ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[ThickAsThieves]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate. 

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

[canth]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate. 

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

Love that movie. Funny - I thought of it since it was referenced in the movie, but I had no idea that's where you took it from. We'll call you Andy Dufresne from now on.

[AMuppInTime]

Let's just say that TAT is much cheaper when transfering > 8 shares, and John when having < 8 shares *

Both are very trustworthy guys, and considering it's a small part of the total amount it's 100% worth it using escrow!

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

Second. I don't trust TAT, and I trust Havelock even less.

[elefter]

I created a new temporary page for the dividend prediction:
www.asicminercharts.com/divprediction

Eventually I'll add the meter next to the wallet meter on the live page

Right now it says .01785  Is that right?  How does it figure that?

It looks at AM's mining wallet and divides by 400K .

So the mining income is projected into the future but the sales income is what has been sold so far?

[freedomno1]

Let's just say that TAT is much cheaper when transfering > 8 shares, and John when having < 8 shares *

Both are very trustworthy guys, and considering it's a small part of the total amount it's 100% worth it using escrow!

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

Second. I don't trust TAT, and I trust Havelock even less.

Good explanations might be important opinion is one thing accusations another
Both are quite high level reliable members who do a fair service so trust issues should be reasoned with fairly.
I agree that John has been here longer and childish posts might annoy you but it's not really something that I would pick at whats important is the management of the funds how investors act is not the issuers fault.
As an example we have MPOE-PR who is far more colorful and is trusted with mpex.
Your point is fair enough but people need to take it with two cents.

[Adrian-x]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate.  

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

Thanks for clarifying; I look forward to calling up TAT Investments in a few years and hearing the receptionist answered the phone using the TAT acronym.

[fumble]

>>>> ASICMINER <<<< BRUTEFORCE POWER HOUR HOD TURBO HASHRATE BOOM BOOM!! FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH PLAY MONSTER CLIMBER JACK RABBIT CHARGED BINGO SCORE FRIEDCAT SCRATCH AND WIN !  

I'll have what he's having please.

[tinus42]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate.  

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

Don't lie, you just followed the first of these steps:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244724.msg2600058#msg2600058

 

[TadpolesIsAWinner]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate. 

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

Whoa whoa whoa.  I haven't seen the movie in a while, but the audience never DEFINITIVELY knows that he didn't kill his wife, do we?

[ThickAsThieves]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate. 

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

Whoa whoa whoa.  I haven't seen the movie in a while, but the audience never DEFINITIVELY knows that he didn't kill his wife, do we?

Yes they do, remember the scene where the cackling guy admits it all? I mean he never gets absolved in court, but it's pretty blatant that we're meant to know he didn't do it. Either way, interesting point!

[arklan]

just to pull this back on topic (sorta) for a bit -

when transferring shares, we're still "simply" pming friedcat with the btc address that currently holds them, and the address they're going to, right?

[silvermario]

Well lets not go as far as compare john with TAT. I have nothing personal against TAT but he is not even close to beeing "trustworthy", he has long way before he prove himself and as of now he is not doing good job with his childish posts and not so professional behavior.

The last time I saw a scheme requiring trust and the operator used the name Pirate, and I thought your name says it all.

This time I see the name Thieves , and I immediately think it is more daring that Pirate.  

It's a reference to one of my favorite movies about a man wrongly persecuted, and how he prevails, The Shawshank Redemption. The phrase itself merely means "loyal".

Don't lie, you just followed the first of these steps:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244724.msg2600058#msg2600058

 

Thanks for this link, it was simply brilliant!!

[AMuppInTime]

Second. I don't trust TAT, and I trust Havelock even less.

Good explanations might be important opinion is one thing accusations another
Both are quite high level reliable members who do a fair service so trust issues should be reasoned with fairly.
I agree that John has been here longer and childish posts might annoy you but it's not really something that I would pick at whats important is the management of the funds how investors act is not the issuers fault.
As an example we have MPOE-PR who is far more colorful and is trusted with mpex.
Your point is fair enough but people need to take it with two cents.

When I have the money, the OTHER SIDE has to show me I should trust them. I'm tired of the self promoting posts by TAT who annoy me greatly, despite the concept of a 1/100 passthrough being brilliant and currently working (props to that). However the childish attitude has a lot to do with the trust: I will not trust someone who behaves like a little kid - I deal in currencies, and I expect professional business attitude when dealing with it. The 1/100PT seems to be doing well for now and that's a great step forward, but the attitude is not the attitude of someone I want to invest with. Regarding Havelock, the current deal TAT has with them is shady, and I just don't trust the exchange itself.
If you want to risk anything, I'd say risk it on BTC-TC, which is more sound, more public, and probably more secure that Havelock (Does anyone have a single bad thing to say about BTC-TC?). I'm not saying HAVELOCK/TAT are not to be trusted, I am saying that I, myself, don't trust them.

Of course there's always the possibility of me being wrong.

[ewibit]

When I have the money, the OTHER SIDE has to show me I should trust them.

If you want to risk anything, I'd say risk it on BTC-TC, which is more sound, more public, and probably more secure ... (Does anyone have a single bad thing to say about BTC-TC?).

+1

[freedomno1]

When I have the money, the OTHER SIDE has to show me I should trust them.

Roger Pierrejo thanks for the reply, your right it is up to them to earn yours and other peoples trust.

Regarding btc-tc no issues from me the odd bug fix request now and then but that's well within normal operations. What shareholders do in the funds is what shareholders do in the funds   including over priced short duration options.

The price differential of the same fund since when we are talking ASIC shares between the exchanges sometimes is profitable and if the dividend is the same might be a factor, but trust is what matters even between identical issuing's.

On a sidenote he-he I remember this thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244724.msg2600058#msg2600058

just to pull this back on topic (sorta) for a bit -

when transferring shares, we're still "simply" pming friedcat with the btc address that currently holds them, and the address they're going to, right?

I believe that hasn't changed so yes just a pm with the account details and transfer information but if I am mistaken by someone else who knows of a change feel free to correct me.

[schnuber]

Can someone explain why there is so much fluctuation in the ASICMINER mining share?

[ThickAsThieves]

Can someone explain why there is so much fluctuation in the ASICMINER mining share?

The stock has been volatile for a while now. It's just that no one complains when it's going and up, up, up.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

It's just that no one complains when it's going and up, up, up.

Are you kidding? There's always plenty of noise from investors in AM puts, BFL pre-orders & assorted overpriced mining shares. You bet they'll be out in force the next time we go up Up UP.

[nubbins]

I will not trust someone who behaves like a little kid - I deal in currencies, and I expect professional business attitude when dealing with it.

This. So many public figures in bitcoin simply do not have attitudes that match their responsibilities. Boorish "fund managers" and "CEOs" squabbling and tossing insults in public forums, oblivious to their loss of dignity, holding huge "buy me" signs while shouting obscenities at whoever is willing to offer an opinion.

A lot of this can be chalked up to a lack of exposure to the real, actual, grown-up business world, where people are civil to each other, and are able to do their job without freaking out or searching for arguments. If you walked into a bank to open an account, and the teller said "good thing you didn't go with those fucking morons across the street", you'd be shocked. You wouldn't trust them with your money. Here in bitcoin land, you can have a hardware manufacturer or an exchange owner call its customers fucking morons, and nobody even cares.

It's a truly amazing spectacle.

[ThickAsThieves]

If you walked into a bank to open an account, and the teller said "good thing you didn't go with those fucking morons across the street", you'd be shocked. You wouldn't trust them with your money. Here in bitcoin land, you can have a hardware manufacturer or an exchange owner call its customers fucking morons, and nobody even cares.

I know BFL has behaved in ways like that, but I don't recall any exchange operators that do. Ah, wait, MPOE-PR can be rather biting, true.

I do agree that sometimes exchange operators and issuers, including myself, can be too informal at times. Some of us are responsible for managing millions of dollars worth in portfolio equity, and you are justified in wanting those representatives to act maturely and responsibly. It's something I try to think about as often as I can, but admittedly I can be susceptible to good trolling and frustrated with some forum "superstars" at times. Know that I am making an effort, and I assume people like Burnside, Ukyo, and Lightbox are doing the same. Even, Deprived, the Grim Reaper of bitcoin finance, can show emotion and lose a little control at times.

I have been running my own successful business for most of my career now, and my responsibilities have included interfacing with clients, customer service, and sales, even though those are not the core services I provided as a business. As the business grew, I was able to focus more on what I was best at, and leave the other aspects to specialists. In that sense, I think part of what you are seeing in bitcoin is small business style management and behavior, in an industry that has been traditionally one of big businesses. You'd never see things like the programmer being the CEO, PR, and CS rep for a financial service in the "real world".

There is plenty "wrong" with how things work right now, but I do think it's improving before our eyes. More transparency, scrutiny, and raising of standards will come, no matter how much kicking and screaming it takes.