Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2021, 11:33:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 [1243] 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3914037 times)
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 21, 2014, 05:06:44 PM
 #24841

Well they seem to be bashing their competition via proxies that are all on default trust (and wearing their signature). IMO this is a serious cause for concern
Can you please give more detail on this (examples, links, etc.)? Thanks.

I think he's talking about a bunch of users (including Mr Teal, Puppet, Raskul and I) asking some cloud mining ponzis to provide evidence of legitimacy and me leaving negative feedback because they flat-out refused. I've told those "services" I'd remove it if they provide such evidence. Unsurprisingly, they haven't provided any evidence.
That is correct. My issue with that is that the lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam. The fact that you are advertising and invested in competing services is a major concern for me and makes it appear that you are attempting to increase the value of your investments.  

i did learn a small lesson with this event. While I was so blinkered by the sheer volume of ponzis going on, I let it cloud my real judgement and Mabsark and I both did leave incorrect feedback on a recent new cloud mining operation. It turned out that particular operation is indeed legit and I, for one should have been more thoughtful in how I approached the subject.
I agree that lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam, and i'm being more cautious in my approach, in the future.

apologies for going OT but I felt the need to address this, as my name was mentioned.

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
1634686407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634686407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634686407
Reply with quote  #2

1634686407
Report to moderator
1634686407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634686407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634686407
Reply with quote  #2

1634686407
Report to moderator
1634686407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634686407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634686407
Reply with quote  #2

1634686407
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1634686407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634686407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634686407
Reply with quote  #2

1634686407
Report to moderator
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1004


View Profile
December 21, 2014, 06:02:15 PM
 #24842

That is correct. My issue with that is that the lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam. The fact that you are advertising and invested in competing services is a major concern for me and makes it appear that you are attempting to increase the value of your investments. 

And my problem with that, is that waiting for evidence of a scam to leave negative feedback is simply too late for that feedback to stop people being ripped off by those scams. If those "services" don't want to be labelled as ponzis, they should stop acting like ponzis and provide some evidence to potential customers that they are in fact legitimate instead of coming up with bullshit excuses why they can't provide such evidence. Far too many people are getting ripped off by such ponzis and it's up to us as a community to stop that.

I think all new cloud mining services should start out with a ponzi warning until they provide evidence of their legitimacy.

i did learn a small lesson with this event. While I was so blinkered by the sheer volume of ponzis going on, I let it cloud my real judgement and Mabsark and I both did leave incorrect feedback on a recent new cloud mining operation.

Which I removed immediately upon some form of evidence of legitimacy being provided, just like I said I would.
MichaelBliss
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 526
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 21, 2014, 06:27:36 PM
 #24843

That is correct. My issue with that is that the lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam. The fact that you are advertising and invested in competing services is a major concern for me and makes it appear that you are attempting to increase the value of your investments. 

And my problem with that, is that waiting for evidence of a scam to leave negative feedback is simply too late for that feedback to stop people being ripped off by those scams. If those "services" don't want to be labelled as ponzis, they should stop acting like ponzis and provide some evidence to potential customers that they are in fact legitimate instead of coming up with bullshit excuses why they can't provide such evidence. Far too many people are getting ripped off by such ponzis and it's up to us as a community to stop that.

I think all new cloud mining services should start out with a ponzi warning until they provide evidence of their legitimacy.

i did learn a small lesson with this event. While I was so blinkered by the sheer volume of ponzis going on, I let it cloud my real judgement and Mabsark and I both did leave incorrect feedback on a recent new cloud mining operation.

Which I removed immediately upon some form of evidence of legitimacy being provided, just like I said I would.

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty".  Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 4246


Go! BTC Go!


View Profile
December 21, 2014, 06:32:34 PM
 #24844

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss any concerns in the thread.]

I gotta say this is a tad uncalled for... FC has communicated more than ever (well except for the funding and early gen 1 period) over the last weeks or so. The 1/10 points at communication deserve at least something better Cheesy

Have a look through any of the product threads. Its been the same thing repeated for months and months, bad communication, customer support, technical support and impossible to get hold of anyone. It goes on for pages and pages and pages and pages across all the threads.

I think what dogie is confusing here is the difference between a product manufacturer and an interent formus user.
When you purchase an item from a manufacturer, they do not have a duty to be on hand 24/7 on a related, but separate from their own sales platform forum.
I do think dogie has been slightly harsh and I can actually see a h/w race which is pretty much neck-and-neck-and-neck-and-neck at the moment.

The real problem is that one user "Doggie" has so much power and influence over "ratings" - since he is the only one rating these companies it seems.  You can't really blame him for providing a service.  Since he's the only one, he becomes a bit of a dictator in a community that respects "decentralization", not tyranny.  The obvious solution would be for other Doggies to emerge and do their own ratings.   A better solution would be to set something up where the rating is a transparent forumula that takes as it's input ratings of various users.   Doggie's thread, and the way he can play God and make or break a company, always seemed ridiculously authoritarian and incompatible with bitcoin principals of democracy and plurality, etc.    
I mean, even if Doggie is a saint today; what's to stop him from selling his account to Spoondoolies or someone?  Centralization is not good.  Neither is authoritarianism.   Distrust anyone who decides to become an "authority".  Sorry Doggie, you seem like an all right guy, but I can't support what your doing.

 You make a valid argument though I wonder how many others would willingly take this task without the promise of remuneration?


############.########..##.....##.####.##.......########..####.##....##..######.........###.......########..########.########.########.########.########.....########.##..........###.....######..##.....##.##.......####..######...##.....##.########.#########..#######. +----
############.##.....##.##.....##..##..##.......##.....##..##..###...##.##....##.......##.##......##.....##.##..........##.......##....##.......##.....##....##.......##.........##.##...##....##.##.....##.##........##..##....##..##.....##....##....###########...##### +++++++
############.##.....##.##.....##..##..##.......##.....##..##..####..##.##............##...##.....##.....##.##..........##.......##....##.......##.....##....##.......##........##...##..##.......##.....##.##........##..##........##.....##....##....############...####+++++++++
############.########..##.....##..##..##.......##.....##..##..##.##.##.##...####....##.....##....########..######......##.......##....######...########.....######...##.......##.....##..######..#########.##........##..##...####.#########....##....############...####+++++++++
############.##.....##.##.....##..##..##.......##.....##..##..##..####.##....##.....#########....##.....##.##..........##.......##....##.......##...##......##.......##.......#########.......##.##.....##.##........##..##....##..##.....##....##....############...####+++++++++
############.##.....##.##.....##..##..##.......##.....##..##..##...###.##....##.....##.....##....##.....##.##..........##.......##....##.......##....##.....##.......##.......##.....##.##....##.##.....##.##........##..##....##..##.....##....##....###########...##### +++++++
############.########...#######..####.########.########..####.##....##..######......##.....##....########..########....##.......##....########.##.....##....##.......########.##.....##..######..##.....##.########.####..######...##.....##....##....#########..#######. +----
SIDEHACK
MichaelBliss
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 526
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 21, 2014, 06:37:46 PM
 #24845

how many others would willingly take this task without the promise of remuneration?


Yeah, I said I don't blame Dogie for doing his service, it's a free market and anyone is welcome to do the same thing and compete.   That's very charitable of him if he gets nothing in return.  I thought maybe he was getting free hardware for testing.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1004


View Profile
December 21, 2014, 07:05:33 PM
Last edit: December 21, 2014, 07:36:22 PM by Mabsark
 #24846

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty".  Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

Tell that to all the victims of the PB mining ponzi and all the other bitcoin ponzis, I'm sure that will get them their money back. This isn't a court of law and there is no "innocent until proven guilty" when dealing with bitcoin services, they should all be treated as scams until they provide some evidence of legitimacy.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.
MichaelBliss
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 526
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 21, 2014, 07:53:13 PM
 #24847

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty".  Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

Issue is with calling out / demanding evidence from legit companies, not the ponzis.  I do see your point, I totally disagree that they should get negative trust until they prove themselves to you.   Though I see the need for warning people.  Haha start Mabsark's Ratings Guide to Ponzi's maybe...
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1119



View Profile WWW
December 21, 2014, 08:37:20 PM
 #24848

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty".  Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

Issue is with calling out / demanding evidence from legit companies, not the ponzis.  I do see your point, I totally disagree that they should get negative trust until they prove themselves to you.   Though I see the need for warning people.  Haha start Mabsark's Ratings Guide to Ponzi's maybe...

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.
Mabsark
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1004


View Profile
December 21, 2014, 09:37:41 PM
 #24849

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.

I've never been on Default Trust. I was on Canary's list (no idea why) but I'm not now. There's a discussion going on about it over here by the way, and most people agree with the feedback I've left.

Uh. What's up with divs ? One time payment and then silence again ?

That wasn't a proper dividend, it was just for accountancy.
raskul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
December 21, 2014, 10:10:15 PM
 #24850

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.

I've never been on Default Trust. I was on Canary's list (no idea why) but I'm not now. There's a discussion going on about it over here by the way, and most people agree with the feedback I've left.

Uh. What's up with divs ? One time payment and then silence again ?

That wasn't a proper dividend, it was just for accountancy. That was the change from the next round of investment with your money.

FTFY^
 Wink

tips    1APp826DqjJBdsAeqpEstx6Q8hD4urac8a
EternalWingsofGod
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 21, 2014, 10:58:28 PM
 #24851

This company's rating has been updated in the Manufacturer Trustworthiness thread.

[This message won't be monitored, discuss any concerns in the thread.]

Reading the changelog in my opinion it makes sense on the communication front since we have been working on getting communications improved for the better part of the year without much progress by some measures so a downgrade made sense.
But it is more than 1 (since there is communication and 0 would be the absense of it 1 seems a tad low)
The prisma was an issue but the way it was handled was good so seems like a fair decrease for now.
It did make me look at all the competitors quite a few.


Good stuff haven't checked in a while.

malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 22, 2014, 07:10:35 AM
 #24852

Dude, it's called "innocent until proven guilty".  Your acting like an entitled asshole and it's reflecting badly on AM obviously.

As for calling out these ponzis reflecting badly on AM, that's complete nonsense and AMHash sales prove that.

Issue is with calling out / demanding evidence from legit companies, not the ponzis.  I do see your point, I totally disagree that they should get negative trust until they prove themselves to you.   Though I see the need for warning people.  Haha start Mabsark's Ratings Guide to Ponzi's maybe...

I am sure these guys having default trust will not last long...Theymos already knows of the problems. Canary seems to hand out lvl 2 trust like it is going out of style and that should be fixed soon. I myself have some lvl 2 trust, but earned it..I would never negrate without proof since it carries a lot more weight. If you have no proof simple leave a neutral warning since it shows up and let others decide off of that.
Right. I would be willing to bet that Canary is going to be removed from level 1 default trust in the near future if he keeps up his behavior. This whole fiasco makes me weary of potentially investing in AM hash and would even make me willing to bet that they will end up scamming in the future

malaimult
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
December 22, 2014, 07:15:52 AM
 #24853

Well they seem to be bashing their competition via proxies that are all on default trust (and wearing their signature). IMO this is a serious cause for concern
Can you please give more detail on this (examples, links, etc.)? Thanks.

I think he's talking about a bunch of users (including Mr Teal, Puppet, Raskul and I) asking some cloud mining ponzis to provide evidence of legitimacy and me leaving negative feedback because they flat-out refused. I've told those "services" I'd remove it if they provide such evidence. Unsurprisingly, they haven't provided any evidence.
That is correct. My issue with that is that the lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam. The fact that you are advertising and invested in competing services is a major concern for me and makes it appear that you are attempting to increase the value of your investments.  

i did learn a small lesson with this event. While I was so blinkered by the sheer volume of ponzis going on, I let it cloud my real judgement and Mabsark and I both did leave incorrect feedback on a recent new cloud mining operation. It turned out that particular operation is indeed legit and I, for one should have been more thoughtful in how I approached the subject.
I agree that lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam, and i'm being more cautious in my approach, in the future.

apologies for going OT but I felt the need to address this, as my name was mentioned.
I don't think that people should take risks with companies that may potentially end up scamming, but it is not fair to say that these companies will scam. Potential investors should proceed with caution with both AM hash and others

jimmothy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 509



View Profile
December 22, 2014, 07:30:06 AM
 #24854

Right. I would be willing to bet that Canary is going to be removed from level 1 default trust in the near future if he keeps up his behavior. This whole fiasco makes me weary of potentially investing in AM hash and would even make me willing to bet that they will end up scamming in the future

Let me get this straight, you think AM is going to scam people in the future because of the actions of people who are not even part of the company?

And you think that lack of evidence of legitimacy is not evidence of a scam, yet you're willing to bet a company with transparency and proof of legitimacy is a scam?

Seems to me you don't have actual concerns, but more of a personal axe to grind.
Dexter770221
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1029
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 22, 2014, 12:41:12 PM
 #24855

Competition:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902305.0

And AM didn't even bother to announce Prisma 2.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902269.0

Under development Modular UPGRADEABLE Miner (MUM). Looking for investors.
Changing one PCB with screwdriver and you have brand new miner in hand... Plug&Play, scalable from one module to thousands.
101111
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 525
Merit: 500


View Profile
December 22, 2014, 01:36:58 PM
 #24856

So Dogie is now employed by Bitmain and is quick to spruik them vs prismas https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902269.msg9914111#msg9914111 which are clearly a far superior product. One of the few credible voices gone; at least he was open about it.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1018


View Profile
December 22, 2014, 01:40:58 PM
 #24857

which are clearly a far superior product.

What makes you say that? S5 does 0.5J/GH at the wall, underclockable to ~0.2J. Prisma 2.0 is nowhere near.
I also think that not having a history of catching fire is a plus to many people.
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1119



View Profile WWW
December 22, 2014, 01:54:22 PM
 #24858

So Dogie is now employed by Bitmain and is quick to spruik them vs prismas https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=902269.msg9914111#msg9914111 which are clearly a far superior product. One of the few credible voices gone; at least he was open about it.

Superior? Really the Prisma 1.0 was an amazing experience I must say! Not sure what was my favorite part..the non working unit or lack of replies. I will have to get to you on that part while I think about it.
Blazed
Casascius Addict
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1119



View Profile WWW
December 22, 2014, 01:55:10 PM
 #24859

which are clearly a far superior product.

What makes you say that? S5 does 0.5J/GH at the wall, underclockable to ~0.2J. Prisma 2.0 is nowhere near.
I also think that not having a history of catching fire is a plus to many people.

lol yes this...I think many have lost a lot of faith in AM gear at this point..
Dexter770221
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1029
Merit: 1000


View Profile
December 22, 2014, 02:05:41 PM
 #24860

S5 is a new product. Also in a string design... Who knows, maybe there will be similiar issues with poping packages and fires...

Under development Modular UPGRADEABLE Miner (MUM). Looking for investors.
Changing one PCB with screwdriver and you have brand new miner in hand... Plug&Play, scalable from one module to thousands.
Pages: « 1 ... 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 [1243] 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 ... 1348 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!