I wasn't saying YOU sent a fake MO but someone can and if CampBX gets 1000 MO a year and credits them all on the day received they are going to get burned.  There is no way to know the fake ones from the legit ones.

Calling the 1-800 number or providing a receipt is a useless security measure.  One can simply copy a legit money order, cash the legit one, and send the fake to the victim.   Think of it like a double spend in Bitcoin except one is legit and one is fake and the fake one always loses so it is easier to pull off.

The US banking system sucks, and checks are the suckiest portion of that suck system.  There is absolutely no good way to validate a check will be honored other than deposit it, and wait 5 business days.  That is it.  Yup we live in the 21st century and the best the banking industry can come up with is deposit this piece of paper and if it isn't rejected in five days you are good.  

Their terms are vague but they don't state your account will be credited the day the MO is "cashed" (more likely deposited for a business account).  CampBX should be clear and upfront about their funding policies but I seriously doubt they credit deposited MO the same day.  Thank our antiquated and insecure banking system.  It is pretty easy for money orders to be faked.  It is simply a piece of paper with numbers on it and there is no way to validate a check has been authorized other than depositing it.  The bank then transmits it to the originating bank and the account holder (the MO issuer) will reject the unathorized ones (fakes, duplicates, etc).  The receiving bank is liable in the event of a reversal until 5 days pass with no notification from the originiating bank.   

Simple version:
A MO or any other check can be fake and the only way to know is for it to not be returned after 5 business days.  I wouldn't expect them to credit your account until the 29th.

CampBX FAQ is vague as it simply indicates that money orders are "processed" the next day it doesn't say your account will be credited that day.  It doesn't provide any guidance on when your account will be credited.  They likely are hoping users assume that means funds will be credited to their account the next day but I doubt that is the case as it opens them up to pretty easy fraud.


There is a legit complain that CampBX should improve their website to make it clear exactly how long it will take before users have funds credited to their account.  Then again I can't believe they even accept checks (and yes a MO is a check it just happens to be a check from a trusted party).  Maybe after this "lawsuit, arrest and criminal charges" they will realize it isn't worth it and drop that deposit option.

If the remaining 26,718 shares were sold on the market by the issuer then the total issued shares would be the full 200,000 outstanding units.  The fact that the site doesn't reflect that indicates that either the site is wrong (bug) or the shares weren't sold they were simply removed.

Units outstanding (in any company) is the total units owned by someone.  Each unit represents an equal share of ownership.  If the company has sold 200,000 units then there has to be 200,000 units outstanding. 

Of course there is no evidence the off market transactions ever took place.  The issuer simply records them in the ledger.  Of the public portion of the Initial PUBLIC offering only 6,614 shares were sold (992 BTC).

At this point there are no special purpose devices (FPGAs or ASICs) for Scrypt based coins.  CPU mining is in theory possible but the difficulty makes that an excercise in utility.

If you already have a decent AMD GPU and cheap (<$0.10) power you likely can earn some coins by mining however difficulty on most alt-coins is going up as GPU miners are "forced out" of Bitcoin so I would not recommend buying a new GPU unless you have other uses for it (gaming) as you may never see a profit.

This isn't a clone coin and it has been in development since June of last year but I don't find it particularly interesting as I don't believe the trust model will work on a large scale.  It has more in common with ripple than Bitcoin.  Unlike ripple the coins are given away to all members as a "basic income" instead of being sold by the ripple corporation.  Also unlike ripple it is actually open source.

It uses OpenPGP for identity and transactions.
New members must have their PGP key signed by an existing member (this I think is fatal, it destroys psuedo anonymity and provides a weak defense against sybill attacks).
Accepting a new member requires 2/3rd approval of eixsting members.
Periodically all members receive "free money" minted from nothing as part of a basic income.
Transactions are performed by the sender signing a message indicating transfer to the receiver's PGP key.
Transaction servers generate lists of new members, dividend income, and new transactions.
All members have the ability to sign these "lists" and it requires 2/3rds approval of members to update the consensus.
There is no computing power used to secure transactions against double spend instead it relies on the security of people/identities.
There is no need for a blockchain as the "blocks" are essentially ledgers which contain the current status of the network.



I don't find it particularly interesting because it doesn't appear to be completely decentralized, and the trust model will fail under any large scale adoption.   Still it certainly isn't a clone-coin, it doesn't even have mining in the traditional sense.  It has more in common with Ripple than any crypto-currency.

The marketing language they use is somewhat deceptive and they are intentionally vague thinking obscurity provides security.

Unlike a credit card you can't dispute a charge for any reason except that you didn't make it.  This there is no chargeback because you didn't receive the product, the merchant lied, the product arrived broken, etc. 

A thief however can still dispute they never made the charge.  "It wasn't me, I have no idea who this Bitcoin hacker guy is, or how he stole my money but I never made these transfers. Please Mr. Bank Customer support person they stole all my money I can't pay the rent unless I get this back".  It appears that is what happened to the OP.   It is also possible although unlikely the person on localbitcoins isn't the account holder and he just transfered funds using an actual stolen account (which is now being disputed by the real accountholder).

Summary
1) Dispute when there is a problem with the sale - NOT ALLOWED
2) Dispute when funds are sent by a hacker from a compromised bank account - ALLOWED.
3) Dispute when real account holder pretends #2 above happened - ALLOWED

Hashfast can you update the public order record:
https://hashfast.com/order-chain/

What is the status of the tape out?
Do you anticipate a delay in delivery time frame (20 OCT to 30 OCT)?

EMT is reversible you likely are going to lose those funds.  The fact that someone online gave you an account number isn't going to be sufficient proof for the banks.   It almost certainly isn't but it "could" be a stolen bank account.  You have no proof the account holder authorized the transaction and the bank isn't going to investigate.

Yes.  Which has nothing to do with why the existing 50 TH/s network hasn't been able to operate consistently at 50 TH/s. 

That FinCEN guidance is idiotic.  Well hopefully they use more apropriate language but address the fact that FinCEN guidance is about as clear as mud and contrary to their prior guidance on the scope of money transmission.

Just a small list of inconsistencies:
* miners are MT if they exchange virtual currency for real currency.  Why?  Entities which are engaged in the business (key word) of exchanging are already MT.   Why even open the door for hobbyist miners.

* who is the creator of a currency unit in the scenario of pool mining (and thus potentially a MT)? 
The pool? 
The miner (which isn't really a miner more a contracted computing power supplier)? 
The pool and the miner?
Neither because only Satoshi is and miners and pools simply unlock existing currency units?

* Why did FinCEN ignore their prior guidance as it relates to real currency exchangers.
Real currency exchanger is NOT a money transmitter
A real currency exchanger which engages in money transmission as requirement of doing business but whos activity is limited to exchanging currency is NOT a money transmitter.
All virtual exchangers are money transmitters.  WTF?




 

If you haven't already contacted your attorney general and FTC going for a lawsuit is just stupid.  A lawsuit likely means a partial recovery (and a guaranteed loss) many months from now.  The FTC or attorney generals office could work with you to get a refund much sooner.

Take the easy route before the hard route. 

You aren't missing anything he said "it STILL is the most profitable".   You are talking about the future, he is talking about right now.


Of course if one miner can switch so can all of the miners.  If PPC shows significantly higher ROI% then enough miners WILL take a risk and switch and that will raise the PPC difficulty and lower the BTC difficulty such that any significant gain is arbitraged out.  PPC only had 2.5TH.  It doesn't take that many large rigs to significantly raise that hashrate.

Well it depends.  In your example it operated for 1,000 TH/s for a month and that would be reflect in the slope of the lifetime average. 


Day 330 - LTA 30.0 TH/s
Day 331 - LTA 32.9 TH/s
Day 332 - LTA 35.8 TH/s
...
Day 339 - LTA 55.7 TH/s
...
Day 360 - LTA 110.8 TH/s


On the other hand if it operated at 1,000 TH/s for a few hours and then fall back towards 300 TH/s over the course of weeks and then despite recovering from the low it showed difficulty breaking even 500 TH/s.  If that was combined with a lack of information from the operator then no I wouldn't consider it a risk free assumption that 1,000 TH/s can be maintained.  Before I get accused of FUD I don't think this is likely however it certainly is possible in the sharp decline and lackluster recovery some equipment was damaged and without more hardware the network will NEVER reach its prior peak.  

Not sure how you take "in September" (but not "early september") to "mid October" as a maximum of three weeks.

It could certainly be 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks, even 6 weeks.   Sept 10 to Oct 22nd would meet the loose definition in the article and would be 6 weeks.  It would also not contradict prior statements by the company.  I am not saying it IS 6 weeks or that it CAN'T be 3 weeks. I am simply say you are assuming something not stated by the company.  

My guess is if it ends up taking >21 days from the first order you will once again jump on your 3 week assumption in early Oct, and complain you were mislead, despite it never being promised by the company.

Simple version:
The only person claiming all orders will be shipped in three weeks is you.

That is kinda the whole point.  The network peaked out (7 day average) at 47 TH/s and then had a long slow decline over the next 10 days down into the low 30s and since then has had trouble breaking past even 40 TH/s and has yet to reach its prior peak. We aren't talking about a one or two day blip but rather the better part of a month where we know the hardware exists yet the network has significantly underperformed the theoretical output.

If you build out a 50 TH/s (theoretical) network and the lifetime average flatlines around 30 TH/s over a signifcant period of time that is a problem.  I have confidence freidcat will fix the problem but it doesn't make magically make it not a problem.  The lack of growth in the lifetime average towards the theoretical potential of the network (50 TH/s) is telling you the network is "sick".  It either gets fixed (I am confident it will) or shares price will reflect that reduced output.   

The lifetime average records what miners have been paid on to date.  It covers all inefficiencies, luck, time delay in hardware, outages, oprhans, etc.  When it shows ~30 TH/s another way of looking at it is to date the shareholders have enjoyed a 30 TH/s effective network.  That may change in the future but the lack of growth is troubling.

They don't intend to clear all orders in three weeks.  They indicated they would clear all orders by the end of October.  Just thought I would help you out so early October you don't later claim they are keeping things from you. 

The growth rate wouldn't slow to a crawl at ~30TH/s (and even turn negative) if the network was operating consistently at 50 TH/s over the last couple months.  A lifetime average asymptotically approaches the short term average.  In other words for it to flat line at 30 TH/s instead of 50 TH/s means the network isn't operating (finding blocks) like a 50 TH/s network.  You don't find the fact that shareholders own a 50 TH/s network which operates like a 30 TH/s network to be useful?  There is a difference between the lifetime average being 30 TH/s and still showing strong growth towards (but never reaching) 50 TH/s and one where the lifetime average stagnated at 30 TH/s and even dipped below its peak.

Please graph a set of points there are a significant number of recent data points at 50 anythings and the lifetime average does not aproach it.

It shouldn't be slowing to a crawl at ~30TH/s when the farm is capable of 50 TH/s.  If for the prior month the network operated at exactly 50 TH/s the lifetime rate would asymptotically approach (but never reach) 50 TH/s.  When it is going horizontal at 30 TH/s after months of climbing and actually declined (so each day has enough of an effect to reduce the lifetime average) that indicates something is keeping the farm from reaching its theoretical performance.  Downtime, outages, orphans, etc, something.

In other words the dividends are based on an effective 30 TH/s farm not a 50 TH/s one.  The shares can't pay more dividends (excluding hardware sales) then what are earned and all luck aside the network has to date operated as a 30 TH/s one not a 50 TH/s one.

Note I have faith in friedcat and am still long but to say it has no value is silly.  One would expect it to asymptotically approach 50 TH/s.  The fact that is hasn't (at least to date) provides insight into the long running efficiency of the network.

Thanks.  I sent a PM to cointerra to confirm.  The fact that it is only on coindesk and not repeated anywhere on Cointerra website or in any of their posts makes me want confirmation.  I asked them also to confirm is the wattage estimate is at the chip level or at the wall. 

For BFL I likely will need to estimate an average system load to make it apples to apples.  That is ugly but with every other ASIC manufacturer building complete systems I don't see a better way.