Actually, what is more important than 'proof' of hardware, which can always be faked, is proof of hashrate. This is extremely easy for the cloud mining operator to show live 24/7, they only need to show blocks being mined as they happened and from this can be extrapolated a rough hashrate.

The only problem with this is establishing that they haven't sold more hashrate than they evidently possess.

Which is why, if you really can't run your own hardware in-house but still want to mine, you're better off avoiding restrictive 'cloud mining' schemes altogether and simply renting actual rigs or straight-up hash-power which you can point wherever you wish.

lol, I don't think Og is likely to scam anyone.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2015/12/01/sec-alleges-bitcoin-mining-companies-operated-20-million-ponzi-scheme/

Convince? Hmmm, interesting. Personally, I'd have gone for 'collude with'. Methinks Stuart Fraser is doing whatever he can to spin him and his son's involvement as that of being duped, which I'd believe for him to a point, but I struggle to accept his son wasn't knowingly balls-deep in the shenanigans.

Agreed. That thread is comedy fucking gold.

Welp, it has been a long time coming but the process is finally underway and while this may well be a civil action, the collected evidence they possess will no doubt have been passed to other three-letter agencies.

Of particular interest to them will be the involvement of wealthy-investor-with-banking-difficulties-Rishabh-Jain. After all, Cantor Fitzgerald is a company in the business of providing investment services and advice to high-net-worth individuals and one would have to wonder how he ended up being introduced to the Garzas.

Of course they are going to try and fob off your lawyers with excuses, you need to get a CCJ (County Court Judgement) against them. CCJ's get registered on credit databases and impact a company's ability to obtain credit, letters from lawyers do not.

It cost <>GBP900 for the whole process from start to finish and will take a few months but it would appears that Alpha are paying the judgements, usually within a week or two past the court deadline.

Rather than having to settle for a partial 'refund' from Alpha, the court usually awards the full amount of the debt, plus interest and plus your legal costs.

Sending threatening messages of personal harm to them, however, is not clever as it allows Alpha to simply report such as a threat of violence and turns them into the victim in the law's eyes.

How do you figure that when the whole scheme was predicated on publicly promoting Stuart and Cantor's involvement from the beginning?

When GAW were being torn a new one for their aggressive silencing of critics while they were still pretending to sell miners but were actually hard-selling their 'hosted' deal so they could ponzi it up with 'hashlet' png's and not have to actually worry about operating in a legit space, Homero's announcement of his intention to be 'coining' with Paycoin received a barrage of skepticism which he set about attempting to rebut by getting the WSJ to, seemingly, verify both the large amount of btc involved AND the Stuart/Cantor backing.

Without that, Paycoin would never have been able to fool so many into believing the obvious-scam-is-obvious $20 floor, Walmart/Target/Amazon 'integrations' etc.

The apparent involvement of a blue-chip company like Cantor meant that those of us who were repeatedly trying to reason with people about how it was clearly a ponzi, were being drowned out with pages of spittle-flecked fanboy hatred. Whereas Garza had previously needed to pay scumbags to shout us down and bury our posts, he suddenly had an army of idiots with dollar signs in their eyes who absolutely did not want to hear sound reason as to why this was clearly a scam.

Why wouldn't you believe it when a number of us have already reported having successfully enforced the court judgements we won against Alpha?

Accomplished? Sure, if you call being born into the right family and sucking up to granny sufficiently to be gifted a blue-chip company for you to twat about with.

His relationship with Garza is suspect. You either have Stu as an intelligent gay guy who had a hard-on for Homero and couldn't help but indulge his little pet, or, as is more likely, you have Stu-nice-but-dim, who was conned into believing that Josh was the next Gates/Jobs/Musk and kept throwing money and opportunity at him until it became apparent he was being suckered and drawn deeper and deeper into one bullshit scheme after another.


I don't think Homero had ever done 'ok' for Stu. His business history shows him constantly consolidating bigger and bigger debts and dreams, offering Stu more and more of a share of these about-to-fail businesses in return for debt forgiveness and more loans. The impression I got from their history is one whereby Homero has convinced him that his bullshit html-inject patent is proof of his genius and that Garza just kept laying it on thick, giving Stu the baffle-him-with-bullshit technical-speak, which further gave Stu the impression that Garza was a boy genius with a great future if he had the right backing.

At the point where Homero is 'gifting' his fucking Tesla to Stuart, even though there's outstanding loan payments on it, you can definitely see from that snatched photo of him standing behind it with a somewhat nonplussed look on his face, that Garza's, possibly coke-addled, brain had become something significantly less than a stellar prospect.

+1

It is also complete and utter toss. The bakery, as a business, is not being subjected to the 'dominance' of its customers!

Your grasp of the legal entity a commercial operation represents appears to be extremely weak, as well as your understanding of law.

Here, let me explain, although I *really* shouldn't have to because it is that fucking obvious:

Anti-monopoly laws are designed to prevent a business which is a monopoly from abusing that position and, here's the important part, the Anti-monolopy law is ONLY APPLICABLE TO BUSINESSES WHICH ARE MONOPOLIES! So quoting an exception to that law, which is what you did, is false because the statute does not apply to businesses which are not monopolies!

Now, you keep insisting in your wilful ignorance that I have to show you the law which prevents discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. In the bakery's case it was this one: http://www.glapn.org/6007historyLGBTQrights.html#xxxOregonEqualityAct

Do you get it yet? Your rabid insistence that the bakery was being forced to labour is false because they could have simply shut the entire business down when they realised that anti-discrimination laws meant they would not be able to deny service to people they did not approve of. That they wished to operate as a commercial entity means they are unable to discriminate against their customers.

If they wanted to shut down and close the business they were and are perfectly entitled to do so, ergo, no 'forced' labour.

Utter bullshit. I promote nothing. As far as I'm concerned all 'cloud mining' services should be avoided like the plague. All I'm doing is helping newbies to be aware of the obvious ponzi scams and their shills, like yours and you.

But, still, thanks for providing a perfect example of how untrustworthy you are by employing patently dishonest argument in your reply, namely, attempting to deflect from the criminal nature of your shilling for obvious-ponzi-is-obvious cloudmining.website by lazily, and without any basis whatsoever, accusing me of wrongdoing.

GermanGiant, who is probably just an alt of yours anyway, or at least is part of the active shilling for this scam, tried the same dishonest accusation, too. It was promptly exposed as the baseless deflection attempt it was then, as well.

LOL!!

Busted!

Cloud mining is generally all a scam as the legit operations can't actually offer a profit at current prices, but you know this already and are simply shilling hard for your favourite ponzi scam.

Don't think it isn't patently obvious that the only reason you opened this thread in this particular sub-forum is to trap noobs into believing you are legit because here they can't see the red writing under your username that shows you to be untrustworthy.

PSA: Vitamin King is shilling for cloudmining.website in order to get newbies to join the ponzi scheme so he can profit from their deposits before the scam collapses. You have been warned.

Very lulzy.

Oooh, great rebuttal of my criticism concerning your desperate attempt to disassemble your support of discrimination by breaking it down into component parts of physical movement. Projection much?


No, your analogy is false. Not only would I not feel justified in demanding that you move from your bus seat, even if I wanted to sit in that seat because of reasons, I would have no basis by which to demand you to vacate that seat. What point are you even trying to make here, that people are entitled to order other people out of a bus seat?


See, now you're just blatantly being a dick. You know damn well that my references to buses and water fountains are to highlight how your claims towards 'justifying' discrimination are an echo of previously 'accepted' racial discrimination and I am pointing out to you that racial discrimination, being utterly wrong and hateful, is no different to discrimination based on your, or a baker's, disapproval of another persons lifestyle.

Now you're simply agreeing with my point. Are you even paying attention to the crap you're coming out with or is your hatred for 'others' so blinding, you've lost the ability to maintain coherent argument?


Hahahaha, wow, you are desperate, aren't you? Quoting 'U.S. Code Chapter 1 - MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE' as pretext for the right of a business to refuse trade. lol.

Discrimination against whom a business is willing to service is not a fucking 'Monopolies' issue! It is a discrimination issue!

Here, let me point you in the direction of information that is simple enough even you in your blind hatred of 'others' can still understand it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

Which is *exactly* what I already said and to which you attempted to cite a fucking 'Monopolies' trade law to dispute it! Still, it made me laugh, so thanks for that.

That isn't the correct logic to use.

The longer these HYIP Ponzi-based schemes are active, the closer they get to their inevitable collapse.

Wasn't it alleged recently that bottlecaps and hobonickels were the creation of Cryptsy staff members, along with talk of how they hyped the coin and manipulated the market there to dump them on to unsuspecting noobs?

I don't imagine anything has changed in that regards.

I wonder if the referral-link to Cryptsy in that article benefits Coindesk or the author of the piece. Pretty fucking shady 'unbiased journalism' either way.

Draughts.

The fuck? That is the shonkiest, most twisted and warped bit of reasoning I have read in a long time. Seriously, it takes some effort to be so committed to dreaming up a 'justification' for hateful discrimination that you actually start to break it down into physical movement in order to desperately attempt to reach your point.

The bus analogy reflects an 'expression', which was the choice of the racist white people back in the day to socially declare black people as lesser human beings than they. It's got nothing to do with whether somebody is already in the seat and everything to do with expressed rule which clearly showed that white people considered black people to be inferior human beings, to the degree they dictated to black people where they were permitted to sit on the bus, which water fountains they were permitted to use, and so on.

Would you, like most fundie xtian 'conscientious objectors', consider a black person's protest at being told they could not access the same facilities as white people, to be 'intolerant' of the white people's racist rules? Would you claim the black person was trampling on the deeply-held personal beliefs of the white people?


Wrong again, and still a spectacularly warped bit of reasoning.

If a black person walks into a white-person-owned coffee-shop and places an order, it is legal for the proprietor to assert that they are no longer serving customers and turn the customer away. Nobody is forcing the business-owner to have to labour. If, however, the proprietor only declines to provide service when the customer is black, then it is apparent he is not, in fact, denying service to all customers but is picking and choosing who to serve, based on his own personal discriminatory rules. That is not his choice to make. The rules of public trade are that if you are providing goods and services your business must service all customers, not that it must labour, but that if it is labouring to provide goods and service then it cannot refuse to service a customer on the basis of 'conscientiously objecting' to the fact that customer does not conform to the proprietor's definition of an 'acceptable' person.

Equality is not 'special treatment'.

Conscientiously objecting to something is one thing, projecting that objection on to other people by discriminating against them is something else entirely. You are free to believe whatever religious-based morality you have been conditioned to replace secular reality with, you are not free, however, to force it on to other people through your discrimination.

The seats may be just as comfy at the back of the bus, but if somebody is told they may not sit on the seats at the front, because people consider that person to be 'not as equal' a human being as those 'kind' who get to sit on the seats at the front of the bus, does telling that person they can choose any seat they wish at the back mean you can dismiss their protestations at being discriminated against as leftist/liberal 'intolerance'?


ORLY? A business is a legal trading entity and, as such, does not have the right to pick and choose who it serves based on the personal discrimination issues of its staff.

You want to sell cakes to white people only? You can't form a company and refuse to serve black people.

You want to give cakes to white people only? Knock yourself out, you racist asshole, you are perfectly entitled to personally hand out cakes just to white people and tell any black person who asks for one that you refuse to because it goes against your fundamentalist xtian 'morality'. That is your right.

Do it for money, though, and your racist self doesn't get to dictate company law because the business, as a legal entity, is performing the trade.

I'd express surprise at the sheer number of people who don't seem to understand that basic fact, but seeing as they are the type who like to call homophobic discrimination 'conscientious objection', and cite those who protest against discrimination as being 'intolerant'. It's almost like they are so wilfully ignorant they don't even understand the irony (as well as absurd stupidity) of using that word to describe people who are against other people's intolerance of those 'who are not like them'.

The only reason he might not be afraid of prison is because he never believed he would be sent there. We are talking about a guy who, with his *extremely* close relationship with Stuart Fraser, had spent the preceding years dreaming himself to be a Gates/Musk/Jobs/Satoshi future-tech visionary and had conned Fraser into throwing money at his shitty business schemes.

He is a narcissistic nobody who was fortunate enough to gain a personal connection to a very wealthy man who believed the crap he was spouting about how clever his ideas were.

Once the expensive cars and private jets started coming into the mix he probably started to believe his own bullshit. Sure, when the alphabet agencies have him against the wall, he'll just give 'em that dumb-fuck squinty-eyed grin and say sorry for making some bad business decisions and losing the muggles a great deal of money. They'll shrug their shoulders and be all, "Awww, hey, that's ok Joshie, this is the land of the free, home of the brave, you just be living the 'Mercan Dream, son!" and then send him on his way, right? Right? RIGHT? I mean, he's a good religious boy who loves himself some Jesus and fears himself some God, the 'right' god, of course, so nobody is going to be sending him to prison just for being an honest entrepreneur.

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.