[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]

[Vigil]

We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.

Why would we ship other people product before adding to our hashing power? Makes no sense. If these are VMC miners they are hashing for ActM. Bargraphics wouldn't tell us honestly if it was ActM because everyone wants to get cheap shares.

[JoTheKhan]

We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.

Why would we ship other people product before adding to our hashing power? Makes no sense. If these are VMC miners they are hashing for ActM. Bargraphics wouldn't tell us honestly if it was ActM because everyone wants to get cheap shares.

Because we have an obligation to our customers. It seems a lot of you guys don't exactly understand how a business is run. Ken has promised full refunds if we did not ship. So what do we do? We ship. All of our income was a liability until we actually shipped a product, we could not reasonably spend it on our own hardware if it was money needed to insure that we got our product to our customers. Then we reap the profits to pay for our own stuff.

You can't just take peoples money and use it for yourself if you don't want a ruined reputation and lawsuits on your hands. You guys seem to understand this when you pay for something, but not when someone pays you.

[Vigil]

We get it guys; its not HashFast and its not ActM. We don't have to continuously repeat this. It could be our first shipment from November though. The fact that they stayed confidential about who got the hardware and the fact that this person slowly adding TH to his operation hasn't come forward do suggest that we shipped our low volume chips to this user along with Canadian and whoever else was lucky enough to order first.

Why would we ship other people product before adding to our hashing power? Makes no sense. If these are VMC miners they are hashing for ActM. Bargraphics wouldn't tell us honestly if it was ActM because everyone wants to get cheap shares.

Because we have an obligation to our customers. It seems a lot of you guys don't exactly understand how a business is run. Ken has promised full refunds if we did not ship. So what do we do? We ship. All of our income was a liability until we actually shipped a product, we could not reasonably spend it on our own hardware if it was money needed to insure that we got our product to our customers. Then we reap the profits to pay for our own stuff.

You can't just take peoples money and use it for yourself if you don't want a ruined reputation and lawsuits on your hands. You guys seem to understand this when you pay for something, but not when someone pays you.

You can ship them their product on the next batch. Shareholders are the first customers as we don't have any ownership in the company.

[theBishop]

Could be cryptx PETA-MINE no?  Fits with dates and figures I think.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=280570.0

http://www.cryptx.com/

edit using Cointerra chips?

[Vigil]

Could be cryptx PETA-MINE no?  Fits with dates and figures I think.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=280570.0

http://www.cryptx.com/

edit using Cointerra chips?

Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM. Its not likely to see such even fluctuations with a bunch of 2-3 TH miners. They also already had 20 TH - this operation started out with 9 TH.

[bromide]

Lol, the irc was awesome, Ukyo bitching about Ken stealin' his shares for pages on end.  here's a TL;DR crop:

http://s21.postimg.org/41h06xeuf/Capture.png

I mean, I couldn't make shit like this up

[Vigil]

Ukyo shut down the damn trading site, how could he liquidate his shares? That is his damn fault for scamming everyone to come over to his exchange. I can't even get my bitcoin off there. He was using other people's bitcoin to buy shares on his exchange.

[toastee]

In case anyone cares, here's the full chat:

http://pastebin.com/ByfnWX2T

[bromide]

I don't even know what to... not like Ken's Mr. Upstanding Citizen, but Ukyo's trying to make this into
"I need the shares to feed some cheddar to weex users!  I'm tryin' to take care of the poor dears, and Ken stoled mah shares!!1!"
"Bro, the shares haven't traded since you shut down your exchange, how ya gonna pay people with shares you can't sell?"
 

[minerpart]

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3782916#msg3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain.  We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours.  We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC.  We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

[runam0k]

Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM. Its not likely to see such even fluctuations with a bunch of 2-3 TH miners. They also already had 20 TH - this operation started out with 9 TH.

Labcoin had ~9TH

[zefyr0s]

If Labcoin actually starts hashing I think I'm going to slap the next physical person I see.

[theBishop]

Through process of elimination am convinced that machines on Eligius are ActM hardware.  Someone please explain pattern of drops in hashrate.  They occur every 24 hours at same time every day.  Seven of nine dropouts are at same time of day.  Three of these are minimum of 24 hours away from any hardware additions but still at same regular time?

edit  Other miners on Eligius suffer dropout on 29th Dec at exact same time too but only on this date even Bargraphics #13.

[zefyr0s]

But who would be getting ActM hardware at (even this amount of) a consistent rate? Someone who ordered would likely get them all at once or in a few parcels.

[minerpart]

But who would be getting ActM hardware at (even this amount of) a consistent rate? Someone who ordered would likely get them all at once or in a few parcels.

If it's ACtM or another customer of VMC there is still a fair bit of infrastructure to set up around these rigs so even if they all arrived in one delivery it could easily take a day for each machine to be fully installed and connected to the grid. This isn't quite unboxing and plugging into the wall.

As regards the question about supplying ourselves or our customers first. If this is a VMC customer then their order has paid for the manufacture of these rigs plus twice as many for ACtM. So the order money has likely gone towards eASIC to contribute to the batch that will populate our mining operation. We must be a few weeks away at most from mining and if this is anything to go by the ACtM farm will surely be upwards of 6% of global hash.

Everytime we take a big online order and fill it, we generate cash that goes straight towards building up our own farm. So to maximise the ACtM farm we need to keep taking and filling customer orders - there is no trade off, at the end of the day we benefit from selling to customers.

[NickDanger]

[23:28:23]  <kill-9all>  some day in the future, its just sorta a funny situation
[23:28:33]  <Ukyo>       everythign abotu ActM is a "funny situation"
[23:28:42]  <Ukyo>       what happened to the Oct/Nov release?
[23:28:48]  <Ukyo>       its been 30~60~.. 90 ? days
...
[23:29:55]  <Ukyo>       I gave notice of shut down 75 days ago
[23:29:58]  <Ukyo>       and he has not relisted
[23:30:05]  <Ukyo>       I guess thats not enough time
[23:30:24]  <kill-9all>  For Ken apparently not
[23:31:12]  <kill-9all>  I thought we would have been trading the shares a while ago but something happened

Lolacolipse

[VinceSamios]

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3782916#msg3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain.  We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours.  We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC.  We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...

[AccountManagement]

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3782916#msg3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain.  We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours.  We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC.  We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...

Jon claims that the shares Ken is holding did not belong to WeEx but to himself, as a natural person.
If this was IRL, his personal funds are simply off-limits.

That's irrelevant considering the parties involved, though.  When i was a kid, my friend had a band called Cop Shoot Cop.  This is sort-a like that - Crook Rob Crook

[SebastianJu]

Ken... whats so hard to bring the shares to the exchange? You dont stopped working on it because of a progress with colored coins right? Ask maxmint for coding the verification part, he has done it multiple times for other shops already. The rest should be a childs play.

If you dont have to time to code then hire someone. You realize that weeks after weeks go by?

[VinceSamios]

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3782916#msg3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain.  We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours.  We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC.  We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...

Jon claims that the shares Ken is holding did not belong to WeEx but to himself, as a natural person.
If this was IRL, his personal funds are simply off-limits.

That's irrelevant considering the parties involved, though.  When i was a kid, my friend had a band called Cop Shoot Cop.  This is sort-a like that - Crook Rob Crook

Well then Jon first of all needs to prove the shares didn't belong to we-ex but to himself, and then secondly needs to defend an accusation of joint and several liability, which would probably float through like a warm summers breeze. Especially considering weex was basically operating outside of the law.

If Jon wants to sell the shares so he can refund weex customers then... well... he is blurring the lines himself.

Finally, Jon can't afford to take ken to court... and if he can, he should be refunding weex customers as a priority.