ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[nycgoat]

I haven't received anything yet. Direct shares.

[1714221477]

1714221477

[1714221477]

1714221477

[1714221477]

1714221477

[1714221477]

1714221477

[1714221477]

1714221477

[hashie]

That leaves AMHash as the most realistic option to make a profit but it's deliberately not being sold at the moment.

It is being sold on hashie. There's just very little (none?) advertisement about it.

Yep, we're still selling primary market AMHash ghs.

-Sahra

[novusordo]

Hashie... essentially a direct competitor to ghash.io?

[Mabsark]

That leaves AMHash as the most realistic option to make a profit but it's deliberately not being sold at the moment.

It is being sold on hashie. There's just very little (none?) advertisement about it.

Yeah, but it's not being sold on Havelock, which is what we're paying Rockminer to do. Also, the link to Havelock in the official thread leads to AMHash1 so anyone following that link to purchase AMHash is going to be buying from existing customers and not us. That was true when AMHash2 was briefly available too. How many sales did that cost us?

Rockminer have made no effort whatsoever to actually sell AMHash, beginning with their announcement of the service in the "securities" section on this forum - the worst possible place to pitch cloud mining. Do you see any of the other cloud mining companies advertising here? No, because they're not idiots. They may be ponzis but they're still selling contracts because they promote their services in the right place.

We're currently paying Rockminer to allow Havelock to make a profit from the trading of AMHash shares. How does this make any sense from an AM shareholder's perspective?

Yep, we're still selling primary market AMHash ghs.

-Sahra

It's a shame you force people to login to gain basic information. I'd redirect my sig link to your page if that wasn't the case. That way Hashie and AM would both profit instead of Havelock.

[elasticband]

perhaps they have had a temporary change of plan again, with the current lower difficulty rises they see it better to hold and mine for now.

[dnaleor]

Unless payments were made out of more than one address, only 74,685/400,000 shares received divs.

Still waiting for a dividend on my direct shares - anyone else?

yes. missing div on my direct share :/

[lucasjkr]

\
The only thing remotely true about your post is the fact that AM is completely lacking communication. (which I agree is unacceptable but it doesn't make them scammers )

There's nobody here who would defend FC/AM if they decided to start scamming.

They have a very competitive chip (possibly the best) and 60PH completely paid for. That's at least ~$10m in assets.

Overall I'd rate the FUD 4/10.

So they retained 60PH of hardware rather than resell it? Why in the world for? Whenever they have a product for sale, buyers line up to pay them more in BTC than than the hardware would ever hope to generate. Sure, it feels good to AM shareholders who can say "our hash rate is X and we'll earn Y BTC over the next 9 moths", which is nice, but had FC put those units up for sale, he could have earned Y * 1.1 BTC for his shareholders as soon as the hardware was sold out, rather than by the time it reaches the end of its useful life.

i should probably shut up... I haven't owned AM shares since BTCT.co shutdown...

[lucasjkr]

damn, so apparently, FC (and boardmembers) prolonged absence could partly be explained by the fact that china has indeed restricted access to bitcointalk:

bitcointalk has been totally blocked by china interenet so i cannot login very often

are there anymore chinese people in here

If FC can't figure out how to obtain a VPN connection, that really doesn't bode well for AM shareholders

/s

[xhomerx10]

damn, so apparently, FC (and boardmembers) prolonged absence could partly be explained by the fact that china has indeed restricted access to bitcointalk:

bitcointalk has been totally blocked by china interenet so i cannot login very often

are there anymore chinese people in here

If FC can't figure out how to obtain a VPN connection, that really doesn't bode well for AM shareholders

/s

  VPN cost money.  Friedcat frugal

[armedmilitia]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

[John (John K.)]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

What address is your share at? You might want to check if there's unconfirmed coins on it - the div should be big enough to be accepted though.

[gogxmagog]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

Yes, this has been stated before. Divs on one single share are less than tx fee. Earlier someone said you can plug your receiving address into block chain io and see that you are accounted for. Did you try that?

[armedmilitia]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

Yes, this has been stated before. Divs on one single share are less than tx fee. Earlier someone said you can plug your receiving address into block chain io and see that you are accounted for. Did you try that?

Double checked on blockchain.info, triple checked the confirmation email that transferred my havelock share to direct share. The address checks out--but there's no unconfirmed/confirmed dividends received. I only have one transaction on the address (cold storage transfer in), so I'm sure I didn't miss it. Spooky!

[arnuschky]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

Yes, this has been stated before. Divs on one single share are less than tx fee. Earlier someone said you can plug your receiving address into block chain io and see that you are accounted for. Did you try that?

Double checked on blockchain.info, triple checked the confirmation email that transferred my havelock share to direct share. The address checks out--but there's no unconfirmed/confirmed dividends received. I only have one transaction on the address (cold storage transfer in), so I'm sure I didn't miss it. Spooky!

Short explanation: ASICminer tried to send the minimum amount, as it was only for administrative purposes. The minimum amount per output accepted by the network is regulated by the "dust threshold": any output smaller than this threshold, and the transaction will not be accepted (it's considered to be spam).

Unfortunately, there's a very common misconception that this threshold is 5430 satoshis, while in reality it's 5460 satoshis. So ASICminer used the wrong value as dividend in their attempt to send the minimal amount. Doesn't affect you if you have more than one share, obviously.

No idea why they didn't notice their mistake though, as submitting the transaction with a wrong output would fail.

[armedmilitia]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

Yes, this has been stated before. Divs on one single share are less than tx fee. Earlier someone said you can plug your receiving address into block chain io and see that you are accounted for. Did you try that?

Double checked on blockchain.info, triple checked the confirmation email that transferred my havelock share to direct share. The address checks out--but there's no unconfirmed/confirmed dividends received. I only have one transaction on the address (cold storage transfer in), so I'm sure I didn't miss it. Spooky!

Short explanation: ASICminer tried to send the minimum amount, as it was only for administrative purposes. The minimum amount per output accepted by the network is regulated by the "dust threshold": any output smaller than this threshold, and the transaction will not be accepted (it's considered to be spam).

Unfortunately, there's a very common misconception that this threshold is 5430 satoshis, while in reality it's 5460 satoshis. So ASICminer used the wrong value as dividend in their attempt to send the minimal amount. Doesn't affect you if you have more than one share, obviously.

No idea why they didn't notice their mistake though, as submitting the transaction with a wrong output would fail.

Oh, so the smaller shareholders got shafted then. I think I'm going to start a class-action suit! /s

Thanks for the explanation man--I wonder if AM will boost the divs next time for people like me.

[dhenson]

Oh, so the smaller shareholders got shafted then. I think I'm going to start a class-action suit! /s

Thanks for the explanation man--I wonder if AM will boost the divs next time for people like me.

There are many addresses in the spreadsheet with only one share.  When I find myself a minute (I'm currently traveling), I'll update the spreadsheet as John K was kind enough to post the remaining sending address.

[dnaleor]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

same, I only have ONE direct share. My other one is at havelock (divs received at havelock, not at my direct share)

[benm]

Just going to re-confirm that my divs haven't been received on my address. I wonder if its because I only have a single share--is the div big enough to be accepted by the network?

same, I only have ONE direct share. My other one is at havelock (divs received at havelock, not at my direct share)

So basically Havelock gets to keep your dividend, since their withdrawal fee is 10x the standard 0.0001 btc that is expected for a transaction now.

[RoadStress]

We're currently paying Rockminer to allow Havelock to make a profit from the trading of AMHash shares. How does this make any sense from an AM shareholder's perspective?

I told you in the past that AM is indirectly sending part of their profits to the 3rd parties involved. You told me that I eat shit. Ok.

*While I may look that I like to put salt on the would, I am just stating my point of view no matter if it hurts or not and no matter how much shit will you throw at me.

So they retained 60PH of hardware rather than resell it? Why in the world for? Whenever they have a product for sale, buyers line up to pay them more in BTC than than the hardware would ever hope to generate. Sure, it feels good to AM shareholders who can say "our hash rate is X and we'll earn Y BTC over the next 9 moths", which is nice, but had FC put those units up for sale, he could have earned Y * 1.1 BTC for his shareholders as soon as the hardware was sold out, rather than by the time it reaches the end of its useful life.

i should probably shut up... I haven't owned AM shares since BTCT.co shutdown...

Wait until you find out that while they had a lot of hashpower available they preferred to let it sit on shelves instead of starting self-mining.

[bones]

sure, we had loads of miners sat on the shelves doing nothing...

do you even engage your brain, or you just open your mouth and let the sh!t fall out ?