So what? So based on the information that we can learn (or not learn) about Halong Mining and MyRig, people can make informed decisions on whether they are comfortable buying from them. Disclosing the customary information about the incorporators (i.e., who they are, where their principle place of business is physically located, the consumer protections afforded in that jurisdiction) goes a long way towards building (or undermining) consumer confidence.

I am not assuming that "Inc." is reflective of only US corporations. I am going off of the name that MyRig presents to the world on its own ToS page, "MyRig, Inc." which is not a valid name in any jurisdiction in any country on earth as far as I can tell. It appears that the only legally valid name for MyRig is its Japanese name, which thankfully we now know is "マイリグ株式会社". Now let's find out what Halong Mining's incorporation details are. Anyone?

The onus is on the business to present accurate information about itself to the world. As it stands now, MyRig is inaccurately representing itself to the world when it states on its ToS that its name is "MyRig, Inc." The entity's actual name consists of Japanese letters, not English letters. This may seem like a meaningless technicality to some, but it is actually quite important so that people can reliably conduct due diligence and make informed decisions for themselves.

I have searched everywhere for Halong Mining's incorporation records, guessing at the country in which it is incorporated. I even checked Vietnam to no avail since "Halong" is a city there. This is case in point why presenting accurate information is so important.


It is odd if you consider that MyRig has held itself out as a Colorado corporation (https://i.imgur.com/8WZDWmZ.jpg) using a name ("MyRig, Inc.") that does not exist in the records of Colorado's Secretary of State. MyRig has a receiving address in Colorado at a UPS Store and transacts business there. To that extent, it is required under Colorado law to obtain authorization to conduct business in Colorado as a foreign entity. If it registered, we'd have the ability to hold MyRig accountable using legal process should circumstances justify it some day. If it does not register, then U.S. customers and perhaps customers in other nations should understand the lack of accountability should something go wrong when transacting with MyRig.

HagssFIN, thank you. Getting this information has been like pulling teeth. However, MyRig clearly states on its ToS page that its name is "MyRig, Inc." -- not "マイリグ株式会社", and as far as I can tell, "MyRig, Inc." is not a valid entity. The actual name of the validly incorporated entity is マイリグ株式会社.

MyRig should update its website's ToS to reflect that it is a Japanese corporation named マイリグ株式会社, not a Colorado corporation named "MyRig, Inc." These details are important for accountability purposes. As of the time of this posting, MyRig does not state on its web site that it is a Japanese corporation. It holds itself out as a Colorado corporation, choosing Colorado as the venue and jurisdiction for disputes and requiring the application of Colorado law, not Russian law and not even Japanese law.

In addition, I am still unable to confirm that MyRig or マイリグ株式会社 is authorized to conduct business in Colorado, as it is required to register as a foreign corporation if it is operating there. Otherwise, it is operating in contravention of Colorado law.

I am making no such assumption. I am relying on what MyRig has told us about its legal incorporation status on its very own terms of use page on its web site (see: https://i.imgur.com/8WZDWmZ.jpg). MyRig holds itself out as a Colorado incorporated entity, hence the name "MyRig, Inc."

I even went so far as to check the Japanese government's official incorporation records. You can do so yourself here: http://www.houjin-bangou.nta.go.jp/en/. Just type "myrig" into the "Name" field. Zero results.

That leaves Russia. If MyRig would like to announce that it is a Russian corporation, I would be thrilled to receive this news. I have not checked Russian incorporation records but I would be happy to verify such a claim from MyRig if it would like to make it.

Thank you. This information is listed on MyRig's "Contact" page on its site. Please realize that it demonstrates nothing about MyRig's incorporation status and where it is formally authorized to conduct business. Without this information, everyone must assume that "MyRig, Inc." is not what it claims to be (an incorporated entity), and everyone should be asking themselves why would MyRig make such a misrepresentation. Halong's affiliation with "MyRig, Inc." is not a boost to Halong's credibility. Playing by the rules and accountability are fundamental in business. All of us should stand together to make sure Halong and MyRig understand that if they want to sell to our community.

Please help me make sure I understand you correctly: If someone wants to conduct due diligence on "MyRig, Inc." that person must first buy from MyRig to see the company's official info? That's not reasonable. That's not how it works. The entire point of due diligence is to determine if the company is worthy of doing business with in the first place. In conducting my due diligence, I've relied on the info about its legal status that MyRig has posted on its web site (see: https://myrig.com/terms-of-use). Legitimate operators tend to post their information on such pages, and not wait to disclose it until after the sale. The information MyRig shows on its terms of use page cannot be confirmed with the Colorado Secretary of State. Specifically, I am talking about the fact that "MyRig, Inc." holds itself out as a Colorado corporation, hence the significance of using the abbreviation "Inc." in its name, which carries important legal significance. I've made this point a number of times on this thread, but MyRig and Halong have chosen not to address it, which has raised concerns among would-be buyers and those who bought in the pre-sale, including myself.

I have purchased a number of DragonMint T1 units directly from Halong Mining (April Batch 2). I assure you I am not "just making noise." I have no stake in the game other than to help people make informed decisions and to try to achieve some peace of mind for myself by receiving some info about Halong's legitimacy (or lack thereof).  Halong points to its relationship with MyRig as evidence of its legitimacy, so MyRig naturally should fall under same due diligence umbrella when investigating Halong.

I would love for Halong and MyRig to address these legitimate and lingering concerns once and for all and get on with being above-board operators.

Dear "MyRig, Inc.": You hold yourself out as a Colorado corporation (see: https://i.imgur.com/8WZDWmZ.jpg), but the Colorado Secretary of State, the entity charged with maintaining such records, has no record of you. (Search for "myrig" on this page: http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do?resetTransTyp=Y.) Furthermore, I found no record of your previous name "Bitmain Warranty" either, so it seems this is not just a simple of matter of your not having gotten around yet to filing your paperwork in Colorado to complete a business name change. Bitmain Warranty was never incorporated in Colorado either. Red flag.

The operators of "MyRig, Inc." and Halong Mining should understand and respect that this fact is deeply troubling for the BTC community, and the request for clarification is a reasonable one. Intentionally misrepresenting a business in this manner is fraud. Similarly, please disclose where Halong Mining is incorporated. It's not enough just to ship out miners. We need to know you are not illegitimate operators. These matters should be simple for you to explain. It is long overdue. Thank you.

I've tried to be fair and objective in my criticism of Halong Mining and its unveiling of the DragonMint. I've spent considerable time conducting due diligence on Halong Mining and "MyRig, Inc." I purchased many DragonMints in early January (more than the MOQ). I did so impulsively, being irrationally exuberant when BTC prices were much higher than they are today. I didn't do my usual due diligence on Halong Mining, and that was my mistake. When I became 99% convinced that Halong Mining was a scam and that I'd never receive the miners I bought from them, I immediately wanted to share publicly the results of my research, so I shared my concerns with Unicornflex (a friend, associate, and member of this community), who made the initial post of our concerns. (See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2443327.1260.) We decided this post would perhaps be better received by this community from his account, since he had been a member here for many years, and my account was just created. My only motivation in voicing the results of my research was to help others not get scammed, as I certainly feared I would be.

My opinion about Halong Mining and "MyRig, Inc." has not changed much. There is no question they are shady operators. Because their incorporation cannot be verified, the public has no way to hold them accountable, for example, for design defects or theft of intellectual property (yes, perhaps from Innosilicon -- see https://i.imgur.com/RgI9Eoy.jpg; please note: the origin of this photo is unknown to me, but was shared today on the DragonMint Telegram Group, https://t.me/dragonmint), by someone named @swapman.)

Halong Mining and "MyRig, Inc." don't reply to reasonable inquiries for information about their incorporation or registered agents. Halong Mining claims an FCC certification of its hardware (the DM1) exists, but the FCC has no record of it that I can find. Why wouldn't Halong want to share the details of its FCC certificate if it had one? There are many, many other concerns that I've tried to document in this thread.

Having said that, we know that -ck has done essential, valid work for the community, including, he says, for Halong Mining. He has said he is working remotely on the firmware used by the DragonMint with interesting, positive results. In fact, he has made so many statements in this thread affirming the DragonMint, we have to trust him that this hardware is real, even if it is produced by shadowy figures. It doesn't mean we should place new orders for hardware from Halong Mining. I don't think we should. I do not recommend purchasing from Halong Mining until it discloses who its operators are and where it is incorporated. I would also like to see an FCC registration number of its claimed FCC certificate or other information on where the public can view it. Until Halong Mining discloses this information, understand that if you buy from Halong Mining, caveat emptor, you're buying from people who you cannot hold accountable, so don't count on anything. While I appreciate the confirmations made by -ck, Adam Back, Jan Čapek, and JP La Torre, let's be clear -- they are not warranting anything about the shipment of hardware by Halong Mining. Its operators could disappear at any moment for any reason -- valid or not.

Halong Mining claims that the DragonMint is "the worlds [sic] most efficient Bitcoin miner, operating at 16TH with AsicBoost technology inside for greater power efficiency...."

I decided to do the math and concluded that Halong Mining's claim is true as it relates to power efficiency. The DragonMint is 3.47% more power efficient than the AntMiner S9.  

The DragonMint T1 consumes 1480 watts and achieves 16 Th/s.
16 / 1480 = 0.010810811

The AntMiner S9 consumes 1340 watts and achieves 14 Th/s.
14 / 1340 = 0.010447761

The difference in Th/watt efficiency is calculated as:
0.010810811 - 0.010447761 = 0.00036305

The percent increase in improved performance (measured in terms of Th/watt) from that of the S9 to the T1 is calculated as:
0.00036305 / 0.010447761 = 0.034749035  
0.034749035 / 100 = 3.47%

However, let's compare prices. Right now, you'll pay $980 more for a DragonMint T1 over the cost of an AntMiner S9. That's a 53% premium over the cost of an S9.

Current price for the AntMiner S9 (including PSU) is $1864.00.

Current price for the DragonMint T1 (including PSU) is $2844.00.

Is a 3.47% increase in hashing power efficiency justified by paying a 53% higher price over the S9? How efficient is that? You decide.

I am now convinced that I will receive the DragonMint miners that I ordered in January (Batch 2). The primary reason I believe so is that -ck posted comments in this thread that convinced me. Slush Pool and Jan Čapek's tweets also helped to convince me. (See https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/977499667985518592 and also https://twitter.com/janbraiins/status/978348386255556608.)

My getting to this place of (qualified) trust in the DragonMint was a long road. I know that -ck is a real person with an established track record. I agree he's done great work for the community, and I trust him. On the other hand, what Halong Mining said -- or, rather, what Halong didn't say -- didn't help me at all.

Having said all of the above, it remains clear that Halong Mining is not operating in the way that legitimate businesses operate for all the reasons I've stated in this thread. Even so, I recognize that, despite all the valid issues many still have with Halong Mining, it may deliver to us a functioning miner. It's a shame that Halong has chosen to operate in this unacceptable manner, because the industry is ripe to see competition against Bitmain. The angst that Halong Mining has caused its customers by outright refusing to provide proof of product, its lack of transparency, and its lack of compliance with business norms is inexcusable. Halong Mining has destroyed its own brand equity. I will absolutely never buy from Halong Mining again.

In the case of Bitmain, 100% you can hold it accountable if Bitmain (hypothetically) were negligent or grossly negligent in manufacturing hardware that caused your farm to burn down.

Bitmain Inc. is a Delaware, USA corporation, a subsidiary of its Chinese parent corporation. A plaintiff can hold any Chinese company accountable in the USA, if the Chinese company has assets in the USA, or if the Chinese company has organized a USA subsidiary.

You could sue Bitmain in Delaware. Bitmain's Delaware details are here:  https://i.imgur.com/C1mV1wK.png

File Number: 5670168
Incorporation Date / Formation Date: January 7, 2015
Entity Name: BITMAIN INC.
Entity Kind: Corporation
Residency: Domestic   
State: DELAWARE

REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
Name: COGENCY GLOBAL INC.
Address: 850 NEW BURTON ROAD SUITE 201
City: DOVER   
County: Kent
State: DE   
Postal Code: 19904
Phone: +1 302-734-1450

You could sue Bitmain in California. Bitmain's California details are here: https://i.imgur.com/k05erMO.png

File Number: C3791198
Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 05/26/2015
Entity Name: BITMAIN INC.
Jurisdiction: DELAWARE
Entity Type: FOREIGN STOCK
Status: ACTIVE

REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
Name: ROBERT J. STEMLER
Address: 400 OCEANGATE, SUITE 1400
City: LONG BEACH
State: CA
Postal Code: 90802

Entity Address: 251 HIGH STREET, SUITE B
City: PALO ALTO
State: CA
Postal Code: 94301

Bitmain is incorporated or authorized to conduct business in numerous states within the USA, and these are just two examples. Bitmain is also authorized to conduct business or is incorporated in New York and Colorado, and likely other states as well. You could sue Bitmain in those states too.

You could sue Bitmain in Switzerland. Bitmain is incorporated in Switzerland. See: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-bitcoin-china-mining/chinese-bitcoin-mining-giant-sets-up-swiss-subsidiary-idUSKBN1EZ27V

Bitmain Switzerland AG's details are here: https://zg.chregister.ch/cr-portal/auszug/auszug.xhtml?uid=CHE-384.917.561

You could sue Bitmain in numerous other countries around the world, and then seek to have the judgment enforced in Switzerland or the USA. See: http://www.mondaq.com/x/203698/trials+appeals+compensation/Enforcement+Of+Foreign+Judgments+In+Switzerland

You have the option of suing Bitmain in Mainland China, in addition to suing Bitmain in the USA, Switzerland, and other countries. A foreign company typically will not encounter any jurisdictional issues suing a Chinese company in Mainland China. Specifically, Articles 3 and 237 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China grant Chinese courts jurisdiction over international cases involving a foreign plaintiff against a Chinese company.

Bitmain Inc., unlike "Halong Mining", clearly complies with international business norms in terms of disclosing specifically how and where it can be held accountable. This is exactly the kind of information we must demand from Halong Mining. Unless and until it provides it, we have no reason to think it is a legitimate operation, because we have no way to hold it accountable.

Agreed, but we must require more of Halong Mining before we can consider it legitimate. The proof also requires that Halong Mining discloses who and what "Halong Mining" is -- i.e.:

(1) where or if it is incorporated (or otherwise legally organized) such as city, state, province, and country;

(2) what is the physical address of its principal office;

(3) where can an individual, court or government deliver legal service of process in the event Halong Mining must be held accountable (hypothetically) in court for any valid causes of action (e.g., design defect, breach of warranty, theft of intellectual property or trade secrets, etc.);

These are fundamental facts about any legitimate company required when conducting due diligence.

How can a datacenter responsible to its customers, for example, co-locate the DragonMint if its FCC license is unverifiable and the "company" itself offers no proof of how it can be held accountable? Accountability shifts to the datacenter in this example because Halong Mining still fails the due diligence test, and a responsible datacenter company just can't accept any random hardware. I don't mean to spoil the party -- it's great that it looks like people will actually be receiving a functioning 16 Th/s miner, complete with drivers from -ck that appear cutting edge. I purchased several DragonMints months ago (and I admit I did so impulsively, before I conducted my usual due diligence, which I have regretted), but we still must demand more of Halong Mining. Minimum acceptable standards exist for conducting international business in this world, and Halong Mining still is not meeting them through its shady actions.

If you bought a DragonMint and plug it in, just remember you have no one you can hold accountable if it burns down your farm due to a design defect. No one. Does that bother any one else besides me?

The R&D costs associated with making AsicBoost a reality, including the legal costs to secure the patent, must have been substantial. Halong Mining didn't invent or create AsicBoost. Someone had to fund the production of small batches of wafers, etc. to test it and iterate during AsicBoost's proof-of-concept and subsequent development.

As I said before, it is entirely unclear if Halong Mining is factoring what others spent when it says that "[a]round $30 million dollars have already been spent...." Maybe Halong Mining spent this money, maybe it didn't, we do not know. Halong Mining does not overtly state that Halong Mining itself has spent $30 million. That is my point. (I have noticed that Halong Mining has said nothing to clarify whether Halong Mining itself actually spent the $30 million it references on the front page of its web site.)

If I wanted my girlfriend to believe I worked out hard at the gym, but in reality, all I did was sit in the gym's hot tub drinking smoothies all night, I might say (in a Ron Burgundy voice), "Many sit-ups were done at the gym tonight." While that statement may technically be true, it doesn't mean I did any sit-ups at all. That statement is quite different from saying, "I did many sit-ups at the gym tonight." Think about it. People use the passive voice when they want to obscure. Halong Mining has clearly convinced some, including Sandal_Hat, that Halong Mining spent $30 million. I am not convinced, especially since they still aren't disclosing who they are, where they are incorporated, and how can we hold Halong Mining accountable in court if they deliver a miner that has design defects and burns down data centers. We also still don't know why "MyRig, Inc." doesn't show up in Colorado Secretary of State's records.

Before we lavish Halong Mining with praise and gratitude for the "success" of the DragonMint, let's wait for Halong Mining to actually deliver one... to a real, live person, with a real name, not a pseudonym with potentially a hidden agenda. And, by the way, let's get a DragonMint in the hands of someone qualified to analyze it and give us an unbiased, comprehensive review. Am I asking for too much?

It is entirely unclear to me if Halong Mining itself has actually invested $30 million. Halong Mining's website states: "Around $30 million dollars have already been spent on research, development and prototyping miners, writing software and producing small batches of silicon wafers." (Emphasis added.)

Notice the inherently ambiguous wording here. Halong Mining wrote this statement in the passive voice. Maybe Halong Mining spent that money, maybe it didn't, but Halong Mining does not state that Halong Mining spent $30 million. Halong could be referring to general industry investment in miner R&D and prototyping as it relates to AsicBoost, inclusive of Halong's investment plus the investment of others who are supporting AsicBoost. My point is Halong does not clearly state what it has spent. Halong Mining has operated so ambiguously and without a reasonable level of transparency that I do not believe we can assume Halong Mining has actually made this investment.

Regardless, we do have reason to believe that Halong Mining's sales so far have been massive, and that Halong is deep in the black on the DragonMint project -- with sales between $50 and $100 million USD (as of early February 2018). Consider this analysis from Unicornflex:


Unicornflex made its analysis by cross referencing its multiple order numbers with those of other buyers of the DragonMint, including my own order number.

MyRig tweeted yesterday and Halong Mining retweeted that the DragonMint has received FCC certification. In addition, Halong Mining has printed the FCC logo on the decal affixed to the side panel of the DragonMint.  See: https://i.imgur.com/dZeTlvw.png

However, after searching the FCC's Equipment Authorization database for "Halong Mining", "Halong", and "MyRig", I am unable to confirm the existence of this certification, finding zero results. I performed the search here under the "Applicant Name" field: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

The search page screenshot is here: https://i.imgur.com/tL8qUGJ.png

The null results screenshot is here https://i.imgur.com/aW7sK9w.png

Halong Mining, please share information to clarify the discrepancy between your claim and what exists in the FCC's database.

Yes, with all due respect, you misunderstood the owner of the blog. Halong Mining's blog is not https://www.asicboost.com/blog.

Halong Mining's actual blog is https://halongmining.com/blog.

The blog on the site asicboost.com is owned by Little Dragon Technology LLC, whose sole member according to the California Secretary of State is Mingming Mao of Saratoga, California. This fact can be verified here:

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?SearchType=LPLLC&SearchCriteria=Little+Dragon+Technology+LLC&SearchSubType=Keyword

HaggsFIN, you have nothing for which to apologize. Your skepticism and criticism have been reasonable. On the other hand, Halong Mining's treatment of its customers has been unacceptable, and no one has yet to receive a functioning DragonMint. While I am cautiously optimistic to see today's postings from Halong Mining and -ck and find this information encouraging (-ck's credibility is impeccable), Halong Mining has still left many critical questions unanswered, which are documented in Unicornflex's post. (See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2443327.msg29757421#msg29757421.)

Hypothetically, if a valid reason arises, such as Halong fails to deliver the DragonMint to its purchasers, or if the DragonMint has a design defect that makes it unsafe to use, do we, the purchasers of the DragonMint, have enough information to hail Halong Mining into court to answer? The answer is clearly no. Halong Mining has refused to disclose any information about its jurisdiction of operation and its incorporation, even basic information such as its physical address or mailing address. I'm sorry, people, but you can't sue an email address or a domain name. Does this lack of basic information bother anyone else? It should. You need this information if you need to seek a legal remedy. Do we know the name of anyone who is employed by Halong Mining, such as management or any engineers? No. If we had such information, we could evaluate their record for honesty and safety. -ck is the sole shining star affiliated with the DragonMint, and -ck's posts are the only bits of information that give me any reason for optimism, but let's be clear: -ck has stated that he is not employed by Halong Mining; he has stated that he has a contract with MyRig. (See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2443327.msg30859496#msg30859496.) MyRig purports to be a Colorado corporation, but it isn't. (See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2443327.msg30805144#msg30805144.) Halong Mining and MyRig do not operate in the manner in which credible companies operate. Credible companies provide a path in which they can be held accountable for their actions. Delivering a product is not enough to make a company credible.

Let's say, once again, hypothetically, that a design defect in the DragonMint causes them to fail prematurely, or that the DragonMint poses an unacceptable fire risk. (We've seen serious fire risks with extremely low wattage iPhones, which use about 1 kWh per year, and which are manufactured and designed by Apple, one of the best and most reliable companies that has ever built electronics. It does not strain the imagination that we could see a fire risk with a DragonMint (a 1480W device), which is manufactured and designed by anonymous engineers under the supervision of anonymous management. The lack of accountability is disturbing to me. Does it disturb anyone else? Anyone who is considering placing a new order from Halong Mining should heed these facts.

Honestly, it sounds unconvincing and sparse. How about disclosing today any other details about the circumstances surrounding your opportunity to sign the NDA, short of violating your NDA? There is much you can tell us without violating any NDA you claim you signed. Who are you? What can you tell us about your mining history and plans? What processes and tools do you like to use to verify the authenticity of mining hardware when given the opportunity to inspect it? What due diligence checks do you like to conduct on businesses that sell mining hardware? These are general questions and not specific to Halong Mining, so it would not violate an NDA to answer in general terms not specific to any one company.

Phil, the information you've posted above is factually incorrect. When one searches the Colorado Secretary of State's database (http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do?resetTransTyp=Y), the search results show which entities are validly incorporated. It also shows "DBA" ("Doing Business As") results, which are also known as "trade names."

An entity that is transacting under a trade name (a.k.a. a "DBA") must disclose that it is operating under a trade name. Registering the trade name with the Colorado Secretary of State is required under Colorado law as it provides notice to the world as to the underlying entity or person accountable for the business. (See Colorado Revised Statutes, §71-101, "Statement of trade name required", available by searching the CRS from here: https://leg.colorado.gov/laws.)

The entire reason that a business's real name and ownership must be publicly disclosed is accountability in case the business is a bad actor. For example, a business must be held accountable by government authorities for criminal action or other wrong-doing, or a person or corporation may wish to bring a civil action against that business for some other violation of rights, such as fraud. If an entity were permitted not to reveal its business name, as you suggest, holding it accountable would be difficult or impossible not only for the government, but also for the average citizen. We don't accept that scenario in the U.S. among legitimate businesses.

Within Colorado, the state in which it has been operating (at a UPS Store private mailbox address), "MyRig, Inc." is not validly incorporated, it is not operating under a trade name or a DBA, and therefore we have no way to hold it accountable in Colorado if it is part of a long con with Halong Mining. To that extent, MyRig is not credible and fails even the most rudimentary due diligence test. Halong Mining's touted "affiliation" with MyRig casts doubt on Halong and the entire DragonMint product line until such time that those responsible for "MyRig, Inc." step forward and explain this discrepancy.