4) NO RECOURSE: By executing the swap of AMHash for AMHashLC, the owner relinquishes the right for any direct or indirect claims arising out of holding the AMHash contract against any party involved in the creation, performance or sale of the contract AMHash.
It would seem appropriate to link the "no recourse" clause to the performance of the agreement. In other words, people should have full recourse opyions until this new cobtract makes good on its payout in April. Otherwise, people are surrenderingbtheir rights to take steps to recover their funds for just a paper promise to pay The clause is [likely] as legally binding as the quasi-contract you've entered into with AMHash. If I steal ten bucks from you, and tell you that you can have a dollar back, but only if you sign a contract promising not to report me to the cops, that contract is null and void. Not as clearcut in this case, but you get my drift. So what would you consider as an alternative to accepting this "quasi-legal" option if you had purchased any shares in this failed venture? a) hire a lawyer who would inevitably cost you much more than 1.2 minus 0.3 BTC or b) take a flight to Taiwan and find FC so you could hold up a sign to him demanding justice c) take the offer and buy 0.3 BTC worth of self-help books so you would never get fooled again d) not take the offer thereby potentially losing all of your entire investment amount because you doubt the validity of the quasi-contract e) use your gov't contacts to contact another gov't and "avenge your losses" (physical harm is certainly not the answer - ever -)  In all seriousness though, does anyone have an rational thought on the matter? Does anyone out there believe so strongly that they have a case that they are willing to buy up other peoples shares at a discount to reap the rewards of litigation? |
|
|
|
i can proof if im female please PM  i will give you a link on my tweet if im female the tweet on april 2013 whats for im lie to get 0.01 btc  and what's for you lie to get English good |
|
|
|
|
7 weeks with you plus 55 days to tour the US? Wow! How does somebody even get that amount of time off work? I am doing something wrong ;(
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain this (that for me) is an incongruity ....
6) SCHEDULE: The swap will be offered until April/20/2015. After April/20/2015 the swap offering will be closed and no further swaps will be possible. The total payment to units of AMHashLC will be split into 5 equal installments paid on a weekly schedule. The first payment will be provided after April/20/2015 and prior to April/24/2015 and the combined total will be paid out before May/29/2015.
7) FURTHER OFFERINGS: We reserve the right to do additional rounds of AMHashLC offerings with the same conditions after May/29/2015, should it be deemed necessary.
So there will no other swap (by point nr. 6) but they reserve the right to do more swaps in the future !?!?!?! what does it mean... !!!! I'm no lawyer but I think it means you have until the 20th of April to accept the terms of this swap after which you will no longer be able to swap into this round and will have to wait until after May 29th at which time there may or may not be another round to swap into. |
|
|
|
Q) Is this a scam?
A) No.
GG, lightbox!  Lightbox sold the company to a Panaminian exchange a while back Good on you though for recalling that your an old newbie Lol, so you doubt I'm new, but believe lightbox's "The Panama Fund"? I mean, I shit you not, "The Panama Fund." Talk about selective incredulity While were on the topic of selective incredulity NotLambChop... er whomever you may be. Why don't you expand on your 100% clean exit theory? Naw! Scratch that. It would be better if you simply demonstrate a 100% clean exit strategy to all of us right now. We, in kind will give you nothing for it. |
|
|
|
You can simply send a telegram online. Obviously you have access to the internet and it's about the same cost to you as you want to pay someone else to do it on your behalf. https://www.sendtelegram.com <--- for example That one also has tracking. So if you still want someone else to do it, then it is very shady. |
|
|
|
Would buying a small power plant be very profitable just to mine for bitcoin?
Is it a nuclear power plant? If it is, then no because you would be required to maintain a fund for the eventual decommissioning of the plant at the end of its useful life. |
|
|
|
Hass McCook (MBA from University of Oxford) did a 5 part series evaluating the sustainability of the Bitcoin network against other monetary institutions for Coindesk. The conclusions are here: http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-conclusions-costs-bitcoin/ I'm pretty sure the costs would scale downward with greater efficiencies in mining and upward with a higher bitcoin valuation. Already, you can see the difference in electricity costs over less than one year. |
|
|
|
Miners are required to verify new transactions; the reward was to get them started.
Having one miner actually do the work (the block winner) and all the other miners (block losers) waste their efforts is the definition of "inefficiency". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inefficiency At first I thought you were ignorant but now I see you're just trolling. You and I arguing about those things we cannot change is also an inefficient use of our time but the beauty of it is that I can change that efficiency. I'm done. Have fun. lol |
|
|
|
Except it couldn't be called decentralised network then.
Incorrect. You don't have to mine to preserve the blockchain. The flaw is in the reward system design. It encourages waste. The blockchain in stasis is utterly useless to bitcoin. Miners are required to verify new transactions; the reward was to get them started. Anyway, that wasn't even part of your original, flawed argument which was: ...The entire bitcoin network could be sustained safely on less than 1000 watts. lol I'm pretty sure you said "network" there. lol |
|
|
|
|
Pretty sure this guy is fucking with you for lulz.
|
|
|
|
In the very, very early days of Bitcoin mining and markets (i.e. early 2009), there was one miner called NewLibertyStandard who mined bitcoins and then sold them on his website via email. His prices dictated the market at the time and it was based solely on electricity costs: During 2009 my exchange rate was calculated by dividing $1.00 by the average amount of electricity required to run a computer with high CPU for a year, 1331.5 kWh, multiplied by the the average residential cost of electricity in the United States for the previous year, $0.1136, divided by 12 months divided by the number of bitcoins generated by my computer over the past 30 days. Because of the way mining works, if the reward exceeds the electricity cost, lots of people will jump in and the network difficulty should adjust itself so that mining becomes more difficult. If reward is lower than the electricity cost, lots of people will jump out and the network difficulty should adjust itself so that mining becomes less difficult. Therefore, the economics suggest that mining should be profitable, but only barely so. However, the reality today is that most miners do not make a profit - i.e. the above model does not explain why things are the way they are. Does anyone know the reasons for this? Now if I had to guess, it would be because many miners are not rational actors motivated solely by profit but are either mining for fun or as a hobby. With a large chunk of the hashrate being controlled by miners who don't care whether they are losing money, this messes up the equilibrium and turns mining into a generally unprofitable thing for everybody. In 2009 there were 7200 new bitcoins becoming available each day with a base of zero bitcoins. Today there are 3600 per day becoming available with a base of nearly 14 million. It was much easier for the producers to dictate the value while satisfying the demand in 2009. You now have a pool of coins to chose from which were bought at various valuations (bleow and above todays value) and there are a great many speculators who either don't know or simply don't care that mining is necessary in order for bitcoin transactions to be verified. Those people are not necessarily miners and therefore are not constrained by the cost of electricity and the equipment required to produce new coins and verify transactions. |
|
|
|
|
If you delete each of your posts it almost would be like you were never here.
|
|
|
|
Are they using super-computer / something to make these crazy vanity addresses  Even 10 character vanity address already something crazy I wonder if anyone really use these vanity addresses ? I use lots of vanity addresses. This is my longest with English words to date - 1 BubbLingsoup9hqv7cjnnrWFt9GmEmCHS message: xhomerx10 controls the address 1BubbLingsoup9hqv7cjnnrWFt9GmEmCHS signature: G88+0rJjr5Q0kULSz4BNH93fPpeKuLugfZl0IZtWVGoQOPicNK/dkQ7E5wa3JeFugKjmXgw3sRXCkkCXI2SJn7E= |
|
|
|
Well I guess the parties over for all intensive intents and purposes
I guess it was good dividends while it lasted
Then ....
FTFY and agreed! |
|
|
|
Hey, how long to generate the address 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE? More than a millenium? Yes. More time than earth will support life. That's not entirely true as address generation is random and it is probability based. In all likelihood it will take forever but there is an ever-so-miniscule chance it could be generated on the first try. Don't bet the moon on it though. |
|
|
|
If they have a functional and competitive chip why not go with pre-orders like every other mining devices selling company, if they get enough money/orders they could make the chips.
Has this been discussed already?
Actually I find it strange that everyone is ignoring the fact that FC didn't place a wafer order before his disappearance. He was supposed to have chips in hand in February so the order was supposed to be placed in December or early January. This never happened, yet nobody is complaining about this. If we ignore all the recent facts the problem is still there. They never intended to have miners with BE300 chip. Not on this financial situation. Would the decision to produce the BE300 have been lucrative. Would it have been competitive? Would AM have been able to produce profitable miners? If not, there was no point in sinking the sizeable sums of money into the venture. We already know the fate of the BE200... I'm actually pretty convinced that they could raise funds this way. AM has never failed to deliver a device once chips were confirmed as functional. Pretty sure they could sell $10 million in hardware preorders for equipment for delivery in June if they had management team and could prove functionality of the chip. Production runs for 28nm grow on trees.
You also believed that they will sell or deploy all the 60Ph/s worth of BE200 chips right? AM clearly wanted to sell or deploy 60 PH and they tried. Chip sales did not go well so they produced the AMtube. The AMTube wasn't efficient enough so they produced the Prisma which consumed twice the number of BE200 chips and ultimately itself through immolation which led to wholesale replacement of the units with the Prisma 2.0 and or refunds. It didn't go as planned so they stopped while there was still sufficient funding to pursue the next generation; presumably the BE300.. (see above, lather, rinse, repeat) You seem to believe that AM made baseless claims. They had goals that were quite simply not realized even though the effort was put forth. |
|
|
|
Cineva putin ajutor? Mai am nevoie decat de 1 euro
Nu mai cere bani aici. E interzis. De la sectiunea "newbie": FORUM RULES •NO SPAM •NO BEGGING (AKA ASKING FOR BITCOINS) <--- regula aplicabila•NO REFERRAL LINKS Atunci sa fie sters topicul. Desi, cum de nu a fost sters daca am incalcat regulamentul? Nu stiu. Poate n-a fost raportat altfel ai fi fost sters |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
