Sam, why would you not do these things?
These questions are not going away until they're answered.
These questions are not going away until they're answered.
Scamuel is busy
Fixed that for you
Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining) - page 33. (Read 1079974 times)
October 16, 2013, 01:23:08 PM
Scamuel is busy
Fixed that for you
October 16, 2013, 01:09:37 PM
tl;dr Most of the IPO funds ended up at Just-Dice. "Sam" is either a big gambler, or he is trying to launder the money!
Oh common BitCsByBit, dont be so mean. You give them false hope! Now they will think labcoin may win big on justdice and pay out 2x the IPO in dividends!
If it were exclusively between the two i would lean toward the latter. Him trying to wash the BTC so he can cover the trail in the blockchain, and get the coins to other addresses.
Well, the evidence is there, and it is available for anyone to check.
I'll post the link here as it ended up on the bottom of the page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347620
Edited.
Another alternative is that the address is mislabeled and isn't just-dice at all.
My god...
October 16, 2013, 12:05:02 PM
The listing on CryptoStocks is legit.
I contacted Kumala (admin there) and asked about the legitimacy of the LBC listing.
Not sure what he was referring to here, but I think he got my question wrong. Anyway, I asked for clarification and if the listing itself was made by Labcoin - he confirmed.
This doesn't rule out though that Labcoin also applied for a listing on 796.com.
I contacted Kumala (admin there) and asked about the legitimacy of the LBC listing.
Dear DexX7,
we have observed the listing and have contacted the issuer. We are awaiting a response. If its a valid listing it will stay, if it is not genuine we will then delist it.
we have observed the listing and have contacted the issuer. We are awaiting a response. If its a valid listing it will stay, if it is not genuine we will then delist it.
Not sure what he was referring to here, but I think he got my question wrong. Anyway, I asked for clarification and if the listing itself was made by Labcoin - he confirmed.
The user account that posted the listing was an email address called [email protected].
As we require that all email addresses are confirmed upon registration, we can confirm that the user with the email address "[email protected]" has in fact listed the security.
What we obviously cannot confirm is that the user [email protected] has the authorization to list on behalf of Labcoins. Hence our inquiry to [email protected] whether or not an authorization for this listing has been given by the Labcoin management.
As we require that all email addresses are confirmed upon registration, we can confirm that the user with the email address "[email protected]" has in fact listed the security.
What we obviously cannot confirm is that the user [email protected] has the authorization to list on behalf of Labcoins. Hence our inquiry to [email protected] whether or not an authorization for this listing has been given by the Labcoin management.
This doesn't rule out though that Labcoin also applied for a listing on 796.com.
October 16, 2013, 11:04:36 AM
Good news, everyone! I d0x3d Sam Noi!!
October 16, 2013, 10:41:21 AM
Actions for the next 24 hours.
- Skype session with Ukyo regarding Bitfunder listing
- Posting to the forum the amount of BTC left in the company funds.
Change pool to Eligius
- Make the labcoin portfolio public on BTCT
Other actions to complete ASAP
- Verification of ID. A good start would be writing "I am Samuele Noi of Labcoin" and the date on a piece paper, and photograph yourself holding it.
- Photos of the hosting facilities as well as the operational boards
- Send a sample board to TheSeven. This should be done immediately as the sooner he gets the board the sooner he can provide advice. Delays have a direct cost.
- Exact power consumption figures for the chips/boards
I also want to have answers.
October 16, 2013, 10:21:47 AM
Sam, why would you not do these things?
These questions are not going away until they're answered.
These questions are not going away until they're answered.
Scamuel is busy wiring up AM Blades.
October 16, 2013, 10:17:14 AM
How we doing, Samster?
What's the reason for still not providing us with the amount of BTC left in company funds?
Why did you never make the labcoin portfolio public on BTCT?
Why no verification of your ID with anyone at all? What's up with that, Sammy?
Still no photos of the boards.
You haven't even given us the actual operational stats of the boards.
Sam, why would you not do these things?
These questions are not going away until they're answered.
Actions for the next 24 hours.
Other actions to complete ASAP
What's the reason for still not providing us with the amount of BTC left in company funds?
Why did you never make the labcoin portfolio public on BTCT?
Why no verification of your ID with anyone at all? What's up with that, Sammy?
Still no photos of the boards.
You haven't even given us the actual operational stats of the boards.
Sam, why would you not do these things?
These questions are not going away until they're answered.
Actions for the next 24 hours.
- Skype session with Ukyo regarding Bitfunder listing
- Posting to the forum the amount of BTC left in the company funds.
Change pool to Eligius
- Make the labcoin portfolio public on BTCT
Other actions to complete ASAP
- Verification of ID. A good start would be writing "I am Samuele Noi of Labcoin" and the date on a piece paper, and photograph yourself holding it.
- Photos of the hosting facilities as well as the operational boards
- Send a sample board to TheSeven. This should be done immediately as the sooner he gets the board the sooner he can provide advice. Delays have a direct cost.
- Exact power consumption figures for the chips/boards
October 16, 2013, 09:12:10 AM
theSeven was paid from a different wallet 1J3bLZrFdWwVE6kG9cojT5189N6Er2xHrm
I'm on my phone now and the Blockchain is not working properly.
Check my post on the last page, all the details are there and you can see that the IPO wallet shares funds with this wallet.
I'm on my phone now and the Blockchain is not working properly.
Check my post on the last page, all the details are there and you can see that the IPO wallet shares funds with this wallet.
Got it, two paths found:
1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 (allegedly IPO)
13nL1mML6PS1S5fjAmjXK31Cn1nX2ku7u9
1J3bLZrFdWwVE6kG9cojT5189N6Er2xHrm 2013-03-10, 0.00047 BTC (tx)
1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7
1ADuFoR56Z8v7EfHeFkbksqGJzvSUAsTY1 2013-02-18, 4 BTC (tx)
1J3bLZrFdWwVE6kG9cojT5189N6Er2xHrm 2013-04-27, 0.02 BTC (tx)
13nL1 and 1ADuF have 1697 and 2981 total transactions.. this looks weak.
October 16, 2013, 08:46:47 AM
That wallet contained a lump sum from the IPO. 7000 BTC - the fees. After the IPO BTCT would send those funds to Labcoin and not split it up internally.
Also that wallet is associated with the wallet that theSeven confirmed he was paid from for his services to Labcoin.
The amount, date and the association with a wallet we known belongs to Labcoin makes it highly plausible that these Bitcoins are owned by Labcoin, but only Burnside can confirm the truth.
Also that wallet is associated with the wallet that theSeven confirmed he was paid from for his services to Labcoin.
The amount, date and the association with a wallet we known belongs to Labcoin makes it highly plausible that these Bitcoins are owned by Labcoin, but only Burnside can confirm the truth.
Ahh, thanks! I thought 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 was an internal BTCT wallet.
Could you outline the path from 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 to the wallet Seven was paid from (1KRj8opQ5y3h2dw8FjnskxuVZ5qtu5Uuid)?
theSeven was paid from a different wallet 1J3bLZrFdWwVE6kG9cojT5189N6Er2xHrm
I'm on my phone now and the Blockchain is not working properly.
Check my post on the last page, all the details are there and you can see that the IPO wallet shares funds with this wallet.
October 16, 2013, 08:21:34 AM
tl;dr Most of the IPO funds ended up at Just-Dice. "Sam" is either a big gambler, or he is trying to launder the money!
Oh common BitCsByBit, dont be so mean. You give them false hope! Now they will think labcoin may win big on justdice and pay out 2x the IPO in dividends!
If it were exclusively between the two i would lean toward the latter. Him trying to wash the BTC so he can cover the trail in the blockchain, and get the coins to other addresses.
Well, the evidence is there, and it is available for anyone to check.
I'll post the link here as it ended up on the bottom of the page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347620
Edited.
Another alternative is that the address is mislabeled and isn't just-dice at all.
Yes I'm sure that's it.. :p Cmon man, it's clear this guy has scammed us all, we should no longer hope to get any bitcoin back. The sooner we get over this, the sooner we can take further steps/let it slide/whatever..
October 16, 2013, 08:18:32 AM
Regarding labcoin's mining gear. Though I already posted it here (and nobody paid any attention of course), 343 BTC from the IPO funds landed on 1FTspToTzXGHJCFkrryRAwmFaqAYQL7QVt address. If I understand this post and the whole thread in German correctly, that address received payments for EU ASICminer hardware sales in the past (YXT is ASICminer hardware reseller for EU).
This is a simplified representation of the path in blockchain:
[2013-08-01] 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 6,940 BTC
[2013-08-08] 16UVuhyftaZtCrL2xLgz2GES5ZpUGVncHQ 4,296 BTC
[2013-08-26] 18317bfjBf4H6gyYWPNJ2yjjT5k7kjAUGx 4,260 BTC
[2013-09-16] 1PmSbeoo9ZC9F41vFYbEYZsCCfZdcVJ2xm 344 BTC
[2013-09-16] 1KbpxRKJibrbYe3o4RGcMCEzFtcgjGu8eh 343 BTC
[2013-09-19] 1FTspToTzXGHJCFkrryRAwmFaqAYQL7QVt 343 BTC
Funny is, that labcoin moved the money on 16th September and started hashing on 18th IIRC. One "new version" blade cost 5.3 BTC and one "old version" blade cost 4.895 BTC (with further discount for orders > 30 pcs), if you bought them from YXT at that time (reference). 343 BTC would be sufficient for ~70 old blades, with resulting hashrate of ~ 700 - 840 GH/s.
Strange coincidence, I'd say.
This is a simplified representation of the path in blockchain:
[2013-08-01] 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 6,940 BTC
[2013-08-08] 16UVuhyftaZtCrL2xLgz2GES5ZpUGVncHQ 4,296 BTC
[2013-08-26] 18317bfjBf4H6gyYWPNJ2yjjT5k7kjAUGx 4,260 BTC
[2013-09-16] 1PmSbeoo9ZC9F41vFYbEYZsCCfZdcVJ2xm 344 BTC
[2013-09-16] 1KbpxRKJibrbYe3o4RGcMCEzFtcgjGu8eh 343 BTC
[2013-09-19] 1FTspToTzXGHJCFkrryRAwmFaqAYQL7QVt 343 BTC
Funny is, that labcoin moved the money on 16th September and started hashing on 18th IIRC. One "new version" blade cost 5.3 BTC and one "old version" blade cost 4.895 BTC (with further discount for orders > 30 pcs), if you bought them from YXT at that time (reference). 343 BTC would be sufficient for ~70 old blades, with resulting hashrate of ~ 700 - 840 GH/s.
Strange coincidence, I'd say.
and the plot thickens.
October 16, 2013, 08:16:26 AM
That wallet contained a lump sum from the IPO. 7000 BTC - the fees. After the IPO BTCT would send those funds to Labcoin and not split it up internally.
Also that wallet is associated with the wallet that theSeven confirmed he was paid from for his services to Labcoin.
The amount, date and the association with a wallet we known belongs to Labcoin makes it highly plausible that these Bitcoins are owned by Labcoin, but only Burnside can confirm the truth.
Also that wallet is associated with the wallet that theSeven confirmed he was paid from for his services to Labcoin.
The amount, date and the association with a wallet we known belongs to Labcoin makes it highly plausible that these Bitcoins are owned by Labcoin, but only Burnside can confirm the truth.
Ahh, thanks! I thought 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 was an internal BTCT wallet.
Could you outline the path from 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 to the wallet Seven was paid from (1KRj8opQ5y3h2dw8FjnskxuVZ5qtu5Uuid)?
October 16, 2013, 08:05:54 AM
@ SebJu
That suggestion was for 2 other wallets which received funds from the dividend wallet.
@ dex
That wallet contained a lump sum from the IPO. 7000 BTC - the fees. After the IPO BTCT would send those funds to Labcoin and not split it up internally.
Also that wallet is associated with the wallet that theSeven confirmed he was paid from for his services to Labcoin.
The amount, date and the association with a wallet we known belongs to Labcoin makes it highly plausible that these Bitcoins are owned by Labcoin, but only Burnside can confirm the truth.
@ BitCycle Huh. Really?
That suggestion was for 2 other wallets which received funds from the dividend wallet.
@ dex
That wallet contained a lump sum from the IPO. 7000 BTC - the fees. After the IPO BTCT would send those funds to Labcoin and not split it up internally.
Also that wallet is associated with the wallet that theSeven confirmed he was paid from for his services to Labcoin.
The amount, date and the association with a wallet we known belongs to Labcoin makes it highly plausible that these Bitcoins are owned by Labcoin, but only Burnside can confirm the truth.
@ BitCycle Huh. Really?
October 16, 2013, 07:41:50 AM
tl;dr Most of the IPO funds ended up at Just-Dice. "Sam" is either a big gambler, or he is trying to launder the money!
Oh common BitCsByBit, dont be so mean. You give them false hope! Now they will think labcoin may win big on justdice and pay out 2x the IPO in dividends!
If it were exclusively between the two i would lean toward the latter. Him trying to wash the BTC so he can cover the trail in the blockchain, and get the coins to other addresses.
Well, the evidence is there, and it is available for anyone to check.
I'll post the link here as it ended up on the bottom of the page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347620
Edited.
Another alternative is that the address is mislabeled and isn't just-dice at all.
October 16, 2013, 07:32:04 AM
Even if 1ovYFPS1HiGFMQVTB3vuWtnEpGvRxZ6H7 contained IPO funds, I'm not sure if you can conclude anything from that point on. BTCT moves the coins internally all the time?
October 16, 2013, 06:59:21 AM
@BitCsByBit
Someone mentioned that these are btc-hotwallet addresses. So i wonder how sure it is that labcoin owns these bitcoins or if it might be a differen btc-user.
Im not sure too. And i think that the other companies will bring hashpower online for sure. But labcoin, if its legit, and the newest just dice info doesnt really look like it for me, could bring hashpower online too. Its a fight between big companies. And since labcoin theoretically has an advantage with the price, at least against endusers, i think it could get a part in the networks hashrate. Of course the other companies will built too.
What im not so sure anymore is... if the many companies that own an asic design... will succeed. Even when they have a own design... at one point the companies will fight against each other. And i dont know how this will end.
Someone mentioned that these are btc-hotwallet addresses. So i wonder how sure it is that labcoin owns these bitcoins or if it might be a differen btc-user.
I might have not been clear, maybe my point was lost. I'll give it another try:
Assuming that there is a chip, or, at least, a maskset:
If mining with Labcoin's chips is profitable, and these chips could be assembled into miners rapidly (the whole thing scales easily), why do you think the other ASIC manufacturers, who have both proven & more efficient masksets, are not doing the same? Other than having proven design, provably more efficient, why can't KNC order another run at their foundry, outsource boards & assembly, and just rake in the coin? Concern for their customers? Scruples? Love of small-time miners?
Assuming that there is a chip, or, at least, a maskset:
If mining with Labcoin's chips is profitable, and these chips could be assembled into miners rapidly (the whole thing scales easily), why do you think the other ASIC manufacturers, who have both proven & more efficient masksets, are not doing the same? Other than having proven design, provably more efficient, why can't KNC order another run at their foundry, outsource boards & assembly, and just rake in the coin? Concern for their customers? Scruples? Love of small-time miners?
Im not sure too. And i think that the other companies will bring hashpower online for sure. But labcoin, if its legit, and the newest just dice info doesnt really look like it for me, could bring hashpower online too. Its a fight between big companies. And since labcoin theoretically has an advantage with the price, at least against endusers, i think it could get a part in the networks hashrate. Of course the other companies will built too.
What im not so sure anymore is... if the many companies that own an asic design... will succeed. Even when they have a own design... at one point the companies will fight against each other. And i dont know how this will end.
October 16, 2013, 06:55:05 AM
So after all this, people think Labcoin is more credible as they are hashing with 2.5 Terrahash which could easily be achieved with even buying 1000 blue furys which would cost 60k and they have listed on 796.com and labcoin refuses to let them come to the site. This is a joke, how long must a scam drag out for.
I have just pulled my money out of 796.com stock as i don;t want to be associated with an exchange hat allows an asset like labcoin to be featured. To me that makes 796.com just as shady, also 796 could lose its liscence and its game over. I hope your reading this owners of 796.com, your doing a HUGE mistake
I have just pulled my money out of 796.com stock as i don;t want to be associated with an exchange hat allows an asset like labcoin to be featured. To me that makes 796.com just as shady, also 796 could lose its liscence and its game over. I hope your reading this owners of 796.com, your doing a HUGE mistake
October 16, 2013, 06:50:05 AM
tl;dr Most of the IPO funds ended up at Just-Dice. "Sam" is either a big gambler, or he is trying to launder the money!
Oh common BitCsByBit, dont be so mean. You give them false hope! Now they will think labcoin may win big on justdice and pay out 2x the IPO in dividends!
If it were exclusively between the two i would lean toward the latter. Him trying to wash the BTC so he can cover the trail in the blockchain, and get the coins to other addresses.
Well, the evidence is there, and it is available for anyone to check.
I'll post the link here as it ended up on the bottom of the page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347620
Edited.
Its a sure bet... i mean who knows better than Sam what will happen with Labcoin? He can even make bets true.
But this is not ok any way i look at it.
October 16, 2013, 05:09:31 AM
Just as I predicted. 796 is desperate in adding new assets.
If they are desperate, and they add an asset which turns out to be a scam, they'll likely be devastated after that. October 16, 2013, 05:01:34 AM
tl;dr Most of the IPO funds ended up at Just-Dice. "Sam" is either a big gambler, or he is trying to launder the money!
Oh common BitCsByBit, dont be so mean. You give them false hope! Now they will think labcoin may win big on justdice and pay out 2x the IPO in dividends!
If it were exclusively between the two i would lean toward the latter. Him trying to wash the BTC so he can cover the trail in the blockchain, and get the coins to other addresses.
Well, the evidence is there, and it is available for anyone to check.
I'll post the link here as it ended up on the bottom of the page:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3347620
Edited.
Jump to: