Same problem here, did you find any solution ?

Start cgminer in realtime priority. When setting up your profile in CgWatcher, click the "Advanced" button.
Run CgWatcher in idle priority. Either with task manager, Process Explorer or a batch file with the line @cmd /c "start /idle cgwatcher.exe"

If that doesn't solve, pool cgminer only each 10 seconds or so.

You guys are using single-core Sempron 145 CPUs, aren't you?

I appreciate that Pompobit thanks.

However 'personal company's debt' is still misleading. This should not say 'personal' atall. It is simply 'ACtM company debt'. Ukyo is making a legal point about this and he is wrong according to Ken and ACtM published company accounts - so your wording should be clear and unambiguous.

Thanks again.

lol I haven't mentioned ACtM  have I?

I am investigating the loss, I am not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the ACtM lien.


EDIT - has anyone seen the Wallet Ukyo used for his WeEx transactions? Has he released this address so people can look and investigate?

By the way Pompobit you are lieing in the first page of this thread and again on this page about this ACtM shares issue.

Ken has never said the missing WeEx BTC was his personal money. He has categorically stated that it was ACtM funds for the payment of dividends on BF, from the sale of IPO shares and for the pre-arranged (with the shareholders) transfer of shares at no cost from BF to CryptoStocks.

So please stop referring to 'Ken's personal debt' - it does not exist.

The missing BTC have been subtracted from the ACtM balance sheet and when they are returned will be put back into our liquid assets.

I doubt that would be possible (legally) since it would require that Ken got a list from Ukyo so he know who is owed what and a bitcoin address for each user (essentially what the claim portal is supposed to do). I don't think Ukyo would be allowed to disclose the users personal information like that.

Repeated cross-post from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4699685#msg4699685

Ken Slaughter thinks his personal debt is more important than all other Weex users and is using his book education in Indian law to personally keep 100+ BTC worth of shares that I have been trying to sell to distribute to WeEx debtors.

He has gone as far as laugh it off with "good luck gong to belize to sue us"



Also from PM:


I appreciate your 'good luck to sue us'. That's a real show of character.
I suggest all shareholders take heed of this warning.
What is wrong with posting your history? Are you afraid of something? You seem pretty concerned if your willing to make threats over it.

Notice was given 45 days before the transfer from BitFunder to WeExchange.
The site was shutting down and it was known to you that the only method of bitcoin transfer is via WeExchange which you accepted and used.

You should have no funds left on BitFunder. Any account that was properly linked (Which would be the ActM official account) had its full balance transferred. I think everyone is well aware that only a few people who had linking issues with weex have a small stuck balance.

How is it you have an account with 38btc that is not ActM that you are linking into this?
How many more accounts exactly did you create for trading on BitFunder than the handful I know of?
I suppose I will have to do a more in depth search on all of you ip addresses, linked accounts and addresses.
Why have you not claimed or reported this stuck 38btc prior?
You have not mentioned the 6% claimed from the portal yet either and subtracted that.

In the end, your argument is that I owe you XXX btc personally.
If your argument holds up then that means you are not the only debtor.
If this was the case, as someone mentioned prior, any funds of mine would need to be proportionally distributed.
This is not a mechanics lien.  You did not do work or provide services. You do not have first right to the funds.
Also I see you are not including "legal costs" of unspecified amounts into what you plan to take from any proceeds.
It sounds like no matter what, your intention it to keep 100% for your personal issues.

And just because you are CEO of a company does not mean you can abuse that authority on behalf of your own personal
problems and desires.

So to be clear, you are using your position as CEO of a company to force a sale of a shareholders shares to ensure your personal BTC losses are covered before other debtors can claim their portion when you have absolutely no evidence to show that the shareholder has directly owes you anything.

You do understand the difference between a corporation and an individual?
I hope you have this same understanding with accounting practices and funds.

WeExchange has a debt to many individuals and not just you.

Again, why the sudden rush and need to sell the shares? Why can't they just be locked worst case scenario?
You seem desperate. Why? I figure it will take you at least 2~3 more months to finish buying back ActM shares.
Why the need for threats? What is it you are so afraid of?

I bet people would love to see the complete shareholder listing as it stands. Would probably be more interesting
if ownership names could be included / proven.

Also, for a lien you must file something, somewhere with a valid reason and provide notification to the person you are filing against.
Normally, unless it is a mechanics lien, you file a lien against a person or entity.

I think you need to talk to your Belize lawyers and not whatever lawyer gave you a book quote rather than an official statutory listing.
(Personally, I would fire that lawyer and hire a new one.)

I found your link very interesting though. How about linking some documentation regarding Belize Corporate law instead?
Unless this is a confession that you are operating as a Indian entity and these are shares of an Indian entity?
You do realize that book is about Corporate laws in India... right? Your lawyer must be short on time and not taken notice.
Next time you are gasping at straws, you should check the first few chapters for relevance and stop trying to mislead people.

(For those of you who are curious, start with page 2. Definition of a company regarding the Companies Act of 1956. (India) and
the following line of "a company formed and registered under previous Company Laws in India."
I am going to go out of my way to say that you have had absolutely zero legal advice and are acting solely based on random google searches
and relying on "Well let him try something." rather than doing things properly.
I truly hope for those who have invested into ActM that you run your business better than this.

Please stop being inconsistent and show people if you actually have an understanding of the things you are talking about.
It's almost like you are purposefully misleading people.

(For anyone curious, feel free to call a US corporate lawyer for a free consultation and ask about shareholder rights and liens.)
Then again, that's US law, not Brazilian.

I response to your unofficial "notice of lien" hereby request that you post the contact information for your corporate Belize lawyers or PM it to me so I can contact them to make arrangements so this can be handled properly and officially. I will make sure that any documents are released to the public so they are fully aware of the situation.

Please keep in mind that your professional manner in handling this situation dictates how you will and ActM will be viewed going forward.
As a ActM shareholder and I am sure many others agree, if ActM is to succeed, it must act properly and not arbitrarily or expose the
company to unnecessary risks.

Stop acting so desperate and do things right.

Thank You,
Ukyo

We are selling Ukyo shares on Crypto-Trade to recover our losses on Bitfunder.

We will start moving Investors shares to Crypto-Trade within the next 7 days.

I haven't touched anything from a technical standpoint, I'm not sure who Andreas A is to be honest. If it is Andreas Antonopolous then I would be surprised as he hasn't mentioned anything to me about helping Ukyo. I am trying in my spare time (of which I have very little of) to give Ukyo a helping hand with achieving a workable solution, to ensure he can pay everyone back and once complete he can pay me back.

Also it occurs to me that its amazing there are more updates about my personal shares than about ActM.

If you are getting a lower hashrate with CGWatcher it is most likely due to the gpu-threads setting.

CGMiner's readme stated that the default value of gpu-threads was 2. However, if you ran CGMiner without setting this, it would actually run at 1 gpu-thread.

So to be consistent with the readme, CGWatcher sets the default value to 2. This means to get the same hashrate with CGWatcher as you do without CGWatcher, you may have to set gpu-threads to 1.

I've updated the readme to state this, which will be in the next version. This has been how it works for quite some time, so if I were to change its behavior now it would affect other users who expect it to be 2.

giusto per curiosità...quanto occupa di cpu cgwatcher?

Io non ho problemi con cgwatcher, sei sicuro che il file di configurazione a cui CGWatcher fa riferimento lanci cgminer con gli stessi parametri che specifichi tu da riga di comando ?

io manco nessun problema....

io non uso il file di config (conviene usarlo?)