Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 100. (Read 452224 times)
March 10, 2014, 01:07:56 AM
March 10, 2014, 01:01:51 AM
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable.
Indeed...there are many workable solutions. So, again, this is become a non issue. Which brings me back to my prior questions for Labrat:
What is up with the 150TH order?
What is the current status of the resources Labrat has been working on? Were any bridges closed or burned?
Is Labrat committed to success?
You might ask why I ask about his commitment. But it stems from seeing how few answers Labrat provides, and how unsatisfying many answers are to the important questions. So, indeed, asking if he is committed to success and not just dragging it around is important to know. Just answering 'yes' may not be that satisfying, but it will at least be something in the right direction.
When Labrat answers these satisfactorily, I think he will do a lot to calm this situation down. These questions are very obvious one's that need to be addressed. And they shoudl be addressable by Labrat unless he lost the bitcoins. That's why I called them the elephant in the room above.
Even with everything else that's happening the answers to the 150TH question is one that an't be ignored. After all - we paid for it.
March 10, 2014, 12:55:03 AM
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable.
This still seems like a closed response from you.
Let's try something more direct and to the point.
1)Are you willing to ask the community for help?
2)If so, when will you formally solicit help from the community, stakeholders, investors etc?
3)If not, is it because you fear that LRM has been operating illegally?
March 10, 2014, 12:51:03 AM
lab_rat, do you forget your ipo terms, the share's original price is about 0.15B, drop to 0.05B bacause of lack of liquidity when the exchange is closed, so actually the bond is underestimated.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
Labrat will issue you 3 bonds for every 1 bond you have. Also, keep in mind, Labrat is calling it "contracts", not "bonds".
There are many questions left. But I hope this eases your concern some.
March 10, 2014, 12:35:13 AM
lab_rat, do you forget your ipo terms, the share's original price is about 0.15B, drop to 0.05B bacause of lack of liquidity when the exchange is closed, so actually the bond is underestimated.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH（he deletes contemptibly these announces in the office website）. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH（he deletes contemptibly these announces in the office website）. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
There's no doubt that if what is kicked back to bond holders decreases that we all know where the rest of the btc mined goes to. This is most certainly the most pressing issue moving forward.
March 10, 2014, 12:03:00 AM
lab_rat, do you forget your ipo terms, the share's original price is about 0.15B, drop to 0.05B bacause of lack of liquidity when the exchange is closed, so actually the bond is underestimated.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
some day ago you annouce to us the company 's hashrate will rise to 250TH. Now you decide the bond just worth 300mh as the value as 0.005B, the whole hashrate is only(300mh*60000=18TH), even less than current hashrate 50TH.
Do you think the bondowners are so stupid to bully. I suggest all the bondowners to sue and arrest labrat, a infamous fraud, and put him into the blacklist of bitcointalk and the whole bitcoin world.
Labrat will issue you 3 bonds for every 1 bond you have. Also, keep in mind, Labrat is calling it "contracts", not "bonds".
There are many questions left. But I hope this eases your concern some.
March 09, 2014, 11:57:59 PM
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable.
Indeed...there are many workable solutions. So, again, this is become a non issue. Which brings me back to my prior questions for Labrat:
What is up with the 150TH order?
What is the current status of the resources Labrat has been working on? Were any bridges closed or burned?
Is Labrat committed to success?
You might ask why I ask about his commitment. But it stems from seeing how few answers Labrat provides, and how unsatisfying many answers are to the important questions. So, indeed, asking if he is committed to success and not just dragging it around is important to know. Just answering 'yes' may not be that satisfying, but it will at least be something in the right direction.
When Labrat answers these satisfactorily, I think he will do a lot to calm this situation down. These questions are very obvious one's that need to be addressed. And they shoudl be addressable by Labrat unless he lost the bitcoins. That's why I called them the elephant in the room above.
March 09, 2014, 11:52:29 PM
Found an almost exact analogy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
I do like this idea. You're right that there are very strong parallels between the structure of a CSA and the original promise of what LRM was supposed to be. I'm not sure if a good lawyer could stretch the agriculture to mining anology enough to make it work, but this would be a much simpler solution than what I suggested in my previous msg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
March 09, 2014, 11:49:42 PM
Wow, talk about an an investment taking a complete nose dive.
Fucking hell.
Fucking hell.
March 09, 2014, 11:40:31 PM
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable.
March 09, 2014, 10:56:10 PM
Found an almost exact analogy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
This is interesting.
Yes. That is interesting (thanks Flashman). The only concern that pops out to me is what to do if/when hardware is sold to liquidate assets. Or how about the idea I proposed before with LRM acting more as a hosting service? Both have similar attributes, however, acting as a host where LRM manages the farm at least allows for liquidated assets to be returned to actual investors.
Don't forget to answer the most obvious question, the elephant in the room: What's up with the 150TH+ of hardware that was on order?
Also, is there any change in your relationship with the hardware sources you were working on? And finally, are you committed to LRM succeeding?
March 09, 2014, 10:49:19 PM
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable.
March 09, 2014, 10:39:21 PM
Found an almost exact analogy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
This is interesting.
What have you been doing with your spare time? If our investment is important to you, and LRM as a company is important to you, then I implore you to use the brains in this community to problem solve this and then make actual practical decisions and actions based on the bondholders input and guidance. This is our money after all. Make a post soliciting help, contact the bitcoin foundation, contact anyone with any experience in this who runs a legitimate buisness - talk to CEX.io, talk to ANYONE... rather than just stay silent as the ship sinks.
1) Solicit help. 2) Make informed descisions. 3) Take positive action. 4) Quell the masses with pitchforks and torches.
CEX.io is on a different boat than LRM, although they are definitely breaching MSB issues within the US whether they operate in or out of the country.
Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.
Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.
March 09, 2014, 10:32:10 PM
Found an almost exact analogy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
This is interesting.
What have you been doing with your spare time? If our investment is important to you, and LRM as a company is important to you, then I implore you to use the brains in this community to problem solve this and then make actual practical decisions and actions based on the bondholders input and guidance. This is our money after all. Make a post soliciting help, contact the bitcoin foundation, contact anyone with any experience in this who runs a legitimate buisness - talk to CEX.io, talk to ANYONE... rather than just stay silent as the ship sinks.
1) Solicit help. 2) Make informed descisions. 3) Take positive action. 4) Quell the masses with pitchforks and torches.
CEX.io is on a different boat than LRM, although they are definitely breaching MSB issues within the US whether they operate in or out of the country.
EDIT: also going to be flying out to meet with a well respected business lawyer rather soon who has also handled Bitcoin.
March 09, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
My guess is that Labrat is trying to avoid defining anything as actual bonds or shares. Doing so may require certain requirements be fulfilled. From the beginning, the term "bond" was only used for lack of better term. Even in some of my oldest posts I would put bonds in quotes. And there's probably a reason LR didn't call these shares. Anyway, if you noticed, LR isn't saying bonds anymore, he's calling them 'contracts'. There could easily be a good reason behind this... I simply don't think this is all that serious anymore, or at least if it is serious, I do think that a solution is probably somewhere to be found.
For example, why not rewrite the "contract" or simply redefine LRM as a hosting company of our hardware with Labrat acting as manager. Or find an asset protection specialist and see if moving everything into a trust could free up more options.
So, because I think a solution is achievable and I'm going to assume Labrat actually wants LRM to be successful, I now think the status of new hardware (and future hardware) is more important than this restructuring of the btc distribution schema.
For example, why not rewrite the "contract" or simply redefine LRM as a hosting company of our hardware with Labrat acting as manager. Or find an asset protection specialist and see if moving everything into a trust could free up more options.
So, because I think a solution is achievable and I'm going to assume Labrat actually wants LRM to be successful, I now think the status of new hardware (and future hardware) is more important than this restructuring of the btc distribution schema.
They have been called mining contracts by me from the beginning or "Perpetual Mining Bonds" which are what the community called them which is why I called them "bonds" since the beginning and stated in the original contract these are not traditional bonds and are non-callable.
I was out today, but tomorrow is a full day I will be speaking with my lawyer, as well as the other legal advisers who had input on this matter. None of which see anything LRM to be working with to be an SEC or FinCEN issue if the transition is made, which is why I made this choice. How to handle the specifics of the payout moving forward is being worked on.
March 09, 2014, 10:26:33 PM
Found an almost exact analogy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
This is interesting.
What have you been doing with your spare time? If our investment is important to you, and LRM as a company is important to you, then I implore you to use the brains in this community to problem solve this and then make actual practical decisions and actions based on the bondholders input and guidance. This is our money after all. Make a post soliciting help, contact the bitcoin foundation, contact anyone with any experience in this who runs a legitimate buisness - talk to CEX.io, talk to ANYONE... rather than just stay silent as the ship sinks.
1) Solicit help. 2) Make informed descisions. 3) Take positive action. 4) Quell the masses with pitchforks and torches.
March 09, 2014, 10:16:22 PM
Found an almost exact analogy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Shared_Agriculture
The way those work here is you buy a "share" in the commodities produced by the farm and each week you get your share of production. The people who buy shares don't own the farm, just it's output.
Find legal basis for those, structure LRM accordingly.
This is interesting.
March 09, 2014, 09:19:26 PM
My guess is that Labrat is trying to avoid defining anything as actual bonds or shares. Doing so may require certain requirements be fulfilled. From the beginning, the term "bond" was only used for lack of better term. Even in some of my oldest posts I would put bonds in quotes. And there's probably a reason LR didn't call these shares. Anyway, if you noticed, LR isn't saying bonds anymore, he's calling them 'contracts'. There could easily be a good reason behind this... I simply don't think this is all that serious anymore, or at least if it is serious, I do think that a solution is probably somewhere to be found.
For example, why not rewrite the "contract" or simply redefine LRM as a hosting company of our hardware with Labrat acting as manager. Or find an asset protection specialist and see if moving everything into a trust could free up more options.
So, because I think a solution is achievable and I'm going to assume Labrat actually wants LRM to be successful, I now think the status of new hardware (and future hardware) is more important than this restructuring of the btc distribution schema.
For example, why not rewrite the "contract" or simply redefine LRM as a hosting company of our hardware with Labrat acting as manager. Or find an asset protection specialist and see if moving everything into a trust could free up more options.
So, because I think a solution is achievable and I'm going to assume Labrat actually wants LRM to be successful, I now think the status of new hardware (and future hardware) is more important than this restructuring of the btc distribution schema.
March 09, 2014, 08:51:55 PM
You purchased bonds, not shares.
oh really??? Feck off
I'm just saying that could explain why the "dividends" cannot be variable monthly on a non predetermined basis
March 09, 2014, 08:13:38 PM
You purchased bonds, not shares.
Bonds of scam it seems. Jump to: