[LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)

[BitThink]

Maybe someone can explain how we know the payment came from Slush and how we know it was generated from mining hardware owned by them?  In my drunken state I'm clearly missing how this is better proof than having a miner published on a pool's list of miners with the name 'Labcoin'.

1. The sending address is a well know address of Slush sending out mining incomes and the transaction was indeed distributing mining income.
2. Slush pool only shows the rank  sorted by the total BTC mined. So it takes a while for Labcoin being listed even they have large enough hashing rate.

I mean I could show a BTC address that regularly receives 5-7 BTC payments (I send them so I know it exists).  What mining power does that prove it has (it has none that I am aware of but does receive other transactions)?

By checking the address sending the BTC to it, we can know whether the BTC is from a (well known) pool or not.

Hopefully my explanation is correct. I did it because I am an investor of DMS.SELLING and respect what you have provided to us, even when you are apparently drunk.

One thing I completely agree with you is that they're definitely the worst manager of a mining project can be with my poor imagination.

[1714288937]

1714288937

[dexX7]

Maybe someone can explain how we know the payment came from Slush and how we know it was generate from mining hardware owned by them?  In my drunken state I'm clearly missing how this is better proof than having a miner published on a pool's list of miners with the name 'Labcoin'.

We don't.

We only know that this someone, who initiated the payout, must have been mining on slush approx. 16 hours ago, because that was [when the latest block was credited. This is the absolute minimum and contradicting to Swede's statement that they are going to start pool mining just now.

Though they might be mining for more than 16 hours on slush and Swede didn't get the memo or there was a miscommunication like "we  start to pool mine very soon" vs. "we receive a payment very soon"

[kokojie]

Labcoin could prove they are mining with their own mining hardware in about 5 minute by taking a picture and posting it, yet they still refuse to do so, and went through the trouble of switching to pool mining and posting an address which means nothing. The address only holds significance if they stayed solo mining.

With pool mining, I expect to see live json stats which nearly every pool provides.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

@Deprived: At this point there isn't much reasonable suspicion of it being an outright scam, the main suspicion is of their competence, and their willingness to miss, forget, or re-interpret their promises, and apparently thinking that sharing proof with shareholders is some kind of mortal sin.

They're not likely to send fake bitcoins to pretend they're mining, but they are suspected of being economical with the truth about how development is going.

Actual bitcoins will be a good indication that they are successfully mining. Without it there is worry that they won't get a damn thing working this side of November.

[BitThink]

I thought I was good at understanding people's behaviour before, but now I am totally lost. What is labcoin doing now?

If they are mining in a pool, is the name of the pool top secret? Is the hashing rate top secret, or they don't have any idea about their own hashing rate themselves? If they want the public to monitor their hashing rate, why not choose a pool showing hashing rate? If the 3 BTC really are mined by them, they should've joined the pool more than 12 hours ago. Why they wait until the panic selling happened to announce the address?

All these things are beyond my understanding. Only one word is left in my mind: unbelievable.

Probably because they're sick of all the haters. Here's what TheSwede said:

I am going to let the mining speak for itself when the pool merge is complete. I would like to note however that even with 5+ TH solo-mining it can easily take 2+ days to find a block due to variance, hence the move to pool-mining.

Which would imply they no longer have anything they feel they need to prove, and can rely on the blockchain to communicate for them. That will really be the case when we see another 24 blocks come in and slush sends it's next tx, unless they switched pools, stopped mining, or made less then their threshold.

They're sick of all the haters, so they try their best to turn more investors to their haters?

[Ytterbium]

I mean I could show a BTC address that regularly receives 5-7 BTC payments (I send them so I know it exists).  What mining power does that prove it has (it has none that I am aware of but does receive other transactions)?

You could.  But could you also sign a message using it, saying "Labcoin mining address"?

Message: Labcoin mining address
Signature: HJRjzVPG3CC5OjInesByNcdfkI2kz6hONR3LjVUABUVDq03Z3ARcmEfdXWeJwzX0zUqoWkyx1rNjmps CuP8cWQA
Address: 17psAW21J4twanAFWmbcd5WdX2pKeX3trm

Obviously if the address listed is getting 3 BTC every 10 minutes (and those transfers are directly from freshly mined coins) then it strongly suggests it has a bit over 10% of network hashing power but I sense that isn't the case.

It's not.  It got 3.2btc, once.  And since then slush hasn't sent out any more payments.  Another one should be sent when it gets another (at the current point in time) 21 confirmations.

EDIT: Let me clarify my point.  Right now my fund (LTC-ATF) has 77.209 BTC on Bitfunder.  If one of my investors asked me to prove it (which they are perfectly entitled to do) I'd screen-share, log in to Bitfunder and show them a balance of 77.209 BTC.  I would NOT show them a BTC address that had an incoming transaction of 77.209 BTC and ask them to accept that was from Bitfunder.  Do you see where I'm coming from?  There's a HUGE difference between proving you have X BTC and proving you have/had X BTC at a specific place/from a specific source.  Doubt anyone thinks Labcoin people couldn't RAISE 3 BTC (anyone with a net connection should be able to come up with 3 BTC in a few hours) - issue is whether they actually mined it.  And I'm not grasping where the proof is that it was mined - I'd happily stipulate that I agree they can control an address with 3 BTC in.

You know how easy it is to fake screenshots, right?

[BitThink]

Maybe someone can explain how we know the payment came from Slush and how we know it was generate from mining hardware owned by them?  In my drunken state I'm clearly missing how this is better proof than having a miner published on a pool's list of miners with the name 'Labcoin'.

We don't.

We only know that this someone, who initiated the payout, must have been mining on slush approx. 16 hours ago, because that was [when the latest block was credited. This is the absolute minimum and contradicting to Swede's statement that they are going to start pool mining just now.

Though they might be mining for more than 16 hours on slush and Swede didn't get the memo or there was a miscommunication like "we  start to pool mine very soon" vs. "we receive a payment very soon"

In case of miscommunication, it's very easy for labcoin to login himself and clarify it.

[Ytterbium]

Labcoin could prove they are mining with their own mining hardware in about 5 minute by taking a picture and posting it, yet they still refuse to do so, and went through the trouble of switching to pool mining and posting an address which means nothing. The address only holds significance if they stayed solo mining.

With pool mining, I expect to see live json stats which nearly every pool provides.

How would taking a picture prove anything?

[BitThink]

Labcoin could prove they are mining with their own mining hardware in about 5 minute by taking a picture and posting it, yet they still refuse to do so, and went through the trouble of switching to pool mining and posting an address which means nothing. The address only holds significance if they stayed solo mining.

With pool mining, I expect to see live json stats which nearly every pool provides.

How would taking a picture prove anything?

At least we know they have a data center, racks, and boards. Currently, even these basic things are not proved yet.

[Bitcycle]

There's no reason for any confusion or doubt on the payments this address has received other than Labcoin's incompetence.


Communication with investors is part of the job, and Labcoin has failed at it, over and over.

It's a shameful failure by Labcoin, and they should correct it immediately.

[Ytterbium]

Labcoin could prove they are mining with their own mining hardware in about 5 minute by taking a picture and posting it, yet they still refuse to do so, and went through the trouble of switching to pool mining and posting an address which means nothing. The address only holds significance if they stayed solo mining.

With pool mining, I expect to see live json stats which nearly every pool provides.

How would taking a picture prove anything?

At least we know they have a data center, racks, and boards. Currently, even these basic things are not proved yet.

We know they have chips and we know they have boards.  All they would need to do is have the boards assembled, which can be done in seconds with the right equipment.

[kokojie]

Labcoin could prove they are mining with their own mining hardware in about 5 minute by taking a picture and posting it, yet they still refuse to do so, and went through the trouble of switching to pool mining and posting an address which means nothing. The address only holds significance if they stayed solo mining.

With pool mining, I expect to see live json stats which nearly every pool provides.

How would taking a picture prove anything?

Taking pictures prove everything, with pictures we know they have actual facility and hardware that are possibly mining. Then when coupled with the mining evidence, I can be fairly certain that labcoin is indeed mining. Without pictures, simply having an address is extremely weak evidence of mining.

[BitThink]

Labcoin could prove they are mining with their own mining hardware in about 5 minute by taking a picture and posting it, yet they still refuse to do so, and went through the trouble of switching to pool mining and posting an address which means nothing. The address only holds significance if they stayed solo mining.

With pool mining, I expect to see live json stats which nearly every pool provides.

How would taking a picture prove anything?

At least we know they have a data center, racks, and boards. Currently, even these basic things are not proved yet.

We know they have chips and we know they have boards.  All they would need to do is have the boards assembled, which can be done in seconds with the right equipment.

Yes, it should only take seconds, but in fact took them more than two weeks (if they are really mining now).

[Ytterbium]

Taking pictures prove everything, with pictures we know they have actual facility and hardware that are possibly mining. Then when coupled with the mining evidence, I can be fairly certain that labcoin is indeed mining. Without pictures, simply having an address is extremely weak evidence of mining.

Come on dude, there is obviously no better proof of mining then receiving coins at an address that you can sign with.  It would be easy to cook up some fake hardware and take a picture of it.

Plus, last time they posted any pictures everyone said they were fake, so that may be why they don't want to show any more.

[BitThink]

@Ytter. You are really smart and always analyzes calmly and clearly. Many people, including me, respect you for this. But, no offend, I feel you are defending labcoin too much in recent posts. I have all the reasons in hoping the share price to arise, since I have invested more than 1/4 of my BTC on it. But the only thing can help the stock and the project is labcoin themself. If they feel the pressure and change their style (change the manager is even better), that's the best news for all the investors. Defending them will not help at all.

[Ytterbium]

@Ytter. You are really smart and always analyzes calmly and clearly. Many people, including me, respect you for this. But, no offend, I feel you are defending labcoin too much in recent posts. I have all the reasons in hoping the share price to arise, since I have invested more than 1/4 of my BTC on it. But the only thing can help the stock and the project is labcoin themself. If they feel the pressure and change their style (change the manager is even better), that's the best news for all the investors. Defending them will not help at all.

I'm not trying to defend them, and I am certainly frustrated by their communication "strategy".

However, people are posting stuff that's straight up wrong, like the idea that the account might not be theirs, or that somehow posting pictures is better proof then seeing mining revenue come in.

Right now, we know for certain that someone is mining on Slush's pool and sending the payments to the labcoin address. We don't know what their hashrate is, but we should know soon. We don't actually know if it's labcoin's chips that are doing the mining, and there was never going to be any way to prove that (Although eventually LC could send out samples for people to independently verify)

People have been calling for them to post the mining address for days - and they did it. You can't then say, "well, it proves nothing - we need to see pictures".  The problem with that is that pictures wouldn't actually be able to prove anything at all.

Again, not trying to defend them but merely correct obviously inaccurate statements.

[Ytterbium]

Also, the real test will be what happens when slush gets it's next block confirmed.  If they'd been hashing for a while and just happened to have their threshold at 3btc, the might not get anything.  On the other hand, if they actually get another 3.2btc it would mean they have about 8Th/s, not 2, or even 4.

[Bitcycle]

I couldn't possibly care less about pictures at this point.  They would have been helpful last week, but Labcoin was too stupid to provide them.

What I want today is verification of their hashrate.

They should publish their api token that will allow for this. This should be done immediately.

They should also state that they are in fact on Slush, and that payment did come from their hashing.  This is an extremely simple thing to do, yet they choose to leave it as an open question.

This is yet another complete and shameful failure on their part.

[Bitcycle]

Also, the real test will be what happens when slush gets it's next block confirmed.  If they'd been hashing for a while and just happened to have their threshold at 3btc, the might not get anything.  On the other hand, if they actually get another 3.2btc it would mean they have about 8Th/s, not 2, or even 4.

If they are on Slush, Slush has confirmations coming in 13, 14, 18, 23, 26, and 29 confirmations.  That will allow for rapid calculations to be made.

If it's them on Slush, which for reasons beyond understanding they refuse to confirm or deny.

[wickedgoodtrader]

I couldn't possibly care less about pictures at this point.  They would have been helpful last week, but Labcoin was too stupid to provide them.

What I want today is verification of their hashrate.

They should publish their api token that will allow for this. This should be done immediately.

They should also state that they are in fact on Slush, and that payment did come from their hashing.  This is an extremely simple thing to do, yet they choose to leave it as an open question.

This is yet another complete and shameful failure on their part.

Once again I'm stopping in again to see what's going on with labcoin and once fucking again I see it's a fucking empty update. FOR FUCKS SAKE GET YOUR FUCKING HEADS ON STRAIGHT! THE SCAM CONTINUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They now have some fucking address getting a few btc but they can't take a picture of the fucking chips that are mining? I'll be back in a couple days again to tell you jackasses who are holding/ buying how str8 up retarded you guys are. Actually.. I don't think even a retard would fall for this shit.