-

[Endlessa]

Also:
Current hashrate is 23-24 TH.
75% of it is 17.62 TH.

So as i understand, LabRat now will take whole 25% to himself(minus electricity)? No reinvestment part anymore?

Also, already asked:
What is real name of LabRat?

 Zach Dailey
source: http://www.coindesk.com/coinseed-5m-investment-bitfury-mining/

[1714493520]

1714493520

[1714493520]

1714493520

[1714493520]

1714493520

[grnbrg]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

He also indicated he is having a detailed report on the issue produced and that "I'm doing what's necessary and I believe that the end result will be something everyone can live with."

While it might be nice to have all the information on everything related to LRM the instant it is available, that's just not how business works.  I expect we'll have something concrete within a week or two.


grnbrg.

[grnbrg]

I have lost 150+ bitcoins, so I don't mind to cost a little money to put you in prison.
grnbrg, I hope you can clarify the Real identity of lab_rat, and don't stand with lab_rat who are just a big fraud. Or you will also be put in the blacklist of bitcoin world.

I have a not-insignificant number of coins invested as well, and am as concerned about them as any.

My read of Lab_Rat is that he is struggling to find a solution that everyone will find acceptable.  He's been placed in a very difficult position, and is looking for a legal way out.

And I'm not worried about my reputation -- I know I have dealt with everyone I have had contact with fairly, calmly and transparently.


grnbrg.

[Endlessa]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

He also indicated he is having a detailed report on the issue produced and that "I'm doing what's necessary and I believe that the end result will be something everyone can live with."

While it might be nice to have all the information on everything related to LRM the instant it is available, that's just not how business works.  I expect we'll have something concrete within a week or two.


grnbrg.

I have no problem with that.  What I have a problem with is not even getting a general statement of what's going on.  Instead of getting something that sounds like "I'm doing this, for some reasons. TTYL.  something else is going to be happening later.  must talk with lawyers".  Not even Gox was that vague and they have issues well beyond this.  the "more information later" part causes concerns, since the last time that was said (concerning the coinseed hash deal), the questions went unanswered for a huge amount of time, ended with us not even getting a dividend update from LR for about two weeks, and a small paragraph dropping this shit sandwich.

[Endlessa]

I have lost 150+ bitcoins, so I don't mind to cost a little money to put you in prison.
grnbrg, I hope you can clarify the Real identity of lab_rat, and don't stand with lab_rat who are just a big fraud. Or you will also be put in the blacklist of bitcoin world.

I have a not-insignificant number of coins invested as well, and am as concerned about them as any.

My read of Lab_Rat is that he is struggling to find a solution that everyone will find acceptable.  He's been placed in a very difficult position, and is looking for a legal way out.

And I'm not worried about my reputation -- I know I have dealt with everyone I have had contact with fairly, calmly and transparently.


grnbrg.

A solution to what grnbrg?

[Endlessa]

To clarify:  I want to understand the causality for this, the "fix" he dropped is the resultant.   Which is causing him to talk to lawyers to create another fix.  What I want to know is what the original cause of this situation is. 

[sparky999]

@labrat can you please just confirm that there is circa 150Th due to arrive imminently?

[smracer]

Dave has over 1PH of Bitfury miners now.  How much more is he going to get online before he delivers LRM's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CjldZLXiAU

[VinceSamios]

*cough* bitfury cards being delivered today *cough* - no, I said nothing, what are you talking about.... *cough*

[VinceSamios]

To clarify:  I want to understand the causality for this, the "fix" he dropped is the resultant.   Which is causing him to talk to lawyers to create another fix.  What I want to know is what the original cause of this situation is. 

In the context of the current hashrate, 300mh/s/contract is very fair - it's just the way that additional hashrate can benefit existing bondholders than needs to be worked out. In my mind that's a very simple fix in the sense that a web hosting contract can "add data" and LRM contracts should be able to "add data processing".

Keep your panties pulled up and make sure you run to the loo if you need a wee... to avoid accidents.

[Endlessa]

To clarify:  I want to understand the causality for this, the "fix" he dropped is the resultant.   Which is causing him to talk to lawyers to create another fix.  What I want to know is what the original cause of this situation is.  

In the context of the current hashrate, 300mh/s/contract is very fair - it's just the way that additional hashrate can benefit existing bondholders than needs to be worked out. In my mind that's a very simple fix in the sense that a web hosting contract can "add data" and LRM contracts should be able to "add data processing".

Keep your panties pulled up and make sure you run to the loo if you need a wee... to avoid accidents.

And again your answer has nothing to do with question.  Are you just randomly answering things and quoting a comment from me?
Also, you are not LR, your answers are speculation, I'd like some facts.

As far as my panties are concerned, I'll mail a pair for you to fap to, if it stops your out of context replies and lack of meaningful contribution

[daemonfox]

To clarify:  I want to understand the causality for this, the "fix" he dropped is the resultant.   Which is causing him to talk to lawyers to create another fix.  What I want to know is what the original cause of this situation is.  

In the context of the current hashrate, 300mh/s/contract is very fair - it's just the way that additional hashrate can benefit existing bondholders than needs to be worked out. In my mind that's a very simple fix in the sense that a web hosting contract can "add data" and LRM contracts should be able to "add data processing".

Keep your panties pulled up and make sure you run to the loo if you need a wee... to avoid accidents.

And again your answer has nothing to do with question.  Are you just randomly answering things and quoting a comment from me?
Also, you are not LR, your answers are speculation, I'd like some facts.

As far as my panties are concerned, I'll mail a pair for you to fap to, if it stops your out of context replies and lack of meaningful contribution

Prepare for an almost endless stream of PMs with P.O. boxes LOL!

[Endlessa]

To clarify:  I want to understand the causality for this, the "fix" he dropped is the resultant.   Which is causing him to talk to lawyers to create another fix.  What I want to know is what the original cause of this situation is.  

In the context of the current hashrate, 300mh/s/contract is very fair - it's just the way that additional hashrate can benefit existing bondholders than needs to be worked out. In my mind that's a very simple fix in the sense that a web hosting contract can "add data" and LRM contracts should be able to "add data processing".

Keep your panties pulled up and make sure you run to the loo if you need a wee... to avoid accidents.

And again your answer has nothing to do with question.  Are you just randomly answering things and quoting a comment from me?
Also, you are not LR, your answers are speculation, I'd like some facts.

As far as my panties are concerned, I'll mail a pair for you to fap to, if it stops your out of context replies and lack of meaningful contribution

Prepare for an almost endless stream of PMs with P.O. boxes LOL!

hahaha, true enough, well good thing I don't check those . . .

[grnbrg]

My read of Lab_Rat is that he is struggling to find a solution that everyone will find acceptable.

A solution to what grnbrg?

o.O

For the record:  I tend to be a bit of a smart-ass in person, and will joke and be sarcastic about just about anything.  I find it overwhelmingly tempting to do so here.  I understand that people (myself included, which makes it particularly difficult to behave) are upset, and I apologize in advance if I let it out in the future.

With that said.

Lab_Rat announced some changes on Saturday.  That announcement has upset quite a few people.  In addition to the options previously considered, there have been a number of suggestions made in the last couple of days.  So, from what I can see, he is trying to find a way of restructuring LRM (a solution) that will keep Lab_Rat out of jail, his investors relatively happy,  and LRM out of court.   Probably (my opinion) in that order.


grnbrg.

[Frankthechicken]

*cough* bitfury cards being delivered today *cough* - no, I said nothing, what are you talking about.... *cough*

Not sure how you'd know one way or the other... but hope it's true.  It would calm some concerns I had about the bitfury deal.

[ksenter]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

He also indicated he is having a detailed report on the issue produced and that "I'm doing what's necessary and I believe that the end result will be something everyone can live with."

While it might be nice to have all the information on everything related to LRM the instant it is available, that's just not how business works.  I expect we'll have something concrete within a week or two.


grnbrg.

I don't need, or even strongly desire, a concrete answer right now.  I, and I think most people here, would be perfectly satisfied if he simply committed to continuing the original intent of the "bonds".  All he needs to do is reassure us that we are not stuck with 300 mh permanently, but rather our hash rate value will continue to grow with the company's.  

I don't understand why he would suddenly say your bonds are now a fixed hashrate, and then not clarify any of the details, if he intended for us to benefit from the future hashrate growth.  Why say anything at all, he clearly had no problem being silent before now.

I hope he does come back with something better in a couple of weeks.  That would be terrific.  I just don't have my hopes up very high.

[Endlessa]

My read of Lab_Rat is that he is struggling to find a solution that everyone will find acceptable.

A solution to what grnbrg?

o.O

For the record:  I tend to be a bit of a smart-ass in person, and will joke and be sarcastic about just about anything.  I find it overwhelmingly tempting to do so here.  I understand that people (myself included, which makes it particularly difficult to behave) are upset, and I apologize in advance if I let it out in the future.

With that said.

Lab_Rat announced some changes on Saturday.  That announcement has upset quite a few people.  In addition to the options previously considered, there have been a number of suggestions made in the last couple of days.  So, from what I can see, he is trying to find a way of restructuring LRM (a solution) that will keep Lab_Rat out of jail, his investors relatively happy,  and LRM out of court.   Probably (my opinion) in that order.


grnbrg.

Thanks for the heads up on that.  

wouldn't a better solution be creating a proper corporation and distributing non-voting shares (class B & C) while labrat retains the voting shares (and control of decisions).  This has proper legal standing to continue on without all these yoga like gyrations

To the extent that a user mines
Bitcoin and uses the Bitcoin solely for the user’s own purposes and not for the benefit of another,
the user is not an MSB under FinCEN’s regulations, because these activities involve neither
“acceptance” nor “transmission” of the convertible virtual currency and are not the transmission
of funds within the meaning of the Rule. This is the case whether the user mining and using the
Bitcoin is an individual or a corporation, and whether the user is purchasing goods or services for
the user’s own use, paying debts previously incurred in the ordinary course of business, or (in the
case of a corporate user) making distributions to shareholders.

source: http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/pdf/FIN-2014-R001.pdf
page 3 paragraph 1

this would closer to emulate what we had previously and still give LR full control of the company and assets. I hope he considers this option seriously.
It would be nice know if he will or will not.

[Endlessa]

and not being sarcastic, if future posts about the company could satisfy this basic criteria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws

It would prevent a lot of the flurried question sessions we continue to have after every announcement.

[Lab_Rat]

No he didn't.  He said he'd attempt to find a way to benefit us.  Maybe he'll offer us a 25% discount on future bond purchases.  That would also qualify as an attempt to benefit us.  As of right now he has not once said he would honor the original agreement of our shares growing proportionally with the company's hashrate.

He also indicated he is having a detailed report on the issue produced and that "I'm doing what's necessary and I believe that the end result will be something everyone can live with."

While it might be nice to have all the information on everything related to LRM the instant it is available, that's just not how business works.  I expect we'll have something concrete within a week or two.


grnbrg.

I don't need, or even strongly desire, a concrete answer right now.  I, and I think most people here, would be perfectly satisfied if he simply committed to continuing the original intent of the "bonds".  All he needs to do is reassure us that we are not stuck with 300 mh permanently, but rather our hash rate value will continue to grow with the company's.  

I don't understand why he would suddenly say your bonds are now a fixed hashrate, and then not clarify any of the details, if he intended for us to benefit from the future hashrate growth.  Why say anything at all, he clearly had no problem being silent before now.

I hope he does come back with something better in a couple of weeks.  That would be terrific.  I just don't have my hopes up very high.

I can't provide reassurance without giving information that I can't give until things are in place.  All I can say is that I'm working on the permanent solution and believe I have found a reasonable and legal way to provide over 300MH.

[Endlessa]

*face palm*