ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[rudi]

Haha you guys are funny. Thanks for the answer though!

[ensurance982]

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

[malaimult]

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

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

[dmcdad]

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

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.

[dhenson]

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

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

Proof?

[raskul]

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

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

Proof?

even if it was the case, so what!? i feel that some folks are just a little too precious about their interent formus.
it's a big world out there kids and manufacturing companies are vying to keep ahead. Whatever marketing methods a company wishes to use, it's good to see the novel ways they their employees go about drumming up custom. At the end of the day the decision to buy / not to buy lies in the hands of the consumer.

that is one thing that never changes, people don't get 'brainwashed' into buying from a particular manufacturer.

REAL WORLD MARKETING BY ME <--- hire me, it's Christmas and I have hundreds of children to feed.

[dogie]

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

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.

[raskul]

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

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.

[Blazed]

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

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.

You are joking right? They sold bad miners and just completely ignored it for months. People had boards DOA, boards catching fire, bad controllers, paid orders with delays and no replies. They should not be expected to offer round the clock support, but not even replying for over a month? AM should stick to making chips and offering cloud mining...AMHash seems to be working out well these days.

[Mabsark]

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.

[MichaelBliss]

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

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.

[malaimult]

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. 

[raskul]

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

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.

You are joking right? They sold bad miners and just completely ignored it for months. People had boards DOA, boards catching fire, bad controllers, paid orders with delays and no replies. They should not be expected to offer round the clock support, but not even replying for over a month? AM should stick to making chips and offering cloud mining...AMHash seems to be working out well these days.

good point. i tend not to take much notice of any supplier batch1 as I have a principle rule never to buy batch1. but yes, I recall very clearly the points you raise and concede to your being quite correct.

[raskul]

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.

[Mabsark]

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]

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]

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

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?

[MichaelBliss]

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]

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]

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...