ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[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. 

[velacreations]

For people who say ASICMINER prices are tied to USD/BTC, do you still feel that way?  I have yet to notice a significant move... do you think the USD/BTC shift is just offsetting the news of new product?

it's possible.  I know that if USD/BTC goes to $110+, a lot of people will be selling to lock in some gains.  If those same people have AM shares, they will be selling the shares to get BTC.  I am not convinced BTC will sit above $100 for any amount of time right now.  If true, and others believe the same, they will cash out when they gain to realize profits.

Also, some of the other securities have had a lot of movement, so it might be AM shareholders diversifying a bit.

But, we haven't had the news of the new product, actually.  Until FC puts blades up for sale, I don't expect to see much movement.

[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.