Grnbrg, put LostDutchman on ignore.
He's been asshurt for a very long time.
He basically is a self admitted scammer/fraudster (....)
Yeah, but when you see someone line themselves up for it, sometimes it's satisfying to set them up for a smackdown.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo came to mind.  I just hope that the LRM Monarchs ship before the torch-and-pitchfork crowd get a hold of BFL. grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Did you switch to the new contracts?
Why ? If you did or not, what lead you to the stay or move.
Some days I understand very clearly why the people running things start ignoring forums... Yes, I'm pretty sure I've already indicated I have switched to the new contracts. I did so last weekend. I probably would have done so sooner, but it didn't occur to me until a day or two later that I actually had to send in an email. Here's my answer to someone else asking why: 1) I think he has been doing his best to deal with the issues that were not foreseen in July last year in a way that A) Keeps him out of jail. B) Fairly benefits the investors. C) Keeps LRM operating. And in that order, although B & C are closely related.
2) Overall, about what I expected. I would have liked more detail on what hardware has been purchased, what has been delivered and what is yet undelivered (and when it is expected to arrive) but I didn't expect to hear that. I have no "business" experience, but do understand that there are things that businesses keep confidential. I also understand that he is limited in what he can comment on because "releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers".
3) In a perfect world, I would have preferred that a change in contract not have to occur. Since it appears to be needed, then the new contract needs a start date. Since (for better or worse) we now have all of the information we're going to get to make the choice, two weeks is not unreasonable.
4) I think if LRM fails it is far more likely going to be due to a lawsuit filed by investors who don't think they have been treated the way they thought they were going to be, than by Lab_Rat lining his pockets. And if it does fail, I will be annoyed that yet another Bitcoin-related investment that I've tried my hand at has bitten me, but only annoyed. I went into this with the attitude of "no more than I can afford to lose", and to date have seen at least some return on that investment. Admittedly less than "buy and hold", but I knew going in that this was going to be risky. So as long as Lab_Rat isn't sailing around on a yacht that we bought (which I find highly unlikely) I'll chalk it up as an entertaining couple of years.
tl;dr In my opinion, I don't think Lab_Rat's intentions have changed since he started LRM, and I thought it was worth backing then. I see no reason to do anything but continue forward.
And the above is backed by ~1750 contracts. I'd like to see some of the more negative posters volunteer how much skin they have in this game. I know some of loudest have significant holdings, but not all of them.
grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Why is the level of investment in BFL a determining factor in raising Hell about the fraud and deception perpetrated by themm?
BFL is bad for the Bitcoin and crypto currency community as a whole!
Why do you continue to shill for them?
You are better than that.
:cough: LRM :cough: Freudian much? And level of investment isn't a requirement for complaining. But people who hold more than a dozen contracts generally seem less over the top with their rhetoric. And you didn't answer the question. I showed you mine, so you should show yours... (Although I seem to recall an answer a few pages back...) Nice dodge. See you in the BFL parking lot when the physical protest is arranged. What does BFL have to do with anything?! And unless someone wants to send me a plane ticket, and promise to provide popcorn, I won't be going to KC any time soon. If ever.... grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Why is the level of investment in BFL a determining factor in raising Hell about the fraud and deception perpetrated by themm?
BFL is bad for the Bitcoin and crypto currency community as a whole!
Why do you continue to shill for them?
You are better than that.
:cough: LRM :cough: Freudian much? And level of investment isn't a requirement for complaining. But people who hold more than a dozen contracts generally seem less over the top with their rhetoric. And you didn't answer the question. I showed you mine, so you should show yours... (Although I seem to recall an answer a few pages back...) grnbrg. |
|
|
|
If the bonds owned make the question valid, i personally own 208, can you reply to me or we need more?
I noticed something that concerns me, you're buying and bought in the past days, what do you know that we don't?
208 is respectable. I have found it hard to take some people seriously when they post comments that are neither factually based nor constructive suggestions while holding less than 20 post split bonds. As I responded in the trading thread, I don't know currently anything that isn't public knowledge. I think Lab_Rat is going todo his best to benefit the investors, and that the contract price is going to go up once the new contracts start paying out. Others have speculated why, and I agree. It was worth gambling another coin on, IMHO. grnbrg . So how many coins you got invested in this deal? Tell us! Enquiring minds want to know! My $.02.  30 to 40 I think, when I last added it up. How about you? grnbrg. |
|
|
|
If the bonds owned make the question valid, i personally own 208, can you reply to me or we need more?
I noticed something that concerns me, you're buying and bought in the past days, what do you know that we don't?
208 is respectable. I have found it hard to take some people seriously when they post comments that are neither factually based nor constructive suggestions while holding less than 20 post split bonds. As I responded in the trading thread, I don't know currently anything that isn't public knowledge. I think Lab_Rat is going todo his best to benefit the investors, and that the contract price is going to go up once the new contracts start paying out. Others have speculated why, and I agree. It was worth gambling another coin on, IMHO. grnbrg . |
|
|
|
Since the IPO of LRM, the global mining bitcoin hashrate has lift hundreds of times, however labrat just lifts the LRM hashrate only 2 times. In others words, labrat denied ipo terms and his promises to rob our most of bitcoins.
Please expose the finacial report, What we have bought is the LRM's stock not the LRM's bonds! We can not let labrat find a way to get around the rules.
I have to say: What a cheeky fraud labrat is!
And just out of curiosity, how many bonds do you hold? grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Fyi, it went to my spam folder. So you might want to check there.
Boooo. I'd guess the BCC Lab_Rat used didn't agree well with some filters. grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Just received an email stating an update to the new contract. but I dont see a link to the new contract. does anyone have the latest contract?
The following was sent to all verified email addresses, yesterday: grnbrg. |
|
|
|
I've had a number of people PM me, asking how they can convert to the new (April 25th, 2014) contract. There are two options to do so: - Email Lab_Rat (at labrat@labratmining.com) from an email address that you have previously verified and state that you wish to convert to the new contract. As long as the email address you have used was previously verified with LRM, he is not requiring a signature.
- Alternately, you can email or PM myself with this information. I, however, will require that the message is signed with your LRM address. I will confirm receipt, and will ensure that Lab_Rat has the information before the deadline.
Note that you are not being required to convert to the April 25th contract, but if you do not do so, you will not eligible to collect dividends under the payout terms outlined in that contract. (ie: The old contracts will be paid divs for 100MH/s per contract. The new contracts are paid divs for 100MH/s plus an optional bonus, at the discretion of LRM.) grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Transaction: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Message:
======
150 bonds to be transferred from 1DzjuaRb6GWsxfks8xXrBDaSD6NC9B7qaz to 17JJ3QzgPpaVZqTtsQngAGY8qzuKf3knyb in exchange for 0.6 BTC. 0.6 BTC will be paid to 1DzjuaRb6GWsxfks8xXrBDaSD6NC9B7qaz.
======
Good signature from seller: H5QcSmeykp8fnSkSq4Rsrxox5bGGM18B7XBMe9xuuqts30wizskgZOVkOHupjstMwBrykPxIK2grCgQ DlGLoX2E=
Good signature from buyer: G3TbPJ4rUb7i8gAeY5Bpk0zqY++Q28N+s0bcAfyxqIv+8Tabr36Fcc8bBwdV3QmXhoBT9vbe5xlVf/kcVl5iUvM=
Account 1DzjuaRb6GWsxfks8xXrBDaSD6NC9B7qaz has gone from 768 to 618 bonds.
Account 17JJ3QzgPpaVZqTtsQngAGY8qzuKf3knyb has gone from 1762 to 1912 bonds.
0.6 BTC paid to 1DzjuaRb6GWsxfks8xXrBDaSD6NC9B7qaz via transaction
ba83c3899f1ebbdac4e0c3a91338dab450692a5e0e8ed2141ab1ec6951b9039f
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://www.grnbrg.org/grnbrg_pubkey.asc
iEYEARECAAYFAlNhdXgACgkQQVjU3hFFtmca8wCcDieuyC0luWmP02mBYQr6TWaY
f2UAn36N3+H+SlVZA4mdZpszZn629ins
=aE6u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
. |
|
|
|
And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two.
Not true. I could make another User Account, sell him half of my contracts and i put each half in a different contract type . |
|
|
|
Zach claims he wants to show those that won't listen how its going to be. What condition exists that prevents him from holding on to the dividends of those that are not yet prepared to accept the new contracts based on faith? I can't think of any reason. Can you? It's not as if faith is a common way of doing business anyway. Logic tells me that if he really wanted to show us how it's going to be in good faith he wouldn't steal our dividends. He would simply demonstrate his point and go on to allow others to convert to the new contract WITHOUT stealing their dividends. How do you explain this?
I'm getting into deep water here... What follows is my opinion, based on what Lab_Rat has posted, and having seen at least one episode of "Law & Order". (ie: I'm not a lawyer, and may well be way off base, and this is in no way an "Official LRM Response".) Lab_Rat has posted in general terms that the issue was due to problems with bonds being "proportional", and that in order to avoid issues, they needed to represent a fixed hash rate. The solution to this problem is embodied in the new contract -- essentially a fixed hash rate, but with the option for LRM to issue at it's sole discretion "bonus hashrate". Speculation on my part: It may well be that if Lab_Rat makes any promises or representations about what this bonus is, or how it relates to hardware, or anything else then suddenly the contracts are (potentially) proportional again. It's quite possible his lawyer has told him to say nothing about the bonus, period, for this reason. End wild speculation. And as a contract holder, you have to be in one camp or the other, not half-way between the two. grnbrg. |
|
|
|
@grnbrg
1) So what do you think (honestly) about the way Zach has been handling the situation? Are you comfortable with it?
2) Are you satisfied with the (lack of) answers we received at the AMA?
3) Do you think it's OK to steal the dividends of all the investors that don't have faith in the almighty lab_rat? Since when is skepticism supposed to be punished?
4) What do you plan on doing if Zach doesn't have your best interest in mind after all and decides to put his own interest before yours after you have lost all rights to your investment?
1) I think he has been doing his best to deal with the issues that were not foreseen in July last year in a way that A) Keeps him out of jail. B) Fairly benefits the investors. C) Keeps LRM operating. And in that order, although B & C are closely related. 2) Overall, about what I expected. I would have liked more detail on what hardware has been purchased, what has been delivered and what is yet undelivered (and when it is expected to arrive) but I didn't expect to hear that. I have no "business" experience, but do understand that there are things that businesses keep confidential. I also understand that he is limited in what he can comment on because "releasing information that is not mine to release would destroy relationships built with manufacturers". 3) In a perfect world, I would have preferred that a change in contract not have to occur. Since it appears to be needed, then the new contract needs a start date. Since (for better or worse) we now have all of the information we're going to get to make the choice, two weeks is not unreasonable. 4) I think if LRM fails it is far more likely going to be due to a lawsuit filed by investors who don't think they have been treated the way they thought they were going to be, than by Lab_Rat lining his pockets. And if it does fail, I will be annoyed that yet another Bitcoin-related investment that I've tried my hand at has bitten me, but only annoyed. I went into this with the attitude of "no more than I can afford to lose", and to date have seen at least some return on that investment. Admittedly less than "buy and hold", but I knew going in that this was going to be risky. So as long as Lab_Rat isn't sailing around on a yacht that we bought (which I find highly unlikely) I'll chalk it up as an entertaining couple of years. tl;dr In my opinion, I don't think Lab_Rat's intentions have changed since he started LRM, and I thought it was worth backing then. I see no reason to do anything but continue forward. And the above is backed by ~1750 contracts. I'd like to see some of the more negative posters volunteer how much skin they have in this game. I know some of loudest have significant holdings, but not all of them. grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Just when it seemed this drama couldn't get any more ridiculous.
I'm here all week. Try the veal! grnbrg. |
|
|
|
It's too low if the dumb fuck comes to his senses and puts something in writing before May the 10th... also too low if injunction for emergency relief issued, assets frozen, motion to charge Zach Dailey personally with mismanagement proceeds, all assets liquidated, even with lawyers fees, may come out above 25c ... so hodling to see what happens.
Sounds like the current market rate is much higher than $0.25. So you'll be editing the above post to reflect that? grnbrg. |
|
|
|
100 Mh guaranteed, plus nothing that Zach will give shape, or form, or inkling of, let alone substance to.
=
100 Mh + 0
=
100 Mh
So, are you selling? Or is $0.25 each too low? grnbrg. |
|
|
|
Right then, since Zach is refusing to prove that the bonds are worth more than the current market value of about 25 cents each, pbmining's price/gh for 1gh being about $2.50 at the moment, let's do some math...
I'm not sure what your point is... But I'll buy every contract you've got for $0.25 each. grnbrg. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
