Hi. Sorry for posting this again here but I think it fits under bitcoin discussion and under mining speculation. Maybe with a few more views someone will have an idea of what's going on. Feel free to delete this if you feel it is inappropriate to have posted it twice. Anyway! I just wondered if anyone had noticed that a lot of the blocks that are relayed through various ip address nodes are actually being mined by the same user: 1BxD2VLE95n7ZeVJSy3uoiJ5WdR72jWj5fIf you have a look they have a lot of bitcoins already and are generating around 4 blocks a day. Anyone have any idea who this is? More ASIC developers but this time they are keeping them all for themselves? Quite scary that one person or group has this much power and they are possibly not even on the radar like ASICminer. There is no way in hell that this stems from BFL, because that address' first transaction occurred on April 6, 2013: http://online.wsj.com/article/Corrections.htmlIf you recall, BFL didn't ship the Luke Unit till April 1, 2013, 5 days later, thus by maths it's utterly impossible to accuse BFL in any wrongdoing. Somebody double check my work to see if I'm indeed correct, even though I've yet to make a mistake on this forum. |
|
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/Corrections.htmlInvestor Joe Lewis isn't investing in a bitcoin venture called Avalon and doesn't lead a Zurich-based private-equity fund called Phoenix Fund. A Global Finance article on Monday about the supposed investment incorrectly said both are true.
The Tracking Exchange-Traded Portfolios table in the Funds/ETFs report on Monday was inaccurate. A correct table is at http://on.wsj.com/14emv77.
Natural-gas prices are $4 per million BTUs in North America and $16 per million BTUs in Asia. A page-one article on Monday about gas projects in the U.S. and Canada erroneously dropped the word million.
Tiger Woods shot a first-round score of 66 in last week's WGC-Bridgestone Invitational golf tournament. A Sports item on Monday incorrectly said 64.
Warren Sapp entered the NFL Hall of Fame as a lineman. In some editions Monday, a Sports column on Alex Rodriguez incorrectly said linebacker.
|
|
|
|
Ok, more news from PayPal guys in Europe. I talked to an account manager this morning and he told me that the problem of the 45 days has to do with the insurance of every single transaction people do. After the 45 days period, he told me to directly call the Police. Paypal encourages users to call the Police after this 45 days period. I asked him if it would work (heck, I'm in Madrid-Spain) and told me yes, it works between Europe and USA. It seems that the BFL account in PayPal is under the name of Mr. Vlissides, and has something like a 'special' account manager. They will report my case directly to BFL account manager this afternoon. But the guy here was clear: call the Police NOW. So, if in 48 hours I don't get a valid response from BFL or PayPal, I will report it to the Grupo de Delitos Telemáticos: https://www.gdt.guardiacivil.es/webgdt/home_alerta.phpAnd I think that everybody should do the same. Would you be so kind as to verify whether the name Mr. Vlissides is actually used on the PayPal account or you simply made a spelling error, meaning to pen Vleisides. Thanks, bud. |
|
|
|
|
Of the fairly obviously NPO's, Bitcoin 100 has taken it upon ourselves to fund them, sometimes with very little discussion as of late. Reason being is that a certain trust has been bestowed upon us to which types of charities should be funded, always mindful that we would rather not have an undue fallout occur if funding the wrong type of charity were to happen
That said, that's why I felt it imperative to have a continuing dialog about SSDP so that a more informed decision could be made. I have stated in no uncertain terms that I'm sitting squarely on the fence with this cause, but now I'm leaning toward a yes, albeit not heavily.
Please help us make the best informed decision possible by providing input, whether pro or con, or whether a member or not, for such a decision would affect all bitcoiners directly and indirectly.
Thank you in advance,
Bruno Kucinskas
|
|
|
|
Hello Rassah, How are you? Can I recommend a 501c3 non profit for the Bitcoin100 donation? There is a group that I am trying to get to start using Bitcoin that is in the process of creating their "BTC donate" button. Generation Green empowers citizens to voice their concerns and implement earth saving actions. Through heightened awareness we encourage wise choices that ensure sustainable living and the preservation of the environment. Since 1990, Generation Green (a 501c3) has sought to inform and encourage environmental action in CCC. Generation Green has hosted dozens of workshops and attended countless events. Our efforts have reached all segments of the community. From local arts and crafts classes to attendance at City Council meetings—our goal is to educate all residents in the county about environmental issues. http://www.generationgreen.com/I just wanted to run it by you first before they set up they start accepting BTC. What is the best process for them to follow to qualify for the Bitcoin100 donation? Thanks! August Not sure what to make of this one. Thoughts? I'm leaning heavily yes. Not sure what your concerns, if any, may be, Rassah. |
|
|
|
Unless Josh is a liar, he has shown exactly how you can get a refund. July 19, 2013, 10:13:28 AM: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114329.msg2762435#msg2762435It's called "fire your customer", there's lots of articles books on it. Read up. Customers who post lies and misinformation for no particular reason other than to troll or prevent others from purchasing (thereby believing they are enhancing their purchase value) are not the kind of customers we want. September 20, 2012, 03:15:29 PM: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110290.msg1207625#msg1207625Thanks, you're right, vote with your BTC!
1) That wasn't a straw man, I was condensing and restating his desires so far. If they are incorrect, I wait for him to correct me and describe how what I've said is incorrect.
2) It's not, however, when there's an irate, irrational customer, it's best to fire them. It costs more to deal with problem customers than the profit you make, so it makes more economic sense to part ways from a business perspective. If people are unhappy, we will gladly issue a refund, because it takes far more time and effort to deal with the constant stream of complaints, most being imaginary or blown out of proportion, than it does to just refund the money and move on. When the rare instance comes along with the complaint is legitimate and scaled properly, we are glad to deal with that.
So unfortunately, in cases like these, all the "money we'll be making" is less than all the money we'll be losing trying to satisfy people who just can't be satisfied, and believe me, there are a lot of them on this forum.
Huh, I never considered the fact that even if everyone canceled, we would still have the hashing power, but you're right. That thought does not sit well with me though, I definitely do not want BFL or any single entity to have that much hashing power under one roof, jeez. That would be a nightmare.
[/size] vvv December 14, 2012, 09:33:50 PM vvv As Josh's role in the production cycle doesn't begin until it's time for the chips to be sliced and packaged, it's easy to see that he mightn't have been kept up to date on every little thing which has been going on up until now and has been making statements based on assumptions he's drawn from what information was available to him rather than hard facts.
Seeing as Josh's role is Public Relations / Investor Relations and not head of slicing and packaging I find it hard to believe that he was left out of the loop on that one. Seems in his role at BFL he should be made aware of all those pesky little details.... Hey, where'd you hear that? Why wasn't I informed of this? Argh! PS - My job is not PR or investor relations, which is why I don't coddle idiots like Frizz and PuertoLibre when they display their stupidity over and over. If I were the PR guy, I'd have to tell them warm fuzzies and make them feel good about themselves. Thankfully, my job is much different and it involves firing "customers" like Frizz et al because they cost far more than they generate in revenue and we do not want them as customers. Ever.Obviously, the Fire-Your-Customer program was still in play according to Josh on July 19, 2013. Butterfly Labs takes this very seriously, otherwise they wouldn't have stated such from their playbook three times, once since being in Full Production. Since profit has been, and still is the name of the game, it's more profitable for BF Labs Inc. to fire each and every customer that becomes a burden to them. They can not afford to man the telephone lines with customers, the PayPal fraud department, credit card companies, BitPay, banks, etc., over something so mundane as a pesky refund, of which is just sitting there in reserve doing absolutely nothing until the item is shipped anyway. I suggest calling first and being nice, kindly asking BFL to be fired as a customer. When they refuse, call them back the next day. Then the next. Then the next. Have your friends and family call, kindly asking that you get fired as a customer. But, if BFL is TRULY worth their salt, they will fire you by the second or third call, for they know, and have proven that it works, that maintaining you as a customer for the next several months will only eat into their so thin profit margins, thus better to end the ties ASAP. In closing, the very next time BFL refuses to fire their customer, everybody will know that they truly are a scam because a trustworthy company would not go out of their way to drive their core belief home, then later change that belief system to only suit their current needs and not their still loyal customer base. It sends the wrong message. Honestly, I support BFL in them implementing and maintaining this policy. It takes guts to do this. And Josh is the perfect guy to make sure that the policy continues. Well played, Josh! Well played! All those in support of BFL to continue this wonderful policy, please quote this post and concur. The more the merrier. Heaven forbid if they end the one program that allows them to keep as much profit in their coffers as possible, coupled with probably the only thing BFL is doing that makes logical sense. |
|
|
|
I think he knows that I know what he was hoping no one else would ever know, you know? https://twitter.com/frankieterrierFor those of you interested I will be posting a statement on thur re #bitcoin and press reports and #joelewis |
|
|
|
Very good detective work! Though this only shows that he talked about mining, but it's not really a clue that he was directly involved in creating false news.  If I could only find a Bitcoiner that vacations in the Bahamas and deals in seeds like Frankie Terrier does, with both living in the same mainly French speaking country that's not France, then I may be one step closer in solving this mystery. But what are the odds of that happening? The icing on the cake would be if that mystical person posted on this forum at the same exact time as he posted on Twitter. BTW, I've officially put more time in this than the two seasoned reporters, one of which is the editor, did in the WSJ article that's no longer available--and they were paid for their efforts, of which I had to pay to not only read it, but to no longer be able to read it. Now that's value! |
|
|
|
Diggin' a little deeper! https://twitter.com/MoAzeelMo Azeel @MoAzeel 8 Jul
@frankieterrier Hi Andy. Nice to see you're back. I heard you're working with the Tavistock bunch. Nice work if you can get it. But notice the number of tweets Mo deleted: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qdxr7KkU86UJ:https://twitter.com/MoAzeel+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usThis is Google's cache of https://twitter.com/MoAzeel. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on May 29, 2013 00:08:54 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar. Screenshots and links and quotes and stuff … Mind writing a TLDR. It's late and my brain doesn't parse what's your point. That Frankie purposely changed his name to Andrew, and that this ruse was planned in early July as just now shown above. |
|
|
|
business is business i suppose. interesting indeed in how far someone will go to get their company in the spotlight Ironically, he mentions starting a charity, which you I are part of (going by your sig). Here are the screenshots before he deleted posts on his current account: https://twitter.com/frankieterrier   |
|
|
|
Wow, how does the WSJ eff that up so bad.
Same way CNN, and MSNBC, and Fox, and Bloomberg have all fucked up recently. Their "journalist," who these days is a kid out of school, because the legitimate journalists aren't found on the internet side and won't be for a generation, wants to get out before anybody else, and so reports the first bullshit tweet. And others respond to the same bullshit Tweet on that network, as well as the now "legitimatized" news blog report, the FUD and bullshit increase exponentially, and the bullshit self-confirms. I PM'ed theymos to have him remove CNN from the list. Here's my argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4nK5cvg_5A |
|
|
|
EDIT: This was obviously a hoax. The WSJ has issued a correction (behind paywall here) and The Tavistock group has put out a press release disclaiming any association:
"Unfortunately, many immature investments and investors would like the association of private investors like Joe Lewis. They bring instant credibility," said Douglas McMahon, senior managing director of Tavistock Group, a private investment organization founded by Lewis.
"'Our' Joe Lewis has nothing do with Bitcoin, Phoenix Funds or Andrew Laurus," said McMahon. So the question is, who's behind the Hoax? My guess is this "Andrew Laurus" person was probably spreading rumors about this "deal" as part of some sort of scheme. Both of the reporters who covered (at bitcoin examiner and the WSJ) follow him on twitter. _____ Old version of text: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323997004578644491403250124.htmlJoe Lewis, a billionaire foreign-exchange trader who teamed up with hedge-fund manager George Soros in 1992 to bet against the Bank of England, is the latest high-profile financier to throw his weight behind the virtual currency called bitcoin.
Mr. Lewis leads the Phoenix Fund, a Zurich-based private-equity fund that on Tuesday plans to invest $200 million in Avalon, a company that makes computer servers aimed at creating bitcoins, according to people familiar with the situation.
....
The Phoenix Fund was set up this year to invest in bitcoin mining-hardware companies. It looked at several of Avalon's rivals in the sector, including Butterfly Labs and KnCMiner but decided against investing, according to a person familiar with the private-equity firm's strategy.
....
The bitcoin deal was put together by Andrew Laurus, a former government-bonds salesman at Lehman Brothers who is also an investor in the fund. Avalon was set up by Yifu Guo, a pioneer in the bitcoin-mining industry. He was part of the team that developed the first ASIC bitcoin mining hardware. ASIC stands for application-specific integrated circuit, a type of custom-designed microchip. Mr. Guo couldn't be reached for comment.
So here's the question: Does this explain all of Josh's weird behavior lately? It's likely that Joe Lewis didn't tell the other people he was looking into investing with that he was also looking possibilities as well. With Inaba's hubris, he probably assumed the deal was a definite go ahead. That would explain why he was in here telling everyone that he was going to laugh at people who were predicting their failure, that he was going to "stick it up [our] asses" and that the bitcoin talk forum was a "minor player" in everything - clearly alluding to "major players" elsewhere, like Joe Lewis. Anyway, obviously this guy decided BFL wasn't for him. They have a chip design, but Avalon (and ASICMiner) have probably made enough to fund 20nm designs on their own. Interestingly he also looked at KnC and wasn't interested. I told Josh to take off that silly red nose prior to Joe Lewis came a callin', but I see he didn't listen to me. Probably calling Joe a monumental asshole and givin' him a quarter didn't help matters either. Later that day, Sonny arrived at the office and asked Josh what's new, whereupon Josh told Sonny nothing but that he was now able to blow up 22 balloons a minute. Needless to say that for the next few minutes, all calls to Josh's office was put on hold. |
|
|
|
|
Still seeking a discussion on SSDP so that a more informed decision could be made, for there's obvious pros and cons in funding them.
I may or may not feeling that they shouldn't be considered because of their stance on drugs, hence not wanting to influence an outcome based solely on this issue.
They don't seem to be formally registered as a non-profit, but that fact alone is not necessarily a stickler.
They do have a wide audience base.
~100 of its members/readership attend higher education institutes, e.g. Harvard, Yale, Cal Tech (is that one word or two?), etc.
Please weigh in, whether you're a Bitcoin 100 member or not, with at the very least penning a pro or con sans the reasoning, for we're all in this Bitcoin thingie together.
By proxy, the following two bitcoiners have weighed in:
Dank: Yes!
Brother John: Hell, no!
EDIT: Acknowledging Rassah's post above this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just take it for gospel that Avalon is getting $200M in VC to compete with BFL which is at best a $30-$40M GROSS sale company.
Do you realize that sales would have to be in the billions for a VC to even see the return of their principal, let alone profit/interest?
The only thing that would make since is if there's one or two too many zeros in that $200M figure.
Therefore, I see only two possibilities: Somebody fucked up the research or Bitcoin's being played.
|
|
|
|
Robin thinks Bitcoin is a company. But did learn for the first something new (read red). http://24allnews.com/virtual-currency-enthusiasts-to-launch-self-regulatory-group-2/
A group of companies that are pushing virtual currencies such as bitcoin are expected on Tuesday to announce they have set up a self-regulatory organization to promote common rules for the fledgling industry.
...
Separately, a group of bitcoin supporters plans to announce on Tuesday that it has formed a charity that will make donations to environmental and public-health causes around the world. Backers of the BitGive Foundation include BitPay Inc., an Atlanta-based processor of bitcoin payments, the Bitcoin Foundation trade group, and lawyers at Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP, which represents companies involved with virtual currency.
Do you seriously have a learning disability that prevents you from understanding written English? The subject of the sentence is "A group of companies that are pushing virtual currencies such as bitcoin..."That can be rephrased as a single sentence: "A group of companies are pushing virtual currencies such as Bitcoin." In that case the subject would be "A group of companies" The object would be "Virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin" and the verb would be "pushing" "such as bitcoin" clearly refers to the virtual currencies the companies are pushing, as opposed to the companies themselves. The section highlighted in red is also totally irrelevant. ___ This is in addition to thinking that a twitter user who wrote that they were "not a WSJ reporter" was a WSJ reporter. Why don't you play nice? I swore I read companies like Bitcoin, and not currencies like Bitcoin. Big difference! The Twitter comment was another mistake on my part. I thought she was being funny by stating such. I even thought it was her that posted about Bitcoin, but it was Harriet. The red text was an aside comment relevant to me. |
|
|
|
Robin thinks Bitcoin is a company. But did learn for the first something new (read red). http://24allnews.com/virtual-currency-enthusiasts-to-launch-self-regulatory-group-2/Virtual Currency Enthusiasts To Launch Self-Regulatory Group
AdoptionBitcoinCommitteeDigital-AssetEstablishmentLegitimacySuch-As-BitcoinWorld
By
ROBIN SIDEL
CONNECT
The controversy surrounding virtual currencies is prompting enthusiasts to try to bolster their legitimacy and fight perceptions that they attract illicit behavior.
A group of companies that are pushing virtual currencies such as bitcoin are expected on Tuesday to announce they have set up a self-regulatory organization to promote common rules for the fledgling industry.
The move is an effort to respond to state and federal regulators, who are trying to monitor transactions in virtual currencies for illegal activity. Bitcoin is the most popular of such currencies, which aren’t backed by a central bank.
The group, which will be called the Committee for the Establishment of the Digital Asset Transfer Authority, will set technical standards aimed at preventing money-laundering and ensuring compliance with laws.
“For new payment technologies such as Bitcoin, Ripple, Ven and other digital currencies to realize their full potential, making commerce cheaper and easier around the world, users will need to have trust in the integrity of the companies in the ecosystem,” said Jeremy Liew, a partner at Lightspeed Venture Partners, which is pursuing investments in the industry. “This trust comes from association with trustworthy investors [and] trustworthy business practices and the adoption of trusted regulatory oversight,”
Separately, a group of bitcoin supporters plans to announce on Tuesday that it has formed a charity that will make donations to environmental and public-health causes around the world. Backers of the BitGive Foundation include BitPay Inc., an Atlanta-based processor of bitcoin payments, the Bitcoin Foundation trade group, and lawyers at Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP, which represents companies involved with virtual currency.
The charity, which will accept donations in bitcoin and dollars, “provides the opportunity to capture some of the capital formation anticipated from the success of Bitcoin for worthy causes such as health and disease research,” said Stephen Pair, a member of the charity’s board and Bitpay’s co-founder and chief technology officer. |
|
|
|
This is the WSJ writer Harriet Agnew's twitter page https://twitter.com/HarrietAgnewLots of activity in financial reporting. Would be real egg-on-face to have the wrong Avalon completely. Edit: two earlier crypto pieces: Harriet Agnew @HarrietAgnew 5 Jul @annairrera @tylerwinklevoss @winklevoss The crypto community is pumping up the next new thing: Litecoins http://bit.ly/16beDAD Harriet Agnew @HarrietAgnew 5 Jul Q&A with #Bitcoin backer @tylerwinklevoss: http://bit.ly/1bbQaAI @winklevoss Expand and this is her linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harriet-agnew/1a/73/23aUniversity of Edinburgh..I highly doubt she would fuck up such a simpleton misunderstanding like Avalon Mining and Avalon Ventures Also note the little "—Robin Sidel contributed to this article." at the bottom. This article was not the effort of a single person. It's getting printed in the Monday edition of the WSJ. They do not fuck up - not like this. Harriet Agnew has been the editor for only two months, thus shit happens. I think the key here is Robin Sidel. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
