Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 51. (Read 452224 times)
April 30, 2014, 12:09:10 PM
Just when it seemed this drama couldn't get any more ridiculous.
April 30, 2014, 12:06:54 PM
It's too low if the dumb fuck comes to his senses and puts something in writing before May the 10th... also too low if injunction for emergency relief issued, assets frozen, motion to charge Zach Dailey personally with mismanagement proceeds, all assets liquidated, even with lawyers fees, may come out above 25c ... so hodling to see what happens.
Sounds like the current market rate is much higher than $0.25. So you'll be editing the above post to reflect that?
grnbrg.
April 30, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
It's too low if the dumb fuck comes to his senses and puts something in writing before May the 10th... also too low if injunction for emergency relief issued, assets frozen, motion to charge Zach Dailey personally with mismanagement proceeds, all assets liquidated, even with lawyers fees, may come out above 25c ... so hodling to see what happens.
April 30, 2014, 11:50:37 AM
100 Mh guaranteed, plus nothing that Zach will give shape, or form, or inkling of, let alone substance to.
=
100 Mh + 0
=
100 Mh
So, are you selling?=
100 Mh + 0
=
100 Mh
Or is $0.25 each too low?
grnbrg.
April 30, 2014, 11:45:53 AM
100 Mh guaranteed, plus nothing that Zach will give shape, or form, or inkling of, let alone substance to.
=
100 Mh + 0
=
100 Mh
=
100 Mh + 0
=
100 Mh
April 30, 2014, 11:40:03 AM
Right then, since Zach is refusing to prove that the bonds are worth more than the current market value of about 25 cents each, pbmining's price/gh for 1gh being about $2.50 at the moment, let's do some math...
I'm not sure what your point is...But I'll buy every contract you've got for $0.25 each.
grnbrg.
April 30, 2014, 11:16:49 AM
Right then, since Zach is refusing to prove that the bonds are worth more than the current market value of about 25 cents each, pbmining's price/gh for 1gh being about $2.50 at the moment, let's do some math...
65,000 original bonds outstanding.
X 3
=
195,000 "short bus" bonds.
Market value = ~ $48,750
Assets of LRM
"Declared" (Admitted to, non-secret) hash of 18Gh or thereabouts...
Approximately equal to 300 60GH BFL singles (Yah I know it's a mix, but I'm spitballing here)
Approximate current value on eBay, $200 a piece.
Approximate total value ~$60,000, (better hardware consuming less W/GH should be worth more, used BFL Singles since they should be worst for that.)
Assets in orders, unknown.
Assets in other venturs, unknown.
Assets in Bitcoin, unknown.
Piercing the corporate veil... priceless.
So, what next?
65,000 original bonds outstanding.
X 3
=
195,000 "short bus" bonds.
Market value = ~ $48,750
Assets of LRM
"Declared" (Admitted to, non-secret) hash of 18Gh or thereabouts...
Approximately equal to 300 60GH BFL singles (Yah I know it's a mix, but I'm spitballing here)
Approximate current value on eBay, $200 a piece.
Approximate total value ~$60,000, (better hardware consuming less W/GH should be worth more, used BFL Singles since they should be worst for that.)
Assets in orders, unknown.
Assets in other venturs, unknown.
Assets in Bitcoin, unknown.
Piercing the corporate veil... priceless.
So, what next?
April 30, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
Seems like one of the major points they pick out there is that customers are in control of where the hash is pointed to, which pool/coin etc.
You found it.
My $.02.
April 30, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
problem with this is you're taking a snap shot measurement on the eve of us receiving our largest hashrate investment. These numbers are fine and dandy, except, we're just short of a large upgrade.
Exactly what I wondered about.
April 30, 2014, 05:23:03 AM
Seems like one of the major points they pick out there is that customers are in control of where the hash is pointed to, which pool/coin etc.
April 30, 2014, 01:04:24 AM
Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
problem with this is you're taking a snap shot measurement on the eve of us receiving our largest hashrate investment. These numbers are fine and dandy, except, we're just short of a large upgrade.
Exactly what I wondered about.
April 30, 2014, 12:52:36 AM
Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
problem with this is you're taking a snap shot measurement on the eve of us receiving our largest hashrate investment. These numbers are fine and dandy, except, we're just short of a large upgrade.
April 29, 2014, 02:16:04 PM
Nobody here agreed or signed a contract. Everyone sent money to Labrat and expected him to follow through on what he was telling everyone he was going to do. At best there was a verbal/text based understanding of what was going to happen. But contracts via changed or otherwise don't mean anything because nobody is signing anything with a legal signature. And no, Bitcoin signatures are not legal signatures and are not proof that we agreed to any contract.
LabRat is going to do whatever he wants. And people in here will complain. That's all that is going to happen unless someone sues him. That's it. He's probably not even reading this thread. Probably out by the pool enjoying a cool drink and thinking about spending our money on his dinner.
That's what happens when you trust people you don't know with a lot of money. They screw you over.
LabRat is going to do whatever he wants. And people in here will complain. That's all that is going to happen unless someone sues him. That's it. He's probably not even reading this thread. Probably out by the pool enjoying a cool drink and thinking about spending our money on his dinner.
That's what happens when you trust people you don't know with a lot of money. They screw you over.
April 29, 2014, 01:27:51 PM
Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
Yeah you got it right.
April 29, 2014, 01:15:57 PM
Okay, I just emailed Lab_Rat for clarification.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
Assuming 100 "original" contracts:
Option 1:
They get converted to 300 "original" contracts with 100 MH/s each and not a hash more.
Option 2:
They get converted to 300 "new" contracts with 100 MH/s each with potential variable growth on top of the guaranteed hash rate.
This is keeping in mind that before the change, contracts were getting roughly 300 MH/s apiece on average based on the proportional rate (75%/25% split). So this is effectively a clarification change and nothing more, with option 2 being the better option. I agree that there should be a lot more than that amount of hash rate by now, but there have been a lot of unfortunate manufacturer delays. The outlook right now is a little bleak but I am hopeful that one day my investment will still pay off.
April 29, 2014, 12:59:30 PM
First is an undertaking by LRM to provide, on a weekly basis, basic information regarding total hashrate, estimated future hashrate based on incoming hardware, mining proceeds, costs and any amounts set aside for reinvestment. See any of the weekly updates by peta-mine as an example of how things ought to be done - short, concise and reassuring. This is basic information that should not be difficult to provide.
and addiction:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6201645
(had the same situation as LRM - bitfunder failed, delays in delivery - but addiction customers love their managers because of the amount of transparency and communications)
and nastyfans:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nastyfans-the-bitcoin-enthusiast-fan-club-est-2012-86854
(they use "donations" like LRM wants to use "bonus," but they give auditable financial data and details of their current hardware and pending orders so you can calculate what your bonus should be and that you are receiving it)
Great examples Maq..... I too would be fine with a change of some kind to the original bonds if we had a sufficient basis on which to make a decision. "Trust me" is not sufficient.
April 29, 2014, 12:56:10 PM
more bla bla bla
He's gonna have a hard time making it clear to SEC since he listed this in securities and called them "bonds" which are 1st tier capital investment.
If we were really just customers he would have stuck it in services. "LRM 0.5 BTC a gigahash plus mystery secret squirrel bonus" which probably would be sitting 500 pages back with no replies.
Plus then if you're trying to clear up the fact that your "victims" have no stake, going and calling it a "Group Buy" will not be seen as mitigating of the claim by the judge.
If this was even done as a "kickstarter" with 100% donations to gift a pile of mining hardware to Zach just because we like him, he would at this point be liable for breach of donor intent, which charities and non-profits have been heavily punished for recently.
So don't let him spin anything after the fact, he's got something of yours and owes you an obligation for it.
This is the heart of it. I'll take my initial investment back please since the original agreement for which it was provided was canceled by LRM, at LRM's choice. Not mine.
And no, I don't see a contract as a 'modified' version of the original. A contract is what it is when both sides agree to it. you can draw up a new contract that supersedes the original, but the original still exists.
April 29, 2014, 12:07:46 PM
LRM is the one left holding and owning the gear in the end, as he has made it very clear none of us have any actual stake in the business or hardware. All we have are "contracts" that LRM will pay us. "Contracts" LRM willfully changes after the agreement was struck.
That was the case from the outset though so nothing changed in regards to that.
You are correct, this was the case from the outset.
He's gonna have a hard time making it clear to SEC since he listed this in securities and called them "bonds" which are 1st tier capital investment.
If we were really just customers he would have stuck it in services. "LRM 0.5 BTC a gigahash plus mystery secret squirrel bonus" which probably would be sitting 500 pages back with no replies.
Plus then if you're trying to clear up the fact that your "victims" have no stake, going and calling it a "Group Buy" will not be seen as mitigating of the claim by the judge.
If this was even done as a "kickstarter" with 100% donations to gift a pile of mining hardware to Zach just because we like him, he would at this point be liable for breach of donor intent, which charities and non-profits have been heavily punished for recently.
So don't let him spin anything after the fact, he's got something of yours and owes you an obligation for it.
April 29, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
I've been out of the loop on this for a month or so. Can someone point me in the direction of a quick / easy to get update on the current status? Was some tendering supposed to be done on the shares? I get the sense that there's some uncertainty on what is going on but I am not able to figure it out from the thread. It derails so easily and it doesn't help to look at LR's / grnbrg's history either. Thanks very much in advance for any assistance you are able to give.
Read in this order:https://109.201.133.195/index.php?topic=251423.msg5591108#msg5591108
LR purports to unilaterally change the terms of our shares (now called "contracts") for unspecified legal reasons with immediate effect - says that all contracts are now fixed at 100MH/s hashrate (he goes on to claim this was all that was ever offered)
https://109.201.133.195/index.php?topic=251423.msg6395306#msg6395306
LR presents the "new contract" at the start of an AMA, giving no one any time to digest it - the contract is for 100MH/s with a discretionary bonus based on nothing in particular
https://109.201.133.195/index.php?topic=251423.msg6415742#msg6415742
LR employs coercion: get 100MH/s and no bonus at all until you switch to the new contract
I think that about covers it.
Jump to: