I disagree completely. Havelock have reached out to Ken and said they will take care of share verification.

This would save Ken a lot of time.

You're offending shareholders that want an exchange that has enough volume to service 10,000,000 shares. CryptoTrade is a volume minow and the shares will drop to 0.000001 on CryptoTrade because there just cannot be enough buyers.

In addition to this CryptoTrade is fundamentally broken as it shows 700,000 outstanding shares when Ken has issued less than 300,000. I would prefer to not use a broken platform.

To me it sounds like you're a CryptoTrade bagholder who picked up UKYO shares on the cheap and are now very scared you'll be stuck on your own at CryptoTrade whilst the big boys move onto a real platform.

Ken has done 5 minutes work on CryptoTrade, he set up a security and issued <300,000 shares. It's not a lot of effort so far. The real meat is getting the old shareholders up and running so time investment to CryptoTrade and Havelock are roughly the same.

EDIT: If Ken still holds onto 100,000+ shares himself, it would be in his best interest to go to Havelock as he has a much better chance of getting ROI on those coin.

Ken are we on track to be adding 10,000Th/s per month by end of 2014 (December)?

Opps, my bad. I can be a complete idiot sometimes a lot.




No tax on mining coins? If this is not set to change, we really should consider setting up a division in the UK and ship some of the rigs over there.

Also some general questions for when Ken has the time:

- Assuming we sell no more boards, that would leave us with about 60Th/s worth of boards plus about another 100Th/s due soon correct? Will ActiveMining be hashing at 160Th/s at the end of April assuming no more boards are sold?

- The 5,000 boards will be ready around June/July correct? Are we able to purchase the chips now for these boards or are the chips going to be paid for with the current mining returns from the 20Th/s - 60Th/s online?

- Will you consider BarGraphics friends offer to host 5,000 boards assuming we sell zero.

- Will hardware sales be turned into bitcoin for our dividend, or would you rather use that money now for reinvestment and keep the mining return as a dividend to shareholders?

- Will you be able to pay dividends to our verified addresses assuming we are not trading?

- I am unsure about the feasibility of ColouredCoins, waiting on them is unwise. Could we instead accept Havelocks offer and get us trading on their exchange, it's possible they will be up for a few more months and hopefully when they fail these wizz bang decentralized asset classes will be mature and usable.

- Can you update us on the situation regarding our legal standing?

- Do you have any information regarding the ActiveMining and Peoples ASIC developed 28nm ASIC chip? Are we making any progress at all or is it currently "wound down" waiting for better times?

Thanks Ken.

So the question is more about the four main unions, the digital currency is an sub question I guess.

Who are these four main unions? I see no formation of any unions apart from the EU. The EU isn't really setting the best example of why we should make these unions either.

Anyway, I see a future where all countries are going to race to acquire as much bitcoin as possible and even create sidechains based on their own needs and use.

Until NAB suspends https://www.coinjar.com/ operations I am not really going to sweat this news much.

The banks are clamping down on users transferring "tens of thousands" to "hundreds of thousands" of AUD into bitcoin and back out again. They have no idea what these people are doing and it could be anything.

Legitimate business that deal with Bitcoin are still being tolerated by NAB. I have moved AUD into bitcoin after this clampdown and had no hassle.

Once the banks get rid of https://www.coinjar.com/ and make legitimate buying of bitcoin impossible then we can worry.

Even if Havelock is a stop gap, could we use them for now?

Also counterparty seems to be more refined than CC, remember the lead dev of CC wants out.

I think the point was; if it costs more in electricity to mine a bitcoin, we must not mine that bitcoin but rather buy it instead. Mining at a real loss due to the energy required cannot be done. If we had funds to drown into a hole of energy waste we would rather buy bitcoin to get a better return.

However I am not convinced that $100 - $300 bitcoins will be uneconomical to mine. If someone could make an educated guess as to our electricity costs, the efficiency of the miners and the cost of cooling a datacentre we might be able to compile a realistic price point for unprofitable mining where we are spending more fiat on energy than getting in bitcoin (hence the logic of buying that bitcoin instead)

Impressive. Are they adding hashrate constantly?

Without having to jump through hoops, can someone tell me the current hashrate of IceDrill?

Well this discussion revolves around the electricity (boards+cooling) being more expensive than just buying bitcoin with cash.

I wonder what that price point is. The hashfast chips are meant to be some of the most efficient on the market. If anyone is left mining it would be us right?

I can't imagine $200 a coin being anywhere near the cost of the power+aircon.

1) If the difficulty does decrease because many miners stop hashing then this might be good advice.

2) If the difficulty continues to increase even at $100 levels then this advice is the end of us. Because when the price goes back up the difficulty is now 10 - 100 times what is was when we stopped.

If 1 happens then looking into a type of close down scenario might work. However...

If 2 happens and we close down, we might as well never turn on again no matter the price.

My fear:

Most miners are irrational actors and will continue to mine at a loss or are continuing to mine because of cheap electricity and a location in cold climates.

EDIT:

If we really are buying GH for $1 then we are in a good position compared to most of the miners in the network. I am interested what the monthly power bill to run 100Th/s - 1,000Th/s would be including Air Con.

Also Minerpart, we can't really reduce costs to zero, we would have to pay datacentre rent or move the entire stock into cold storage and pay that rent. Storage can be expensive for us because it needs to be somewhat climate controlled as humidity can ruin electronics that are just sitting there.

+1.

Also CT is still broken displaying 700,000 issued shares.

Fair enough guys. I just got the impression a compromise was possible and if existed a way to verify our address then perhaps Ken could move us onto a new one.

At the moment we are stuck with this limbo.

On another note. Is the bitcoin price drop a good or bad thing for activemining?

And on another note the ongoing share restriction is really the black stain on this operation.

I'm not an expert in the bitcoin core code but Theymos's warning was if you used the new payment protocol in 0.9 its best to assume all keys in memory have been compromised. If so someone could now verify your bitfunder address.

Ken we need a solution immediately for shareholders that used bitcoin core payment protol because of the Open SSL bug. Some shareholders need to migrate to brand new Bitcoin addresses. For anyone affected can you allow them to verify their public address and update to a new one?

This is a current serious matter as it's possible an attacker gained access to the private keys of the user and obviously running a cross check to public asset keys would see the addresses hold value.

Is the ActiveMining ASIC development schedule still in progress? And if so is the ASIC reliant on the hashfast ASIC making enough profit?

Can we get confirmation from Ken that none of the sales are simply being sold to the datacenter?

Hey Ken hows the progress on shares and our own ASIC?

cheers.