I would dispute this. The manufacturer is going to have to partner with some third party that is not going to want to pay the "retail" price (eg want to get a discount) and the lower sales price is likely going to be less then the difference between the retail price and the cost of selling/shipping retail amounts of miners to retail customers.

For the customer on the other hand, the cloud mining company is going to be able to command a higher price from customers because of less hassle of setting up and maintaining the mining equipment

This is not true. As it stands now it is not profitable having your GHs running at CEX. They will become even less profitable as time goes on as the difficulty tends to increase (although the adjustment in ~3 days will likely be an exception to this). You need to remember that when you are cloud mining verses "home" mining you are adding an additional layer of people who need to profit which will make it generally less profitable then if you purchased your hardware yourself 

They probably don't understand the risks, consequences nor the law covering MSB's. All of which are very complicated. While the potential for profit is very large for people who are trading on LBC as the margins tend to be very high

It is interesting as to how well this promotion did. I would have thought that more people would likely had been interested in investing in gax hashlets then in bitman's cloud mining service, although I don't think gaw is offering any kind of similar deal

At this point, I would honestly just give up and start building a new account. If theymos has not responded yet then he likely is not going to (although your request may have slipped through the cracks and he may respond to a further PM)

Signature rules already disallow links to be in newbies' signature but AFAIK links are allowed in their profile.

I have noticed that even the last few accounts on the modlog do still have personal messages/text, signatures and profile links.

Well we are at what is likely a resistance level (~$250) and if we can punch though it then we will likely see further price gains in the near future

They would probably get somewhat more then that. There are a number of gox accounts without a RL identity attached to them, making it very difficult for account holders to prove ownership. This will likely result in most of these accounts not having claims against Gox

I too am hoping for his acquittal, however looking at the evidence the government has so far presented against him, paired with my knowledge of Bitcoin, I somewhat doubt that he will be found not guilty.

If no additional evidence will be presented after today (this is not the case) then the burden of proof as beyond a reasonable doubt realistically has been met.

It is possible to trace bitcoin if you are tracking large enough of amounts, even through a mixer. Although generally speaking it is very difficult to do so and the amount in question generally needs to be several thousand BTC at the very least

You are generally considered to be a MSB regardless if you are an actual "business" as long as you engage in the practice of "transmitting money" (which is a complex concept.

I think even if you are operating without a MSB license you will most likely (IMO) be legally safe as long as you do not knowingly transmit money for people who are breaking the law (for example proceeding with a transaction after being told the funds were from some illegal activity)

He has posted above that he is no longer giving out loans. This leads me to believe that he is not.

He really should lock this thread until he is giving out loans again

Some of the gambling sites at least try to follow the law. For example Satoshi Dice does not allow people with a US IP address to get their gambling addresses from their website and Prime Dice does not allow people with Australian IP addresses to gamble there. There are obviously very easy ways to get around these very loose restrictions, however they at least make an attempt.
I do not think any of the recent ponzi's have actually turned out to operate legitimately. AFAIK they all have ended up running away with their "players'" money
This is obviously a bad idea. The forum is very different from the miners as a whole. The forum is privately owned while the network represents bitcoin. If you owned a large mining farm then you could do this if you wanted to however it would not make any sense to do so because chances are, the miner that finds the next block will just confirm the transaction anyway.
IMO this is a different argument then simply free trade/market. This is the fact that we are seeing a rise in entities that, in the past have all ended up scamming.
AFAIK none of the ponzi games are employing instant TX scripts. Additionally the casino does not control the outcome of a poker game or a sporting event. A ponzi game can potentially manipulate the outcome. 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750507.msg10250009#msg10250009
Argument #5: Ponzi's arent entertainment
People have different opinions on what entertainment is. It may not be entertaining for you, but I'm sure its entertaining for others.[/quote]Agreed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750507.msg10250009#msg10250009
Argument #6: Ponzi's are scams because people will lose money
There will always be people who lose money on any gambling website. Otherwise the website would be losing money.
[/quote]It is not that people lose money in ponzis it is that people get scammed in ponzis. There is a big difference

I wouldn't be surprised if BurtW's absence is related to this. However it would not explain D&T's absence. Even stranger is the fact that BurtW as logged in since his arrest but did not make any posts

The fact that you started the thread does not mean you can post whatever you want there. You must still follow the forum's rules when posting in threads you yourself started.
We can agree to disagree that what people were posting were lies and slander however your responses were trolling. It is more or less never appropriate to resort to namecalling or personal attacks when responding to someone who is criticizing you. You were also almost never responding to the specific "lies" that were presented, but rather quoted the previous post and resorted to further personal attacks.
No I am not trying to get the last word in, nor am I cutting out the "relevant" parts of the post, if anyone wishes to dispute this fact is free to click on each of the quotes and will be lead directly to the full posts in question. Like I said above, the person who started a specific thread does not matter.
I disagree but you are entitled to your opinion.
You are free to counter my points by cutting out what you feel does not matter and include what you feel is "relevant". Moderators do not actually ban people, it is only administrators that have the authority to ban people. Additionally there are not any moderators currently assigned to the lending section so only administrators (or global moderators) can delete/edit posts in that section).
The evidence shows otherwise. You were banned at a time when you were attempting to conduct business in an unprofessional manner. Although the form does not officially moderate scams, you were also conducting business in a scammy manor.

If you feel that I have ever trolled in my posting history feel free to present evidence of such. I think that most people would say it is fair that I have not. For the record I did not report any of your posts. Even if I did report your posts another third party (a global moderator or an administrator) would have had to have taken action against your posts or an administrator would have had to have banned you.
[quote author=TJogger link=topic=931143.msg10222360#msg10222360 date=1421797214
This must be address properly with due prudence. Anyone can see that this is merely an act of spite, nothing more considering what the forum is flooded with (outright scammers, smears, shills, frauds, real trolls, etc etc). I don't recall barging into another thread and asking for 'proof' when I am uninvolved or otherwise was not part of the business being conducted.
[/quote]All of the threads belong to the forum. As I mentioned twice above just because you start a thread does not mean you are immune to the rules of the forum

I am pretty sure you were trolling
Can you explain how the above is trolling?

---

From your loan thread from January 2014:

---

From your thread in October 2014:

---

---

Your lack of professionalism is certainly not working in your favor when people want to consider lending to you. As entertaining as it is, it is not the environment that this forum is designed to be.

You were trolling. I am surprised you only received temporary bans to be honest with you.

Why don't you disclose who the owner of these sites are?

It looks like, based on your trusted feedback others have risked as much as much as .19 to you at one time. Your claim that the previous owners were able to steal 13 BTC shows that if you were to start a ponzi then you would be trusted with a lot more then .19 BTC.

What reasons should you be trusted to be able to handle so much more now then you have been trusted with previously?

From your PM:
Why are you claiming your reputation is partially from your twitter account if you don't even have a twitter account?

Says you. Most of the time, from every other deal that I have seen on this forum the current value of the altcoin is used. Can you prove an example of when any other person has ever even offered to use a monthly average of the value of their altcoin?
You said that you wanted to use the monthly average to value your collateral. You did not mention anything about what your altcoin could be traded for today if it were to be sold.
The unethical part would be withholding to other potentially interested parties the fact that you are overvaluing the collateral based on current market conditions.

The reason why you give more collateral then the loan is worth is so the lender does not have to sell the collateral after even a small decline in it's price. This is to protect you from having what is essentially a margin call after only a small decline in the price of your collateral.
Of course it would be fair for you. You are getting the better end of the bargin.
I think it is pretty standard to ask for 110% to 120% worth of collateral based on current market conditions.
The relevant information that you withheld is the value of the collateral. You gave only a favorable valuation to it's valuation and did not give full disclosure.
I am going to decline to participate in this deal.

Well I would normally provide that level of privacy to you, however ethically, I feel the need to disclose that kind of information because I feel that you are being somewhat misleading in your negotiations. I don't think failing to disclose the fact that the value you are giving your collateral is at least 10% more then the value currently given to it on exchanges is being transparent nor is a way to conduct business.

This is actually not true. If someone generated private keys while the "bug" was in effect the such addresses will forever be at risk and should not be used to receive money if they want to actually be able to spend such money (eg not have it stolen).

The thread discussing the situation is here. I will need to look further to determine where exactly it says not to reuse addresses generated during this time. That however is not the reason why he is asking for the address change. He is requesting an address change because he tried to make a .1 BTC bet on luckyb.it, did not include a tx fee and the tx was never confirmed, and dropped from the mempool of nodes. This resulted in him not receiving a payout that should have been 1.4x of his bet (he lost .04 because the tx did not confirm).

A review of his bet history shows bets totaling 2.6165 BTC over 193 bets/games. This implies that he is not trying to game the system, or at the very least is an active customer of luckybi.it. A review of the secuity log aka the log that shows changed passwords shows that his password was not changed in the last 30 days.

Your rules state addresses cannot be changed, however it should be reasonable to make an exception in this case in order to make a customer of luckb.it feel more comfortable.