Well shit.  First SP20 that's given me issues. Just up and died on me after working faithfully for several months. Sent an email to SPTech via their website "Contact Us" link and hopefully I can get a new board or something... |
|
|
|
|
Congrats on entering mass production ! Will be looking to acquire one as soon as they become available !
|
|
|
|
Assuming you're not trolling, yes. We implicitly trust Theymos by using this forum.
Speak for yourself. I don't trust Theymos at all. Luke-Jr even less so. I fail to see your logic of patronizing these forums being a sign of implicitly trusting Theymos. To wit, I patronize a lot of sites I don't entirely trust. That's just life on the internet. |
|
|
|
All miners use at least a portion of his code, so that's not really possible. We implicitly trust him, like we implicitly trust Theymos by using the forum.
Hah! <breathes> HAH HAH !<breathes> BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!<breathes> Wait, you're serious, right ? |
|
|
|
|
Bump. Still have these sitting in their shrink-wrapped boxes.
Willing to let both of them go for $400 shipped to anywhere in the USA.
|
|
|
|
http://ia802308.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531.docket.htmlFTC’S SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANTS BF LABS, INC., DARLA DRAKE, AND SONNY VLEISIDES
Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 336 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 24
http://ia902308.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531.336.0.pdf
FTC’S SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT NASSER GHOSEIRI
Case 4:14-cv-00815-BCW Document 338 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 25
http://ia902308.us.archive.org/32/items/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531/gov.uscourts.mowd.117531.338.0.pdf
"Defendants had their bite at the apple and lost, and they should not get another."
"...good faith is not a defense to liability for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act... good faith is immaterial to whether a ‘deceptive act’ has occurred..."
"Their bare assertions that the FTC’s requested relief is unconscionable provide no notice to the FTC as to how or why that is so, making it impossible to negate. Similarly, they assert that the Court “lacks personal jurisdiction over some or all of the Defendants,” yet fail to identify over which Defendant or Defendants the Court lacks jurisdiction. Further, these defenses are nothing but “bare bones conclusory allegations,” “omit[ting] any short and plain statement of facts,” and “fail[ing] totally to allege the necessary elements” of the asserted defenses"
"In their 7th defense, Defendants assert that the FTC’s Complaint infringes upon their First Amendment rights. This affirmative defense should be stricken because it is insufficient. The FTC has challenged the marketing of Defendants’ Bitcoin mining machines as false and misleading commercial speech and has alleged in the Complaint that the marketing violates the FTC Act. The law is well-settled that the government may prevent the dissemination of false or misleading commercial speech"
"Defendants’ 8th and 17th defenses are premised on the argument that voluntary cessation of the alleged violative activity moots the case. This argument is without merit. Even if Defendants ceased all illegal conduct before initiation of this case, “[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case; if it did, the courts would be compelled to leave the defendant . . . free to return to his old ways. ”
"Defendants’ 11th defense asserts the estoppel, laches, and waiver defenses. First, Defendants simply refer to these legal doctrines without setting forth the elements of each and without alleging any facts to support these defenses. Moreover, estoppel, laches, and waiver are generally unavailable as defenses against a government agency in a civil suit to enforce a public right or protect a public interest ... It is a general rule that laches is no defense against the government in a civil suit to enforce a public right or protect a public interest."
"Defendants’ 18th affirmative defense pins fault on “others” without the slightest indication of who the others might be. This alone is enough to warrant striking the defenses ... Moreover, the defense is also immaterial. Assuming that others were in fact ensnared in Defendants’ misconduct, that does not absolve Defendants. The FTC is not required to name as defendants all parties who may be jointly and severally liable."
"In their final defense, Defendants reserve the right to “amend their Answer to assert additional defenses” that might arise later in this proceeding. This is not a proper defense but at best an attempt to circumvent the amendment procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. As such, courts routinely have struck down similar attempts, finding that Rule 15 provides the proper avenue by which a defendant may add defenses to his answer."
"Litigation regarding Defendants’ nineteen affirmative defenses would prejudice the FTC and consumers harmed by Defendants’ scheme. As discussed above, because many of Defendants’ defenses are nothing but “threadbare recitals,” “bare bones conclusory allegations,” and “textbook examples of labels and conclusions,” the FTC will be forced to expend considerable resources in discovery just to be put on fair notice of what Defendants are alleging. And because Defendants’ affirmative defenses fail as a matter of law, allowing them to remain will needlessly prolong the litigation, require the FTC to expend its limited resources, and waste assets that otherwise would be available to compensate injured consumers. This is the very prejudice that courts have found justify striking insufficient defenses."
|
|
|
|
|
Just got two dust payments from 1SochiWwFFySPjQoi2biVftXn8NRPCSQC.
They were sent to prior addresses I had used at btc-e, and an address I used previously here in the forums via private messaging.
|
|
|
|
Yep. http://btcvestor.com/2015/06/22/scrypt-cc-hack/
Posted on the Scrypt.CC Dashboard when you login to the site: June 22, 2015 – Around 24 hours ago, I (Marcelo Santos AKA Admin) was finishing our server upgrade, We’ve been doing the switch step by step for the past two weeks. The last part was the accounts database and the trade engine. I put a notice up here around the time I was finishing the switch, users that were online at the time probably noticed. After I completed, I ran a upgrade on the new server and left on a personal trip with my family in which I was unreachable until now.
Around 14 hours ago our database was breached, the hacker credited himself BTC and KHS and withdrew BTC until our withdraw wallet was empty. He then proceeded to make suspicious orders in the market in which the market automatically turned itself off. This sent a alert to myself and other support staff, one of them seeing what was happening but not being able to do much as he does not have back-end access, he enabled our “Panic” mode in which put the whole site on lock down. But the hackers still managed to gain access and steal the coins from the hot wallet and the backup withdraw wallet.
Bad news: We had a large amount of BTC stolen, most of which were ours.
Good news: Our server runs hourly database backups and a backup was made minutes before their first attack and right before the lock down. So all user information is safe.
The site will stay online while we investigate further and plan out our next steps.
Balances will show 0 for the time being as we work on the database.
According to the blockchain some users are still depositing into their accounts, DO NOT MAKE ANY MORE DEPOSITS since the hackers still have access to the hotwallets.
Please have patience and I’ll keep everyone updated as we execute our next steps. |
|
|
|
Thank Google analystics for all this, just like Facebook was created by IN-Q-TEL, a arm of the CIA for monitoring public, so was Google! But hey, its just silocial networking folks, nothing to worry about!
Shouldn't we really be thanking the reptilians or the greys for this one, though ? /s |
|
|
|
It's not a good idea IMO, but Luke's "blacklist" is intended to stop only certain types of spam, not to blacklist any specific people/companies. The companies affected by this can easily bypass it by using Bitcoin properly.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions |
|
|
|
Seriously? 8750? No way...do you really think so?
No. |
|
|
|
Both of the above had sent luke-jr a negative rating being critical of what they think were him censoring bitcoin by enabling, by default settings that prevent certain transactions from confirming, notably ones from a certain gambling on-chain "website" Which is a lie, just as I said in my feedback. Regardless of if luke-jr is right or wrong in trying to censor the Bitcoin network, You also lie now, since I am not trying to censor the Bitcoin network. Clearly you are biased since you are yourself pushing this lie. I'll just leave this here. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524512+static struct BlacklistEntry BlacklistedPrefixes[] = {
+ {0x946cb2e0, 0x946cb2e0, "Mastercoin"},
+ {0x06f1b600, 0x06f1b6ff, "SatoshiDice"},
+ {0x74db3700, 0x74db59ff, "BetCoin Dice"},
+ {0xc4c5d791, 0xc4c5d791, "CHBS"}, // 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T
+ {0x434e5452, 0x434e5452, "Counterparty"},
+ {0x069532d8, 0x069532da, "SatoshiBones"},
+ {0xda5dde84, 0xda5dde94, "Lucky Bit"},
+}; |
|
|
|
Actually it is a purchased account
Red flag #1: Purchased accountHaving a child with a disability I am sensitive to bullying.
Red flag #2: Bringing their children into an argumentI have been following his coin for a while on a Bitstone slack channel (not Paycoin) and want to invest.
Red flag #3: Evidence of shillingWhats worse is there is an even higher probability it will get turned into a big joke and bashed - but I wanted you to think about what your agenda was when the GAW thread was started and what it has turned into now. The actions you take have an affect not only on the ones you are persecuting but their families as well.
Red flag #4: Sympathy garnering / Appeal to emotion |
|
|
|
|
Dude is cancerous to Bitcoin IMO.
|
|
|
|
<comedy gold>
Please go on. You're a funny, clueless guy ! |
|
|
|
So you are not denying the illegal activity?
What illegal activity ? They had nothing to do with the GAW email dump other than discussing its contents. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
