Is the single chip dualminer supposed to make any noise? I know the big round 5-chip LightningAsic dualminers have a fan in them and are rather noisy. But I don't see any fan on my single chip dualminer.... Are they actually supposed to make any kind of noise? (The device I have looks almost like a Block Erupter. It is pictured at http://www.dualminer.com/DualMiner-USB_p_16.html ).

I did try leaving the miner open mining LTC (or trying to) for about an hour. No shares were found, and the pool website showed the worker as not hashing at all.

I recently purchased a used DualMiner in Ebay (the 1-chip version that looks almost like a Block Erupter, not the big round 5-chip version)(the original version that supports both dual-mode and scrypt mode). When I connected it to my computer for the first time today, Windows detected it and automatically installed drivers for it. However, I am unable to mine with it.

I followed the instructions at support.dualminer.com and installed the software, including replacing the default driver with winusb. However, when I try mining, it doesn't work, and it seems that cgminer considers all devices to be disabled.

I also tried downloading the older version 1.0.0.6 of the dualminer software, but that didn't work either.

I then uninstalled the winusb driver, and reconnected the device so that Windows would install the default driver again, and tried mining with bfgminer 3.99 (the modified version at the cryptomining-blog.com site designed to work with gridseed). BFGMiner seemed to detect the com port correctly, or to start to (the com port it displayed matched the one Windows had shown me when I first connected the device), but then BFGMiner said 'invalid detect response', and it was not able to mine with the device.

I also noticed that no lights came on on this device at any time, not when I plugged it into the computer, nor when I was attempting to mine with it... I know with Block Erupters, the green light lights up when you plug it into the computer so that you can see that it is working and that it is ready to start mining... What about DualMiner? If this device was working properly, should a light have come on when I plugged it into the computer? Or does the light on the DualMiner turn on only when it is mining and finds a share?

Is there any other software designed to work with this device that I can try mining with?

Is there any easy way I can figure out if this miner is working or not? If the miner was DOA, do I have any protection under Ebay policies?

Thanks!

I have not received any email about P2PDVC. Has anyone else received an email?

(My configuration in Cryptostocks is set to not share my email address. I'm wondering if this will be a problem in this case or not.)

+1

Everything is NOT solved. At Cryptostocks, a person's email address is 50% of the information needed to log in to their account (or 33% of the information if the person is using 2FA). As long as Cryptostocks continues to use email address for logging in (as opposed to, say, a separate username or userid), and as long as so many people seem to be having their Cryptostocks accounts hacked (and so many issuers seem scammy), it is not advisable for users of Cryptostocks to share their email address with issuers (and as far as I know, checking the box to share the email address means it is shared with ALL issuers, not just a select one or two issuers that a user might feel comfortable or have a reason for sharing it with). So, a "solution" that devalues people's shares by a factor of 100, and forces them to share their email address if they want to get back to the value they had before, is NOT a good solution. I own one share of WOLFTECH that I bought weeks ago that is now worth 1/100 of what I bought it at, but I would rather write it off as a loss and just never invest again with WOLFTECH rather than share my email address.

In my opinion, vleroybrown is right to be concerned and angered by this 'IPO flag' on Cryptostocks.

As far as I know, Cryptostocks is the only exchange that allows asset issuers to raise and lower an IPO flag whenever and as long as they want (I believe this is a new 'feature' of Cryptostocks). Other exchanges, such as Havelock, have IPOs from time to time when they list a new security, but the IPO is only for a specified period of time, and once it's over, it's over. In other words, on Havelock, an IPO is really an IPO. On Cryptostocks, this "IPO flag" has become a way unscrupulous asset issuers can stop people from being able to sell their shares whenever they want. These issuers are abusing this feature whenever they want in order to lock people into their investments and prevent them from being able to get out of their positions.

As far as I know, Cryptostocks is also the only exchange that allows anyone who pays their listing fee to list an 'asset' there, without requiring them to go through any type of verification. The verification and vetting process that other exchanges perform does not guarantee by any means that an asset will turn out to be a profitable investment, or even that it won't turn out to have been a scam too, but it does weed out a lot of the anonymous asset issuers and the flagrant scams (like the 'FIDOR' asset that was listed on Cryptostocks a while back claiming to be Fidor Bank, but that the real Fidor Bank had never heard of, but which wasn't caught until they'd already scammed people, since Cryptostocks didn't perform any verification when they listed them). 

The 8.0 is actually a price increase: before dumping them at 8.0, he was dumping them at 5.0. Still a dump though, considering that the face value of this bond is supposed to be 100 DVC.

I don't understand what is going on at Cryptostocks with FIREMINE and MINECO. I'm hoping that someone who maybe does understand this can explain it to me, if there actually is someone who understands this.

I understand that supposedly Altswap's CEO account got hacked, and someone sold a large number of shares at 0.000001 instead of 0.005. My understanding from reading the thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=488669.20 is that apparently Altswap plans to sort of rectify it by issuing 5000 additional shares to each person who bought shares at the correct IPO price of 0.005.

What I don't understand is FIREMINE and MINECO. I have not read anywhere that anything similar happened to FIREMINE. So, I don't understand why FIREMINE would be affected by this at all.

FIREMINE posted the following announcement to their asset page on March 4:

"Due to the fact that Cryptostocks has not fixed their security glitches yet, we are being forced to change things a little bit for FireMine. This afternoon an upgrade option will be available to all shareholders of FireMine to upgrade their shares to another stock in an attempt to fix the price drop. Trading of FireMine shares will still continue but the dividends will be paid out to the upgraded stock."

What is the connection between the supposed Cryptostocks security glitch, and FIREMINE stopping paying dividends and asking investors who want to receive any dividends to pay a 0.01 upgrade fee to switch their shares to MINECO? If there actually is a security glitch, how does switching "FIREMINE" to "MINECO" do anything to improve security?

And if FIREMINE really wants investors to trade in or sell back their shares, why don't they post any kind of instructions for doing so? (not everyone chooses to disclose their email address with asset issuers, especially when the asset issuer seems sort of scammy)

And what about shareholders who bought FIREMINE who don't want to pay any additional money for the upgraded version of the mining stock? The FIREMINE contract states:


"Revenue Sources:

Shareholder money will be directly put towards new mining
power on a daily basis. We have miners ready to set up, more being shipped, and
others that can be quickly ordered and delivered. Shareholders will see mining
stats on the Google Doc and be able to track exactly how much they are making
each day. We will be continually adding more hashing power as more shares are
released to even out the dividend payments and maximize shareholder profits!

Share Structure:

As a shareholder of FireMine Corporation, you will be
entitled to your calculated percentage of revenue derived from mining. Your dividend
percentage will be determined by how many shares you own of FireMine
Corporation at the time of payout. Detailed stats can be found at the Google
Docs link listed at the beginning of this breakdown.

Shareholders: 90% of mining revenue
Operating Costs: 10% of mining revenue"

Based on the description, assuming that the company is still mining, it would appear to be a violation of the contract to arbitrarily stop paying dividends, whether it's because Cryptostocks has a 'security glitch' or the price of the mining company 'needs fixing'.

And can someone explain the part about 'fixing' the price drop? What evidence is there that the "correct" price is the new price set by MINECO of 0.05? I thought usually when a company's share price drops, it's a sign of a problem with the company, not that the price is 'wrong' and needs 'fixing'?

I've grown used to seeing strange things happening at Cryptostocks (forced buybacks a week after the IPO at less than the IPO price, assets like FIDOR where the real bank had absolutely no connection with or knowledge of the FIDOR asset on Cryptostocks, etc.). But I think this FIREMINE/MINECO situation is a new one for me.

I am continuing another month.

1L7s1DQfvJMQ6FzHMWGZLvSk8aQjhDD3C8

Thanks!

I agree. I don't want to see a repeat of the inputs.io fiasco.

FIREMINE just opened up a vote on Cryptostocks: "Would you be in favor of setting the IPO to active again to eliminate the trading of undervalued shares?"

I would be interested to hear the definitions the FIREMINE owners have for "undervalued shares" and 'IPO". It appears that these are their working definitions:

undervalued share = a share priced below the price I am selling them at
and
IPO = the flag I want to set whenever I want to prevent buyers from getting out of their positions, regardless of how many days, weeks, or years ago the IPO ended

If the issuer is even considering doing this, I agree with Thy about this asset: investors should stay away from this listing!

Hi Burnside! I sent you a PM on February 20. Did you get it?

Hi,

I sent you a signed PM, but you told me to post in your thread, so I am posting here.

As I mentioned in my PM, my old email address that I used when I registered for the Bitcoin Live Bets affiliate program no longer exists, so I had to set up a new email address. In your records, please change the "01" in my email address to "02". The rest of my email address is the same as before.

My affiilate ID is in my signature.

Thanks!

Is there an update on the status of EsecBTC, or is it still in limbo?

Still waiting on an answer to this...

I am continuing another month too.

1L7s1DQfvJMQ6FzHMWGZLvSk8aQjhDD3C8

Thanks!

4GdRT9GHkY74iBNModGbs2LKcSw6ZrphSg

Thanks!

DGC: D6tbrsJGSA6EbsqcdB5D362sNMuGE4N7ks
SRC: sPrN3DcF7PxmdozXtRALvMX7R7jFRvk1FZ

Thanks!

JMwX2gsRTjGVVC3c1CtS6DJSpM4C54W5kf

Thanks!

EbL6uCpEQ2xep5wBCaZZPZqKCj2fSW3jma

Thanks!

Ev5JoAQi6U9ygc9taVzny1G1e6b2Rk98tw

Thanks!