Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2019, 02:50:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
1  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: January 26, 2015, 01:43:42 AM

Followed up with Mr. Hagerty, he had the following to say:

  • Kenneth Slaughter no longer has counsel, his attorney withdrew
  • Slaughter has been uncooperative with the MSD investigation and absent from scheduled meetings/hearings
  • Because of his non-compliance, he has lost the privilege to an appeal for the cease and desist order
  • Hagerty will recommend to his superiors at the MSD that enforcement and restitution occur
  • If the Commissioners feel that restitution is necessary Slaughter will have the right to a hearing if he schedules in a timely manner

here is Shawn Hagerty's contact info for a more thorough explanation:

Shawn Hagerty
Investigator
Missouri Secretary of State, Securities Division
600 W. Main St., Box 1276
Jefferson City, MO  65102
573-526-3901

Thanks for this information.

All points are in Ken-Like Fashion it seems.
2  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 05, 2014, 03:03:57 PM
Do you actually have a sense of how things change over time? Everybody having a suspicion they would need a license were getting blown off, told they did not need one, up to about mid 2013. Then we had the first official opinion of it being "money" and it was a light switch, now everyone had to have one.

You are throwing words out here with no backup.

Quote
Everybody having a suspicion they would need a license were getting blown off, told they did not need one, up to about mid 2013.

If this is true then they would have a statement from a regulator saying they didn't need one and wouldn't have any issues. But I assume you are implying that they reached out to a lawyer and not an actual authority or simply asked someone they thought would tell them what they wanted to hear.

If they never received a statement then again they took the "grey area" defence stance. That's their risk.

Quote
Then we had the first official opinion of it being "money" and it was a light switch, now everyone had to have one.

Exactly, and everyone that thought their grey area defence would work scrambled to be compliant thinking their illegal activity wouldn't be retroactively considered.  Undecided
3  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 05, 2014, 02:53:51 PM
You were somehow under the impression that you were buying into a Wall Street blue chip?

Getting a little off topic now. What I or anyone else "thought" we were buying into doesn't matter legally speaking. I specifically said he offered an illegal security.

Anyone with half a brain knows this went from unregulated/off-radar to grey area to SEC pwns all. At the outset, it was I believe actually impossible to register a security denominated in crypto funds, as it was impossible at the time to get a money transmitters license for exchanges.

First of all everything is regulated in the US in some way or another. If it's a grey area then that means it's illegal until clarified most likely and if you believe it's not illegal... well then you get to fight the good fight in court (Like Ken is doing) once they come after you to see if you were right.

It was never impossible to get a Money Transmission license in the US for Crypto Currency.. This statement is simply wrong. It was difficult due to teaching regulators what it was you were trying to do and how that falls into money transmission. To even further this point, they would even tell you if you needed one or not, if there wasn't enough information to go by.

How do I know this? I have a pending Money Transmission license currently and have spent the last 7 months doing research in this field.


Unfortunately while crypto-currency to fiat exchanges have been offered a clear path to compliance as regulations have crystallised or been clarified, securities have not.

Refusing to work within the systems rules does not constitute an unclear path. If you wanted to open a security you have to follow the rules just like everyone else does. If people want to buy shares using Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency then you can as long as that's accepted. If you are not sure then you need to ask the regulators for guidance and get a statement from them. As stated above if you want to go into uncharted territory with the words "Grey Area" as your legal defence, good luck.


So, illegally offering a security, questionable, continuing to operate security and making available to US customers after about October 2013 guilty-ish... but then what was the "moral" thing to do? Forced refunds at that point would have pissed people off also, you can bet that someone would have sued then.

Moral thing to do? Why even bring up something so arbitrary.
What is the legal thing to do? Once you realize you are doing something potentially illegal because that "grey area" isn't so grey anymore then you should reach out to regulators/lawyers on how to restructure. You may still get sued but ultimately you were the one who chose to operate in a "grey area" and took that chance. You would likely get sued either way, by people or by the government.
4  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 05, 2014, 01:10:11 PM
To be quite fair I believe we're rehashing the same argument that's been going on and that sides are picked so this is simply a waste of time. However, here we go!

I'm just saying that if Ken's judgement wrt Avalon Chip deal, eAsic deal etc was incompetent and scammy, then retrospectively all subsequently discovered to be bad calls by anyone ever are subject to the same standard.
The "Avalon Chip Deal" you speak of was a very small portion of this business and most if not everyone "Invested" due to having a working functional chip not made by a 3rd party. I actually didn't even list this bad call in my quick breakdown of Ken's "Bad Calls" a few posts before this.

The eASIC deal never happened because Ken's code didn't work and by the time they fixed it, it was too late so he scrapped it.

Since I brought up Terrahash, they may have been similar to this venture in that it may not have been a scam at the beginning but because of all of the failures they then took the money and ran. Ultimately we will never know if it was a scam from the start or not and to be honest I don't care. What matters is the end result.

My POV is that any hardware venture in this space has been a coin flip 50/50 shot at best, even with the best information available at the time, and Ken happened to throw 3 tails in a row.

Business isn't based on luck, purchasing/investing in this space is. Ken sold investors that he was able to make good decisions and see them through, obviously this was not the case based on performance.

In your case, you doubled down on one toss, because both Terrahash and AM were reliant on timely delivery of Avalon Chips. Either could have been Steve Jobs or Bill Gates side project and it still wouldn't have come out good.

AMC was not "reliant on timely delivery of Avalon Chips". This was a small part of the big picture that was sold to investors. It's good that it failed because it would have just given Ken more money to lose/funnel to his family.

As far as your Steve Jobs or Bill Gates references, you are now getting into the thought process that in an alternate universe dead and alive (respectively) billionaires would take somehow ask for pre-orders and/or illegally offer a security. You do see where I'm going with this right? It's useless to use "What-Ifs" or hypotheticals to prove a point, especially in the Bitcoin space. Everything in this space should be based on performance and end result.


5  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 04, 2014, 11:09:00 PM
To be completely honest, I thought of myself as a pretty good judge of character once I met someone. Meeting with Terrahash and Active Mining in person, shaking these guys hands and physically seeing at least what appeared to be a functioning mirage of a business and then still basically being scammed by them really put things in perspective.

So by your own logic, you were incompetent and scammed us by reassuring us they were "legit" Cheesy

By that logic, you believing they were "legit" and ordering/investing in them means you were incompetent and scammed yourself? Cheesy

Come on Flash, you might want to ask Ice for tips on how to twist words. He's got it down to a science.
6  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 04, 2014, 04:49:00 PM
Hi, I'm the reporter with the Springfield News-Leader in Springfield, Missouri, who wrote about Kenneth Slaughter and Active/Virtual Mining earlier this year. It was discussed in this thread way back

Story: http://www.news-leader.com/story/money/2014/03/02/betting-on-bitcoin/5928483/
Video here: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20140302/BUSINESS04/303020022/Bitcoin-Springfield-mining-machines-Slaughter

I am interested in possibly reporting on what has happened since that story came out; it would include trying to talk to Ken and reaching out to Missouri Secretary of State's office. I've monitored this forum somewhat over the months, but was hoping some of you would be willing to bring me up to speed. My email is tgounley@news-leader.com for those that would be willing to help.

Thanks.

Man, after reading this over again it just infuriates me how unqualified Ken ended up being as shown through his actions regardless of how he acted in person.

To be completely honest, I thought of myself as a pretty good judge of character once I met someone. Meeting with Terrahash and Active Mining in person, shaking these guys hands and physically seeing at least what appeared to be a functioning mirage of a business and then still basically being scammed by them really put things in perspective.

What's funny is we're (Well just Zumzero mainly) all arguing if Ken was a scammer or not. This doesn't even matter because the MSD doesn't care about that, he blatantly violated securities law and will be tried/fined on that. If the MSD feels "investors" were mislead (not even fully "scammed) then they would try to seek restitution.

If you wanted to open a civil case against Active Mining and Ken (Who obviously was highly undercapitalized) because you feel you were defrauded then you could do that. I plan on waiting to see how the MSD handles this before doing such. If they release any sort of financials then everyone would be able to weigh the worth of a civil case.

At the end of the day Thomas here is what happened,

Ken single handedly took in hundreds of thousands of dollars if not a few millions depending on BTC Prices
Failed multiple times to produce his own chip through a series of bad judgements and/or incompetence wasting some of that money
Lied about multiple achievements to falsely boost confidence and share price - Examples: Shipping a "Product" implying it was a custom chip, Power Consumption on the People's ASIC Chip
Lost BTC on an exchange that had multiple warnings it was going down (There's no reason to keep BTC on any exchange, just send it to the exchange when you want to cash out)
Extremely poor communication and transparency with his company that "shareholders/investors" paid for
Ken purchased Chips/Board design from a 3rd party (Who was forced into bankruptcy and is being auctioned off today). He also used their assembly line to manufacture "copy cat" boards.
He failed at shipping & customer support - Some people received them quick, most it took months or not at all. Other customers has to provide support for customers.

Shareholders received Bitcoin dust for dividends over the entire lifespan of this company
I believe Ken hired only family to work for him (Wages, not Contractors)

I'm sure others in here can fix or add to the above to make it more complete. Enjoy
7  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 04, 2014, 12:34:12 PM
the missouri securities division hearing this monday dec 8th as well

Jan 8th I believe unless you are talking about something different.
8  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 02, 2014, 03:48:38 PM


So, in other words, a total lack of transparency.


Figured it would be a civil case opened by the SEC but I guess they have their own way of doing things. This is probably better for us as I'm sure there's very little chance of Ken or AMC/VMC walking away scott-free when the government is judge, jury, and prosecutor.

Thank you for the follow-up
9  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 01, 2014, 08:58:08 PM


Another continuation. How long can they legally keep pushing this back?

Thanks for this.

Could you reply and find out a case #, judge, circuit?

This way we can keep track of files and potentially get transcripts if they become available.
10  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: December 01, 2014, 05:09:44 PM
Anyone have more information on today's hearing?

All I found were the following which are kind of old but maybe interesting


11  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) on: November 25, 2014, 06:32:39 PM
Thats exactly what i did say in the PM and here on the forum.

im not concerned about coinbase or anything else,
simple fact is 0 balance is a 0 balance no matter how you look at it
I am simply asking for 29750 to provide an alternative for those with absolute 0 btc in their possession.

im not trying to give him a hard time,
but in time he has spent writing that last reply,
i could of sent him a signed message from the shares btc address and it could of verified already.

I understand,

I guess we'll have to wait and see what other forms of verification pop up for those in that circumstance.
12  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) on: November 25, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
You can publish what ever you want, as long as you have the decency to remove anything that could be used to make claim on my shares

You still haven't provided an solution to the question, for people with a 0 Balance.
If this (2x0.00013117) is such a minor thing, how about you send it to the address in the PM and ill send it right back.
it will solve both problems

If you do not have even 2x0.00013117 that you could potentially send yourself then please just say so that way 29750f0e1c2fbb3bb can handle your case with a "backup authentication methods" or "legacy methods". You will just have to wait for those.

I could be wrong but it appears you are trying to give a hard time to the one person actually trying to provide updates and get this unfortunate "investment" wrapped up.

Once you do the Proof simply move the 2x0.00013117 back to your wallet.

If you are somehow worried about connecting your addresses then use a third party wallet like coinbase to send funds to and withdraw them to your IceDrill address, better than a mixer!


You potentially have a year to claim this so no rush....

13  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) on: November 23, 2014, 02:02:03 PM
I get people throwing signatures at me. While I can do some manual verification please be so kind and create the transaction I asked you to if you want to claim your address. You don't even have to contact me as the transaction and the bitfunder address listing is publicly visible.

I have created a sample transaction for everyone to inspect:
https://blockchain.info/tx/b6f8e59b0b21bcb58619c15f19bd7b29c09d0750eaaf43bb4da498ed70cf1447

It contains TWO 0.13117745 outputs. This is the clue for me. As stated before, if you want to submit a lesser amount of BTC I am also looking for a pair of either of the following amounts:
0.01311774,0.01311774
0.00131177,0.00131177
0.00013117,0.00013117

I might be a retard, since noone has asked this question yet, but how is this an example transaction? All I see on your linked transaction is a single amount of 0.2993 BTC transferred from an address to itself. At first I thought that maybe blockchain.info consolidates identical outputs, but even then 0.2993 is not even a multiple of 0.13117745. I don't see TWO outputs, I don't see the specified amount for me it seems to be just a random transaction.

Could anyone explain to me what I am missing here?

Also, you said you will also accept two transactions of the specified amount "in the same timeframe". What is this timeframe? A minute? Same block? A century?

Thank you in advance and I'm glad this thing finally seems to be moving forward.

Going to take a crack at answering this.

Enable Advanced Mode - https://blockchain.info/tx/b6f8e59b0b21bcb58619c15f19bd7b29c09d0750eaaf43bb4da498ed70cf1447?show_adv=true

You'll see 3 outputs.

1V2PqZ1r1q3kR3wsXon8KSpRzKTLr2Q4j - (Unspent) 0.13117745 BTC
1V2PqZ1r1q3kR3wsXon8KSpRzKTLr2Q4j - (Unspent) 0.13117745 BTC
1V2PqZ1r1q3kR3wsXon8KSpRzKTLr2Q4j - (Unspent) 0.0369451 BTC

The last output I believe is change.


I also believe "in the same timeframe" is a single block confirmation but honestly could be wrong here.
14  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: November 19, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
It didn't work out, but I don't think it was a scam.

True I believe Ken to be largly incompetant, not a scammer

The truly successful scams end this way.

Successful scams are indistinguishable from failed businesses.  They're structured that way.
This has been pointed out more than once.

  ~Happy Investing!

Failed businesses become scams the moment they do not liquidate when they know they have failed. *As Flashman noted the abundant failures of this company with Bitcoin Price rising giving it the ability to fail as much as it did.

When you sit on your failed business drawing salaries for you and your loved ones for as long as you can, knowing that you will never become profitable to be able to pay back shareholders is when it becomes a scam.

If the above isn't the case (and it will likely come out in court) then we can label him as solely incompetent and not a scammer which might make everyone feel a tad warm inside but doesn't save Ken from blatant securities violations  Roll Eyes


15  Economy / Securities / Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) on: November 12, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
<---BTC balance 0,

between hasfast, mt gox, we.exchange, bitfunder and cryptomex.
you parasites have tapped me out.
how about we find away that dosent require me to give you more money

You are sending a transaction to yourself (not to IceDrill) so you wouldn't be giving them more money.

If this simply isn't an option for you I'm sure you can PM 29750f0e1c2fbb3bb with what option works best for you and work something out.
16  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: November 11, 2014, 01:33:32 AM
The MSD hearing was continued until November 18, 2014 @ 10:00am

I believe everyone is waiting for this particular gem. Why waste money going after someone with a civil suit when the MSD already has one in motion? This will likely be followed up by the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2014/manhattan-u.s.-attorney-and-fbi-assistant-director-announce-securities-and-wire-fraud-charges-against-texas-man-for-running-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme) if there's any case for a criminal suit.

Depending on the MSD outcome, there may be a handful of civil cases waiting for Ken if it's believed he has anything left but I highly doubt this will be the case.


Take a look at BFL, getting torn apart by the FTC. All cases against BFL has been basically halted including the class action until after the FTC is done with them. There likely won't be much left there either.


To put the nail in the coffin, if somehow, miraculously, Ken rose from this unscathed, well his boards are useless considering HashFast is now out of business and their assets are to be sold http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/ (No more chips for those boards)
17  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Confirming AMT leaked chats are real! on: August 28, 2014, 02:28:30 PM
A little off topic (maybe not so much)

I've meet Phin at last years Las Vegas conference and noticed that AMT ( I think this is the same AMT ) is a sponsor at this years Vegas Conference (http://insidebitcoins.com/las-vegas/2014/sponsors/)

Phin will you be going to this years?
18  Economy / Goods / Re: [For Sale] Bitcoin Accepted Here : Neon & LED Signs - Now Shipping! on: August 21, 2014, 11:18:28 PM
Got my Neon Sign Smiley Looks great!




[From Left to Right]
Two Antminer S3 - MrTeal | Chili - Jupiter | November
Captain America Approves!
19  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: August 19, 2014, 10:40:29 AM
MSD is reviewing the case in september, or october... cant remember exactly, I didn't save the email they replied to me with Sad

everyone here should give MSD their info, it doesn't matter what country you are in or when you purchased, the guy from MSD told me that their main objective is to get investors their money back.

At this point I've written off the whole Kenny Gong Show, but putting my hat in the ring with MSD couldn't hurt, they're going after him anyway. If the "nanny state" can squeeze some $$$ out of that fat loser than so be it, I want my share.
_____________________________________________________________________________

If you pre ordered and never received a product, fill out the following form and you may receive a refund (But Probably not) :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462370.msg7474652#msg7474652

_____________________________________________________________________________

If you pre ordered and never received a product, filled out the above paper, and still haven't received anything or simply want to seek legal action against Ken/ActiveMining:

Wood Law Info:

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation
888-237-0999
1100 Main Street, Suite 1800, Kansas City, Missouri 64105
1736 E. Sunshine Street, Suite 209, Springfield, Missouri 65804
_____________________________________________________________________________

If you are an shareholder/investor and feel that you were conned/mislead by Ken Slaughter & ActiveMining:

MSD Info:

Shawn Hagerty
Investigator
Missouri Secretary of State, Securities Division
600 W. Main St., Box 1276
Jefferson City, MO  65102
573-526-3901
573-526-3124 (fax)
shawn.hagerty@sos.mo.gov

Scott Johnson
Investigator
Missouri Secretary of State, Securities Division
600 W. Main St., Box 1276
Jefferson City, MO  65102
573-751-4704
scott.johnson@sos.mo.gov

Missouri Securities Contact Information Page


_____________________________________________________________________________

If you do not want to give the government your information for whatever reason, sell your shares on Crypto-Trade:

https://crypto-trade.com/
(The price is extremely low)

_____________________________________________________________________________
20  Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] Official Shareholder Discussion Thread [Moderated] on: August 18, 2014, 10:40:09 PM
I AM a good person.

I AM a good person.

One more time and it will be true!




Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!