That's why I voted for giving the shareholders the reinvestment fund. But apparently (as we have no way to check), the majority of shareholders voted to "wait" for the return of the messiah.
It would be nice if Havelock supported weighted shareholder polls, just like cryptostocks did. Following this trend, it would be nice if: Havelock forced listings to publish their financials. Perhaps. But not many bitcoin companies have lasted long enough for an annual report (nevermind two). And if a venture were bent on fleecing investors, they wouldn't let a little thing like a financial stop them. Then again, the same could be said of a vote. Besides, the PETA and SCRYPT story was pretty much written into the prospectus at IPO time. We're just watching it unfold chapter by chapter. |
|
|
|
we are doing nothing more then global warming.
cryptx isn'nt doing there job what im paying for and there custom build scrypt boards were a lie.
give us the reinfest fund, even putting the money on the bank gives me a better profit with these low interests.
lets call it a day, the only one making profit is cryptx in hosting fees.mand thats the easyiest thing they had/have to do. they failed missarably in beeing up2date with the technology.
That's why I voted for giving the shareholders the reinvestment fund. But apparently (as we have no way to check), the majority of shareholders voted to "wait" for the return of the messiah. It would be nice if Havelock supported weighted shareholder polls, just like cryptostocks did. |
|
|
|
I do applaud the effort that several folks put forth to organize and get on a path that would lead to resolution.
I do want to present a viewpoint/perspective that several of us have that prevents us from jumping in too deep.
In filing a complaint, you have to also give up much of your personal information. You have to show/prove your investment to "the authorities" and that is an official record that can be used against you. I just cannot go on record as an investor and the amount - not without a guarantee of results.
I do have many shares - I just wish I would have sold instead of riding it down. - I was really convinced that he was going to figure things out, re-organize and keep the mining and divs going using his own system.
(I could have bought a few italian sports cars with the profits if I had sold - I have more than a handful of shares)
Maybe I am too optimistic, but I want to give him an appropriate amount of time to get his thoughts together and reconcile before more creative measures are explored.
Surely sufficient time has passed, and you should be exploring your creative options. At least, get in touch with him. I understand about the "personal information" portion. But, I don't quite understand about the "official record that can be used against you". Is it quasi-legal to do this in the US? |
|
|
|
i think that time has been long passed...its been what a year now? think your creative measures are gone...he probably moved away from where ever he was living at the time of this listing
It seems that that he was not trying to hide (offline). |
|
|
|
|
Is it so hard to follow instructions? But I'm one to talk; will probably not make 50 posts this month.
|
|
|
|
More squeeze for AM. Market is rough.
There are a lot of miners and manufacturers getting squeezed but I think AM is positioned very well with the Prisma being the best deal in town and pegged to BTC, not USD. Remember Gen3 Chips were paid for long ago and Friedcat's stated goal of squeezing everyone. Is anyone buying pre-orders anymore? No one is buying anything not even AM is going to be profitable with this price And you know that how? |
|
|
|
I'm no expert on these matters, but I think it goes like this. The transation's priority is affected by the age of the inputs, size of the transaction (in btc and in bytes), and transaction fee. This is to reward the miner and protect the network from lots of tiny dust transactions. Unfortunately, the priority is low because because you usually send payments out right after coinbase sends it to you, large packet size with multiple small btc outputs, and apparently a small transaction fee. And so if there aren't any miners who are willing to include this transaction in their newly mined blocks, the transaction isn't confirmed. If the transaction isn't confirmed for some period of time, blockchain.info assumes that it won't be confirmed and forgets it and "returns" the coins to your wallet. But all the signatures in the original transaction are still valid, so if some other miner retains the transaction in its memory and rebroadcasts it, it re-enters blockchain's memory with a different date. At this point, that transaction might still eventually get confirmed, but it might not. Not sure if you can just ignore it. Or just re-spend the coins that were returned to your wallet. Or, in some wallets, I think you can add extra transaction fees to the transaction to increase its priority. Not sure how to avoid this in future. Keep some coins in your wallet and pay out from that? Pay less frequently so that the btc amount is larger? Pay the recommended transaction fee? |
|
|
|
|
Nice, I didn't think it was shopped.
Still, the caption isn't quite right. You still need to plug this into cooling towers right?
Anyway, with the current environment (network hashrate/difficulty, btc price and ASIC options), do you still see profit in running more datatanks? Where are the retail options?
|
|
|
|
Cryptx dropped the hosting fees on Peta.
Called it back in Aug. While this brings up some additional discussion on how they are able to reduce a fixed cost, I wonder if they are going to do the same to Scryptx and when.
You can expect it to happen when or just before SCRYPT dividends hits zero. Because that may trigger the dissolution process specified in the prospectus, which is not in cryptx's favour. |
|
|
|
plus i dont care about $$$ losses. it is already worth nothing to me anyway  Wow, can I have some of those worthless stuff? |
|
|
|
The rest of the containers are ordinary refrigerated 40-footers.
Each container is supposed to be 2PH/s, so only the obvious one is implied to be a datatank. Unless you think most of the network is in that picture |
|
|
|
|
I've received my btchip too!
Yeah, a bit complicated. Need more reading.
|
|
|
|
And remember, competitors don't need to pay divs for hungry shareholders, they could re-invest whole profit. So who is in better position?
Huh? AM doesn't need to either. Have you been under a stone the past half year? |
|
|
|
There is nothing so surprising about this design. They have simply down-clocked the chips and doubled the number per board. They could have done this in June and had the most efficient machine on the market but the chips were worth more at the time (at least that was the thinking) so it didn't make sense.
Here's the math:
240MHz/270MHz(clock ratio or prisma to tube) * 800(1 Tube hash rate) * 2 (for the doubling of the chips) =1.4 TH/s
With some extra cooling and a little know-how, you can run at 1.6+ THs with Tube-like effifciency. (NB over-clocking the proprietary design is not recommended as it could result in a damaged product)
While I'm not impressed by the new design, I am immpressed with AMs ability to maximize the value of their product as computational difficulty rises.
Good point. Someone was asking a few days ago about low voltage efficiency of the chip; now we know. Is this the lowest sensible underclocking speed, or is there further room for this in the future, i wonder? |
|
|
|
No, there won't be any stratum problem using cgminer with Raspberry PI.
So, we now have software that doesn't have the stratum problem. Meanwhile, the 2.4PH/s btcguild userid 566620 has disappeared in the past 48 hours, causing btcguild pool hash rate to dip significantly. And the 1H7FpBV8huVmPvt5eRzszAkgnERH2FaWvq address which luffy27 and others speculate to belong to AM has likewise stopped receiving payouts. Disclaimer: correlation != causation. |
|
|
|
Why FC still trying to sell high performance miner(Prisma miner)?
He can run self-mining using them.
How do you know that he is not? He might even be self-mining using even higher-density boards like with datatank. |
|
|
|
Brief
ASICMiner Prisma is based on a proprietary X48 design for BE200. It greatly reduces power
consumption of the device per GH/s compared to the X24 design.
...
Power consumption: ~0.67 W/G board-wise. On-wall power consumption relies on PSU
efficiency. (typically 1050-1100 W per full device, 0.75-0.78 W/G)
Nice. I wonder how they managed to squeeze improve power efficiency by ~25% compared to the X24 design. But even though this further destroys the mining competition, it probably requires nerves of steel to continue investing in miners at this time. |
|
|
|
@sunxiaoxiao, i suppose we should be switching the signature to point to the Prisma miner? Edit: or maybe not yet, since that won't ship till Oct. |
|
|
|
I suspect that most of the manufacturers need to turn to self-mining, simply because that's still better than sitting on the product.
The question is - for how much longer? I suspect self-mining will only really remain an option for those with market-beating power efficiency and/or a deal with high deployment/low tariff farms such as datatank. |
|
|
|
Thank you, fc. You have turned the most promising BTC venture to cat shit. Well done.
If you don't want a single satoshi from AM, are you planning to sell all your shares or to donate (any) future dividends  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
