Topic: Lightning miner ! 4ghs 80 usd Wow (Read 20900 times)

lol. Close your account. You can use it to pay those that actually got scammed.

For those curious, I ordered some of these on the small chance they were legit since I knew I could just dispute the charge if it was a scam. Today when I went to dispute the charge I learned that they never charged my account and instead issued a REFUND. I called the credit card company and they were confused and said as of now they have GIVEN me $$ since there was no initial charge and only the refund. I assume this will be corrected but thought that it was interesting

they are a scam for real.

I spent $80 to find out this hard lesson

my asic blue balls got the better of me :/


their payment processor is intuit

if you want your money back contact them.


if you paid in bitcoin well ... lol sorry but you wont see them again

Perhaps not dead, just currently between two ivory cell towers.

The horse is dead why keep beating it?

They were meant to be having a tour with a bitcoin media outlet-anybody followed up with this?

How many bitcoin mags are there in the US?-which ones are based closest to multiverse's location?

Has any publications said anything about multiverse? Has anybody asked?

Are they going to invent their own tour group?

Ummm, read the thread bro, this is about as cut and dry as they come man.

Looks like their phone number is no longer working... disconnected or do you think they ran with all the money they scammed from people?

I think he is more defending the fact that he himself was actually scammed out of money here.

Am I missing something or is tadzio defending the Lightning Miner outfit?

Well, I have to agree it's not "proof," it's actually "evidence."  The evidence is strong, to the point of being definitive, but from a technical/legal perspective, you can't really call it proof.

Although, I think from a scientific definition, you might be able to classify it as a proof... (Yes, proof means different things to a lawyer than it does to a scientist).  This seems more of a legal issue than a scientific one, so you'd kind of have to use the legal definition in this instance, and this doesn't qualify. 

Claiming it's not a scam, though, would be patently absurd.

*Sigh*. Because your entire original claim was that my proof wasn't a proof but a premise. I proved you wrong.

You falsifying my proof is another matter entirely, which I will not address until the original dispute is resolved.

The above is "giving up" (in a teenage way).

I listed several reasons why what you call "proof" does not proof anything - you never addressed any of these instead claiming the above.

Non-sequitur. There is no "giving up" in the statement "You were wrong, go on, admit it".

You stated I had not provided a proof. I explain the proof in detail. You agree it is a proof, not a premise. I win. There is nothing more to discuss. All your base are belong to us, etc.

Giving up so quickly? I'm disappointed but at the same time positively surprised

You are disagreeing with my proof. Therfore you think it is a proof.

You were wrong, go on, admit it.

No, it was a proof.

Premise: The company is not lying/scamming

Proof:
1. The website states that they have had a significant number of satisfied customers.
2. If these customers had been mining with high hashrate devices, the network hashrate would have increased significantly.
3. The increase in network hashrate from Februrary up to the point I first posted in the thread is completed accounted for by known sources.
4. Assuming the premise is true, either:
     i. Their customers all purchased prior to February 1, and none after. This is clearly impossible - if this product was real, customers would be lined up forever from the moment it was available. Further, a gap in production is ruled out by the website itself: "One of the other benefits of ordering from us is you won't have to wait a 2-4 months for our ASIC products."
    ii. They didn't have significant numbers of customers, or the customers did not buy significant hashrate products.  The former, if true, would have proved the company lying about their previous satisfied customers, and  would there fore be scamming. The latter is impossible - the distribution of expenditure on ASICs will always show a significant number of purchasers buy the expensive, high hashrate items.
5. Since 4 i. and 4 ii. are proven false, the premise is proven false. Thefore the company is a proven scammer.

You may disagree with my proof, and you are welcome to falsify it. But I have provided a proof, not a premise.

Also, note that I did not feel the need to use all-caps anywhere in this post. It makes for easier reading.

You just do not understand/know definition of PROOF that is why you cannot agree...
What you are giving us is PREMISE and they all do make sense.

I can give you one PREMISE that was against scum theory:
http://www.wezlanator.com/used-laptop/laptop-fan-used-for-lightning-miner-4-0

By the time it was published video was also available...
Now:
1. Blog that is online for a long time and very active.
2. Domain registered 2006!
3. Why would he/she participate in such a scum in such a way - much easier to trace?

Now I'm not saying it PROOFS anything...

Not circumstantial. It was impossible that anyone had added significant unknown hashrate.

What sort of proof would you accept?