[AMC]-The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion

[gramma]

KYC = 'Know Your Customer'. Basically, rules enforced on banks so they have to 'know' who their customers are. The idea is applying such rules will help frustrate attempts at fraud and money laundering, which often pivot on an individual assuming a false identity.

Correct. This applies to banking relationships that touch the USA, though, and not all banking relationships and not virtual marketplaces for virtual currencies operated for entertainment only, as the disclaimer on btc.tc plainly states.

Now, btct.co and BitFunder, while being virtual simulations, are likely to have insisted on some level of proof of ID from the owners of listed securities, even if not required by their local laws....

Why would they have done? Why would you think that, or try to convince others of that?  If you know for a fact they have, then get one of 'em on here to say that. Otherwise, there's no reason at all to imagine they have, and plenty of reason to believe they have not.

From btc.tc, emphasis mine: "This site is currently in beta. Nothing is verified. Everything is virtual. Do your homework. Watch out for scams. Be diligent."
Also, "Virtual goods utilized on this site are for entertainment and educational purposes only."  "Nothing is verified", which appears everywhere, does not suggest "we have their real IDs and passport pictures and notarized statements and what not."

Trust me, I consider myself educated at this point, if not so much entertained. 

...I hope BTCT.co and BitFunder has legal documents on file such as drivers license, passport, utility statement to verify issuers putting up stocks on their exchanges. If not this is a major problem for all BTC exchanges and will become a bigger problem and easier for potential scams to bring down the Bitcoin community.

This.  This, far more than my involvement and current losses, is what really matters here.  Fortunately, constructive discussions are taking place at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245713.80.

I really really hope I am wrong, but I've gone from "cool!" to "hmm" to "uh oh" to pretty much "scam" in the course of the last day, based upon what others have found, and especially based upon Ken's (lack of) response to questions asked.  Cherrypicking questions, ignoring the hard questions, promising some kind of FAQ that "should" be written Monday; these are not the actions of someone trying to address concerns and quell a restless market.

[keepinithamsta]

KYC = 'Know Your Customer'. Basically, rules enforced on banks so they have to 'know' who their customers are. The idea is applying such rules will help frustrate attempts at fraud and money laundering, which often pivot on an individual assuming a false identity.

Correct. This applies to banking relationships that touch the USA, though, and not all banking relationships and not virtual marketplaces for virtual currencies operated for entertainment only, as the disclaimer on btc.tc plainly states.

Now, btct.co and BitFunder, while being virtual simulations, are likely to have insisted on some level of proof of ID from the owners of listed securities, even if not required by their local laws....

Why would they have done? Why would you think that, or try to convince others of that?  If you know for a fact they have, then get one of 'em on here to say that. Otherwise, there's no reason at all to imagine they have, and plenty of reason to believe they have not.

From btc.tc, emphasis mine: "This site is currently in beta. Nothing is verified. Everything is virtual. Do your homework. Watch out for scams. Be diligent."
Also, "Virtual goods utilized on this site are for entertainment and educational purposes only."  "Nothing is verified", which appears everywhere, does not suggest "we have their real IDs and passport pictures and notarized statements and what not."

Trust me, I consider myself educated at this point, if not so much entertained. 

...I hope BTCT.co and BitFunder has legal documents on file such as drivers license, passport, utility statement to verify issuers putting up stocks on their exchanges. If not this is a major problem for all BTC exchanges and will become a bigger problem and easier for potential scams to bring down the Bitcoin community.

This.  This, far more than my involvement and current losses, is what really matters here.  Fortunately, constructive discussions are taking place at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245713.80.

I really really hope I am wrong, but I've gone from "cool!" to "hmm" to "uh oh" to pretty much "scam" in the course of the last day, based upon what others have found, and especially based upon Ken's (lack of) response to questions asked.  Cherrypicking questions, ignoring the hard questions, promising some kind of FAQ that "should" be written Monday; these are not the actions of someone trying to address concerns and quell a restless market.

The FAQ is just going to kill the price more because it's not going to tell us anything that's going to restore confidence.  It's going to skirt around the important questions and just add more fuel to the fire.

[lolstate]

KYC = 'Know Your Customer'. Basically, rules enforced on banks so they have to 'know' who their customers are. The idea is applying such rules will help frustrate attempts at fraud and money laundering, which often pivot on an individual assuming a false identity.

Correct. This applies to banking relationships that touch the USA, though, and not all banking relationships and not virtual marketplaces for virtual currencies operated for entertainment only, as the disclaimer on btc.tc plainly states.

Now, btct.co and BitFunder, while being virtual simulations, are likely to have insisted on some level of proof of ID from the owners of listed securities, even if not required by their local laws....

Why would they have done? Why would you think that, or try to convince others of that?  If you know for a fact they have, then get one of 'em on here to say that. Otherwise, there's no reason at all to imagine they have, and plenty of reason to believe they have not.

From btc.tc, emphasis mine: "This site is currently in beta. Nothing is verified. Everything is virtual. Do your homework. Watch out for scams. Be diligent."
Also, "Virtual goods utilized on this site are for entertainment and educational purposes only."  "Nothing is verified", which appears everywhere, does not suggest "we have their real IDs and passport pictures and notarized statements and what not."

Trust me, I consider myself educated at this point, if not so much entertained.  

...I hope BTCT.co and BitFunder has legal documents on file such as drivers license, passport, utility statement to verify issuers putting up stocks on their exchanges. If not this is a major problem for all BTC exchanges and will become a bigger problem and easier for potential scams to bring down the Bitcoin community.

This.  This, far more than my involvement and current losses, is what really matters here.  Fortunately, constructive discussions are taking place at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245713.80.

I really really hope I am wrong, but I've gone from "cool!" to "hmm" to "uh oh" to pretty much "scam" in the course of the last day, based upon what others have found, and especially based upon Ken's (lack of) response to questions asked.  Cherrypicking questions, ignoring the hard questions, promising some kind of FAQ that "should" be written Monday; these are not the actions of someone trying to address concerns and quell a restless market.

Oh Brother, this FUD is tiresome. What has the law got to do with any responsible business owner like eg Burnside? Well, one, if you are a smart businessman you obey it. Two, if you are a smart businessman you don't rely on the law to protect you, you take sensible proactive steps as required. Like when you are operating a virtual exchange in Panama, Belize or elsewhere. The law may not require it, but you satisfy yourself that you know your customer,

Still, chin up, despite days of trying and screeds of warning posts, we are no closer to Armageddon despite what the trolls said.

[SoylentCreek]

I really really hope I am wrong, but I've gone from "cool!" to "hmm" to "uh oh" to pretty much "scam" in the course of the last day, based upon what others have found, and especially based upon Ken's (lack of) response to questions asked.  Cherrypicking questions, ignoring the hard questions, promising some kind of FAQ that "should" be written Monday; these are not the actions of someone trying to address concerns and quell a restless market.

No, but they could be actions of someone carefully thinking about what the best course of action should be.  So far, the general consensus on this thread has been that Ken needs to do some serious restructuring of the company before many of us are willing to put anymore stake into the company.  Something like this does not happen over night.  This is a bit unrelated, but look at the debacle that was the XBOX One announcement.  It took Microsoft two weeks to backpedal on their fucked up DRM structure that they were planning on implementing.  Do you honestly think that it took them two weeks to make a decision to remove it?  The answer should be, no.  Still, they had to insure that they went through all the appropriate channels before making any sort of official announcements.  If Ken gets on here and proclaims he's going to do something, he knows that he will be held accountable for it down the road, which is why they are treading very carefully.  Really, what I think needs to happen is people within this thread need to fucking grow up and realize that nothing happens overnight when it comes to business.  If people are so weak handed that they cannot wait one or two business days for an official statement, then they should bow out now.

[SoylentCreek]

The FAQ is just going to kill the price more because it's not going to tell us anything that's going to restore confidence.  It's going to skirt around the important questions and just add more fuel to the fire.

Really?  Shall I ask where you acquired this information?  Oh, you just pulled it out of your ass. 

Please take the FUD elsewhere.

[Flashman]

Still, chin up, despite days of trying and screeds of warning posts, we are no closer to Armageddon despite what the trolls said.

What if the trolls claim to have translated it from ancient Mayan Stellae? THEN we'll be in trouble... oh wait that one didn't come off either.

[bigdude]

As a shareholder, I really have 2 major concerns right now.

1. Proof of agreements with eAsic, signing up racks etc - anything he has said, needs to be backed up.

2. Is Ken willing to join AMC and VMC into one?

Why is it so hard to get a response from Ken?

[lewicki]

As a shareholder, I really have 2 major concerns right now.

1. Proof of agreements with eAsic, signing up racks etc - anything he has said, needs to be backed up.

2. Is Ken willing to join AMC and VMC into one?

Why is it so hard to get a response from Ken?

Join the IRC channel in the BitFunder help section and ask him, you'll get a much quicker response.

This is what he said to me a few days ago:

[23:56] <lewicki> Why are sales seperated from the mining? Many people are asking why AMC and VMC are not merged.
[00:30] <AMC__> AMC was conceived as a mining cooperative, due to the problems with BFL, Avalon, and any other manufactures VMC was created to solve that problem.
[00:33] <AMC__> What I wanted to do was just create a manufacturer for AMC to replace BFL, Avalon or any one else, so that how it evolved.  Just to replace the other manufacturers.  
[00:35] <AMC__> Now when I was putting the description together, think how much more complex it would be, trying to figure out what the cost would be, what the sales would be, what employee expenses would be, it would be a can of worms.
[00:36] <AMC__> So, it seemed very sensible to have the two separated.

[lysr]

As a shareholder, I really have 2 major concerns right now.

1. Proof of agreements with eAsic, signing up racks etc - anything he has said, needs to be backed up.

2. Is Ken willing to join AMC and VMC into one?

Why is it so hard to get a response from Ken?

Join the IRC channel in the BitFunder help section and ask him, you'll get a much quicker response.

This is what he said to me a few days ago:

[23:56] <lewicki> Why are sales seperated from the mining? Many people are asking why AMC and VMC are not merged.
[00:30] <AMC__> AMC was conceived as a mining cooperative, due to the problems with BFL, Avalon, and any other manufactures VMC was created to solve that problem.
[00:33] <AMC__> What I wanted to do was just create a manufacturer for AMC to replace BFL, Avalon or any one else, so that how it evolved.  Just to replace the other manufacturers.  
[00:35] <AMC__> Now when I was putting the description together, think how much more complex it would be, trying to figure out what the cost would be, what the sales would be, what employee expenses would be, it would be a can of worms.
[00:36] <AMC__> So, it seemed very sensible to have the two separated.

So many excuses, greedy Ken is always greedy Ken.

[auto2nr1]

As a shareholder, I really have 2 major concerns right now.

1. Proof of agreements with eAsic, signing up racks etc - anything he has said, needs to be backed up.

2. Is Ken willing to join AMC and VMC into one?

Why is it so hard to get a response from Ken?

Join the IRC channel in the BitFunder help section and ask him, you'll get a much quicker response.

This is what he said to me a few days ago:

[23:56] <lewicki> Why are sales seperated from the mining? Many people are asking why AMC and VMC are not merged.
[00:30] <AMC__> AMC was conceived as a mining cooperative, due to the problems with BFL, Avalon, and any other manufactures VMC was created to solve that problem.
[00:33] <AMC__> What I wanted to do was just create a manufacturer for AMC to replace BFL, Avalon or any one else, so that how it evolved.  Just to replace the other manufacturers. 
[00:35] <AMC__> Now when I was putting the description together, think how much more complex it would be, trying to figure out what the cost would be, what the sales would be, what employee expenses would be, it would be a can of worms.
[00:36] <AMC__> So, it seemed very sensible to have the two separated.

Having VMC out there to provide hardware is not a problem. But not at the expense of the shareholders. AMC should not borrow money to anyone. AMC should use AMC's money to mine and manufacture hardware for AMC. How simple is that? Ken should follow in the steps of ASICMINER and do two simple things.

1. MAKE HARDWARE & MINE
2. MAKE HARDWARE & SELL

The most effective method of becoming successful in whatever it is you want to achieve, is to copy who is already successful. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. If the business plan works let's follow it or make it better. Ultimate goal is to build a successful company, make money, and make shareholders happy. Once again Ken let's keep it simple and cut out the bull shit in the agreement.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=246253.msg2610794#msg2610794

3.4BTC * 400,000 = 1360,000BTC
> 0.136 billion USD

Q: How much hashing power does Bitfountain plan to deploy within this year?
Friedcat: 800-1000T within this year.

Q: Do you have plans for the future other than mining and selling hardware?
Friedcat: ASICMINER's business is confined within mining and selling mining hardware. We might do some    
periphery work, but that won't be too distant.

Q: After the batch shipping from Avalon and BFL, how would the manufacturers in Shenzhen compete with them?
Friedcat: Our advantage to manufacture chips at the cost price is invincible.

Q: Any plans or strategies that are suitable for the public to know?
Friedcat: We will be focusing more on the area that we have the most advantage in. It depends on whether we have more advantage in chip design or the ability to deploy fast.

ASICMINER plans to deploy 800-1000T within 2013 according to Friedcat. He also states the business is confined to both mining and selling hardware. The advantage that ASICMINER has is to manufacture chips on their own to mine.

AMC needs to mine and sell hardware. AMC needs to manufacture chips on our own. The strategy here is to try to deploy hashing power fast. This is formula that works and it proves to be successful.

[auto2nr1]

As a shareholder, I really have 2 major concerns right now.

1. Proof of agreements with eAsic, signing up racks etc - anything he has said, needs to be backed up.

2. Is Ken willing to join AMC and VMC into one?

Why is it so hard to get a response from Ken?

Because he is wasting his time trying to sell machines that are non-existent at the moment. He should be addressing his shareholders with some answers. Maybe he is just ignoring us or he just does not care. This is totally unacceptable.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206488.msg2623013#msg2623013

Fast-Hash-One now available in the VMC Store for 20% off now thru July 7th:

http://virtualminingcorp.com/shop1/index.php?id_product=10&controller=product

The base unit allows for up to 6 cards and goes from 256 GH/s to 1.536 TH/s.

You can add up to 6 Expansion Cases and 96 cards for a total hashing rate of 24.576 TH/s

[bigdude]

As a shareholder, I really have 2 major concerns right now.

1. Proof of agreements with eAsic, signing up racks etc - anything he has said, needs to be backed up.

2. Is Ken willing to join AMC and VMC into one?

Why is it so hard to get a response from Ken?

Join the IRC channel in the BitFunder help section and ask him, you'll get a much quicker response.

This is what he said to me a few days ago:

Why should I have to go to an IRC channel to get information from Ken??

Right here is the "The Official Active Mining Cooperative Discussion".

Am I missing something?

[Minor Miner]

My web developer developed those site and those site are running on top of my developed "Turn Key Web Hosting Business".

Why are you picking and choosing questions to answer? If anything answer the real important ones at the top of the list starting with what you plan on doing with the AMC/VMC relationship. Also if you are going to be posting an answer to a question please make it detailed with facts/proof of your prior ventures and businesses you were or are involved in at the moment. Take some time out of the day and upload some documents and pictures/videos so we can move onto other issues on the agenda.

Ken should not engage directly on this thread. We, as share holders, should appoint a person of contact who can funnel the communication between us.

Which sock puppet do you propose?

[Minor Miner]

ASICMINER plans to deploy 800-1000T within 2013 according to Friedcat. He also states the business is confined to both mining and selling hardware. The advantage that ASICMINER has is to manufacture chips on their own to mine.

AMC needs to mine and sell hardware. AMC needs to manufacture chips on our own. The strategy here is to try to deploy hashing power fast. This is formula that works and it proves to be successful.

Just wanted to make sure I got this correct.   1,000,000 Gh/s by the end of this year?   Do you think that is possible even by friedcat?   By one company?   That would require a massive amount of electricity.  

EDIT:   I just went and read it.   I think what Friedcat said was the ENTIRE network would be 1000 TH/s by year end (seems right) and they he would hold 20% of the network (200TH/s).

[freedomno1]

ASICMINER plans to deploy 800-1000T within 2013 according to Friedcat. He also states the business is confined to both mining and selling hardware. The advantage that ASICMINER has is to manufacture chips on their own to mine.

AMC needs to mine and sell hardware. AMC needs to manufacture chips on our own. The strategy here is to try to deploy hashing power fast. This is formula that works and it proves to be successful.

Just wanted to make sure I got this correct.   1,000,000 Gh/s by the end of this year?   Do you think that is possible even by friedcat?   By one company?   That would require a massive amount of electricity.  

Without doubt Friedcat can do it but it leaves room for the competition to grow since there is really no incentive to have that many miners out if the network isn't growing as well
Q: How much hashing power does Bitfountain plan to deploy within this year?
Friedcat: 800-1000T within this year.
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ede0631876c66137ee06192f.html
Slide 50

Although the translation might be off and it might be the total network if someone wants to re-translate confirm

[John818]

Are the trolls actually reading any posts other than their own?

Ken continues to post on this forum and is not hiding away as some suggest.

Simply look at his most recent posts and you will see he contributed four times on June 29th, five times on June 30th and once already today.

[lysr]

ASICMINER plans to deploy 800-1000T within 2013 according to Friedcat. He also states the business is confined to both mining and selling hardware. The advantage that ASICMINER has is to manufacture chips on their own to mine.

AMC needs to mine and sell hardware. AMC needs to manufacture chips on our own. The strategy here is to try to deploy hashing power fast. This is formula that works and it proves to be successful.

Just wanted to make sure I got this correct.   1,000,000 Gh/s by the end of this year?   Do you think that is possible even by friedcat?   By one company?   That would require a massive amount of electricity.  

Without doubt Friedcat can do it but it leaves room for the competition to grow since there is really no incentive to have that many miners out if the network isn't growing as well
Q: How much hashing power does Bitfountain plan to deploy within this year?
Friedcat: 800-1000T within this year.
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ede0631876c66137ee06192f.html
Slide 50

Although the translation might be off and it might be the total network if someone wants to re-translate confirm

I can read Chinese and confirm the translation is correct.
There is no way AMC is going to contend with Asicminer with its pathetic projected hashrate of 11TH.

[bobboooiie]

ASICMINER plans to deploy 800-1000T within 2013 according to Friedcat. He also states the business is confined to both mining and selling hardware. The advantage that ASICMINER has is to manufacture chips on their own to mine.

AMC needs to mine and sell hardware. AMC needs to manufacture chips on our own. The strategy here is to try to deploy hashing power fast. This is formula that works and it proves to be successful.

Just wanted to make sure I got this correct.   1,000,000 Gh/s by the end of this year?   Do you think that is possible even by friedcat?   By one company?   That would require a massive amount of electricity.  

Without doubt Friedcat can do it but it leaves room for the competition to grow since there is really no incentive to have that many miners out if the network isn't growing as well
Q: How much hashing power does Bitfountain plan to deploy within this year?
Friedcat: 800-1000T within this year.
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ede0631876c66137ee06192f.html
Slide 50

Although the translation might be off and it might be the total network if someone wants to re-translate confirm

However this is probably 90%+ true its still not officially confirmed so treat it like that.

[Vbs]

AMC's 10% royalty fee is off the top (gross sales), not 10% of the profits (net income).

Very big difference there.

[lysr]

I wonder if there were really any idiots listen to Ken's "advice", sold their Asicminer shares and bought AMC?

Asicminer
price 3.2 -> 4.4
AMC
price 0.0025 -> 0.001

Asicminer
800-1000TH projected hashrate by the end of this year
AMC
11TH projected hashrate

Asicminer
100% of hardware sales goes to all shareholders
AMC
10% goes to AMC, 90% goes to VMC, Ken's pocket.

Asicminer
shares cannot by any means be diluted
AMC
shares will be diluted by 2.5 times after an year.(if AMC still survives at that time)