Once I got to the 24,000 BTC throughput accounts, I checked my own transaction TO zenminer, and from the address that credits my account, it went DIRECTLY to the 1P6 address ... I have yet to find any indication that any mined income is actually going into that address, I have only found small multisender transactions that appear to be bitcoin sends.

This is looking really sketch, but I'm trying to keep an open mind that their mined income might be flowing into those two addresses somewhere I can't find.

It's super late again though, and I have to sleep at some point.  I'm going to hunt this down tomorrow.

I want evidence there is mining going on with at least bitcoin.  I invite anyone with eyes that aren't falling shut to hunt the inputs of this address for the huge income a 3+PH/s mining farm must be generating.

GAWMiners address from which jimmothy was paid, and I paid in: https://blockchain.info/address/1P62VZZ9kL97dzzcWhG7JZDssaW2MDgn82

Well, it was a wallet that had 117 Bitcoin in it 8 hours ago, and passed the change around as it paid out that 117 bitcoin down to the 7 that your payout came from.  So the wallet simply seemed to have had only one input to use, since it put the change in every transaction from the original 117BTC.  (this took a few thousand clicks)

I landed here: https://blockchain.info/address/1CMzmz9DjVLU7BpR8t912BE27LrAG6NtBB

Since every single address had only one incoming and one outgoing transaction, they all came from the same wallet as the wallet paid a payout and made change to itself.

One of the inputs has an address linking to here: https://p2pwallet.cc/wallet

Following the transactions just back a little further, I land here: https://blockchain.info/address/18Yrkm5cRqT1MiqwAUBDcN64hWb1pLutsW

The above account has total inputs of over 24,000 BTC.


A very related account: https://blockchain.info/address/1P62VZZ9kL97dzzcWhG7JZDssaW2MDgn82

This account also has transaction volume of just over 24,000 BTC.

The two are first seen September 26 and 27th, 2014.

I have verified that this must be GAWMiner's wallet, because YOUR payout comes from it, AND a few recent transactions from MY wallet of 2.5BTC sent to zenminer a few days ago takes only 1 jump into it.

I haven't dug very far yet, but now that I know they have moved about 24,000 BTC with this account, linking my input bitcoin to your output bitcoin, the generated coin can't be far away.  If I can't find it, and your payout essentially comes from an account that has MY most recent pay in, I'm getting my ass out of GAWminers.

In my boredom, I've gotten to a few hours ago of this bitcoin that got passed around for the payouts I assume.  I'm up from the 7 you got your bit from to 33, I had hoped at 25 I'd have found the generation, but I guess not ... oh well, boredom continues.

After a bit of math, at absolute minimum 971GH*485 (my own TH of sha256 times my champion rank of 485) about 400TH has to exist in Genesis alone, but likely must be over 3PH including all users and the fact everyone ranked above me must be over 971GH (as high as 25TH to 80TH at the top ten).

I couldn't give a ranking on the scrypt hashlets, as I only own 15MH, because they lost their profitability.  But in Primes there is 50GH in the top ten, and Solos there is 90GH in the top ten (poor souls), so figuring the top ten is maybe 10% they must have at least 1,400TH in power.  That happens to be more than the current hashrate of the litecoin network (1,356).  I wonder, are they even mining litecoin?

But even with their SHA256 hashpower, has anyone made any attempt to track the origins of the bitcoins paid out, and where the block was generated and relayed?

I interpreted the statement to mean 1 million hardware miners.  It seems farfetched that they have 1 million customers hashing, and at least 500,000 (a majority) spent $500 ($250,000,000 total per month).  I don't think GAW operates near the billions.

Maybe a majority of 100,000 users, ($25,000,000 per month) not 1,000,000 users.

Edit: After a rereading of the article, he is definitely saying a couple million users ... but they don't have that now.  The couple million must be an order of magnitude more than what they have now.  We'll see, but I don't think there are enough people into crypto overall to get that many, especially when they operate in shadows, and even with his marketing, I don't see that many suddenly joining in.

Sorry to keep it going, I wrote most of my post before you had posted this, but it is extremely relevant to me.

>_<

Disclaimer: I am a post-secondary mathematics instructor at a US institution by day and crypto hobbyist by night, and hold several degrees myself.

I agree wholeheartedly with others calling you out, that education, including the piece of paper sitting in the desk drawer of my office that shows I toiled for many years, is incredibly broken in the United States, and that it is a weak argument to say that statistically people are more successful because they have a piece of paper showing they showed up to classes and thought hard enough to make the professor think they knew the material, or at least satisfied the point requirements of the professors grading scales.  Certainly they start off at better pay on average because HR departments value degrees, and there are good things you can get from a post-secondary education, whether four-year, six-year or eight-year level, that are not easily available otherwise, I will agree with you on that.

On the other hand, judging someone's ability based on a lack of education is, in my opinion, a very lacking argument.  The number of students that make it through a degree today make it worth almost nothing.  You may have seen the ideal in knowledge and pursued it in your education, but there is a huge amount of value to a self-made person.  Arguing that in general someone is incapable because they don't have an education is moot, in my opinion.  I would argue that someone is robbed of free-thought, creativity and motivation because they did get a degree.

The argument that education statistically correlates to success is neither valid nor strong.  I see a hundred people without degrees who don't amount to anything for every one of those who amount to something but have no formal degree.  I am, after all, a professor.

May I make the assumption that you, like me, became less educated, motivated and creative by attending a university?

I was very appalled to see that error at first when I read it, but then realized this is actually not grammatically incorrect, though it is certainly awkward.

One could say one technical and multiple practical perspectives, but it definitely reads very poorly without that clarification.

That said, there are other points that could easily be made a lot clearer with some grammatical correction, such as the part about the "network utilizes a five-network-confirmation protocol, versus a 51% consensus of the Prime Controllers."  After further inspection of the initial launch before Prime controllers are all online, it would be a lot better worded that the "network utilizes a protocol where five network confirmations will be used similarly to current coins, before moving to the the 51% consensus system of the Prime Controllers."

It took me forever to decipher what they meant in that statement, and that was just one sticking point I had in the White Paper's ability to convey a meaning well.

I'm about to leave work, and I'll be dissecting the white paper as fully as I can tonight, and possibly posting on HT as well to see if the Garza or other staff can clarify anything I think is unclear.

To some posters from an earlier conversation, (jimmothy among them I believe) I stated that I did not believe that Hashlets were a security: I retract that previous statement.

After further digging I tend to agree that it is very likely that miner rental payouts are not necessarily paid out entirely from the use of mining hardware rented.  If so much as a Satoshi is paid in addition to the revenue from the mining hardware operation itself, which I think must be the case to sustain things like Double Dip and Turbo after crunching a few numbers, along with ensuring that payouts are a Satoshi over maintenance on the scrypt operations, then by the definitions in both acts, a Hashlet is in part being paid out with security profit, and therefore legally must be a security itself.

I stand corrected.

Are you sure?  I was unable to sell mine recently, and cannot merge it with my TH of Genesis either ... which annoys me a bit when I enter payout/maintenance data in my spreadsheet, one more thing to go through.

Edit: possibly it has to do with the age of the Gift miner?

Edit 2: Confirmed, just tried to sell it, and got as far as entering a price and clicking confirm and checking the ToU button etc, but then it threw an error that Zen's UI is too fast to display and hide for me to read in the bottom left.  The unit is not listed as for sale either.

Does a "Digital Cloud Miner (DCM)" fall under the definition?  From what I can tell the product is marketed as miner rental, not a security.  I have an "investment" in CoinTerra and BFL in that I own and operate their hardware, I don't see the wording here implying this is anything other than hardware rental (even if it might be rental of a rental).

Anywho, I must sleep, I'm off for a bit.

I don't believe even by SEC definitions that Hashlets are securities.

Edit: I haven't yet researched that definition either, but that will be for tomorrow, it is 4:30am here, and I'm pretty wiped.  I'll be eager to look at it tomorrow if I have time during/after work.

@$username:

If he fails to back up his claims, he is commiting fraud and illegal profiteering on a mass scale.  It is unethical to mislead with false implications, it is illegal to mislead with explicitly false claims.

Edit:

@jimmothy:

I thought they had been in business longer than that ... when did Gridseeds come out?  I remember considering getting LTC miners from them a long while back, has it only been half a year?  I suppose I thought they were around when I could still use a BFL Single to mine ... I forget they are a lot more recent.

I'm starting to see more holes than I did before, but I'm also half asleep.  I'm not saying that the SEC is fast at handling things, but I can see enough of the tens of thousand customers starting civil or criminal lawsuits.

Great explanation, but I guarantee few (even here) understand the concept of fractional reserve well enough to realize fiat money literally is created and destroyed from nothing in loans and repaid debts.

While true for stocks in fiat money, note that crypto is not a zero sum game either, but for different reasons.

@jimmothy

The thing is GAW has been a legit business in mining equipment for quite a while, and the Garza won't get a slap on his wrist if this blows up in his face.

Either he isn't so much a terrible liar as he is pompous, or he and I are both soon to be disappointed, but him more than I.

Edit: I honestly had to look up the Neo & Bee bit.  I don't think that in the U.S. things will fall apart as nicely around the Garza as they did around Brewster.  (I am from the U.S. myself, as a disclaimer.)  If he has committed fraud of any kind, at the scale it would have to be at this point, he would likely be in a thousand times deeper shit than Brewster, and won't be able to just jump to the UK until it dies down.  Millions of dollars in fraud will grab the attention of SEC bloodhounds before he could disappear.

I would not mind a bit more transparency from GAW, and I think what Zues is doing is noble.

But as suchmoon and dyask have stated, there are likely business dealings still in the dark, because of the nature of what GAW is doing on a business to business scale.

Oh, look, I can write a comment that isn't a book!

@jimmothy:

For the same reason I'm an atheist, I don't use public restrooms if possible, and I think rock is better than rap.  It's an opinion I've developed from the evidence I've seen.

I can't deny that popping in $2 per coin alone would be a very great way to make a quick 900%, and I would guess that there will be a lot of dump come day 1.  I am not saying I have any sort of definitive proof that this will go well, nor that I tossed my life savings at it.  I do think Josh whatever-his-name-is Garza is an egocentric prick, but I don't think he's an idiot, and it seems most businessman that succeed are egocentric pricks anyhow.  He obviously has enough lawyers to tell him what laws he might or might not be breaking, and I think he's got at least a decent bit of business sense, GAW has been fairly successful thus far.

I do think that if a larger name investor might be in the game though, they would probably have it in their own best interest to keep their stake and drive up value of the coin they accept by accepting it as a merchant, especially if it is something along the lines of a large e-merchant.  (I doubt eBay or amazon or paypal, which hype at HT presumes.)  I think that the fact that GAW is already a fairly large company provides a decent amount of leverage to get possibly other online merchant portal investors on board with them, if not at least other merchants and investors.  He certainly has said enough that the investors must either be fairly open with the details or very pissed off at him now, but I think that there isn't enough to discredit him.

This of course assumes he isn't an idiot, because if things fall through and he doesn't back up some of his claims, he is in deeper shit than he can wade through.

Either way, if I play it smart I probably make either a clean getaway while others ride the hype train, or I will make a decent profit and be invested in an upcoming coin that more retailers might get behind.  Certainly its not the greatest white-paper, but I imagine that there are still a number of things not mentioned in it that might attract investors.  That said, if GAW collapses tomorrow, I wouldn't be surprised either.  Even though Josh's tongue is loose, I just don't get the vibe that it is all total BS, so I see opportunity in it.

I cannot stand the Garza for the life of me, if I see :grinning: one more time I might puke, but I don't see "the red flags" in the same light you do I guess.  He has leaked more information than I would expect, but I do think that marketing stunts are part of business.  It strikes me as far fetched for the company to go so far if it is all smoke and mirrors, and I haven't heard anything about GAW employees or associates jumping ship.  I can't say I believe in the company 100% either, I can't stand their spokesperson, I just think it is worth the risk to put my money where my mouth is in this case.

@puwaha:

I must politely disagree:

If it was sold at x+y and someone else decides that since it sold for x+y they'll sell for x+y, does mean that the perceived value has increased.  Lesser things have caused increase or decrease in value, and it does not mean that somewhere else in the market value is lost to compensate.  The fact that trading means that one person buying = one person selling does not preclude that the market as a whole is zero sum.

If the stock is perceived to be worth more, zero sum would imply something else is worth less, but that isn't the case.  Value is fickle like that.

@others in this thread

That being said, I think that the real reasoning behind much of Josh's antics are exactly as he says if he is dealing with large corporations  (which with my small investment, I do hope).  Were I a large corporation investing in the ICO, I would prefer things to be hush hush, and it appears that Josh just can't keep his can shut well enough ... but however arrogant he may be aside ( I won't dispute that, despite my position in his company I hate his antics myself) if the coin doesn't release as planned, alas, I'll have made a bad bet and hopefully dump it on the hype spike before it dies, but I do think that GAW's actions are largely legitimate.

The white paper tends to read as though the large investors will have a good holding in the stake of the coin, and GAW will compete for this holding themselves.  A lot about the coin does NOT appeal to miners, despite them being such a miner centric company, but I feel the underlying reason is that he is targeting merchants more than miners, because mass adoption requires so much effort in negotiating with large companies that are usually fairly immobile in their stance on trade, and like the relative immutability of fiat.

I like the idea, and I think it is a step forward, so I tossed a few coin at it.  After going through the end of the last thread and all the pages here, I'd like to pitch into the discussion if I may, and I'm certainly not leaning as eagerly toward GAW as I did before, but objectively, my opinion is that this thing will probably be around for a while, and be (relatively) successful.  I don't think it will be worth more than bitcoin like some at HT say ... not by a long shot, but I think it is a bold approach to getting a not so new concept to actually be accepted by larger numbers of people who don't really know about mining.

Pending that you can get around 4100 with 150+ units, I'll put in for 1 SP-30.

Good to hear.  I also just upped my power by about 20 times, and was wondering about the long payout queue, while at 95GH I was never in it for more than a few blocks, but now I am seeing waits of as much as .4BTC above payout threshold.  If I raise the threshold a bit will this reduce the time between payouts?  Or will it be just the same, and I'll still be paid out once I hit the .4 or .5 bitcoin mark as I have recently, regardless of the threshhold (assuming I set it to less than that amount of BTC)?

You can click and drag the graph to look in the past, it only goes so far, but you can see more than the fully zoomed out graph that way.