|
443
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: February 24, 2016, 06:12:39 PM
|
why is there no money in home miners ?. convince me you can't :)there is, it all depends how greedie you are i guess is what it comes down to.
More than 75% of the network are big farm mining pools (Antpool, F2Pool, BTCC Pool, BW.com and Bitfury). Most of the remaining ~25% is small to medium sized pools, home miners don't even tip the scales any more. The market is mostly large farms, so that's why "there's no money in home miners" any more. Antpool includes a huge amount of private miners, and even the larger miners are likely made of S7s. F2pool is consumer miners also isn't it? His point was that small mineres (S7, Avalon6) are still entirely viable even in a world where SP50s are rife. Just look at what the Bitfury OEMs are making - small miners. |
|
|
|
|
445
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: February 24, 2016, 02:36:58 PM
|
Here Dogie, let me help out. Not sure why I got this email since I have nothing invested nor have I ever been invested but thought you might like a look. Pretty interesting that it states that the Spondoolies merger is pending.  Yes, that is the statement I posted a link to. BTCS are using Spondoolies' old mailing list so everyone gets spammed from this company. The merger is not complete, BTCS only owns ~9.6% of Spondoolies and is pending a ruling by the Israeli Tax Authority for Spondoolies to defer payment, or something along those lines. I'd really like to know the rational of trying to merge with a company who doesn't actually have the money to buy you, has no business plan and racks up annual $10m losses. |
|
|
|
|
446
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: February 24, 2016, 04:55:51 AM
|
Back to real life and business, not all of us can live off promises and patting each other on the back. Lots of new filings, sounds like the investors aren't happy. The following statements constitute my OPINION and should not be taken as fact. Quotes are snipits from full filings and images require descriptive notes found in the SEC filings.1. CEO and CFO will hand back 6m shares each if they don't complete the merger with Spondoolies by the end of 2016 [full terms]. 2. CEO and CFO will hand back 6m shares each if they don't list on Nasdaq or NYSE etc by the end of 2016 [full terms]. 3. Share price nearing 52 week low, trying to play the 'we're blockchain, honest' card [statement]. 4. Annual report - 93 pages, snipits below - [full text].
They applied to trademark "BitcoinShop". On January 2, 2014, we applied for a trademark of “BitcoinShop” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the application is still in process.
They need to raise money to buy more off Spondoolies. We believe the time is ideal to expand our transaction verification services business and have secured an 83,000 square foot facility to provided room to grow. However this is a capital intense endeavor and our ability to scale this business will depend our access to capital on acceptable terms if at all. 2 employees (CEO and CFO/COO?) yet $15M market cap. We currently have 2 full-time employees and 4 independent contractors working at our facility in North Carolina. No profits and burning $66k of cash a month We have a limited operating history. Therefore, there is limited historical financial information upon which to base an evaluation of our performance. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses, and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We have generated net losses of $14,757,016 and $10,047,035 for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015, respectively. We anticipate that we will incur operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our historical cash burn rate for the year ended ending December 31, 2015 was on average approximately $66,300 per month, which included costs associated with the build out of our North Carolina facility. As a result, we expect that the cash we currently have on hand will fund our operations through July 2016, which excludes any additional build out expenditures of our North Carolina facility and may change based on the price of bitcoin, the bitcoin network difficulty, and other factors. As of December 31, 2015, we had a cash position equal to $124,535. We may require additional funds for our anticipated operations and further expansion and if we are not successful in securing additional financing, we may be required to delay significantly, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our business activities, downsize our general and administrative infrastructure, or seek alternative measures to avoid insolvency. The latest funding round has screwed their ability to raise more funding Restrictive covenants in our senior notes may restrict our ability to pursue certain financing.
Our 5% Original Issue Discount Senior Secured Convertible Notes (the “Notes”) contain a number of restrictive covenants that impose operating and financial restrictions on us and may limit our ability to obtain financing. Our Notes include covenants restricting, among other things, our ability to:
● incur or guarantee certain additional debt;
● issue common stock and common stock equivalents;
● pay dividends or make distributions on our capital stock or redeem, repurchase or retire our capital stock or subordinated debt;
● create liens on our or our subsidiary guarantors’ assets to secure debt; and
● enter into transactions with affiliates.
Further, following an event of default under our Notes, the lenders under these facilities will have the right to accelerate the repayment of the Notes and proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure the Notes. If the Notes were to be accelerated, our assets may not be sufficient to repay in full that debt or any other debt that may become due as a result of that acceleration. No legal proceedings, careful wording used. Notice no mention of their 'partner companies' in this statement. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
We know of no material, active or pending legal proceedings against us. There are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered beneficial shareholder are an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to us. $10,000,000 loss in 2015. Mined just $500k of which nearly $300k was power. Received just $6,300 from their e-commerce. But 1,225% revenue growth!!!!  Broke as hell, paying lawyers more than their entire revenue. We incurred approximately a $10 million net loss for the year ended December 31, 2015. We had cash of approximately $125,000 and a working capital deficiency of approximately $5.9 million at December 31, 2015. We expect to incur losses into the foreseeable future as it undertakes its efforts to execute its business plans.
We will require significant additional capital to sustain short-term operations and make the investments needed to execute our longer term business plan. Our existing liquidity is not sufficient to fund operations and anticipated capital expenditures for the foreseeable future. If we attempt to obtain additional debt or equity financing, it cannot provide assurance that such financing will be available to us on favorable terms, if at all.
Because of recurring operating losses, net operating cash flow deficits, and an accumulated deficit, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern. We have not made adjustments to the accompanying consolidated financial statements to reflect the potential effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or liabilities should we be unable to continue as a going concern.
We continue to incur ongoing administrative and other expenses, including public company expenses (primarily accounting fees to our auditor Marcum LLP and fees to our legal counsel Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP), in excess of corresponding (non-financing related) revenue. As of December 31, 2015, we have accumulated deficit of $24,786,927 since inception. As we do not have sufficient funds for our planned or new operations, we will need to raise additional funds for operations. .... The continuation of our business is dependent upon us raising additional financial support. Meanwhile, the CEO and COO are still paying themselves nicely. CEO is on $72k salary, $53k bonus, $25k stock award and $3.6M in option awards. COO racks up $2.9M in total.  Just $500k revenue yet managing to spend nearly $160k on audit fees.  Balance sheet. Just $124k of cash, $3M of assets (of which 2.225 are 'investments', likely in the useless subsidiaries) but $6M current liabilities.  They write off their miners over two years, which temporarily inflates their balance sheet as they receive the coins and a large portion of the original purchase price. Legal but could be considered misleading. The Company operates in an emerging industry for which limited data is available to make estimates of the useful economic lives of specialized equipment. Management has determined that a two year diminishing value best reflects the current expected useful life of transaction verification servers. We can see here that they value their miners at $450k (as of EY15) while having 950KW of hardware. In SP35s that equates to 260 miners at best, and 1.4PH assuming 0 failures. That means they were valuing their SP35s at $0.32/GH ($1770) at the end of the year at the very least. Yikes. Cashflow  |
|
|
|
|
448
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Butterflylabs Huge SCAM
|
on: February 21, 2016, 05:42:28 AM
|
So.... - the FTC came in and stopped the company trading
- The FTC then appointed a receiver who charged 7 figure sums a month, while not allowing shipments to customers
- The FTC failed to prove what they wanted to.
- The FTC bankrupts BFL.
- The FTC 'wins' by getting them to pay $4000......
- BFL loses its company in the process
- Any and all customers are left with $0 or hardware
*slow clap* most accurate summary i hve seen so far. *edited quote* Yes. People thought the FTC would step in and save the day. Instead they showed why the people should have known the government is a useless leech and stole what remaining money the customers might have gotten back. FTFY The FTC didn't even make a recovery, it was the local receiver and his contractors (whom he paid ridiculous amounts to) that recovered the only money. Meanwhile the taxpayer footed the bill for the FTC, its contractors, its multiple lawyers, the court, the judge, the prematurely lost jobs, the loss of tax revenue. All BFL customers lost, including those that were receiving cloud mining, already made hardware, soon to be made hardware and those in the refund queue. Even those customers who filed a class action via Wood Law got screwed by the FTC. I'm pretty surprised that Helen W(r)ong wasn't fired for bringing this case in a situation where the people she was claiming to protect had zero chance of benefiting from her actions. She's now spinning herself as a bitcoin aficionado and doing TED talks, its rather sick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6PAazB5_f4 |
|
|
|
|
449
|
Other / Meta / Re: Boards that don't contribute to activity
|
on: February 21, 2016, 05:26:49 AM
|
I would suggest finding some boards that should not count towards activity, as I would theorize that the worse of signature spammers both farm accounts (eg collecting potential activity by collecting activity posts by making a single post every two weeks), and spam the forum with paid signatures.
Another potential solution would be to make it so you need more then a single post made in a two week period in order to collect the (potential) activity points. It could either be setup so that you need to make at least 4 (or some other number equal to or less then 14) posts in order to collect the 14 activity posts, or so that you both need to make at least 2 (or some other number equal to or less then 14) posts and be online at least 2 hours (or some other amount of time) during that activity period in order to collect the activity points. Yes time online can easily be faked, however it is at least a small hurdle for people who are spamming the forum in order to collect potential activity points.
We should also set a limit of posts counted towards the activity. For example, people can post as many constructive post as they want, but only 6 posts a day can be counted towards the activity. The only people who would be impacted would be the activity farmers when they are trying to catch up with their potential activity. It will take them longer, but they will still catch up, nevertheless. Yeah, that is a bit of an arbitrary change. I still think the best solution is increasing the activity per day cap such that its out of reach of activity farmers because the 'requirements' for being active are so much higher.. |
|
|
|
|
451
|
Other / Meta / Re: Boards that don't contribute to activity
|
on: February 20, 2016, 12:36:18 AM
|
Can you write a program to identify all those posts and exclude them in the post or the activity count?
If could do that I wouldn't be moderating, I would be working on the next google. That sounds like something I could write the logic for, but in.... English. Maybe the guy who wrote the account value estimator could write something which pings an admin if an account checked with his service meets to many low post quality criteria https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142314.0. |
|
|
|
|
452
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Butterflylabs Huge SCAM
|
on: February 19, 2016, 02:52:12 PM
|
So.... - the FTC came in and stopped the company trading
- The FTC then appointed a receiver who charged 7 figure sums a month, while not allowing shipments to customers
- The FTC failed to prove what they wanted to.
- The FTC bankrupts BFL.
- The FTC 'wins' by getting them to pay $4000......
- BFL loses its company in the process
- Any and all customers are left with $0 or hardware
*slow clap* |
|
|
|
|
453
|
Economy / Goods / Re: Scammed? Want to get that scammer back with retaliation?
|
on: February 19, 2016, 02:41:22 PM
|
The second anyone does this both they and the service provider are breaking the law. "shitsenders" barely survives even with its combination of anonymous packaging and this disclaimer: Legal Information
By ordering one of our products, you agree to the following:
You may NOT use our service to threaten, constitute harassment, violate a legal restraint, or any other unlawful purpose. The customer agrees this is a gag gift, novelty service for entertainment ONLY and that is their only intension. shitSenders.com liability to the customer is limited to the price of the product. Customers ordering any items from this web site agree to release shitSenders.com its agents, officers, and employees of any and all liability associated with the use of our services.
You're advertising your services specifically to harass. |
|
|
|
|
454
|
Other / Meta / Re: Boards that don't contribute to activity
|
on: February 19, 2016, 02:36:35 PM
|
Also i think post count should be given more weight over date of membership. I see legends with hardly any posts. I can't how they are contributing more to the board than those that are active and posting daily.
I agree with this, increase the maximum potential activity per period (maybe 2-4x), and increase the member level requirements the same 2-4x. That would be a big mess I think, because then all the Legendary members will no longer one, because their activity's value would have been decreased. However, if you multiply the actual aticivty, then everything is okay. That's what I said isn't it? I think asking the campaign managers which they think would be good to remove is would be a good start, as they'll know which boards they have to look out for. |
|
|
|
|
455
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Community Miner Design Discussion
|
on: February 19, 2016, 03:17:48 AM
|
I am not familiar with the WASP project but I can assume it didn't go well.
Everyone lost out of WASP, everyone. Other important design issues I will leave to SideHack et al. Imagine if you could underclock and undervolt S7's, Avalon6 etc. By adding things that the big wigs leave off increases the life span and value to the miner.
You can underlock S7s and Avalon6s, but why exactly would you want to undervolt them? Increasing life of hardware which is quickly becoming obsolete doesn't make much sense, especially when they may last 3-5 years anyway. |
|
|
|
|
456
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: February 19, 2016, 03:14:46 AM
|
Based off of BTCS own numbers, it costs them $125,870 per month to run their 1.8Ph/s.
At current difficulty (144,116,447,847) and price ($419/BTC), they make ~44 BTC per week, or ~$18.5k per week. So they are completely in the RED on operations or have shut down, aka, no revenue.
They've also stated that these operational numbers were gross, so they probably do not take into account personnel and other ancillary costs.
I love that this company is public we get to see inside which most we don't. With others keeping private we will likely never see info like we do with SP. It is interesting to say the least. I don't see how they are going for different market then Bitfury though from Dogies pic. I think SP and Bitfury will be fighting for the same big operations. And bitfury threw a heck of a punch with demos of chip already, and beating SP50 specs. I think SP has a hard time coming up. Biggest chance i see is if they can beat bitfury on price. And we have no idea what that price is right now. I'm still wondering if they are making SP50 or call it a sunk cost. Seems hard to justify when you know your chip is already beat. How it's been same rendering for so long I think sunk cost is more and more likely. Sidehack has said he would not like to work with SP's chips,too complicated,sooo not worth the effort & time  That was in relation to the previous generation's fat chips. SP50s are estimated to be ~20W compared to the SP35s of ~110W. |
|
|
|
|
457
|
Other / Meta / Re: Boards that don't contribute to activity
|
on: February 19, 2016, 03:11:10 AM
|
Also i think post count should be given more weight over date of membership. I see legends with hardly any posts. I can't how they are contributing more to the board than those that are active and posting daily.
I agree with this, increase the maximum potential activity per period (maybe 2-4x), and increase the member level requirements the same 2-4x. |
|
|
|
|
458
|
Other / Meta / Re: My account SebastianJu banned for 14 days now?
|
on: February 18, 2016, 06:54:16 PM
|
This is what happens when you start asking too many questions about the staff. Suddenly all these unwritten rules you never knew existed are enforced. Funny how this seems to happen over and over and over and everyone is either in line to brown nose or pretends it never happened.
What you wrote is just pure nonsense. It was well known that you should not be double or triple post. Additionally he was warned(!) several times by both staff and non staff members. Read the thread next time before you appeal to emotion. I do believe there are situations where double and tripple posting is suitable, for example - Multiple discussion threads where one of the replies is exceptionally large
- Multiple, multiple discussion threadswhere a single post would end up replying to 9 people
- Fewer discussion threads but with brand new members (who are most likely to quote the entire reply)
The aim with the above is to prevent a thread becoming entirely useless as everyone's reply is quoting everyone elses discusses, making each post 50 lines high. |
|
|
|
|
459
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: February 18, 2016, 06:57:27 AM
|
Recent SEC filing here. Some slides: 1. Want to target bigger customers than Bitmain but smaller than Bitfury?  2. Comparing competitors  And some great quotes from this filing. Interesting that they consider the core developers a potential thread to their business, meanwhile the CEO of one of their 'partner companies' is advocating for a non-ASIC PoW change... Our auditors have issued a “going concern” audit opinion.
Our independent auditors have indicated in their report on our December 31, 2014 financial statements that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. A “going concern” opinion indicates that the financial statements have been prepared assuming we will continue as a going concern and do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets, or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result if we do not continue as a going concern. Therefore, you should not rely on our consolidated balance sheet as an indication of the amount of proceeds that would be available to satisfy claims of creditors, and potentially be available for distribution to stockholders, in the event of liquidation.
...
Our common stock is deemed a “penny stock,” which would make it more difficult for our investors to sell their shares.
Our common stock is subject to the “penny stock” rules adopted under Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act. The penny stock rules generally apply to companies whose common stock is not listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market or other national securities exchange and trades at less than $4.00 per share, other than companies that have had average revenue of at least $6,000,000 for the last three years or that have tangible net worth of at least $5,000,000 ($2,000,000 if the company has been operating for three or more years). These rules require, among other things, that brokers who trade penny stock to persons other than “established customers” complete certain documentation, make suitability inquiries of investors and provide investors with certain information concerning trading in the security, including a risk disclosure document and quote information under certain circumstances. Many brokers have decided not to trade penny stocks because of the requirements of the penny stock rules and, as a result, the number of broker-dealers willing to act as market makers in such securities is limited. If we remain subject to the penny stock rules for any significant period, it could have an adverse effect on the market, if any, for our securities. If our securities are subject to the penny stock rules, investors will find it more difficult to dispose of our securities.
...
Use of social media may adversely impact our reputation.
There has been a marked increase in use of social media platforms and similar devices, including weblogs (blogs), social media websites, and other forms of Internet-based communications which allow individual access to a broad audience of consumers and other interested persons. Consumers value readily available information concerning retailers, manufacturers, and their goods and services and often act on such information without further investigation, authentication and without regard to its accuracy. The availability of information on social media platforms and devices is virtually immediate as is its impact. Social media platforms and devices immediately publish the content their subscribers and participants post, often without filters or checks on accuracy of the content posted. The opportunity for dissemination of information, including inaccurate information, is virtually limitless. Information concerning or affecting us may be posted on such platforms and devices at any time. Information posted may be inaccurate and adverse to us, and it may harm our business. The harm may be immediate without affording us an opportunity for redress or correction. Such platforms also could be used for the dissemination of trade secret information or compromise of other valuable company assets, any of which could harm our business.
...
The Core Developers or other programmers could propose amendments to the Bitcoin Network’s protocols and software that, if accepted and authorized by the Bitcoin Network’s community, could adversely affect an investment in us.
The Bitcoin Network is based on a math-based protocol that governs the peer-to-peer interactions between computers connected to the Bitcoin Network. The code that sets forth the protocol is informally managed by a development team known as the Core Developers that was initially appointed informally by the Bitcoin Network’s purported creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. The members of the Core Developers evolve over time, largely based on self-determined participation in the resource section dedicated to bitcoin on Github.com. The Core Developers can propose amendments to the Bitcoin Network’s source code through one or more software upgrades that alter the protocols and software that govern the Bitcoin Network and the properties of bitcoins, including the irreversibility of transactions and limitations on the mining of new bitcoins. Proposals for upgrades and discussions relating thereto take place on online forums including GitHub.com and Bitcointalk.org. To the extent that a significant majority of the users and miners on the Bitcoin Network install such software upgrade(s), the Bitcoin Network would be subject to new protocols and software that may adversely affect an investment in us. If less than a significant majority of the users and miners on the Bitcoin Network install such software upgrade(s), the Bitcoin Network could “fork.”
The open-source structure of the Bitcoin Network protocol means that the Core Developers and other contributors to the protocol are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing the protocol. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol could damage the Bitcoin Network and an investment in us.
The Bitcoin Network operates based on an open-source protocol maintained by the Core Developers and other contributors, largely on the GitHub resource section dedicated to bitcoin development. As the Bitcoin Network protocol is not sold and its use does not generate revenues for its development team, the Core Developers are generally not compensated for maintaining and updating the Bitcoin Network protocol. To the extent that material issues arise with the Bitcoin Network protocol, and the Core Developers and open-source contributor community are unable to address the issues adequately or in a timely manner, the Bitcoin Network and an investment in us may be adversely affected.
...
Our Partner Companies may be subject to legal liability.
Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.
...
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2014 were $14,933,441 as compared to $12,203 for the period from July 28, 2013 (inception) through December 31, 2013, an increase of $14,921,238. The increase is primarily due to the grant of non-cash stock based compensation. General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2014 primarily consisted of compensation and benefits of $239,248, accounting and legal fees of $361,428, impairment loss on website development of $144,796, impairment loss on investment of $400,004 and stock based compensation of $13,126,445 related to the grant of 6,201,472 stock options to management on February 5, 2014 and 12,450,000 stock options on November 7, 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
