|
How can mr hashking claim to not control ROI and at the same time guarantee ROI?
/rhetorical question
|
|
|
|
This is clear, but why would you categorize cloud mining as securities?
Well the Securities Act of 1933 defines a security as a "Certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement" I don't see how anyone could argue that cloudmining is not a profit sharing agreement. Maybe that's why they prefer to remain anonymous, to exploit the possibility of staying under the radar. They are probably earning more then they are reporting, just like most miners nowadays and I don't blame them. I'm ok with them exploiting any hole in the fiscal law, as long as it brings me profit, but I understand if people prefer to do it by the book.
That I can completely understand. I think every existing cloudmining company is illegally selling unregistered securities so it would be a bad idea to not be anonymous. My main point bringing up the SEC requirements is the importance of independent auditing. Names/business info can all be faked (as it's happened before) so it's not that important, but you cannot fake proof of mining via the blockchain. Any company that does it's best to prevent due diligence is not worth investing in. |
|
|
|
If u notice carefully, u'll see that no one is actually bothered except for the members associated with the notorious Chinese cartel, that is forming up. ZeusMiner, Rockminer, XBTec and AsicMiner led by HaveLock Investment are actually planning a giant scam. By showing a few mining rig and buying some large hashpower for short time to prove the mining address, this cartel is trying to gain trust. At the same time, they are doing negative publicity about PB mining, cloudmining.website, cloudminr.io et all. They were also against Hashie, but now as Hashie is now reselling AM Hash, they are a bit calm about them. Whenever you are making your purchase decision, you should be careful, not to get deceived by this cartel. Read more about the deal here : https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/zeusminer-expands-partnerships-include-asicminer-xbtec-rockminer/Yep, there´s clearly desperation somewhere. Maybe some big bankruptcy is imminent. You two seriously need to educate yourselves. I mean that sincerely. |
|
|
|
When BE300 comes out, where is AM's profit going to be most realized?
As a chip manufacturer.
As a device manufacturer.
As a self miner.
As a cloud mining service.
AM's demonstrated core competencies are -deploying mines -device manufacturing -marketing, PR, and hype -(possibly) cloud mining service AM is not the best at -chip design/manufacturing Therefore, I strongly advise AM to compete in the Dec 6 auction for HashFast's 28nm GN1/1.5 and 16nm 16nm ASIC designs. 16nm is a very expensive scale to design/fabricate at. AM would be wise to acquire HF's 16nm IP and use it to surpass KnC, Cointerra, and Bitfury in leading edge innovation, rather than start from scratch and pay full market price to compete in the 4th gen ASIC space. Why you think AM would buy the IP for a 28nm chip that doesn't even compete with their own 40nm chip is beyond me. Please just give it up. Nobody wants anything to do with the epic failure which is Hashfast. You've been in the denial stage for far too long, it's time to move on with your life. |
|
|
|
The vendor had customers willing to invest despite the anonymity and still has so why would he?
Several customers have already admitted that they will not invest any more money because the company looks so much like a ponzi. So to answer your question as to why he would prove they are not a ponzi, it's simply because they would get loads of money by doing so. Because their pricing is so much better than any other cloudmining company, I am positive that they would have had 10-20 PH/s by now if they had proven they weren't a ponzi. The question you have to ask yourself is why would pbmining refuse investor/VC funding and instead limit their customer base to naive/gullible gamblers? (because that's what they are doing by mimicking a ponzi) Does pbmining hate money? |
|
|
|
Love the duck test but does it really apply here? It would work if you could prove they don't own any hardware but you can't.
It doesn't work that way. You cannot prove something doesn't exist. Here's a nice quote: "A baker never fails to put finished pies on her windowsill, so if there is no pie on the windowsill, then no finished pies exist." Let's imagine you go to a restaurant, eat a strange named dish and it tastes great, you go home and feel all right, so the dish was not only tasty but also nutritious. You come back to the restaurant and ask how was it made, and the chef refuses to tell or even show you the kitchen. Does it mean he's scamming the customers?
I like your analogy but you're looking at it completely wrong. In the US there are several legal requirements for opening a restaurant some of which includes: a: register their company b: acquire licenses and permits c: meet and maintain health/safety codes. Similarly, any company planning to offer an IPO in the US is required to fill out an S-1 form. In general, securities sold in the U.S. must be registered. The registration forms companies file provide essential facts while minimizing the burden and expense of complying with the law. In general, registration forms call for: - a description of the company's properties and business;
- a description of the security to be offered for sale;
- information about the management of the company; and
- financial statements certified by independent accountants.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml#secact1933These requirements/guidelines were not created by the SEC just for fun. They were created specifically for your protection as an investor because without them, ponzi schemes/scams run rampant. Independent auditing is absolutely required to do proper due diligence but it appears the concept is completely unheard of among bitcoins get-rich-quick "investors". An easy/verifiable way to independently audit the company is by using the fantastic invention called the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Someone manufactures hardware or really mining some block, does not prove anything. This is no legitimacy proof as a cloud miner. It just means they know how to do the job.
A mining address actually does prove they are not a ponzi. Unless they can accurately prove the volume they are selling, it is always a half truth or a magnificent lie. It's pretty clear you've done absolutely no research before forming your conclusions. If you had ever visited havelock you would have known that they tell you exactly how many shares have been sold. (645 TH/s)  There's more than ~1 PH/s in this picture alone and they've proven they have ~5 PH/s currently mining on ghash.io. Any overselling is obviously Ponzi and the Havelock led AMhash backed Chinese cartel is exactly doing that. And you sir have just proven you're a complete idiot. |
|
|
|
Here are some great quotes from the guy totally not selling securities. (all from just the past few days) The ball is in motion now. There is almost no scenario in which our miners are not going to do very well. When you put all the puzzle pieces together, you'll see that we have designed a self-perpetuating system in which our miners will almost always win. But rest assured, it will be a the greatest return ever seen in crypto Primes will ROI many times over. I will give 5 BTC to the first person who can write a post that accurately describes how every component comes together in a way that demonstrates how miners will earn more money than they ever have before, or ever could, with any other coin. I need all the pieces to come together for my plan to work. Miners don't make money right now because the coin market cap is not growing. Miners will make money like crazy of the market cap grows like crazy. The best coin in the world is going to have the best miner the world has ever seen, (and, the most profitable.) Bonus: In addition to our major partners, today it was confirmed that HashCoin will be used by hundreds of thousands of merchants. |
|
|
|
Donating to solar roadways is pretty much admitting engineering is not your thing.
I think your concept is definitely possible and doesn't break any of the laws of physics, but I just cant see it being ever beneficial cost/energy wise.
Well my friend, Solar Roadways has been chosen by Popular Science as one of the 100 Greatest Innovations of 2014! It's in their 27th annual "Best of What's New" December issue and the department of energy as well as the California IOUs have asked us to submit proposals for grants... Looks like were both on the right path! Take a look at the new projectexergy.com and let us know if this is any better. The website looks much more professional than before, however it's lacking information. I'd like to see diagrams/explanations while getting straight to the point and avoiding obfuscation. As I said before you should really forget about solar roadways and try to distance yourself because it's damaging your credibility. It is undeniably uneconomical to make solar roadways. It's been debunked by so many engineers at this point I'm surprised so many people are still latching on to the concept. If you guys can't figure out why solar roadways is unfeasible then I'm afraid your invention is doomed to fail for the same reasons they are. (hint: it's the cost) Looking at the "henry-build-log" I am digging the watercooling setup however it looks pretty expensive. I'm guessing your whole cost is at least ~$500 for a ~500W system. Let's do the math: I pay ~$10/MBTU ($0.034/kwh) and ~$0.15/kwh. 0.5 kw * $0.034 * 24 * 365 = $148 (possible savings per year) 0.5 kw * $0.15 * 24 * 365 = $657 (cost of using electric heating instead of natural gas) So you would need to find a computing application that pays at least $509 per year with only 500w worth of hardware before it becomes cheaper than natural gas heating for a maximum savings of only $148 per year. If you do manage to find an application that pays out that well, then I'm sure it would make more sense to just set up a datacenter with cheaper electricity + more powerful/efficient servers. |
|
|
|
As Gavin Andresen pointed out in his initial comment about Cloud Mining some four odd months ago, GAW could also utilize merkle sum trees to provide cryptographic proof of work to once and for all confirm that they are not operating with fractional mining,
That would not require them to disclose a mining address. It would require competent programming on GAW's part.
As Josh mentioned in this very thread, if they are running fractional mining, then Josh should be in jail for fraud.
(I do not pretend to understand what Gavin meant, but then hey, I don't run the blockchain. I do believe that he knows what he is talking about)
Another way they could prove they aren't a fractional reserve/ponzi would be to give customers the ability to point the hashrate at any pool. (verify the hashrate via the pool readings.) They wouldn't even need to disclose a mining address which mr hashking clearly wants to avoid at all costs. |
|
|
|
You dont think you know that GHash has its own set of hardware that do not mine on their own pool. They are classified under 'unknown' category.
Got any proof or did you just make that up? I think what you're trying to say is that AMhash could be renting hashrate from Bitfury (who supplies cex.io) which is possible, but incredibly unlikely considering Bitfury's hardware is much more expensive than Asicminers own hardware. Either way it's real hardware paying out real mining earnings. You're right in the sense that a mining address alone with proof of mining does not prove they wont scam you, however it is strong evidence. Likewise, hiding a mining address is not definitive proof of being a ponzi, however most agree that it is a very strong indicator. |
|
|
|
Puppet, you've made your case. I do not believe you correct, but you've cast sufficient doubt that I'll remove the link.
pbmining, I will restore it if you do reveal your operation sufficiently for someone like him to deem it legit.
What is he wrong about? Rather than prove they are legitimate, which costs them nothing, they spend on advertising, referrals, promotions, etc. It's so obviously a Ponzi! My question is who is legit here ? AMhash, havelock, RockMiner are actually forming a cartel showing some fake 'mining proof', because they know, even if they are identified, none is going to catch them to China. So, the problem is for western companies. If their data is out, they'll have a Pirate40 like fate... What's fake about this? Anyone can verify for themselves that amhash has several PH/s mining on ghash.io. How funny. Pay something to Ghash.io and use their 'unknown miners' to get some extra mileage. What's so great about that ? This happens every now & then in every industry !!! I don't think you understand how pools work. |
|
|
|
Puppet, you've made your case. I do not believe you correct, but you've cast sufficient doubt that I'll remove the link.
pbmining, I will restore it if you do reveal your operation sufficiently for someone like him to deem it legit.
What is he wrong about? Rather than prove they are legitimate, which costs them nothing, they spend on advertising, referrals, promotions, etc. It's so obviously a Ponzi! My question is who is legit here ? AMhash, havelock, RockMiner are actually forming a cartel showing some fake 'mining proof', because they know, even if they are identified, none is going to catch them to China. So, the problem is for western companies. If their data is out, they'll have a Pirate40 like fate... What's fake about this? Anyone can verify for themselves that amhash has several PH/s mining on ghash.io. |
|
|
|
So will we be getting an explanation as to why you cannot disclose your mining address and/or payout from actual mining earnings or is "I have my reasons" as good as it's going to get?
Use some logic. Do you really think it would make sense for us not to be mining for our customers? Do you it would make any sense for us to be so public, and attract all this attention, to not be doing something basic like mining? Use some logic yourself. I'm sure you can figure out why there have been dozens of identical ponzi schemes which you've set up your company to mimic. (i.e. hiding mining address, paying out "earnings" from new customer payments, etc) Logic would tell me that there's no reason to hide a mining address unless the hashrate doesn't exist (or is a fractional reserve). I made a poll on this forum and found that 2/3 people agree that hiding a mining address is a very good indicator of a ponzi scheme. We are 100% prepared for any agency to come in and make us prove that every hashlet payout is backed up by a mining payout.
So why are you not 100% prepared to just post your mining address so anyone and everyone can verify that your company is not a ponzi? Why can't you self audit via the blockchain like every other legit cloudmining company? I don't have to prove that to you, the understanding that if we are not are doing this, that would make us a security by definition and the price for selling a unregistered security is jail time is enough for me. I am pretty motivated to make sure we have the mining power we should have.
If a lawyer gave you that advice, I'd seriously recommend getting a new one and possibly suing the old one for malpractice. If you are offering a profit sharing agreement of any sort, it is by definition a security. No amount of wordplay and obfuscation will make you exempt from security laws/regulations. |
|
|
|
Additionally, after reading through a few comments. It became clear there there are two very different kinds of posters here. There are some that only have the agenda of being a problem.
Sounds a lot like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_PersonSo will we be getting an explanation as to why you cannot disclose your mining address and/or payout from actual mining earnings or is "I have my reasons" as good as it's going to get? |
|
|
|
You guys still claim we have no miners, based on what proof? Because I refuse to not disclose my total Hash rate? Right......it makes more sense to believe that I don't really have any (despite all the pictures, etc) and for some reason I spend millions on miners that I never hook up. Then to believe that I don't disclose it for competitive reasons? And you guys wonder why I do not not address any of your questions?
can you elaborate what competitive reasons could there be i cant come up with anything that makes sense obviously youre mining btc you bought antminers obviously you need to have a lot of phs what else could a mining address disclose Want the honest answer? I have no interest in people knowing how much power we have. I have my reasons for it, and its ok if they are not good enough for you. But I think much differently then you might, I have different goals. "I have my reasons" is probably the most suspicious explanation you could have come up with. You have to understand that that sounds like total bullshit and exactly what a ponzi operator would say. Nobody says you need to disclose 100% of your hashrate, only 100% of what you're claiming to have sold. Surely the weekly sales figures your company is releasing combined with pics of the farm is disclosing far more info than a mining address. |
|
|
|
Figured since everyone was making an appearance, I wold too  First, I am curious. Why doesn't the whole "tell the truth" thing apply both ways? You guys demand GAW is truthful and transparent, yet you guys are not. You have posters literally just making things up. For example, that Scott guy has resorted to just making up facts, without a shred of proof. Most here don't bother to do any real research and present any real facts. What about the definitive proof that you are using new customer payments to payout "mining earnings"? Why don't mining earnings come from actual mining? Notice that when I defend the companies position, I typically use numbers and facts. Most of the posters here just make things up, focus on what supports their position and ignore the things that don't. You guys were all over our TOS with it mentioned virtual miners, and now that it references physical miners, no one brings it up anymore? Focus on what makes us look bad, and ignore the things that don't.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Your statements are 100% backed by faith/trust not verifiable facts. Feel free to post your mining address if that's not true. I expect ~20 PH/s of sha-256 or 1000 GH/s of scrypt. If you think we are violating securities laws, and the team of attorneys and all the investor relationships are are forming are some how missing that, then report us. But why keep talking about it? You guys honestly think its more believable that with all the capital and visibility we have that it makes more sense for us to be breaking the law and scamming people, then us building this company to sell for billions one day? Again, you just choose to ignore what makes your view make sense, and make up the missing information.
So basically your argument is that "we have so much money, why would we scam people?"? I'm going to have to award you zero jimmothypoints for that excuse. You guys still claim we have no miners, based on what proof? Because I refuse to not disclose my total Hash rate? Yes that's exactly why. Every other legit cloudmining company has no problem disclosing their mining address, why is GAW different? Right......it makes more sense to believe that I don't really have any (despite all the pictures, etc) and for some reason I spend millions on miners that I never hook up. Then to believe that I don't disclose it for competitive reasons? And you guys wonder why I do not not address any of your questions?
Despite all the pictures? You mean the pictures that show 1/10th of the hashrate you claim to possess? Surely you understand why we don't buy it. Pics can be faked (not that I think yours are) but a mining address is definitive and publicly verifiable proof that the hashrate exists, take advantage of it. I just find it ironic that about half the points that get made on here are all about being transparent and accepting of other different perspectives when the posters here are just as biased.
It's not our job to be transparent, we aren't the ones trying to sell millions of dollars worth of promises. You just made my point. This is exactly what I am talking about. Almost all the question you pose I answered. They answers are either not good enough, you don't agree, are you don' believe. Your not looking to get my answers, your looking to be right. Thats fine, but just because that the position you choose to take, does not mean we are scammers are doing anything wrong. Can you reiterate? I must have missed the explanation for why the mining address must remain hidden and why payouts must come from new customer payments. |
|
|
|
Figured since everyone was making an appearance, I wold too First, I am curious. Why doesn't the whole "tell the truth" thing apply both ways? You guys demand GAW is truthful and transparent, yet you guys are not. You have posters literally just making things up. For example, that Scott guy has resorted to just making up facts, without a shred of proof. Most here don't bother to do any real research and present any real facts. What about the definitive proof that you are using new customer payments to payout "mining earnings"? Why don't mining earnings come from actual mining? Notice that when I defend the companies position, I typically use numbers and facts. Most of the posters here just make things up, focus on what supports their position and ignore the things that don't. You guys were all over our TOS with it mentioned virtual miners, and now that it references physical miners, no one brings it up anymore? Focus on what makes us look bad, and ignore the things that don't.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Your statements are 100% backed by faith/trust not verifiable facts. Feel free to post your mining address if that's not true. I expect ~20 PH/s of sha-256 or 1000 GH/s of scrypt. If you think we are violating securities laws, and the team of attorneys and all the investor relationships are are forming are some how missing that, then report us. But why keep talking about it? You guys honestly think its more believable that with all the capital and visibility we have that it makes more sense for us to be breaking the law and scamming people, then us building this company to sell for billions one day? Again, you just choose to ignore what makes your view make sense, and make up the missing information.
So basically your argument is that "we have so much money, why would we scam people?"? I'm going to have to award you zero jimmothypoints for that excuse. You guys still claim we have no miners, based on what proof? Because I refuse to not disclose my total Hash rate? Yes that's exactly why. Every other legit cloudmining company has no problem disclosing their mining address, why is GAW different? Right......it makes more sense to believe that I don't really have any (despite all the pictures, etc) and for some reason I spend millions on miners that I never hook up. Then to believe that I don't disclose it for competitive reasons? And you guys wonder why I do not not address any of your questions?
Despite all the pictures? You mean the pictures that show 1/10th of the hashrate you claim to possess? Surely you understand why we don't buy it. Pics can be faked (not that I think yours are) but a mining address is definitive and publicly verifiable proof that the hashrate exists, take advantage of it. I just find it ironic that about half the points that get made on here are all about being transparent and accepting of other different perspectives when the posters here are just as biased.
It's not our job to be transparent, we aren't the ones trying to sell millions of dollars worth of promises. |
|
|
|
You have any comment on the below, Volder? (apologies to everyone who has heard me beat this dead horse) My prior comments were: Josh has stated, unequivocally, that Zenpool profits are paid out on: 1. private rentals 2. mining 3. day-trading 4. undisclosed other activities. Your profits payouts are not a 1MH share of a mining pool, but a share of quite a few other activities in which MH does not even figure (like in day trading). What is a security? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77bThe term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. You're trying too hard. Cloudmining by itself is by definition a security. It's a profit sharing agreement, period. There no amount of wording/obfuscation that will make it exempt from security laws/regulations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
