Topic: [Active Mining] The UNofficial Active Mining Discussion Thread [UNmoderated] - page 26. (Read 76090 times)
April 03, 2014, 09:30:22 AM
At this point, I'm beginning to suspect you finally got your hands on some excellent glue. Please return to the containment thread created for you here, delete all your posts, and stop shitting up this thread.
April 03, 2014, 09:25:32 AM
April 03, 2014, 09:24:19 AM
Who cares who I am, I'm a free man and always will be. You dumbass Romanians keep getting yourselves in trouble though don't you.
April 03, 2014, 09:21:58 AM
ORLY? So zumzero account isn't you?
Also, language!
Also, language!
April 03, 2014, 09:06:22 AM
You said I was crumbs.
You said crumbs was Eduardo de Castro.
∴I must be Eduardo de Castro, no?
You said crumbs was Eduardo de Castro.
∴I must be Eduardo de Castro, no?
No I have never said lambchop was crumbs. I haven't even mentioned crumbs in months until just now.
You made A=C in your brain because you know it's true that you are Crumbs.
Twat.
April 03, 2014, 09:01:26 AM
I take it I'm no longer Eduardo deCastro?
What do you mean?
I never said I thought NotLabchop was Eduardo de Castro. I said I thought Crumbs was Eduardo de Castro. So you have just confirmed you are Crumbs.
Marcel you are a cunt. The way you behave I'm sure that will be written on your grave-stone.
Apologies to Eduardo, he's not a bad man after all.
You said I was crumbs.
You said crumbs was Eduardo de Castro.
∴I must be Eduardo de Castro, no?
A=B; B=C;
∴A=C
Lrn 2 logic, Active Miners!
April 03, 2014, 09:01:06 AM
Apologies to Eduardo, he's not a bad man after all.
Take it back!
April 03, 2014, 08:44:04 AM
I take it I'm no longer Eduardo deCastro?
What do you mean?
I never said I thought NotLabchop was Eduardo de Castro. I said I thought Crumbs was Eduardo de Castro. So you have just confirmed you are Crumbs.
Marcel you are a cunt. The way you behave I'm sure that will be written on your grave-stone.
Apologies to Eduardo, he's not a bad man after all.
April 03, 2014, 08:40:41 AM
...
sorry what? Why did you multiply the weekly sales by the number of days in a year and not number of weeks? ...
sorry what? Why did you multiply the weekly sales by the number of days in a year and not number of weeks? ...
Because learnings
April 03, 2014, 08:32:46 AM
lol yeah, I done that. 
Let's see what sales are after 2 or 3 weeks. There was no PR and no advertising in week 1 so 18 sales from a company that have had months of bad press is par for the course.
Let's see what sales are after 2 or 3 weeks. There was no PR and no advertising in week 1 so 18 sales from a company that have had months of bad press is par for the course.
April 03, 2014, 08:29:40 AM
Marcel/aka lambchop you objectionable sad little man here are the facts for your small brain:
18 miners sold this week at a price of $2,000 each. 18x2,000x365 = 13,140,000
(there are 365 days in a year and 52 weeks)
So that's an annual turn-over of over $13 Million dollars - from a side project of ACtM's.
Go back to your cave Troll-boy.
18 miners sold this week at a price of $2,000 each. 18x2,000x365 = 13,140,000
(there are 365 days in a year and 52 weeks)
So that's an annual turn-over of over $13 Million dollars - from a side project of ACtM's.
Go back to your cave Troll-boy.
sorry what? Why did you multiply the weekly sales by the number of days in a year and not number of weeks? Here's the real number you were trying to get:
18*$1,500*52 = $1,404,000.
Thats about 1/10th of your estimate
April 03, 2014, 08:15:30 AM
I take it I'm no longer Eduardo deCastro? But hey, you're right -- 18 boards sold in a week!
But your math's a bit off -- in a desperate bid for bux, Ken cut the price from 3k to 2k to:
Hurrah!
But your math's a bit off -- in a desperate bid for bux, Ken cut the price from 3k to 2k to:
...
$1,499 On the first unit ordered, Limit of 5 orders per customer.
...
$1,499 On the first unit ordered, Limit of 5 orders per customer.
...
Hurrah!
April 03, 2014, 07:51:52 AM
Marcel/aka lambchop you objectionable sad little man here are the facts for your small brain:
18 miners sold this week at a price of $2,000 each. 18x2,000x365 = 13,140,000
(there are 365 days in a year and 52 weeks)
So that's an annual turn-over of over $13 Million dollars - from a side project of ACtM's.
Go back to your cave Troll-boy.
18 miners sold this week at a price of $2,000 each. 18x2,000x365 = 13,140,000
(there are 365 days in a year and 52 weeks)
So that's an annual turn-over of over $13 Million dollars - from a side project of ACtM's.
Go back to your cave Troll-boy.
April 03, 2014, 07:22:03 AM
... That was before any developments, when most were still calling this a scam! Interest must be 10fold that now that we actually are shipping miners.
So you could reasonably see 1Mill shares selling over a few days now...
So you could reasonably see 1Mill shares selling over a few days now...
A company that raised millions to design an ASIC and build miners ends up
CEO under investigation for securities fraud.
"Shareholders" can't access their shares.
Amazing company!
Such wow.
March 31, 2014, 12:08:17 PM
while it sucks its not a unique design, it at least shows that:
1) ken has capital still
2) ken actually is capable of having a design fabricated
3) the profits might be small, but it at least gets something mining
1) ken has capital still
2) ken actually is capable of having a design fabricated
3) the profits might be small, but it at least gets something mining
It does give me a bit of hope. If Ken can nail down the manufacturing process, and eventually develops his own ActM 28nm chip... well...
But even in that instance, it means nothing if investors don't have access to shares/dividends. I am still unsettled that people can still buy into the inflated prices on CT but the original investors cannot trade at all. Ken has not addressed this, as far as I can tell (I may be wrong about this).
My lawyer has just responded to the MSD with the information they requested. I think that due to the couterparty risk with these bitcoin exchanges, that we will be using colored coins. CC is getting very close to being usable. I do want to get everyone where they can trade; however, I need to consult with my lawyer before doing anything.
So why haven't you frozen trading on CT so at least all shareholders are in the same position - it is ridiculous to allow some shareholders to trade and not others. Either halt trading for all on CT or get everyone trading there until such time as CC is ready.
March 31, 2014, 11:59:22 AM
...
200 boards is a pretty sizable 'bullet run' and is about 100TH
200 boards is a pretty sizable 'bullet run' and is about 100TH
Well no. Where did you get such a notion? Who does that? This is what needs to be set up, just to be taken offline after 200 boards?
Quote
while it sucks its not a unique design, it at least shows that:
1) ken has capital still
1) ken has capital still
apparently just enough for your "bullet run."
Quote
2) ken actually is capable of having a design fabricated
Taking a reference design and having it fabricated by a contractor? Mad skillz
Quote
3) the profits might be small, but it at least gets something mining
Paying 1 coin today to mine half a coin in a year is not profitable.
March 31, 2014, 08:18:37 AM
I'll take your word for it. I (think i) heard you're dealing with those, any idea what a 100-lot would cost?
Thanks. .
I've just seen them. We're doing a board design based on the HashFast chip, we aren't using their design and we're definitely not buying boards from them. It's more than a little disconcerting that they're selling boards to AMC/VMC that should have gone to people who ordered back in August or September.Thanks. .
We did not buy boards from hashfast, we had our own boards manufactured using hashfast reference design. So, we did not take any boards away from hashfast's pre-order customers.
200 boards is a pretty sizable 'bullet run' and is about 100TH
while it sucks its not a unique design, it at least shows that:
1) ken has capital still
2) ken actually is capable of having a design fabricated
3) the profits might be small, but it at least gets something mining
March 31, 2014, 08:03:44 AM
I'll take your word for it. I (think i) heard you're dealing with those, any idea what a 100-lot would cost?
Thanks. .
I've just seen them. We're doing a board design based on the HashFast chip, we aren't using their design and we're definitely not buying boards from them. It's more than a little disconcerting that they're selling boards to AMC/VMC that should have gone to people who ordered back in August or September.Thanks. .
We did not buy boards from hashfast, we had our own boards manufactured using hashfast reference design. So, we did not take any boards away from hashfast's pre-order customers.
March 31, 2014, 07:42:15 AM
...
All Ken-bashing aside, it's a step in the wrong direction. Unless he can unload these things quick, this is typical "spend 1 coin today to mine 1/2 coin in a year." Who knows, he could be a great salesman, though. If he really flip these, he might ... nah. It's still Ken.
Anyhow, the TL;DR: After a year spent learning that he could not design a 48, then 28, then 55nm ASICs, and botching every board he claimed to develop, this ASIC pioneer settled into ... reselling these babies from HashFast:
All Ken-bashing aside, it's a step in the wrong direction. Unless he can unload these things quick, this is typical "spend 1 coin today to mine 1/2 coin in a year." Who knows, he could be a great salesman, though. If he really flip these, he might ... nah. It's still Ken.
Anyhow, the TL;DR: After a year spent learning that he could not design a 48, then 28, then 55nm ASICs, and botching every board he claimed to develop, this ASIC pioneer settled into ... reselling these babies from HashFast:
March 31, 2014, 06:18:24 AM
Your really hurting, eh Jimmy boy. 
Jump to: