I wholeheartedly agree that the transparency issue needs to be resolved concurrent or precedent to the issue of the legal status of participants in LRM mining. In fact, there is nothing that prevents transparency in advance of the resolution of the legal issues. Indeed, it may favorably dispose LRM towards its stakeholders (the issue of us being shareholders or bondholders remains to be clarified in the eyes of the SEC et al) and the various regulatory bodies pressing for resolution of the issue. I cannot possibly imagine a case where a lack of transparency would be to the benefit of LRM unless it is due to some form of malfeasance. There is no solve for malfeasance save for a legal process undertaken by regulators and/or stakeholders. [edit: I personally do not believe there has been any malfeasant motive on LRM's part]

If it is simply a lack of resources available to provide the required transparency, this is simply an excuse and is completely unacceptable. It is still not too late to provide the transparency required of a company in LRM's position; that of one solicitous of investments from the public. To suggest that the anonymous members of this forum and the Bitcoin community in general are a closed community and that they fall with in the bound of SEC regulations surrounding private share offerings to accredited investors is tenuous at best. I pretty much guarantee that LRM will lose big time on that front if they proffer that argument to the regulators.

So, provide transparency and support your position to the regulators and to the community of investors or.......not? Seems like a simple rubric Zach...... ponder carefully but quickly. For as you know all too well, time is of the essence.

I like the idea of transparency - it seems to me that it would go a long ways to solving a main issue with your investors..... and maybe the  gummint revenuers too.

By those short definitions... what we have here does not comply to either.

BOND - we did not LOAN this money to LRM and what he is paying us is in no way, shape of form a payment of principle + interest.

SHARE - what we are receiving as DIVIDENDS are not actually SHARES of the profit of LRM... I would actually say in whole... LRM is probably still in the red and a profit share would not be paid until at least the first entire year was over. Even then, we would still probably be in the red but maybe not... regardless profits would probably be somewhere near what we have already been paid to date at that one year mark.

So that leaves us where...? Awaiting LR and LRM to redefine exactly what it is we hold because what we are receiving is actual WEEKLY EARNINGS of a Data Processing firm. What is the more likely, but I dare say LR would NEVER allow this to be, is that we are all PARTNERS to some extent and have been promised a weekly payout on earnings after cost deductions. What that means to everyone and LRMs lawyers is probably what is taking so long to define in the eyes of the law.

Whatever labrat wants to call them, as long as the dividends fits with the purchased equipment of its investors it is fine for me

People who aren't prats, make friends, and get info.

chill

There were problems right from the first start:

1. New client does not recognize testnet=1 over bitcoin.conf file. Using -testnet over command line helped but then ...

2. New client failed to recognize testnet datadir (testnet3) is a subdirectory of datadir root so it shocked me a bit to see 0 coins and no blockchain
downloaded. To solve issue, I had to copy all data from testnet3 subdirectory to datadir root (are we getting testnet4 maybe?).

3. Once all was set and ready to go, I noticed "Tree mode" checkboxes are not working properly. If there is one unspent input on some address and
I click on checkbox to select that address, checkbox will turn into partially selected state, as if there are more than one unspent input but not all of
them are selected. If I expand that tree I can see both checkboxes have partially selected state, which is totally hmm given that unspent input itself
has that state as well, as if part of it is selected (not really possible). https://i.imgur.com/n67yTb5.png shows incorrect state of checkboxes after
user clicks once on address checkbox (top 2 cases, unexpanded and expanded tree) and how it should look like regardless of the number of unspent
inputs on that address (bottom 2 cases, unexpanded and expanded tree).

If address checkbox is not selected, expanding the tree and clicking on unspent input checkbox turns both checkboxes to fully selected state, as it all
is supposed to work with this scenario. In short, if some tree is not expanded and user clicks on address checkbox, that checkbox and checkboxes of
all unspent inputs at that address should become fully selected, not partialy.

4. Problem as explained earlier (post on previous page) still exists.

https://i.imgur.com/0XyjpOz.png

50 BTC were selected and 25 BTC sent to Testnet3 faucet (mimoZNLcP2rrMRgdeX5PSnR7AjCqQveZZ4) leaving to wallet to create a new address for
change. Remaining 25 BTC ended up on that address and are shown properly as child of original address (mfaULtk7AFHCSBefQKZo6AiLzqktJEwm2Z).

http://pool.qdoop.net:18331/tx/1febd5191ff6b5a830fb79b6185464c17471b4a18dc563aee4d2db06a9b7345f

Another 50 BTC were selected and 25 BTC sent to Testnet3 faucet but this time I created new address (mq9TuNTCVhGzcYQGv7RWiKhcHnwUBt5tC3),
named it "Test" and used it as a change destination. As you can see from screenshot posted above, remaining 25 BTC were sent to that address but
they did not ended up shown as a child of original address but as a normal unspent input.

http://pool.qdoop.net:18331/tx/615b729cefdfc039e53ff475b0540a266db5a9f51566af5387a59278cca5a0a7

After some thinking and given options which Coin Control provides I just don't see how it all can be fixed. With few unspent inputs on few different
addresses it seems that correct visual representation of taints could easily become a horror or even impossible.

5. Not related to Coin Control but annoying, there is no "Copy address" upon right-clicking some receiving address nor address itself is shown  
To see receiving address user must double-click on address row to pop-up window with QR code. Then to copy address it takes to double-click it so
it becomes selected and then right-click > Copy or CTRL+C (this is starting to remind me of Microsoft "genius" changes to WinOS and other software).

https://i.imgur.com/PQRm0Ms.png

Client version v0.9.0.0-gd6e0e17-beta on Win7 64-bit.

Yes IF. However, we now have cause to have severe "trust issues" and if unilaterally forcing us to accept fixed rate contracts is a way of divorcing us from the "share-iness" of the investment, then  tacitly accepting that, with nothing set in stone about further recompense, leaves us in a potentially weakened position.

Bondholders have to understand that whatever Messrs Wormtongue, Screwem and Sneer (or whatever his lawyers are called) are whispering in Labrats ear is all atuned to HIS benefit, as a perceived sole proprietor. Thus all advice would be aimed at ensuring dictatorial control and the maximum recompense for the littlest "work" possible.


Or in other words, it wasn't about control until the lawyer made loss of control a fear, (With the SEC boogeyman no doubt) and control was attempted to be enforced by a unilateral attempt to change terms, so now it's about control, sorry about your lawyers and your luck. We don't necessarily want control, but will leverage the "share-iness"* to it 's full extent until recompense is restored to expectations.

(*Hey SEC this guy sold us these things what looked like shares....)

I did some digging a while back into the Iceland idea, as far as I could discover, they seemed to be "cheap" relative to parts of Europe rather than "cheap" relative to areas of North America that have hydro power.

I get these quite often.  Is this from the miner connections or the Bitcoin-Qt connection?  Is it something I should worry about?

2014-01-16 18:59:38.826198 > Unhandled error in Deferred:
2014-01-16 18:59:38.826283 > Unhandled Error
2014-01-16 18:59:38.826316 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2014-01-16 18:59:38.826344 > Failure: twisted.internet.defer.TimeoutError: in ReplyMatcher

Thanks!

I use the device that I have to not buy a dragon just for the jalapeno. Thanks anyway

 Not sure if serious or trolling...

grnbrg.

PS:  I haven't traded on BitcoinTalk, so I don't have an official reputation here, but I did run a shipping pool on the BFL forums.  42 BTC went through that thread.  So I do have at least some track record with other people's money.

I would also like to state to all those who have sour grapes:  This kind of structuring is very very common in the 'real world'.  Take a look at WalMart as a good example.