Antpool is at 15-16% of the network. Last month IIRC, they were around 5%.
Its safe to assume this spike (ignoring the more recent drop because of paycoin) is caused mainly by bitmain

0.0005

0.00055000 0.00050002
Cryptx petamine trades higher right now lol ?

This thing is crashing harder than paycoin ฿0.00080000 0.00077000 0.00071007
Who was it again that said he held his finger over the sell button? Did you manage to press it in time?

1) sell as much as possible
2) pay as little as possible
3) if 2>1, run away.

password needs to be 8+ characters, and it seems you cant reuse the same email you got the error with. Then you get a chinese only email to confirm the registration

Professional? Far from. Then again, thats not a crime and Id rather they know a thing or two about operating mining hardware than coding websites. Amhash website is a disaster too, and most of the sleek looking fancy websites are scams.

Not that it has anything to do with unregistered securities whatsoever, but being around doesnt make legal: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/10/local/la-me-shell-game10-2009dec10


Tell that to trendon shavers.

I hope you dont actually believe its that easy to scam people without breaking a bazillion laws.
I'll just (re)state the most obvious, since PB was claiming to get its revenue from "other sources": selling of unregistered securities. Thats all you need to demand a full refund.

Here you go:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822446.msg9999384#msg9999384

Kinda obvious.

Thanks, added both with preliminary assessment.
For POW88 :
pow88.com             1+2                => 2/7 = Probably legit (preliminary assessment)

I didnt give them a point for referral because its only 1%. PIctures dont look impressive, but neither does the available hashrate (50TH), this is a small operation.

Cloudmining.sg doesnt look that good so far:
cloudmining.sg        1+2+3+4+7          => 5/7 = (very) suspicious (preliminary assessment)

And ive been generous granting them point 6 (identity) despite the fact there isnt even a contact address on their site, but I guess this will do:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/neal-blackburn/25/305/139

wonder no more
Same way the very same 'Esteban Amador Soto Martinez' made money on bitcoincloudhashing.com

Is that a clone of zeushash?

Ive seen no evidence its not. But its also worth rehashing (pun intended) the disclaimer: being rated as legit here doesnt guarantee you anything. All it shows is that said company has provided reasonable evidence it is a real company and your investment is backed by actual hashrate. It doesnt guarantee they wont scam you, and it certainly doesnt imply anything about profitability.

Some more digging:

http://domainsigma.com/whois/mattmyrtle.com

A few more sites were hosted on the same server, most interestingly btcinstant.com, almost certainly his earlier scam:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50320.20

that site is still up  btw.

You may call it tame, but its enough to push AM1 contracts under water, last time I checked  ~4% was the limit (edit: its 3.3% now with the decreased exchange rate).
More importantly, from those I listed, I assume only bitmain is actually deploying and/or shipping.  Next gens from AM, BF, KnC and SP will take a few more weeks/months but they are all scheduled for Q1.

Bitmain just came out with the S5 and have already doubled or tripled their pool's hashrate recently
Bitfury was supposed to deliver their new 28nm chip around this time, but Ive not heard anything about it.
AM has received samples of their 28nm chip a few weeks ago, volume production should begin in a month or two.
Spondoolies is shipping from stock and it seems even BFL may be back in business again for the time being.

Expect difficulty to keep going up for quite some time.

Sure it does. 1 satoshi is a positive number, therefore ROI is positive. Remember, break even = 100% ROI and profit means > 100% ROI.
1% ROI represents a huge (99%) loss, but its not a negative number. A negative ROI would mean you somehow lose more than your initial investment.


You cant have it both ways. Either the author of the article is correct, and that would mean he saw more convincing proof than pictures could offer, and it would attest to gaw's legitimacy. Or, more likely, he was confused/lied to/mislead, in which case GAW shouldnt have to prove anything like 40PH.

In either case, unverifiable third party testimony cant really weigh on the scoring.