Quote from: ||bit on March 10, 2014, 04:57:59 AM

Quote from: Jolest on March 10, 2014, 04:40:31 AM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 03:49:19 AM

Quote from: kaneda2004 on March 10, 2014, 03:39:21 AM

Granted, that is true. However, what I am suggesting is soliciting the help of community members, individuals who operate enterprises of a similar nature to LRM, or anyone who may have information that is helpful. I'm suggesting being open to help from them rather than writing them off as not being similar enough - someone may have something to contribute, if only you were to solicit the help. If LRM hasn't been operating illegally this whole time, then there is no harm in talking in the open about what challenges we face and how we can productively overcome them. If LRM has been operating illegally this whole time then I can understand your hesitance to ask for help and talk about specifics.

Bottom line: Ask the community for help regardless of how well versed you think they are.

The closest would be James Gibson's giga/teramining ventures as they are in the US and have handled issues in the past, but they are fixed hashrate payout schemes, not variable.

If the whole cause of this current mess is variable payout, the solution seems obvious. Adopt a fixed mh/(bond, share, or whatever you want to call them) - AND - issue periodic bond splits distributed evenly among existing bond holders to cover increases in the production capabilities of LRM. Yes, it's a bit of a song and dance, lo but bond splits are a normal part of running most profitable business. I doubt the Sec would consider it a problem. And it restores the original effect of investing for LRM investors.

Indeed...there are many workable solutions. So, again, this is become a non issue. Which brings me back to my prior questions for Labrat:

What is up with the 150TH order?

What is the current status of the resources Labrat has been working on? Were any bridges closed or burned?

Is Labrat committed to success?

You might ask why I ask about his commitment. But it stems from seeing how few answers Labrat provides, and how unsatisfying many answers are to the important questions. So, indeed, asking if he is committed to success and not just dragging it around is important to know. Just answering 'yes' may not be that satisfying, but it will at least be something in the right direction.

When Labrat answers these satisfactorily, I think he will do a lot to calm this situation down. These questions are very obvious one's that need to be addressed. And they shoudl be addressable by Labrat unless he lost the bitcoins. That's why I called them the elephant in the room above.

Even with everything else that's happening the answers to the 150TH question is one that an't be ignored. After all - we paid for it.