|
165
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread
|
on: September 12, 2013, 08:04:36 PM
|
you had plenty to say in the Labcoin thread earlier - why cant I educate some of the people here who obviously aren't aware of the severity of your CEO's words and subsequent cover up of what he posted?
I post in Labcoin because I hold a position in Labcoin. I post here because I hold a position in Active Mining. What Ken has done goes both ways, one hand its insider trading, on the other hand it signals that the CEO is confident in his company. are you stupid as well? withholding information & trading on that information. this means he is stealing from shareholders, why aren't you more angry? just because he is the CEO doesn't mean he should be using that information to his advantage while not passing the same information to shareholders. You are silly and so off base it boggles the mind. Take a deep breath and compose yourself. LOL |
|
|
|
|
166
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread
|
on: September 12, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
|
I respect you - but if he didn't intend to be scammy he isn't intelligent enough to be in charge of shareholder funds period. this is crazy guys - why arent you up in arms about this? aren't you aware of the implications - he does this he will do whatever he wants.
Go home dude you're not invested. Its the most stupid thing to say I know. Also we are up in arms can't you tell? you had plenty to say in the Labcoin thread earlier - why cant I educate some of the people here who obviously aren't aware of the severity of your CEO's words and subsequent cover up of what he posted? Wow, just wow. CEO's buy and sell shares all the fucking time. It's not illegal AT ALL if there is disclosure. The guy just disclosed he thinks the stock is a buy and you want to tar and feather him. LAME. Edit: Not to mention, if any of these companies want to trade on inside information it is impossible to stop and they would presumably not disclose it and use an anonymous exchange account. |
|
|
|
|
167
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Stop saying Bitcoin is good for money transfer. It isn't.
|
on: September 12, 2013, 07:42:00 PM
|
"Stop saying Bitcoin is good for money transfer. It isn't." Your title is misleading. You are talking about large, corporate sized funds transfer, when the market Bitcoin is most poised to disrupt is the small transfer remittance business. The small remittance business is massive, and the costs of transfer are large, and growing, because many banks don't even want to deal with remittance companies thanks to money laundering panic. Bitcoin is not designed to replace the SWIFT system for corporate payments, and I don't think too many have suggested that it has any chance of doing so. |
|
|
|
|
168
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread
|
on: September 12, 2013, 05:56:10 PM
|
Is the reason Ken feels no obligation to produce any numbers, is because of the wording of part of the contract.....
"The global ActiveMining's income, including mining income, hardware sales via bitcoins, other cryptocoins and fiat transferred to bitcoins, will be paid to ActiveMining shareholders proportionally, after all manufacturing, maintenance, labor costs, R&D, growth and miscellaneous expenses are deducted."
Can the board/Ken confirm or deny, that any hardware sales paid in fiat, is NOT going to be paid as dividends?
Seriously, you are kidding right? Wow. LOL |
|
|
|
|
169
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Rogue Customer - " Scott Deleon "
|
on: September 12, 2013, 07:30:29 AM
|
While I don't agree with the release of customer information in the manner of the OP, can you provide a link to an authoritative source for the laws you cite? I ask because I don't believe your characterization of the law is correct, at least on a federal level, in the United States, with regard to non-financial information.
Id be happy to find it for you. I may have the order of things wrong there subsections and whatnaught, but as per FTC laws, you are not allowed to divulge living customer's information to anyone but business partners. I found the specific link the New Zealand's equivilent, which is more or less the same, because I believe quantumkiwi is based in NZ, however give me a moment and I'll find the U.S version, and link it. http://www.business.ftc.gov/privacy-and-security/consumer-privacyIf you start here, there are a list of laws and guides. This section, Financial Privacy Rule (Privacy of consumer financial information) is pretty good, it has a lot of info that pertains to banks and financial institutions, but it also talks about personal information and the definitions of customers under non financial circumstances. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the law myself, which is why I asked for clarification. I believe you may be confusing what is illegal by statute or regulation, and what is recommended by the FTC as privacy best practices. No matter, I won't prolong the debate any longer... I just don't like to give big brother more power than he has already taken for himself.  QuantumKiwi, take the good advice you've received in this thread. Legal or not, customers aren't usually in a hurry to do business with a company that may release their information in the case of a dispute. |
|
|
|
|
170
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Rogue Customer - " Scott Deleon "
|
on: September 12, 2013, 03:57:38 AM
|
Also, your "lawyers" are wrong in this case, as you are violating U.S Consumer protection laws under the database privacy section of FTC Online Merchant laws. If you gather information from a customer, you are not allowed to release that information in any form to anyone, except registered business offiliates and for advertising purposes, with proper identification shields. If you are hosting outside of the U.S, it may not necessarily be illegal, however it is in incredibly poor taste.
While I don't agree with the release of customer information in the manner of the OP, can you provide a link to an authoritative source for the laws you cite? I ask because I don't believe your characterization of the law is correct, at least on a federal level, in the United States, with regard to non-financial information. |
|
|
|
|
171
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)
|
on: September 12, 2013, 02:32:21 AM
|
He has formed his cult of forum dwellers who will do anything to hobknob with the bigwigs on the forum for status points.
What a shitty thing to say about someone with demonstrated competence. You've proven yourself to be an asshat, which granted, is still two steps above the cockroaches that generally clutter this thread, but worthy of an ignore nonetheless. Good on ya. |
|
|
|
|
172
|
Economy / Securities / Re: Hey Activeminers? You won't make your investment back.
|
on: September 12, 2013, 02:15:17 AM
|
|
More likely, no one gives a shit about that site.
Even the NO side, which I imagine is supported by all of the #bitcoin-assets fanboys, has only 5 people who bothered to bet. Honestly, the site is a fail, which explains why dividends to shareholders can be measured in pocket lint. The crew that run it just don't have the insight or temperament to operate consumer facing businesses.
|
|
|
|
|
173
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread
|
on: September 12, 2013, 12:57:30 AM
|
I actually miss the BitMine picture. It was pretty funky, but unique.  Edit: I'm serious. It was cool! :/ Can't you just make it your wallpaper or something? I admit that the artist's use of the anachronistic mining cave metaphor as entrance to an entirely digital world where all matter arises from, and is protected by, the benevolent eye of Slaughter, provides a deeply evocative and hopeful glimpse into ActM's truly unlimited future as the most prosperous of the 28nm kingdoms. ^ Utter rubbish. I'm happy to see it go.  |
|
|
|
|
175
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread
|
on: September 11, 2013, 11:40:25 PM
|
Yes hard to say what is accurate as the prices are possibly tainted on both exchanges, this seems like its a problem between Ukyo and Burnside however.
Im currently still looking for anybody who wants to swap my shares on Bitfunder for theirs on BTCT (max 4K with a nice fee)
I can't imagine why you think it involves Ukyo and Burnside at all. The prices on both exchanges aren't "tainted," they are two different markets, with different supply and demand, because people paid very different amounts for their shares. If you paid .0005 for shares on Bitfunder and are no longer happy with the company, selling for a very large profit now might make sense to you... although it doesn't to me, which is why I'm buying. |
|
|
|
|
179
|
Economy / Exchanges / Re: MtGox withdrawal delays [Gathering]
|
on: September 10, 2013, 10:43:08 PM
|
Probably the most unintentionally hilarious video in the annals of bitcoin history, he doesn't look troubled or under duress at all. Wasn't it? I fully expected a "Free Roger Ver" movement to rise up and demand his release... with t-shirts and bumper stickers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
