I’ve got this error repeating over and over. I think it's still mining however. 2014-Apr-28 18:03:06.878417 [P2P6]ERROR /XXX/bitmonero/contrib/epee/include/net/abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABSTRACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(100), shutting down connection
2014-Apr-28 18:03:06.878504 [P2P6]ERROR /XXX/bitmonero/contrib/epee/include/net/levin_protocol_handler_async.h:515 [54.255.153.190:47988 INC]Failed to do_send
2014-Apr-28 18:03:06.878580 [P2P6]Failed to invoke command 1002 return code -1
2014-Apr-28 18:03:06.878701 [P2P6][54.255.153.190:47988 INC]COMMAND_TIMED_SYNC invoke failed. (-1, LEVIN_ERROR_CONNECTION)
2014-Apr-28 18:03:06.878771 [P2P6]Failed to invoke command 1002 return code 0
type "exit" then restart the daemon. I get this error as well but intermittently. Should I be worried? Everything seems fine but how would I confirm that I'm mining? My hashrate fluctuates between 13 and 14. How do I know if I found a block? Thanks tacotime for the MRO! |
|
|
|
I think it's quite telling that Ken has mentioned not wanting to 'throw fuel on the fire' by carrying out actions that may appease some of the more insecure shareholders however would compromise the entire venture.
There are three shareholder points of issue here:
1) initiate trading of shares
2) pay dividends to established shareholder accounts
3) verify shareholder accounts
I won't get into the nitty-gritty of the pros & cons of each of these and how perhaps #3, logically, is more palatable to the authorities, but I will say this; the person holding the reigns has two choices. Either play ball with the authorities or don't. If Ken makes every effort, as he appears to be doing so, to work with the authorities then he has the greatest chance of making his business a success, and importantly, not being shut down by men with guns. If, on the other hand, he chose (which he hasn't) to instigate any or all of the above listed actions due to shareholder pressure then, in my humble opinion, would most likely ruin it for everyone.
In summary, Ken is keeping schtum, paddling lightly and trying to prevent waves whilst also trying to form a bloody gigantic iceberg made from bitcoin. Not an easy task when some of you are more inclined to invite Judge Judy onto the upper deck to air our dirty laundry I public. Hey-Ho.
+ 2^64 |
|
|
|
knybe we know this, you and others have said it repeatedly, it's getting very tired now. You have been given an answer and it involves the MSD. Get over it already.
+1  |
|
|
|
|
What does it matter?
What are you going to do?
You can't trade your shares
|
|
|
|
My crystal ball sayeth, that the absolutely most pessimistic, sky is falling, depressively paranoid, lowest high, will be around $2000 in mid July this year.
Ergo, calling for a $750 average over 6 months from now is very conservative I think. Best if you can cover the electricity out of pocket for now and hodl, though.
Your "most pessimistic" estimation for BTC price in about 2-3 Months is $2000, almost twice the ATH of BTC? Oh ok. |
|
|
|
I sort of wish we would stop fantasizing about CC, and start looking in to other P2P trading options. CC, has not, and will not be the only game in town, and quite frankly, I think we would be better off to start exploring these alternative options.
What other options allow me to keep shares of a company on a paper wallet? It allows complete control of your assets. Only problem is that it might that a while but I can envision a day where I can store my shares on a paper wallet and transfer them MYSELF to any exchange I want (Havelock, Crypto-Trade, etc.) or exchange shares on a forum or in person. again, counterparty fits the bill. And you can receive dividends in BTC? If so, that would be a good option as well. |
|
|
|
I sort of wish we would stop fantasizing about CC, and start looking in to other P2P trading options. CC, has not, and will not be the only game in town, and quite frankly, I think we would be better off to start exploring these alternative options.
What other options allow me to keep shares of a company on a paper wallet? It allows complete control of your assets. Only problem is that it might that a while but I can envision a day where I can store my shares on a paper wallet and transfer them MYSELF to any exchange I want (Havelock, Crypto-Trade, etc.) or exchange shares on a forum or in person. |
|
|
|
If the MSD investigation is preventing you from listing our shares then can you explain why shares continue to be tradable on two other exchanges and why you didn't cease this activity to when you became aware that you couldn't list the tendered shares from Bitfunder.
The shares on the exchanges were being traded before the MSD Investigation. |
|
|
|
Here are some posts from the Operator of BUY-A-HASH, a scrypt crypto-currency miner and seller of hardware, similar to how ActM is operating, on how he is navigating the issues of legality of the trading of his companies shares. The shares are currently trading on LitecoinInvest.com and are supposed to be up on CipherTrade.com (in beta) soon. What's the difference between PT shares and US?
... Will their price be corelated somehow?
would it be transferable from one to the other at equal price?
BAH-US are legal shares in the US LLC. You must be an accredited investor to put funds into this entity or import shares. This is due to SEC regulations.BAH-PT are shares in the Hong Kong entity that are held in trust by CipherTrade.Their price should be similar, unless investors decide that one entity should have a premium over the other. They would be transferrable from the PT to US entity if you met accreditation standards. Otherwise, they are separate entities. However, they pay out the same dividends. The big difference is legal rights to the company. US shares are full, legal rights to the US company, and PT shares are shares held by CipherTrade which are full, legal shares that CipherTrade owns/controls.According to https://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm from your email, an accredited investor must have either a) a net worth over $1 million or b)yearly income in excess of $200,000 or $300,000 with a spouse. Soooo, yeah. Me and presumably most other shareholders cannot have a share in the US part. Am I missing something? Unfortunately, those are the rules of the SEC on US companies. This is why BitFunder and Litecoin Global are dead. Unless you meet those specifications after filing a 506 exemption, you can't buy equity in a US company. Therefore, any US company selling shares of itself without proving accreditation is listing an unregistered security, which is a major violation of US law. This path is the only legal way we can stay compliant within the confines of current regulations. Having said this, the JOBS Act of 2009 will open up US trading eventually with a different set of accreditation requirements. However, the SEC has not created the paperwork or exact requirements yet. As soon as they do, we will file to allow more users into the US company when and where feasible. The .PT shares are of a similar legal statute as if they were on Havelock. Full legal shares are available to accredited investors only. This is because the SEC does not (yet) want unaccredited investors to own part of a US company. However, the JOBS Act of 2009 changed this, to allow for crowdfunding. The SEC is still working on providing guidance on how this is supposed to work. My belief is that in 6-9 months, we will know how to proceed and can register the US LLC to meet whatever requirements the government has for crowdfunding, and move everyone into that new schema. But we have to have full compliance now, which is why we have 3 listings.
TLDR; BUY-A-HASH is going to offer a Pass-Through share listing (BAH-PT) for their unaccredited investors and legal shares in the US LLC (BAH-US) for accredited investors.
It seems Benny has been in contact with SEC regulators to discuss what options he has for his shareholders. It is a strange situation as the JOBS Act of 2009 has passed but there are no regulations yet into how to operate crowdfunded companies. |
|
|
|
I want to get the shares trading; however, I don't want to pour gas on the MSD Investigation. I have a number of solutions to the problem, one of which is getting the shares registered. The problem with bitcoin exchanges are that they are not registered. So, my thinking is CC. CC is not an exchange, it is a way shareholders can direct trade shares with each other. So, my thinking is if I can get the shares registered, then shareholder could use CC to trade direct and the SEC would not have a problem with that as long as the shares are registered.
Thank you.
Wouldn't it be the same thing to just get the shares registered and allow us to trade on Havelock or Crypto-Trade? |
|
|
|
Your currently trading our shares on 2 different sites as we speak,,, Again tell me why we, the long-term investors (The people who have the most faith in you) do not have there shares. If you want to see how a CEO can drop a share price on his own shares keep restricting us from trading. People are loosing faith and your not helping. Who the fuck wants to buy shares in a company when you can not trust what the CEO says. You found the miners for us to sell, You started filling up the DC, and then if you re-issued our shares almost every thing would be a white wash.. But now your fucking around. Your literally, personally causing the share price to drop do to lack of faith in the CEO. This is the second time your actions have literally dropped the share price. Your talking about us having to wait for an indefinite period to get access to what we own.
Seems like the price has been going up, not down. |
|
|
|
The fund holds
Cash
BTC
Securities
Mining hardware.
Localbitcoin sales
BTC is valued by Bitstamp
Securities are valued by Havelock
Mining hardware is very conservatively valued
Localbitcoin sales are exchanged immediately for new coins at current price.
I keep it very simple. I update spreadsheets a few times a week.
Immediately if someone needs to sell.
The practice keeps it very interesting.
What to do you charge to do this? This sounds interesting and it may be something I would like to do with those closest around me as well. Just wanted to know what you think is fair in terms of compensation. Do you tell them that it is really risky? |
|
|
|
Has Ken said why he thinks cryptotrade is less likely to shutdown than havelock?
Surely it's pretty obvious? U.S. govt doesn't go after the smallest fish first, it goes after the biggest - which is currently Havelock. Crypto-trade is primarily a crypto-currency exchange not a securities trading platform. Crypto-trade is much more likely to gox its users than to be shutdown by any government. So the choice is between the possibility of getting goxed vs. the possibility of getting goved? Wonderful. Welcome to Bitcoin!!  Colored Coins! |
|
|
|
Hey Ken, can you let us know if you have the chips for the new boards you'll be printing out soon?
We have a deal for the chips for our current production run of boards. Is that for the 200 boards a week production run? Have you received the chips yet? |
|
|
|
|
Hey Ken, can you let us know if you have the chips for the new boards you'll be printing out soon?
|
|
|
|
Ken when will shares go live?
Have you verified your shares yet? |
|
|
|
Why would you worry about that? Don't you know how many shares you own? Your shares are already attached to the bitcoin address you had connected to bitfunder.
Shares were sent to AMC-tender, that means they are no longer attached to my bitfunder address. They were sent to an account that Ken controls, how am I supposed to prove ownership of said shares? They were sent to AMC-TENDER from your bitfunder account that is connected to your bitcoin address so if you can prove ownership of that bitcoin address then you're good. Ken controls them so he can move then to a non-defunct securities exchange. What is to stop Ken saying he purchased those shares from me? Don't get me wrong I'm pretty confident that wont happen but technically I transferred my shares to another person, so whilst I can prove I owned them at some point in time proving ownership currently is nigh on impossible since they are not in my possession and I freely transferred them to another party. Who would you have to prove ownership to other than Ken? |
|
|
|
Why would you worry about that? Don't you know how many shares you own? Your shares are already attached to the bitcoin address you had connected to bitfunder.
Shares were sent to AMC-tender, that means they are no longer attached to my bitfunder address. They were sent to an account that Ken controls, how am I supposed to prove ownership of said shares? They were sent to AMC-TENDER from your bitfunder account that is connected to your bitcoin address so if you can prove ownership of that bitcoin address then you're good. Ken controls them so he can move then to a non-defunct securities exchange. |
|
|
|
I recognise that Ken has been tardy in re-enabling a trading platform for shares, but also recognise that he's probably being extra cagey and not wanting to walk us straight into another bitfunder scenario or worse (And we fared much better than some companies on there.)
It bears pointing out though that some of you impatient types should actually be rather glad that you were not able to dump your shares for a pittance a couple of weeks back, now prospects look much better.
While this may be true for some people, the issue I have is that 3/4 of my shares are not held in my name they are in 'AMC-tender'. This is the only reason I want to have my shares verified and attached to my bitcoin address. The trading is neither here nor there for me - it is just a question of ownership. I would be content with just having the shares verified as being mine rather than AMC-Tender's if trading doesn't or can't happen for a while I don't care, I just want the shares to be registered to my bitcoin address and back dated dividends paid. Why would you worry about that? Don't you know how many shares you own? Your shares are already attached to the bitcoin address you had connected to bitfunder. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
