Its all typical gawtalk, but nowhere do I see guaranteed profit (ROI >100%).
Besides, to be fair it would need to be advertised clearly on their website and not hidden in a blog or forum post somewhere.


Well, if that claim is correct, then  if anything, it supports the legitimacy of gaw and I should grant them point 1. Of course I will not grant them that unless the addresses and proof are made public as I suspect its bullshit.

Nice job. Make sure you save it all before he removes it.
One pic from his facebook album seems particularly appropriate:


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=265571840164&set=pb.749270164.-2207520000.1420100052.&type=3&permPage=1

Keep in mind Im only gauging their (sha) cloudmining. Did they guarantee profits for that?


Here are a few that you've probably seen already:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JqqP37Ygce4/VF0tEsgGprI/AAAAAAAAAkQ/pa6-Mrp43x4/s1600/Miners2.jpg
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/josh-garza-to-launch-paycoin-media-tour/

Ive not seen the 40PH claim, do you have a link? But Im less interested in their grandiose claims as I am in finding out how much they actually sold.
Either way, its a bit of a moot point now  that the vast majority was forcibly upgraded to paycoin BS and they stopped selling these products

Still waiting..

Which isnt cex.io's problem. They sold their contracts ages ago. If net value becomes zero, it just extinguishes their dividend liability, thats a win for them, not a loss.

The only way to 'manipulate' the price, is by either buying or selling. They'd be bonkers to buy, the consequence of that is just giving away money,  and judging by the price, clearly they are not selling in any meaningful quantity.


Maybe, they've done it before, but why would they?  It just costs them money for no obvious benefit.

Why not? I sure hope they try.
BTW, it can be taken a step further: prosecute this very forum:
http://rapsinews.com/news/20140211/270688354.html

maybe that would finally make theymos reconsider his idiotic forum policies.

Thats the odd thing. Considering difficulty and cex.io fees, the actual value of these contracts is ~0, but they trade far above that, above many more attractive offers. If I were cex.io, id certainly dump more contracts on the market. If you are unscrupulous, you just create the contracts, its not likely you would lose money on them, and if you are scrupulous, even if you couldnt source extra hashrate from bitfury (unlikely), you can still buy contracts on the open market and repackage them as cex.io GH and still make a nice profit. So the very fact nearly worthless contracts are trading so far above zero is further evidence to me cex.io are playing by the rules (and that traders are clueless).

$318K per second. So $100M would last them just over 5 minutes .

Doesnt seem like conmaster222 would be anonymous enough.
BTW, googling around, it seems promoting ponzi's is illegal in Russia too:

The bill also stipulates punishment for those who compel people to make a payment and join a pyramid scheme.

The Finance Ministry has also proposed amending the Administrative Offences Code to introduce administrative penalties for organizing pyramids, compelling people to make a payment or promoting these schemes.
http://rapsinews.com/legislation_news/20140924/272184843.html

Doesnt go as far as SEC regulations, but its nice to know even in Russia you could get in serious trouble for putting these ponzi banners in your signature.

It doesnt even matter if he did or not.  At least in the US, its defined as "knowingly or recklessly" promoting  or providing material support for security fraud. You can look it up for your own country, but its likely similar. There is no doubt what he did was at least reckless. Whether or not it was knowingly, Im pretty sure it was, but legally it doesnt even matter.

It interesting to note that under said SEC regulation, coinmaster could be considered liable to the same degree as the perpetrators, who may  remain anonymous and/or out of reach. Something to keep in mind next time anyone wants to promote a ponzi.

Interesting. In most countries he could be held liable for recklessly (or knowingly) providing material support for security fraud. I what country does he live?

Ive been condemning amhash for using a bogus and unverified reseller since the day it was announced.
You see, unlike most people here, I start asking questions before its too late. And I like to think that it is because of my communication with AMhash that they implemented some systems for hashie customer to verify their purchases with them, which now allows them to honor these contracts.

So I humbly suggest you direct your anger elsewhere.

No they did not.

Bit early to say that dont you think?
But sure I could be off by a few days or weeks, if you think thats important, be my guest.


No its not. Sig campaign is managed by "carra"something, who supposedly is a different person. The ponzi will collapse as soon as sales dry up.

And yet thats exactly how you should treat any cloudmining service for as long as they have not proven their legitimacy.
There is no risk in avoiding a company that later turns out to be legit. The same cant be said from the opposite.

I dont think it makes that much difference. The rising difficulty would allow a ponzi to make a profit without even running,  just blaming the investor loss on difficulty. But scammers are greedy and will run off earlier, namely once sales < payouts. And those two factors are related, as difficulty skyrockets, reducing payouts you'd also expect sales to slow,  and vice versa, so its probably mostly a wash.

Mining is still marginally profitable for companies with access to hardware at cost and cheap electricity. And it will get far more profitable once the next generation miners arrive that will be 3-4x more efficient. So hashrate is going to keep going up. What BTC exchange rate will do, who knows.

Now that people are finally beginning to wake up to the reality of cloudmining, perhaps I should focus my attention on the next looming disaster: lending bitcoins. Here is what I wrote in another thread:


Lending bitcoins is generally an even worse idea than (cloud) mining. Its hard to see why a legitimate borrower would want to borrow bitcoins, considering its volatility. Most investments and costs are still fiat denominated, so the exchange risk is enormous for a borrower, he might see his debt double or triple in mere months.  The sad reality is that most of these borrowers will end up using the BTC for (cloudmining) ponzi's and will default on their loans when said ponzi collapses, for gambling (same thing, you might as well gamble yourself), as a way to short sell bitcoin (probably resulting in a default  if BTC price goes up significantly) or plain old scamming the lenders by taking out ever bigger loans, increasing their credibility rating each time, until one day, they run. Cloudmining is usually a bad idea, lending out BTC an even worse one.

As for 'investing'; there is pretty much nothing you should even consider investing BTC in. Out of 100's or 1000's of IPO and scheme's Ive seen over the years, I can name precisely ONE that actually returned substantially more to its investors than it collected (asicminer). There are plenty of BTC related companies  I would like to be able to invest in (bitpay to name just one), but none of them raise capital through BTC, for the same reasons explained above.

In the end, bitcoin itself is your investment. Dont try to 'grow' it, you dont do that with an investment in gold or silver either.  Put it in a cold wallet and hang on to it. Thats the only truly sensible thing you can do with it, besides using it for buying stuff.