|
We never paid "not to troll" or for anything similar.
|
|
|
|
Guy, any inside infos about whos "behind" current hashrate bump?    I have a bet with someone it will be over 2 EHs on July 1st. thats pretty ballsy - with recent TMSC delays of 1-2 months it looks like chips may just be getting into the right hands now, or during the next few weeks. How quickly that becomes fabricated hardware and plugged in is the big question. personally i think August 1st is a more realistic 2EH target (assuming you take a larger moving average, and not day-to-day spike) The bet was made on February 19th. |
|
|
|
Guy, any inside infos about whos "behind" current hashrate bump? I have a bet with someone it will be over 2 EHs on July 1st. |
|
|
|
|
Putting aside jokes, I am really worried about Adam.
He took the wrong choice at every turn in the dispute with Spondoolies.
I can't reveal the information now, but I will certainly do so after the matter will be resolved in court, one way or another (assuming non confidentiality agreement).
In my estimation, he is already in the negative between $15K to $20K and I hope he didn't take loans to pay his lawyer.
If the community wants to help Adam, Adam controls the following wallet address:
1AQbchmV2GVmeBJeRsDBoAcgS54GJi25Gp
I hope that at least he will be able to recover his lawyer fees.
Guy
|
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471914.msg14843803#msg14843803Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!
1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one. 2. No one else is required to believe me or not. 3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided. 4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously? 5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies? RoadStress raised an interesting point. Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..."disclaimer: Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide. One possible explanation: The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees. The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have). Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law. Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me). Edit:Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471914.msg14843373#msg14843373Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits. In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed. If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer. However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance. So, there are three possible scenarios: (1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been. (2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance. (3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance. In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice. Note:It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed. This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen. Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925). In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court.Guy Dogie's original post: Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post): The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post: Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance: Dogie's smoke screen reply to my original post (before the Edit: addition) after his reply to RoadStress post:
|
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691.msg10618063#msg10618063Where did I call you a thief?
You said that we took 3-4 months preorders on our 1st gen which is another lie.
You preordered 'batches' of SP10 significantly into the future, while not far from release of SP10 were already preordering SP30s and SP10 + SP30 kits. Every time I need to interact with you I get strong feeling of nausea. I'm trying to disengage but you keep dragging me into your swamp. ... Being called a liar and a thief by a CEO ...
I repeat - Where did I call you a thief ?... what happened in the first generation and its something I discussed with them at the time. Even when they were selling 'in hand' hardware via batches [fine], some batches were being sold 3-4 months in advance ...
Most of our 1st gen customers received their miners within a 30 days period of ordering them. Some received it after 30-60 days. Our entire 1st gen selling period was under 3 months. I've spotted many more lies written in the last few pages, I gave an example of two. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar
|
|
|
|
That doesn't answer any of my questions. Who decides? Is it consensus, or is it central? Is the coin designed to be replaced, or is the transition seamless requiring no consumer intervention? Because from where I sit, there's no reason at all to support a coin that doesn't have long-term viability as a primary goal. Just throwing that out there.
The development team (read Vitalik) will decide. |
|
|
|
What's the critera for Eth to jump algorithms? Is there an automated conversion of Eth1 to Eth2 in the protocol? Is there a "central authority" handling that jump and those conversions?
Eth will simply hard fork. Done in the past successfully, no issue. |
|
|
|
In my opinion the whole ASIC adventure was detrimental to bitcoin, producing gigantic difficulty crunch with almost no benefits.
As I see now, GPUs are just fine for securing the network as long as there are enough of them being deployed.
There are possibly 10-100 times more people willing to run GPUs than there are people who run ASIC-based miners.
The result is mining centralization and possible stagnation.
My worry is that bitcoin will turn out to be the yahoo and myspace of crypto while others (with one obvious candidate) run away as potential google, facebook of this space. That would be bad for me personally as I invested much more in btc success.
In recent days, some core developers are suggesting HF to disable AsicBoost advantage (we call it Merkle Collisions). I wander why not take it few steps further and ensure GPU only mining. No one in his/her right mind will consider developing ASIC for Ethereum, since Vitalic will change the POW immediately. I agree that GPU only POW will cause greater decentralization. Cross reference with my proposal here: https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0#.ly56awsh4Guy |
|
|
|
In all fairness, it looks like your "signature campaign" offered 5%+ commission on sales, which dogie achieved ~400 of for a total >$50,000
seems like a bad decision on your part, and trying to discredit dogie doesnt say much for your actual legal abilities to fight what seems like a clear contract law case covered under international laws.
Note: I can't comment regarding the claim itself. If / after the lawsuit will be settled without confidentiality agreement, I will post Spondooolies side of the story. I am looking forward to it. The matter is out of my hands now. When a liquidator is appointed, all legal proceedings are frozen. Guy |
|
|
|
I have no idea why they deleted my posts discussing the reasons why "carrier grade" miners were a bad idea (or at best a risky bet on high BTC prices and continued rapid price appreciation that didn't pay off). It certainly doesn't improve my opinion of them though.
It was deleted in mistake, go ahead and post again. |
|
|
|
Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!
1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one. 2. No one else is required to believe me or not. 3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided. 4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously? 5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies? RoadStress raised an interesting point. Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..." disclaimer: Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide. One possible explanation: The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees. The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have). Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law. Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me). Edit:Adam continue with the smoke screen tactics in the following post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471914.msg14843373#msg14843373Other possible explanation is that Adam's lawyer is working on success fee (percentage of the funds he will be able to win in this lawsuit). It is common practice in many such lawsuits. In that case, the $8,600 invoice + receipt was indeed for "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" as Adam originally claimed. If this is indeed the case, it explains why Dogie refuse to produce another receipt + invoice, simply because there isn't such an invoice + receipt, just a success fee agreement between Adam and his lawyer. However, this explanation clearly contradict Adam claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance. So, there are three possible scenarios: (1) Adam's posted invoice + receipt includes his lawyer's fees. If this is true, VAT wasn't paid as it should have been. (2) There is an agreement between Adam and his lawyer and the lawyer is working on success fee. In this case, Adam lied when he claimed that his lawyer was paid in advance. (3) Adam is right and there is another receipt + invoice and payment from Adam to his lawyer covering his lawyer fees in advance. In order to prove that (3) is the right scenario as he claims, Adam needs to post such receipt + invoice. So far Adam refused to post such a receipt + invoice. Note:It's highly irregular (read: never heard of) to post security of funds deposit to one's lawyer as Adam claimed. This is why we asked the court to force Adam to deposit the security of funds directly to the court. The funds were indeed deposited before a liquidator was appointed and now the case is frozen. Adam's lawyer tried to prevent the security of funds deposit with all sort of arguments initially, but eventually agreed to make the deposit (30,000 ILS which is about $7,925). In any case Dogie's reply to Tupsu question "How much do you already have paid your lawyer ?" which was "Not yet, no. Lawyer is paid for up front so no changes." isn't true. He or his lawyer had to deposit $7,925 to the court. Guy Dogie's original post:Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance:Dogie's smoke screen reply to my original post (before the Edit: addition) after his reply to RoadStress post: |
|
|
|
Oh goody,a dog fight!!!!  Unfortunately, since he is suing Spondoolies, I can't engage directly. I can only show evidence and raise questions. |
|
|
|
Hey dogie with your lying past you don't expect us to simply believe you. Post the invoice with your lawyer fees too because otherwise your words are worth nothing!
1. No one cares if you believe me or not, you are no one. 2. No one else is required to believe me or not. 3. As I said many months ago, nearly everything in this case is open to the public. You are more than welcome to pull the actions of my lawyer using the case code "191050116" as I previously provided. 4. I'll bite; what have I lied about previously? 5. While you're saying dumb stuff, would you like to make clear what remuneration you have received to date from Spondoolies? RoadStress raised an interesting point. Adam Allcock (a.k.a. dogie) posted an invoice + receipt from his lawyer and claimed that it "Receipt for filing court fees and security of funds [like a deposit in the case of loss to help pay the defendant's fees]" Dogie removed the original image of the invoice + receipt and changed his previous post to remove this description. Now it's only "Receipt for filing court fees..." disclaimer: Adam is suing Spondoolies-Tech, so I can't engage him. I am posting the evidence of Adam's edit and wonder what Adam is trying to hide. One possible explanation: The invoice + receipt Dogie posted did indeed include his lawyer fees. The problem here is that the entire payment to the lawyer was titled 'expenses' and therefore he did not pay VAT (as he should have). Dogie can easily prove that this explanation is wrong by posting another invoice + receipt to his lawyer which is properly titled 'lawyer fees' and include VAT payment as required by the law. Instead of doing that, he chose to attack Roadstress and me (I removed the 2nd post in which he attacks me). Guy Dogie's original post:Dogie's rewritten post (rewritten few hours ago, after Roadstress post):The invoice + receipt from Dogie's lawyer, which Dogie removed after RoadStress post:Dogie's claim about paying his lawyer's fee in advance: |
|
|
|
It was my pleasure to know you Guy
Good luck !!!!!!
same here. Thank you. |
|
|
|
To our valued customers ,
As of May 4, 2016 Spondoolies-tech has ceased operations.
It has been a great privilege to serve the Bitcoin mining community and especially our customers. We deeply appreciate the support and faith that you have placed in us and wish you success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Guy Corem CEO
Spondoolies-tech
Any last foughts on Classic vs Core? Classic ? Remind me ? You predicted that the Bitcoin Classic team(miners & pools) will split from the Core team(developers) Not exactly. Read my Medium post. |
|
|
|
To our valued customers ,
As of May 4, 2016 Spondoolies-tech has ceased operations.
It has been a great privilege to serve the Bitcoin mining community and especially our customers. We deeply appreciate the support and faith that you have placed in us and wish you success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Guy Corem CEO
Spondoolies-tech
Any last foughts on Classic vs Core? Classic ? Remind me ? |
|
|
|
To our valued customers ,
As of May 4, 2016 Spondoolies-tech has ceased operations.
It has been a great privilege to serve the Bitcoin mining community and especially our customers. We deeply appreciate the support and faith that you have placed in us and wish you success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Guy Corem CEO
Spondoolies-tech
Sorry to see you go! It was a fun ride. Thank you for everything and good luck in your future ventures! Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
