Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2017, 02:54:54 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ... 96 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ Cloudmining 101 (ponzi risk assessment) ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁  (Read 337780 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
elasticband
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Nighty Night Don't Let The Trolls Bite Nom Nom Nom


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 12:40:42 AM
 #761

FC is okay
1508727294
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508727294

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508727294
Reply with quote  #2

1508727294
Report to moderator
1508727294
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508727294

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508727294
Reply with quote  #2

1508727294
Report to moderator
1508727294
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508727294

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508727294
Reply with quote  #2

1508727294
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
crazyearner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694



View Profile
March 04, 2015, 01:28:41 AM
 #762

I have been in most of them they do work for very little and payments are shocking on fees. I use to be very active on Eobot however since their rates changed and ratio to mining and contracts changed form permanent to 5 years and also  the rate of what their fee is like 70 to 80% and making only 30% at good times will never brake even on their site any more. When BTC prices are up it was working fine and a good site to use but when prices are as low as they currently are, then it is almost imposable to make anything good.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
March 04, 2015, 02:08:40 PM
 #763

AMHash hasn't been running a ponzi.

So where did the payments in January/February come from? Certainly not from mining?

Of course they ran a ponzi for a couple of months, stop splitting hair. They paid customers' money back to them. It's irrelevant that they weren't signing up any new ones IN THAT PERIOD, if anything that just hastened the collapse. Don't forget that mining ponzis are not your classical investment ponzis - you don't have to pay back 120% or whatever, you can slowly bleed the suckers by paying back 90% of the initial investment and everyone will be happy - hey, it's mining, sometimes you don't get 100%+ ROI.

Now whether you want to hope they will rise from the dead and pay everyone back - that's another story. I hope for that too, I have a couple of BTC invested there unfortunately. I got paid back for the Prisma fiasco, which also looked quite hopeless but still far from this clusterfuck.


GAWSOME class action
(Homero Garza throws Stuart Fraser under the bus)
ION: XPY successor
                 Make sure to read

                 BitcoinTalk rules
          /s
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
March 04, 2015, 02:09:21 PM
 #764

FC is okay
Where did you get this info from?

gollumist
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 03:06:00 PM
 #765

Hey Puppet,
Greetings for nice job you have done with this discusion!
Can you please evaluate this "new" cloudmining - hashocean.com ?
For me is clear scam and rumors say - there are the same guys which did hasprofit before.
Regards
G
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 04:46:42 PM
 #766

AMHash hasn't been running a ponzi.

So where did the payments in January/February come from? Certainly not from mining?

Of course they ran a ponzi for a couple of months, stop splitting hair. They paid customers' money back to them. It's irrelevant that they weren't signing up any new ones IN THAT PERIOD, if anything that just hastened the collapse. Don't forget that mining ponzis are not your classical investment ponzis - you don't have to pay back 120% or whatever, you can slowly bleed the suckers by paying back 90% of the initial investment and everyone will be happy - hey, it's mining, sometimes you don't get 100%+ ROI.

Now whether you want to hope they will rise from the dead and pay everyone back - that's another story. I hope for that too, I have a couple of BTC invested there unfortunately. I got paid back for the Prisma fiasco, which also looked quite hopeless but still far from this clusterfuck.
You have an incredibly loose definition of the term Ponzi. The hallmark of a Ponzi is that it takes in customer/investor money and does nothing with it but use it to pay back earlier investors. If AM took in money for 5PH/s worth of equipment and deployed 5PH/s of equipment, it does not make it a Ponzi if there is a service interruption and they pay customer dividends out of profits/reserves until such time as replacement hardware can be deployed. It just means there's a service interruption.
Now, if FC and/or the AMHash team does run off with all the equipment and coin, it's still not a Ponzi. It might be a theft or a scam, but that is a much broader category than a Ponzi. It would only really be a Ponzi if the entire farm was an elaborate sham, and they've been paying out customers from their own funds this whole time.
suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
March 04, 2015, 05:27:06 PM
 #767

AMHash hasn't been running a ponzi.

So where did the payments in January/February come from? Certainly not from mining?

Of course they ran a ponzi for a couple of months, stop splitting hair. They paid customers' money back to them. It's irrelevant that they weren't signing up any new ones IN THAT PERIOD, if anything that just hastened the collapse. Don't forget that mining ponzis are not your classical investment ponzis - you don't have to pay back 120% or whatever, you can slowly bleed the suckers by paying back 90% of the initial investment and everyone will be happy - hey, it's mining, sometimes you don't get 100%+ ROI.

Now whether you want to hope they will rise from the dead and pay everyone back - that's another story. I hope for that too, I have a couple of BTC invested there unfortunately. I got paid back for the Prisma fiasco, which also looked quite hopeless but still far from this clusterfuck.
You have an incredibly loose definition of the term Ponzi. The hallmark of a Ponzi is that it takes in customer/investor money and does nothing with it but use it to pay back earlier investors. If AM took in money for 5PH/s worth of equipment and deployed 5PH/s of equipment, it does not make it a Ponzi if there is a service interruption and they pay customer dividends out of profits/reserves until such time as replacement hardware can be deployed. It just means there's a service interruption.
Now, if FC and/or the AMHash team does run off with all the equipment and coin, it's still not a Ponzi. It might be a theft or a scam, but that is a much broader category than a Ponzi. It would only really be a Ponzi if the entire farm was an elaborate sham, and they've been paying out customers from their own funds this whole time.

It's not incredibly loose. Maybe a tad wobbly Smiley but not a lot. There HAS to be some threshold when a business paying out funds collected from customers (and not business profits) can be considered a ponzi regardless of their prior good behavior. To me a couple of months while keeping vital information from customers is more than enough.

In other words, if someone deploys some miners, sells some mining shares, then at some point decides that mining is too much trouble - or gets robbed or whatever - and switches the business model to just keeping slow payouts up to 90% of collected cash back to customers, what do you call that?

Also keep in mind that even though AMHash didn't have a new IPO during that time, their failure to disclose such important information kept the price up on Havelock and anyone who purchased in Jan/Feb has the right to call this an outright scam, if not specifically a ponzi.

GAWSOME class action
(Homero Garza throws Stuart Fraser under the bus)
ION: XPY successor
                 Make sure to read

                 BitcoinTalk rules
          /s
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 05:46:17 PM
 #768

AMHash hasn't been running a ponzi.

So where did the payments in January/February come from? Certainly not from mining?

Of course they ran a ponzi for a couple of months, stop splitting hair. They paid customers' money back to them. It's irrelevant that they weren't signing up any new ones IN THAT PERIOD, if anything that just hastened the collapse. Don't forget that mining ponzis are not your classical investment ponzis - you don't have to pay back 120% or whatever, you can slowly bleed the suckers by paying back 90% of the initial investment and everyone will be happy - hey, it's mining, sometimes you don't get 100%+ ROI.

Now whether you want to hope they will rise from the dead and pay everyone back - that's another story. I hope for that too, I have a couple of BTC invested there unfortunately. I got paid back for the Prisma fiasco, which also looked quite hopeless but still far from this clusterfuck.
You have an incredibly loose definition of the term Ponzi. The hallmark of a Ponzi is that it takes in customer/investor money and does nothing with it but use it to pay back earlier investors. If AM took in money for 5PH/s worth of equipment and deployed 5PH/s of equipment, it does not make it a Ponzi if there is a service interruption and they pay customer dividends out of profits/reserves until such time as replacement hardware can be deployed. It just means there's a service interruption.
Now, if FC and/or the AMHash team does run off with all the equipment and coin, it's still not a Ponzi. It might be a theft or a scam, but that is a much broader category than a Ponzi. It would only really be a Ponzi if the entire farm was an elaborate sham, and they've been paying out customers from their own funds this whole time.

It's not incredibly loose. Maybe a tad wobbly Smiley but not a lot. There HAS to be some threshold when a business paying out funds collected from customers (and not business profits) can be considered a ponzi regardless of their prior good behavior. To me a couple of months while keeping vital information from customers is more than enough.

In other words, if someone deploys some miners, sells some mining shares, then at some point decides that mining is too much trouble - or gets robbed or whatever - and switches the business model to just keeping slow payouts up to 90% of collected cash back to customers, what do you call that?

Also keep in mind that even though AMHash didn't have a new IPO during that time, their failure to disclose such important information kept the price up on Havelock and anyone who purchased in Jan/Feb has the right to call this an outright scam, if not specifically a ponzi.
I don't disagree that them not disclosing the information to investors is scammy behaviour. They have definitely handled this poorly even if they are running a legitimate company.

For your example, I wouldn't call that a Ponzi, especially if they disclose the fact. Again, all examples here are assuming they are acting in good faith which remains to be seen. If the company at this point is fatally compromised due to the robbery, paying out whatever's left to the investors isn't a bad thing if there's no further path forward. By definition they would have had to invest some of the original funds into hardware to be able to sell the hashrate to begin with, so you wouldn't expect to get everything back. Saying they're paying back from customer funds and not business profits is difficult to show though, since business profits come from customer funds in any business. If Asicminer takes in $X to deploy 5PH/s and it costs them $Y to actually do so, then $X-$Y=$Z is their business profits along with whatever margin they charge on maintenance fees. If there is downtime in the equipment and they cover payments out of what they have left after purchasing equipment, that doesn't mean it is a Ponzi. It's actually much preferable to the alternative, which is "We got robbed, so we're suspending service."
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 06:32:46 PM
 #769

Lets not argue semantics on what is or isnt a ponzi, what really matters is what is or isnt a scam. To be a scam,  there has to be an intent to defraud. Even if AM/AMhash imo clearly should have disclosed what was going on, being asked not to by friedcat along with promises of a fix in the form of replacement hardware, is not an entirely unreasonable explanation and I do not (yet) believe the intend was to defraud their customers. The fact they didnt IPO anything after they were informed of the magical disappearing act, testifies to that.

suchmoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
March 04, 2015, 06:54:52 PM
 #770

Lets not argue semantics on what is or isnt a ponzi, what really matters is what is or isnt a scam. To be a scam,  there has to be an intent to defraud. Even if AM/AMhash imo clearly should have disclosed what was going on, being asked not to by friedcat along with promises of a fix in the form of replacement hardware, is not an entirely unreasonable explanation and I do not (yet) believe the intend was to defraud their customers. The fact they didnt IPO anything after they were informed of the magical disappearing act, testifies to that.

They clearly defrauded everyone who bought on Havelock in the last two months. The fact that they (AMHash) did not directly profit from that does not make it not a scam, it just makes them incompetent scammers. Had they disclosed what happened at the time it happened the price on Havelock would have reflected how much trust there was in getting the replacement hardware deployed, and it would have been a fair game. The fact that they tried to cover it up is about as much as I need to know about their intent.

Again, that's just my threshold for BS, I'm fully aware that in this Wild West that is Bitcoin everyone can have their own definition of what's acceptable or not. But after the GAW meltdown I'm much less tolerant to these kinds of shenanigans.

GAWSOME class action
(Homero Garza throws Stuart Fraser under the bus)
ION: XPY successor
                 Make sure to read

                 BitcoinTalk rules
          /s
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 07:50:14 PM
 #771

I think we agree, its just how you phrase it, ie, semantics.  Even the dictionary tells us we are both right, its just that you pick definition 3, Im using the first one:

fraud (frɔːd)
n.
1. deceit or trickery perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. something that is not what it pretends.
SpanishSoldier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 07:52:56 PM
 #772

AMHash hasn't been running a ponzi.

So where did the payments in January/February come from? Certainly not from mining?

Of course they ran a ponzi for a couple of months, stop splitting hair. They paid customers' money back to them. It's irrelevant that they weren't signing up any new ones IN THAT PERIOD, if anything that just hastened the collapse. Don't forget that mining ponzis are not your classical investment ponzis - you don't have to pay back 120% or whatever, you can slowly bleed the suckers by paying back 90% of the initial investment and everyone will be happy - hey, it's mining, sometimes you don't get 100%+ ROI.

Now whether you want to hope they will rise from the dead and pay everyone back - that's another story. I hope for that too, I have a couple of BTC invested there unfortunately. I got paid back for the Prisma fiasco, which also looked quite hopeless but still far from this clusterfuck.
You have an incredibly loose definition of the term Ponzi. The hallmark of a Ponzi is that it takes in customer/investor money and does nothing with it but use it to pay back earlier investors. If AM took in money for 5PH/s worth of equipment and deployed 5PH/s of equipment, it does not make it a Ponzi if there is a service interruption and they pay customer dividends out of profits/reserves until such time as replacement hardware can be deployed. It just means there's a service interruption.
Now, if FC and/or the AMHash team does run off with all the equipment and coin, it's still not a Ponzi. It might be a theft or a scam, but that is a much broader category than a Ponzi. It would only really be a Ponzi if the entire farm was an elaborate sham, and they've been paying out customers from their own funds this whole time.

It's not incredibly loose. Maybe a tad wobbly Smiley but not a lot. There HAS to be some threshold when a business paying out funds collected from customers (and not business profits) can be considered a ponzi regardless of their prior good behavior. To me a couple of months while keeping vital information from customers is more than enough.

In other words, if someone deploys some miners, sells some mining shares, then at some point decides that mining is too much trouble - or gets robbed or whatever - and switches the business model to just keeping slow payouts up to 90% of collected cash back to customers, what do you call that?

Also keep in mind that even though AMHash didn't have a new IPO during that time, their failure to disclose such important information kept the price up on Havelock and anyone who purchased in Jan/Feb has the right to call this an outright scam, if not specifically a ponzi.
I don't disagree that them not disclosing the information to investors is scammy behaviour. They have definitely handled this poorly even if they are running a legitimate company.

For your example, I wouldn't call that a Ponzi, especially if they disclose the fact. Again, all examples here are assuming they are acting in good faith which remains to be seen. If the company at this point is fatally compromised due to the robbery, paying out whatever's left to the investors isn't a bad thing if there's no further path forward. By definition they would have had to invest some of the original funds into hardware to be able to sell the hashrate to begin with, so you wouldn't expect to get everything back. Saying they're paying back from customer funds and not business profits is difficult to show though, since business profits come from customer funds in any business. If Asicminer takes in $X to deploy 5PH/s and it costs them $Y to actually do so, then $X-$Y=$Z is their business profits along with whatever margin they charge on maintenance fees. If there is downtime in the equipment and they cover payments out of what they have left after purchasing equipment, that doesn't mean it is a Ponzi. It's actually much preferable to the alternative, which is "We got robbed, so we're suspending service."

I understand that you are trying your best to recover the lost glory of FC. But, they have literally raped him over here in front of thousands of people => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0. I think, even Josh Garza was not treated so bad on BitcoinTalk. I was doubtful about FC, but did not expect this for him really...
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 09:45:09 PM
 #773

I understand that you are trying your best to recover the lost glory of FC. But, they have literally raped him over here in front of thousands of people => https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974058.0. I think, even Josh Garza was not treated so bad on BitcoinTalk. I was doubtful about FC, but did not expect this for him really...
I really don't give two shits about Friedcat, and have no money on the line. I'm merely stating that if AMHash had enough hardware to back their sales, "lost" the hardware for a couple months but paid up out of company coffers, then ends up replacing it, that doesn't make them a ponzi. Likewise, if they had all the hardware and were paying dividends out of mining revenue, but then stole all the hardware and ran with the money they are still not a ponzi. They're a bunch of thieves, but it's not a ponzi.

PS - Unless there's pictures in that thread of Bitcointalk users sodomizing FC, I don't think you have a very good grasp on what the word "literally" means.
armedmilitia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 576


We're going to need a bigger heatsink.


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2015, 11:22:26 PM
 #774

Wow. I can't believe how much of a clusterfuck that turned into.
And to think how much street cred AM had, and then dropping completely off the radar like that. Like the 'pac says, trust no one.
I think I'm going to start using escrow when buying from SP-TECH and bitmain now.  Undecided

Always use escrow. OgNasty is pretty sweet.

Help me out with compiling a list of mining datacenters!
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
March 04, 2015, 11:25:31 PM
 #775

I think I'm going to start using escrow when buying from SP-TECH and bitmain now.  Undecided

Be sure to use multisig, otherwise one day your escrow agent will just run off.
ATCkit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 02:02:01 AM
 #776

Anyome know anything about this new site: https://multimine.net/

Sounds to good to be true IMO.
Deathwing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


GET IN - Smart Ticket Protocol - Live in market!


View Profile
March 05, 2015, 02:54:44 AM
 #777

Anyome know anything about this new site: https://multimine.net/

Sounds to good to be true IMO.

Agreed, no fees at all because they are "paid from profit on trading".


               ████
             ███  ███
           ████     ███
         ███  ███    ███
       ████     ███    ███
     ███  ███     ███    ███
   ████     ███     ███   ██
 ███  ███     █████████████████
███     ███     ███           ██
 ███      ███     ██          ██
   ███      ██████████      ███
     ███      ██████      ███
       ███      ██      ███
         ███          ███
           ███      ███
             ███  ███
               ████

GUTS
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
smart-ticket protocol for events
live product with market traction!
    ███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
   
  BTC ANN
  WEBSITE
  BLOG
   
  SANDBOX
  WHITEPAPER
  BOUNTY
   
eneloop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1001


Ladestand: 100%


View Profile
March 06, 2015, 01:11:47 PM
 #778

Anyome know anything about this new site: https://multimine.net/

Sounds to good to be true IMO.
1+2+3+4+5+6+7 -> 100% SCAM

                               
           ░▓█████████████████▓░
          ▒▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▒▒▒██▓▒░
      ░▒▓███▓                 ▒██▓▓▒░░    ░
▓▒███████▓▒        ░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░    ░▓▓▓██▓▓▓▒▓
▒░██▒░░         ▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓██▓▒     ░ ▒▓▓░▓
░▒▓█▒         ▒█▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓████▓▓▒   ▒█▓▒▒
 ▒░██        ██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░▒▒░██▒   ██▒▒
 ▓░▓█▒      ██▒▒▒▒▒▒░▒░░▒▒▒░░▒▓██▓   ▒██░▒
 ░▓░█▓     ▓█▓▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒   ██░▓░
  ▓▒▒█▓  ▓▒█▓▒▒▓▓▒░▒░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ █▒  ██▓░▓
   █░▒█▓ ▓███▓▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░ ▓█  ██▓ ▓
    █░▓█▓ ░██▓███▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░▒▒▓██  ██▓░▓
    ░█░▒██  ░ ░▓███████▓██████▒  ██▒░▓
      █▒░██▓      ░▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒░   ▓██░▒▓
       ▓▓░▒██▒               ▒██▓░▓▓
        ░█▓░▓██▒           ▒██▓░▓█░
          ▒█▓░▓██▓       ▓██▓▒▓█▒
            ▒█▓▒▒███░ ▒███▒▒▓█▒
              ▒██▓▒▓███▓▒▒██▒
                ░▓██▒▒▒███░
                   ▒███▒














ligeros
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182

★Bitin.io★ - Instant Exchange


View Profile
March 06, 2015, 01:17:47 PM
 #779

Hey Puppet,
Greetings for nice job you have done with this discusion!
Can you please evaluate this "new" cloudmining - hashocean.com ?
For me is clear scam and rumors say - there are the same guys which did hasprofit before.
Regards
G

I'm sure hashocean is hashprofit-2
they have similar design, the same set of 3 referral links (home, pricing, signup pages), send the same daily e-mails about profit

kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
March 06, 2015, 05:40:10 PM
 #780

Wow. I can't believe how much of a clusterfuck that turned into.
And to think how much street cred AM had, and then dropping completely off the radar like that. Like the 'pac says, trust no one.
I think I'm going to start using escrow when buying from SP-TECH and bitmain now.  Undecided
Seriously? AM had NOTHING close to the reputation of Bitmain or SP-Tech, I really don't think an escrow is necessary for the big 2.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 ... 96 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!