-

[||bit]

Can you give us projections for hashrate per bond over the next few months.  

58792 currently outstanding bonds. With an expected hashrate of:

25-30TH in the next week or so (318.915-382.703 MH/s per bond)
50-55TH in the next month (637.842-701.626 MH/s per bond)
205-215TH beginning of March (some of this could get sent a little early  ) (2.615-2.743 GH/s per bond)

These are estimates and are in no way binding if off by a small amount.  Certain factors could change these projections.

Can you also tell us what plans you have for an exchange?

I can't share this yet, but I have not forgotten about this.  It's being worked on and hopefully a solution can be worked out in the near future.

Labrat.
What is the shipment status of the 156TH of hardware Bitfury hardware to be received in the beginning of March? Received and mining away happily inside Coinseeds facilities unbeknownst to investors?

The fact of the matter is this. Dave was delivering you hardware steadily. Now, not a word? Yet, it appears Dave is still selling & shipping hardware based on information on his website:

"Welcome to Megabigpower
Welcome to MegaBigPower: A leader in Bitcoin Mining equipment and parts.  Our products are in-stock and ship daily (once payment clears and info is verified) - that means you can start generating coin in a matter of days rather than waiting months for a pre-order from another company.  Mine bigger with MegaBigPower!"
[ my red bold emphasis. source: https://megabigpower.com/shop/ ]

Is Dave's shipment claim false?

Current in stock inventory list:

Brand: Megabigpower.com
Product Code: 25GHV1_CARD
Availability: 387

Brand: Megabigpower.com
Product Code: 25GHV2_CARD
Availability: 151

Granted, that is only a little over 13TH of hardware, but it means Dave is still shipping. And surely, he could have sent LRM 5TH to 10TH fairly easily in the interim.

sources:
https://megabigpower.com/shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=66

https://megabigpower.com/shop/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=65

[BKM]

"Working on it"

"Working on it"

I've been extremely busy but have been keeping up on the forums.  I was supposed to have a meeting with the lawyer yesterday, but he had a health emergency.  Today I may or may not have more info.

Thanks Zach - I expect you will sort this out for the good of all.

Looking forward to solid facts and news when available.

All you all trolls and whiners - carry on..... those that are not trolls and whiners - thank you too.


 

[||bit]

"Working on it"

"Working on it"

I've been extremely busy but have been keeping up on the forums.  I was supposed to have a meeting with the lawyer yesterday, but he had a health emergency.  Today I may or may not have more info.

Thanks Zach - I expect you will sort this out for the good of all.

Looking forward to solid facts and news when available.

All you all trolls and whiners - carry on..... those that are not trolls and whiners - thank you too.

What trolling and whining are you speaking about? I don't see much of that going on really. Thinking things are being worked out doesn't make the plain facts disappear. And if someone expresses themselves as being reasonably upset doesn't make a person a troll or whiner. Not sure if that is what you are referring to specifically.

Don't you think people have fair reasons to be upset with how their bond/contract(whatever) investments have been driven down to practically zero, and that there is no actual transparency on hardware or assets? And shouldn't people be very alarmed that LR appeared willing to violate the spirit of the original agreement? The fact alone should set off loud alarm bells. That is perhaps the biggest concern of mine.

LR has stated often how busy he is. Maybe, he is really busy. But meanwhile, consider these facts:
1) Can you currently sell a bond now for even 5% of the BTC0.15+ paid for initial bonds? No.
2) Can you buy/sell bonds easily yet on any platform? No.
3) Is there any transparency on LR dealings or assets? No.
4) Did LR appear ready to set bonds at a fixed hash-rate and violate the original terms? Yes.

If people are upset at any of these, and there are other possible & legitimate reasons, then don't you think they would be justified to voice discontent. If you are calling that trolling or whining, then you seem disconnected from that part of the reality of the situation. If you are referring to some other specific comments, then sorry, carry on since this doesn't apply.

Keep in mind I want to see LRM succeed. But not for the benefit and/or pride of a single person. Rather for the benefit of all investors (including Zack of course), and in accordance with the spirit of the original agreement. Different is okay, imo, but anything less would be a failure.

[sparky999]

I told you all already zach is gonna mine with the bit fury hardware for two to three weeks then pretend like he found a solution but can't pay back dividends but will promise to reinvest in new hardware. Of course there will be no proof provided

Mark my words

[Frankthechicken]

I told you all already zach is gonna mine with the bit fury hardware for two to three weeks then pretend like he found a solution but can't pay back dividends but will promise to reinvest in new hardware. Of course there will be no proof provided

Mark my words

I would be more okay with that than being stuck at 100mh per post split whatchamacallit but less okay with that than contactmike1's scenario where we get back dividends for the hardware that was delivered, if it was delivered and has been put into service, once all legal issues are settled.  Between the previously announced dates plus about 10PH somewhat suddenly appearing on the network over the last week or so, seems reasonable to presume that -something- new has arrived.  That 10 PH is probably a combination of a few manufacturers but bitfury probably is in there too.  It is possible it has not been put into service, however, because of the open legal issues.  Perhaps with the old structure, LRM -can't- legally run over xx TH/s.  Who knows.  Not us, that's for sure.

I guess only time will tell.  I do hope Zach and his lawyers come up with something good and soon.  They're only going to get one shot at it otherwise risk some serious consequences from stakeholders.

[BKM]

"Working on it"

"Working on it"

I've been extremely busy but have been keeping up on the forums.  I was supposed to have a meeting with the lawyer yesterday, but he had a health emergency.  Today I may or may not have more info.

Thanks Zach - I expect you will sort this out for the good of all.

Looking forward to solid facts and news when available.

All you all trolls and whiners - carry on..... those that are not trolls and whiners - thank you too.

What trolling and whining are you speaking about? I don't see much of that going on really. Thinking things are being worked out doesn't make the plain facts disappear. And if someone expresses themselves as being reasonably upset doesn't make a person a troll or whiner. Not sure if that is what you are referring to specifically.

Don't you think people have fair reasons to be upset with how their bond/contract(whatever) investments have been driven down to practically zero, and that there is no actual transparency on hardware or assets? And shouldn't people be very alarmed that LR appeared willing to violate the spirit of the original agreement? The fact alone should set off loud alarm bells. That is perhaps the biggest concern of mine.

LR has stated often how busy he is. Maybe, he is really busy. But meanwhile, consider these facts:
1) Can you currently sell a bond now for even 5% of the BTC0.15+ paid for initial bonds? No.
2) Can you buy/sell bonds easily yet on any platform? No.
3) Is there any transparency on LR dealings or assets? No.
4) Did LR appear ready to set bonds at a fixed hash-rate and violate the original terms? Yes.

If people are upset at any of these, and there are other possible & legitimate reasons, then don't you think they would be justified to voice discontent. If you are calling that trolling or whining, then you seem disconnected from that part of the reality of the situation. If you are referring to some other specific comments, then sorry, carry on since this doesn't apply.

Keep in mind I want to see LRM succeed. But not for the benefit and/or pride of a single person. Rather for the benefit of all investors (including Zack of course), and in accordance with the spirit of the original agreement. Different is okay, imo, but anything less would be a failure.

You sir are neither troll nor whiner....  

All valid and agreeable points.

[sparky999]

I told you all already zach is gonna mine with the bit fury hardware for two to three weeks then pretend like he found a solution but can't pay back dividends but will promise to reinvest in new hardware. Of course there will be no proof provided

Mark my words

I would be more okay with that than being stuck at 100mh per post split whatchamacallit but less okay with that than contactmike1's scenario where we get back dividends for the hardware that was delivered, if it was delivered and has been put into service, once all legal issues are settled.  Between the previously announced dates plus about 10PH somewhat suddenly appearing on the network over the last week or so, seems reasonable to presume that -something- new has arrived.  That 10 PH is probably a combination of a few manufacturers but bitfury probably is in there too.  It is possible it has not been put into service, however, because of the open legal issues.  Perhaps with the old structure, LRM -can't- legally run over xx TH/s.  Who knows.  Not us, that's for sure.

I guess only time will tell.  I do hope Zach and his lawyers come up with something good and soon.  They're only going to get one shot at it otherwise risk some serious consequences from stakeholders.

If you think zach has had hardware delivered and it's just sat around in a box not mining you are insane. Either it's mining for zach's personal benefit or for LRM but it is certainly not sat idle

[||bit]

I told you all already zach is gonna mine with the bit fury hardware for two to three weeks then pretend like he found a solution but can't pay back dividends but will promise to reinvest in new hardware. Of course there will be no proof provided

Mark my words

I would be more okay with that than being stuck at 100mh per post split whatchamacallit but less okay with that than contactmike1's scenario where we get back dividends for the hardware that was delivered, if it was delivered and has been put into service, once all legal issues are settled.  Between the previously announced dates plus about 10PH somewhat suddenly appearing on the network over the last week or so, seems reasonable to presume that -something- new has arrived.  That 10 PH is probably a combination of a few manufacturers but bitfury probably is in there too.  It is possible it has not been put into service, however, because of the open legal issues.  Perhaps with the old structure, LRM -can't- legally run over xx TH/s.  Who knows.  Not us, that's for sure.

I guess only time will tell.  I do hope Zach and his lawyers come up with something good and soon.  They're only going to get one shot at it otherwise risk some serious consequences from stakeholders.

If you think zach has had hardware delivered and it's just sat around in a box not mining you are insane. Either it's mining for zach's personal benefit or for LRM but it is certainly not sat idle

Zach wouldn't have to hide the hardware for pre-mining, he could talk with investors and they'd probably not make much a fuss about it - if at all. But he has already said LRM has access to cheap hardware and should therefore be very sustainable - spoken in such a way that pre-mining would apparently be unnecessary. [By the way, that point is one that he will have to contend with if he tries to change the effective payout ratio.] However, he would hide it if he was mining out of greed for personal wealth gain on the backs of burned investors.

If it's discovered that he has hardware and is hiding such mining, it will be interesting to see how fast Coinseed reacts when they get news either from public news or forums or some investor attorneys that Zach is being sued for fraud. On top of that issue of concern, Coinseed will be hit with the fact that their hardware is tainted by LRM hardware in their facilities - and subject to audit in a case of fraud. How this would impact Coinseed's reputation, investors and threaten their own hardware would be disturbing question to Kauffman of Coinseed. So, this potential threat alone is one that appears will always work in favor of investors. And a reason for which Zach should actually realize he needs to be responsible to investors to avoid any lawsuits.

[sparky999]

And yet last time he pre mined the results were not public. We hv no idea exactly how long he pre mined or how many coins he mined in that time or how much he actually spent on hardware etcetcetc zach has kept everything at as low a transparency level as possible from the start till present day

[||bit]

"Working on it"

"Working on it"

I've been extremely busy but have been keeping up on the forums.  I was supposed to have a meeting with the lawyer yesterday, but he had a health emergency.  Today I may or may not have more info.

Thanks Zach - I expect you will sort this out for the good of all.

Looking forward to solid facts and news when available.

All you all trolls and whiners - carry on..... those that are not trolls and whiners - thank you too.

What trolling and whining are you speaking about? I don't see much of that going on really. Thinking things are being worked out doesn't make the plain facts disappear. And if someone expresses themselves as being reasonably upset doesn't make a person a troll or whiner. Not sure if that is what you are referring to specifically.

Don't you think people have fair reasons to be upset with how their bond/contract(whatever) investments have been driven down to practically zero, and that there is no actual transparency on hardware or assets? And shouldn't people be very alarmed that LR appeared willing to violate the spirit of the original agreement? The fact alone should set off loud alarm bells. That is perhaps the biggest concern of mine.

LR has stated often how busy he is. Maybe, he is really busy. But meanwhile, consider these facts:
1) Can you currently sell a bond now for even 5% of the BTC0.15+ paid for initial bonds? No.
2) Can you buy/sell bonds easily yet on any platform? No.
3) Is there any transparency on LR dealings or assets? No.
4) Did LR appear ready to set bonds at a fixed hash-rate and violate the original terms? Yes.

If people are upset at any of these, and there are other possible & legitimate reasons, then don't you think they would be justified to voice discontent. If you are calling that trolling or whining, then you seem disconnected from that part of the reality of the situation. If you are referring to some other specific comments, then sorry, carry on since this doesn't apply.

Keep in mind I want to see LRM succeed. But not for the benefit and/or pride of a single person. Rather for the benefit of all investors (including Zack of course), and in accordance with the spirit of the original agreement. Different is okay, imo, but anything less would be a failure.

You sir are neither troll nor whiner....  

All valid and agreeable points.

I'm glad you think so. I do try to be self-correcting and thus will admit if I'm wrong. And so far, the consensus off forum is that I'm fair and reasonable in my approach...and have even been thanked for bringing certain information, points and issues up.

In phone conversations with Zach, we've always have quite cordial conversations. So, if you see me being intense on the forum, it's with the best intention and not personal. And I'm pretty sure Zach knows this based on our private conversations. We've yet to get into any uncomfortable talk on the phone - and they have tended to be pretty informal chats. My only issue on the phone is he is overly secretive about some things which seem pretty trivial, especially considering that many investors have more personal assets at stake than he does.

Anyway, so if I ever comes off that I'm being too aggressive, remember the rule we should all have learned already in email. The lack of inflection can often seem more intense or in the other direction trivial when typed out.

Anyway. I'm glad there are some people like you that are positive about Zach's intentions. However, I did notice you do have perhaps the largest sell order in place.

[||bit]

And yet last time he pre mined the results were not public. We hv no idea exactly how long he pre mined or how many coins he mined in that time or how much he actually spent on hardware etcetcetc zach has kept everything at as low a transparency level as possible from the start till present day

Yeah, that's in the ballpark of my point #3 in one of my recent comments.

Believe it or not. I think LR could turn LRM into a really legit mining powerhouse - with happy long term investors - if he just took the good advice given. Or if he hired a good business consultant. Of course, that costs money... But in this forum are some people that LR could resource form. I don't want to name names, but I pointed LR to one particular person that when he posts, he posts pretty much world class advice (as far as I've read). Now, whether LR takes that advice, or rejects any advice from critics for no good reason is another question.

BTW: The last time pre-mining was done was for about two weeks last year...well, as far as I know. I can't think of any other time. And I think Zach would probably tell investors...unless maybe he wanted to hide the mining returns. I'm pretty sure that would trigger a fierce lawsuit though.

[sparky999]

Some hardware mined for two weeks last time some for three and I think some of it was even close to four weeks of premining. Zach never disclosed how many coins were mined he also kept the hardware in a secret pool. Whilst I am not saying I hv proof of any wrong doing it most certainly could of happened and investors didn't seem to care about the total lack of transparency. Again this time round people just seem happy to trust a guy that has never been open and upfront about anything except when he is trying to hype bond sales.

We will likely never know the details of coinseed deal now zach refuses to answer anything about anything and unless this changes he is going to end up in court one day and judging by the advice his lawyer has given him in the past I don't like his chances.

[bittymitty]

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

[||bit]

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

Ask grnbrg.

[elitenoob]

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

Ask grnbrg.

In the past he entertained us... now not anymore

[||bit]

Some hardware mined for two weeks last time some for three and I think some of it was even close to four weeks of premining. Zach never disclosed how many coins were mined he also kept the hardware in a secret pool. Whilst I am not saying I hv proof of any wrong doing it most certainly could of happened and investors didn't seem to care about the total lack of transparency. Again this time round people just seem happy to trust a guy that has never been open and upfront about anything except when he is trying to hype bond sales.

We will likely never know the details of coinseed deal now zach refuses to answer anything about anything and unless this changes he is going to end up in court one day and judging by the advice his lawyer has given him in the past I don't like his chances.

People can always sue LR for disclosure - that should be a slam dunk case - and it should have trivial consequence so a recourse to sue for disclosure of figures would not ruin LRM, unless an audit revealed something he was hiding from investors. So, it would be a great gesture if he actually volunteered that info before such a lawsuit. Why he wouldn't - if operating as an upright business - seems to have zero to very limited reasoning and is just another of those red flags. The only thing I can think of is if people were to reverse engineer how much he is purchasing hardware for, and perhaps LR would not want to reveal that to the hardware suppliers other customers for the sake of the supplier. However, that seems trivial since people already know quantity discounts are the norm, and the tension that builds causes more problems than it seems to avoid. It's not like the supplier will stop selling hardware to one of his top two customers in the nation - and apparently LRM is one of those two. Though, it doesn't seem like it with the lack of reporting of hardware shipment.

[||bit]

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

Ask grnbrg.

In the past he entertained us... now not anymore

Then ask LR. That should be basic info LR should already have available.

[grnbrg]

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

Ask grnbrg.

In the past he entertained us... now not anymore

Hard to be entertaining lately.  I haven't got anything significant (or insignificant) from Lab_Rat to share, and don't really want to stir the pot by arguing when there really isn't any information to argue about.

As far as a list of bond holders...  I don't think there has been one.  There have been lists of addresses and associated bonds, but there has never been a public list of names.  The last one I posted was at the end of January - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiur3uoeAOQndGtsS1FObjNDcFlCVFFiMmhPX016VUE&usp=sharing I'd like to get an updated database before I put out another.  There have been relatively few trades since then, though, and they're all listed in the trading thread.

Lab_Rat was supposed to have a meeting with his lawyer on Friday, but it was cancelled.  Hopefully (I have no special knowledge one way or another) that means there will be a meeting and news early this week.


grnbrg.

[||bit]

Can anyone point me to the list of current bond holders?

Also where is the original contract details?

Ask grnbrg.

In the past he entertained us... now not anymore

Hard to be entertaining lately.  I haven't got anything significant (or insignificant) from Lab_Rat to share, and don't really want to stir the pot by arguing when there really isn't any information to argue about.

As far as a list of bond holders...  I don't think there has been one.  There have been lists of addresses and associated bonds, but there has never been a public list of names.  The last one I posted was at the end of January - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiur3uoeAOQndGtsS1FObjNDcFlCVFFiMmhPX016VUE&usp=sharing I'd like to get an updated database before I put out another.  There have been relatively few trades since then, though, and they're all listed in the trading thread.

Lab_Rat was supposed to have a meeting with his lawyer on Friday, but it was cancelled.  Hopefully (I have no special knowledge one way or another) that means there will be a meeting and news early this week.


grnbrg.

Do you live in New Jersey too? Just curious, because I thought you did some work with the hardware there...but at the same time thought you might not live in that area.

[grnbrg]

Do you live in New Jersey too? Just curious, because I thought you did some work with the hardware there...but at the same time thought you might not live in that area.

Nope, I'm in Canada.  I've never actually met Zach in person, and have talked with him on the phone just once, I think.

Living in the future is cool.



grnbrg.