Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 20. (Read 1079974 times)

How do you explain 3TH spikes on eligius?

Well the 600 GH/s on Eligius is the older fake mining provided by their Avalons.
The others are bought on cex.io.

NB: This is based on no evidence, and thus is FUD. Since it seems no one here understand what FUD is, I'm starting to teach you how to internet.

Well the 600 GH/s on Eligius is the older fake mining provided by their Avalons.
The others are bought on cex.io.


NB: This is based on no evidence, and thus is FUD. Since it seems no one here understand what FUD is, I'm starting to teach you how to internet.

On Eligius.  Most of his hash is on ghash.io.  allegedly

There must be some other mining address for labcoin, the address http://blockchain.info/address/17psAW21J4twanAFWmbcd5WdX2pKeX3trm only receives 1BTC every day, while the daily dividends are 11BTC. According to the daily dividends, they have roughly 7TH/s right now.

Apparently there was some downtime...

http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/17psAW21J4twanAFWmbcd5WdX2pKeX3trm

So from ..137 per 24 hours, we've gone to ...0207 over 48? Implying a reduced hashrate?

Dividends paid on Crypto::Stocks:

23 Oct 13:23   16.75526103   8,094,329   0.00000207   BTC
21 Oct 15:09   11.25111731   8,094,329   0.00000139   BTC
20 Oct 15:36   11.08923073   8,094,329   0.00000137   BTC
19 Oct 09:32   11.17017402   8,094,329   0.00000138   BTC
18 Oct 04:32   11.97960692   8,094,329   0.00000148   BTC

OK when LABCOIN gives the BTC to the Pass through operator to pass them out to Havelock shareholders.. happy now?

we R still waiting on labcoin bro

properly havelock labco might switched back to per week,still no clue.

havelock could be busy or something.

Has anyone found out when havelock will pay dividends?

we R still waiting on labcoin bro

No, on Havelock it's just a passthru, dividends have been paid on BTCTC and now are paid on Crypto::Stocks, who controls the passthru is the one who has to pass the dividends.

erm.. when LABCOIN gives them the BTC to pay out

Has anyone found out when havelock will pay dividends?

The HK SFC has responded. Anyone want to help me with a response? Pls PM me. Also if anyone has contacted HK police about this let me know as well. I think we can delay replying until Nov 1st since people are still hoping for that deadline. Here are their questions:
...
 
1. Whether you are an investor of Labcoin. If so, please explain in details its operation and
advise how you subscribed to the shares of Labcoin.
 
2. The detailed operation of the “virtual currency bitcoin”;
 
3. Whether the scheme is promoted in Hong Kong? If yes, how it is promoted in Hong Kong;
 
4. Whether you had reported the matter to Hong Kong Police; and
 
5. Please provide a copy of the prospectus of Labcoin as we are unable to access the file
via the hyperlink provided in your email.

...

The HK SFC has responded. Anyone want to help me with a response? Pls PM me. Also if anyone has contacted HK police about this let me know as well. I think we can delay replying until Nov 1st since people are still hoping for that deadline. Here are their questions:
...
 
1. Whether you are an investor of Labcoin. If so, please explain in details its operation and
advise how you subscribed to the shares of Labcoin.
 
2. The detailed operation of the “virtual currency bitcoin”;
 
3. Whether the scheme is promoted in Hong Kong? If yes, how it is promoted in Hong Kong;
 
4. Whether you had reported the matter to Hong Kong Police; and
 
5. Please provide a copy of the prospectus of Labcoin as we are unable to access the file
via the hyperlink provided in your email.

...

When are you subject to SFC regulation?
As a general principle, the SFC has stated that it will not seek to regulate the provision of financial services that are conducted from outside Hong Kong and over the Internet, unless such activities are targeted at people residing in Hong Kong or are detrimental to the interests of the investing public in Hong Kong or to the market integrity of Hong Kong.

In determining whether or not an activity conducted over the Internet is targeted at people residing in Hong Kong, the SFC will consider the following factors:

• Whether the information is targeted, via ‘push’ technology, to people whom the financial services provider knows, or should reasonably know, reside in Hong Kong. ‘Push technology’ refers to any technology which broadcasts or directs information to a particular person or group of persons and includes e-mail, direct mailshots and the like.

• Whether the information available over the Internet is presented in a manner which gives the appearance that people residing in Hong Kong are targeted. Common examples cited by the SFC that may suggest Hong Kong people are targeted include the:

- use of local distribution agents in Hong Kong;
- use of references to Hong Kong dollars;
- use of Chinese language; and
- publication in Hong Kong newspapers/magazines of the Internet address.

• Whether the information presented includes a disclaimer clearly indicating that the services or products are not available to people residing in Hong Kong. A general statement that the service or product is not being made available in any jurisdiction in which the service or product would or could be illegal is not sufficient (either for the SFC or for other regulators). What is required is either a positive statement of the countries in which the service or product is available (eg, this service/product is only available to Hong Kong residents) or a negative statement that the service or product is not available to Hong Kong residents.

• Whether reasonable precautions are taken to guard against the acceptance of purchases from, or provision of services to, people residing in Hong Kong.
These precautions may include checking the mailing addresses of potential clients and the use of blocking technology to restrict access to the information and services provided. As a matter of practice, blocking technology is likely to be only partially effective at best and so other precautions will need to be adopted.

A simple check box on a website for a person to indicate that he or she is, or is not, a Hong Kong resident would not by itself be a sufficient precaution.
The SFC’s Guidance Note on Internet Regulation makes it clear that the use of precautions or disclaimers will not necessarily preclude the SFC from exercising its powers of enforcement if the conduct of the people who are responsible for the particular activity over the Internet or some other circumstances so warrant.

If a website is considered to be targeted at Hong Kong investors, the person responsible for the website needs to be licensed for the relevant regulated activity carried on via the website.