We, bitfloor's customers got robbed. Technically Roman says he got robbed, but never posted any proof of that. Then he just handed people IOUs and refused to discuss any of numerous options to mitigate the damage.
Why anyone would trust Roman with anything worth more than a stick of gum after that will always be a mystery to me.
What is an example of proof that might exist? 1. Police reports filed regarding theft 2. Details of how the site was compromised and a forensic evaluation of the attack vector 3. A detailed review of what actions Roman took to mitigate losses. Continuing to party at the London conference are not the actions of a responsible man. ---- The whole question is merely a sideshow. I (and many others) were robbed. Roman was a part of the vector for that theft. |
|
|
|
why isn't roman at the helm keeping people informed and helping them?
that's the 2.8 million dollar question right there for me it is completely unfathomable Might have something to do with the way people have been talking about him in this thread, like he's the antichrist or something. If I were him I wouldn't be going out of my way either. We're lucky he's stuck with it this long. You mean, he gets robbed, then his bank closes his account and it takes lawyers and 3rd party help at an international conference to find 1 credit union that will work with him, we have no sympathy, respect, or understand, and furthermore we spread FUD, and wonder why he follows his lawyer's advice and keeps mostly quiet? I dunno. Maybe I can figure it out after a while. (no, I didn't talk to his lawyer. I have talked to my lawyers several times over the decades. They all advise to keep quiet.) Technically Roman says he got robbed, but never posted any proof of that. Then he just handed people IOUs and refused to discuss any of numerous options to mitigate the damage. Why anyone would trust Roman with anything worth more than a stick of gum after that will always be a mystery to me. |
|
|
|
|
I am offering 20 BTC payment to set up a stratum merged mining pool for solo mining.
The pool server should run on the latest version of Ubuntu. I will provide the hardware and set up the operating system. Setup of the pool can be done either by providing me with step by step instructions or by remote login.
Full payment will by made when the system has demonstrated stability for 1 week, and found both bitcoin and namecoin blocks.
|
|
|
|
How do you complain about avarice when you have an ASIC, Asicminer shares, and a huge stash of LTC and PPC?
Simple. I ordered my ASIC out of greed nearly a year ago. Running the numbers and salivating just like everyone else. In the intervening period, seeing what's happened and extrapolating what will happen I think it's clear Asics are a net-negative to the currency. Sure, the network has many more hashes than it had a year ago. But that's not what's important. What it's starting to lack, and what will never come back, is the excitement that everyone had about bitcoin when it was something that everyone could participate in, to varying extents. Put another way, bitcoin would be stronger, more valuable to everyone with 1/10 the network hashing power but 100x the miners, than this consolidation we have now. When the only investment required was a graphics card that many people already had, they participated and were excited about it. When the network devolves to exclude them, when its left with a few pillars of power (asicminer, a hand full of Avalon owners and a handful of mini rig owners), all of which require significant investment, the outside world will shrug their shoulders amd look on. As a consumer, for instance, I know that I have not been clamouring for an e-currency with irreversible transactions to send to vendors who may or may not be cooperative if there's an issue with their product. And I certainly don't wish for the means for my friends to send me money at no charge, only for myself to have to be hit with a wire fee if I need that money as cash. Especially not when they could just hand me cash or a check. I very much doubt many other consumers wish for that either. But when they can at least participate, they then get excited about it and talk up those features. Don't believe me, that's fine. But that's my stance. In the meantime, I'll continue on in my hashing, knowing or feeling like this is a dead end. This is exactly what I feared when the BFL disaster began. A fool gets conned by a group of smooth talking hucksters and pays for a golden goose laying ASIC device. There is plenty of evidence that the hucksters have no idea how to build such a device, but greed parts the fool and his money. Enough fools throw money at the hucksters that some real players take note and start developing their own devices. The hucksters promise '2 weeks' every few days, and that keeps the fool dreaming of sugar plums rather than investing in alternatives. When the real players deliver and the hucksters still can get their shoes tied, the fool's dreams of sugar plums fade slowly. Eventually difficulty rises so much that the fool realizes gifting his money to hucksters was a huge error, and he starts counting all he he lost by trusting the hucksters. Who does the fool blame? Not himself, not the hucksters, he blames Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
(if you read the transcript, this fool didn't even enable it after the loss)
Is he a fool? His account was cleaned out. Very much agreed.
What are you agreeing too Ukyo? A refund to the op? He was calling him a fool because after the cleanout, the user still refused to enable 2factor. I am agreeing to a code revamp and update with more enhanced security options and features which we started a few weeks ago when this problem with transfers was fixed requiring google 2-factor authentication. Without 2-factor, anyone can claim "I was hacked! It was a bad website, it was a trojan, a virus loaded pages and grabbed a per-page generated code and did everything!" Unfortunately there is so much fraud and so many fraudsters when it comes to bitcoin, that we cannot accept that as an answer since there is no proof otherwise. This is why we have adopted the 2-factor requirement. We are looking to add additional options such as optional pins (That can easily be recorded one time by a trojan though), yubikeys, and other new technologies. -Ukyo Am I the only one finding your excuse for not refunding victims here a little disingenuous? The 'htemp' hack has been documented by many people, and the root cause was a clear defect in your security model. But you won't own up to the failure because somebody might pretend to be hacked? You have a clear trail for anyone who had funds transferred to the 'htemp' account. I don't see how you can justify not compensating victims in this case. Considering the huge fees you are collecting on trades you should take a day's income and make your mistake right for the victims. If you want to require 2FA for compensation in the future, that is a different matter. |
|
|
|
My chief complaints of incompetence are several:
- Your handling of this situation what sufficiently weak to turn at least a number of your customers from tentative supports into vicious adversaries. And I believe that certain of us were unusually rational and patient for a surprising amount of time.
Our handling of the situation was insufficient to cure the paranoia of 4 users out of thousands of instawallet users That is an absurd statement. Anyone who has observed the Bitcoin ecosystem and has some analytic abilities will need to presume as the automatic strongest hypothesis that a theft such as this was an inside job. It is from that point that one begins to acquire evidence which corroborates or knocks out the various hypotheses. You were remiss in providing almost any verifiable information and because many of us were directly harmed, we deserved to have it. You just typing some words has almost zero value in analysis such as this and you known this. Or you should. +100 There needs to be an absolute baseline here. If you hold bitcoin deposits and you suffer a hack, either provide rock solid proof of the event, and measures taken to resolve the issue in the justice system, or be presumed to be the thief. If you are holding bitcoin for third parties, you are responsible for the bitcoin. There is no 'my dog ate my homework here' any loss of bitcoin should be 100% borne by the holder. If you can't manage to resolve the issue in a timely manner, everyone should abandon you and your services. And 3 months is not timely. |
|
|
|
36 @ 4.5
25 @ 4.6
Lol late night here. That really didn't make a lot of sense since my 4.6 bids would bump my 4.5s. so revise to: 25 @ 4.6 11 @ 4.5 which is really the same as before. |
|
|
|
Look I'm no rocket scientist but what sort of company holding lots of peoples money has it's structure organized and formulated by some random strangers on an internet thread?
Think about it - your money is in the hands of a company with NO CLUE.
If they can't sort out their own share structure (and have already F-ed up bigtime once already) HOW THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE MILLIONS WITH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ASIC MACHINES? BLF has a team of complete experts yet look at the trouble, the delays, the let downs. How do you think one guy from Springfield who used to run a web hosting server in his garage do? If he's no scammer then he is a very very naive and incompetent businessman. If you want to invest in success you need to invest in talent. I don't see any here.
You are vastly overstating BFL's competence. But you are on the edge of an important question for evaluating an investment. The real question to ask is: If someone with as few qualifications as Ken can deliver ASICs, how many others will have custom chips available? |
|
|
|
I understand that there is always a good possibility that new assets are scams, but there has to be a line in the sand for considering that it may indeed not be a scam. I only expect that once more confirmed info comes out about AMC, the first-impression of Ken being a scammer can be retracted. Thinking everything is a scam/lie is just as bad as thinking everything is trustworthy. Q: Why could I trust you?
A: In principle, like scientific theories, trustworthiness can only be
disproved. However some facts might contribute to more confidence: My ID, phone and email have all
been verified in GLBSE. I started running the fund called MU on GLBSE before it updated to version
2. I am also responsible for the GLBSE-listed bond MOORE.
I don't think it's a scam. I think Ken intends to do what he says. But if he succeeds, he will profit handsomely, and shareholders will see no capital gains, and greatly diluted dividends. And even a few mis-steps will leave buyers at todays level (0.001 ) with losses. Here's a few things Ken has done that Friedcat did not: 1. Pass the IP paid for by stockholders to his own company in exchange for a pittance of a royalty 2. Mark up the assets of his company 35x before offering shares 3. Hire a PR person with a history of scamming people 4. Claim that his company will mine more bitcoins than are available 5. Post lies about his business relationships (e-ASIC is not a major semiconductor company by any metric) |
|
|
|
|
An updated evaluation of profit sharing based on the FAQ:
VMC makes 1 BTC.
0.9 BTC is Kens
0.1 BTC goes to AMC and is further split up:
0.04 BTC to Ken
0.04 BTC to the reinvestment fund (for more free loans to VMC)
0.012 to the treasury fund
0.008 to shareholders
Summing it all up:
0.94 to Ken
0.052 to lend or buy more stuff from VMC
0.008 for the people who paid for, and risked everything.
Of course, as Deprived pointed out all of that depends on VMC making a profit, which is up to Ken's to use Hollywood accounting to skim the profits before they see the balance sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
The forum is auctions.
I raised your bid. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I will pay 3.6 if anybody is desperate to sell under market like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try to keep things constructive and informative here.
The idea is to help people avoid losing their shirt to a fast talking huckster by providing facts. And to provide constructive input on how to avoid this kind of situation in the future.
Baiting folks that view the investment in a different light isn't helpful. Ultimately a lot of people are going to lose money in this situation. Some of the pro AMC folks might even have perspectives that we can learn from.
And the ignore button helps me with those that don't contribute in a constructive way on both sides.
|
|
|
|
I think you're still not clearly understanding the main problem with AMC btw. The problem is that its structure so that even if it DOES make profit from hardware sales under 5% of it ends up with investors. How much less than 5% depends on a definition of 'profit' imposed by VMC (which shareholders have no say in or oversight of) - which makes the 'no salary' clause of AMC worthless (as Ken can give whatever he wants as salary to himself/friends/family before profit comes anywhere near AMC) and on how much profit is made. To get 2.5% return on capital requires $2 million profit on sales to be made - that's sales of ASICs that won't even be out until end of this year/early next by KEN's estimate.
Definitely does not sound good for investors. Though my understanding was that most of their returns would come from the mining that AMC would be doing. Either way, a return seems a long, long way off. This is my major objection to the whole offering. If you take Ken's own projections of hashrate, plug in a realistic model for the network power (he seems to assume that every Avalon chip but his get dropped in a shredder), and value the company as what it is, a mining company with all it's IP stripped by the operator you will get something close to $5M as the value 6 month from now if he executes on everything he says he will do, and no nasty surprises appear in the market. $5M is 0.0005 per share. So his original offering price already was extracting essentially all the value of the company before it has ever executed on anything. There was no margin for an investor to gain anything if he succeeded! And from that level he raised the price. When it was at 0.0008 he was touting that the true value of the company was 10-15x higher. 15x higher would be $120M - more than the annual value of all bitcoins available to miners. Yes ASICMINER is getting that valuation, but they have the hardware business and a dominant position in the mining space. There is zero chance anyone will capture as strong a position as ASICMINER has today. Most likely Ken will be one of a dozen consortia that scramble to capture 2 or 3% market share of the network. That would be ok, and a decent company. But not when the IPO lists at a price that would only be supported by more than 10% share. |
|
|
|
I wonder if I can buy some assets on BitFunder, move them to BTCT.CO and sell them on BTCT.CO (arbitrage)
Is it possible to do this? Could I move ASICMiner shares from one to the other? It's theoretically possible, and impossible in practice. I bought over 250 shares of Asicminer on bitfunder and requested transfer from DeadTerra. A month later he hadn't responded to either PMs or posts in his thread. You can lose a lot of money in that time frame. |
|
|
|
There doesn't appear to have been any oversight on this pricing, which really seems silly. How can your moderators vote on an asset when they don't even know the valuation the security will come to market at?
Mods do not evaluate the profitability of an asset, or at least shouldn't. Ask yourself, however, why should they _not_ vote in favor of something that will give them lots of money? The listing fee, the trade fee, whether loss or profit; all of that goes straight into the pocket of those voters. Of course they want that money! That's why they bought the LTC-G shares! .b Such a cynical view might be appropriate for a mature and established exchange. But for a startup trying to establish itself, such an approach would be self defeating. An exchange exists to provide startup capital to businesses. If the investors in those businesses are not rewarded with dividends and capital gains appropriate for the risks taken, there will be no new capital available, and the exchange will die. The history of bitcoin securities is one of lost investor capital, and ASICMINER as the exception that proves the rule. Until there are numerous examples to contradict that statement, any investor or operator of an exchange is likely to lose all of their capital as well. |
|
|
|
Another imminent crash coming, if the support at 0.0008 does not hold, it would be a freefall back to IPO price!
It broke. Now 0.00073 at Bitfunder. 2 weeks to break the 0.0005 price might have been optimistic. Everything happens faster with Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
