Quote from: hamburgerhelper on March 11, 2014, 11:40:08 PM

Quote from: bittymitty on March 11, 2014, 10:42:46 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 11, 2014, 10:32:23 PM

OK. Just out of a meeting with my lawyer and things look very very good in respect to how they have looked. I can't give time frames as things in the real world operate 9-5 m-f (NOT INCLUDING LUNCH HOURS) and my lawyer stated this loud and clear to me. When I asked for an estimate on time he said it will come when it's done and it's a priority.

What he specified I can share is that there will be an announcement that will provide some clarification followed by a contract to be presented. More info will come when it is available and no sooner. It is the intention of LRM to provide further than 300MH/s per contract and is apparent that the way this will be done is legal.

I have put the pitch fork back in the shed. Is seems you could have been a lot more clear with your intentions.

Let see if the bonds rebound or if trust has been permanently damaged.

I've read several articles in the last day which indicate that more than one federal and regional regulator is waiting patiently for bitcoin fraud cases to fall into their laps.

The nice thing about a Feds v. Zach Dailey case is that I've already paid for the prosecutor's fees in the form of my weekly taxes.

I'll be sharpening my pitchfork until this is equitably resolved.

WTF: "The nice thing about a Feds v. Zach Dailey case". That would please you?

LRM (Zach) is actively working to be onside of the evolving statute law. Any prosecutor would find a very tough row to hoe in the absence of any statutes that were broken or misinterperted if it can be demonstrated that LRM is doing everything it can to mitigate the issue. Your scenario is exactly what Zach is sweating his testes to AVOID on all our behalf. Sharpen the pitchfork for sure - but don't spread bullshit with it please.