Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 29 results by interJ
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Here's an update on shares for everyone:
It's been: 109 days since transfers began https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3325554#msg3325554
73 days since the final transfers to AMC-tender (based on date given at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3492434#msg3492434)
66 days since public listing at crypto-trade (Dec 5th)
19 since "Getting trading up and running is now my number one mission" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4652540#msg4652540
18 since he was planning to "start moving Investors shares to Crypto-Trade within the next 7 days." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4664267#msg4664267 Also at this time, Ukyo's shares were listed for sale on Cryptotrade at .01
11 days since he was starting "process of verifying the shares tomorrow." "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4831091#msg4831091
10 days since it would "be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4850206#msg4850206 and that the site for verification is completed and that he just needs to "set it up on the server." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4850215#msg4850215
9 days since he was "working on [getting the verification site up in] the next few days." and that he doesn't "see to many problems getting it running ASAP." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4861499#msg4861499
Yup. Working on it. It'll be right along any minute now. Just give him 7 days.
It's been: 109 days since transfers began https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3325554#msg3325554
73 days since the final transfers to AMC-tender (based on date given at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3492434#msg3492434)
66 days since public listing at crypto-trade (Dec 5th)
19 since "Getting trading up and running is now my number one mission" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4652540#msg4652540
18 since he was planning to "start moving Investors shares to Crypto-Trade within the next 7 days." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4664267#msg4664267 Also at this time, Ukyo's shares were listed for sale on Cryptotrade at .01
11 days since he was starting "process of verifying the shares tomorrow." "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4831091#msg4831091
10 days since it would "be a few more days before, I can get the verifying program uploaded to the server." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4850206#msg4850206 and that the site for verification is completed and that he just needs to "set it up on the server." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4850215#msg4850215
9 days since he was "working on [getting the verification site up in] the next few days." and that he doesn't "see to many problems getting it running ASAP." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297503.msg4861499#msg4861499
Yup. Working on it. It'll be right along any minute now. Just give him 7 days.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Anyone know the total value and number of shares sold so far, or is it too hard to differentiate between kens sell orders and other buyers?
CT gives metrics on their securities portal @ https://crypto-trade.com/tradex/ipo . 30 day volume is 67 XBT. A small fraction of that is from people who made quick flips, but the bulk of it is from direct purchase of Ukyo's shares from Ken.
If someone can show I am wrong on this then to ahead. However, it's about the law and business entities, not what you think is right. Basically, can ken under US law claim some rights to ukyo's personal assets, as a Belize company, when ukyo's Australian company owed it money? Everywhere I read about this people are confusing who owns or owes what. And no, being sole director doesn't make you automatically personally liable for a company's debts. That's half the point of a ltd company.
Re: the limited liability issue; I would have previously agreed that Ken doesn't legal grounds to stand on to seize Jon's personal shares to absolve the debt held by WeExchange, but it seemed to me that Jon blurred the lines of limited liability to begin with when he put forth using the shares to make repayments. But I also really have no idea. You're right that it's just a pretty convoluted situation - and that in part seems to be what has influenced Ken to act as he has, because it seems like it would be a giant pain for Jon to work it out legally.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
You made the point that Ukyo could declare bankruptcy. This is why we have to have a fire sale at this time. Should Ukyo declare bankruptcy, the court would put a stay on selling any of his assets, and Active Mining would be stuck until the court confirmed that our lien on the shares comes before other debtors. So, this is the reason for putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders being allowed to trade.
So do you admit that you are willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares while you have unimpeded access to the market?
...and you think this is ethical... how exactly?
No, I am not willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares to have unimpeded access to the market. I am liquidating the shares due to the above reasons.
Quote
putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders
How do you figure that doesn't constitute as anything BUT withholding access to our shares?
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Let's not forget normal action for Ken would be to sue Ukyo for the money owed and Ukyo has already stated that if anyone were to sue him he'd just declare bankruptcy and that no one would get paid.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
Ken has no obligation to Ukyo's debts and only has obligation to his shareholders regarding this transaction.
That said; I don't think anyone really has issue with the price... the real issue is that Ken has started trading shares before he's returned access to our own. If we were open trading right now the market would set that price not Ken. We should have resumed normal trading before Ken dumped those shares; you can make what ever excuse you want about it... it just is wrong to do it this way.
You made the point that Ukyo could declare bankruptcy. This is why we have to have a fire sale at this time. Should Ukyo declare bankruptcy, the court would put a stay on selling any of his assets, and Active Mining would be stuck until the court confirmed that our lien on the shares comes before other debtors. So, this is the reason for putting up the shares at this time ahead of other shareholders being allowed to trade.
So do you admit that you are willfully withholding shareholder access to their shares while you have unimpeded access to the market?
...and you think this is ethical... how exactly?
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Minerpart: Ken's main responsibility is to his shareholders. Period. The investment you speak of is an extension of this responsibility, but not all encompassing of it. I think that (*regardless of the reasoning behind why*, because I do think Ken's in the right to sell Ukyo's shares) the act of using the market to retrieve company credit while withholding trading from shareholders is just straight up unethical. As shareholders, we have shares on an open market for a reason - to express our confidence in the company. This is just a big "fuck you" to shareholders from Ken.
Basically, I think it's a moot point to argue what's in our best interest when we lack the ability to express our opinions in a meaningful way: by trading our shares on an open market.
Ken: Why. The. Fuck. Do. We. Not. Have. Our. Shares.
Basically, I think it's a moot point to argue what's in our best interest when we lack the ability to express our opinions in a meaningful way: by trading our shares on an open market.
Ken: Why. The. Fuck. Do. We. Not. Have. Our. Shares.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Ukyo's 230K wall on Crypto Trade has just moved down to .0005!
Another shot at IPO #1 prices
Why would you do this, Ken? Another shot at IPO #1 prices
To recover the 100 BTC owed to Active Mining plus cost. Ukyo had 10 days to pay Active Mining the 100 BTC plus cost and he has failed to pay that. So, we are selling his shares to pay his debt.
While we're all keen to throw about deadlines for people, maybe we should give you ten days to get shares back in shareholders hands. You don't really seem to be too concerned about us.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
...
Instead of constantly asking about your shares, if anyone wants to see any return on this investment, I suggest you start asking Ken about the work he is doing to make the farm a reality. Why is no-one asking Ken about the premises we will be using, the electrical installation work needing to be done, the assembly capacity we have, the boards, the engineering team we will be relying on? There is still a lot of work to do to make this farm operational and viable - chips are only half the battle. Stop asking about shares, start asking about the farm.
Instead of constantly asking about your shares, if anyone wants to see any return on this investment, I suggest you start asking Ken about the work he is doing to make the farm a reality. Why is no-one asking Ken about the premises we will be using, the electrical installation work needing to be done, the assembly capacity we have, the boards, the engineering team we will be relying on? There is still a lot of work to do to make this farm operational and viable - chips are only half the battle. Stop asking about shares, start asking about the farm.
To which I would respond:
"You want us to have faith in you to put an ASIC to market? Taking over 100 days for what a high school kid with a "For Dummies" manual could do really isn't instilling much faith."
I for one would rather NOT need to ask about the specific details of the farm, because I'd rather be in a situation where I can trust the abilities of Ken and his team. That I'm here asking about shares is because issues with them leave me with doubt towards the more basic competencies. That, and as anyone would tell you, there's no way of realizing a return on an investment if you can't even prove you own it.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
I don't quite get why people are requesting some sort of alternative listing...
We are ALREADY listed. We have been since DECEMBER 5th. That's nearly two months now.
What I would like to see happen, and don't quite understand why it's been so impossible to do, is to just verify shareholders and get shares back in their hands. This is fucking absurd at this point.
Ken, you promised you'd START verifications in 7 days with your update. You reneged on that promise. Now it's "I don't see to many problems getting it running ASAP." Guess what? No one else can see why there are any problems getting it running either.
God danm man... all it seems to be is a simple site. You want us to have faith in you to put an ASIC to market? Taking over 100 days for what a high school kid with a "For Dummies" manual could do really isn't instilling much faith.
We are ALREADY listed. We have been since DECEMBER 5th. That's nearly two months now.
What I would like to see happen, and don't quite understand why it's been so impossible to do, is to just verify shareholders and get shares back in their hands. This is fucking absurd at this point.
Ken, you promised you'd START verifications in 7 days with your update. You reneged on that promise. Now it's "I don't see to many problems getting it running ASAP." Guess what? No one else can see why there are any problems getting it running either.
God danm man... all it seems to be is a simple site. You want us to have faith in you to put an ASIC to market? Taking over 100 days for what a high school kid with a "For Dummies" manual could do really isn't instilling much faith.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Ken,
So, any update on getting shareholders verified and transferred?
I mean, it's only been: 95 days since transfers began https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3325554#msg3325554
59 days since the final transfers to AMC-tender (based on date given at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3492434#msg3492434)
52 days since public listing at crypto-trade (Dec 5th)
And mind you, these are just the hard dates. You knew of BF issues before October 23 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3325554#msg3325554, or 106 days). You would have had to been in contact with Neotrix before Dec 5th to get listed at CT in the first place, etc., etc.
I'm not going to get involved in arguing the legalese of selling Ukyo's shares: I'm more concerned with what the fuck you're doing listing them for trade before getting your shareholder's shares back in their hands - those same shareholders who are the reason you have the chance to be doing multimillion dollar business with eASIC in the first place.
Thanks.
So, any update on getting shareholders verified and transferred?
I mean, it's only been: 95 days since transfers began https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3325554#msg3325554
59 days since the final transfers to AMC-tender (based on date given at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3492434#msg3492434)
52 days since public listing at crypto-trade (Dec 5th)
And mind you, these are just the hard dates. You knew of BF issues before October 23 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=297543.msg3325554#msg3325554, or 106 days). You would have had to been in contact with Neotrix before Dec 5th to get listed at CT in the first place, etc., etc.
I'm not going to get involved in arguing the legalese of selling Ukyo's shares: I'm more concerned with what the fuck you're doing listing them for trade before getting your shareholder's shares back in their hands - those same shareholders who are the reason you have the chance to be doing multimillion dollar business with eASIC in the first place.
Thanks.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Ok All I spoke a little to soon on my Offer and i do Apologize for that, But I have an Offer up when shares are able to be traded on the site
Thanks
GJP Mining Co
Thanks
GJP Mining Co
Let alone how much your butchered CaPiTaLizAtIOn of basic English bothers me, you know how else I know you're just a jerk-off who's full of shit?
BECAUSE YOU CAN ALREADY PLACE BUY ORDERS ON CRYPTO-TRADE, AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS.
You fucking twat.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Zumzero, minerpart:
I find it misleading to write in an activemining or virtualmining company report that we've shipped product without specifying that it wasn't a miner of any sort preettttttty darn misleading.
I find it misleading to write in an activemining or virtualmining company report that we've shipped product without specifying that it wasn't a miner of any sort preettttttty darn misleading.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Nope it's just PR. People assumed it was miners - but Ken didn't say it was.
Actually instead of being misleading to shareholders (for what reason there are no new shares being sold?) Ken is actually just creating 'good PR' for the company in order to keep online customers confidence levels up. He's doing what every CEO must do, and that is project confidence and put a positive spin on any news. It's for the good of the company and the good of the shareholders. It's not lieing, he didn't lie, he's just making the best of the situation. It's smart and we should be glad he can put a positive spin on news when we were clearly delayed.
Disagree. When you're running a MINING company and you say you've shipped product: you've loaded up that sentence more than enough for everyone to make the assumption it's a miner you've shipped. For it to now come out (apparently flippantly as if it never mattered at all) that it wasn't a miner at all, I can't see that as anything OTHER than misleading.
I'm at the point where I don't care what was shipped. I think that this is speaking in volumes to Ken's approach to business and communication - and I'm hearing scummy as fuck.
+1 to ff69
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Weekly Update 12/18/13
Crypto-Trade:
I have all of the legal issues worked out, and I am programming them into the verification site.
VMC:
We are working with eASIC and our engineers to get our chip and boards in full production.
We have stock piled all the hardware to build the miners and we are per-assembling the miners.
Crypto-Trade:
I have all of the legal issues worked out, and I am programming them into the verification site.
VMC:
We are working with eASIC and our engineers to get our chip and boards in full production.
We have stock piled all the hardware to build the miners and we are per-assembling the miners.
Can you take pictures of the stock piled hardware and also of how the pre-assembled miners look? Thanks.
+1
Simple request for plenty of impact.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Ken,
I want to say first, thank you for the work you are doing for the company and your resolve in operating in such a competitive environment and with so much at stake.
For the past several hours, many of the top shareholders have met in IRC and discussed the "communication issue" as we see it. We have received sporadic communication from you for various reasons having to do with operating under an NDA as well as SEC guidelines. We also understand the desire to keep certain proprietary information hidden from competitors.
Due to communication being so tight, we are in a position where we do not currently KNOW why chips are delayed. It was implied that this was a choice made by you so that Intellihash could be implemented. We believe that competing effectively is necessary for AMC's success, however we have no information as to how Intellihash affects our timeline.
While we are not yet listed on an exchange, we are making a public request that you assent to not sell any of your personal ACTM shares until it can be verified that customers have received their shipped orders and until shareholders have a more clear understanding of the timeline moving forward.
This is simply a request to demonstrate good-faith and help re-establish trust among shareholders.
Please respond to this before we go live on Crypto-Trade.
Thank you for everything and keep up the great work!
-- ActiveMining shareholders
I want to say first, thank you for the work you are doing for the company and your resolve in operating in such a competitive environment and with so much at stake.
For the past several hours, many of the top shareholders have met in IRC and discussed the "communication issue" as we see it. We have received sporadic communication from you for various reasons having to do with operating under an NDA as well as SEC guidelines. We also understand the desire to keep certain proprietary information hidden from competitors.
Due to communication being so tight, we are in a position where we do not currently KNOW why chips are delayed. It was implied that this was a choice made by you so that Intellihash could be implemented. We believe that competing effectively is necessary for AMC's success, however we have no information as to how Intellihash affects our timeline.
While we are not yet listed on an exchange, we are making a public request that you assent to not sell any of your personal ACTM shares until it can be verified that customers have received their shipped orders and until shareholders have a more clear understanding of the timeline moving forward.
This is simply a request to demonstrate good-faith and help re-establish trust among shareholders.
Please respond to this before we go live on Crypto-Trade.
Thank you for everything and keep up the great work!
-- ActiveMining shareholders
+1
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Crypto-Trade has implemented google 2FA: https://www.crypto-trade.com/news/37
Now if only we could get some ETA's on when we'll be up and running with them...
Now if only we could get some ETA's on when we'll be up and running with them...
Re: The WeExchange 2nd Stage Scam! Currently ~$1,000,000 (Check the NEWS)
Well. That just sounds LOVELY to me.....Not. I'll go ahead and add my withdrawal to the list of possibly-scammed then too.
Date 2013-11-07 09:49:05
Transaction ID 29M1EUN89VrA7PAy3TGPLi6XxOQ8TbFD
Type Withdraw
Debit 0.45721107 BTC
Credit
Fee 0.00000000 BTC
BTC Transaction
Status Processing
Date 2013-11-07 09:49:05
Transaction ID 29M1EUN89VrA7PAy3TGPLi6XxOQ8TbFD
Type Withdraw
Debit 0.45721107 BTC
Credit
Fee 0.00000000 BTC
BTC Transaction
Status Processing
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Just of note...we already ARE set up on cryptostocks. I understand that it may not be the best long-term solution (transfer all in, only to likely have to transfer them all out upon inevitable shutdown/coloured coin solution)....but I do agree that there needs to be a push for trading to be viable SOMEWHERE.
Re: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated]
Sounds good to me. I may need the (unfortunately poor) liquidity of having shares tradeable on BitFunder. I do look forward to seeing what will come with your coloured coin solution though. Until then, BitFunder it shall be...