Keep dreaming Jimmy. Bitfury already manages 0.62J/GH at the wall on 55nm with their very first design. And it can do 0.5J/GH when underclocked. There never was a failed 40, 28 let alone 20nm BF design.

You're absolutely bonkers trying to spin this as somehow being a positive for AM.  Its right up there with the dude saying having 3x worse power efficiency is a good thing because it allows you to serve different markets.

A few hints for you: BF has no incentive to maintain less than 51% of the network. Aside from selling actual hardware they also resell and host a significant portion of their hashrate to partners like cryptx and DigitalBTC. No one cares if >51% of the network runs on hardware produced by the same vendor. 

Moreover, BF doesnt have to fill its DC's to capacity. They will add hashrate for as long it makes financial sense, regardless of their % of the network. If it no longer makes financial sense for BF to add more, despite having access to hardware at cost, access to extremely cheap hosting and electricity (check out their datacenter design and electricity prices in georgia republic) and despite probably having (by far) the most power efficient hardware, then who do you think will buy or deploy AM gear?

Of course, bitfury still has to make good on its promises, it may fail to deliver, or you may hope on it being a bluff, but based on their trackrecord, I wouldnt bet a satoshi on that.

I'll have some of what you are smoking..

Thats simply untrue in the zero sum game that the mining market is. If anything, you *want* to let your competitors know, possibly even exaggerate what your plans are.

Make everyone believe you will have x exahash online online in y months with 0.1W/GH would go a long way to kill your competition stone dead, both by stopping them from getting (pre)oders and making them and their investors think twice about their own planned capacity. Why do you think bitfury is making public what they are aiming for and the capacity they are planning to put online? Id quiver in my boots if I ran a large scale mining op. Or for that matter, held AM shares. 100MW and 0.2J/GH in a few months. 0.1J/GH next year. Fuck me, if BFL had said that Id shrug it off, but when bitfury says that, especially after securing the funding,  it aint a joke.


I guess its not "good info" that you are thinking off.

Sounds like you are proud you profited from this scam and from the fact you might get away from it. No different than the people who ran it. Lets hope they can trace your IP.

And if you bothered to check the list you would have seen that while the gross majority is from the US, the receivership are suing net winners all over the world. And that certainly does matter if you have any plans to ever travel there.

Now Zeek was run from the US, and its the SEC that stepped in and a US receiver filing in US court etc. I dont think its clear yet where BT was run from, but legislation about ponzi's isnt that different in most civilized counties.

Whats the matter dyask, afraid they will come after your ponzi profits?

If you have any, you probably should be. Some reading for you:

On March 3, 2014, I announced the filing of a lawsuit to obtain the return of the money paid out to net winners in the ZeekRewards scheme in excess of the amount they paid into RVG. In that lawsuit, Kenneth D. Bell v. Todd Disner, et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-91, I made claims against more than 10 of ZeekRewards' largest "net winners" in the United States asking that the Court order them to repay the net winnings they received from the scheme. I also made class action claims against approximately 9,400 ZeekRewards net winners in the United States who each won more than $1,000.

http://www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com/

Dont be an idiot. No one who bought a lottery ticket was promised profits.

As for clawbacks never gonna happen, I wouldnt bet on it. As an example:
http://www.ponziclawbacks.com/2014/03/06/zeek-rewards-ponzi-scheme-clawback/

I certainly hope it gets to that. Many of the investors in this knew it was a ponzi, but gambled they could get out in time. If it becomes clear to them that even if they manage to get out in time, their profits can still be confiscated, these ponzi's wouldnt get very far anymore.

Almost a year later, it still isnt fixed. Nor is the search function that has been useless since 2011.
Think Id better donate some more coins to this forum, clearly 8370 BTC isnt enough.

If you want to prove the scam, just ask who the reputable company was that was doing the audit. In the fantasy world where this company actually exists, surely they would have something to say on this.

Glad to see that makes you happy. How many of those before you break even on your investment ?
BTW, thats about the first time in recent history you get close to what you mathematically should expect. Close but still no cigar. With >$400/BTC, on average you should expect >560 satoshi. You're averaging half that recently. But hey, as long as you're happy!

Each share = 1GH/s. 1GH mines 1437 satoshi's on average at todays difficulty and basically the same the previous period;
fees are $0.105 per GH per month, or  921 satoshi per day (@ $380/BTC). So on average you'd expect  ~500 satoshi divs.
You're getting about half that on average. And if its "bad luck", its been going on for a looong time.

Those reduced fees make all the difference in the world:

Funny that no one here seems to mind the math doesnt add up. At all. Pitiful as divs are supposed to be, cryptx isnt even paying nearly as "much" as that.

It seems like it was moderately successful (though it remains to be seen how much they looted, I dont believe it came anywhere near Obsi's or Pirateat40's loot), that doesnt make it "clever". Just about every scam ever posted on this forum was successful. I mean even things like "Dank's Bank"

How is it smart? I never seen a more obvious ponzi, and Ive been around the block(chain), ive seen lots and lots of them.  None where so blatantly using all the tricks in the book. I mean.. all the social networking reach out ? using referral links? Really?  What legitimate insanely profitable venture would be so desperate for more funds that they set up an elaborate referral scheme? The only thing they didnt do  (or maybe they did) was cold calling from a Bangladesh call center. The "smart" ponzi's actually made you feel special that you could even invest in them. They pretended it was a rare privilege.

You didnt "invest" in this scam to transfer money, you did so expecting a fat profit. The same reason may lead you to buy and hold bitcoins (in cold storage). Mine so far have gone up ~10000% in just a few years; while that may not happen again, Im still confident it will go up further and  I dont get why people think that potential is not enough and waste their precious coins on scams hoping to do better.

Wait so people who invested fiat money in this scam will get their money back you think?
Ha!

Its a scam, it doesnt matter if you gave them dollars, gold or bitcoin. If you are dumb enough not to see something ran by an anonymous group who claim to make > 3000% YoY with your money is a scam or ponzi, you only have yourself to blame. Try sending dollars to the next Nigerian Prince who emails you and see how that works out.

(b) Prosecution of persons who aid and abet violations
For purposes of any action brought by the Commission under subparagraph (b) or (d) of section 77t of this title, any person that knowingly or recklessly provides substantial assistance to another person in violation of a provision of this subchapter, or of any rule or regulation issued under this subchapter, shall be deemed to be in violation of such provision to the same extent as the person to whom such assistance is provided.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/77o

So yes, he must likely is liable under SEC regulation. Just saying "I didnt know" isnt good enough  if the behavior is deemed "reckless". If you are promoting an unregistered security offered by anonymous people promising returns only a ponzi scheme can, Im pretty sure that would qualify as reckless.

Reread the above, and see where it says "investors".
Selling mining equipment to end users t is just another way to offload risk to suckers who generally want to pay more than its worth.

Isnt that the essence of AM's business model (and that of every other asic vendor) ?