Quote from: ||bit on March 24, 2014, 11:08:23 PM

Quote from: bobfranklin on March 24, 2014, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: bittymitty on March 24, 2014, 09:45:17 PM

Quote from: BKM on March 24, 2014, 09:30:36 PM

Quote from: bittymitty on March 24, 2014, 08:51:24 PM

Quote from: grnbrg on March 24, 2014, 08:49:11 PM

Quote from: bittymitty on March 24, 2014, 08:46:16 PM

Quote from: grnbrg on March 24, 2014, 04:22:23 AM

Quote from: ||bit on March 24, 2014, 03:50:34 AM

Do you live in New Jersey too? Just curious, because I thought you did some work with the hardware there...but at the same time thought you might not live in that area.

Nope, I'm in Canada. I've never actually met Zach in person, and have talked with him on the phone just once, I think.

Living in the future is cool.

grnbrg.

There you have it.

Grnbrg the "LRM shill" disassociates himself from the incoming fraud investigation.

And that's why I haven't been saying much. Everything gets twisted.

grnbrg.

So can you confirm this is not fraud?

There is zero evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated here. What there is being represented is that there is an issue and it is being worked on. You may certainly pursue the matter in law if you choose but I fail to understand how it benefits you or the other "bond"holders in anyway to make statements to the effect that there is fraud.

We have no list of bonds - why not?

We have no contract - where is it?

We have no new hardware - what happened?

Where is the proof this is not a fraud?

Where is the proof there that a deception was made? If you made assumptions based on no proof then you can't have been deceived aka no fraud. Just to define things for you.
If it turns out the hardware has arrived and is mining but not being reported that would be an issue.

Strong terms both of you are using. But I think your pasting over his point using the term proof. However, he has what he believes is reasonable evidence - not proof - of fraud. He therefore can ask for proof of no fraud, that is, things which can easily explain the things he observes to make him reasonably suspicious. Trying to counter him by asking for proof of no fraud is close but does not quite make it an impasse (or stalemate) you are presenting, because he already has reasonable concern, and has presented on areas where there is evasiveness on LR's part. LR often talks about all the work he's doing, but nothing really ever seems to come to fruition. Then he dropped that bomb the other day. From someone whose been a victim of several sophisticated frauds that have ended in asset liquidations and fraudster imprisonment - there are some very suspicious facets to this.

He (Bittymitty) didn't list it, but one of the reasons he probably has in mind, was Labrat's apparent willingness to fix bonds to a specific hashrate with no guarantee of increased value for investors with new hardware. That alone, as I've said before, should set off buzzers to how LR views investors. Further, I provided evidence that Dave is still - to this day - shipping Bitfury hardware, and yet LR has reported nothing of any new hardware.

Don't you think it odd that Dave's website is reporting Bitfury hardware in stock that can ship upon receipt of payment, and yet LR has reported receipt of no new hardware?

I'm not sure I can say it IS a fraud. My guess is that Zach is in a bit over his head, and probably scared with how to proceed. And he might have convinced himself it's okay to put his personal interests ahead of investors (who took all the risk and funded the entire company) - which can be corrected with a lawsuit based on the original agreement - a possibility that won't go away even with a new contract. But it certainly doesn't look good, and I can't blame Bittymitty for being suspicious of a possible fraud.

I'm also not 100% committed enough to argue it (or serious!). I get the angst, but I'm tending to sit on the fence until some information appears rather than go off half cocked (but hey that's just me). Wasn't meant to appear as an attack at all, more just a case of "sure but the argument for those points swings both ways and gives no proof/evidence of either argument in that sense" which concern doesn't enter into in my mind in a black and white sense. Although I for one won't say more/some info would be nice.