I finally found a copy of amdvbflash.exe and installed it. I copied the modified rom into the same folder as amdvbflash.exe. I succeeded in unlocking the GPU. However, when I try to flash the modified rom, even though I have carefully created the modified file following your instructions, I get this error:

-f option not supported in external version of the tool. Please refer to tool help for list of option supported
Old SSID: 5701
New SSID: 5701
BIOS authentication signature mismatched.

   ERROR: 0FL01

Any suggestions on how I can flash the modified BIOS?

EDIT and UPDATE: I was able to resolve my issue by using a DIFFERENT version of amdvbflash.exe, a so-called "plus" version (see: Flash Tool 3.04+ Win), which I downloaded linked from this page (scroll to near the bottom):

https://www.igorslab.de/en/red-bios-editor-and-morepowertool-adjust-and-optimize-your-vbios-and-even-more-stable-overclocking-navi-unlimited/3/

This version let me avoid the errors I was receiving.

This YouTube video confirms the issue and explains the workaround:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zobUmi0O4VE

Thanks for posting these steps, but I am getting hung up on your instruction:

-Type "amdvbflash.exe -unlockrom 0" in CMD screen and press ENTER button.

I've meticulously followed your instructions, but here I am getting the error:

"'amdvbflash.exe' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file."
 
I find this file nowhere on my computer, even though I have installed the AMD RX 5700 XT Windows 10 x64 Driver. What can I do to get "amdvbflash.exe" as a recognized file?

Yes, the API does not allow Awesome Miner support, which requires SSH access.

Awesome Miner is the unified interface that I use to manage all of my miners. It gives me essentially a dashboard from which I can see the status of all miners on one screen, perform maintenance tasks on them, and create tigger-action automatically executing rules that will allow the miners to respond to a number of different scenarios (low hashrate auto-reboot, power off during certain hours and back on automatically later, power off if temps get too high for a defined period, pool switching, etc.)

Thank you, I realize SSH is not presently supported. I am curious if anyone knows when it will be supported -- or if a decision has been made that it'll never be supported. Is -ck off the project or continuing development? Perhaps he can enlighten us?

Does anyone have information as to when the DragonMint T1 will permit access via SSH?

I use Awesome Miner to manage the miners in my farm. Because no known way exists to access the DragonMint T1 via SSH, I can't apply any triggers/rules to them, which is complicating my maintenance and monitoring.

Patrik Engström of Awesome Miner is willing to add API support for the DragonMint if the vendor will provide the SSH access details. Thank you.

The ruled based action "Stop miner" does not work as expected on any AntMiner S9 in my farm after it has been triggered. The S9 miner simply performs a reboot and begins hashing again about 2 minutes after it was (very briefly) "stopped."

Will someone please provide information as to how I can get this action ("Stop miner") to actually stop the miner, and not simply perform a reboot? Is it possible to stop an S9 miner (using Awesome Miner) at a certain time and then create a second rule to restart the S9 miner later?

I see instructions precisely for this purpose for GPU mining, but not for ASIC, posted here: http://www.awesomeminer.com/help/rules.aspx (See: "Example: Run GPU mining during a specific time"). Thank you.

When will Awesome Miner support the DragonMint T1 through API access in privileged mode? I can only access the DragonMint T1 in "Restricted - No operations allowed" mode.

Is the current "restricted" access limitation due to a lack of the features available in the DragonMint's CgMiner software, or is it a limitation within Awesome Miner?

Will you please provide a specific range of what qualifies as "running too hot" that will trigger this problem -- or at least what temp range we should aim to be in when we autotune? Thank you....

I am aware of only 2 ways to get in touch with Halong Mining.

(1) through its "Contact Us" web form: https://halongmining.com/contact-us/

(2) through its Telegram Group, which often receives postings by Halong's apparent principal, the pseudonymous Drak: https://t.me/dragonmint

The company is otherwise operating in complete anonymity to my knowledge.

Is fair and healthy skepticism a "strange" thing? I am the guy who merely observed that a number of odd facts seemed to surround Halong Mining and that the "company" was behaving in an extraordinarily unusual manner, based on widely accepted business norms. Principally, I wrote about: (1) the unverifiability and lack of Halong's incorporation documents, (2) the anonymity of its management and ownership, and the fact that its only known manager goes by a pseudonym, (3) the lack of a physical mailing address, phone number, or registered agent, (4) the mystery of its jurisdiction (country) of operation, (5) the inability for us to hold Halong Mining accountable in a class action lawsuit should Halong put out dangerous or defective hardware and refuse to honor its warranty, (6) the unverifiability of the DM T1's claimed FCC certification, etc., just to name a few of these legitimate concerns.

There are still many unusual circumstances about this company, but I've already made that case in previous posts and won't go into any more detail here for now, unless it becomes relevant again. I'm on record making many fair observations about Halong. This community has given Halong the opportunity to address those concerns, which it hasn't.... Halong's refusal to answer basic, fair questions about itself has undermined its credibility. It's a shame if the company truly wishes to be a legitimate player.

Now the conversation seems to have shifted from Will Halong Mining ever really ship the DragonMint? ... to ... Is the DragonMint's failure rate unacceptably high? .... I'll be curious to watch how Halong Mining behaves in honoring its warranty.

DHL notified me today of my tracking number from Halong Mining Ltd. for my DM1 "April Batch 2" order for several units, which I placed during the 2nd week of January.

Delivery is scheduled for May 10.

The Halong Mining website remains unchanged, however, showing a status of "Processing."

@Sandal_Hat: I actually can't believe I have to defend myself here for doing the exact opposite of what you claim. I must insist that you do a basic fact check before you accuse anyone of "unethical conduct." You could not be any more mistaken about me and Unicornflex. Contrary to your claim, I have never praised Halong Mining for its greatness or otherwise tried to elevate the company for "marketing purposes." Unicornflex never did so either. I am not shilling for Halong or anyone else. I have no secret PR agenda or ulterior motives. Unicornflex has done the exact opposite of what you have claimed. The link you posted in which you allege he is "praising" Halong, he actually does the opposite and excoriates Halong. He made the case on why he has doubts about Halong, and in a constructive manner urged Halong to set the record straight, which Halong declined to do. I have written in detail providing reasoned support for the validity of his concerns. I did so because I shared his concerns. In doing so, I have painstakingly tried to be as objective as possible and provide as much supporting evidence as possible.

The "massive" sales numbers of the DragonMint that he and I shared with this community were intended to show not how "great" Halong Mining is, but rather to demonstrate the potential magnitude of the epic scam that he and I both suspected that Halong Mining could be. I did not share this information for personal gain, but rather to try to help people possibly avoid getting scammed. I have no other motivation. At the time I first started posting in February, I was all but convinced Halong was a scam. I have since written and still believe that we should all consider Halong Mining an illegitimate operation until and unless it reveals its incorporation number and proof that its claimed FCC certification for the DragonMint actually exists. After reputable individuals vouched for the existence of the DragonMint, such as -ck, then and only then, I posted that I felt I would receive the DragonMints for which I had paid, but I still maintained that Halong was not behaving in the way legitimate companies operate, and that all potential buyers should beware.

I know Unicornflex only because I bought some Antminer S9 units from him last year, a transaction that I also shared using the "Trust" feature of this community. I have no interest in promoting or questioning any hardware mining company. I am an actual customer of Halong Mining who demands transparency from them. Support my efforts in that endeavor for our mutual benefit, or don't. Your choice. In my case, I regretted buying from Halong once I realized I could not verify Halong's incorporation. I still regret my purchase. I became even more worried once I learned Halong was unwilling to do anything to help quell fears about claims Halong was a scam operation.

To help others make informed an informed decision about Halong, I shared the results of my due diligence research on Halong and its affiliate "MyRig, Inc." Because others seemed to value my research (into which I put considerable effort), I continued to post in this thread to help shed light about Halong and MyRig and to help introduce myself to this community, which I have come to appreciate. We have seen progress. In response to my posts and those of others, this community's collective examination helped to reveal the Japanese incorporation number of "MyRig" (at least its name, apparently translated into Japanese) for the first time in this forum. In addition, I revealed that MyRig, Inc. is not incorporated in Colorado even though it holds itself out as authorized to do business in that state. My research also supported the inescapable fact that Halong is an anonymous operation that is attempting to operate with impunity.

I shared in this thread numerous times my skepticism of Halong Mining and my concern that I would not receive the DragonMint units I purchased. I explained I felt this way because Halong miserably failed my due diligence tests. I posted that I thought my buying from Halong was impulsive and a mistake on my part. I vowed I'd never purchase from Halong again. (I can prove I am a Halong customer through photos and video if I ever receive my April Batch 2 shipment.)

I do not care about the success or failure of any mining hardware manufacturer. I have no financial interest in any of these companies, including Halong and Bitmain, except to the extent I may need warranty work from one of them some day on my miners. However, if a company operates ethically in the marketplace, delivers good value, gives good support, and treats its customers with respect, I hope it succeeds. Halong has not operated this way for the many reasons I have discussed at length previously.

I've tried to be respectful (yet fair and firm) to everyone and every business in this thread, including you, Halong Mining, Bitmain, and others. I've been as objective as I can possibly be. I've fact checked extensively the subject matter about which I've posted.  I've tried to support every statement I make with sound reasoning or hard evidence (for example, screenshots of the FCC database when I could not verify Halong's FCC certification claim, or Secretary of State records when I could not verify its affiliate MyRig, Inc.'s incorporation).  When someone posted that they doubted one could sue Bitmain, I wrote extensively explaining in detail exactly how you could sue Bitmain anywhere in the world.

You are off base suggesting that I have questionable ethics. I've behaved above board. I did not suddenly discover Unicornflex's post, I was speaking with him the day he posted it back in February. I disclosed this fact in an earlier post. I have not posted yet on any other threads in this forum, because I am a new here and want to wait to make sure I post only when I have value to add. I understood that was the expected behavior of users of this forum. Do you realize that? I would encourage you to do the same instead instead of acting in an unacceptable way toward new users. Judge newbies by the content of their message, and not by the creation date of their account and the number of threads in which they post. This community should welcome newbies to make constructive, objective contributions -- and not verbally assault them as you have done.

I regret if some find this message too personal or "off topic", but being publicly accused of acting unethically when I have taken the utmost care to act honorably, as Sandal_Hat has done, is way beyond the pale and required my public response. Thank you.

Although it is not conclusive evidence, we have some reason to believe that Halong Mining's sales so far have been massive in terms of revenue, which I noted weeks ago, but I thought it might prove helpful again here. Unicornflex, a member of this forum, shared this analysis in February after he and I compared our DragonMint order numbers from our Halong Mining receipts. (See quote below.) We placed orders online right at about the same moment, and he later placed multiple additional orders. It seemed to us that Halong's online order system was using sequential order numbers. If our assumption is correct, we can have a rough estimate of Halong's number of sales. Since the minimum order quantity requirement was five units for quite some time, we can also estimate Halong's minimum total revenue, which we estimated was more than USD $50 million (as of early February 2018).

Some would-be customers absolutely do care enough about these lingering, unanswered questions about Halong Mining -- enough not to purchase from it. Others are unconcerned or less concerned. I've been committed to trying to help us all uncover basic facts about Halong Mining and MyRig, Inc., and all of us should care about the truth and make the best decisions possible for each one of us. If an informed buyer wants to buy from Halong, then please have at it.

I agree with your point that buying from Halong Mining "was a gamble", but I can't say I agree with your point that the purchase "has paid off for some people." Products from Batch 1 are just reportedly getting into the hands of purchasers, and we do not know how they will perform or their failure rate. It was not disclosed to us before purchasing that the units may be used only on a limited number of pools (due to AsicBoost), so that was a material fact not advertised that limits their usage. We also do not know if Halong will honor its 6 month warranty or if it will even remain operating for the duration of the warranty period. Halong said the AsicBoost license negotiation was a reason for its pre-release secrecy, but we now see that Halong has continued to maintain its secrecy, so that has not really worked out for those purchasers, including myself, who expected to learn a reasonable degree about the company by now.

Certainly, "Crypto is not the automotive industry," as you pointedly noted, but a number of similarities exist between mining for cryptocurrency and driving an automobile:

(1) Both consume energy that have fire safety considerations that any responsible operator must consider.

(2) Both activities pose a risk to human life, especially if using a defective product.

(3) Consumers of both products must adhere to strict rules and standards when operating them or face significant liability, including fines or imprisonment. Yes, believe it or not, if you negligently operate a miner and burn your and your neighbor's house down, just as if you negligently operate an automobile, you could be guilty of manslaughter if someone is killed due to your negligence. In the case of both products, if you are operating a miner or a car from a totally anonymous manufacturer, the operator assumes a greater degree of liability since the owner is on notice that the lack of accountability or trustworthiness of the seller is a known issue.

(4) Consumers of both products care about the warranties of each, and to that extent, many purchasers care about the credibility of the party issuing the warranty. The more of each product a consumer purchases, the more he or she is going to care about the warranty and the credibility of the issuer of the warranty.

(5) Manufacturers of both products are required under law and long-standing widely accepted business norms to be accountable for their actions, including negligence (e.g., the release of a defective product) or intentional bad acts (e.g., theft of IP, or non-compliance with a patent license).

I genuinely hope it works out for purchasers of the DragonMint, including myself. It might. But then again, it might not. Time will tell. As you noted, buying from Halong "was a gamble." It remains a gamble. Regardless, one fact is inescapable: the more we scrutinize a seller, the more informed we all are -- and the better off we all are. And that is a positive step.

Through Halong's obfuscation, its lack of transparency, its refusal to disclose the country or jurisdiction in which it is incorporated, its refusal to disclose its incorporation number or proof of its business license, its effort to avoid accountability for its products, its refusal to produce evidence of the DragonMint's alleged FCC certificate, it is clear that Halong Mining has done more to damage Halong Mining's reputation than any other party. None of the covert tactics you describe justify this conduct. Halong is operating more like a dealer of enriched uranium on the black market than a manufacturer of computer hardware.


As a business owner, do you hide your business address from your customers or from law enforcement? Do feel it is important for your customers or the judicial system to know how to contact your business? If you refused to provide this information, for how long do you think you could stay in business? If you told your customers that your products possess a 3rd party certification that attests to their safety, do you feel an obligation to provide evidence of such certification, if asked?


One reason you might consider is that the FCC has no record of Halong Mining or the DragonMint that I can find. You can search for yourself the FCC's certification database here:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Halong has claimed in this very thread that the DM has received FCC certification.

With all due respect, I was not asking you how risky you believe it is to operate a DragonMint.  Silicon is not the only material inside of the DragonMint and its PSU. Other risk factors exist, such as extremely high voltage. Yet the central question from my previous post remains, which you did not answer. Should it be possible in a court of law to hold Halong Mining accountable, if someone has a valid claim against it? Should Halong be held accountable if it negligently released a defective product that posed an unacceptable risk of danger? Of course it should. Every business should be held to account if it acts with negligence or if someone has a valid claim against it. I am not saying that Halong Mining has done any of these things (although the Innosilicon board looks staggeringly similar to that of the DM, see https://i.imgur.com/RgI9Eoy.jpg), but I have a real problem with the public's not having the information needed to sue and recover from someone if valid claims arise. Do you share this concern? If you do, then please realize that to hold a business operator accountable, we have to know, at a minimum, where we can deliver a copy of the lawsuit. That is why businesses are required to have a registered agent who can receive service of process from a court.

Using extremely high voltage is not an activity anyone should take lightly, even if you consider silicon safe. Even low wattage smartphones have been known to burn dangerously due to defective components. The DragonMint operates at 1500 watts, has no FCC certification that I have been able to verify (despite Halong's claim that it exists), and it is the first ever product from a new hardware manufacturer with no track record that insists on operating with total anonymity and impunity.

The mining industry is still young enough and its hardware rare enough that regulators still don't fully understand them. Governments are just starting to wrap their minds around the need for economic regulation of cryptocurrencies. The G20 leaders announced last month that cryptocurrency is on their radar. South Korea weeks ago banned anonymous cryptocurrency accounts. Regulation on the hardware side is just starting to happen too. The U.S. FCC in February sent a cease and desist letter to a home miner in Brooklyn, New York due to a Bitmain Antminer that the FCC believed disrupted a cell phone network. The disruption was so serious that T-Mobile, a U.S. corporation, spent thousands of dollars investigating the source of the interference and finally triangulated the interference to one man's Brooklyn apartment.

If someone in New York or anywhere else can't place a phone call to emergency medical services, for example, because a Bitmain miner is disrupting their cell phone signal, can't we all agree that is an example of a legitimate safety concern? If we learn that Bitmain miners disrupt mobile phone communications to a dangerous degree, and if that disruption is due to a design defect or gross negligence by Bitmain, can't we all agree that Bitmain should assume responsibility for its actions?  If, hypothetically, Bitmain were to try to skirt responsibility, can't we all agree that a court of proper jurisdiction should force Bitmain to assume responsibility? The same should happen to Halong Mining (or any other entity) if for some reason Halong is ever found to have acted with negligence or some other valid claim against it exists.


Collaboration, unity, improved consumer experience, improved performance.... These goals are wonderful. I share them with you. But please realize that "improved consumer experience" requires the possibility that a manufacturer can be held accountable for valid legal claims against it. It doesn't matter who the business is. You don't get to operate with impunity in business under any circumstances.

As for the contact at the URL you provided, the contact information shown on that page is for Little Dragon Technology LLC -- and notes nothing about Halong Mining. I found no evidence that an association exists between these two entities other than Halong Mining says it is a licensor of the patent purportedly owned by Little Dragon Technology. Halong wrote on its blog, "After Little Dragon Technology LLC acquired the patent from the original inventors, we negotiated a license to use AsicBoost in our miners on the understanding that AsicBoost would be opened up to everyone to use, under some form of defensive patent license, in the hopes it can help protect decentralization of Bitcoin mining. " (See: https://halongmining.com/blog/.)

I checked the Statement of Information on file with the California Secretary of State for the entity Little Dragon Technology LLC, and the filing does not note any association between Little Dragon Technology LLC and Halong Mining. To that extent, I am inclined to believe that Little Dragon Technology LLC is simply a shell company with no legal connection to Halong Mining, and that Halong Mining is using the AsicBoost license just as anyone else is authorized to do. The key point is that one cannot successfully sue Little Dragon Technology LLC for valid legal claims against Halong Mining.

Powerful actors exist in many industries who want to mitigate the progress of competitors, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to new market entrants who skirt longstanding international business norms that are designed: (1) to help provide consumer protection and safety, and (2) to help ensure fair dealing in the line of commerce among market participants.

As to safety, consider this analogy. If a new startup pharmaceutical company wanted to take on the big pharma players (who in many cases have monopolies on the treatment of certain conditions due to patent protection), would you risk your or your loved ones' lives and ingest pills from that company, even if you had no idea who they were, who their management was, where they are operating, whether they had a business license, and from where they were sourcing their chemicals? Even if the startup were well-intentioned, if they made an innocent mistake and released a drug that caused serious health problems or birth defects, shouldn't that company be held accountable if it acted negligently or improperly?

The DragonMint from Halong Mining is anlogous in certain respects. A purported "start-up" claims it wants to embark on grand plans to decentralize and take on the massive player, Bitmain. It operates totally anonymously. Even if Halong were well-intentioned, if they made an innocent mistake and released a product that burned down your house or mining operation --- or emitted fumes that caused serious health problems or birth defects, shouldn't Halong be held accountable if it acted negligently or improperly?

I appreciate that the worst experience you've had is seeing thousands of miners with KNC connectors with extremely high failure rates. What if Halong's miners end up having connectors with extremely high failure rates due to negligence during the manufacturing process or a flawed design? And since Halong is totally anonymous, we'd have no way to hold it accountable if Halong choose not to assume responsibility for them. Would you find that acceptable?


Hypothetically, if Bernie had engaged in theft of intellectual property from an ASIC hardware manufacturer, so long as you received your hardware from him and your Bitcoin account is growing, you're good with that? Don't you think Bernie's ASIC manufacturing company should be held to account?


Without a doubt, Halong Mining warrants our legitimate concern and rigorous scrutiny. I've never claimed that anyone is "forcing" me to do anything. My purpose is conclusively illustrating that Halong Mining is engaging in highly questionable business practices, and prospective buyers should proceed with caution and realize that they have no reasonable recourse to hold this "company" accountable should the need arise. In addition, Halong has made claims about the DragonMint that we cannot verify, such as the existence of its supposed FCC certification. Red flags galore, people. Red flags.

Yes. And isn't great how efficiently information can be shared about highly questionable business practices?



No one is asking Halong to debate anything. We have simply asked Halong to share the most basic kind of information that legitimate businesses worldwide uniformly share about themselves. That would take them 5 minutes to post. (No exaggeration.) We really just need Halong to post: (1) its incorporation number, and (2) its FCC certificate number. Do you honestly find that an overly burdensome request? That could be a one sentence post.



How is the lack of accountability by a business a "good thing"? Hypothetically, if a serious, dangerous design defect in the DragonMint exists, or if an innocent 3rd party can conclusively prove that Halong engaged in theft of its intellectual property, how exactly is that lack of accountability a good thing? We have no idea who Halong Mining is, no idea where they are, and no idea how to hail them into court should a valid case arise at some future point. That is not a good thing.



Did you read about how Halong has censored its Telegram Group and banned users from it? That's not accessibility. That's shameful and shady.... If Bernard Madoff had accepted half a dozen crypto payment methods directly before his illegitimate business was exposed, would you have found his company "commendable" too?

That isn't actually how business works. Fulfillment of promises is one part. Allowing yourself and your company to be held accountable for your actions is quite another. You have done everything possible to obfuscate your identity, to operate in a shadowy manner, to evade the reach of regulatory authorities including the judicial system and law enforcement. If a consumer or business has a valid legal claim against Halong Mining, hypothetically, for design defect or theft of intellectual property, you have left no path in which such a claim could be resolved by a neutral third party. That is completely unacceptable in business. No legitimate business operates that way. New paradigm? Nonsense. The paradigm for accountability has not changed. The paradigm for applying for a business license has not changed. The paradigm for disclosing your jurisdiction of incorporation has not changed. The paradigm for having a registered agent who can receive service of process for a valid legal claim has not changed. The paradigm for application of FCC certification when selling to U.S. customers has not changed. Basic standards for legitimate business operation exist internationally. Halong Mining meets none of them and arrogantly dismisses them as "just fluff."

You have claimed an FCC certification of the DragonMint T1, but you provide no evidence of it, and despite best efforts, no one can find it. When questioned in this forum about it, you refused to provide it. The FCC's online searchable database yields no results for it. This troubling discrepancy, coupled with your (1) unknown identity, (2) your unknown jurisdiction of incorporation, (3) your unknown managers, (4) your unknown engineers, (5) your unknown safety compliance standards, make it impossible for any responsible datacenter business to allow the DragonMint T1 to be hosted in its facility without liability shifting to the datacenter should it burn down due to a DragonMint design defect. We do not know who you are, and we cannot hold you accountable. We need to know that you are not crooks, that you've not stolen intellectual party from innocent third parties, that you are above-board players. We need to know that you recognize that these questions are fair game and reasonable to ask of you.

We should all ask ourselves: what exactly is it that Halong Mining has to fear? Why does it refuse to make available such basic information about itself, i.e., the kind of information that legitimate businesses worldwide uniformly provide?

I had genuinely hoped that Halong Mining would step-up, answer these legitimate and lingering questions, and become an above-board player. I am one of your customers (April Batch 2). I impulsively bought many DM units. (My mistake, never again.) I wanted to know I can safely plug them in, and that I am not jeopardizing the safety of others. I also wanted other would-be customers to see the kind of unusual business standards that Halong Mining employs. You said last month that you were operating in such secrecy out of necessity due to sensitive negotiations regarding the AsicBoost patent, but that period has passed now, the cat is out of the bag, and you still refuse to operate above-board. I agree with you about one thing. Consumers will make their own decisions based on the information available on whether to buy from Halong Mining. Unfortunately, your decisions have severely damaged Halong Mining's brand equity before it even completed its first batch delivery.


Convenient. A Telegram Group that you moderate, in which you can censor posts, avoid accountability and legitimate questions, and ban users. No thank you. A number of those users have already reported in this thread that you have removed them from your Telegram Group. This forum is frequented by some of the most reputable, most merited individuals in the crypto community. It also contains others, your customers, including myself. It is interesting that you say you do not monitor this forum, because I have noticed on your Bitcointalk profile page every time I have checked that you have usually logged in within the last few hours. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you engage with the community here in an open, candid way and set the record straight about your company's legitimacy. Answer the kinds of questions that legitimate businesses are happy to answer. On the other hand, your remaining silent on these questions is an answer in and of itself.

Scott, by no means has someone conducted due diligence as it is responsibly performed in business today by reviewing an email attachment of a sales agreement form. At best that is 1% of the process of due diligence.

An illegitimate operator could wholesale copy the best "sales agreement" form on the planet from someone who is legitimate. A Microsoft Word document or PDF proves nothing about the party's legitimacy. Nothing. Conducting due diligence on a company involves much more than reviewing a form they could email you. To "consider the terms" as you said, you have to know who it is you're dealing with. That's why you have to know, at a minimum, the public record of that incorporated entity within the jurisdiction in which it operates. That keeper of records is typically the secretary of state's office (at least for U.S. based companies).

Once you have that information, then you can understand who the parties are, who is its registered agent, where is its principal place of business, where is its registered agent's office, are these offices real places and presently occupied, who are the neighbors at those offices, what do those neighbors have to say about them, where does the business conduct its banking, which law firm represents them, who is their CPA, who are some of their customers, have they made the necessary filings with the government to keep their charter active, have they paid their annual corporate franchise taxes, who are their executive managers, where did those managers work previously, where did they obtain their degrees, what mutual contacts do you have, what do the mutual contacts have to say about them, do the managers have good track records, do the managers have criminal records, do the managers have a history of fair dealing, have they received any recognition by reputable publications.

Once you have answered those questions, then you have scratched the surface of conducting due diligence.

In the case of Halong Mining, we don't even know a real person's name who is an actual employee there. Not one person. This is a company that has supposedly spent $30 million USD in R&D, and there isn't one verifiable engineer or manager who is willing to claim publicly his or her employment with them. How big of a labor force do you think $30 million could buy? Doesn't that strike anyone as even a little strange?