Does anyone else get the funny feeling that this Mr. Swim is actually one of the AMT crew, trying to put some side-spin on this, while not coming out directly as being associated with AMT. gag order prevents any further explanation/communication from AMT on this forum, and this Swim guy is just plain puzzling. is it Jim or Josh, trying to make excuses and/or leak info, to buy time? Alyssa turn on them? the packaging guy got fed up with is $10/hr job and turned whistle blower?
doesn't make any sense at all.
also, this one is for Phinn, notice the order #333. 33 being the magic masonic number. maybe its not a coincidence that it is a previously silent customer, with order #333, finally speaking out.
odd, very odd indeed.
Duh.... likely AMT is disguise... why? What kind of customer deletes peoples comments in a moderated thread? "Why?" is the million dollar question. what do they hope to achieve in continuing to post? still trying to explain their way out of it? anything beyond refunds or working miners is a waste of time. The posts seem to claim that IMET is responsible for their problems. Which of course is very strange since they just went back to them 2 weeks ago to manufacture the Technobit boards. |
|
|
|
Does anyone else get the funny feeling that this Mr. Swim is actually one of the AMT crew, trying to put some side-spin on this, while not coming out directly as being associated with AMT. gag order prevents any further explanation/communication from AMT on this forum, and this Swim guy is just plain puzzling. is it Jim or Josh, trying to make excuses and/or leak info, to buy time? Alyssa turn on them? the packaging guy got fed up with is $10/hr job and turned whistle blower?
doesn't make any sense at all.
also, this one is for Phinn, notice the order #333. 33 being the magic masonic number. maybe its not a coincidence that it is a previously silent customer, with order #333, finally speaking out.
odd, very odd indeed.
Duh.... likely AMT is disguise... why? What kind of customer deletes peoples comments in a moderated thread? Here's an example of a post that was deleted: Do you happen to know why they had even chosen to reply to people in a forum and not directly to their customers via email? I have an order with 2 1.2th miners. Gee if they even send me some competitor's hardware which is cheaper now id be happy.
A forum is a public arena, it seems that here they get a better understand of who's order is what and who's order they can fulfill directly without offering up settlement options via their website. It seems that if they were to email all their clients (some in the class action) then again it would result in a problem, because again that would be settling outside of the class which the other lawyers don't seem to like.  <- Frowny face. I am only a client of AMT, but my suggestion is to email AMT with what you'd propose as a form of settlement for your order, from the above options which I overheard while sitting in their office. Again - my name is Mr. Swim, my order # is 333. It is AMT's fiduciary duty to send an email to each and every customer about their current situation. The fact that they are all communicating with this board about their issues is a complete breach of that duty. Only a small percentage of customers monitor Bitcointalk. In fact, even less are monitoring this thread because it is so new. |
|
|
|
What is going to happen in 27 hours? https://www.coinprism.com/The colored show is gonna start? To me Colored Coins makes more sense. This is actually intersesting. However, I am not sure if this is a completely different specification as the original colored coins. |
|
|
|
Yes, burning is one way only. I've never been happy with the burn idea. Its very wasteful and pointless in my opinion. Why not simply use proof of Donation. Don't destroy the value, give it away to someone that can use it.
In order to go from ixc to meta and then meta to ixc why not create a holding pot for the coins? An address only accessible by the protocol to move coins back and forth. Hmmm, this is starting to almost sound like a side chain.
Yes, burning is wastefull, but if you really think about it, burning a coin increases the value of a coin to the entire population of coin holders. I don't know how you can implement 'an address only accessible by the protocol'. |
|
|
|
tested test.omniwallet.org for BTC , MSc and Maidsafe something better than even blockchain wallet but a little risky like any wallet online you have to extract private key that's a thing that shared with a site make your wallet essentially theirs or if they are hacked .... until now is going everything smooth and it can be a very awesome thing more than bitcoin 2.0 a wallet for storing any coin ... there is even another project for universal wallet paper : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=386670.20Could you not just run the wallet on your on laptop? |
|
|
|
How is that 2 BTC escrowed? If it can be escrowed, then of course the IXC can be escrowed.
In the Counterparty protocol, BTC is handled separately ( btcpay) from all other assets, and it involves an extra step. Of course, that could be used for IXC in implementing assets, but it won't work for bets (which in Counterparty are in XCP). So unless you come up with something more clever for the IXC escrow, we can't have bets. Yes the assets are equivalent to colored coins. The bets of course will need another currency. One way to logically create this is to use the burn functionality. Unlike Counterparty, you can burn IXC anytime but the exchange rate will always be 1:1. This effectively pegs the value of the metacoin with IXC. Alternative to burning of course is to exchange IXC of the metacoin. There is however no mechanism to burn the metacoin so it becomes IXC. That technology is still being worked on by the meta-coin folks. |
|
|
|
That is possible. On the other hand I am willing to believe they did have manufacturing problems. The evidence of that sits with those who actually got working hardware. OTOH that could be the fault of bitmine as well BUT seeing as bitmine doesn't appear to have the same problems in that regard, it is what makes me think they really did have that issue. I am in no way defending them. Just making a pointed observation on that specific point. How they handle other stuff is another matter. I am weighing my own options in this because it looks like I would lose out bigger if I wait for the suit to take off. There may be nothing to do. And they cant file for bankruptcy. No court would let them with a pending class action in the mix. Plenty of case law to back that up. I am pretty sure they didnt get millions. In fact I am betting (nothing just pride) that they all of their orders are probably from people here on this forum. Maybe a couple that weren't. But most if not all of their orders came from here and maybe a couple other forums like this one. Of course this is just a guess but it seems likely. Considering that AMT makes reference to bitcointalk on their site at one point (being hacked) might make people curious enough to come here to check things out. Maybe.
IF that's the case I doubt they made the millions being claimed. Again this is an observation based on all the available info we have been piecing together over the last few months (Thanks to everyone involved in all the fact finding you know who you are, roll credits). At most we are looking at them getting a couple hundred thousand to half a million. Nothing to sneeze at, but still hardly millions unless someone put in some crazy ass order in. OR we were getting bad batches of chips (as they also are a chip reseller). This is all unknown really. I am basing this all on what I have been reading here over the last few months. If anyone has other ideas and can back it up with some details that might help this it could make sense. But all I see now is the lawsuit leading to the lawyers getting an assload of money and we get stuck with very little. Cases MUCH MUCH larger than this end with the people getting alot less than they were supposed to...for a recent and similar case check out the 5 toes shoes case. While not technology the case items of misrepresentation and all that are very similar.
One of the plaintiffs of this case, Craig Lennel had no other choice but to go this route. If you do recall, Josh Zipkin had said in several occasions that the 'check was in the mail'. Only to discover that it never was. What option do customers now have? I certainly would like to settle. In fact I would take a hair cut. However every time I have proposed this, I have not received any consideration from AMT. Think about it, I can't even get AMT to ship me a missing backplane! If AMT can't even deliver on a minor obligation, what more can one expect? I mean seriously, AMT can't even be expected to respond to email. Again fair point. I saw all that and I know it was a bad situation. I had better results getting replies, so maybe I could do something for me at least to move on. I really just want to move past this. This transaction situation was an overall mess. And the dealing with the dilemma of all this just is not worth it. But again that really depends on everyone's individual situation really. I agree that this is such a waste of time and effort. Right now, I'm just leaning towards having the civil and criminal lawyers nail them for everything they got. Trying to come up with a deal with them is just frustrating, a waste of time and ultimately futile. |
|
|
|
it would be my understanding amt will/can pass the buck down to bitmine who in turn may pass it on to the next in the line. strengthened with the fact amt has said theyr not entertaining bitmine in favor of another supplier. so your class actions *may fall short of giving you more than answers to why amt failed thus far, as if amt can dissolve the liabiliry on to their supplier then nothing will get done other than a judge saying "case closed i find in favor of the defendants" next case "amt vs bitmine.ch" pmsl
Your understanding is incorrect. AMT has a contract with each customer individually. Amt also has sales contracts in place with the suppliers and vendors. Those contracts are COMPLETELY separate. If there is an issue with the sales contract with clients it will be dealt with between AMT and their customer. If for some reason AMT's suppliers or vendors have done something to break the contract between AMT and the supplier/vendor it will be dealt with between the supplier/vendor and AMT. Possibly the damage caused to AMT by supplier/vendor breaking contract may impact the amount AMT could go after but in no way does it matter to the sales contract between AMT and their clients. You see not a single solitary customer has a contract with Bitmine or IMET or any AMT supplier/vendor but they do have a sales contract with AMT and that is who will pay the price for entering into that contract. That's just how the world works. AMT like you have failed to realize some basic business fundamentals. If you buy a GM car with Firestone tires and a recall happens, do you deal with GM or Firestone. Of course you return it to the dealership and they happily replace the tires at no cost to you. What you don't see is that GM is "billing" Firestone for each tire replaced and the labour to install them. The purchaser deals with whomever they have a contract with, good luck going to Firestone and getting them to replace the recalled tires. snippets from t/c that all customers had to agree to prior to purchase otherwise no purchase could be made. all shipping after amt gives it to fed ex is "your" responsibility "• Shipping Charges; Taxes; Title; Risk of Loss. Shipping, handling and tax are additional unless otherwise expressly indicated at the time of sale. Products are delivered to you Ex Works in accordance with INCOTERMS 2010. This means title to products passes from AMT to you upon shipment. Loss or damage that occurs during shipping by a carrier is your responsibility. You must notify AMT within 21 days of the date of shipment if you believe any part of your purchase is missing, wrong or damaged" and as far as delays goes "outside of amts controll" i.e bitmine.ch delays or otherwise " Excusable Delay. AMT shall not be liable for any delay or failure to perform due to any cause beyond its control or the control of its suppliers or subcontractors such as, for example, strikes, acts of God, acts of Buyer, Acts of Financial Payment Processing institutions, including freezing/holding of accounts, consumer payments, and interruption of transportation or inability to obtain the necessary labor, materials or facilities. Delivery schedules shall be considered extended by a period of time which AMT deems necessary due to the event circumstances or cause of delay. In the event AMT is unable wholly or partially to perform because of any such cause it may cancel its acceptance of Buyer’s order without liability to Buyer." them two claws in their t/c wraps up 90-100% of the cases i believe. weve had this before where it is in contravention of yada statue law bull but end of the day you agreed to the above as a customer. short n curleys being tugged. What exactly are you trying to argue here? If AMT ships damaged goods then AMT is obligated to replace them. If AMT is unable to ship goods due to unexpected circumstances then there should be zero 'liability to the buyer'. Two other things to note, (1) AMT has never responded in an appropriate way to the return of damaged goods. We have evidence of this and (2) AMT has never explained to customers the reasons for delays. No mention of acts of God, etc.... |
|
|
|
I hope we just get refunds and some.
I'd guess not likely. If it goes to trial maybe, but then it depends on how much they can get out of them. That could include liquidating all assets as well as those of the AMTs principal owners if charges of fraud and found to be legit. Then the lawyers get their cut, which will be hefty because they are working on contingency. Then it will be divided between everyone in the class who signs up and says they agree to the settlement or awarded damages. You do have the ability to sue them independently if you don't agree with any settlement or award reached from the class action. I tend to agree here. We likely are not going to be made whole at all. However, I'm going to tell you this based on my experience interacting with AMT. I doubt you'll get anything at all from AMT interacting with them individually. I tried to make a deal with them about just getting 50 chips. I couldn't even swing that deal! |
|
|
|
No need to be that technical.
I know Friction has a full-time job outside of IXC. If he finishes CounterParty by the end of this month I'd be thrilled.
Thanks Friction.
Yes, you are correct, us developers always have full-time jobs. That's why its always a matter of priorities in terms of what we do on our free time. When I do ask for donations, its because I always have a better use of my time elsewhere. |
|
|
|
On Friday, I was at at the office and I spoke with jim about the solutions they planned to offer their clients. I overheard some talk about being silenced and how if the offered those solutions via their website as planned, they would be acting illegally and therefore could not do it.
<snip>
And that is the problem I have with class-actions. Those customers who are still willing to work with the defendant to resolve their complaints become shut out from the process. Well, the class action is the process. Maybe you don't realize this, but AMT has only responded to complaints when legal force was levered on them. There are a lot of customers here that asking about their shipment. They haven't even realized that there was a class action lawsuit that was created a month ago. Not everyone is willing to be as patient with the likes of AMT, as you are. Why you'd be willing to continue to take AMT's word and do business with them, seems bizarre to me. Let's get refunds and move on. Not sure why their legal council hasn't given AMT that advice (REFUND EVERYONE). Like I mentioned in the other thread I spoke to a friend of mine who handles corporate law...sometimes class actions. He speculated based on what I showed him alot of the same stuff. They would be forced into silence to further avoid incriminating themselves. That much is pretty standard apparently. But the settlement and resolution is another matter entirely. We still don't know anything about that. I agree with what you are saying tho. Not taking them at their word. But at this point does not seem like there is going to be any more word to take them at for a while. I think tho the refund or compensation route is the way they going. Only logical conclusion on this. That's right. Companies can be silenced and it does effect/get in the way of helping to resolve the issue at hand while there is still is time to resolve the issue, rather waiting weeks and weeks for lawyers to figure out how to get nothing from a company which seems to be pretty much under water. I also overheard that there were major manufacturer problems. That the company in Southampton Pa, IMET technologies was the one to blame. That the company was given the design from bitmine and agreed to produce the miner based on bitmine's design specifications. That IMET ordered all the boards/components and boards for this production and seemed to overcharge AMT out the ass and didn't act correctly. AMT being more of middle men/salesmen trusted IMET to get the job done. Later AMT found out IMET used components from unreliable vendors, and that IMET tried to collect a larger margin on quick turn board pricing by ordering over 900 boards when their production capacity was less than 30 boards per day, completely eliminating the need for 900 boards to be ordered quick turn in the beginning. Also there seems to be a problem with the board itself that IMET ordered the wrong board specifications and that's why there are several problems to this day. Also there were other problems there from manufacturers side, and AMT seemed to be up in arms about all of it. Again this was all from a conversation I overheard while sitting in their waiting room. The conversation went on to issues about how the manufacturer is currently holding the remainder of their components that were purchased for the production, that the boards themselves have an issue with them, and that they felt there was nothing they could do because IMET kept on increasing the bill over and over trying charge them ridiculous amounts for production, and then again to fix broken boards as well. That the bill was over 270K or higher, of which the majority had been paid, but IMET kept increasing the bill despite the bad production. and the amount of broken/non working boards has passed the 250 range and they are currently being held by AMT until they can figure out another solution for them. But overall it seems AMT hired a manufacturer located in Southampton, who ordered the wrong components and overcharged the crap out of them, it seems they are holding the remainder of their components hostage for final payment. Again - this is hearsay - and I am client of AMT. My name is Mr. Swim, my order # is 333. Me thinks you overhead too much in an office that is too small to not over hear much. Give me a break dude! Suing IMET or even Bitmine.ch is not an issue customers care about. We only care about a refund. Besides, why am I hearing the manufacturing problems from you and not from the source AMT? |
|
|
|
OK Mr Swim, #333 who has come here to help enlighten us, I'll play along.  Did they say they were still going forward with the offers, did they say if E-mails were still going to be sent out explaining the choices and time lines for each option, and what future compensation we can expect. I would really like to support AMT but you, I mean they keep making it harder and harder. PS. did you use to post as RWMAX? that guy really pissed me off I've never posted on this forum until today. They said they are dealing with clients on individual basis, that clients need to email them with their preference to what offer they'd like to participate in or for more information in general about the offers in general, and that they'll respond within 24 hours. I cannot recall if they are going ahead with any specific option, all of them or none of them. As a client, I can say that I hope AMT goes through with all of the above options though. I am client of AMT, my name is Mr. Swim, order #333 Why doesn't AMT just email everyone requesting a change in their order? |
|
|
|
On Friday, I was at at the office and I spoke with jim about the solutions they planned to offer their clients. I overheard some talk about being silenced and how if the offered those solutions via their website as planned, they would be acting illegally and therefore could not do it.
<snip>
And that is the problem I have with class-actions. Those customers who are still willing to work with the defendant to resolve their complaints become shut out from the process. Well, the class action is the process. Maybe you don't realize this, but AMT has only responded to complaints when legal force was levered on them. There are a lot of customers here that asking about their shipment. They haven't even realized that there was a class action lawsuit that was created a month ago. Not everyone is willing to be as patient with the likes of AMT, as you are. Why you'd be willing to continue to take AMT's word and do business with them, seems bizarre to me. Let's get refunds and move on. Not sure why their legal council hasn't given AMT that advice (REFUND EVERYONE). Like I mentioned in the other thread I spoke to a friend of mine who handles corporate law...sometimes class actions. He speculated based on what I showed him alot of the same stuff. They would be forced into silence to further avoid incriminating themselves. That much is pretty standard apparently. But the settlement and resolution is another matter entirely. We still don't know anything about that. I agree with what you are saying tho. Not taking them at their word. But at this point does not seem like there is going to be any more word to take them at for a while. I think tho the refund or compensation route is the way they going. Only logical conclusion on this. That's right. Companies can be silenced and it does effect/get in the way of helping to resolve the issue at hand while there is still is time to resolve the issue, rather waiting weeks and weeks for lawyers to figure out how to get nothing from a company which seems to be pretty much under water. I also overheard that there were major manufacturer problems. That the company in Southampton Pa, IMET technologies was the one to blame. That the company was given the design from bitmine and agreed to produce the miner based on bitmine's design specifications. That IMET ordered all the boards/components and boards for this production and seemed to overcharge AMT out the ass and didn't act correctly. AMT being more of middle men/salesmen trusted IMET to get the job done. Later AMT found out IMET used components from unreliable vendors, and that IMET tried to collect a larger margin on quick turn board pricing by ordering over 900 boards when their production capacity was less than 30 boards per day, completely eliminating the need for 900 boards to be ordered quick turn in the beginning. Also there seems to be a problem with the board itself that IMET ordered the wrong board specifications and that's why there are several problems to this day. Also there were other problems there from manufacturers side, and AMT seemed to be up in arms about all of it. Again this was all from a conversation I overheard while sitting in their waiting room. The conversation went on to issues about how the manufacturer is currently holding the remainder of their components that were purchased for the production, that the boards themselves have an issue with them, and that they felt there was nothing they could do because IMET kept on increasing the bill over and over trying charge them ridiculous amounts for production, and then again to fix broken boards as well. That the bill was over 270K or higher, of which the majority had been paid, but IMET kept increasing the bill despite the bad production. and the amount of broken/non working boards has passed the 250 range and they are currently being held by AMT until they can figure out another solution for them. But overall it seems AMT hired a manufacturer located in Southampton, who ordered the wrong components and overcharged the crap out of them, it seems they are holding the remainder of their components hostage for final payment. Again - this is hearsay - and I am client of AMT. My name is Mr. Swim, my order # is 333. Me thinks you overhead too much in an office that is too small to not over hear much. Give me a break dude! Suing IMET or even Bitmine.ch is not an issue customers care about. We only care about a refund. Besides, why am I hearing the manufacturing problems from you and not from the source AMT? Posting this here because it was suspiciously deleted by a supposed customer of AMT. Why would an AMT customer delete this? Why would an AMT customer have so much detail. Anyway, looks like AMT is squeezed not only by the customers but also the manufacturer. |
|
|
|
Do you happen to know why they had even chosen to reply to people in a forum and not directly to their customers via email? I have an order with 2 1.2th miners. Gee if they even send me some competitor's hardware which is cheaper now id be happy.
A forum is a public arena, it seems that here they get a better understand of who's order is what and who's order they can fulfill directly without offering up settlement options via their website. It seems that if they were to email all their clients (some in the class action) then again it would result in a problem, because again that would be settling outside of the class which the other lawyers don't seem to like. <- Frowny face. I am only a client of AMT, but my suggestion is to email AMT with what you'd propose as a form of settlement for your order, from the above options which I overheard while sitting in their office. Again - my name is Mr. Swim, my order # is 333. It is AMT's fiduciary duty to send an email to each and every customer about their current situation. The fact that they are all communicating with this board about their issues is a complete breach of that duty. Only a small percentage of customers monitor Bitcointalk. In fact, even less are monitoring this thread because it is so new.[/quote] |
|
|
|
I don't think Counterparty is has escrow capability.
Of course it has as XCP is only a protocol currency based on parsing the bitcoin blockchain OP_RETURN field. As the white paper clearly states: An ‘order’ is an offer to give a particular quantity of a particular asset and get some quantity of some other asset in return. No distinction is drawn between a ‘buy order’ and a ‘sell order’. The assets being given are escrowed away immediately upon the order being parsed. That is, if someone wants to give 1 XCP for 2 BTC, then as soon as he publishes that order, his balance of XCP is reduced by one. So my question remains, how are you going to implement that using IXC as the native currency? Multi-signatures won't help here as the final recipient of IXC (owner of the asset accepting the order) is not known in advance. Well that is indeed curious. How is that 2 BTC escrowed? If it can be escrowed, then of course the IXC can be escrowed. |
|
|
|
Dear AMT customers/clients/followers. We write to inform you that due to the pending class action, Lenell et al. v. Advanced Mining Technology, Inc., No. 14-cv-01924 (E.D.Pa.), we will no longer be communicating on the Bitcoin Talk Forum per the advice of our attorneys. We are still working towards resolving all outstanding customer complaints in conjunction with our counsel. Please note that customers may still contact us directly to discuss issues with their orders, but we will be unable to use the forum as a means of communication regarding specific orders or the pending litigation. You may contact us by phone at 855-866-6463 or by email at josh@advancedminers.com . We will still handle individual communications regarding orders within the ordinary course of business. Been waiting for that. Got a hunch that Josh's public offers did not sit well with the legal eagles. I do pray that AMT and their attorneys realize that this means that they now MUST reply to our emails/calls in a timely manner with at least a canned vetted response as that is the only avenue of contact that is left open to us... AMT has all the email addresses of their customers. Why can't they send an email to them? |
|
|
|
On Friday, I was at at the office and I spoke with jim about the solutions they planned to offer their clients. I overheard some talk about being silenced and how if the offered those solutions via their website as planned, they would be acting illegally and therefore could not do it.
<snip>
And that is the problem I have with class-actions. Those customers who are still willing to work with the defendant to resolve their complaints become shut out from the process. Well, the class action is the process. Maybe you don't realize this, but AMT has only responded to complaints when legal force was levered on them. There are a lot of customers here that asking about their shipment. They haven't even realized that there was a class action lawsuit that was created a month ago. |
|
|
|
On Friday, I was at at the office and I spoke with jim about the solutions they planned to offer their clients. I overheard some talk about being silenced and how if the offered those solutions via their website as planned, they would be acting illegally and therefore could not do it.
Those options were as I remember:
To receive a miner immediately, shipped either from Bitmine ( if in europe ) or from a factory in China which has already started producing their miners as of last week.
To receive of a miner via a hosted solution which will be operating as of the 20th of this month.
To receive a miner created locally, by a manufacturer here around Philadelphia, and the design is based on technobit's design, because AMT purchased the license from tecnobit a few weeks ago.
And the last as to receive a refund option, payment monthly for a period of 6 months.
A couple of questions. What is the address of the office? How many people were at the office? What time were you at the office? Where can we ship bad units for RMA? |
|
|
|
On Friday, I was at at the office and I spoke with jim about the solutions they planned to offer their clients. I overheard some talk about being silenced and how if the offered those solutions via their website as planned, they would be acting illegally and therefore could not do it.
Those options were as I remember:
To receive a miner immediately, shipped either from Bitmine ( if in europe ) or from a factory in China which has already started producing their miners as of last week.
To receive of a miner via a hosted solution which will be operating as of the 20th of this month.
To receive a miner created locally, by a manufacturer here around Philadelphia, and the design is based on technobit's design, because AMT purchased the license from tecnobit a few weeks ago.
And the last as to receive a refund option, payment monthly for a period of 6 months.
So what exactly is the resolution? Anyway, I'll take the refund. |
|
|
|
Okay, I'll work on the CounterParty port.
This is much welcomed news! However, as far as I have understood, you are planning to implement the Counterparty protocol such that the "native currency" (XCP) is replaced by IXC. This is of course rather cool, but AFAIK this also posses some technical challenges (or choices to be made to say the least), and I think it would be nice if you could let the community to review, or have a word to say about these (as these decisions have a long lasting effect). Let me give an example: how do you plan to implement escrow for IXC (in orders, bets etc.)? XCP is simply a protocol currency, so in the original Counterparty it's simple to do, but IXC is a blockchain currency so the same does not work (as miners need to accept each transaction). So if I want to give 5 IXC for a particular asset, what happens to my IXC while a match is looked for? If a match is found, how those 5 IXC is moved to the previous asset owner? I don't think Counterparty is has escrow capability. Escrow capability is can already be enabled with the latest version of IXC through the use of multi-signatures. I will of course have to evaluate the specs first to understand how indeed it will be made 'native'. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
