hp > mob.hp_max) {
                mob.hp = mob.hp_max;
            }
            if (mob instanceof Player) {
                e.msg.pline("You feel better.");
                if (this.identified() == false) {
                    this.identify(true);
                    e.pc.score += 10;
                }
            }
        } else if (objkind == PotionData.POISON) {
            if (mob instanceof Player) {
                e.msg.pline("That didn't taste good. You feel sick!");
                if (this.identified() == false) {
                    this.identify(true);
                    e.pc.score += 10;
                }
            }
            mob.takedamage(Dice.roll(1, 12), Damage.POISON);
            if (mob.hp < 1) {
                mob.killme = true;
                if (mob instanceof Player) {
                    e.do_pc_death("You drank poison!", "poisoned by " + aname());
                } else {
                    // if a monster dies from drinking poison, what pline
                    // should we send?
                }
            }
        } else if (objkind == PotionData.SPEED) {
            // speed potions auto-id.
            if ((mob instanceof Player) && (this.identified() == false)) {
                this.identify(true);
                e.pc.score += 10;
            }
        } else if (objkind == PotionData.BLINDNESS) {
            // blindness potions auto-id.
            if ((mob instanceof Player) && (this.identified() == false)) {
                this.identify(true);
                e.pc.score += 10;
            }
        }

        // We have been quaffed!
        mob.fxlist.transferByItemTrigger(this, Effect.T_QUAFF);
        killme = true;
        mob.inv.remove(this);
        mob.hunger -= nutrition;
        if (mob instanceof Player) {
            e.pc.score += value; // destroying a potion by using it keeps it's value
            e.pc.score += 1;    // plus one ^^
        }

        e.update_statline();
        e.rend.vs.update();

        return true;
    }

Or hell, even something a little mindbending. Like this:

Code:
   public static void loadTreeStructure(String dbname) {
        List<String> unresolved_ids = new ArrayList();
        List<String> unresolved_parents = new ArrayList();
        List<String> unresolved_names = new ArrayList();
        List<String> unresolved_selected = new ArrayList();

        try {
            db = openDictionaryDB(dbname);
            rs = db.executeQuery("select * from tagstructure;");
            while (rs.next()) {
                TagNode n = new TagNode();
                n.id = rs.getInt("id");

                String parent = rs.getString("parent");
                n.name = rs.getString("tagname");
                n.flagSelected = rs.getBoolean("selected");

                unresolved_ids.add(String.valueOf(n.id));
                unresolved_names.add(n.name);
                unresolved_parents.add(parent);
                unresolved_selected.add(String.valueOf(n.flagSelected));
            }
            rs.close();
        } catch (SQLException sqle) {
            Log.log("oTS(): " + sqle.getMessage(), Log.ERROR);
        }

        TagNode subRoot = new TagNode("root");
        for (int i = 0; i < unresolved_ids.size(); i++) {
            int id = Integer.parseInt(unresolved_ids.get(i));
            if (id > TagNode.idpool) {
                TagNode.idpool = id + 1;
            }
            int parent_id = Integer.parseInt(unresolved_parents.get(i));
            if (id == parent_id) {
                // found the root node.
                subRoot.id = id;
                subRoot.name = "root";
                subRoot.flagSelected = Boolean.valueOf(unresolved_selected.get(i));

                unresolved_ids.remove(i);
                unresolved_names.remove(i);
                unresolved_parents.remove(i);
                unresolved_selected.remove(i);
                break;
            }
        }

        boolean found_parent = true;
        while ((unresolved_ids.isEmpty() == false) && (found_parent == true)) {
            found_parent = false;
            for (int i = 0; i < unresolved_ids.size(); i++) {
                int id = Integer.parseInt(unresolved_ids.get(i));
                if (id > TagNode.idpool) {
                    TagNode.idpool = id + 1;
                }
                String name = unresolved_names.get(i);
                int parent_id = Integer.parseInt(unresolved_parents.get(i));
                boolean selected = Boolean.valueOf(unresolved_selected.get(i));

                TagNode parent = Kongzi.getTagNodeByID(subRoot, parent_id);
                if (parent != null) {
                    TagNode tn = new TagNode();
                    tn.id = id;
                    tn.name = name;
                    tn.flagSelected = selected;
                    parent.add(tn);

                    found_parent = true;

                    unresolved_ids.remove(i);
                    unresolved_names.remove(i);
                    unresolved_parents.remove(i);
                    unresolved_selected.remove(i);
                    break;
                }
            }
        }

        while (subRoot.getChildCount() > 0) {
            TagNode tn = (TagNode) subRoot.getChildAt(0);
            subRoot.remove(0);
            Kongzi.rootNode.add(tn);
        }

        Kongzi.load_taglist();
        Kongzi.ensure_node_ids();
        Kongzi.rootNode.merge_children();

        return;
    }


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 28, 2013, 07:58:36 AM
Also, txids for your 100 batch 3 orders?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 28, 2013, 02:31:07 PM
[snip code]

That code is boring! I mean, show us something interesting, like this:

[snip code]

  

Here you go, I hope this makes you happy.

void getBlocksAndThreads(int n, int &blocks, int &threads)
{
   threads = (n < MAX_REDUCTION_THREADS*2) ? nextPow2((n + 1)/ 2) : MAX_REDUCTION_THREADS;
    blocks = (n + (threads * 2 - 1)) / (threads * 2);
   blocks = MIN(MAX_REDUCTION_BLOCKS, blocks);
}




template <class T>
void
getreduced(int size, int threads, int blocks, T *d_idata, T *d_odata, int multiple = 1, int total_size = 0)
{
   dim3 dimBlock(threads, 1, 1);
    dim3 dimGrid(blocks, multiple, 1);
    int smemSize = (threads <= 32) ? 2 * threads * sizeof(T) : threads * sizeof(T);

   //if total size is not default then use mutiple reductions kernel
   if (multiple > 1)
   {
      if (isPow2(size))
      {
         switch (threads)
         {
         case 512:
            reduce6_multiple<T, 512, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 256:
            reduce6_multiple<T, 256, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 128:
            reduce6_multiple<T, 128, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 64:
            reduce6_multiple<T,  64, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 32:
            reduce6_multiple<T,  32, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 16:
            reduce6_multiple<T,  16, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  8:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   8, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  4:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   4, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  2:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   2, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  1:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   1, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         }
      }
      else
      {
         switch (threads)
         {
         case 512:
            reduce6_multiple<T, 512, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 256:
            reduce6_multiple<T, 256, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 128:
            reduce6_multiple<T, 128, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 64:
            reduce6_multiple<T,  64, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 32:
            reduce6_multiple<T,  32, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case 16:
            reduce6_multiple<T,  16, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  8:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   8, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  4:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   4, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  2:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   2, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         case  1:
            reduce6_multiple<T,   1, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size, total_size); break;
         }
      }
   }
   //only require a single reduction
   else
   {
      if (isPow2(size))
      {
         switch (threads)
         {
         case 512:
            reduce6<T, 512, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 256:
            reduce6<T, 256, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 128:
            reduce6<T, 128, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 64:
            reduce6<T,  64, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 32:
            reduce6<T,  32, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 16:
            reduce6<T,  16, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  8:
            reduce6<T,   8, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  4:
            reduce6<T,   4, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  2:
            reduce6<T,   2, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  1:
            reduce6<T,   1, true><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         }
      }
      else
      {
         switch (threads)
         {
         case 512:
            reduce6<T, 512, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 256:
            reduce6<T, 256, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 128:
            reduce6<T, 128, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 64:
            reduce6<T,  64, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 32:
            reduce6<T,  32, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case 16:
            reduce6<T,  16, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  8:
            reduce6<T,   8, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  4:
            reduce6<T,   4, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  2:
            reduce6<T,   2, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         case  1:
            reduce6<T,   1, false><<< dimGrid, dimBlock, smemSize >>>(d_idata, d_odata, size); break;
         }
      }
   }
}


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: ThickAsThieves on March 28, 2013, 03:25:11 PM
This is silly, step back for a second. How does comparing your C-peens matter..?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 28, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
Asks for C code, confuses C with C# which is quite a lot different..

I did not confuse C with C#, I know the difference.  I was just showing him some of
my code.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: usagi on March 28, 2013, 04:46:29 PM
Asks for C code, confuses C with C# which is quite a lot different..

I did not confuse C with C#, I know the difference.  I was just showing him some of
my code.

What I really want to know is, what do you think of the code I posted? :)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 28, 2013, 07:18:55 PM
Asks for C code, confuses C with C# which is quite a lot different..

I did not confuse C with C#, I know the difference.  I was just showing him some of
my code.

What I really want to know is, what do you think of the code I posted? :)

Looks like C code, kinda funny.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 28, 2013, 09:55:24 PM
Also, txids for your 100 batch 3 orders?

It'd take you a minute opening up your bitcoin client and pasting the TXIDs here.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: ThickAsThieves on March 28, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
He didn't buy 100, he asked about buying 100 because he thought he'd have IPO'd and had tons of BTC by now.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 29, 2013, 12:11:02 AM
He didn't buy 100, he asked about buying 100 because he thought he'd have IPO'd and had tons of BTC by now.
He says he ordered them:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158806.msg1692940#msg1692940


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: shibaji on March 29, 2013, 12:20:42 AM
hmmm ... so did he order them or did not ? I want to update the count accordingly.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 29, 2013, 12:30:05 AM
hmmm ... so did he order them or did not ? I want to update the count accordingly.

I sent an order in, however I did not receive a confirmation and I because of my stupid mistake did not
get the uptake on AMC's offering so as to be able to pay for them.

So I am reworking AMC offer and when ready I will post it in AMC's Official Discussion Thread for the community
to make comments on before it goes live on Bitfunder.

I just want to thank everyone in the community for point out all of the problems in the original offering.  I have incorporated,
I think most of the communities concerns in the new offering.  ;D 



Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: shibaji on March 29, 2013, 01:10:05 AM
hmmm ... so did he order them or did not ? I want to update the count accordingly.

I sent an order in, however I did not receive a confirmation and I because of my stupid mistake did not
get the uptake on AMC's offering so as to be able to pay for them.

So I am reworking AMC offer and when ready I will post it in AMC's Official Discussion Thread for the community
to make comments on before it goes live on Bitfunder.

I just want to thank everyone in the community for point out all of the problems in the original offering.  I have incorporated,
I think most of the communities concerns in the new offering.  ;D 



Ok, so you did not purchase. The contract is very misleading. Man! I will remove your post from the tally thread.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 29, 2013, 01:21:36 AM
hmmm ... so did he order them or did not ? I want to update the count accordingly.

I sent an order in, however I did not receive a confirmation and I because of my stupid mistake did not
get the uptake on AMC's offering so as to be able to pay for them.

So I am reworking AMC offer and when ready I will post it in AMC's Official Discussion Thread for the community
to make comments on before it goes live on Bitfunder.

I just want to thank everyone in the community for point out all of the problems in the original offering.  I have incorporated,
I think most of the communities concerns in the new offering.  ;D 



Ok, so you did not purchase. The contract is very misleading. Man! I will remove your post from the tally thread.

Sorry, if I mislead you, I did not mean to, I put ordered in the contract which is what I did.  As you may have noticed, the 6 Avalon's above show that they have been purchased and confirmed not just ordered.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: ninjaboon on March 29, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
So is AMC back on the Bitfunder market yet? I cannot see it.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 29, 2013, 02:49:08 AM
So is AMC back on the Bitfunder market yet? I cannot see it.
Asset frozen.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: usagi on March 29, 2013, 07:18:38 AM
Asks for C code, confuses C with C# which is quite a lot different..

I did not confuse C with C#, I know the difference.  I was just showing him some of
my code.

What I really want to know is, what do you think of the code I posted? :)

Looks like C code, kinda funny.

The problem is, it's not C code and anyone who knew C would recognize that. It isn't even C++ or C# or objective C or anything.

There are other very serious issues with the code he presented, not least of all it looks like a cut and paste from some generic source. For example the function names do not follow any consistent convention:

Dispose( bool disposing )
getBlocksAndThreads(...)
getreduced(...)

Notice all three example functions use a different capitalization scheme and that the first one has spaces in the parentheses and the second two do not.

Second, the style of comment is different. One look slike this:
//one looks like this

//
// Another looks like this.
//

/// A third looks like this.

To my eyes the two code snippets were written by two different people and neither of them looks particularly "great". It looks more like he cut and paste something from "somewhere generic" like a MSVC template or the source code to some unknown program he found somewhere.

What else is weird is the "obj o=null" statements with no spaces around the equal sign. Like he was some kind of novice who was using a template from MSVC.

All this combined with the inability to recognize what is and is not C code tells me that Mac65 must have lied:

May be you'd like to know a little more about kslaughter. In about 1983 I was programming manager for a team of 8 programmers. It was my job to hire and train C-programmers out of college. KSlaughter was the brightest of the bunch. At one time, I was his team leader. Today, I learn from him.

and that Mac65 and the other guy are probably kslaughter's sock puppets and this is all a very elaborate scam.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: joris on March 29, 2013, 08:46:42 AM
hmmm ... so did he order them or did not ? I want to update the count accordingly.

I sent an order in, however I did not receive a confirmation and I because of my stupid mistake did not
get the uptake on AMC's offering so as to be able to pay for them.

So I am reworking AMC offer and when ready I will post it in AMC's Official Discussion Thread for the community
to make comments on before it goes live on Bitfunder.

I just want to thank everyone in the community for point out all of the problems in the original offering.  I have incorporated,
I think most of the communities concerns in the new offering.  ;D 



Ok, so you did not purchase. The contract is very misleading. Man! I will remove your post from the tally thread.

Sorry, if I mislead you, I did not mean to, I put ordered in the contract which is what I did.  As you may have noticed, the 6 Avalon's above show that they have been purchased and confirmed not just ordered.

I found it quite clear from the contract that the order could only be purchased when enough funds were raised from the IPO.

Ken, where do the first two dividends come from?


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Mac65 on March 29, 2013, 02:07:17 PM
Let me tell you something. You sure like to throw around insults. I am not a lyer! Last night I emailed Deprived with all my personal information, including 2 Company web sites that I own and my company phone nunmber. If you trust him, just ask him if that's true. I see there is a private investigator on the forum. Before you go throwing around accusations, you should do your due diligance. (Message intended for Usagi)


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Deprived on March 29, 2013, 03:32:04 PM
Let me tell you something. You sure like to throw around insults. I am not a lyer! Last night I emailed Deprived with all my personal information, including 2 Company web sites that I own and my company phone nunmber. If you trust him, just ask him if that's true. I see there is a private investigator on the forum. Before you go throwing around accusations, you should do your due diligance. (Message intended for Usagi)

I've just logged in.  I can confirm that I've received a PM from Mac65 containing the information he states above.  Obviously I haven't yet had a chance to check it out at all (and won't for a fair while).

So, although I can't vouch in any way for Mac65's identity I CAN say he's sent sufficent information that, with a bit of effort, I could easily determine that he was either a successful business-man or a total liar.  It seems unlikely he would have sent it were it NOT him - as it would be very easy to disprove with a few international phone-calls.

My personal view on this IPO had already moved from "It's a scam" to "It's starting too big and the numbers need a lot of work".  Trying to raise funds to do too many things is a recipe for disaster - as you can easily end up unable to do any of them without selling out (you can't half-develop ASICs if only half the shares sell).


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 29, 2013, 04:37:56 PM
So is AMC back on the Bitfunder market yet? I cannot see it.
Asset frozen.

I am reworking the plan and will be posting it in AMC's official discussion thread, to get comments from the community.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: burnside on March 29, 2013, 04:46:58 PM
So is AMC back on the Bitfunder market yet? I cannot see it.
Asset frozen.

I am reworking the plan and will be posting it in AMC's official discussion thread, to get comments from the community.

Why were you in such a hurry in the first place?  That in and of itself was half the red flag for me.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: kslaughter on March 29, 2013, 04:54:50 PM
So is AMC back on the Bitfunder market yet? I cannot see it.
Asset frozen.

I am reworking the plan and will be posting it in AMC's official discussion thread, to get comments from the community.

Why were you in such a hurry in the first place?  That in and of itself was half the red flag for me.

As I said on the forum before, the reason for hurrying was that Avalon's 4X price increase which caused me to rework
the numbers, that price increase was not expected.  Also that gave a 3 days notice on batch 3, was expecting that
batch to be around April 5.  By hurrying to push out the IPO, I made a stupid mistake, so now I have learned reworking
the IPO from the comments I received here.  Also, I will be posting the reworking plan on  [BitFunder] AMC - The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion Thread
as soon as it is ready.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Mac65 on March 29, 2013, 05:17:49 PM
Gentlemen, Take heed, (tongue in cheek) I believe there is a new business model forming. The days of Henry Ford are long gone.  There was a time that to form a company one needed a number of key employees.  I guess that still works since I have quite a few of them myself.  However ,  with the advent of the internet, it is now intrinsically possible  to build a network of individuals who are not on the payroll to accomplish the work.  Networking is the new business model!  I have both performed contracted work and hired contracted work with other companies.  Regarding funding, there is the visionary, and there is the detail person.  If you are familiar with personality profiles, you know that there is a ‘D’ for dominant personality who usually becomes a boss or manager of some sort. There is the ‘I’ for influential personality who usually winds up doing Sales.  Then there is also the ‘C’ personality. These are the detail people.  They are the ones who make things work.  The engineer might build the circuits, but it is the Technicians who make them work.  So, Steve Jobs was a ‘D’.  Steve Wosniak, in my opinion is a ‘C’.  He represents the detail person of Apple.  No one personality is 100% any type and no one personality is better than the other. All are needed in business. All need to learn to balance their type.  But my point is, there is nothing wrong with being a visionary if you can make things happen.  You can build a successful business on that and capital is projected over different periods, the short, the medium, and the long term.  Think too small and you will get what you ask for.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Deprived on March 29, 2013, 05:40:28 PM
Gentlemen, Take heed, (tongue in cheek) I believe there is a new business model forming. The days of Henry Ford are long gone.  There was a time that to form a company one needed a number of key employees.  I guess that still works since I have quite a few of them myself.  However ,  with the advent of the internet, it is now intrinsically possible  to build a network of individuals who are not on the payroll to accomplish the work.  Networking is the new business model!  I have both performed contracted work and hired contracted work with other companies.  Regarding funding, there is the visionary, and there is the detail person.  If you are familiar with personality profiles, you know that there is a ‘D’ for dominant personality who usually becomes a boss or manager of some sort. There is the ‘I’ for influential personality who usually winds up doing Sales.  Then there is also the ‘C’ personality. These are the detail people.  They are the ones who make things work.  The engineer might build the circuits, but it is the Technicians who make them work.  So, Steve Jobs was a ‘D’.  Steve Wosniak, in my opinion is a ‘C’.  He represents the detail person of Apple.  No one personality is 100% any type and no one personality is better than the other. All are needed in business. All need to learn to balance their type.  But my point is, there is nothing wrong with being a visionary if you can make things happen.  You can build a successful business on that and capital is projected over different periods, the short, the medium, and the long term.  Think too small and you will get what you ask for.

The problem is that visionaries are rarely good at actually running businesses - they need a detail person doing the actual management.  And that's where a LOT of Bitcoin (and traditional) businesses have failed : they may have a good idea, but they lack the management skills to turn it into profit.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Mac65 on March 29, 2013, 06:03:53 PM
Yes, that's why we all need to work together. No one person can do it all.


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Ukyo on March 29, 2013, 06:25:22 PM
The problem is that visionaries are rarely good at actually running businesses - they need a detail person doing the actual management.  And that's where a LOT of Bitcoin (and traditional) businesses have failed : they may have a good idea, but they lack the management skills to turn it into profit.

+10


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: Mac65 on March 29, 2013, 06:36:22 PM
I think the members of this discussion could benefit greatly from a little story my Grandmother used to tell me many years ago. Maybe some of you have heard it. "The Story of The Little Red Hen". It's probably too long to tell here but the jist is, The Little Red hen says "Who's going to help me make the bread"? and the answer was "Not I!" said the lamb, Not I!" said the cat. "Not I!" said the pig. At the end of the story "Who's going to help me eat the bread?"."I will!" said the lamb. "I will!" said the cat. "I will!" said the pig.  "No, you will not," said the Little Red Hen. "You didn't help me plant it, or water it, or harvest it, or mill it, or bake it. I shall eat it myself!" And so she did. Search for it on google, it's a great lesson!


Title: Re: AMC Discussion Thread (not self moderated)
Post by: chriswen on March 30, 2013, 04:38:36 AM
Also, Avalon Batch #4 in April is iffy.  From their blog posts it seems like they're developing something new or better ASIC with the captial they raised?  Or that the next batch they're mining themselves?

I'm not sure.  But, if either of those two things happen will get a later batch #4 with higher specs, or no batch #4.  Or it would really expensive.  Though this price would be even more expensive.

Okay and I agree with Deprived.  That's a really ambitious plan.  You want to buy lots of mining equipment + develop an ASIC.

And if you sell 2.5 million startup shares @ 0.01 btc thats 25 000 btc.  That's 2.5 million dollars.