Jesus H Christ, what a bunch of amateurs!!
Can't even withdraw to get the hell out of here.
This sure smells like MtGox.

Josh, be so kind to shut up and enjoy the show.

They've been 'skimming' from the start when they took money and didn't deliver hashrate while the global hashrate was rising and rising.
Sometimes they'd put new hashingpower online but only delivered after a few weeks when global hashrate doubled. So it's very probable they hashed for themselfs untill it was not profitable enough and THEN passed it on to the paying 'customers'.

They're skim scam scum.

I'm getting these phishing attempts too.
The thing is, i registered with an unique email address specifically created for that account.
So either their user database got stolen (and they didn't mention THAT in their email) or they sold the addresses/abused the addresses themselfs (in which case they wouldn't mention is anyway).

They're bacon, eggs, scam, scam, eggs and scam.

Yes, they are now even more proficient in scamming people!

May, huh? I hope you have made ROI by now because if you didn't you will never get there.
What you think you should get and what you actually get are two different things at cloudhashing.com

I don't agree,.., with cloud hashing you will lose money for sure. With a casino you have a chance of winning.
So it's actually worse than a casino.

Also, they either got hacked or sold their email address list to criminals because i get java malware phishing attempts on the email address i registered there.

Cloudhashing are omnidirectional scum.
They are scum from every side you look at it.

They can decide your earnings without any way for you to check or change.
Most of their hashrate is mining for themselfs but is payed for by customers.
They are pretty much a scam.
They just have a layer of non-scam to hide their business.
I think that most people made less money from them than they would if they just bought bitcoins at market price.

Indeed. If you look at the statistics of crime in our western world you can clarly see that law enforcement and regulations make crime less.
There are, however, exceptions. There are always exceptions. It is human nature.
But proposing not to have any regulations is like saying traffic lights should all be removed because some pedestrians still get run over.


What freedoms, specifically, are there that you cannot enjoy because you wear the shackles?


Obviously you're not smart enough to realize that most people are not so smart and that society depends on these people acting nicely.
How would you deal with them if you had True Freedom™ ?

In my example, with the poison, you would not know i would use poison and you would be dead before you could warn anyone. That is why it is so devious. Without repercussion i might feel no regret in killing you and noone would know what happened. Would you like to live in a world where people could do such things and go unpunnished?

"in fact if you even talked about such a thing I would probably just move away regardless of what business deals we might have had and let everyone know what sort of person you are so that everyone would abandon you as well. "

Realy? You would move away when your neighbor complains about your noise (in the example i would not mention to anyone that i would poison you)? Good for you!
Meanwhile, most people would defend their personal fortress with their lifes. And this whole law thing was created in the first place to deal with these kinds of common conflicts because they tended to get out of hand and break the peace, screwing it up for everybody.
The basis for law is to cater in justice in extensively populated area's. Its been with humanity since the dawn of civilisation and, seing as we humans are overall unable to resolve interpersonal conflicts in a peacefull manner it will be with us for a quite while yet.

The world is not about you and while you may think that you are too good for law, most people don't have these pretences and see value in it. Humanity is just not ready for letting law go.

But this is exactly the problem. Corporations are not people. Yet they have a lot of power because organisation and scale is a core business for a corporate entity. People, worldwide, are at a serious financial and legal disadvantage compared to big corporations. The big corporations, on the other hand, only think about extracting money from people. So this grey area you describe should not exist to this extent. That's why we have regulations. But those regulations should not be set by the corporations, since they are the 'agressors' in this case. They would eat up everything if left to their own.

"they don't have to keep innovating to keep on top of the game, "

You mean innovative like mark karpelles? 


"to achieve a truly free society we need a damn near anarcho-capitalist system that is more liberating than ..."

So what if i use the carbon from my garden to make a poison whith which i kill you because you're a lousy neighbour because you play loud music all the time? Is that true freedom?
That is a problem with true freedom. I can do whatever i want with it.
As long as there are people out there that may think like this (and they do exist) having true freedom is not something humanity can handle for long. That is just the sad truth of our existence.

That's way too easy an answer.
They are definitely on the anti-regulation side.
But the situation is that there are regulations. So their NEW strategy is to bend the regulations to their will. Which is bad.
So, as i said before, regulations are still nessesary, but we need to keep them in check. One of the biggest problems in the western world is that we let our governments be bribed (lobbied) by these corporate entities. This is fundamentaly a wrong way of doing it.
It's not that regulations are bad, they are simply not used well.
Still, i don't think there will be happy times without any regulations at all. It is a teenage fantasy to think it could work.

I'm all for basic provisioning. I'm also all for a cap on capital, in the sense that there should be a limit to what a single entity can move in society.
I'm not so sure about anarcho-capitalism. Without any form of regulations it would become trivial to abuse power. You would need a regulated 'theatre' to have anything like a 'free' market or else it will become abused.

Of course people could own stuff. Owning something is as easy as taking it and stating that you now own it. As long as noone makes the same claim you own it. Problems come when multiple people claim they own the same thing.
If you don't want ownership you would need to prevent people from taking it. And for that you would need to hurt people.

Not true. Money is just a carrier of wealth. If there is no money someone could take control of drinking water and excert power that way. The problem is that when someone collects things that others want (any kind of resource like money, water, food, clean air, etc, etc) it created a power relation. It is just a fact of life. We need stuff to survive and someone can take these things away from us. If you can't prevent that you cannot have a 'fair' system.


The problem is not with the money. Money is just a bunch of tokens.
The problem is the power relations that change under the inflence of posession of resources.
RBE does not solve his problem of inbalance. It just blindly assumes that everyone wants to cooperate and noone will take resource hostage.
In the real world this can only be achieved with coercion which is not part of RBE.


Thisw is just a modern way of managing global resources. It has nothing to do with money itself. It is the system that is flawed. As a society we thrive on pissing away resources. In the past 100 years, when the modern global monetary system emerged, all countries in the world increased life quality. So the system worked better than anything before. We just have to face the fact that resources are limited and in the end we will be forced to accept this.
The (imho) only positive thing about RBE is that it accepts this fact now. But the solution offered is inappropriate for humans.

I think the key thing to understand here is that these are things that most people instinctively want. Most people don't want to live in stress from a perceived danger. Most people don't want to see children die. Most people don't want to see a starving human.
These are all diven by deep instincts.
But when it comes to more subtle social interactions and especially the tradeoff between egoism and alturism the line is clearly blurred.
In general, things that are decided by culture are more prone to debate and it will be impossible to make everybody happy.

I think we have got most of the instincts covered in society, but now what is left is the cultural differences (even within one society) and this is a wild bunch of ideas that will never get settled.

I understand what you're saying, but that could not have worked.
Without regulations any company vaguely in position to scam would do so.
We would not have enough people to audit all of it and thus noone would trust each other and business on a big scale would come to a halt. No more factories, no more machines, no more electronics, no more modern society. Just a big pile of untrustfulness.
And i agree that regulations are not perfect. But at least they put up a barrier for entry so we are not collectively screwed out of a life on a regular basis.
And then of of course you get to the discussion of which regulations make sense and that is a very very broad discussion because there are people on both sides (guess on which side the big corps are..).
This fact that there are different stances in this discussion means that an RBE is just an utopia that could not be upheld in a stable manner.

Want an example of how an more or less unregulated organisation behaves? Look no further than the NSA. Now imagine every megacorp having the same kind of unregulated power.

Humans change very very slowly.
Did you know that bananas are the number one fruit sold in the world?
We  are  basically  still  monkeys...
It will take hundreds of thousands of years before we evolve some more.
Well, unless we geneticaly modify ourselfs. The question is, what will those changes be?
If people will change themselfs to be more greedy bastards then no, RBE can't happen.
For RBE, people need to be more cooperative and less selfish. This is a chance noone will take freely.

LOL.,., ok. noted

You are deluded. Even if you pay in fiat you will not make return on investment.
Who the hell is kensingtonlabs anyway? You're not pretending you're representing http://www.kensingtonlabs.com/, are you? Noone would believe that.
3 posts on bitcointalk and posting about how you can make a roi with cloudhashing?
I would say you're a shill for cloudhashing and part of their scam.

But why would anyone want to buy from you at 1.5x the price you pay at Bitman themselfs?

What i was refering to was that you need it to be lower than 20% to make anything back on those contracts if you don't use rrp. Of course the real difficulty goes up much faster and no rrp will be able to compensate so basically nooone will make a return on investment, nevermind profit.