How unexpected  Thanks for the link, TooDumbForBitcoin, many lulz were had. Wonder how many "investors" will chose to keep their sharez? Slaughter said Kander's actions prevent from him from selling shares, and that current investors "have a choice of whether they can stay in or get reimbursed." He said he didn't have an estimate of how many would choose to be reimbursed, and stated that the companies are in an "excellent position."
Slaughter and his companies now face the prospect of multiple penalties from Kander's office, according to today's release.
@cedivad: The tinfoil fan in me always suspected that Ken is a fall guy, an aging drunk given a Goodwill suit and a few grand to front this thing, but who knows... |
|
|
|
...
What's weird about it? Your argument is that you can't keep up with difficulty, meaning the investment will lose value, since mining yields less and less. Yet the shares gained value, way above 50%. ...
Dividends paid, shares gaining value... Why would you want to mess with such a winning combination by issuing another IPO and cutting divs? Or... *Are you a wizard? |
|
|
|
...
You're going to have to wait this out until answers come AND ignore the individuals who have a material benefit from seeing this company fail ...
But trust the bagholders who are totally honest and impartial, because they are motivated by Truth and a desire help you through these troubling times |
|
|
|
... the empirical pattern we see in other high growth industries of consolidation to the point of only a few mega players being left (Pharma for example). PETA's game is to be one of those final few players.
... Play your cards right, and you'll control 100% of the network. <==♬ And you'll sit and grin/the money will roll right in ♬ |
|
|
|
... OK, jimmothy: You own stock in company A, which makes widgets. I own company A, and want to make your shares worthless. I form company B, and form a contract to sell it my widgets at laughably low prices. This bleeds out company A, while I get to keep all muh munyz through company B profits. So now you know Well, What if "I", the owner of company A, himself possesses more than 50% shares of company A? And "I" take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the company out... The TL;DR answer is you don't own 50% of company A, or any company. What you do own is a few ASICMINER sharez, worth ~50% less than they used to be just a couple of days ago. That's also bragworthy, in its own way. Why start with outlandish hypotheticals when equally lulzy personal examples are at hand? *Now that we're on the same page, what exactly did you wish to know? Sorry, I'm not English native speaker, maybe I failed to express myself clear. What I really want to mean is: FC himself already possesses more than 50% shares of AM through BitFountain. I don't find any good reason for him to take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the AM out. Hi, not a native speaker either, though I don't think we have a language problem. Since we're dealing purely with hypotheticals (you don't own 50% of company A), i'll offer a few of my own: As I have mentioned before, the board members, along with FC, could have unloaded their shares, used those shares to back additional funding, or funding for starting new companies--any number of things. So assuming that 80% of ASICMINER shares are in the hands of those in control of the company, whose interests are aligned with yours, is simply unreasonable. Then there's the risk you referred to, begging the question "WTF are you talking about?" In countries with draconian securities regulations, bleedouts of the type I've described happens all the time. What of a Hong Kong firm with an anonymous CEO, trading on an unlicenced Panamanian exchange, funded by selling its stock to non-qualified investors? What, exactly, is the risk? This thread gets a few angry posts and FC's Bitcointalk trust rating turns red? The horror! Finally, if your reasoning is sound, it surely must apply to other touchstones of Bitcoin finance, like NeoBee? Local finance enthusiasts tripped over each other to mock me and fling invectives when I suggested that Mr. Brewster was anything less than capable and sincere. Finally, consider that remaining 20%--the reward side of teh risk equation. That's millions of dollars. Many in this thread would do more than cook the virtual, unaudited books of a virtual company to lay their hands on such sums  |
|
|
|
... OK, jimmothy: You own stock in company A, which makes widgets. I own company A, and want to make your shares worthless. I form company B, and form a contract to sell it my widgets at laughably low prices. This bleeds out company A, while I get to keep all muh munyz through company B profits. So now you know Well, What if "I", the owner of company A, himself possesses more than 50% shares of company A? And "I" take a risk by collude with all the board members, who possess another 30% shares, only to bleed the rest 20% of the company out... The TL;DR answer is you don't own 50% of company A, or any company. What you do own is a few ASICMINER sharez, worth ~50% less than they used to be just a couple of days ago. That's also bragworthy, in its own way. Why start with outlandish hypotheticals when equally lulzy personal examples are at hand? *Now that we're on the same page, what exactly did you wish to know? |
|
|
|
I'm going to assume you're very young and thus educable, rather than a differently-enabled adult. This assumption might be unreasonable (and I'm a bit worried that it is), but noblesse oblige dictates I err on the side of kindness. So here's ur learningz for the day: While certain philosophers insist that reality doesn't exist outside of perception, this concept is for grownups, so don't try to think about it just yet. While you're still young, this is all that you need to know: When NotLambchop is reasonably sure, bet your life on it. Unlike drool, scribbles and malformed thinkings you make with your own brain, NotLambchop's reasonable assumptions are, indeed, reasonable. Take NotLambchop's word for it and stop acting out. Kids these days  Bravo, sir. I suppose when you have nothing else to use, it's quite pathetic to finally resort to name calling and then to follow it up with only reaffirming your "reasonable assumptions." Although that is to be expected, isn't it? You don't have anything else. It's ok though because you'll eagerly come back, type out another post to proclaim your ill-conceived thoughts, tack on some mild insult, and take false comfort in that what you say actually matters. Go on, we're all waiting. Your reply, young man, is sadly typical of today's youth: brash, uncouth, confrontational and yet ...so sensitive and easy to wound. Which part of my edifying discourse offended your delicate sensibilities?  |
|
|
|
@Another User: Context. Qualifiers. <==Learn both And of course I don't have the entire picture. Neither do you. OTOH, when it smells like shit and it's this sewer, I'm going to assume it's shit. <==reasonable assumption ~rolly-eyed smileys~ Oooooh! My turn! @NotLampChop "Reasonable" assumption ≠ Reality. Comprehension. <== Understand both For someone that claims to "use logic," backing them up with only assumptions doesn't make it any more legitimate. OTOH, when you smell "shit" and you're in "this sewer," kind of makes you wonder why you're even here in the first place, doesn't it? Must be a fetish, maybe I'm just not sure... ~rolly-eyed smileys~ I'm going to assume you're very young and thus educable, rather than a differently-enabled adult. This assumption might be unreasonable (and I'm a bit worried that it is), but noblesse oblige dictates I err on the side of kindness. So here's ur learningz for the day: While certain philosophers insist that reality doesn't exist outside of perception, this concept is for grownups, so don't try to think about it just yet. While you're still young, this is all that you need to know: When NotLambchop is reasonably sure, bet your life on it. Unlike drool, scribbles and malformed thinkings you make with your own brain, NotLambchop's reasonable assumptions are, indeed, reasonable. Take NotLambchop's word for it and stop acting out. Kids these days |
|
|
|
@Another User: Context. Qualifiers. <==Learn both And of course I don't have the entire picture. Neither do you. OTOH, when it smells like shit and it's this sewer, I'm going to assume it's shit. <==reasonable assumption (as in "pretty sure" if you still don't get it) ~rolly-eyed smileys~ |
|
|
|
@electrium & lambchopfuck: plz get lost. you know nothing. JUST NOTHING. AM is risky, but as far as i see & understand everything is on track. and the best is yet to come.
edit: maybe FC owns your mama's butt via some company too. who knows..
Dat edge...  @Another User: Where do you see the contradiction? |
|
|
|
...
Do you really think FC owns any of the known 4 companies manufacturing hardware using AM chips?
You really have no clue how anything works, huh? When I was a kid, I registered & insured my cars in my GF's name. Cheaper *The cars were really mine, if that's still unclear. |
|
|
|
^Not sure I get it. What does inflation have to do with tanking bitcoin securities?
Not a whole lot. Or at least, not a whole lot that's provable. It's way off topic for here, I thought I was on the tab with the wall observer thread open where tinfoil talk is much more acceptable and Exchange Stabilisation Fund connections have relevance. O, K. I was more interested in people who intentionally lose money because they enjoy it. For instance, vortex1878 lost a sizable chunk of his "investment," and he couldn't be happier! I'm not judging, just curious about weird kinks |
|
|
|
Then when we got word that the chips didn't quite spec out as well as anticipated, but we still saw 2 huge IPOs of former AM chinese shareholders still get pushed through to the public. That shouldve been the biggest red flag.
I only know of rockminer which is currently selling hardware. How exactly is this a red flag? Everything that TAT insinuates in that chat long aligns with the narrative that AM is going to be bled out by rockminer, xtbec, and any other franchised buyer of those chips.
How exactly can AM be "bled out" by its customers? come on, you're smart. I dont have to spell it out. Consider any landscape where FC et al. want to wash themselves of AM's shareholders. Please do spell it out for me. I have no idea what kind of situation you are imagining. OK, jimmothy: You own stock in company A, which makes widgets. I own company A, and want to make your shares worthless. I form company B, and form a contract to sell it my widgets at laughably low prices. This bleeds out company A, while I get to keep all muh munyz through company B profits. So now you know |
|
|
|
|
^Not sure I get it. What does inflation have to do with tanking bitcoin securities?
|
|
|
|
...
Yes, in fact nothing IS wrong. Books are looking brilliant. Not even fiat conversions are an issue. Keep trying...
I see you're into losing money. What's that fetish called? |
|
|
|
...
TAT never had a position. He had it because of the Passthrough management and he was forced out of it when Havelock took over. Now his personal opinion is one thing but he definitely doesn't have super secret conspiracy type information to base his opinion on.
Not sure where I led you to believe a conspiracy was involved. Havelock dealings are a black box to me, so I'm uncertain how you came to the conclusion that TAT was "forced out." But no conspiracy beyond the usual opaqueness needs to take place. |
|
|
|
... NotLambchop 1) Posts pics of Havelock "assets" 2) Takes data 'X' and misrepresents as 'Y' 3) Insults other users because they don't see it as 'Y' 4) Claims to be right, those who disagree = wrong Clearly not a straw man's argument   Do you understand what a straw man argument is? Not one of your points, with the possible exception of (2), even implies it. Re. (2): What, specifically, are you talking about? |
|
|
|
...
I guess there is an assumption that the board members were paid off to not say anything about the company being bought or some other nefarious event?
I'm not implying that the board members were paid off, but I know that TAT, for one, gave up his position. I also have no idea how many shares are currently held by the board--shares could have changed hands at any point, by multiple means. I'm also not clairvoyant, I don't always know exactly how each and every scam is done. I simply allow for the fact that there are possibilities I haven't considered. Con artists who are good at their trade are as specialized as aardvarks, they study and refine their craft just like any other professional. Just like I don't expect to understand the minutia of ant-eating, it seems foolish to assume I grasp the art of the con as fully as the ones working it. And that's all I'm saying here--not understanding how a scam works is not proof of it not being a scam. Everything beyond that was thrust onto me by ASICMINER fanbois and jittery "investors." To be clearer still, I never called this a scam--merely pointed out that the odds of losing on this are astoundingly high. Not only due to FC, but to a slew of third-party risks--exchanges, etc. The potential upside in no way compensates for this, making this a nonstarter as an investment. Hope this is a bit clearer. |
|
|
|
Feel free to point out any of my posts where I have been wrong.
Uses straw man's argument = therefore, can "never be wrong" wat Each time I called a fail, it failed. Granted, the odds were stacked in my favor, since almost everything out there is either a scam or just some incorrigible child role-playing bznz, but nothing unfalsifiable about my predictions |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
