Quote from: daemonfox on March 09, 2014, 12:42:47 AM

Quote from: ||bit on March 09, 2014, 12:38:20 AM

Let me ask.

Is there any over reaction of emotions going on on my part or others?

Is this the end of LRM? So far, it seems that the only change is that LRM will have to issue out more bonds for every 100MH improvement in total hash rate. Again, that would still be a clumsy solution, imo.

Talk to me goose... or geese.

Truth is we just do not have enough facts for all the hype being spewed right now.

When Zach defines the issues legally, and then clarifies what the future hashrate to be added does for us... THEN we will have final pieces that allow for proper dissection of how fucked we all are.

I don't like the tone of how it sounds equivocal like when a boyfriend or girlfriend wants to break up. Instead, what I'd like to hear from Labrat is more confidence and that he's committed to going the distance with LRM... and with seeing a way through to solve this supposed "legal concern". There's really no clear reason what-so-ever that he can't solve this supposed problem.

Imagine if Microsoft said to shareholders. "Dear Investors, the dividends we are paying you is variable. Legal stuff - new state and federal laws we aren't too sure about - it's complicated. So, anyway, we have to cap your dividends to only a percentage of earnings generated from legacy software DOS and Windows 3.1.... Latest software resulting from company growth won't contribute to your dividends anymore, since that will cause your dividends to vary. Thanks for your money."

Sure, not an exact analogy. But the notion that a company would take investors money for a decaying return and decaying share value is ridiculous.