Everyone affected must file complaints, China doesn't fuck around, if they receive sufficient complaints to draw their attention, the provincial government has the authority to go after BA directly. Thr first step is everyone absolutely must let Hong Kong know that this company is doing fraud over the internet registered in their jurisdiction.

Maybe we can buy their email list like others already?

Then we could notify everyone of the complaint procedure one-shot.

Does it ever get tiring being a twat?

The hidden assumption that everything except electricity is free causes this model to overestimate energy consumption by at least a factor of 3-4 if not more based on current costs. The fixed costs in mining are way too high to justify electricity consumption alone as the criteria for profitability. While it's true that an existing operation with money already sunk in capital expenditures is going to be closer to the assumption of this model as far as the cutoff point to stop operating specific equipment, the bitcoin price has to plausibly cover fixed costs for a new operation and not just electricity. In the realm of even just hobbyist basement type setups, it's almost inconceivable that mining equipment would ever even come close to energy cost - equipment cost parity over its entire marginally-profitable lifetime, until some point in the non-foreseeable future where improvements in equipment efficiency radically stagnate.

Is this address from the website remotely legit?

5A03, Building 1, Huangduguangchang, Yitian Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, P. R. China, Postcode: 518048

Reason I'm asking is that I'm going to send out a batch of complaints shortly to every relevant jurisdiction, and it has come to my attention that Shenzhen has had some pretty strong consumer protection laws since early 2013, and if they receive a significant number of complaints, the city itself has the authority to bring suit against them in the interest of consumers. Shenzhen is not some third-world backwater with no consequences.

There might even be some delightful surprises, for example wouldn't it be a shocker if say we were to find out that this operation isn't even properly licensed?

What's great though is that by ignoring complaints filed through the consumer council, BA is already doing the heavy lifting for us in proving malice.

That's not a lesson, that's reinventing the wheel from scratch on the basis of no direct knowledge of the subject, to create some perverse "lifeboat ethics" thought experiment deceptively designed to vaguely produce the outcome that you want.

The real way to learn about this subject is to learn about this subject, and then produce critiques later from a position of knowledge instead of a position of sophomoric generality.

Here's a lesson for you: the way that you define what a market is at the beginning is a cargo-cult definition that does not subsume the primary conceptual features of what a market really is, but just shows the consequent trappings of how a market looks. And at the very beginning of the second paragraph you just go ahead and assume what you're trying to prove, which again, is a problem that won't go away here.

That would depend on conflating the conditions of no one remaining in existence to perform a valuation and valuation actually be performed at $0. Like the difference between {} and 0.

Absolutely false on its face.

All trade is by definition positive sum, and a market is merely the aggregation of all trades. This arises because the preferences of individual participants are not monolithic.

The whole anti-TA strain I can understand is very compelling from a sense of misguided skepticism and not wanting to be made a fool, but all of these knee jerk non-criticisms transparently come out of a lack of understanding of what TA even is in the first place.

This is pure fantasy designed to appeal to complete lack of understanding of the Chinese AML regime and the purview of PBOC as opposed to MIIT.

The more I think about it, the more I cannot find a single modern nightmare problem that Richard Nixon did not have a gigantic hand in. Although I do agree, Churchhill is a huge racist imperialist dick.

For the 3-day SAR?

Is it possible this is just another Zifkin operation? I mean for all we know this Sovu guy is just a fugitive with his name on a holding company obviously designed for criminal purposes. We have evidence that someone did some press last fall to promote this scheme under the criminal alias "Alex Berk", which frankly is such a ridiculous load of Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego bullshit it's almost comedy. All we're actually hearing from are three fake and/or anonymous entities that we know nothing about. They're EXACTLY following the Zifkin plan leaked by PG to a T.

The only question that's really up in the air at this point is whether Matt Carson and this "Stuart" guy from the UK are in on the con game, or whether they're just useful idiots getting played. The take on this scam is probably good enough that it's worth running their reputations to the ground, not that Matt Carson wasn't already a known scammer to begin with.

There is literally nothing about this statement that makes sense other than briefly defining an efficient market.

First off, this is nowhere close to remotely being an efficient market. Secondly, assuming an efficient market, the second statement about making "serious ROI" by "invest[ing] a lot of time doing research" is EXACTLY the contraction of the efficient market claim in the preceding sentence!

For a moment I thought you had written "freddy krugman" and that actually sounded scarier to me.

I'm going to lay out very clearly and logically why this entire thing stinks and is a scam from top to bottom, even though there is at least some evidence that there is some effort to actually deliver a product here. To any of the schadenfreude "preorderlol you're dumb" crowd, that's nice you're more than welcome to feel good about yourselves.

A pre-order does not mean that Black Arrow has zero responsibility for delivering and gets to do whatever they want as they please whenever they want.

The agreement Black Arrow entered into with us was predicated on a set of representations of the project made by Black Arrow at the start, specifically that there is a design that BA is producing that meets certain specifications and requirements, and that the organization has the ability and intention to produce the ordered end products and services within roughly the agreed upon timeframe. Of course it's reasonable then in this framework for the delivery date to be an estimate, because of course there are going to be some unforseen issues in producing the end product.

Now once Black Arrow in the eleventh hour announced the original delay, we were no longer under the same agreement that we originally consented to, because in failing to produce a design that met the agreed upon specifications, we were no longer customers of the original project. It is at that point that BA is obligated to contact their customers to determine if they still want to be involved in the new terms of what they are producing, and offer either some kind of discount or enhancement of product, or a full refund if the customer no longer wanted to be part of this modified project that they did not agree to in the first place.

By failing to conduct themselves in a way that honors the way that they represented the original agreement, Black Arrow committed fraud by going ahead and using customer funds to produce a later and different fab than what was originally agreed. BA has an obligation to sort out this situation prior to going ahead and producing the fab. Just because a customer pays a company for a product or service, does not suddenly mean that the company is entitled to go ahead and force the customer into something that the customer never agreed to.

Now that we are faced with an even greater delay since BA received the finished fab than the original delay in the first place, we have to recognize that BA misrepresented their capability and willingness to actually honor delivering a finished retail product. Literally every single thing that BA said in order to solicit orders, which is well-documented even within this very thread, has proven to be a false misrepresentation of the facts of their conduct and performance.

This entire history of changing the agreement unilaterally without the consent of their customers means that the original agreement is long gone, and BA's unwillingness to recognize that reality means that as customers our only recourse is to bring this situation to legal channels where BA will finally be forced to liquidate their fraudulently-acquired assets and compensate customers for what they've cavalierly done without consent. As long as BA continues to maintain their perverse interpretation of the terms of the original agreement, i.e. that estimated delivery date means that they get to do whatever they please whenever they please, then there is not going to be any recourse in attempting to deal with BA (as though one could even actually contact them ever about it anyway!).

If the price falls in a forest and no one is there to trade, does it make a sound?

Matt Carson / Minersource is not remotely a good actor in all of this, he previously went by the handle borito4 and is a known scammer on this board. Unfortunately if I had known that's who he was, that would've even prevented me from ordering directly from BA. We don't yet know the extent to which he's in on this, but the china trips suggest it's really deep, so if you are in a position to go after Minersource via the US FTC, go hard no matter what bullshit his "lawyer" says to intimidate you.

The asshole criminal Sovu decided that he was going to troll ecointalk today, and the nonsense he has to say us funny, I highly recommend checking it out.

So by the Chinese numerology / homophone reasoning, for us the numeral 1 should make us think of victory, 6 some happy fun time, and possibly 8 is positive if you're hungry.