"Working on it"
"Working on it" I've been extremely busy but have been keeping up on the forums. I was supposed to have a meeting with the lawyer yesterday, but he had a health emergency. Today I may or may not have more info. Thanks Zach - I expect you will sort this out for the good of all. Looking forward to solid facts and news when available. All you all trolls and whiners - carry on..... those that are not trolls and whiners - thank you too. |
|
|
|
Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us?
funny.. you require evidence from me for just suggesting it but demand nothing from the person holding your money  ? burn you fucking idiot. burn. Even funnier is your complete lack of reading comprehension. I require no evidence from those that demean themselves by their own words. If you are interested in facts - perhaps you would take a little more time to examine the fact that I demanded transparency (defined as "evidence" just in case you needed someone to break it down for you there champ) from LRM in my post. As for you........ on the special kind of ignore reserved for exceptional dumbasses. |
|
|
|
I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]
If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.
So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.
I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the gummint revenuers too.
BKM .. saying the same words over and over again doesn't make it so. How you would like it ... similarly. Zack / La Brat is actually not in the drivers seat here. You are. Labrat... you are over your head here son. Liquidate. ASAP. And let me re-iterate my view : Its a Ponzi and LR is a thief. You all did it because you were greedy and didn't want to work together. Do you even own any LRM share/bonds/contracts? Do you have evidence that LRM is a ponzi, scam or that Zach is a thief? Or, are you just attempting to entertain us? |
|
|
|
If Vince was right about the hardware, why hasn't LR said anything about it arriving yet? Why would it be a secret? Unless LR was thinking there is a chance it might not be legally necessary to report it to investors... of course, this presumes Vince was correct.
Because LR decided to not post anything here anymore, untill he has some big wall of text again, or some random no-content remark It's not like we ever have been informed about hashrate, or any other operational status updates we don't even know where the pools in use are. . nor can we see it I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part] If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators. So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence. I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the gummint revenuers too. |
|
|
|
So how do dividends work now? Based on 100 mh/s per bond and 3 times original bond quantity?
There were some posts about increased hashrate earlier in the week. Is it confirmed we have more gear on line? How is this going to be handled vis a vis bond quantities / hashrate per bond and "dividends"?
Given that we are expecting our distribution today, it might be a good time to give an update.... maybe.
For me it looks like: 0.07351809 BTC on 254 "bonds" or 0.07351809 on 762 "new bonds" Last week I got 0.06527283 BTC on the same number of bonds.. Which is a 12.63% increase this week.. not the 20% quoted by LR, but likely there was a difficulty increase or bad pool luck.. OK - payment received thanks.... and nice to see the slight increase.... any updates worth sharing? |
|
|
|
|
So how do dividends work now? Based on 100 mh/s per bond and 3 times original bond quantity?
There were some posts about increased hashrate earlier in the week. Is it confirmed we have more gear on line? How is this going to be handled vis a vis bond quantities / hashrate per bond and "dividends"?
Given that we are expecting our distribution today, it might be a good time to give an update.... maybe.
|
|
|
|
Well, Cryptorush is definitely seeing more activity than atomic or bittrex did. Its not a lot but it just got on there right? We should trade some coin, and not just sell. Sell a lil, buy a lil. Get that volume up!!! It seems to be right on track still guys!
waltsmith
Sure - and they promise to fix Bitcoin withdrawals soon  |
|
|
|
GPU just won on cryptorush.in/index.php?p=vote  How did it win, i thought it had to be the coin with the most votes. Also when will it show up for trading anyone know. Somebody paid 3 btc's No way Yep It had like 38000 votes. Holy crap - I'd call that a "vote" of confidence |
|
|
|
OK. Just out of a meeting with my lawyer and things look very very good in respect to how they have looked. I can't give time frames as things in the real world operate 9-5 m-f (NOT INCLUDING LUNCH HOURS) and my lawyer stated this loud and clear to me. When I asked for an estimate on time he said it will come when it's done and it's a priority.
What he specified I can share is that there will be an announcement that will provide some clarification followed by a contract to be presented. More info will come when it is available and no sooner. It is the intention of LRM to provide further than 300MH/s per contract and is apparent that the way this will be done is legal.
I have put the pitch fork back in the shed. Is seems you could have been a lot more clear with your intentions. Let see if the bonds rebound or if trust has been permanently damaged. I've read several articles in the last day which indicate that more than one federal and regional regulator is waiting patiently for bitcoin fraud cases to fall into their laps. The nice thing about a Feds v. Zach Dailey case is that I've already paid for the prosecutor's fees in the form of my weekly taxes. I'll be sharpening my pitchfork until this is equitably resolved. WTF: "The nice thing about a Feds v. Zach Dailey case". That would please you? LRM (Zach) is actively working to be onside of the evolving statute law. Any prosecutor would find a very tough row to hoe in the absence of any statutes that were broken or misinterperted if it can be demonstrated that LRM is doing everything it can to mitigate the issue. Your scenario is exactly what Zach is sweating his testes to AVOID on all our behalf. Sharpen the pitchfork for sure - but don't spread bullshit with it please. |
|
|
|
Given market activities, it doesn't seem like IPO holders are dumping..
Some miners still dumping though.
I've got a large % of the premine, and I'm not selling, personally..
IPO holder here and miner - too early to call this dead that is for sure...... but for those that have run away from mining - thanks! I'm killing it! |
|
|
|
Yea, BKM... I guess NONE of us actually had any "understanding" in the "investment" we made because it was not an actual investment. Now it is over. No understanding of "accounting" or "business" needed here.
If it is over for you then post your bonds for sale and move on...... Clearly Zach and many others see that it is not over and that change =/= death..... For some the choice is "Cake or Death" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg - Personally I'll take Cake |
|
|
|
|
OK Folks..... here is the bottom line regarding taking preemptive legal action against LRM..... the downside is more than the upside.
You take this in front of a Judge and he only will give one shit about anything and that is USD. ANY discussion about bitcoin will go out the window because the legal jurisprudence does not contemplate bitcoin whatsoever. Its dollars in and dollars out. If you manage to get a judgement against LRM and an order for enforcement which leads to liquidation then that is what you get: liquidated value. For any of you that understand what this means - good. For those that don't - think auction fire sale for all those TH/s. It won't be pretty. And, this is only if the court finds that the bonds are equivalent or convertible to a security which permits a share of the assets.
So, cool your shit and let Zach continue to try and sort this out. Clearly he is not the best communicator, but if you were to look at the thread of communication you may find, as I have, that he is has been consistent to this point. Zach has stated that he is being forced into this circumstance by changing or evolving laws. So lets see what this really means. No, we have not yet had the evidence, but I am willing, for my enlightened self interest, to wait to see the evidence before I throw everything under the bus by dragging it into court.
But hey, don't let me stop you if you really are going to engage a lawyer and file an action..... but if you are blowing smoke up our asses - stop. It is counterproductive to your own best interest. At least speak to a competent lawyer and learn your options and your costs before you mimic the tone of the rest of Bitcointalk here.
Also, a last point about Zach personally..... when I invested in LRM at the beginning it was a direct result of a level of trust that I developed through observation of his actions as a mod on the BFL forums and after he quit when LRM was announced. I still believe he remains sincere in his desire and actions to preserve the interests of the investors to the greatest extent the law will allow. I may well be proven wrong but I am prepared, for the sake of the upside, to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Just curious, have any of the IPO investors gotten their gpucoin delivered to their wallets?
They were supposed to go out on Monday afternoon. It's Monday afternoon. Just wondering...
 |
|
|
|
10k GPU for your wife, 12K if blonde, 15k if pretty
Gimme a few more confirms and I will beat this bid |
|
|
|
Thats Dave from Bitfury USA. |
|
|
|
I offer 5K GPU for his house. Haven't seen it, but I'm willing to gamble!  Rit. I bid the current contents of my wallet: 13505 GPCoins for his car, dog and cellphone |
|
|
|
What does matter is network difficulty, if coin is hard to get, it will have more value than if coin is easy to get. That simple. No, ifs, ands, or buts.
If they can sell the idea to any industry players then the idea will benefit from network effect.
Can you show me one reason - either physical or legal, which stops me for start selling right away my own GPUs, even on lower prices, and saying that I will accept exlusively GPUcoin??
You missed nothing, nothing at all..... you could even sell your house or car for GPUCoins RIGHT NOW~!  |
|
|
|
What does matter is network difficulty, if coin is hard to get, it will have more value than if coin is easy to get. That simple. No, ifs, ands, or buts.
Not always true. Some coins, which are now dead, ended up with such a high difficulty that it would've taken years to break blocks. Value was $0. There's a balance to be maintained, but most importantly for a coin like this, is the business front-end regardless of anything else. "Difficulty over Blocks returned" is just an indicator of how desired a coin is, not always an indice of actual value. It's generally a good indicator.. but still. Difficulty has continued going up on BTC, but value has continud to drop, for example. Yes, the difference between GPUCoin and all other altcoins of late is that it has an actual business purpose and represents an innovation within the space. Critical to the ongoing success of the coin will be how Jaymes and team execute on the storefront and, in my opinion, international affiliate relationships. There is no need to reinvent the wheel on distribution. If they can sell the idea to any industry players then the idea will benefit from network effect. As long as the return on mining is above break even and miners can dedicate at least a portion of their hashing power for buying new GPU's and the numbers make sense then this will work. Lots of moving parts and very experimental..... but innovative for sure |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
