Topic: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (235 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast) - page 10. (Read 378671 times)

I have two lists, one from bitfunder and one from Willem. Doing an independent claim process allows me to check for consistency while at the same time not having to rely on either list. I understand that this is some additional effort but frankly it's as simple as creating a transaction. EVERYONE CAN CREATE A TRANSACTION - not everyone knows how to sign a message. Apart from that I chose this method because it allows algorithmic analysis of records in a trusted decentralized database.

see above.

We discussed buy backs as an option for small accounts, but the problem is impossible valuation of some of the assets. Paying out in advance for accounts below the minimum threshold would be an option we can discuss. It's a preferential treatment of small accounts though.

We already signed a message with our Bitfunder address at icedrill.io, why this new requirement for an outgoing transaction?

could someone explain what I actually do here:

"Create an OUTGOING transaction with two identical outputs with amounts of 0.13117745 using the BTC address in the final bitfunder shareholder database".

I once signed a message for an address and that's quite simple, could we just do that instead?

#ok transaction with the smallest amount created.

As one of the users with a tiny amount of shares I do wonder if making people with less than the magic number of 277 shares wait a year is sensible.  Look at the bitfunder list any a huge amount of people only have handfuls of shares and then a few have whopping amounts.

PM sent. Thanks for your time and quick response!

the exact numbers are still in the processing, but the digest of the cash flow so far is that ID generated about 1750 BTC in its lifetime. 480 BTC are in the multi-sig address and about 120 BTC are floating around as additional reward reserve and not yet consolidated mining revenues. This is consistent with the fact that between February and May, ID accumulated about 650 BTC in surplus, and operated at break even thereafter. This means that ID upkeep consumed about 1150 BTC, the nature of it will be disclosed as soon as all transactions have been inspected.

I need to see a connection between the bitfunder account and the claim - and the best way for me is to that is to ask you to actually use the address. I can start making exceptions if need be, but please understand that there are >200 potentially active shareholder accounts and I want to keep the accounts as consistent as possible. Please PM me with your bitfunder address and a bitfunder signed message of the new account address you were using for cryptomex. I will then swap your BTC address on file after I verify the signature.

So what do I do when I've already registered a new payout address with CryptoMex (that has already received 2 payments) and I don't want to use the address associated with BitFunder? To me, the public facing BitFunder address was to be only that, public facing, and not to store funds. I do not want to transfer any funds to the BitFunder address because I consider it retired. Are you able to validate shares some other way? I can sign the BitFunder adddress, but that's about as far as I want to go.

Wasn't it more what you mined ages ago? *

Please send me a PM, listing any details pertaining a cryptomex payout or the lack thereof. I have no information or control about the payout mechanics on cryptomex. These things likely need to be fixed on a case by case basis.

If you're lacking the two 0.13117745 amounts requested for the proof of claim procedure (unless intended as a humorous remark), the following amounts will also be considered valid:
0.01311774
0.00131177
0.00013117

What about to fulfill withdrawal request made on 2nd Oct? Over a month of waiting for 0.1BTC. Becuse of that I don't have even 0.13BTC on my wallet...

Dear IceDrill shareholders.

As stated previously, the majority of current ID funds are consolidated at 3N9MiKtPiAShS8tJMTpYocXTXRBSkQ2rpg. It provides a sufficient basis for starting regular payouts. The payout schedule is for full payout of the available funds over a period of 12 months. The reason to prolong the process is to retain short term financial flexibility for the ongoing business activities (HashFast bankruptcy proceeding), while at the same time returning funds to investors.

Digimex will undergo a liquidation of the majority of the business assets in the near future. However, the timing will be chosen based on best judgement of current management and representative shareholders to return maximum value to ID shareholders. While the business may continue in some form or another, the current projects will be critically assessed and either shut down, liquidated or restructured. The current hardware is being migrated towards WA state, where it will hopefully retain a positive cash flow to make the move worthwhile. As liquidation makes funds available, these will be added to the payout schedule and either increase the monthly payout proportionally or prolong the payout timeline.

The payout will be done on the blockchain directly. For this I ask every shareholder listed in the final bitfunder shareholder database (http://bitfunder.firstitinc.com/asset-list/assetlist-2013-12-07-01:40.txt) to file a "proof of active claim" on the blockchain ledger. This is done to assess the number of active shareholders and make sure that the target address is viable. Account holders who have lost access to their private keys they used for bitfunder are asked to contact me through a forum private message. These accounts will be marked and further instructions for account validation will be provided before payouts begin.
The first payout is scheduled for 12/1/2014, and subsequent payouts will be paid at the beginning of each of the following months. The payout amount is 300 satoshis per share. At a total of about 13 million outstanding shares this amounts to a depletion of 480 BTC within 12 months. Note that the minimum payout for an account is 0.01 BTC which translates into 3334 shares. Accounts with less shares will accumulate until the minimum is met. Accounts which do not meet the minimum payout after one year of accumulation are paid on a yearly basis (<277 shares). When receiving a payout, check whether the amount is a multiple (300) of the number of shares you claim. If there is a discrepancy the account needs to be inspected.

Accounts which do not file a proof of active claims will accumulate payouts. Proof of active claims must be filed until 11/1/2015 (November next year). Accounts which haven't filed a proof of active claim until 11/1/2015, will be regarded abandoned and the accumulated payout will be redistributed to active account holders.

Cryptomex will not be used to do payouts. Any previous payouts via Cryptomex to users who registered with the site will be consolidated with the future payout on the blockchain by deducing the corresponding amount from the final payouts.

Please write me a PM or respond to this post if something is not clear or needs refinement. This is a human attempt to fix a human problem.

Proof of active claim Procedure
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Create an OUTGOING transaction with two identical outputs with amounts of 0.13117745 using the BTC address in the final bitfunder shareholder database (http://bitfunder.firstitinc.com/asset-list/assetlist-2013-12-07-01:40.txt). Check an example transaction here: https://blockchain.info/tx/b6f8e59b0b21bcb58619c15f19bd7b29c09d0750eaaf43bb4da498ed70cf1447

see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9522001

   We're not going to get anything out of any of this.

So will icedrill shareholders get anything out of this mess ?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/its-all-over-bitcoin-miner-maker-hashfast-to-auction-remaining-assets/

this "and not whine when risk fails to reward."

I think you missing the point like usual,
The risk did reward, didn't they mine over 700 BTC with the with these miners.

The shares we all paid for was for the profits from the miners not the rigs themselves.
All this crap everyone keeps going about with Scamfast is a moot point.
Thats will's mess to deal with i dont care.

What i do care about, is distribution of the BTC that is owed to us since the miners were turned on.
there is no reason not to do payouts with what BTC we already have.

After a month of waiting I looked at my cryptomex account today. No funds, no transaction history (on friday it was funds sent? N - requested on 2nd Oct. Id 52) and no BTC in my wallet. Yeah, very professional indeed...

So now you admit that all the good words lies said about HF are for your own benefit. Ok!

Evidence of best effort and due diligence is severely lacking, and I'm not talking about huge diff rise, delivery delay, or the exchange rate being weak, just the seemingly exorbitant DC costs they seem to have incurred and locked us into. i.e. if you're bleeding badly, you slap a dressing on it, use sutures, you don't take a handful of aspirin and jump into a warm bath unless you're TRYING to off yourself. There is no evidence of credible action to stop the haemorrhaging. 

And this is not "Captain Hindsight" stuff either, it became obvious they were being very careless with our funds quite early, at which point the smart investor would have walked... offered to sell you all the shares since you value them beyond sanity itself..... but we were all chained to the deck of the titanic at that point with a money drunk, deaf and blind captain.

It doesn't matter whether I threw in pocket change or my life savings, I am entitled to be absolutely livid that my funds have been held hostage this long and seek redress by any means available.

What makes this look so super scammy/criminally negligent is the distinct lack of communication/information made available to shareholders (now profit unit holders?).  If there was transparency from the outset, I think most people would accept this as a simple loss on a risky investment.  Right now it looks like anything but.  That plus the fact people's shares/units are being held hostage because ID/Cryptomex decided to introduce unreasonable KYC terms and ID seems unwilling to facilitate a secondary market in these already issued units on e.g. Counterparty.

I did not need to invest in them to do well... I was smart enough to mine early and HODL. Anyways I get what you are implying...good luck on your risky investments