[CRYPTOSTOCKS] Labcoin Official Thread - Self-Moderated

[dexX7]

KnCMiningOp   26xx   23 June   1   0   0   USA   None   17 October
KnCMiningOp   36xx   12 July   1   0   0   USA   None   21 October
KnCMiningOp   49xx   1   August   1   0   0   USA   None   24 October

Paid August 1st -> delivered on 24th Oct, Friday.
See the pattern with stable hashing power deployed?
Remember IPO day(31th July)? And the hurry associated in collecting the funds?
There were technical problems with btct.co, but instead delaying the ipo they were insisting on collecting the money right away.
KNC queue was based on payment day.
And in addition TheSwede was somehow keen on kncminers, see him organizing group buy of them.
Maybe somebody can track IPO money hitting knc wallets?

1. The KnCMiner shipping list is maintained by users.

2. KnCMiningOp's profile shows that those miners are hashing somewhere else: http://54.243.221.120/

[superduh]

Hash rate was too unstable to be knc

[MikeyVeez]

Yes KNC miners shipped to USA lmao. You guys kill me.

[MikeyVeez]

So sam now that you have 10th can we see your open space or some pictures?

[hammurabi]

KnCMiningOp   26xx   23 June   1   0   0   USA   None   17 October
KnCMiningOp   36xx   12 July   1   0   0   USA   None   21 October
KnCMiningOp   49xx   1   August   1   0   0   USA   None   24 October

Paid August 1st -> delivered on 24th Oct, Friday.
See the pattern with stable hashing power deployed?
Remember IPO day(31th July)? And the hurry associated in collecting the funds?
There were technical problems with btct.co, but instead delaying the ipo they were insisting on collecting the money right away.
KNC queue was based on payment day.
And in addition TheSwede was somehow keen on kncminers, see him organizing group buy of them.
Maybe somebody can track IPO money hitting knc wallets?

1. The KnCMiner shipping list is maintained by users.

2. KnCMiningOp's profile shows that those miners are hashing somewhere else: http://54.243.221.120/

1. Only ordering dates are relevant and shipping dates.
Once KNC started to ship first units LC rised to 3TH/s
Once KNC shipped Early-August-Ordered units LC rised to 10TH/s. They received ipo money after 31th July.
2. KnCMiningOp was quoted only for date reference. Last their order is from 1st August, the day LC received IPO money. Order was shipped on 24 Oct. This only implies that if ipo money was used for kncminers than it fits perfectly within timeframe.

[jimmothy]

KnCMiningOp   26xx   23 June   1   0   0   USA   None   17 October
KnCMiningOp   36xx   12 July   1   0   0   USA   None   21 October
KnCMiningOp   49xx   1   August   1   0   0   USA   None   24 October

Paid August 1st -> delivered on 24th Oct, Friday.
See the pattern with stable hashing power deployed?
Remember IPO day(31th July)? And the hurry associated in collecting the funds?
There were technical problems with btct.co, but instead delaying the ipo they were insisting on collecting the money right away.
KNC queue was based on payment day.
And in addition TheSwede was somehow keen on kncminers, see him organizing group buy of them.
Maybe somebody can track IPO money hitting knc wallets?

1. The KnCMiner shipping list is maintained by users.

2. KnCMiningOp's profile shows that those miners are hashing somewhere else: http://54.243.221.120/

1. Only ordering dates are relevant and shipping dates.
Once KNC started to ship first units LC rised to 3TH/s
Once KNC shipped Early-August-Ordered units LC rised to 10TH/s. They received ipo money after 31th July.
2. KnCMiningOp was quoted only for date reference. Last their order is from 1st August, the day LC received IPO money. Order was shipped on 24 Oct. This only implies that if ipo money was used for kncminers than it fits perfectly within timeframe.

Labcoin conspiracy theory #436

Seriously though I can't wait for this "scam" to reach 500 th/s

[BitSugar]

More kncminers arrived? So cool!
That would be like 25 jupiters hashing.
Drawing ~15kW from sam's apartment wall outlet.
Costing around 1750 BTC when IPO happened.
70btc per jupiter back then. Or ~3000BTC if they chose to host them with KNC.

GHash.io data:
Workers
#   Worker   5m   15m   1h   1d   Rejected Shares Last 24h Stale   Duplicate   Low
1   labcoin2.4   1.35 Th/s   1.37 Th/s   1.41 Th/s   465.99 Gh/s   6144   7424   0
2   labcoin2.7   1.39 Th/s   1.37 Th/s   1.32 Th/s   448.04 Gh/s   4608   6144   0
3   labcoin2.2   1.13 Th/s   1.30 Th/s   1.25 Th/s   460.47 Gh/s   6912   6144   0
4   labcoin2.3   1.30 Th/s   1.26 Th/s   1.24 Th/s   460.83 Gh/s   5376   8448   0
5   labcoin2.1   1.13 Th/s   1.16 Th/s   1.16 Th/s   454.60 Gh/s   3840   7680   0
6   labcoin2.5   1.19 Th/s   1.14 Th/s   1.21 Th/s   452.45 Gh/s   9984   4608   0
7   labcoin2.6   1.19 Th/s   1.16 Th/s   1.15 Th/s   436.06 Gh/s   6144   3072   0
8   labcoin2.8   782.93 Gh/s   859.32 Gh/s   814.90 Gh/s   307.25 Gh/s   3072   5376   0

It seems that ~650 from Eligius.st have been relocated. No hashing for couple of hours.

People will still be screaming scam at 20/50 and 100 TH.

There is no one to blame for that and his rock bottom communication skills.

It is a scam. Where is the evidence that it is not?

+1

Monitoring their https://ghash.io/ account shows that they have 10 th online. They are a mining company. Their rate of deployment is yet to be determined, but right now they are 1/4-1/8 of AsicMiner's hashpower so they are not a scam.

[JohnyBigs]

More kncminers arrived? So cool!
That would be like 25 jupiters hashing.
Drawing ~15kW from sam's apartment wall outlet.
Costing around 1750 BTC when IPO happened.
70btc per jupiter back then. Or ~3000BTC if they chose to host them with KNC.

GHash.io data:
Workers
#   Worker   5m   15m   1h   1d   Rejected Shares Last 24h Stale   Duplicate   Low
1   labcoin2.4   1.35 Th/s   1.37 Th/s   1.41 Th/s   465.99 Gh/s   6144   7424   0
2   labcoin2.7   1.39 Th/s   1.37 Th/s   1.32 Th/s   448.04 Gh/s   4608   6144   0
3   labcoin2.2   1.13 Th/s   1.30 Th/s   1.25 Th/s   460.47 Gh/s   6912   6144   0
4   labcoin2.3   1.30 Th/s   1.26 Th/s   1.24 Th/s   460.83 Gh/s   5376   8448   0
5   labcoin2.1   1.13 Th/s   1.16 Th/s   1.16 Th/s   454.60 Gh/s   3840   7680   0
6   labcoin2.5   1.19 Th/s   1.14 Th/s   1.21 Th/s   452.45 Gh/s   9984   4608   0
7   labcoin2.6   1.19 Th/s   1.16 Th/s   1.15 Th/s   436.06 Gh/s   6144   3072   0
8   labcoin2.8   782.93 Gh/s   859.32 Gh/s   814.90 Gh/s   307.25 Gh/s   3072   5376   0

It seems that ~650 from Eligius.st have been relocated. No hashing for couple of hours.

People will still be screaming scam at 20/50 and 100 TH.

There is no one to blame for that and his rock bottom communication skills.

It is a scam. Where is the evidence that it is not?

+1

Monitoring their https://ghash.io/ account shows that they have 10 th online. They are a mining company. Their rate of deployment is yet to be determined, but right now they are 1/4-1/8 of AsicMiner's hashpower so they are not a scam.

it's going to be hilarious when they get 20th and 50th as much as ASIC miner and still trade at these prices lol.

[claycoins]

good to see the increase in hashpower.

[dhenson]

The volume at cryptostocks is a joke.  We really need to move to havelock.

[JohnyBigs]

The volume at cryptostocks is a joke.  We really need to move to havelock.

Labcoin creates it's own volume, when hashrate goes up and interest increases again they will all come to cryptostocks.

[hammurabi]

Monitoring their https://ghash.io/ account shows that they have 10 th online. They are a mining company. Their rate of deployment is yet to be determined, but right now they are 1/4-1/8 of AsicMiner's hashpower so they are not a scam.

It seems to me that they are just a customer to KnC.
If you are willing to pay extra for their amazing performance at maintaining 25 jupiters at work then go ahead and take advantage of cheap shares.

There is also a possibility that in mean time they develop a chip to show.
But for now... just a group buy of some jupiters run by uncertain management.

[redmetal]

The volume at cryptostocks is a joke.  We really need to move to havelock.

There not on havelock because they didn't and wouldn't provide any proof, this is also why they are not on Bitfunder.

Cryptostocks added them for the fees,

It would have been simple to list on Bitfunder if they managed to provide any proof, but they didn't. And it looks like they won't.

[dhenson]

The volume at cryptostocks is a joke.  We really need to move to havelock.

There not on havelock because they didn't and wouldn't provide any proof, this is also why they are not on Bitfunder.

Cryptostocks added them for the fees,

It would have been simple to list on Bitfunder if they managed to provide any proof, but they didn't. And it looks like they won't.

I personally wouldn't be offering up any details with all the pitch forks that have been flying around here. Would you?

[canth]

The volume at cryptostocks is a joke.  We really need to move to havelock.

There not on havelock because they didn't and wouldn't provide any proof, this is also why they are not on Bitfunder.

Cryptostocks added them for the fees,

It would have been simple to list on Bitfunder if they managed to provide any proof, but they didn't. And it looks like they won't.

I personally wouldn't be offering up any details with all the pitch forks that have been flying around here. Would you?

I probably wouldn't offer up any details period if I wanted to issue/sell securities to the general public without local regulation compliance.

[Squirrel Dearing]

Hmm.. Where's today's Divs?  And since we are now at 10 TH/s, I was expecting to see more than the normalish 12.? BTC in the mining address. That's what it's been the past few days - 12.7ish

https://blockchain.info/address/17psAW21J4twanAFWmbcd5WdX2pKeX3trm

[redmetal]

The volume at cryptostocks is a joke.  We really need to move to havelock.

There not on havelock because they didn't and wouldn't provide any proof, this is also why they are not on Bitfunder.

Cryptostocks added them for the fees,

It would have been simple to list on Bitfunder if they managed to provide any proof, but they didn't. And it looks like they won't.

I personally wouldn't be offering up any details with all the pitch forks that have been flying around here. Would you?

I probably wouldn't offer up any details period if I wanted to issue/sell securities to the general public without local regulation compliance.

They didn't have to provide info to us, just to the Bitfunder or Havelock and there would be no reason for us to see this information.

If Labcoin was legit, then proof would be easy and no issue, even to a trusted third party who wouldn't divulge this information to anyone, unless it turns out to be a scam....

[canth]

I probably wouldn't offer up any details period if I wanted to issue/sell securities to the general public without local regulation compliance.

They didn't have to provide info to us, just to the Bitfunder or Havelock and there would be no reason for us to see this information.

If Labcoin was legit, then proof would be easy and no issue, even to a trusted third party who wouldn't divulge this information to anyone, unless it turns out to be a scam....

If the purpose is evading security regulations, then providing information to the trusted 3rd party wouldn't help as clearly they would divulge if they were forced to by local authorities. Of course, the same tactic could easily be used to support a fraudulent operation, but I'm just saying that there are reasons a security issuer would not want to disclose their identity.

[hammurabi]

I probably wouldn't offer up any details period if I wanted to issue/sell securities to the general public without local regulation compliance.

They didn't have to provide info to us, just to the Bitfunder or Havelock and there would be no reason for us to see this information.

If Labcoin was legit, then proof would be easy and no issue, even to a trusted third party who wouldn't divulge this information to anyone, unless it turns out to be a scam....

If the purpose is evading security regulations, then providing information to the trusted 3rd party wouldn't help as clearly they would divulge if they were forced to by local authorities. Of course, the same tactic could easily be used to support a fraudulent operation, but I'm just saying that there are reasons a security issuer would not want to disclose their identity.

Especially chips' security depends on that so no pictures of hashing gear either, just to protect their true identities.

[canth]

Especially chips' security depends on that so no pictures of hashing gear either, just to protect their true identities.

No, I'll grant you that it's probably either (unfounded) paranoia or fraud. There's no good reason to not show pictures of the units hashing. That doesn't meant they don't exist though...