Sell wall on havelock. As others have mentioned AM doesn't have the financial strength to compete in the future. They need to secure more funding, and dividends aren't realistically on the timeline for a while.. They should be conserving excess capital for dry streaks, not sending it out to shareholders.
At this moment in time, all we know regarding AM's financial position is the following: a) financials statements are currently in preparation and start getting processed next week. Dependent on how long the accountant needs, the financial statements should be accessible shortly after
...
e) AM has enough funding to stay in business independent of BTC valuation for a considerable amount of time.
|
|
|
|
...was mabsark invested in any of the securities that were behind any of the scams that were called out?
Of course! Several. Why do you think he left me negative feedback? if you can document this then it seems that he has a history of using trust to further his own financial incentives. He is using trust to prevent securities that he ownes from declining in value. Not sure how this would work. He was "invested" in NeoBee and Active Mining, but he can always claim that his feedback was unrelated to these "investments." It shows there is a connection. There is no reference link in his feedback which alone is bad. Sure he can say anything that he wants but giving evidence is always necessary to support your arguement that his trust rating is unjust LOL. I was invested in NEOBEE for a whole day and I sold my shares in ActM near the height of the share price in summer 2013. I then invested them into Labcoin and sold them off not long later too. I was also trading DMS around that time too. I used to trade securities all the time on BTC-TC and BitFunder. I don't pretend that I've never made mistakes. I'm not perfect. Lambchops claims are complete nonsense though, as proven by the fact that the negative feedback was left over half a year to a year after the events under discussion. If you look through his posting history, it's nothing but trolling. If there was an Internet Troll of the Year award, this guy would get my nomination. If you ran such a poll on this forum, I have no doubt whatsoever that NotLampchop (or one of his older accounts) would win. I wouldn't be surprised if his accounts were the only nominees. The only reason he posts to this forum is because he loves winding people up. |
|
|
|
most people are entitled to decide that for themselves.
And they can do. AM does not force people to purchase contracts from them and the conditions are quite clearly stated, in plain view and in normal sized print. AMHash customers have already decided they're OK with that. |
|
|
|
that is assuming difficulty will be ever increasing, I know i'm being a tad anal here but why don't AM offer the option that clients can fund their account to keep mining... even if one day the contract is mining zero, who's to say the next day, BTC price doesn't go to $1m per.
it's quite a crafty disclaimer if you ask me.
The contract has to be unprofitable for 10 days before the contract ends. i reiterate price of BTC very rarely remains at a constant. Mining = prospecting.
Most people simply wont mine at a loss in the hopes of BTC price increasing. |
|
|
|
so... let me get this right, when AM pile on a few hundred PH/s into the network and difficulty skyrockets to 200billion, they will close your contract because it's earning you fuck-all? nice plan AM.  If they had a physical miner, it would have cost them more up front and for the vast majority of people their electricity costs would be greater. So, if they had their own miner, it would become unprofitable sooner than the cloud mining contract. Most miners don't do it for fun, they do it to make a profit and cloud mining offers them the best opportunity to do that. |
|
|
|
Nice job. For those using my signature, I've updated the links in it to point to AMHash's main page instead of the pricing page. The site now make it obvious how to buy hashing power from them and it should be fairly simple too. Those links shouldn't need changing again, but the Havelock one will if there's an AMHash4. [table]
[tr]
[td]
[size=23pt][font=Arial][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833704.0][b][color=#434343]AM[/color][color=#0082E5]Hash[/color][/b][/url][/font][/size]
[/td]
[td]
[size=10pt][font=Arial][b][url=http://www.asicmn.com][color=#434343]ASIC[/color][color=#85be46]MINER[/color][/url] ● [url=http://www.rockminer.com][color=#434343]ROCK[/color][color=#F54325]MINER[/color][/url][/b] ● Purchase from: [url=http://www.amhash.com][b][color=#434343]AM[/color][color=#0082E5]Hash[/color][/b][/url] (20 Th/s minimum) ● [url=https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=AMHASH3][b][color=#A98921]Havelock[/color][/b][/url] (1 Gh/s minimum)[br][b][url=http://www.amhash.com][color=#000000]Cloud-mining contracts: 0.0012 BTC per Gh ● Maintenance fee: $0.001551 per Gh per day ● Upto 6% Christmas Bonus[/color][/url][/b][/font][/size]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
|
|
|
|
AMHash have just updated their website to make buying directly less complicated. For those using my signature, I've updated the links in it to point to AMHash's main page instead of the pricing page. The site now make it obvious how to buy hashing power from them and it should be fairly simple too. Those links shouldn't need changing again, but the Havelock one will if there's an AMHash4. [table]
[tr]
[td]
[size=23pt][font=Arial][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=833704.0][b][color=#434343]AM[/color][color=#0082E5]Hash[/color][/b][/url][/font][/size]
[/td]
[td]
[size=10pt][font=Arial][b][url=http://www.asicmn.com][color=#434343]ASIC[/color][color=#85be46]MINER[/color][/url] ● [url=http://www.rockminer.com][color=#434343]ROCK[/color][color=#F54325]MINER[/color][/url][/b] ● Purchase from: [url=http://www.amhash.com][b][color=#434343]AM[/color][color=#0082E5]Hash[/color][/b][/url] (20 Th/s minimum) ● [url=https://www.havelockinvestments.com/fund.php?symbol=AMHASH3][b][color=#A98921]Havelock[/color][/b][/url] (1 Gh/s minimum)[br][b][url=http://www.amhash.com][color=#000000]Cloud-mining contracts: 0.0012 BTC per Gh ● Maintenance fee: $0.001551 per Gh per day ● Upto 6% Christmas Bonus[/color][/url][/b][/font][/size]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
|
|
|
|
No and I do it manually. Itīs just alongside regular buying.
What was your payout for the the rest of your hashing power for the full week? |
|
|
|
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?
At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate. Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though? |
|
|
|
havelock investments doesn't have any address either where you get amhash
AMHash is ASICMiner's cloud mining service. AM are the oldest bitcoin ASIC manufacturer, they've proven themselves to be a reputable, trustworthy, legitimate business. They're not just a cloud mining company with no proof of legitimacy and no history. They've shown evidence of legitimacy. They also make the chips in miners which other people purchase. They've just produced their 4th generation ASIC and are also working on their 5th generation ASIC too. AM's legitimacy is pretty much as solid as you can get. Pretty much anybody who knows anything about bitcoin mining will tell you that and a quick google will show that too. |
|
|
|
wow people are still wondering that this is a scam/ponzi?
yeah payouts are continued based on new customers who dont know about cloudmining or much about it. that new funds the old customers.. hence being a ponzi..
Hash power is sold out, there is no option for new customers to buy GH/S to fund old customers so.....erm......yeah  Which would explain why payouts were less than 10% of what was expected. |
|
|
|
ok lol think got that completely wrong I'm dyslexic and feel like a complete prat for my last comment lol. I paid 67.82 for 200 Gh/s i will break even in
18 weeks now. i got paid per 100 gh/s 0.00550182 BTC
Sorry for my poor calculation I thought after I read what I wrote that it did not sound right.
Theoretically, excluding maintenance costs you should have got: 100*10^9 * 25 * 86400 * 7 * 65535 / (2^48 * 40007470271) = 0.00879922 BTC. You got 62.5% of the theoretical value. Would you be up for posting your weekly payout/Gh for all previous weeks so we can have a closer look at what's been going on with payouts? Anyone else willing to to do so? |
|
|
|
|
How much did you get per Gh?
|
|
|
|
too bad, i know them, but still id say u should do some research too before u accuse any of them to be ponzi mining isnt it so? not defending them but still think that u bashing around leaving them big red negative trust isnt the right thing to do, and also ASICMiner went from nobody-know-company into really awesome company that all miners know  so i think your way to do things isnt right, id vote u leave them neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose" speaking of puppet i like the way he do things really and I like his thread about 101 cloud mining risk I've done some research. Other people with no connection to AM have done some research. We all came to our own conclusions that these are almost certainly scams. There are quite a few cloud mining services, the few I left negative feedback on are simply the worst of the worst. Since you like the way Puppet does things, you might like to hear what he had to say on the matter: Mabsark gave distrust to cloud mining / ponzi operators that take people's money while lying about nearly all aspects of their business. I suspect the list matches pretty well with the ones I scored as ponzi in the link in my signature;
Personally, I think thats a (very) good and logical thing to do. Anyone with a grain of common sense would distrust them, and its a good thing newbies are made aware they should exercise extreme caution when dealing with them.
The only reason spanish is upset, is that he makes his miserable life by spamming ref links to these scams.
I've told all of these services that I'd remove the feedback if they provide some form of evidence of legitimacy. If they had any hashing power, they would quite easily be able to do that. This is not just an AM against the competition thing: I give my vote of confidence to Mabsark.
I actually personally agree to most of Mabsark's opinions here, especially given the recent light where PBMining imploded. Also, Mabsark's not in DefaultTrust, rather someone in DefaultTrust has trusted him.
To be honest, I'm considering leaving negative trust for you SS. It is pretty blatant that you are not just a victim of PBmining but are doing your damndest to keep all these ponzis going for as long as possible. I would consider you to be just as complicit as the operators of the ponzis, and don't trust a thing you say on that basis.
That's 4 respected members of the community who agree and have no obvious affiliation with AM and I know Puppet and Raskul have stated that they don't have any. I think most people with a reasonable amount of experience with bitcoin mining would agree that the services Puppet listed as legit are legit, the ones he's listed as a ponzi are most likely a ponzi, and the ones in between are questionable to various degrees. It's better to warn people about these services before they get ripped off rather than waiting till afterwards then rubbing their noses in it. If the services are legitimate they can easily prove that. They refuse to do. |
|
|
|
Unreasonable competitor trolls are the reason we don't take this forum seriously.
There's nothing unreasonable about asking you to provide some form of legitimacy. Asking you for that is simply common sense as is refusing to do business with you because you flat out refuse to provide such evidence. |
|
|
|
What this almost always means is that people who are competing with both you and ASICminer are stopped dead in their tracks. This is exactly what is happening in this case. You (via someone you have on your trust list) are receiving a competitive advantage for what both you and your business partner are selling.
I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Have a look at Puppet's Cloudmining 101 thread, and tell me how many cloud mining services are on that list. Now look at those I've left negative feedback for. It's blatantly obvious I'm doing nothing to stifle legitimate competition. If my feedback causes loss to services which refuse to provide any evidence of legitimacy, services which are almost certainly a ponzi like PB mining, then good. If I can also direct potential cloud mining customers from those scams to AMHash, then that's even better. That's a win-win situation for everybody but the scammers. Also, how is Canary receiving a competitive advantage from that? He does group buys for actual physical miners but my link is for a cloud mining service. Nobody looking at my sig is going to think, "That sounds good, think I'll buy a Prisma!" Finally, if those services want me to remove that feedback, all they have to do is provide some evidence of their legitimacy yet they flat out refuse to do so. That should make any sensible person strongly suspicious of the service being a scam, which is one of the actual valid reasons for leaving negative feedback. this is also what i see as the scenario is, as i see that mabsark using that AMHASH sig and posting negative feedback to the new cloud mining service account, this is pretty contradicting, potential could mean he will either scam OR probably legit, perhaps mabsark should put neutral trust and write in description, like " posibly ponzi cloud mining, please do your own research and dont invest unless you can afford to lose"
On the one hand you have ASICMiner, on the other hand you have a company that nobody has ever heard of, acting incredibly shady and refusing to provide any evidence of legitimacy. Now, if you don't know who ASICMiner are (which you clearly don't), then you obviously know nothing about bitcoin mining and should do some research. |
|
|
|
No, no they're not. Its just the test range displayed is at the very low end of the chip to demonstrate best W/Gh. The actual release W/GH will be significantly higher, as will the GH/chip. But even at .25 at chip, there are already chips that can achieve that at low clock speeds, and many more to come.
According to previous updates, the production chips would have have greater efficiency: Update
Some details of BE300:
Process: tsmc 28nm hpc
Package: fclga (5mm x 5mm)
Normal Mode:
0.7v vdd
6gh/s per chip
8gh/s-12gh/s per chip for mass production
0.343w/g on chip
~0.3w/g on chip for mass production
Low Power Mode:
0.55v vdd
4.5gh/s per chip
6gh/s-9gh/s per chip for mass production
0.225w/g on chip
~0.2w/g on chip for mass production
The schedule of BE300 producing: First batch production will be done next Feb.
So, why are you assuming that they will be less efficient? |
|
|
|
I really appreciate the new tone of the discussion. It's nice to see things kept decent and cool.
There is a lot of reason to doubt us right now, I agree. And I am also aware that the collapse of the ponzi pbmining will generate some turmoil and will make waves.
We are keeping everything low-key for now, until February, when we will be able to shed some light on our operation and clear everything up.
Currently, we are only accepting bitcoins and the advertising campaign sums up to a banner and the signature campaign on this forum.
Until February, my goal is to make our services known to the more frequent users and cryptocurrency enthusiasts. After we will be able to provide consistent proof, we will also start getting our advertising, marketing and social presence into gear.
Until then, bare with us and enjoy the Holidays and the New Year. They're just around the corner...
What's so special about February? Is that when you'll actually be purchasing some miners? When you do provide evidence of legitimacy showing you are not the ponzi people here think you are, I'll remove the negative feedback. I won't be holding my breath though and I expect we'll never hear from you again after February. |
|
|
|
Very interesting read and I have learned something from your post. To flip the coin the other way, you have shown what is a Ponzi scheme but could you not list companies in your eyes that is not a Ponzi scheme. I can't see any thread here on good mining companies as I would love to read. So if there is a link you or anyone can provide for me to help me invest my money wisely then please could you or others guide me in the right direction please ?
Look at the bottom of Puppet's list and you'll see the legit services: Cex.io KNCcloud Cryptx PETAmine AMhash Hashnest(*after merge) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
