Topic: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :) - page 2409. (Read 3377790 times)

the only purpose of any ICO which has been or will be, is to line the pockets of those who created the coin.
i see nothing different here.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gaw-miners-announces-plans-initial-120000855.html

news time

Nice ! Homero's expensive retention of WISE PR [ http://www.wisepublicrelations.com/capabilities/] is paying from his little visit to New York. They are churning that copy and paste sucker out there like there is no tomorrow.

http://www.sys-con.com/node/3239130

For a minute there I thought he would be sitting down with Lou Dobbs or Wolf Blitzer in studio one on one discussing this. What is rather peculiar is the disconnect of the quotes of Fraser, as though he is commenting in general on the whole picture of cryptocurrency rather than this particular exploit of his buddy Homero. Along with the co-found and investor in what exactly GAWK which is true. Cantor maybe? Or this. And if so in a professional or personal capacity?

Geniuses at Work by gum ! I mean how else to get the attention of the FBI other than paying  script kiddie some fairy tale money to hack into your critics website site. Oh wait

a - Homero is himself an FBI agent
b - Homero's best friend is an FBI agent
c - Homero has is very own squad of FBI agents
d - If you want to be an FBI agent simply post on Homero's forum why and if you are respectful enough he may ordain you too. For  fee of course. 

As the idiot behind that chart, I think you're using it out of context... duh, of course any hashpower loses value over time...(unless you buy $50 MH/s at GAW of course!), this chart is more appropriate for the discussion, which shows you approximately what each dollar you spend (minus any fees) will get you:



This is based on a dollar spent at current prices (remember though, that until recently LTCG's prices were ~$5.75 per MH/s and GAW's were somewhere between $15 and $50 per MH/s). I try to keep this updated to be as accurate in terms of pricing.

Of course there are and always will be doubts with any cloud/farm you personally aren't running. LTCG does have a longer track record than GAW and if you bought yesterday at GAW, your only real hope is to mine this pseudo/centralized coin thing.

 

so they pay out nothing, ever? not one single satoshi? because this is what your statement implies.
or you have mixed up 'return on investment' with 'breaking even'

return on investment can be both negative, or positive. please be more specific, ROI is too broad a generalisation.


 

Please take my advice, thousands of dollars invested and ROI is ever getting longer, will not ROI.

in that case, it's not for me. thanks.

Nope

can i specify which pool i mine on, if I buy into this ponzi?

Yes these numbers paint a funny picture...I can't wait to see how all this ends...something tells me that a crappy credit card with paycoin on it will not value this hot mess at $100 usd a coin in 12 months time...

My statement still stands. Just replace coupon with voucher or in store credit.

Sorry, vouchers or store credit, not coupons. Still sounds like a weird thing to "mine".

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9616899

Don't worry - it's all one big security: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=328&page=293


"Section 2(1) of the Act defines the term 'security' to include the commonly known documents traded for speculation or investment. 3 This definition also includes 'securities' of a more variable character, designated by such descriptive terms as 'certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement,' 'investment contract' and 'in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security." The legal issue in this case turns upon a determination of whether, under the circumstances, the land sales contract, the warranty deed and the service contract together constitute an 'investment contract' within the meaning of 2(1). An affirmative answer brings into operation the registration requirements of 5(a), unless the security is granted an exemption under 3(b), 15 U.S.C.A. 77c(b). The lower courts, in reaching a negative answer to this problem, treated the contracts and deeds [328 U.S. 293, 298]   as separate transactions involving no more than an ordinary real estate sale and an agreement by the seller to manage the property for the buyer.

The term 'investment contract' is undefined by the Securities Act or by relevant legislative reports. But the term was common in many state 'blue sky' laws in existence prior to the adoption of the federal statute and, although the term was also undefined by the state laws, it had been broadly construed by state courts so as to afford the investing public a full measure of protection. Form was disregarded for substance and emphasis was placed upon economic reality. An investment contract thus came to mean a contract or scheme for 'the placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment.' State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 56, 177 N.W. 937, 938. This definition was uniformly applied by state courts to a variety of situations where individuals were led to invest money in a common enterprise with the expectation that they would earn a profit solely through the efforts of the promoter or of some one other than themselves.

By including an investment contract within the scope of 2(1) of the Securities Act, Congress was using a term the meaning of which had been crystallized by this prior judicial interpretation. It is therefore reasonable to attach that meaning to the term as used by Congress, especially since such a definition is consistent with the statutory aims. In other words, an investment contract for purposes of the Securities Act means a contract, trans- [328 U.S. 293, 299]   action or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical as ets employed in the enterprise. Such a definition necessarily underlies this Court's decision in Securities Exch. Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344 , 64 S.Ct. 120, and has been enunciated and applied many times by lower federal courts. 5 It permits the fulfillment of the statutory purpose of compelling full and fair disclosure relative to the issuance of 'the many types of instruments that in our commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of a security.' H. Rep.No.85, 73rd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 11. It embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits."

- Justive William Francis Murphy

Coupons you can't use for anything yet and possibly will never be able to.

I'm trying to remember, didn't he call the Hashpoints "coupons" or something like that, to avoid them being treated as securities. Sorry, my searching abilities are impaired at the moment. I wonder if HT crowd is aware they are mining coupons.

He has always, as long as I can remember, had other users editing his posts. I never understood that and quite frankly I think it's fucked up. Why would these people have access to his posts and why would they be editing them? I'd love to know if they edit his posts without his knowledge sometimes as some form of damage control. I also always wondered why the hell they never edited all his misspellings and poor grammar while they were at it. They probably didn't know anything was wrong. It's painful having to read 99% of the  posts there. It's like they all never graduated high school.

LTC Gear payouts are "pure" LTC. They are easily verifiable with simple math, and there are no fees. So it's very unlikely they will ever be below Solo payouts, because most of those are already below zero according to that chart. It still remains to be seen what happens to ZenPool payouts, but unless hashlet maintenance fees get reduced it's unlikely that LTC Gear will fall below Zen. Also share multiplication needs to be considered as well, which that chart doesn't.

Of course this implies that neither of them will fold in 2 months. I would guess that hashlet owners will have a strong incentive to upgrade to HashStaker, whereas LTC Gear might or might not turn out to be a p-word, so pick your poison.

Watch your face jimmothy, you're gonna get some script kiddies knocking soon and spray painting something inappropriate on you 

I think he recently hired someone on HT to check his posts and fix errors. Which is not a bad idea actually. Just needs to be extended this to other media as well. His tweets are often abysmal.

BTW you did a typical grammar nazi slip here: "ment" 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHA