Or, possibly, when the coin gets added by cryptsy it causes a huge volume of transactions as everyone tries to move their coins over to dump them, and the coin infrastructure just can't process that many transactions quickly enough?

And this quite neatly:
a) Provides no advanced hashing benefit at all to batch 1 customers.
b) Depending on the exact wording, may not break any of the vague promises they have made, as they won't be 'delivering' or 'selling' any Neptunes to any other customers on 1st July.

My interpretation:
Batch 1 delivered 1st July.
Batch 2 delivered 3-4 weeks later, but with compensatory cloud hashing from 1st July.
Batch 3 delivered 1 month later, but with compensatory cloud hashing from 1st July.

Batch 1 customers are delivered on time.
They just say to batch 2 and 3 customers "Yes, we were late, but it didn't affect you, because we gave you free hashing to match"

From middle to end of June, your machines will be 'in production', and unable to be refunded.

No it isn't.
You've agreed to give them money.
They've agreed to give you a Neptune at the end of Q2.
You have no control over what they do with your money in the meantime.

Oops, I meant 3%

BTCGuild pays for orphans, pays transaction fees, merge mines NMC, and charges 1.5% fees.


And:
a) Increased disk space and IO requirements for the full Bitcoin blockchain
b) Increased CPU and memory requirements for running bitcoind
c) Increased network bandwidth requirements for running a full node
d) Increased variability
e) Increased transaction costs in later spending your mining income, due to the large number of small payments, rather than a single payment from a pool

For me, 1.5% seems like a fair charge to avoid those issues.

(To the thread in general) Stop assuming that people are being stupid or ignorant, just because they don't make the same choices you do.

Try actually reading the complaint.

As a low-hashrate miner, the new setup is greatly preferable to the old one.


And this would be even better.

So all the stuff you should have done before taking responsibility for other peoples' money?

Anyone who buys a house will know that, because their solicitor will tell them.
Plus it is listed on every house detail in every estate agents window.

I suspect the point of view of most Bitcointalk members would be that this is the act of a free market.
It is only onside control (normally by governments) that stops companies acting like that all the time.
If you want a world with no outside control, the natural outcome is might is right.
If BCX has enough hashing might, he gets to control the coin, that is how coins are designed.
Hard checkpoints are the crypto equivalent of government regulation, hoping for a single trusted source to protect you from the bad guys.

From the front page:

There is no risk for KNC. They are taking payments in USD, and issuing refunds for the same amount of USD.
Why should they care what happens to the BTC value in between?

They were too lax about money laundering, and got hit with a big fine and embarrassment.
As a result, everyone became scared they their department would cause the next issue, so they because far too paranoid about money laundering.
Now that has caused embarrassment as well, they'll probably settle down somewhere in the middle.

Shrug.
The government will compensate domestic savers up until the limit they have promised for the most simple political reason of all: Any government that didn't wouldn't be re-elected for decades. They will always choose to take the money from shareholders and commercial debtors instead, because that is the best political move.
This isn't the US where massive amounts of commercial campaign fund donations are required to be elected.
There are more voters who are savers than there are voters who are tax-payers. There are more voters who are tax-payers than there are voters who would be affected by taking money from commercial debtors.
Therefore screw commercial debtors before taxpayers, and screw taxpayers before savers.

a) There has always been a limit to deposit protection, they aren't making anything relating to customer deposits legal, what you have linked to is about commercial creditors and shareholders.
b) The limit for customer deposits was raised during the financial crisis.
c) The document you have linked to explicitly excludes customer deposits protected by the FSCS from the bail-in provisions.
d) The FSCS don't have enough money, because it doesn't have any money. This is not a defined pot like the US bank protection, it is a blanket government guarantee.
d) We don't have to guess if people's money would be protected in case a bank crash, we know, because it has happened. I had money in Kaupthing Edge when it collapsed. The UK government stepped in and transferred all my accounts, on the same terms, to ING. I didn't lose a penny. The system worked just like it was meant to.

According to your screenshots, you've made over 378 million bets.
With that many bets, losing 14 in a row at some point isn't surprising.

Yes, you will, because this game has a house edge.
That shouldn't be a surprise.

No, because an alternative would be to sell those Bitcoins for $10000, so the Neptune is still costing you $10000.
It doesn't matter at all what price they were when you bought them, it matters what they are worth now.

If you read the actual article, you would see that the title of this thread is completely misleading, and the EU haven't threatened anything, they have warned people of the various risks involved.