 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
4
|
Economy / Securities / Re: Despite the death threats
|
on: December 23, 2013, 11:11:41 PM
|
Indeed you might have done on the old thread 5 months ago, I was doing exactly the same under a different name and that's why Ken turned the IPO on it's head and created a much fairer and safer deal for all shareholders. That's when I invested.
Seems all the cheerleaders are socks here  |
|
|
|
|
6
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 10:11:28 PM
|
So why did you end up with a surplus of 9mm ammunition? Just interested.
my family is in the business. nothing serious. OK, so is it legal for you to sell 9mm ammo to a stranger on a forum where you live? Don't you need a licence to sell? And don't you need to check the buyer is permitted to buy this 9mm ammo? About as legal as it is for Ken to sell "shares" in his "business."  |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 06:37:37 PM
|
I have not attempted to gauge your sourcing skills. If they are on par wit your investment skills, I would say that's exactly what you would do.
I don't think you are quite getting it are you. You are suggesting the only product ACtM have sold is expansion cases? Hey next time when looking for a new pseudonym save yourself some time and go straight for Matrix: Full-Retard. No. I am suggesting that this is the likely products that Active Mining has shipped, making the statement by kSlaughter technically true and effective in allowing you to dream about chips. Words are important, Stuartuk, that's why smart people know how to use them  This is the weakest argument I think I have ever seen in my puff. Draw black & white conclusions whilst deliberately ignoring the actual substance of a particular message and cite science. Here comes the smileys. The cat is most certainly out of the bag. hehe Being fooled by the wording of kSlaughter's update must be very embarrassing for you. Can't say I blame you, the wordplay you fell for was pretty lowbrow. I could only hope that this relatively pricey learning experience is not wasted on you. Tomorrow is another day. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 06:20:56 PM
|
No. I am suggesting that this is the likely products that Active Mining has shipped, making the statement by kSlaughter technically true and effective in allowing you to dream about chips. Words are important, Stuartuk, that's why smart people know how to use them LOLLY Please define 'likely'. Then see if it could apply to the real world that the rest of us live in. Expansion cases?!? BTW I just checked and Full-Retard has not been taken yet. Get in there man! My agitated friend, when I say that I find you likely to do something as absurd as ordering expansion cases from Active Mining, I base this on your willingness to "invest" in Active Mining, a rather absurd thing to those of us who live in the real world. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 06:00:30 PM
|
I have not attempted to gauge your sourcing skills. If they are on par wit your investment skills, I would say that's exactly what you would do.
I don't think you are quite getting it are you. You are suggesting the only product ACtM have sold is expansion cases? Hey next time when looking for a new pseudonym save yourself some time and go straight for Matrix: Full-Retard. No. I am suggesting that this is the likely products that Active Mining has shipped, making the statement by kSlaughter technically true and effective in allowing you to dream about chips. Words are important, Stuartuk, that's why smart people know how to use them |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 05:38:42 PM
|
[...] Thank you for revealing more, but what's this with words like 'fantasize'? If you don't mind me correcting you, as it seems you aren't privy to the same info as the rest of us, but ActM has made a statement making mention of the fact that orders have been shipped. So should I take your word or that of Mr. Slaughters? The rest of the 'evidence' proving ActM goods have been received is unverifiable at this time but is out there for all to see. Just got to dig a little. Your posts, while polite and gentlemanlike, have undertones akin to those whose agenda is transparent and it saddens me to see how ineffectual they are. If I could be allowed to push the boat a little? You are one of our regular trolls (who are an intelligent bunch) masquerading as a gentleman. Now fuck-right-off! I guess I'll have to start by telling you the meaning of the word "fantasize": fan·ta·size
ˈfantəˌsīz/Submit
verb
1.
indulge in daydreaming about something desired.With that out of the way, allow me to inform you further: Virtual Mining website lists many products, such as expansion cases, which do not contain a single hashing chip, making the shipment of such products possible without having chips. Granted, making claims of shipping is rather misleading, taking into consideration the eagerness of many here to fantasize. Nevertheless, it is the statement made. @Stuartuk - I find it humorous that an admitted sock puppet stalks me, in hopes of showing me to be one also. Thus far, you have succeeded in disproving your claim that i only post in this thread, and that unlike you, i am not illiterate. As i have mentioned earlier, your belligerence does not serve you well. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 04:58:32 PM
|
You are mistaken. Though Active Mining has no working silicon, the projected power efficiency is substantially lower than Bitfury (previous gen tech) and all of the current 28nm chips.
That's complete BS. You don't know the details. Who are you anyway? You registered 3days ago and have only posted in ACtM thread. Are you Crumbs? Iceman? Pankkake? You freak. If you feel that understanding of silicon design basics is related to activity on this forum, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Your beligerance won't change this. ActM has working silicon as they have sold products to customers who are in receipt of said products. Intellihash (shush!) compatible silicon and associated specs are presently unknown. Please quantify 'substantially' in the context of your post referencing Bitfury's previous and current tech. as this might allow for clarity. Whilst I'm an appreciator of efficient use of language, I have reservations about your limited responses. Do forgive my suspicious nature however, sadly, this is the state of play. If you wish to fantasize about shipped product using Active Mining silicon, I can not stop you. I can, on the other hand, remind you that Active Mining has made no statements about shipping products containing Active Mining chips, and no evidence of such chips exists. Since Active Mining silicon most likely does not exist, no specs for said silicon exist. I can say with 100% certainty that no official specs have been released by Active Mining, so you will have to satisfy yourself with "substantially," as inexact as it may be. I do not begrudge you your suspicious nature, though I am saddened by how poorly it has served you in the field of giving your money to strangers on the internet. |
|
|
|
|
12
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 04:34:08 PM
|
You are mistaken. Though Active Mining has no working silicon, the projected power efficiency is substantially lower than Bitfury (previous gen tech) and all of the current 28nm chips.
That's complete BS. You don't know the details. Who are you anyway? You registered 3days ago and have only posted in ACtM thread. Are you Crumbs? Iceman? Pankkake? You freak. If you feel that understanding of silicon design basics is related to activity on this forum, I'm afraid you are mistaken. Your beligerance won't change this. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 04:13:33 PM
|
[...]
Entropy's use of the word obsolete made his sentence meaningless. He was merely trying to have a dig by suggesting there are 'bigger' chips out there, but in reality our eAsic chips are among the leaders in terms of energy efficiency and price per GH.
You are mistaken. Though Active Mining has no working silicon, the projected power efficiency is substantially lower than Bitfury (previous gen tech) and all of the current 28nm chips. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s
|
on: December 23, 2013, 03:00:54 PM
|
[...] I'd also like to know who you are and what your relationship is to HashFast. I can't help but feel that we've been thrown another random poster like cypherdoc who supposes to speak for HashFast but when push comes to shove does not actually represent them and can't speak for them.
Are you directly employed by HashFast and do you have the authorization to speak for them as their agent?
+1 |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 01:53:15 PM
|
[...]
Just goes to show you that it's all just a massive gamble and no amount of research and 'due diligence' will guarantee success.
[...]
Investing is not the same thing as gambling, and those who don't know this tend to end up broke. Don't delude yourself into thinking that lack of guaranteed success means your blind guess is as good as any other. It's not. |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: is anything bitcoin not a scam?
|
on: December 23, 2013, 01:21:36 PM
|
Bitcoin is made to be used by people, so if it fails to account for basic human characteristics, it fails as a popular currency.
"It works for the knowledgeable and those willing to constantly be on guard" pretty much excludes the majority of people. If I have to consult WOT before buying a stick of gum, I simply won't buy it. Ease of use is pretty important for a currency.
Bitcoin isn't for the masses. Things that've been dumbed down to ensure nobody will have to adapt include child-proof pill caps and cleaning products plastered with warnings. Such things don't belong in the world of finance. Inasmuch as "basic human characteristics" consist of blindly groping at everything without taking a moment to read or think, that which is good will fail to account for them, yes. Those who insist on keeping such characteristics intact so as to not have to change and grow will just add to bitcoin's fossil record. If the "expert user" defense works, it works much too well. It would show, for instance, that coding in assembler should obsolete every other language, since a knowledgeable coder, given sufficient time and motivation, would produce the tightest code.
Taking responsibility for yourself and understanding what bitcoin is before doing anything with it aren't exactly insurmountable tasks. Sure, there are brokers, data aggregators, and so forth out there to put some distance between people and the heart of the machine. That doesn't mean it's alright to stop paying attention and flagellate wildly, throwing coins wherever everyone else seems to be doing it. There's no getting around the fact that in order to act in finance, at some point people will have to learn shit. If they can't be bothered, they'll simply stay poor. If you feel that bitcoin is not for the masses, you have a tenable viewpoint. Of course, it pretty much precludes bitcoin's mass adoption, on which the success of any currency is predicated. Those who "...blindly grop[e] at everything without taking a moment to read or think" are the essential demographic here, one which must be catered to. This must be done not from misplaced love for the mentally weak, but because their wellbeing is a basic economic necessity. The problem with the "let them eat cake" attitude is things tend to end badly for everyone involved. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Economy / Securities / Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
|
on: December 23, 2013, 12:20:14 AM
|
...
Absolutely, speculation can push this a long long way.
You make an excellent and completely over-looked point - 3 months from now there will be a flood of 'good news investors' who right now have never heard of ACtM or even Bitcointalk. They will hear about us and invest for divs, using ACtM as a safe haven for their BTC and others will use us as a speculative investment.
These investors could push Dividend Yield into 15:1 20:1 even 30:1 territory which is not atall unheard of in small cap startups.
"Dare to Dream!" |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: is anything bitcoin not a scam?
|
on: December 22, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
|
...
This isn't a problem intrinsic to bitcoin, it's a problem intrinsic to people. The solution is changing yourself, not BTC. Those who can adapt will prosper, and those who refuse will continue to get fleeced.
Bitcoin is made to be used by people, so if it fails to account for basic human characteristics, it fails as a popular currency. "It works for the knowledgeable and those willing to constantly be on guard" pretty much excludes the majority of people. If I have to consult WOT before buying a stick of gum, I simply won't buy it. Ease of use is pretty important for a currency. If the "expert user" defense works, it works much too well. It would show, for instance, that coding in assembler should obsolete every other language, since a knowledgeable coder, given sufficient time and motivation, would produce the tightest code. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Economy / Securities / Re: Make a stable 12% ROI Guaranteed - BTC-EQTY Bonds *LIMITED QUANTITY*
|
on: December 22, 2013, 11:39:43 AM
|
If bitcoin prices surge dramatically upward, this bond will default. For reference: every interest paying BTC bond ever. These type of investments require BTC price to be stable or losing fiat value. Want to make 12%? Sell your coins and wait until all the Chinese exchanges shut down at the end of January. Then buy at least 12% more BTC.
I think you are misunderstanding how this works. All investments are made in bitcoin, there is no FIAT risk. Bitcoin's value vs fiat is completely irrelevant for these bonds and our investment fund. The people "investing" in you are also making their investment directly in bitcoin, with no fiat exposure. Unfortunately, both fiat and underlying assets enter into the picture at some stage, that's what makes this untenable. It's not turtles all the way down. Of course, empirical data confirms: If bitcoin prices surge dramatically upward, this bond will default. For reference: every interest paying BTC bond ever...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, bro, that's off the table, I thought you were a chick. But happy hunting 2 U.
