Quote from: Jutarul on January 31, 2014, 07:40:41 PM

Quote from: EduardoDeCastro on January 31, 2014, 03:28:32 PM

^^No. Miner protection was for consumer lots, think "retail." IceDrill bought @ wholesale rate, without miner protection. This was stated somewhere in the first few pages of this thread.

Not choosing the MPP is one of the few things IceDrill got right. The MPP is worthless, since the only thing backing it is a fraudulent company. The MPP was marketed as a protection against hash power growth - but given the promised delivery dates and the wholesale pricing at that time IceDrill didn't need that kind of protection. In hindsight the MPP is simply another one of those "plays" by the company to lead you into a false sense of security and defraud you on another level. Customers who haven't understood that by now are beyond hope.

Quote from: lenny_ on January 31, 2014, 06:44:21 PM

I agree with previous posts. We should be definitely mining on p2pool local node. DeadTerra, please keep us updated with work being done on mine.

Regards,
lenny

The p2pool is a protocol which allows participants to combine hashing power in a decentralized fashion and solves the granularity problem for bitcoin mining somewhat. However, the total hashing power in a p2pool still needs to be about 1% of the global hashing power for them to be competitive - another aspect is that the overhead puts you at a disadvantage w/r to centralized pools. Thus if you're the entity which adds 50% to the pool, you may as well not do it. It's smarter to gang up with a few other minor players and come up with a more centralized mining pool solution which is more efficient.

Quote from: cedivad on January 31, 2014, 11:50:22 AM

I just wanted to say that you have been negotiating with HashFast until October. Now, i don't have a dime in this security, but i would be wondering what those long discussions have been about during this 100 days.

Looking forward for when you will finally be able to release some details of the agreement you seem to be going to sign with HF.

(but i don't have a lot of hope on it either)

From what I can tell, IceDrill tried to position themselves as a partner to HashFast and as such they interacted with HashFast in a different manner than retail customers. Also, due to the size of the commitment, the fate of IceDrill and HashFast is more or less aligned, which gives IceDrill somewhat of a leverage (mutual assured destruction). So far the irrationality in the "partnership" originates from HashFast. Expect more details as this story unfolds, but as long as the source of the "irrationality" is not clear it is hard to make a prediction on whether the situation can be cured.

Quote from: Flashman on January 31, 2014, 07:15:06 PM

And Canada has specifically said you don't need an MTL to do anything with bitcoin. Only taxes on it are capital gains tax on the difference in value between when you receive it, and when you sell it.

The tax question is something which relates to the company structure and to the location of where the bitcoins are actually generated. It should certainly be answered/engaged by IceDrill in a timely manner. It is my understanding that the hashing power can be located anywhere without making any commitments to a particular tax jurisdiction, because hashing is a computational service which doesn't do anything except finding a solution to a NP-complete problem.

so turn icedrill into a scapegoat for hashfast delays? i think not.