-

[bittymitty]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

[1715149402]

1715149402

[1715149402]

1715149402

[1715149402]

1715149402

[1715149402]

1715149402

[1715149402]

1715149402

[1715149402]

1715149402

[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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

[bittymitty]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

[BKM]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud. 

[BKM]

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.

I retracted that sell after I realized what was going on.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320578.msg5647839#msg5647839

[bittymitty]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud. 

We have no list of bonds - why not?

We have no contract - where is it?

We have no new hardware -  what happened?

Where is the proof this is not a fraud?

[bobfranklin]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud. 

We have no list of bonds - why not?

We have no contract - where is it?

We have no new hardware -  what happened?

Where is the proof this is not a fraud?

Where is the proof there that a deception was made? If you made assumptions based on no proof then you can't have been deceived aka no fraud. Just to define things for you.
If it turns out the hardware has arrived and is mining but not being reported that would be an issue.

[||bit]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud.  

We have no list of bonds - why not?

We have no contract - where is it?

We have no new hardware -  what happened?

Where is the proof this is not a fraud?

Where is the proof there that a deception was made? If you made assumptions based on no proof then you can't have been deceived aka no fraud. Just to define things for you.
If it turns out the hardware has arrived and is mining but not being reported that would be an issue.

Strong terms both of you are using. But I think your pasting over his point using the term proof. However, he has what he believes is reasonable evidence - not proof - of fraud. He therefore can ask for proof of no fraud, that is, things which can easily explain the things he observes to make him reasonably suspicious. Trying to counter him by asking for proof of no fraud is close but does not quite make it an impasse (or stalemate) you are presenting, because he already has reasonable concern, and has presented on areas where there is evasiveness on LR's part. LR often talks about all the work he's doing, but nothing really ever seems to come to fruition. Then he dropped that bomb the other day. From someone whose been a victim of several sophisticated frauds that have ended in asset liquidations and fraudster imprisonment - there are some very suspicious facets to this.

He (Bittymitty) didn't list it, but one of the reasons he probably has in mind, was Labrat's apparent willingness to fix bonds to a specific hashrate with no guarantee of increased value for investors with new hardware. That alone, as I've said before, should set off buzzers to how LR views investors. Further, I provided evidence that Dave is still - to this day - shipping Bitfury hardware, and yet LR has reported nothing of any new hardware.

Don't you think it odd that Dave's website is reporting Bitfury hardware in stock that can ship upon receipt of payment, and yet LR has reported receipt of no new hardware?

I'm not sure I can say it IS a fraud. My guess is that Zach is in a bit over his head, and probably scared with how to proceed. And he might have convinced himself it's okay to put his personal interests ahead of investors (who took all the risk and funded the entire company) - which can be corrected with a lawsuit based on the original agreement - a possibility that won't go away even with a new contract. But it certainly doesn't look good, and I can't blame Bittymitty for being suspicious of a possible fraud.

[bobfranklin]

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.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much.  Everything gets twisted.


grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud.  

We have no list of bonds - why not?

We have no contract - where is it?

We have no new hardware -  what happened?

Where is the proof this is not a fraud?

Where is the proof there that a deception was made? If you made assumptions based on no proof then you can't have been deceived aka no fraud. Just to define things for you.
If it turns out the hardware has arrived and is mining but not being reported that would be an issue.

Strong terms both of you are using. But I think your pasting over his point using the term proof. However, he has what he believes is reasonable evidence - not proof - of fraud. He therefore can ask for proof of no fraud, that is, things which can easily explain the things he observes to make him reasonably suspicious. Trying to counter him by asking for proof of no fraud is close but does not quite make it an impasse (or stalemate) you are presenting, because he already has reasonable concern, and has presented on areas where there is evasiveness on LR's part. LR often talks about all the work he's doing, but nothing really ever seems to come to fruition. Then he dropped that bomb the other day. From someone whose been a victim of several sophisticated frauds that have ended in asset liquidations and fraudster imprisonment - there are some very suspicious facets to this.

He (Bittymitty) didn't list it, but one of the reasons he probably has in mind, was Labrat's apparent willingness to fix bonds to a specific hashrate with no guarantee of increased value for investors with new hardware. That alone, as I've said before, should set off buzzers to how LR views investors. Further, I provided evidence that Dave is still - to this day - shipping Bitfury hardware, and yet LR has reported nothing of any new hardware.

Don't you think it odd that Dave's website is reporting Bitfury hardware in stock that can ship upon receipt of payment, and yet LR has reported receipt of no new hardware?

I'm not sure I can say it IS a fraud. My guess is that Zach is in a bit over his head, and probably scared with how to proceed. And he might have convinced himself it's okay to put his personal interests ahead of investors (who took all the risk and funded the entire company) - which can be corrected with a lawsuit based on the original agreement - a possibility that won't go away even with a new contract. But it certainly doesn't look good, and I can't blame Bittymitty for being suspicious of a possible fraud.

I'm also not 100% committed enough to argue it (or serious!). I get the angst, but I'm tending to sit on the fence until some information appears rather than go off half cocked (but hey that's just me). Wasn't meant to appear as an attack at all, more just a case of "sure but the argument for those points swings both ways and gives no proof/evidence of either argument in that sense" which concern doesn't enter into in my mind in a black and white sense. Although I for one won't say more/some info would be nice.

[elitenoob]

So lawyer was supposed to give news on friday or saturday i guess and he was "sick" and now monday is over (at least for me) and still nothing. So it was a lie or this lawyer is too dumb to handle this.

[||bit]

I'm also not 100% committed enough to argue it (or serious!). I get the angst, but I'm tending to sit on the fence until some information appears rather than go off half cocked (but hey that's just me). Wasn't meant to appear as an attack at all, more just a case of "sure but the argument for those points swings both ways and gives no proof/evidence of either argument in that sense" which concern doesn't enter into in my mind in a black and white sense. Although I for one won't say more/some info would be nice.

I'm certainly ready to see this saga end - one way or the other. Either Zach pulls through and does right to investors. Or we find out the worse, and it is a fraud.
One things for sure, if it is a fraud, the courts will settle it. Even if a new contract is presented that supposedly nullifies the old, LRM will be susceptible to a lawsuit.

It will be interesting (but sad) if LR tries to word any new contract without including any semblance of a guaranteeing that investors returns grow proportionately with new assets.
Anything less may start a riot.

By the way, just curious, would you entertain my question on the hardware? I'd like to hear someone else's take on that. Can you imagine a reasonable explanation?

[||bit]

So lawyer was supposed to give news on friday or saturday i guess and he was "sick" and now monday is over (at least for me) and still nothing. So it was a lie or this lawyer is too dumb to handle this.

It just delays another couple days - so goes life here. I didn't expect anything though. Didn't he just say he was going to meet with the lawyer, but it was canceled for health reasons?

As for other news.. in his last comment he said he would or he wouldn't have some new info that day. Apparently, he didn't have anything.

[bobfranklin]

I'm also not 100% committed enough to argue it (or serious!). I get the angst, but I'm tending to sit on the fence until some information appears rather than go off half cocked (but hey that's just me). Wasn't meant to appear as an attack at all, more just a case of "sure but the argument for those points swings both ways and gives no proof/evidence of either argument in that sense" which concern doesn't enter into in my mind in a black and white sense. Although I for one won't say more/some info would be nice.

I'm certainly ready to see this saga end - one way or the other. Either Zach pulls through and does right to investors. Or we find out the worse, and it is a fraud.
One things for sure, if it is a fraud, the courts will settle it. Even if a new contract is presented that supposedly nullifies the old, LRM will be susceptible to a lawsuit.

It will be interesting (but sad) if LR tries to word any new contract without including any semblance of a guaranteeing that investors returns grow proportionately with new assets.
Anything less may start a riot.

By the way, just curious, would you entertain my question on the hardware? I'd like to hear someone else's take on that. Can you imagine a reasonable explanation?

Totally agree with that. Fingers crossed scenario personally.

Sure, it's clear Dave is selling hardware and stock levels indicate he's shipping hardware. To be completely black and white on it there's no evidence to support receipt of any shipment by zach as far as I can tell (this doesn't mean it hasn't been received - but I haven't seen a manifest for example). I'm actually inclined to believe that some hardware has been received at least as the divs were up the previous 2 weeks. Until I get clarification though I'm happy to sit in the dark being the mushroom I am (although I won't be happy if it's revealed it's been in for 2 weeks and is mining beyond the scope).

[contactmike1]

If labrat already has the new hardware, we likely won't be seeing any dividend changes yet.  I doubt labrat will give an update on the hardware until after the contract issue is resolved.  If he publicly announces that the new hardware is mining and people aren't getting paid for it yet, all the pitchforks are going to come out, yet again.  There's no reason to stir the pot in this manner when it is known we can't receive the dividends yet.  So my guess is the announcement will come with the announcement of the new contract, and it will contain all the relevant information for a large back-pay of the backlogged dividends we are due.  

[mmmerlin]

If labrat already has the new hardware, we likely won't be seeing any dividend changes yet.  I doubt labrat will give an update on the hardware until after the contract issue is resolved.  If he publicly announces that the new hardware is mining and people aren't getting paid for it yet, all the pitchforks are going to come out, yet again.  There's no reason to stir the pot in this manner when it is known we can't receive the dividends yet.  So my guess is the announcement will come with the announcement of the new contract, and it will contain all the relevant information for a large back-pay of the backlogged dividends we are due.  

There are good reasons to believe this to be the case - just thought I'd share a little light in the darkness.

[sparky999]

If labrat already has the new hardware, we likely won't be seeing any dividend changes yet.  I doubt labrat will give an update on the hardware until after the contract issue is resolved.  If he publicly announces that the new hardware is mining and people aren't getting paid for it yet, all the pitchforks are going to come out, yet again.  There's no reason to stir the pot in this manner when it is known we can't receive the dividends yet.  So my guess is the announcement will come with the announcement of the new contract, and it will contain all the relevant information for a large back-pay of the backlogged dividends we are due.  

There are good reasons to believe this to be the case - just thought I'd share a little light in the darkness.

What good reasons? Zach certainly hasn't offered any either publicly or privately to anyone else, not even grngb, so do tell please?

[rustyh17]

I believe it is time to start building a bondholder quorum so that when we receive a formal response
from LRM regarding a contract change, we are ready to proceed with a formal response based on
real consensus.

[sparky999]

I think there are plenty of people with lawyers on stand by right now

[Flashman]

BTW it did occur to me that the legal quagmire might have been unrelated to crypto per-se ... there's some chance it fell afoul of regulations against ponzi schemes or HYIPs.  Anyone with time on their hands might like to look into NJ statue on that.

[rustyh17]

I think there are plenty of people with lawyers on stand by right now

I would submit that proceeding collectively could maximize our voice and minimize the individual
expense of legal representation (if that is necessary).