I need a link to the old wallet download url. Any help?

I also deleted (in my litecoindark.info) file, the "P2PPORT=" line too just to make sure I wasn't mining
on the P2P network with other miners mining to the wrong wallet. I don't know if that was a good idea
or not, any ideas?

TBF, if BEST-POOL doesn't lock their wallet peers to the "/Satoshi:1.2.0.1/" peers only, they will be on the wrong
fork due to >50% of the miners/pools using the wrong wallet. Can you make sure they lock their wallet peers so that
we know for sure they are on the right fork?

If anyone else knows for sure any known good peer addresses, please feel free to share. I hate to put all the burden on
24.199.222.230.

Thanks in advance!

Just to clarify, the known good peer is below, correct?

[
{
"addr" : "24.199.222.230:11040",
"services" : "00000003",
"lastsend" : 1412186747,
"lastrecv" : 1412186747,
"bytessent" : 1209,
"bytesrecv" : 8607,
"blocksrequested" : 0,
"conntime" : 1412186747,
"version" : 70002,
"subver" : "/Satoshi:1.2.0.1/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 36999,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
}
]

If so, I have changed my litecoindark.info file to remove the
"addnode" addresses to something like:

listen=1
server=1
daemon=1
rpcuser=[yourusername]
rpcpassword=[yourpassword]
rpcport=21040
connect=24.199.222.230:11040

This connects my wallet to only the 24.199.222.230 node.

Please confirm two things:

1. Is this node the valid seed node?
2. Are you absolutely sure that BEST-POOL.COM's wallet is on this fork at block 36999? I am throwing some serious mining power
    at BEST-POOL.COM and I want to make sure I am not wasting my hash power.

29 NEC for sale. PM me. Can't find an open exchange trading these.

Would you submit LRM financials to a third party audit paid for by contract holders?

LRM,

This contract appears only to address the 100MH/s contracts being issued from here forward.

Please tell us how you intend to migrate existing contracts into this contract version. This is a
very clear change in your companies' growth and dividend philosophy. There must be some sort
of grand plan in place to migrate existing contracts to keep your investors as whole as possible
given their initial investments.

Please explain.

Thanks,

Rustyh17

Lab_Rat, thank you for the feedback regarding your talks with legal counsel. Do you have any idea of the time frame
for completion of your IPO revision proposal?

When this change was announced on 08/MAR/14, things got really uncertain, really quickly. It is now exactly 20 days
later and a lot of FUD has destroyed bond valuation and confidence in LRM as an unregulated security.

countduckula's points of interest are completely valid from an investor perspective. People do not normally jump immediately
to consider the worst, but this is not a market with regulation or oversight. What that does is force investors to continuously
conduct their own due diligence and perform a running risk assessment of this asset. We are attempting to regulate this
asset ourselves. The real problem is: ZERO INFORMATION = UNLIMITED RISK!

Solve the ZERO INFORMATION problem and you'll go a long way toward pulling this security back from brinkmanship.

My base question is, "Are you going to provide a solution that honors the original IPO agreement and acts in good faith to
maximize investor return on investment?"

That's really all I need to know. I'm not sure how or why answering that basic question (in no uncertain terms directly from
your fingertips) increases your legal liability on this asset. Can you answer that question or are you truly directed by legal
to say nothing?

Yes, I'm in the US.

I'm not advocating some sort of specific timeline for LRM response. I am only trying to get a majority
interest together in advance to be prepared in case it is needed.

There are more interested parties now and I am more confident on establishing a majority. Please
continue to PM me regardless of your holding amount. Every bit helps!

I have received a significant number of bondholders who are interested. If you would like to
join this group, please PM me and I'll add you to our contact list. This list will remain undisclosed
until such time as we have determined whether a collective effort is even necessary. Thanks for
your help!

I have received some PMs from interested parties. I still see wisdom in acting collectively regarding
any formal legal responses from LRM. I would appreciate a PM from you either way (collective or
individual approach), so I can get a head count. If we don't build a majority group, our response
will have little impact.

By the way, I'm not the type that does much of anything "collectively". I'm mostly doing this to try
and maximize our voice and minimize the cost associated with this process. I am also not doing
this to establish some sort of leadership position in this group. I would just as soon let someone
who has a little less skin in the game be our chief advocate. If your decision to act collectively or
individually is still on hold until you hear what LRM legal comes up with, that is fine too. I will submit
that getting a team put together ahead of time is more proactive than reactive. In my experience,
when I have behaved proactively in my past situations, it has always served me better than
when I behaved reactively.

So, bondholders, please PM me one way or the other at your earliest convenience.

Thanks,

Rustyh17

I would submit that proceeding collectively could maximize our voice and minimize the individual
expense of legal representation (if that is necessary).

I believe it is time to start building a bondholder quorum so that when we receive a formal response
from LRM regarding a contract change, we are ready to proceed with a formal response based on
real consensus.

TaT, it only took me from APR/2012 to present to learn to start asking the right questions. The WoT
appears to be subject to scammer infiltration as well, though infinitely better than blind trust.

Would there be any way of "seasoning" a decentralized security in similar fashion to a promissory
note? This would assist in providing a discount rate for said security.

I guess what I'm really asking is, "Is there a way to specifically establish a level of trust for a given
issuer in a decentralized, quantifiable way?" How about a system similar to a consumer credit rating
or a DNB rating for a business? Does WoT really address this completely?

I'm looking at 5 years in the future when new products and services are flying into the crypto space.
I want a way to make good calculated risks with investments through a decentralized method that
attempts to quantify trust ratings as much as is realistically possible. I want to eliminate as much
subjectivity in trust ratings as possible.

Maybe WoT is already the right vehicle...maybe it could be improved upon.

Reading MPEx's response to SEC inquiries about SD has got me thinking more about decentralized securities platforms.
Even if all the crypto securities exchanges are eventually shut down or brought into compliance, how will a decentralized
platform for securities issuance and trading give us more liberty to invest what we want, when we want, and with whom
we choose? Won't the SEC just track down and shutdown the issuers themselves?

I mean, before I would want to invest in a crypto security, I'd want to know the details of the offering! This would include
most certainly the identification of the issuing companies' lead personnel. If that is a basic tenet of securities investment,
then how will a decentralized platform help the situation? Won't the governing authorities just go after the security
issuers directly?

I'm just not seeing how a grand decentralization plan for securities is going to make a real difference in my freedom to
invest in crypto securities. Any insights from the professionals around here? Thanks in advance!

I read every post you've put on BCT. You've been around awhile. You aren't just posting
about casinos. You got burned by BFL (like the rest of us). You look like a real contributor
to the community.

00null, your motive for talking on about playtin is not understood. Do you care to be more
transparent as to why you keep saying, "Come on in, the water's fine"?

Where are all the other folk saying, "Come on in, the water's fine"?

Why did playtin stop activity on the bct forum? Do you know who runs this casino? Can you
show (within this forum space) how the casino is provably fair? (I'd love to see a txid from
one of your recent bets).

Anyway, a 100BTC is a lot of coin to risk on a low volume, low purse casino. It will likely
take much more than you reporting 0.3%/day return on investment. If you want to grow
the success of this casino, please explain how they intend to grow their business model.

Ultimately, I am asking for some "investment worthy" information.

The Z amount would, of course,  be less the agreed percentage that LRM would have kept
per the terms of the original contract.

As long as LRM issues the correct multiple of 100MH/s contracts for the 58,792 original variable rate
contracts based on the total purchased hash rate to date, I see no problem with him. He would be
acting in good faith.

We all took one main risk when purchasing these contracts. We all fundamentally believed that LRM
could mine more BTC than it cost for us to purchase the mining hardware. This belief was dynamic
and transient in nature. That is, there was a time value associated with each piece of hardware LRM
purchased. If LRM could purchase in bulk or get preferential delivery or get lucky with BTC pricing at
the moment, it could provide more BTC returned per BTC invested. That was the key to this whole
agreement.

The facts are that LRM (and just about every other mining company on earth), got steam rolled by
hardware manufacturers. This occurred because of late deliveries and prices that were too high per
gh/s. As unfortunate as that is, LRM cannot be blamed for that.

All we can really do is make sure that LRM took in X amount of BTC, converted it to Y amount of $,
and purchased Z amount of hash rate. We are entitled to Z amount of hash rate divided up 58,792
ways. That is it. If that "conversion engine" does not yield > 100% BTC out for each BTC in, then we
are S.O.L. If LRM does not give us X-->Y-->Z conversion fairly, then LRM needs to be held accountable
for that.

Please enlighten me if you feel this is overly simplistic.

Grnbrg,

Would it be possible for you to put together a weekly summary including, but not limited to:

• A list of known hardware items that are on the horizon for LRM and projected timing,
• A list of special projects that might affect hash rate and their projected timing,
• A tally of total BTC/share paid back in dividends, and
• Total ongoing bond count?

Perhaps then Zach can just plug in or give you answers/updates to this type of weekly report
without it taking more than a few minutes.

Verifies to:

1MWPSLU5QW5YnwztWxGgspzTMPxiAv8k3A


Edit: Found "The List." Sparky is a serious holder.