Topic: Lab Rat Data Processing, LLC (LabRatMining) Official Announcement - page 72. (Read 452170 times)

He exists, I've personally met him.


I did visit him and I saw all of the gear for the 25TH mining away. This is the same trip where I met his lawyer as well.


No I do not have any idea on why this is taking so long, but it is strictly out of Lab Rats hands at the moment. It would most likely cause a bigger delay to try and go with a different lawyer since this one knows all of the workings of Lab Rat Mining as he's been part of it since Day 1 from my understanding.


Try to focus on the real issues, not the make believe ones.

The real issue is there's no communication and lack of transparency. Those won't be resolved until the Lawyer is done. A vicious circle it seems.

He should make a visit again, to see how huge this mining farm is atm

Shareholders are working behind the scenes, if you would like to be included in the discussion PM me and please include the number of current shares you hold, i.e. how many 100Mh shares.

Pretty sure Bargraphics visited the data centre I may be mis-remembering but I am like 85% sure.

We need to visit LRM mine.

To see if hardware is real, to see if all this history is real.

We haven't any proof that 17 TH/s isn't just some Th/s bought at cex.io with our money...

Alright, over a month now; does anyone still believe that the lawyer, who allegedly works on a new contract really exists?



I expect any documents, that confirm that your lawyer is really working on something till friday( shouldn't be that hard), otherwise i will contact the SEC. I really have enough of this bullshit...
(I will post the reply as soon as i receive an answer)

 If anyone has reasonable arguments against or maybe a better idea, just tell me.

I don't think that's needed to crack open the books anyway. The way this was all structured from the beginning was apparently built on sand from a regulatory/legal standpoint. So, even if a new contract was made that is perfectly in accordance with all legal angles, it can't undo what was done to hurt investors. I don't know for a fact, but even if one agree's to a new contract that might not include a guarantee of honoring the spirit of the original agreement, but only with Zach saying "just trust me on that", and then Zach breaks the spirit of the original contract, I highly suspect a person could still sue using the original contract despite agreeing to a new one. After all, in the end, investors investments would be ruined because of the original poorly (illegally?) constructed contract that put investors into that situation in the first place.

Imagine this scenario: A person commits fraud and takes your investment. Then he rewrites the agreement in an attempt to replace that original scenario with a legal model that does the same to you but leaves the perpetrator an apparent loophole out...and you accept that agreement. Can the investor still sue for the original fraud if he feels like it was a disingenuous maneuver or sleight of hand with the new agreement? I think so.

Doesn't really matter for me, he lost trust long ago, since that is what it's all about for a company, trust.

Yeah. But did the hardware first receive mine for two weeks or five? Ifso, I'd say it was disingenuous at worse. And as long as the mined coins were traded for even more new hardware it doesn't matter. But of course we can't see that to verify it since there is no transparency (yet) - which would why part of a lawsuit would include opening the books for transparency.

That was a lot less dodgy than when he announced he had bought hardware with his own funds and was mining with it at the same place 'our' hardware was hashing and that he was planning on switching it over to us soon. That was a monumental conflict of interest to put in nicely. It's also all we require to pierce the corporate veil in case a law suit materialises.

Don't you remember the last batch of hardware, where he was going to mine for 2 weeks and then back for us, except that 2 weeks turned into some sort of rolling 2 weeks between first piece of HW and last piece of HW, which ended up in I think 5?

I don't think he wants to go to prison, so I doubt it. What are you talking about last time? When did he mine for himself only?

Wouldn't surprise me if the new hardware is already mining away solely for LR, instead of for us. It was the same thing last time

LOL.  My wife has a work thing in Washington DC in late May.  Going to check out the Smithsonian and a bunch of other stuff with her.  That's the extent of my travel plans for the next while. 



grnbrg.

How goes it grnbrg?

When you comin' to town?

You got a whole line of free beers'n stuff waiting for you!

Damn boy!

My $.02.

If you want to email me a change of address, I'll GPG sign it and forward it to The Man.


If the signatures fail I will mock you.  


grnbrg.

@Labrat

In light of the new security flaw, most of us will probably be making new wallets and have new addresses. Will you be able to sift through the all the signed emails and update our addresses. You don't seem to be around often, and I'm thinking about scrapping my wallet.

Let us know...

There are reasons to suspect that Zach already received the new hardware. Assuming for a moment that is true. My guess on why he wouldn't want to tell anyone is so that he can mine longer than 2 weeks without being hassled for higher dividends. Not necessarily to steal bitcoins from investors, but to take advantage of his lawyer situation to mine longer. To make more new hardware purchases. Why? My guess would be that he has a deal that can't be ignored (in his opinion), and wants to optimize the deal situation while he can. After all, didn't he entertain concerns with the 25:75 ratio and sustainability in the midst of this turmoil - a thought he never entertain publicly before? I think so, and found this recent musing about that possibility an interesting change thoughts to entertain. And that is something one might think if they suddenly knew they should get more funds while they can get more from this deal.

But much of that, I think, Zach should not have problems with sharing with investors. Most would be for such anyway. And he could keep it generic without naming names if needed.

That's about as far as I'd like to compound my speculations at this time.

Buy a Roller?

My $.02.

http://www.coindesk.com/digitalbtc-signs-bitcoin-mining-hardware-deal-bitfury/

"However, the company did state that the first instalment of the new bitcoin mining hardware is already in operation and started generating revenue in March."

Looks like Bitfury have delivered.

I wonder what LRM is going to do with the BTC from the new hardware.....