Yeah gotta agree with that. CR on a good day can single handedly beat teams, we've seen it before and we'll see it again.

Its a cpu only coin, there's not really $1000 or $2000 spec machines, its simply how many cpu's you can get your hands on.

Granted it would possibly be useful to produce a list of CPU's and their expected hashing power on either OS so that you could choose which CPU's to buy to mine this coin but at this stage I would be very surprised to see people building $2000 set ups to mine MRO, you may as well use AWS/Azure and the like.

The other issue is that the miners are being constantly updated and there is also more than one miner so you can see how this starts to become a lot of work to put together. Thats also besides the fact that you can't trust just one person saying they are getting x speed without some proof so again it becomes a huge task.

Hope this helps.

No payment or unnecessary cutting of posts its almost the same thing if the cutting of posts is not justified. Regardless, if you've been posting constructive meaningful entries you should have nothing to worry about anyway.

No doubt Ritz is saying that so that people don't think they can spam a quick 500 posts and make some extra money is all, Ritz is just throwing it out there. If people aren't paid correctly it's not like they are going to shut up about it so for what maybe 1-2 BTC its very unlikely Ritz will screw someone over.

Why do we have to defame and produce conspiracies for no reason. All Ritz said is they will still check on posts, why would they not still check on posts. If you were running the campaign would you announce your winding down the campaign and then not check on peoples posts? Just such childish behaviour, burning people at the stake with no evidence at all.

Granted come the end of the month if all is not okay you will hear about it, until then lets leave the pitchforks at home.

nom nom nom, looks like a market buy as well rather than a bidder removing a bid and market buying seeing as the bid depth hasn't changed at all so not like someone just got impatient.

No payment or unnecessary cutting of posts its almost the same thing if the cutting of posts is not justified. Regardless, if you've been posting constructive meaningful entries you should have nothing to worry about anyway.

No doubt Ritz is saying that so that people don't think they can spam a quick 500 posts and make some extra money is all, Ritz is just throwing it out there. If people aren't paid correctly it's not like they are going to shut up about it so for what maybe 1-2 BTC its very unlikely Ritz will screw someone over.

Why do we have to defame and produce conspiracies for no reason. All Ritz said is they will still check on posts, why would they not still check on posts. If you were running the campaign would you announce your winding down the campaign and then not check on peoples posts? Just such childish behaviour, burning people at the stake with no evidence at all.

Granted come the end of the month if all is not okay you will hear about it, until then lets leave the pitchforks at home. 

If you are solo mining it is completely down to your hashing power when you can expect on average to be paid. If your mining in a pool however obviously that pool needs to find a block and then it needs to mature for I think 60 confirms.

Weekend dip it is then...
Not to worry look at the 1 week chart and how different it looks to the other flash recoveries.

Also look at the cup and handle that could be perfectly forming on the one day. If that completes with a drop to $505ish on mon/tue I may even be tempted with my first long.

Surprised to see you just shut it down, even if you didn't want to compete in this sig bidding war Im sure people would stick due to the automatic payouts and trust you've built up for yourself. Either way thanks for running the campaign and thanks for 3-4 months worth of a more than fair partnership.

Thanks for the morning chuckle!

I have no plans on trading this its far too risky on both sides of the fence. It helps that my last all in was a fair few dollars ago so have no need to worry.

Nice support has been building back to $500 and it looks fairly organic, not just one big wall.



I think its safe to leave the charts for the weekend and just have a price alarm set. Enjoy your bank holidays (if your in the UK)!

Try one of the open source pools in the OP.

Well I'm discussing the topic either way not saying they are definitely not asking for proof which is the whole issue.

1)how many times does someone have to say we're not saying they're insolvent for you to stop putting up that straw man when replying to someone who's said they're not saying they're insolvent several times.

2)Agree, isn't this one of the things I've been saying.

3)So you can't see the other guy in this thread and the guy in the Stamp thread. Its cool though, ignore them. Even if its not regular should it not concern people that at any point you could be asked to provide proof that you, for whatever reasons they may be , don't want to provide, after the being verified and making the trade and initiating a withdrawal request.

Thats fine I don't think there's much benefit in continuing but understand why people are concerned instead of just calling it impotent rage.

Or as was quoted above he had no access to finances, how can you possibly judge his competence as an auditor based on an advisory tech role working away from the office and having no contact really other than the occasional Skype call. Again this is in the blog.

How do you know the people feeling sorry for her aren't females themselves ?

Well there's three now. The guy in the thread here, the guy on reddit and the guy on Bitstamps thread. Its by the by anyway and if its happening at all it needs discussion. The just because you were okay and answered the questions and didn't have to provide proof doesn't really seem an objective point of view when addressing the topic. Anecdote != data. 

 Sorry but most in here are not saying that they are insolvent. What they are saying is that the intrusiveness goes above and beyond reason and is sprung on you with out any guidelines or clarification, thats not impotent rage. People are allowed to feel how they like about that, both in terms of the requirements themselves and what happens to the data, and discuss it too.

And that quote is out of context of the conversation which was about being asked for proof. He was saying that they don't ask for proof despite evidence to the contrary including a user who posted after that.

Thankyou, some people just can't see whats in front of them. The reasons are unbeknown to me unless this guy has some sort of vested interest.

Jeeez. As in they've just started asking for proof.

I know they have started asking general KYC/AML questions I have also said upthread that general questions are fine and necessary. This whole conversation is about the proof part not the questionnaire.

I ask again then

If it wasn't true don't you think Hazek would have rubbished it being as it was in his Bitstamp thread and he replied to someone else after the guy was saying they were asking for proof.

There's no need to tell me to relax I'm fine thanks. Obviously $200 isn't a threshold itself that would be asinine. Clearly the $200 triggered some overall threshold.

Anyway your not going to prove your point by just saying they've been asking questions for ages. We know that.

How do you know that she doesn't live in a poor country and needs say $20,000 to stay at home with her daughter for a few years? She then bought a few coins with her life savings because people kept saying its going straight to $5k. Some objectivity helps.

Maybe its just starting to be on Bitcointalk and reddit because they've only just started doing it.

If it wasn't true don't you think Hazek would have rubbished it being as it was in his Bitstamp thread and he replied to someone else after the guy was saying they were asking for proof.

Well I know the guy so next time he's online perhaps he will agree to send me a screen shot to prove it and we can continue the discussion there.

The $200 is an arbitrary figure and it seems it's not the amount but a certain threshold.

You misunderstood "a bunch of random people" I was referring to you calling the community at large a bunch of random people. I realise this wasn't worded clearly.

But the point is someone can't profess to represent others if others haven't agreed for them represent them. I think this strays into political territory where your view will probably be influenced by your political ideas of democracy and fair representation.