I'm getting tired of this kinder garden playground posts.
Will remove posts tomorrow.
Topic: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs - page 33. (Read 1260202 times)
January 28, 2016, 02:52:52 PM
January 28, 2016, 11:36:36 AM
Date Registered: Today at 15:17:58
Last Active: Today at 15:33:22
Last Active: Today at 15:33:22
Just as bad reading comprehension as your main accounts. The amounts on the receipt (from the court) are for court fees AND security of costs. Neither of which are an "expense" or attract VAT.
Post here the receipt from court as well.
January 27, 2016, 02:33:00 PM
Did you get anything out of them yet, apart from the occasional patronizing quip?
We filed at the Kiryat Gat Miagistrates Court on the 11th Jan, served to their lawyers (who rejected it) shortly after, and again by registered mail on 18th Jan. They've yet to file a response. The case is open to the public which means anyone can request documents from it, and although there isn't a public case docket I can post the documents on here and give a rough translation from Hebrew. I'll transfer these to a scam accusation eventually.
Thanks for translation or I would have been lost. What is expected time frame with it being a international case?
I was curious if it is a long drawn out process if they don't settle, or if it is half decent on time.
International doesn't change much, it'll still be 2 years. They had their chance to settle during several months of negotiations in which they did nothing, so now they'll have to explain to the judge why they're just ignoring a debt.
January 27, 2016, 01:20:17 PM
Did you get anything out of them yet, apart from the occasional patronizing quip?
We filed at the Kiryat Gat Miagistrates Court on the 11th Jan, served to their lawyers (who rejected it) shortly after, and again by registered mail on 18th Jan. They've yet to file a response. The case is open to the public which means anyone can request documents from it, and although there isn't a public case docket I can post the documents on here and give a rough translation from Hebrew. I'll transfer these to a scam accusation eventually.
Thanks for translation or I would have been lost. What is expected time frame with it being a international case?
I was curious if it is a long drawn out process if they don't settle, or if it is half decent on time.
January 27, 2016, 11:36:33 AM
Did you get anything out of them yet, apart from the occasional patronizing quip?
We filed at the Kiryat Gat Miagistrates Court on the 11th Jan, served to their lawyers (who rejected it) shortly after, and again by registered mail on 18th Jan. They've yet to file a response. The case is open to the public which means anyone can request documents from it, and although there isn't a public case docket I can post the documents on here and give a rough translation from Hebrew. I'll transfer these to a scam accusation eventually.
Quote
Finding the case online:
https://www.court.gov.il/NGCS.Web.Site/HomePage.aspx
In the top right text box enter "19105", then "01-16" in the next text box.
Click the far left button
Categories are on the right, show that the defendant is Spondoolies-Tech and that I'm suing for $114,420 in unpaid debts and interest.
https://www.court.gov.il/NGCS.Web.Site/HomePage.aspx
In the top right text box enter "19105", then "01-16" in the next text box.
Click the far left button
Categories are on the right, show that the defendant is Spondoolies-Tech and that I'm suing for $114,420 in unpaid debts and interest.
Quote
Documents so far:
1. Receipt for filing court fees...
2. Proof of service
3. English translation of statement of claims (via Google translate, some of the names go weird but its mainly there)
1. Receipt for filing court fees...
2. Proof of service
3. English translation of statement of claims (via Google translate, some of the names go weird but its mainly there)
January 27, 2016, 07:59:08 AM
Any updates on the merge with BTCS 
One of the risks they posted in an SEC filing on Wednesday.
Quote
Our Partner Companies may be subject to legal liability.
Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.
Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.
"Btw our creditors might sue us if we just decide to not pay our debts, who'd have thought?"
Just the sort of thing that investors like to read.
Did you get anything out of them yet, apart from the occasional patronizing quip?
January 27, 2016, 07:36:52 AM
Any updates on the merge with BTCS
One of the risks they posted in an SEC filing on Wednesday.
Quote
Our Partner Companies may be subject to legal liability.
Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.
Some of our Partner Companies may be subject to legal claims. Claims could involve matters such as defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement etc. Any of our Partner Companies that incur this type of unexpected liability may not have insurance to cover the claim or its insurance may not provide sufficient coverage. If our Partner Companies incur substantial cost because of this type of unexpected liability, the expenses incurred by our Partner Companies will increase and their profits, if any, will decrease.
"Btw our creditors might sue us if we just decide to not pay our debts, who'd have thought?"
January 27, 2016, 07:05:41 AM
Any updates on the merge with BTCS
January 25, 2016, 01:46:14 PM
Yes you can certainly achieve that in less than 10 minutes, but it comes at a high cost, just as it does in PoW coins that use 30 second or 1 minute blocks, or somewhat more speculatively, even faster with tweaks such as in ETH.
Bitcoin uses 10 minute blocks to keep reorgs and centralization pressure within "acceptable" limits. Obviously 10 minutes is not the perfect number, but both increasing and decreasing have clear tradeoffs.
In the case of p2pool, for example, even the small share of hash rate represented by p2pool includes a portion that is effectively centralized pools that use p2pool as a back end. The reason is the high cost in bandwidth and latency tolerance of p2pool exerts additional centralization pressure on top of what already exists in Bitcoin, so you end up with a second tier of centralization.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I'm glad to be able to read your words when you really apply yourself instead of posting dismissive single sentences.Bitcoin uses 10 minute blocks to keep reorgs and centralization pressure within "acceptable" limits. Obviously 10 minutes is not the perfect number, but both increasing and decreasing have clear tradeoffs.
In the case of p2pool, for example, even the small share of hash rate represented by p2pool includes a portion that is effectively centralized pools that use p2pool as a back end. The reason is the high cost in bandwidth and latency tolerance of p2pool exerts additional centralization pressure on top of what already exists in Bitcoin, so you end up with a second tier of centralization.
The "high cost" of p2pool as it is right now is because it applies to full, high hash power into the lower-level blockchain with fast blocks (less than minute).
When p2p-pool idea would be applied to the propagation tracing only a fraction of hash power would be applied to the fast-chain. The majority of hash power would still go to the slow, decaminute normal Bitcoin chain.
When p2pool would be used just as a proof-of-propagation the required fraction of total hash power would be rather low, probably around single percent. Therefore the cost of orphans would also be insignificant in comparison to the total hash power. I'm not going to repeat the whole analysis done in Microsoft Research's "Red Balloons" paper. Interested readers could easily find it themselves.
The general idea still stands. Why it isn't getting much interest in Bitcoin milieu is a different story, rooted in political-science not in computer-science.
January 24, 2016, 08:07:46 PM
P2pool doesn't really "work" because its cost is outsize with its benefits. I used p2pool when I used to mine so I'm well aware of both. You can't really justify using it unless you are trying to be altruistic.
Dude, you are so wrapped in your old polemics and boxed-in thinking, that it beggars belief.Of course, it will not be straight as-it-is p2pool integration with the main protocol. p2pool currently is focused on tracking only "shares" of work towards the upper layer block. But it has show itself resistant to Sybil attacks and shown that the global convergence to common goal can be achieved in less than 10 minutes of the plain Bitcoin network.
Yes you can certainly achieve that in less than 10 minutes, but it comes at a high cost, just as it does in PoW coins that use 30 second or 1 minute blocks, or somewhat more speculatively, even faster with tweaks such as in ETH.
Bitcoin uses 10 minute blocks to keep reorgs and centralization pressure within "acceptable" limits. Obviously 10 minutes is not the perfect number, but both increasing and decreasing have clear tradeoffs.
In the case of p2pool, for example, even the small share of hash rate represented by p2pool includes a portion that is effectively centralized pools that use p2pool as a back end. The reason is the high cost in bandwidth and latency tolerance of p2pool exerts additional centralization pressure on top of what already exists in Bitcoin, so you end up with a second tier of centralization.
January 24, 2016, 01:28:26 PM
But the current prevailing climate is that people prefer to fight over branding (My coin is the Bitcoin, yours is an altcoin!) instead of working for the common goal.
Exactly.
January 24, 2016, 12:43:29 PM
If "politics" is stopping Bitcoin evolving then Bitcoin is already doomed. Politics = people, ie: greed & control.
I only agree to the "control" part. The "greed" part is a flip side of the same coin that has "stupidity" on the other face. Lots of folks went into Bitcoin hooked on various populist propaganda slogans and without real understanding of the underlying technology.I like the p2pool proposal, although p2pool in it's current form (python) wouldn't cut it - there has been much discussion on the p2pool thread about a complete re-write in multithreaded (C/++ or something similar) code but nothing has come of it unfortubately. If the whole network was p2pool based, that would remove any "politics" or influence from large pools/farms immediately - leaving Bitcoin free to evolve without intervention.
Lets not forget, Bitcoin is still in beta.
p2pool doesn't enforce the political goal of system distribution. It only allows it at a cost of a slight overhead. So by itself p2pool (and similar extensions) would do nothing to prevent the dominance of large farms.Lets not forget, Bitcoin is still in beta.
The goal of "evolving without intervention" is a completely different story. I still have my proposal (BIP 2112) from many years ago in my signature. But the current prevailing climate is that people prefer to fight over branding (My coin is the Bitcoin, yours is an altcoin!) instead of working for the common goal.
January 24, 2016, 12:30:14 PM
P2pool doesn't really "work" because its cost is outsize with its benefits. I used p2pool when I used to mine so I'm well aware of both. You can't really justify using it unless you are trying to be altruistic.
Dude, you are so wrapped in your old polemics and boxed-in thinking, that it beggars belief.Of course, it will not be straight as-it-is p2pool integration with the main protocol. p2pool currently is focused on tracking only "shares" of work towards the upper layer block. But it has show itself resistant to Sybil attacks and shown that the global convergence to common goal can be achieved in less than 10 minutes of the plain Bitcoin network.
The concept of p2pool can easily be extended to keep tracking not only shares towards common block hash target but also Merkle sub-trees pf transactions contributing to the global common Merkle tree in the common block header.
The new added benefit will outweight the known drawback of slightly increased losses due to stale shares and more frequent orphaning at the lower-layer block level.
So the knowledge and technology to maintain globally converging "mempool" or list of pending transactions is already there. There is simply no will to implement it.
January 24, 2016, 11:27:25 AM
Can you imagine giving ASIC manufacturers the power to influence a PoW system?
Have you read the article ?I find it hard to beleive that it would open up a brand new area for ASIC/specialized hardware. systems with a plethora of the possible ASIC deviations and/or PCI-e 1x sockets, combined with cheap&fast memory soldered directly to the board, or optionally 8-32 ddr ram slots. Such a design could surely be made and scaled where power is cheap, once again leading to a centralised system (though maybe to much lesser extreme than with pure-sha256)
even at the start, hardcore miners will go straight to server setups that can handle 4x Intel CPUs and often offer 8-16 ddr slots and a multitude of pcie connections. Even before FPGA, some people were operating $25,000+ of GPUs in garages to mine a $80 bitcoin. That will happen again, but at 10x or 100x the scale, in new multi-megawatt facilities.
Presumably spondoolies has a business model for BOTH scenarios. Right??
January 24, 2016, 10:54:10 AM
Congratulation to Eli Ben-Sasson and Eran Tromer for the launch of z.cash
Awesome project!
https://z.cash/team.html
Awesome project!
https://z.cash/team.html
Yet another useless copy and paste email. While ignoring consumers.
I'd say this company is dead. I have zero trust in them.
To bad too. Solid hardware
January 24, 2016, 07:31:11 AM
What's the status of the Spondoolies-Tech Pickaxe ASICs?
January 24, 2016, 06:37:10 AM
Congratulation to Eli Ben-Sasson and Eran Tromer for the launch of z.cash
Awesome project!
https://z.cash/team.html
Awesome project!
https://z.cash/team.html
January 24, 2016, 06:33:52 AM
Lesson learned from the Classic coup attempt or why Core needs to prepare a GPU only PoW:
https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0#.u3mah7u5q
https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0#.u3mah7u5q
I think the question everyone has been asking is, why are you advocating for PoW changes that delete your own company?
Bizarre.
Can we take it as granted, that there will be no SP50? It's a real pity watching!
Looks like they merged with a company as bankrupt as themselves. I guess Guy feels the Bitcoin community needs to be punished.
January 24, 2016, 05:19:29 AM
Anyway, that isn't going to be implemented in Bitcoin for political reasons, not for any technical/scientific/economic reasons.
If "politics" is stopping Bitcoin evolving then Bitcoin is already doomed. Politics = people, ie: greed & control.
I like the p2pool proposal, although p2pool in it's current form (python) wouldn't cut it - there has been much discussion on the p2pool thread about a complete re-write in multithreaded (C/++ or something similar) code but nothing has come of it unfortubately. If the whole network was p2pool based, that would remove any "politics" or influence from large pools/farms immediately - leaving Bitcoin free to evolve without intervention.
Lets not forget, Bitcoin is still in beta.
January 23, 2016, 09:20:43 PM
Can you imagine giving ASIC manufacturers the power to influence a PoW system?
Have you read the article ?I have, and I agree with Guy. We should boycott Bitcoin Classic.
Jump to: