This isn't a court, so hearsay is perfectly acceptable evidence. Keep in mind this is coming from the only bitcoin journal with integrity and the same people who brought the BFL/FTC fiasco to light.
I wouldn't call them that and prefer coindesk. I also don't follow gossip  So what your saying is that you prefer the group of "journalists" who are paid to write positive articles about any shady/scammy company, over the group of journalists who don't accept bribes and have integrity? Coindesk is a joke. To call it a journal is a stretch, it's more like a massive collection of paid advertisements. (PS: 99% of GAW's articles are paid for) You're basically admitting it again. You are admitting that without divine intervention from the all mighty CEO there is no chance of turning a profit.
All you need is to hope/prey/sacrifice and maybe you're god will grant you ROI.
More sarcasm please. The payouts dropped without his intervention so its not needed for them to go back to that point again. But why did the magical zenpool all of the sudden become way less profitable? Don't you find that convenient how it happens to coincide with the launch of hashpoints/hashcoin? You must be mistaken, there are much more scams than legit companies. I see a new cloudmining scam pop up weekly yet I only know of something like a dozen legit operations. There are more cloudmining ponzis that have already collapsed than there are legit companies.
You can find over 30 functioning cloud mining sites at the moment. In your view almost all of them are scams? That's extremely skeptical. Yes that's exactly my view. Most of the scams are not very successful but some do take off. Haha that's bullshit IMO. They owned a registered, legit business and never run anywhere. I think they sold the company, but I might be wrong.
Anyway, if somebody had a proof, they'd have simply made them return the check, start a case in court and so on.
Btw. $40k?
So what you're saying is that that story is fabricated by multiple people living in that little town? Seems a bit of a stretch. Here's what some more people think about this "legit business" http://www.topix.com/forum/city/canaan-vt/THJFBNV4MIFIR075CThey recently paid over 1 million for a domain and probably twice that for their Bitmain order. Just like how they totally bought a pool nobody has ever heard of for $8 million? I have no doubt the Bitmain order is real but taking his word for anything/everything is simply foolish. Oh, and you haven't answered this: Have you ever tried their services? Did you skip that question because you haven't?  Yes I have a free 10 gh/s. I have to admit the website design is very slick and to be honest I'd recommend it to my noob friends if it didn't look like a scam and wasn't full of arbitrary games. One last thing, I noticed that only around a week after launch GAW had amassed 250 gh/s. Interesting enough there was no 250 gh/s increase on the litecoin network. I've heard estimates that they have 500 gh/s by now, how is that possible when they aren't even visible on the blockchain? https://www.litecoinpool.org/poolsHow can you hide half the litecoin network? |
|
|
|
You proved again that you are biased and your crusade is cloud mining is fueled by your association with Havelock.
Only in your imagination. I have absolutely no association with havelock, I've just used it and like their service like thousands of others(however it's far from perfect). IMO 90% of what they offer is garbage and the rest is not worth the reward for the risk you take. Your statement has no credential as you are not able to back it up by your action. You could not reply to my Q that why your -ve feedback is only against this company and not others, while all are accused by the same problem of not furnishing mining proof.
It's pretty simple why I haven't investigated and left feedback/comments on every other cloudmining company. (it's not my job) I just felt the need to point out this ponzi because they honestly put hardly any effort into making it look legit. How can you accuse me of having an ulterior motive when you are repeatedly suggesting investing in too good to be true schemes? Are you a shill or just incredibly naive? My poll has already proven that ~2/3 of actual miners believe that hiding a mining address = likely ponzi. Why are you so against companies proving they are not a ponzi? |
|
|
|
I meant what address are they using to payout mining earnings?
 yep - here you go: 1LKW6fiftaQg8UPp32ptdgJW587XXCDk3p As expected, the BTC doesn't originate from recent mining. I don't suppose they will be honest enough to let us know their mining address. |
|
|
|
i think if you read again they will sell tomorrow and it will end the 18th. i presume then all sold shares will be converted to amhash1. i doubt they would convert as you buy.... maybe i am wrong though.
Thanks I'm a little dense after working nights but I had the impression divs begin immediately? Not liking the way information and erroneous cut-and-paste are trickling out rather than doing one comprehensive and informative post from an authority. We shouldn't have to guess. No they will be converted and receive dividends immediately: The AMHASH2 offer will be open for 7 days.
The AMHASH2 Fund is a continuation of AMHASH1
Every unit you purchase from AMHASH2 will be swapped for AMHASH1 in your account.
You can continue to trade and receive dividends with those units right away.
But I agree the IPO copy/paste is incredibly lazy and unprofessional. |
|
|
|
|
I meant what address are they using to payout mining earnings?
|
|
|
|
So 17nyWqeXuQgpdRT7vxHwLUNMXFbKyuZyFM is their payment address? 13TJTbdGJ6HVhBVwtwNrRfzWkTKQWDRMzh is your address I'm assuming? |
|
|
|
If you give me any proof i will consider that. Atm that's are only your words and your intentions are more suspicious than my referral link..
If I gave you proof that PBmining was paying "mining earnings" directly from new customer payments would you believe it's a ponzi? Can you post your transaction ID for your payment? Just curious to know where the coins originated. |
|
|
|
Or should I say, because of your involvement with HaveLock, u r throwing shit about all cloud mining companies. I have no involvement whatsoever with any cloudmining company. I'm just sick of seeing people fall for the same scams over and over again and expecting different results. Your trust feedback from a very logical guy, who is also a long term member of this community, does not say so... Claims the Havelock IPO is not a scam "because he said so".
Don't trust what he says, since he either is trolling, or intentionally misleading or he is a complete fool. That "very logical guy" actually decided to start using havelock after calling it a scam. Moreover, as I can see, u have left a -ve feedback against this company. Why not others around like PB, hashie etc. ? Does not it indicate that u have lack of logical sense or paid by some other cloud company to defame a single one for offering a lower price than market standard ? I have also pointed out your partiality in another thread where u were trolling against PB Mining. I can tell you right now I'm not paid by any company. I'd think the people like you, who suggest investing your money in any too good to be true offering without any proof whatsoever, would be the shills. |
|
|
|
Or should I say, because of your involvement with HaveLock, u r throwing shit about all cloud mining companies. I have no involvement whatsoever with any cloudmining company. I'm just sick of seeing people fall for the same scams over and over again and expecting different results. |
|
|
|
Why you are so sceptic??
Maybe because there have been ~100 identical scams to this one which have already taken the money and run? Why are you willing to give people your hard earned money with zero due diligence? |
|
|
|
Payment received!  If you think about invest - PM me - You can recover some of the money.. "If you want to throw away some money on this scam, PM me so I can make money by referring you" |
|
|
|
So basically your only proof comes from trusting the word of a guy who has fabricated stories in the past? Source: So your source is a hearsay. How does that prove he fabricated anything? This isn't a court, so hearsay is perfectly acceptable evidence. Keep in mind this is coming from the only bitcoin journal with integrity and the same people who brought the BFL/FTC fiasco to light. I haven't seen any complaints both here and on hashtalk and there's plenty of evidence in the ROI tracking threads (you could contact philipma1957 for more details, he was one of the early investors, who provided evidence of the payouts). If you bought hashlets in August or September you've already reached ROI or are very close to it. I've also talked to a number of people who had hosted hardware before the hashlets came out and all of them are past ROI.
Also note, that most of GAW's sales came at the time of vaultbreakers and the innitial hashlet boom, when they openly promised to take care of their clients. If you bought at that period you profited, there's no other way. If you haven't seen complaints on here you clearly haven't been looking or you're intentionally ignoring them. https://www.reddit.com/r/GAWMiners/ You can find plenty of complaints on this page alone. Please stop with the bullshit argument that "some early birds have turned a profit, therefore most people must have turned a profit". You have no idea how many people have and have not turned a profit so quit pretending you do based on a flimsy conjecture. So you are basically admitting that there is no hope to profit at current rates unless the price goes through the roof which is unlikely because they are so unprofitable.
1. Why are you putting in my mouth words that were never said? The payouts would simply have to increase a bit, preferably to the point before the lasth month's bitcoin crash. You're basically admitting it again. You are admitting that without divine intervention from the all mighty CEO there is no chance of turning a profit. All you need is to hope/prey/sacrifice and maybe you're god will grant you ROI. I didn't really state my opinion I just included all the facts. Many people just aren't aware of how easy it is to anonymously prove a cloudmining company is actually mining.
Of course bitcoins lead developers opinion should be taken seriously and you cannot pretend that the cloudmining world is not full of ponzis like he says.
You are using it to support your claims, so if you find it convenient you have to at least partially agree with it. Yes it is, but don't forget there are more legit companies than scams. You must be mistaken, there are much more scams than legit companies. I see a new cloudmining scam pop up weekly yet I only know of something like a dozen legit operations. There are more cloudmining ponzis that have already collapsed than there are legit companies. They paid out more money than they aquired, and used the funds (this may shock you) not to run away, but buy more miners, invest in the company, which makes them trustworthy in my view.
Again, please stop with the bullshit conjecture. As for not running with the funds, yes they haven't done it so far but that doesn't mean they wont. Hell they've already done it before:  If you guessed they took that $40k check, promised progress/updates for months, and 6 months later disappeared with no evidence of having done anything, then you guessed correctly. You can read up more here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/ashfield-broadband/gaw|sort:date |
|
|
|
Good explanation. but for arguments sake lets say you are wrong about the centralization part in GAW's hands.
What if the prime controllers are really spread out through the peer-to-peer network. I've read something about proof of resource (I can't find it anymore) in regards to this. What if the prime controllers are spread out to anyone who has enough resources to make it stable. It would still have some central nodes (plural) in this case. But the question remains what is this proof of resource they talk about.
Assuming it's decentralized, how do you think GAW will be able to access/freeze anyone's coins without knowing the private keys? |
|
|
|
How many tell you that they have huge financial backing and merchant infrastructure but cannot tell you the names for some mysterious reason?
Why would any business make that information public before they are ready to launch? [/quote] A better question would be why a company would repeatedly make claims about partnerships which cannot be fverified. Normally when companies announce partnerships it goes something like "we are proud to announce our new partnership with XYZ company" not "We have partnerships with some of the largest companies who think our new coin is super awesome so you should buy it too". Here's what someone found when they tried to verify GAW's previous "partnerships" So for me the bolded text suggest that this is not centralized. It suggest that they are spread over the peer-to-peer network probably not unlike Nodes in the bitcoin network.
What about these bolded texts? Question: So you are creating a "bank" to control the intermediate price swings.
The bank is a permanent entity to secure the value of the coin from going too low, as well as preventing artificial inflation of the price on the exchanges. This prevents pump and dump schemes as well as deflation of the coin’s value.
Governments are only unhappy about Bitcoin because it is immune to many forms of legal power. Having a central issuing bank that can respond to legal orders is actually a very good thing. If you were hit by a bus on your way to work tomorrow, without leaving your crypto keys where your heirs could find them, you are caught in a situation that has no obvious solution. A bank can fix that problem, by overriding the system and moving your money to your heirs.
Everyone knows the example of wealthy benefactors who funnel money to bad people who blow things up. Those cases are a very small percentage of what a bank would deal with. Most of the time a bank is going to be dealing with the small mundane issues, like someone inheriting your assets on your death, or freezing them if there are criminal proceedings.
When there is a central bank, for the crypto currency, in the picture, it can mitigate these issues, and governments will accept it much more readily. To me it suggests they removed the one feature that defines cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
Let's see:
No verifiable infrastructure testing regarding this "coin".
No verifiable REAL white-paper regarding this "coin".
No verifiable financial backers regarding this "coin".
No verifiable legal (securities) registration regarding this "coin".
No verifiable insurances this "coin" represents ANYTHING tangible and/or traceable.
IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A REAL NAME YET!
So with the lines above you described every new coin that has not been launched yet and is in the preparation phase. How many coins in the preparation stage are asking for millions of dollars with the promise that the coin will definitely be worth 5 times what you paid in ~2 weeks? How many tell you that they have huge financial backing and merchant infrastructure but cannot tell you the names for some mysterious reason? How many declared their enormous stash of premined coins worth $2 billion dollars? How many have a centralized blockchain? (and thus require FinCEN/SEC cooperation) I don't see the similarities at all. |
|
|
|
I bougth 10 TH/s
For how long time can I have the contract?
Until the ponzi collapses. |
|
|
|
Can someone in finance look into that? What in the captical markets today would yield enough to create this illusion and with a healthy spread to pocket the remainder? Anything?
Why don't you ask this guy:  |
|
|
|
I'm not denying the fact that many have seen ROI. I don't know how you couldn't ROI if you bought a prime hashlet at $15. However you are going to need to provide evidence to support your statement that more 50% of people have turned a profit.
I got this info from the man himself. I haven't seen any complaints both here and on hashtalk and there's plenty of evidence in the ROI tracking threads (you could contact philipma1957 for more details, he was one of the early investors, who provided evidence of the payouts). If you bought hashlets in August or September you've already reached ROI or are very close to it. I've also talked to a number of people who had hosted hardware before the hashlets came out and all of them are past ROI. Also note, that most of GAW's sales came at the time of vaultbreakers and the innitial hashlet boom, when they openly promised to take care of their clients. If you bought at that period you profited, there's no other way. So basically your only proof comes from trusting the word of a guy who has fabricated stories in the past? Source: On the other hand current payouts aren't looking good, so hashcoin, or an increased demand on the marketplace are the only ways for October buyers to profit.
So you are basically admitting that there is no hope to profit at current rates unless the price goes through the roof which is unlikely because they are so unprofitable. Why is it that GAW can no longer offer competitive rates? That poll is based the votes of 35 people, that's not enough to draw conclusions, especially that just 10 more votes would tip the scales in the other direction. What are 10 votes compared to a couple hundred GAW's investors. Also in your first post you basically stated your opinion and supported it with Gavin's statement, so I'm not surprised most people voted in your favour. I didn't really state my opinion I just included all the facts. Many people just aren't aware of how easy it is to anonymously prove a cloudmining company is actually mining. Of course bitcoins lead developers opinion should be taken seriously and you cannot pretend that the cloudmining world is not full of ponzis like he says. I don't blame you, we're just talking here. I have my opinion you have yours, but you're exagerating. 500 red flags? Give me the first 100 and I'll believe there's as many as you said. So how many of their clients can prove they were scammed by GAW? So far the only scam claims were false, and posted from newly created accounts. That should tell you something. 500 was obviously an exaggeration but I think 100 is actually possible and I'm tempted to make a list to find out. As for how many people have been scammed, it really depends on your definition of a scam. They haven't outright stolen peoples money but they have acquired it via false advertising/promises/gimmicks. You could argue that it's not scamming, just bad business practices, but either way makes them untrustworthy. GAW could have just ran a solid cloudmining company focused on giving their customers the chance to profit via prices only possible through massive economies of scale (like the original plan) but instead they just added a bunch of gimmicks/promises combined with aggressive/misleading marketing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
