I'm interested. PM me? Can't seem to PM you.

Hey, thanks a lot for doing that for me! Still have some available if anyone is interested. Feel free to PM me an offer. Can ship out today.

Unsure why I can't get the pics to show up here, but you can find them at the imgur links.

Will get this done ASAP and post here!

That's what I meant by "jump through hoops"

FWIW, willing to do both of those things!

Have a few dragonmints available for sale. $2,200 / rig. Can ship immediately!

Willing to jump through hoops to prove legitimacy and identity.

Paypal only please. PM me if interested!

$3000 / rig for 50 rigs. PM me if you are interested.

Also, just so everyone is clear:

MAY batch on Halong website is currently going for over $3,000 when you factor in PSU and shipping.

We're giving you access to the very first batch which should be delivered in the next 2 weeks for $2,500 / rig (PSU included).

Hey, if you don't mind, please DM me. Thanks!

At this point, we would rather sell than rush into something. Greatly appreciate the offer though!

It's actually better than market rate from Halong directly.

The May batch listed on their website is currently going for ~$2,800, and the March batch machines are going on eBay for upwards of $3,000.

Some investors and I teamed together to purchase 100 of the new Halong Dragonmint 16Th/s miners - 50 from the March batch (first available batch shipping next week) and 50 from the second April batch (shipping end of April). Unfortunately, we have not been able to secure a facility to run these miners. As such, we are looking to sell them to someone who can use them.

Terms:

$2,500 / rig X 100 machines = $250,000

If you're not in U.S., you cover cost of import / customs.

We'll attempt to redirect shipping to you before they ship from Halong, but no promises there. If we can't do that, we're willing to negotiate costs with you.

We're willing to escrow if necessary.

We're also willing to bare the risk of non-performance on the part of Halong, meaning that if they do not deliver, we will refund any money you have paid us before delivery.

I apologize if this is not the place to post this offer. I looked around at the forum rules and this is the only place that I could find that made sense.

I'm willing to provide details of my public identity to provide some credibility, i.e. eBay account, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. I work for a major company as a strategy lead for blockchain products, so that's my way of saying I'm definitely not interested in scamming you. I can provide invoices for the miners as well. DM me if you're interested!

Perhaps that's true, but isn't that the case with any stock that you hold that produces dividends? The only way to get that dividend is if you hold the stock. Why is that flawed? I think it's a great way for projects to have a longer-term survival rate if they can piggyback on a network effect that already exists instead of attempting to build their own over time.

Do you happen to know the answer to my initial question?

Anyone know if it is technologically possible to airdrop new tokens on Bitcoin holders if those tokens are to exist on a sidechain? After the BCash fork, I noticed everyone who didn't care a thing about BCash referred to it as a "Bitcoin dividend." It dawned on me that this would be an excellent feature if new projects could piggyback on Bitcoin's network effect by airdropping their projects' tokens on current Bitcoin holders. If it could be done without hardforking, and instead be done as a snapshot-style airdrop where the project is built as a sidechain, this could be a pretty big deal. One of gold's critiques is that it doesn't produce income. Bitcoin can (further) set itself apart from gold if this can be done.

Can you guys provide sources for your varying definitions of "soft fork" and "hard fork?"

I've found this: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36090/has-a-hard-fork-ever-occurred

This: https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/hard-fork

And this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2s2utx/the_hard_fork_missile_crisis/cnlqcd1/

My very amateur understanding is that there seems to be an amorphous definition of "hard fork" depending on how one is using it. There are instances where a network split is referred to as a "hard fork" relative to the network state, and there are times when it is used to refer to a "software update without backward compatibility." But then Peter Todd (in the above reddit link) argues that we should not even be referring to what happened in 2013 as a "hard fork."

He also argues that a hard fork means "previously allowed behavior is now rejected, for instance creating coins out of thin air." But I think this might not be precise enough, since the previous block size changes were implemented with a soft fork and not a hard fork.

If we can get some consistency, it might provide a stable foundation from which to argue re: the block size debate.

IF bitcoin has never dealt with a hard fork (this would depend on the definition we use), there can be made a substantial argument that if we have no prior experience with measuring the outcomes of a hard fork, we have no way of knowing with certainty the impact of doing so.