[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 192.

JoTheKhan

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: shaofis on December 31, 2013, 10:54:47 AM

Has Ken actually indicated he is holding Ukyo's shares? As far as I can tell Ukyo's concern is the same we all hold... without being re-listed all of our shares are on hold. I don't think Ukyo has any special grounds to complain concerning the situation with WeExchange and BitFunder.

Granted we'd all like to see our shares back in our position and listed on an exchange... but until ours are and Ukyo's aren't... he has no grounds to complain beyond what we all hold.

Honestly the entire situation stinks... I'm still curious as to why over 100BTC was stored on BitFunder and if that is 100BTC of ActiveMining's assets or Ken's. He listed it as ActiveMinings... which leaves me curious as to why.

And for crying out loud where are the financials... all things aside this is something that Ken should be obligated to release on a set schedule. And I'm not talking about a brief one liner... but a proper balance sheet etc.

The money could be there for many reasons. One of the simplest being the money is there to pay out divs as they come in. Instead of going through the process of sending the divs through weexchange every time divs are due he could just send one big batch and pay out the amount equal to the divs for that period. I also remember talk of someone stating that ACTM has bought back shares of itself? Not exactly sure what that means.

shaofis

member

Activity: 106

Merit: 10

Has Ken actually indicated he is holding Ukyo's shares? As far as I can tell Ukyo's concern is the same we all hold... without being re-listed all of our shares are on hold. I don't think Ukyo has any special grounds to complain concerning the situation with WeExchange and BitFunder.

Granted we'd all like to see our shares back in our position and listed on an exchange... but until ours are and Ukyo's aren't... he has no grounds to complain beyond what we all hold.

Honestly the entire situation stinks... I'm still curious as to why over 100BTC was stored on BitFunder and if that is 100BTC of ActiveMining's assets or Ken's. He listed it as ActiveMinings... which leaves me curious as to why.

And for crying out loud where are the financials... all things aside this is something that Ken should be obligated to release on a set schedule. And I'm not talking about a brief one liner... but a proper balance sheet etc.

JoTheKhan

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Happy New Years,

Though this my fall on deft ears I want to at least give it a shot.

Ken you have an update coming out tomorrow;

Urgent
Can you elaborate on our shares and the process of us getting access to them. (When will the shares be tradeable?)

Expected timeline for when we will begin low production. (If you can give estimated dates for shipping hardware I think we are able to get estimated dates for when we start receiving low volume production.)

We are very curious about
Do you have anything to say about the new hashrate that has hit the Eligus pool? Is this hardware that we have shipped. (Others may not see it as good news but I sure as hell would. If you know anything about this can you say so? If this is not something we shipped can you also state this so that we can keep it off this forum then?)

Are the 106BTC locked up in Weexchange ActM's money or your personal money? (I can understand why you wish to take Ukyo's shares as your own if Ukyo has stolen your BTC. We should be privy to the information about whether this is a very personal matter between you two or a business matter between Us and Ukyo).

Again, we look forward to hearing from you.

Hope everyone is enjoying their holidays.

kleeck

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

https://karatcoin.co

Quote from: minerpart on December 31, 2013, 10:21:08 AM

The hypocrisy of the guy is unbelievable. He gambled away hundreds of thousands of dollars of people's money so the last place he needs to go near is a court room. On the other hand Ken has a legal lien basis for confiscating his personal and/or his company ACtM shares. Period.

You're assuming too much in that statement. Why do you think he gambled the WeEx funds? Do you have any evidence of said actions? I don't believe you do. This community is great with pitchforks and poor with logic at times. Don't participate in that.

Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing. If he and Jon had come to an arrangement this whole scenario would be different - and initially that is what I thought had happened. That does not appear to be the case. All that said, AccountManagement's point stands. We are talking about a spat involving a nice little chunk of money between two men who are dealing in unregulated securities.

I say they resolve this with a shoot out. Outside the OK Coral at dawn.

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

The hypocrisy of the guy is unbelievable. He gambled away hundreds of thousands of dollars of people's money so the last place he needs to go near is a court room. On the other hand Ken has a legal lien basis for confiscating his personal and/or his company ACtM shares. Period.

Ken has always acted in good faith and in the spirit of the law - despite the technicalities he has not been criminally negligent with other people's money. The law on unregistered securities is there to protect people from the unscrupulous. Ken will be giving everyone a worthy return and if it came to the authorities taking every bitcoin stock to court (unlikely) he would be let off with a slap on the wrist and a fine. The underlying intent is always the deciding factor in any interpretation of the law and Kens has been honest from the start.

AccountManagement

newbie

Activity: 26

Merit: 0

That's what makes the whole thing what it is. Both Jon and Ken are playing outside the law, so I have no idea how their lawyers would frame a tort case without both Jon and Ken having to admit to vanable crimes in the process. One issued unregistered shares, the other ran an unlicenced exchange. The bit about taking care of WeEx users is just the cherry on top - "it's for the children!"

VinceSamios

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: AccountManagement on December 31, 2013, 09:35:53 AM

Quote from: VinceSamios on December 31, 2013, 09:23:19 AM

Quote from: minerpart on December 31, 2013, 03:29:15 AM

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...

Jon claims that the shares Ken is holding did not belong to WeEx but to himself, as a natural person.
If this was IRL, his personal funds are simply off-limits.

That's irrelevant considering the parties involved, though. When i was a kid, my friend had a band called Cop Shoot Cop. This is sort-a like that - Crook Rob Crook Cheesy

Well then Jon first of all needs to prove the shares didn't belong to we-ex but to himself, and then secondly needs to defend an accusation of joint and several liability, which would probably float through like a warm summers breeze. Especially considering weex was basically operating outside of the law.

If Jon wants to sell the shares so he can refund weex customers then... well... he is blurring the lines himself.

Finally, Jon can't afford to take ken to court... and if he can, he should be refunding weex customers as a priority.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Ken... whats so hard to bring the shares to the exchange? You dont stopped working on it because of a progress with colored coins right? Ask maxmint for coding the verification part, he has done it multiple times for other shops already. The rest should be a childs play.

If you dont have to time to code then hire someone. You realize that weeks after weeks go by?

AccountManagement

newbie

Activity: 26

Merit: 0

Quote from: VinceSamios on December 31, 2013, 09:23:19 AM

Quote from: minerpart on December 31, 2013, 03:29:15 AM

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...

Jon claims that the shares Ken is holding did not belong to WeEx but to himself, as a natural person.
If this was IRL, his personal funds are simply off-limits.

That's irrelevant considering the parties involved, though. When i was a kid, my friend had a band called Cop Shoot Cop. This is sort-a like that - Crook Rob Crook Cheesy

VinceSamios

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: minerpart on December 31, 2013, 03:29:15 AM

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

Ken can most definitely repossess Ukyo's shares in lein...

NickDanger

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

[23:28:23] some day in the future, its just sorta a funny situation
[23:28:33] everythign abotu ActM is a "funny situation"
[23:28:42] what happened to the Oct/Nov release?
[23:28:48] its been 30~60~.. 90 ? days
...
[23:29:55] I gave notice of shut down 75 days ago
[23:29:58] and he has not relisted
[23:30:05] I guess thats not enough time
[23:30:24] For Ken apparently not
[23:31:12] I thought we would have been trading the shares a while ago but something happened

Lolacolipse

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

Quote from: zefyr0s on December 31, 2013, 03:58:25 AM

But who would be getting ActM hardware at (even this amount of) a consistent rate? Someone who ordered would likely get them all at once or in a few parcels.

If it's ACtM or another customer of VMC there is still a fair bit of infrastructure to set up around these rigs so even if they all arrived in one delivery it could easily take a day for each machine to be fully installed and connected to the grid. This isn't quite unboxing and plugging into the wall.

As regards the question about supplying ourselves or our customers first. If this is a VMC customer then their order has paid for the manufacture of these rigs plus twice as many for ACtM. So the order money has likely gone towards eASIC to contribute to the batch that will populate our mining operation. We must be a few weeks away at most from mining and if this is anything to go by the ACtM farm will surely be upwards of 6% of global hash.

Everytime we take a big online order and fill it, we generate cash that goes straight towards building up our own farm. So to maximise the ACtM farm we need to keep taking and filling customer orders - there is no trade off, at the end of the day we benefit from selling to customers.

zefyr0s

sr. member

Activity: 245

Merit: 250

But who would be getting ActM hardware at (even this amount of) a consistent rate? Someone who ordered would likely get them all at once or in a few parcels.

theBishop

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Through process of elimination am convinced that machines on Eligius are ActM hardware. Someone please explain pattern of drops in hashrate. They occur every 24 hours at same time every day. Seven of nine dropouts are at same time of day. Three of these are minimum of 24 hours away from any hardware additions but still at same regular time?

edit Other miners on Eligius suffer dropout on 29th Dec at exact same time too but only on this date even Bargraphics #13.

zefyr0s

sr. member

Activity: 245

Merit: 250

If Labcoin actually starts hashing I think I'm going to slap the next physical person I see.

runam0k

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Touchdown

Quote from: Vigil on December 31, 2013, 12:43:06 AM

Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM. Its not likely to see such even fluctuations with a bunch of 2-3 TH miners. They also already had 20 TH - this operation started out with 9 TH.

Labcoin had ~9TH Shocked

minerpart

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

IIIIII====II====IIIIII

As we know Ken seeks legal advice regularly. He wouldn't withhold Ukyo's shares unless that was something he could justify to a judge based on Ukyo withholding our BTC. Its a fair move at the end of the day and compensates for the loss of capital suffered by ACtM.

EDIT

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3782916

We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be.

bromide

newbie

Activity: 43

Merit: 0

I don't even know what to... not like Ken's Mr. Upstanding Citizen, but Ukyo's trying to make this into
"I need the shares to feed some cheddar to weex users! I'm tryin' to take care of the poor dears, and Ken stoled mah shares!!1!"
"Bro, the shares haven't traded since you shut down your exchange, how ya gonna pay people with shares you can't sell?"
Cheesy

toastee

member

Activity: 62

Merit: 10

to the moon, etc.

In case anyone cares, here's the full chat:

http://pastebin.com/ByfnWX2T

Vigil

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Ukyo shut down the damn trading site, how could he liquidate his shares? That is his damn fault for scamming everyone to come over to his exchange. I can't even get my bitcoin off there. He was using other people's bitcoin to buy shares on his exchange.

Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 192. (Read 771288 times)