|
Yes. Sparmann's involvement in this project is one of the best reasons NOT to sell.
TheSwede75 is just a mouthpiece. If Michael was wasting his time posting instead of doing what he does, then it'd definitely be time to sell.
|
|
|
|
Since the last collapse cause by TheSwede, all news came from 'labcoin'. Therefore, I don't think anything said by theSwede counts. Maybe what he said just represents himself.
The Swede and labcoin are the same person The Swede and The Seven are the same - hence the similarity in the names. Do you have any idea who TheSeven is? |
|
|
|
k. Guess I better put away the smurfs theme I was working on...before there's a full blown intervention. |
|
|
|
|
lol
Now THERE's a hardcore optimist!
|
|
|
|
I don't git it.  Did you follow the IPO posts of him? You would get it then. meh. I'll hold out for the book deal. |
|
|
|
I don't git it. |
|
|
|
Looks like there are several 100THs+ farms going online not far apart, killing each others ROI. Just look how much of the net hash ASICminers have now, it's dropped right off. Each of their business plans doesn't know what new farms are doing online as competitors. I still feel the future of mining will be thousands of small backyard setups that need no aircon, datacenter rental, or staff wages. Bitcoin is designed to eat the margin of big players. I agree and find it rather comical when I hear suggestions that only huge mining operations will survive in the near future. It may well be exactly the opposite. |
|
|
|
|
Doubt it. Today there are far fewer reasons to believe that those 200k shares would be founder shares.
|
|
|
|
lol Weren't YOU on MP's sock list too?  |
|
|
|
The Gox price is total B.S, because people can't move their US out of the system very easily.
I think Bitstamp is the go-to exchange. 125 on Bitstamp as I write this ...and 127 now. |
|
|
|
|
Right. Everyone knows gox is crap, but bitstamp and btc-e will be heading up too just the same.
So...again, anyone seen any news?
|
|
|
|
|
Gnarly. Gox just exploded past $141 $142 $143. News?
|
|
|
|
LOL Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Thanks for the laugh man. I love Monty Python. They should've squeezed a "your father was a hamster" in there.  |
|
|
|
Thanks, it took some clicking around. I've always found it a bit odd that LC's 180 130nm project is timed so closely with their 65nm project. I wonder if perhaps they pulled the plug on 130nm chips or had problems and they're just stalling until their "real" chips arrive in all their 65nm goodness. Guess we can only wait and see at this point.
Cheers.
Edit: There are few others' whose confirmed involvement would lend as much credibility as TheSeven's. Regardless of how poorly LC has handled this whole affair, I'm convinced it is not a scam.
There are some references for 65 nm: Correct, the first batch of ICs is meant as a test for our design. Delivery is expected in mid September, in quantities of several thousands pieces.
We expect to have the boards up and running within 7/10 days after we receive the ICs.
65 nm design is currently under development and is expected to go on tape-out in late August or early September. 130nm IC is estimated to be delivered in early September and to be mining 7-10 days later.
65nm IC is still under development and no ETA is available yet. So I guess, they should be ready to tape-out this month. They did mention the 130 nm tape-out and date in previous posts several times, also here is some soft evidence: SZICC contract and SZICC's TSMC plan. In case you didn't see the IRC Q&A already: post #1872. The Q&A has some reference to TheSeven also. Let me phrase it carefully: they are pretty much on their timeline, if everything they said is true. Last thing, because I think you might have missed it: PDF about Labcoin being a scam by Mr. dvdrewritable aka. anotheranonlol aka. mightaswellallowanonymous. The last two pages are interesting. The stuff about error level analysis and SMTP enumeration can be ignored, though I can't comment on the rest. Thanks I'll take a look when I have something fermented in hand. It somehow always makes long winded wild accusations easier to take. ROFL I guess that stunt "they" pulled to get burnside to lock the security down kind of backfired. |
|
|
|
Involving Sparmann in their project proves that labcoin management *IS* capable of making a good decision at least part of the time. At least it works for me. Labcoin The Seven
August 8, 2013 By bcoinnews Leave a Comment
IRC conversation with [7] from FPGAmining
<jborkl>You are TheSeven from Fpgamining correct?
<[7]> yes
<jborkl> i.e.(Labcoin) they are actually developing something?
<[7]> I can’t really comment on that because I wasn’t involved in the development of them besides giving them some general hints what can be optimized etc.
<[7]> i’m mostly involved with the second generation chips
<jborkl> 65nm chips?
<[7]> yes, they are actually developing something, definitely. I just can’t comment on how successful it will be
<jborkl> Thank you. I will ask your permission to post this up.
<[7]> yes, from what i know that second generation will be 65nm, although we could technically still switch to something else at this stage
<jborkl> ok, Thank you for your time. http://bcoinnews.com/2013/08/08/labcoin-the-seven/Great finding. I had the same idea and wrote TheSeven yesterday here on btctalk, but I didn't receive an answer. (which does not mean much - last time only more than a week ago) Thanks, it took some clicking around. I've always found it a bit odd that LC's 180 130nm project is timed so closely with their 65nm project. I wonder if perhaps they pulled the plug on 130nm chips or had problems and they're just stalling until their "real" chips arrive in all their 65nm goodness. Guess we can only wait and see at this point. Cheers. Edit: There are few others' whose confirmed involvement would lend as much credibility as TheSeven's. Regardless of how poorly LC has handled this whole affair, I'm convinced it is not a scam. |
|
|
|
|
You guys are so busy fighting the good fight against the perceived FUD threat that you're not even reading the contract and motions issued by management of the security you're investing in. If you had you'd know that you have no right to vote for the motion that restores your right to vote. Now, without reading the motion you've voted to remove the date in which this IPO would've been declared unsuccessful and funds returned to investors. IOW you're behaving like lemmings.
|
|
|
|
My intention is to make it plainly clear that cryptx is misleading investors by including conflicting clauses within his contract, lying about calling it a typo, & editing clauses within his motions to mislead further. This is PLAINLY working as you're TOTALLY unaware that the post you JUST made is completely incorrect. After that contract change motion passes there will be NO date in which this IPO will be declared unsuccessful. You are obviously not aware of this because you plainly have not read the motion. Likely you just assumed that there was good stuff added in there and the rest remained unchanged. This is what SebastianJu believed as well when he posted above. I'm actually torn on the issue for this stock as it's in my best interest for 10,000 shares to be sold before the IPO completing on the 27th and not 10,001. If the 10,001st share is sold prior to the IPO finishing then an additional 10k shares will be issued thus suppressing the value of the the existing shares until the additional 10k is sold.
It's in my best interest to stay silent, but that would be the same as supporting the FUD. For that reason I've decided to call out bullshit when I see it. I just hope this doesn't lead to feeding the trolls and promoting the very behavior I'm trying to suppress. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
