|
So above you see pankkake continue to smear the company ActiveMining (by calling it an investment scam, associating it with the known 'LabCoin scam', saying the CEO is facing jail and accusing me of being a scammer (!)) after Ken publicly refused to pay pankkake's blackmail money demand.
|
|
|
|
Anyone that thinks getting the SEC involved is a good idea also thinks getting 1 satoshi per share in return is a good idea.
The only way out I can see is forcing kslaughter to come clean on his lies, release financial statements, especially what was paid to eASIC and UMC - with proof. You'll also be able to judge how much he paid for his expenses.
Then you'll know how much bitcoins are left per share, and he could start a buyback program for those who want out.
There are other ways, which probably will result in jail time, but the victims might care more about their money than punishing the scammer.
Beware though, what made Labcoin disappear were talks about refunds.----------------------------------------------------------------- If you are a shareholder that is still frequenting this thread and replying to trolls please consider joining us in #ActM on Freenode.
Retreating to a troll-free place won't make this shares start hashing faster...
Interestingly, I still have my ban on #labcoin (Samuelat40!*@*).  Talking to me: No, you refuse to acknowledge my responses, due to being a scammer with no way out.
Prepare yourself for jail buttsecks.
and: Plenty of kslaughter's lies and dirty tricks exposed on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297530.0 or follow some of the links of my comparison with Labcoin.
Unlike you, I don't have an economic interest in having new users buy ActiveMining shares; at that point you're just an accomplice of the scam. |
|
|
|
"was Ken acting in good faith when he took peoples money."
Exactly.
And now that he admitted some of his own lies, there's no doubt left.
I don't know if it's the SEC's job, but it's just a textbook investment fraud. Collect money, fail by doing nothing.Plenty of kslaughter's lies and dirty tricks exposed on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297530.0.
Unlike you, I don't have an economic interest in having new users buy ActiveMining shares; at that point you're just an accomplice of the scam.
|
|
|
|
|
You aren't tackling any of my points other than to say 'what you say is wrong'. Well you could try saying why you think I'm wrong. Want to try??
I know if might be difficult for you to explain why a 'scammer' who has already raised all the funds they ever will would then spend significant sums of money on a UMC production run - a line of the business not even mentioned during the IPO fund raising stage. A line of business that didn't need to be created to complete this 'scam'.
You are a known blackmailer on this forum and Troll for hire - you have the least credibility possible. For you to be taking this line is really really suspicious and I think this is just you fulfilling your threat to smear any company that does not pay your blackmail money.
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with that,
That is you carrying out your threat to smear the reputation of a legitimate company because they have refused to pay your blackmail demands. You are committing serious offences here, serious in every country, including France. |
|
|
|
at the end of the day.. all it boils down to is.. "was Ken acting in good faith when he took peoples money."
if a company fails because of sheer incompetence then there really isn't much of a case against him..
I don't doubt investigations are left open. The point I was making was they investigated well after completion of the IPO and after the eASIC deal. Nothing has changed in those terms other than Ken has announced another significant line of the business (full custom 55nm chip). So if they were happy 3-4months ago I'm sure they are happy now. If Ken was intending to create a sham business he wouldn't have bothered getting the eASIC deal. All IPO money was raised before that announcement and he has raised not a single cent more since then other than recently using lien to confiscate and sell Ukyo's shares for 106BTC to recover the stolen company money. If Ken was intending to create a sham business he wouldn't have announced the latest 55nm deal with a contract with UMC. Do you realise how much more explaining and paper-chasing that creates on his part should this supposed sham business fold to try to explain away this latest aspect of the business which involves another global partner?! I could go on and on. Nothing adds up to support this sham business idea. There is no evidence you offer other than 'missed deadlines'. There has only been one missed deadline and that was the original 28nm easic chip. Ken has publicly stated that has been upgraded after the delay to a FULL CUSTOM eAISC chip. eASIC have not denied this. UMC has not denied their contract with ACtM. Your argument has no substance and no corroborative evidence. |
|
|
|
| Asset | ActiveMining | Labcoin |
|
|
| | Exchanges | BitFunder, BTC-TC, Cryptostocks, Crypto-Trade | BTC-TC, Cryptostocks |
|
|
| | Identities | Known from the start; American alcoholic fatso and his family. Past get-rich-quick businesses disappeared (HFT trading, Million Dollar Web Hosting) | Known from the start; Italian guys, some of which already associated to scams (zenpad, bitdaytrade, bitscalper) |
|
|
| | Technical competence of the team | None, yet claimed. Offloaded the work. | None. Offloaded the work for cheap. |
|
|
| | Paid dividends | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| | Faked mining | Yes (admits to using Cex.io without telling shareholders). Surely at a loss. | Yes (tried to resell the hardware on Italian eBay). Probably at a loss. |
|
|
| | Mined with/produced own hardware | Never | Never |
|
|
| | Posted pictures | Yes (mostly through third-parties), but nothing to see | Yes, with many users defending how legit they were despite apparent flaws |
|
|
| | Posted detailed chip specs | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| | Admitted failure to create chips and immediately talked about better chips | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| | Contradictory statements | Many, some admitted. | Many, never admitted. |
|
|
| | Official documents | Business registration, eASIC NDA | Business registration, fab order |
|
|
| | Had "easy money" spreadsheet | Yes, made by user Vbs, officially part of the Advisory Board | Yes, on the first page |
|
|
| | Officially relied on random forum users for PR | (Streets 2.0), (ffssixtynine, lolstate, Vbs, lewicki), (Bargraphics) | TheSwede75 |
|
|
| | Sockpuppets | Mac65, Bit-Vestor, Babefoot? | ? |
|
|
| | Traded on exchanges with verification before listing | Yes | Yes |
|
|
| | Crowd opinion | Majority of Bitcointalk users say it's not a scam. | Majority of Bitcointalk users said it's not a scam, until final disappearance. Most of the evidence was already out there; only the final disappearance changed things. |
|
|
| | Complaints about "FUD", "trolls", calls for ignores, etc. | Overwhelming. | Overwhelming. |
|
|
| | Released financial reports | Flawed, and nothing released for months. No details on eASIC and UMC costs. Said "excellent financial position". Considers unpaid preorders as real sales. Salary? | Never. Said they had half left. |
|
|
| | Traded own stock | Admitted multiple times | Likely |
|
|
| | Exchange migration | Unnecessarily cumbersome, or even gouging, unnecessary delays | Flawless |
|
|
| | Still operating | Yes, but dividends not paid | No |
|
|
| | Switched from unmoderated to moderated thread | Yes. Many posts deleted totaling a high number of man-hours. | Yes. Many posts deleted totaling a high number of man-hours. |
|
|
| | Cheap shares! | These are a bargain and should go very quick | take advantage of the current cheap prices |
|
|
| | Lawsuit | No | Yes |
So, which was the better investment? Which is a scam? You decide. To finish, some trading advice. |
|
|
|
|
I failed to quote pankkake before he deleted a post the other day in the ACtM thread. It was a reply to someone suggesting someone should pay a site visit to the company offices to 'sort Ken out'. Pankkake said 'Yes they should burn the Slaughterhouse down'.
|
|
|
|
|
Ofcourse zum. Nothing DTS said could have effected trading or share price - you fucking moron!!
Hoots mon.
|
|
|
|
lol ha ha ha. Ah wudnae te yer face pal. |
|
|
|
|
Hey finlof I credited you at last twice on the thread with your list of questions as they were good but you ignored that and instead tell me I'm a 'fuckin moron'. So I really don't get you. You are so confrontational it's actually quite funny. You must have some Scottish blood in you.
Personally I know -you- are a moron but I wouldn't say that as you must get it a lot. I mean you don't seem to understand how a large shareholder saying they are going to dump their shares at 0.0002 could possibly effect current spot price of 150% higher. That is as ludicrous as your angry outbursts and insulting and threatening PM's. Please sell up soon as trading starts and go find someone else to be angry at. Mucho grasias.
|
|
|
|
can someone explain to me, does this mean MtGox arent full of shit? ..... but hold on havent BTC-e already sorted the problem?
Gox are full of shit as this problem has been known by the industry for 2 years and they made out like they discovered a 'bug'. It's not a bug it's an exploitable aspect of transaction tagging. Now that the wider hacker community have heard about it they are having a laugh with the BTC Network. They could have had this laugh at any point in the last 2 years but they weren't aware of the details. |
|
|
|
ALL SHARES SOLD AT 0.0005!
Good. Now that would have been over a LOT quicker if it wasn't for all the girls on here listening to the Trolls. Like A WEEK ago. |
|
|
|
We certainly shouldn't jump to conclusions (though who am I kidding, that's what this entire thread is about and I myself have been guilty of this countless times), but I would like to know the answer to that question.
We will never know the cost implications because eASIC won't allow them to be released. All we do know is that eASIC are designing the custom 28nm and at the same time Ken has said we are in a 'fantastic' financial position. That does not say to me that we have had to fork out another 1Mill. So clearly eASIC are moving forward with the full-custom without any significant extra dollar input from ACtM. |
|
|
|
|
Bitstamp:
No funds have been lost and no funds are at risk.
|
|
|
|
Why would you think that?
Well I'll put it this way. I don't think the move from 45nm to 28nm - which has taken eASIC 3 years - comes without a need for new equipment for their inhouse engineers. If you know any different let me know but it's a bit of a side issue and I think you are just trying to start an argument?? |
|
|
|
eASIC is a fabless semiconductor company. They don't have machinery.
Sure we all know they use Global Foundaries but they don't do everything on PC's do they. They have testing stations no doubt? You don't think they might need more advanced machinery to test 28nm over 45nm? This guy is definately handling a real-world board with a chip on it here. He needs some sort of machine to test this proto-type doesn't he? 0:30 secs in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQsvbvv2DwwALSO - 'eASIC engineers can also create drop-in replacement packages for your easicopy™ ASIC and save you from having to re-spin and re-qual your PCB.'http://www.easic.com/migration-to-cell-based-asic/devices-and-packages/ |
|
|
|
Fully custom would mean not using these right?
OK I get you. I just meant eASIC's 28nm line hence why I used the term 'line'. Ken did say we are going full custom and that means we are not using the easicopy or nextreme process. Just pointing out that the wraps have been on eASIC's 28nm Nextreme for a long long time and now they are in production. That must be significant for their custom 28nm process too? They must share some equipment, machinery, expertise between the two processes? In other words if Nextreme is finalised and scaleable then the full custom process is less likely to have any set backs from here? |
|
|
|
quit defending and removing blame from the ONLY person who has any control over this "company".
I don't often talk to you because you are very highly strung - and talk nonsense. I haven't defended this 'blockade' for a long time. I've been talking to DTS about his prices not Ken's. I'll say that again just for you. I've been talking only about DTS's prices. Not the 'blockade' and certainly not Ken's decisions. Haven't even mentioned the man. |
|
|
|
Quit with the stupid graphics my opinion is the definitive statement:
They only conversation that is important here is.....
Last time I checked the posting of pictures was not banned in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
