i can't believe this policy
Topic: LTCgear.com, the best scrypt/scrypt n/X11 cloud mining service, Not paying!!! - page 95. (Read 361391 times)
January 27, 2015, 02:53:39 AM
if there is going to be a tax, it should be kept from the payouts, not sent to him before payouts begin.
i can't believe this policy
i can't believe this policy
January 27, 2015, 02:37:23 AM
I would only accept a pro-rated maintenance fee for the 1.5 months of 2014 that I have owned the shares. In many ways, the idea of him taxing all of us sounds like he is trying to significantly reduce the amount he owes us.
Hypothetically, if you bought your shares at 49% off, and Chris taxes you at 25% of the cost of 3k shares for $899 ($224), he can make you pay 50% of the original purchase. So that way, he ends up getting 75% of the full price for the shares he sold you in November. It's something to think about...
Hypothetically, if you bought your shares at 49% off, and Chris taxes you at 25% of the cost of 3k shares for $899 ($224), he can make you pay 50% of the original purchase. So that way, he ends up getting 75% of the full price for the shares he sold you in November. It's something to think about...
It would still be a very cheap deal if the payments resumed as normal. $300 for 1000 shares should be bringing in than 15 LTC a week or about $30+ per week. 25% of $300 would be $75 which would be paid off with 7.5 weeks of payouts. Right now LTCgear has at least 5 weeks of payout from everyone.
Frankly I would be thrilled to get back 50% of those payouts. That is a whole lot better than nothing.
ill be very very happy only if he give me 10% of what he owed me for the past week, ill let him take 90% of what he owed as the tax, then resume payment as normal for the next week, but reading what in litecointalk, there a few cultist who still believe in their "holy" beekeeper and will send the tax to him, they are pretty dumb i can tell
January 27, 2015, 02:23:42 AM
The fee is only reserved for people owning shares older then a year right?
It now reads like every share has to pay this fee at the end of the year for it to be active in the next year.
January 27, 2015, 02:22:44 AM
I would only accept a pro-rated maintenance fee for the 1.5 months of 2014 that I have owned the shares. In many ways, the idea of him taxing all of us sounds like he is trying to significantly reduce the amount he owes us.
Hypothetically, if you bought your shares at 49% off, and Chris taxes you at 25% of the cost of 3k shares for $899 ($224), he can make you pay 50% of the original purchase. So that way, he ends up getting 75% of the full price for the shares he sold you in November. It's something to think about...
Hypothetically, if you bought your shares at 49% off, and Chris taxes you at 25% of the cost of 3k shares for $899 ($224), he can make you pay 50% of the original purchase. So that way, he ends up getting 75% of the full price for the shares he sold you in November. It's something to think about...
It would still be a very cheap deal if the payments resumed as normal. $300 for 1000 shares should be bringing in than 15 LTC a week or about $30+ per week. 25% of $300 would be $75 which would be paid off with 2.5 weeks of payouts. Right now LTCgear has at least 5 weeks of payout from everyone.
Frankly I would be thrilled to get back 50% of those payouts. That is a whole lot better than nothing.
EDIT. 2.5 weeks, not 7.5 weeks ...
January 27, 2015, 02:18:05 AM
The fee is only reserved for people owning shares older then a year right?
January 27, 2015, 02:16:30 AM
I hope nobody falls for this and pays him anything until we are all paid all coins that are due from back payments. I for one purchased in December and only received one payment. I know others who purchased at the same time as me and received nothing. To pay a "tax" to get what is owed to us just looks like another attempts at scamming us to me. 
No reason to believe one would have to had money to get the back payments released. We should be able to pay form our accumulated earnings.
January 26, 2015, 10:36:10 PM
Another point: Like I said, some "resellers" sold shares they got from multiplication or from cheap share packages and resold them to a low price. Chris will calculate the fees from the original, higher price.
January 26, 2015, 10:19:22 PM
I hope nobody falls for this and pays him anything until we are all paid all coins that are due from back payments. I for one purchased in December and only received one payment. I know others who purchased at the same time as me and received nothing. To pay a "tax" to get what is owed to us just looks like another attempts at scamming us to me.
I will not pay a single fucking satoshi until I am paid for the seven weeks he still owes me for. Nothing since 12/19 onward.
January 26, 2015, 10:14:30 PM
I hope nobody falls for this and pays him anything until we are all paid all coins that are due from back payments. I for one purchased in December and only received one payment. I know others who purchased at the same time as me and received nothing. To pay a "tax" to get what is owed to us just looks like another attempts at scamming us to me.
January 26, 2015, 10:11:02 PM
I would only accept a pro-rated maintenance fee for the 1.5 months of 2014 that I have owned the shares. In many ways, the idea of him taxing all of us sounds like he is trying to significantly reduce the amount he owes us.
Hypothetically, if you bought your shares at 49% off, and Chris taxes you at 25% of the cost of 3k shares for $899 ($224), he can make you pay 50% of the original purchase. So that way, he ends up getting 75% of the full price for the shares he sold you in November. It's something to think about...
Hypothetically, if you bought your shares at 49% off, and Chris taxes you at 25% of the cost of 3k shares for $899 ($224), he can make you pay 50% of the original purchase. So that way, he ends up getting 75% of the full price for the shares he sold you in November. It's something to think about...
January 26, 2015, 09:08:59 PM
Who thinks that this is all drama and all our money was invested into XPY, there was some arrangement between GAW and LTC Gear, the launch of XPY is when LTC Gear got down and we started to hear stories....as soon as XPY started to fade the website is back up!
this is so unbelievably stupid
January 26, 2015, 07:23:08 PM
"Hosting and power costs are included for one year. After each year, a power/hosting/maintenance has to be payed to maintain ownership for another year. The fee is around 5% – 20% of initial share price and it can be calculated only at the end of the year."
If it was meant that we all must pay a "tax" to renew for another year, Chris should have told us that our November purchases were only good for 1-2 months of mining. It clearly says costs are included for one year. The statement above should be for each person individually. Meaning, "at the end of YOUR year" or after a full year of your ownership of said shares. He didn't say that all shares will be billed a tax at the end of each year regardless of when they were purchased. He said costs are included for one year. No one who is under one year of ownership should be expected to pay a tax. If he worded it wrong, that is his problem. The way he worded the agreement indicates that we each get one year of mining from our purchase before we are expected to pay the maintenance fee.
In addition, he owes everyone payments that were supposed to go out before the end of the year. It would be obscene for him to expect a tax payment before allowing everyone to collect their 2014 earnings.
If it was meant that we all must pay a "tax" to renew for another year, Chris should have told us that our November purchases were only good for 1-2 months of mining. It clearly says costs are included for one year. The statement above should be for each person individually. Meaning, "at the end of YOUR year" or after a full year of your ownership of said shares. He didn't say that all shares will be billed a tax at the end of each year regardless of when they were purchased. He said costs are included for one year. No one who is under one year of ownership should be expected to pay a tax. If he worded it wrong, that is his problem. The way he worded the agreement indicates that we each get one year of mining from our purchase before we are expected to pay the maintenance fee.
In addition, he owes everyone payments that were supposed to go out before the end of the year. It would be obscene for him to expect a tax payment before allowing everyone to collect their 2014 earnings.
I was also under the impression that the MODS had no renewal fee can anyone confirm this and if this is still the case.
January 26, 2015, 06:58:02 PM
"Hosting and power costs are included for one year. After each year, a power/hosting/maintenance has to be payed to maintain ownership for another year. The fee is around 5% – 20% of initial share price and it can be calculated only at the end of the year."
If it was meant that we all must pay a "tax" to renew for another year, Chris should have told us that our November purchases were only good for 1-2 months of mining. It clearly says costs are included for one year. The statement above should be for each person individually. Meaning, "at the end of YOUR year" or after a full year of your ownership of said shares. He didn't say that all shares will be billed a tax at the end of each year regardless of when they were purchased. He said costs are included for one year. No one who is under one year of ownership should be expected to pay a tax. If he worded it wrong, that is his problem. The way he worded the agreement indicates that we each get one year of mining from our purchase before we are expected to pay the maintenance fee.
In addition, he owes everyone payments that were supposed to go out before the end of the year. It would be obscene for him to expect a tax payment before allowing everyone to collect their 2014 earnings.
If it was meant that we all must pay a "tax" to renew for another year, Chris should have told us that our November purchases were only good for 1-2 months of mining. It clearly says costs are included for one year. The statement above should be for each person individually. Meaning, "at the end of YOUR year" or after a full year of your ownership of said shares. He didn't say that all shares will be billed a tax at the end of each year regardless of when they were purchased. He said costs are included for one year. No one who is under one year of ownership should be expected to pay a tax. If he worded it wrong, that is his problem. The way he worded the agreement indicates that we each get one year of mining from our purchase before we are expected to pay the maintenance fee.
In addition, he owes everyone payments that were supposed to go out before the end of the year. It would be obscene for him to expect a tax payment before allowing everyone to collect their 2014 earnings.
January 26, 2015, 06:20:53 PM
he is mentioning if i read correctly, that some users allready started getting payments... where are these users??
its impossible not even a single one logged in to report..
At this moment the payments are functional for a percent of users and will become functional gradually for entire database of legit users.
its impossible not even a single one logged in to report..
At this moment the payments are functional for a percent of users and will become functional gradually for entire database of legit users.
sorry already mentioned in the previous page.
mentioned what? Who is getting paid?
January 26, 2015, 05:59:14 PM
he is mentioning if i read correctly, that some users allready started getting payments... where are these users??
its impossible not even a single one logged in to report..
At this moment the payments are functional for a percent of users and will become functional gradually for entire database of legit users.
its impossible not even a single one logged in to report..
At this moment the payments are functional for a percent of users and will become functional gradually for entire database of legit users.
sorry already mentioned in the previous page.
January 26, 2015, 05:58:22 PM
he is mentioning if i read correctly, that some users allready started getting payments... where are these users??
its impossible not even a single one logged in to report..
At this moment the payments are functional for a percent of users and will become functional gradually for entire database of legit users.
its impossible not even a single one logged in to report..
At this moment the payments are functional for a percent of users and will become functional gradually for entire database of legit users.
January 26, 2015, 04:53:23 PM
I'm no expert, but to me this doesn't look like a share balance script, only a simple WP text widget
Just my two satoshi...
Code:
Just my two satoshi...
I mentioned this as well. It's not exactly conclusive proof that nobody can see balances.. but it's a strong argument for it. There are ways to make a text widget interact with the database etc, plus you could show different widgets to different users, but it seems an odd way of doing it. I would be close to 100% certain that every single user is currently seeing the same HTML content in that widget.
Since it's only visible when logged in, he can have an easy script implemented that checks against a separate table in the db that contains all userID's that are allowed to see the balance. If you're not on the list, you're shown the "ELSE" part of the script, "[pending..]" in this case. So it doesn't proof nobody is seeing them, nor that anybody can see something different than we're seeing.
Yeah, that's what I said. But I just don't believe that is happening. Not a single person has yet reported seeing anything other than the HTML above.
January 26, 2015, 04:43:41 PM
Who thinks that this is all drama and all our money was invested into XPY, there was some arrangement between GAW and LTC Gear, the launch of XPY is when LTC Gear got down and we started to hear stories....as soon as XPY started to fade the website is back up!
I do hate GAW but this is a little far fetched don't you think ? January 26, 2015, 04:18:38 PM
I'm no expert, but to me this doesn't look like a share balance script, only a simple WP text widget
Just my two satoshi...
Code:
Just my two satoshi...
I mentioned this as well. It's not exactly conclusive proof that nobody can see balances.. but it's a strong argument for it. There are ways to make a text widget interact with the database etc, plus you could show different widgets to different users, but it seems an odd way of doing it. I would be close to 100% certain that every single user is currently seeing the same HTML content in that widget.
Since it's only visible when logged in, he can have an easy script implemented that checks against a separate table in the db that contains all userID's that are allowed to see the balance. If you're not on the list, you're shown the "ELSE" part of the script, "[pending..]" in this case. So it doesn't proof nobody is seeing them, nor that anybody can see something different than we're seeing.
Aye indeed, I suspect html for most accounts and the actual feature running on test accounts or a select customer base (maybe the users he knows from litecointalk, etc.).
January 26, 2015, 03:48:57 PM
I'm no expert, but to me this doesn't look like a share balance script, only a simple WP text widget
Just my two satoshi...
Code:
Just my two satoshi...
I mentioned this as well. It's not exactly conclusive proof that nobody can see balances.. but it's a strong argument for it. There are ways to make a text widget interact with the database etc, plus you could show different widgets to different users, but it seems an odd way of doing it. I would be close to 100% certain that every single user is currently seeing the same HTML content in that widget.
Since it's only visible when logged in, he can have an easy script implemented that checks against a separate table in the db that contains all userID's that are allowed to see the balance. If you're not on the list, you're shown the "ELSE" part of the script, "[pending..]" in this case. So it doesn't proof nobody is seeing them, nor that anybody can see something different than we're seeing.
Jump to: