And these guys are trained marksmen? Professionals even? I thought they had to pass tests in order to participate, as well as demonstrate continuing competence over the course of employment.

It will be vindicating, but sad when everyone realizes this isn't a race issue at all. This is a class issue. You may fare a little worse statistically if you are a minority, but as events like this become increasingly more common, one can't help but wonder if it's safe for any citizen that comes in proximity of the police. And despite the increased media coverage as of late, the frequency of events like this has increased, as well as the severity of the incidents. I have seen clips of various flavors of police brutality perpetrated against the young, old, blacks, whites and the mentally infirm. Apparently anybody can get it, over here. Doesn't seem like there is much incentive not to bust a cap in someone's ass. It's SOP, so you're covered, and hell, he could have a gun. Why take a chance?  

You rarely see this type of police behavior perpetrated on the very wealthy, however. It's probably just a coincidence.

Im not sure what I have to do to opt into this, but I would love to participate in this particular promotion. Sign me up!  

Decent trading interface, love the ding when an order completes.


~Green

yeah, they already caught em, theres a post in the forum about it:
https://support.cex.io/hc/en-us/articles/203415803

they should pay out by the day or so. sometimes they have difficulties, but they are pretty good about paying out missed blocks...multipool as well

~Green

This is interesting. Power costs are almost a non factor under this model. Tuning in.


~Green

Dropping this down to .68, but as all the offers for this have been laughable, will most likely just have it at a friends/relatives house. I don't know what part of my offer seemed a joke, but I've had some truly off beat offers for this (fav: I'll buy, but please host it for a week at your expense).

If you aren't willing to pay .68BTC, and accept a flat rate priority shipping mailer, please don't waste your time posting here.

I appreciate the offer, but thats far too low. I see now I may be keeping this unit after all

Is there some reason I am not aware of that I am being made offers much less than the actual price of the machine? Im not understanding something. Is the S3 on sale somewhere that I am not privy to? Im not trying to be rude or snippy, I actually am at a loss.

AndrewK, I can do .7 minimum, but I will drive it to your destination and eat the cost of travel. If you can point me to a place where they are being sold for .5, I might be inclined to purchase one myself, despite my present difficulties.

Please link me to a better offer, so I can price mine accordingly. To the best of my knowledge, they are .68 from the manu, and thats for 2 units (the minimum purchase.) Ive added a .02 to that, I don't believe that is unreasonable. As offered by PM, I will cover the first 25 dollars on both shipping options. I may be open to negotiation on shipping  but I certainly won't eat the entire cost of a non domestic package.

Forgot to address shipping, thank you. PM me your zip, you are out of the States. Lets limit this to USA/Canada, Id prefer USA.  Ill pay for this:
Priority Mail Large Flat Rate Box
http://postcalc.usps.com/PopUps/PMLargeFRBox.htm

If you require faster shipping, I will pay $20 on this if you pay the rest:
Priority Mail Express Flat Rate Box
http://postcalc.usps.com/PopUps/EMFRBox.htm

Selling a B1 Antminer S3, box opened but in new condition:

Got one of these in a group buy, all is well, but unfortunately my internet connection (my ISP is Exede, sat. internet because I live in the boondocks) is down/severely restricted so often it will affect my ability to ROI if it remains constant. I'd rather just get my BTC back and trade with it than fight this particular battle.

Pictures of the unit:





Bidding starts at .70 BTC. Please bid in .01 increments.
Auction ends 48 hours from now, I'll round to the next hour, so August 06, 2014, 11:00:00 PM (forum time). Will get shipping details at auction ends, will ship the following morning. I live in Rowland, NC; willing to travel about 2 or 3 hours (near the SC border so I can extend a few hours that way) to sell this in person.

This is pretty straightforward, but feel free to ask any questions you may have. I'd like to use Maidak as escrow.

Thank you in advance!

hey folks,

I've been looking around for a power supply suitable for overclocking a single unit. I will run the unit stock for a time, then oc it sometime later. I would like a power supply suitable for both modes of operation. So far, I find plenty of 2x pcie units, but very few 4x pcie units (ive been told oc'ing requires all 4 pcie cables to be connected.) Can someone please point me to a suitable product that has 4 pcie connectors for ocing (or point me to a unit that can do it with two cables)? It would be greatly appreciated, this has caused me a great deal of confusion. Pardon if this has been covered before.

~Green

I made a transaction in the amount of 1.9 BTC, via moneygram, with Maidak. Process was smooth and painless. Will reuse this service. Strongly recommended, pm me if you need additional details.

~Green

see here also:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93a5ca22-dcaa-11e2-b52b-00144feab7de.html#axzz2xgOMZMoX

Analyst suffered ‘inhuman’ extradition ordeal, says lawyer

Last December, Trent Martin, an Australian who had worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland as a research analyst, was arrested in Hong Kong on US insider-trading charges and agreed to be extradited to New York.

The process took three months – during which time Mr Martin, 34, was shackled in handcuffs, held in solitary confinement and placed in a psychiatric prison, according to a letter sent by his lawyer, Larry Krantz, to a US judge.

Mr Krantz has alleged his client was subjected to an “an inhuman ordeal”, and other lawyers say the case raises questions about the rights of extradited suspects at a time when US authorities are growing increasingly aggressive in hunting down alleged wrongdoers in other countries.

...Mr Martin’s case marked the first time in a decade that the US had sought the extradition of an insider trading suspect. This pursuit was all the more remarkable because Mr Martin was only accused of making $8,000 from the alleged scheme.

All of that.
Citizen of Australia, arrested in Japan, by US authorities.
For $8000 profit.

 

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0MT1X220140401?irpc=932

Judge orders Mt Gox CEO to U.S. for questions on failed bitcoin exchange
Tue, Apr 01 17:24 PM EDT

(edit) ROFL, Herp beat me to it. Good show. Ill post the text to save you the jump.

By Tom Hals

April 1 (Reuters) - The chief executive of Japan's Mt. Gox, once the world's leading bitcoin exchange, was ordered to the United States to answer questions related to its U.S. bankruptcy case, filed after the company lost $400 million of customers' digital currency.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stacey Jernigan on Tuesday ordered Karpeles to appear on April 17 in Dallas at the offices of Baker & McKenzie, the law firm that represents Mt. Gox.

Mt. Gox customers want its chief executive and majority owner, Mark Karpeles, to explain why the exchange shut down in February and what happened to their 750,000 bitcoins, which the company said were stolen in a computer hacking attack.

Customers have alleged that insiders including Karpeles may have stolen the money, and employees told Reuters they were worried as early as 2012 that customers' money was being diverted for operating expenses.

Mt. Gox filed bankruptcy in February in Tokyo. Last month, Karpeles asked a Dallas court to grant Mt. Gox Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection, in part to put a stop to a class action that had been filed by U.S. customers in Chicago federal court.

Under Chapter 15, protection from creditors is not automatic. Mt. Gox must prove at a May 20 hearing that it should be granted such protection.

"If he avails himself of this court, my God, he is going to get himself over here," Jernigan said at the Bankruptcy Court hearing in Dallas at which she ordered Karpeles to appear.

John Mitchell, a Baker & McKenzie attorney, said the company may replace Karpeles as the "foreign representative" of Mt. Gox in the U.S. bankruptcy court, a suggestion that did not sit well with the judge.

"He filed this case," she responded curtly.

Karpeles' testimony could help solve the mystery of what happened to money and bitcoins that were entrusted to Mt. Gox by its clients, most of them from the United States.

Karpeles controlled the company's financial records and may be the only person who knows where the company's assets and money might be, Steven Woodrow, an attorney for U.S. customers, told the Dallas hearing.

Jernigan limited the deposition questioning of Karpeles to issues pertaining to whether the court should grant permanent bankruptcy protection to Mt. Gox.

The case is In Re: Mt. Gox Co. Ltd, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Dallas, No. 14-31229. (Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by David Gregorio)

~Green

Its not an April Fools joke either.

These are most definitely securities:

SEC. 205. DEFINITION AND TREATMENT OF BANKING PRODUCTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF TRADITIONAL BANKING PRODUCT- For purposes of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a) (4), (5)), the term ‘traditional banking product’ means--
(1) a deposit account, savings account, certificate of deposit, or other deposit instrument issued by a bank;
(2) a banker’s acceptance;
(3) a letter of credit issued or loan made by a bank;
(4) a debit account at a bank arising from a credit card or similar arrangement;
(5) a participation in a loan which the bank or an affiliate of the bank (other than a broker or dealer) funds, participates in, or owns that is sold--
(A) to qualified investors; or
(B) to other persons that--
(i) have the opportunity to review and assess any material information, including information regarding the borrower’s creditworthiness; and
based on such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters, have the capability to evaluate the information available, as determined under generally applicable banking standards or guidelines; and
Also,

SEC. 206. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT AND QUALIFIED INVESTOR DEFINED.
Section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
‘(54) DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT-
‘(A) DEFINITION- The term ‘derivative instrument’ means any individually negotiated contract, agreement, warrant, note, or option that is based, in whole or in part, on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities, securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices, or other assets, but does not include a traditional banking product, as defined in section 205(a) of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
‘(B) CLASSIFICATION LIMITED- Classification of a particular contract as a derivative instrument pursuant to this paragraph shall not be construed as finding or implying that such instrument is or is not a security for any purpose under the securities laws, or is or is not an account, agreement, contract, or transaction for any purpose under the Commodity Exchange Act.
....‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- The Commission may, by rule or order, define a ‘qualified investor’ as any other person, taking into consideration such factors as the financial sophistication of the person, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters.’.

Essentially, Im proposing that NEO, by statement of intent, would be considered a bank or affiliate, and the product they offer could be construed as a certificate of deposit or a loan at the very least (the dividends could be considered interest, or a profit sharing scheme). The issuing of a prospectus also indicates intent.

It can also be argued as a derivative instrument, but that argument is beyond me.
All paid for with btc property (as per the recent IRS clarification), so the purchase is just as valid as it would be if it were fiat.

~Green

Can a legal dude come review this please? Im no expert and I dont want to disseminate false information.

SEC. 205. DEFINITION AND TREATMENT OF BANKING PRODUCTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF TRADITIONAL BANKING PRODUCT- For purposes of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a) (4), (5)), the term ‘traditional banking product’ means--

(1) a deposit account, savings account, certificate of deposit, or other deposit instrument issued by a bank;

(2) a banker’s acceptance;

(3) a letter of credit issued or loan made by a bank;

(4) a debit account at a bank arising from a credit card or similar arrangement;

(5) a participation in a loan which the bank or an affiliate of the bank (other than a broker or dealer) funds, participates in, or owns that is sold--

(A) to qualified investors; or

(B) to other persons that--

(i) have the opportunity to review and assess any material information, including information regarding the borrower’s creditworthiness; and

based on such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters, have the capability to evaluate the information available, as determined under generally applicable banking standards or guidelines; and

Also,

SEC. 206. DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT AND QUALIFIED INVESTOR DEFINED.

Section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

‘(54) DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENT-

‘(A) DEFINITION- The term ‘derivative instrument’ means any individually negotiated contract, agreement, warrant, note, or option that is based, in whole or in part, on the value of, any interest in, or any quantitative measure or the occurrence of any event relating to, one or more commodities, securities, currencies, interest or other rates, indices, or other assets, but does not include a traditional banking product, as defined in section 205(a) of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

‘(B) CLASSIFICATION LIMITED- Classification of a particular contract as a derivative instrument pursuant to this paragraph shall not be construed as finding or implying that such instrument is or is not a security for any purpose under the securities laws, or is or is not an account, agreement, contract, or transaction for any purpose under the Commodity Exchange Act.

....‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- The Commission may, by rule or order, define a ‘qualified investor’ as any other person, taking into consideration such factors as the financial sophistication of the person, net worth, and knowledge and experience in financial matters.’.

And you would be right. But my country is a bit heavy handed and stubborn in these matters:

Use of Compulsory Powers

Section 21(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, authorizes the SEC to conduct investigations on behalf of foreign securities authorities (as defined by the Exchange Act) and compel the production of documents and testimony from any person and entity, irrespective of whether that person or entity is regulated by the SEC. Section 21(a)(2) provides:

On request, the Commission may provide assistance in accordance with this paragraph if the requesting authority states that the requesting authority is conducting an investigation which it deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated, is violating, or is about to violate any laws or rules relating to securities matters that the requesting authority administers or enforces. The Commission may, in its discretion, conduct such investigation as the Commission deems necessary to collect information and evidence pertinent to the request for assistance. Such assistance may be provided without regard to whether the facts stated in the request would also constitute a violation of the laws of the United States. In deciding whether to provide such assistance, the Commission shall consider whether (A) the requesting authority has agreed to provide reciprocal assistance in securities matters to the Commission; and (B) compliance with the request would prejudice the public interest of the United States.

We tend to get what we want. Its the American way

But, I hope this illustrates the import of what has occurred here. This is no small matter.
(edit)Also, investigate this:

SEC v. Alexis Ampudia, a/k/a Alexis Geancarlos Ampudia Navalo, a/k/a Alexis Emias, a/k/a Alexis Rojas, Civil Action No. 07-CV-2762 (HB) (S.D.N.Y) (filed June 2009) (final judgement in action involving manipulation of numerous securities by Panamanian citizen) LR-21071, LR-20098, LR-20071

(double edit) this too:
SEC v. East Delta Resources Corp., Victor Sun, David Amsel and Mayer Amsel, Civil No. CV10-0310 (E.D.N.Y.) (filed January 2010) (settlement on alleged manipulation scheme through Canadian and US brokerage accounts) LR-21700, LR-21395

~Green

Legal isn't my sphere, but check this out. I get the trader jargon but some of the legalese is beyond me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Exchange_Act_of_1934#Antifraud_provisions

which yields:

Section 10(b) of the Act (as amended) provides (in pertinent part):
(b) To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement (as defined in section 206B of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
.
You can argue jurisdiction, but for the US, participation in this grants the SEC jurisdiction. If they didnt have jurisdiction for some amazing reason (and didnt act regardless of this), they would simply use the FBI. If you think thats far fetched, observe this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/fbi-high-speed-trading_n_5065622.html


Also, its clearly defined that this behavior is considered fraud, posted here
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm

which yields:

Online Bulletin Boards
Online bulletin boards are a way for investors to share information.  While some messages may be true, many turn out to be bogus – or even scams.  Fraudsters may use online discussions to pump up a company or pretend to reveal "inside" information about upcoming announcements, new products, or lucrative contracts.

You may never know for certain who you're dealing with, or whether they're credible, because many sites allow users to hide their identity behind multiple aliases.  People claiming to be unbiased observers may actually be insiders, large shareholders, or paid promoters.  One person can easily create the illusion of widespread interest in a small, thinly traded stock by posting numerous messages under various aliases.

Also, see here:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/analyst/030102.asp

S&D Traders Manipulate Stock Prices With Smear Campaigns
A less-publicized and more-sinister version of short selling can take place on Wall Street. It's called "short and distort" (S&D).

Nothing is inherently wrong with short selling, which is permissible under the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the S&D type of short seller uses misinformation and a bear market to manipulate stocks. S&D is as illegal as the pump and dump, but is mainly used in a bear market. It is important for investors to be aware of the dangers and to know how to protect themselves...

...On the other hand, S&D (shock and distort) traders manipulate stock prices in a bear market by taking short positions and then using a smear campaign to drive down the price of the targeted stock. This is the inverse version of the "pump and dump" tactic, whereby crooks buy stock (take a long position) and issue false information that causes the target stock's price to increase...

...The S&D shysters try to profit by stimulating fear, but this only works if they have credibility. As such, when working online they will often use screen names and email addresses that imply that they are associated with the SEC or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) (formerly the National Association of Securities Dealers), or that they can regularly spot worthless stocks. Their goal is to convince investors that every proponent of the stock has ties to the company and that the SEC is watching and will halt the stock. S&Ds also intimate that they are looking out for investors' interests.

S&D players clutter message boards, so optimistic information cannot easily be found. "Get out before it all comes crashing down" and "Investors who wish to enter a class action lawsuit can contact…" are typical posts, as are their projections of $0 stock prices and 100% losses. If their strategy is suspected by "longs", they attack the person who has caught them. In other words, the market manipulator will do everything in his or her power to keep buyers out of the stock and keep the price heading south.


This is also known as a "bear raid"

Im not quite sure, but this also might be provisioned under Microcap Fraud, given the size of the company and the fact it is unregistered.
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/microcap-fraud.shtml

This would also be considered fraud in almost every jurisdiction it could occur in, including Panama. Which is obviously criminally and civilly actionable.

Speaking of which (edit):
http://www.supervalores.gob.pa/files/informacion_al_inversionista/LISTADO_DE_JURISDICCIONES_RECONOCIDAS.pdf
Which establishes jusrisdiction in the United States, inversely:

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia/oia_crossborder.shtml
Which defines jurisdiction abroad (conferred by cooperation from foreign governments)


Hope this helps, feel free to help me understand this more if I am in error. I'm sure one of the legal subsection guys can provide clarification on this. At the very least; this would be considered libel and the perp, if identified, would be civilly liable for damages caused to NEOBEE.


~Green

I made an observation on the coindesk article concerning the trading freeze:

http://www.coindesk.com/neo-bees-suspends-btc-share-trading-due-abnormal-activity/

...Someone will be legally liable for this price manipulation eventually. The magnitude of investor in this particular game (NEOBEE) will not allow foolery of this nature. My curiosity; will it just be the the perpetrators of the false rumors, or the social outlets that allowed the dissemination of this false information without moderation?

And I notice we finally got some moderation on the parent thread. Cleaned up quite nice, but unfortunate they had to ban MPOE-PR. I don't agree with some of her opinions, but I hate to see anyone banned.


I hope this isnt considered off topic, that isnt my wish at all.

~Green

The trading is simply frozen; unless they tore down the building and sold the rubble Im pretty sure that NEO's offices will be open come Monday.

So, why is this being discussed atm? No offense, but no one really knows anything.

Just enjoy your weekends. Im pretty sure a fund with multi millions of dollars worth of investment isnt going to remain silent too much longer. Im pretty sure they are simply finishing the investigation before they communicate with the shareholders.

We will see.

~Green

I can confirm that I purchased 800 shares; and saw them transmitted in real time to my account as we conducted the trade. I am most certainly not btcapples.

As of writing this the shares are stilll under my control on LMB holdings, as indicated by my share balance.

I will say that I believe the shares are legitimate; the sale may be considered a market manipulation however. Expect to see a new ToS that specifies rules on out of platform trades

~Green