Ok, so for what it's worth, here's my assumption from what I know of the man:

Kano will aggregate your dust payouts until they cross the non-dust payout threshold, then pay you. Pandering to anything below that would be "ridiculous, unsustainable marketing hoo-ha" if my spidey-sense is correct.

I suggest that you do not succumb to your knee-jerk reactions of "scam". Kano is direct and concise, even prickly at times, not to be mistaken for "incorrect", "unreasonable" or "scammy". Kano is always precise (to a fractional satoshi in my experience), and overtly so.

I speak for nobody except myself, apologies if the rhetoric of my words implied otherwise.

Rifts are sad events and they suck. Hard.

kano, it's understandable for ck to not use ckdb as he's mentioned that the db stuff is beyond his remit. As a result he has a dependency on you to test that commits don't introduce retroactive bugs in ckdb. You're really the best person for that as you run it in production and are the only person doing so openly. If you're using an old version of it (August 2016), the private fork happened then, not now.

Re: the private CDF calcs: I can digg that it very much classifies as secret-sauce for a pool. If a pool is a government, defense materiel would definitely include custom, unshared BWH-protection and/or luck-based pool operator actions. Warnings that lead to bans and eventual non-payment is serious shit and affects your reputation as a solid pool operator. So you have to protect that.

As someone who's been working on wrapping my head around the whole segwit thing (the tech, et al aspects of it) I can say that you have both been invaluable inputs on providing unfettered-, independently- and well-formed opinions on what will be a big change for bitcoin. Or not. Your polar opposite views on the whole thing is an example of what bitcoin is: people arguing until they're pissed at one another and eventually coming up with something that works for both of them. It's a good thing. This situation is not all that different.

Disagreements are important. In any venture: When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary. The work you both do is as inter-dependent as it is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYc05gZFly0

W

Hi

I'd just like to clarify that at the time of shutting down, Cryptomex transferred the bitcoin for pending withdrawals to the ID reward reserve wallet in this transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/399102d17d407585616313a19a3459b6e45971104a59adf39624679b17ee5c7e

The funds were then transferred to the multi-sig address in this transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/399102d17d407585616313a19a3459b6e45971104a59adf39624679b17ee5c7e

along with the reward reserves for the 2 distributions that was made on the cryptomex platform.

If you had a withdrawal pending on cryptomex, it will be added to your account for distribution on the new blockchain-based distribution which 297 is currently executing monthly from here:
https://blockchain.info/address/3N9MiKtPiAShS8tJMTpYocXTXRBSkQ2rpg

Hi All

I'm back from a bit of required leave and just getting back into the thick of things.

First off, welcome to 297, and thank you for the comprehensive update. We've been in direct and constant communication with 297 from the start and throughout this year. They have been a great source of advice and guidance over the last few months.

Audit
As there has been some accusation of improper handling of company funds I have invited a detailed audit of all internal operations of DigiMex. As 297 stated, the audit will go beyond the normal accounting submissions as was required for the financial reports (Jan/July) and cover everything that the auditor deems fit to investigate, including (but not limited to) mining reporting, payout endpoints, wallet transparency and expenditures. My only request to the auditor was that the privacy of any involved parties (other than my own) remain intact, unless relevant.

Communication
Public communication from my side has been very few and far between. There really is no excuse for this and is a major shortcoming of myself. I have been in constant and direct communication with the group of people who represent a majority of the public shares, but I've not always been as vocal as I would have liked to have been on this forum (publicly). That said, while I've had to execute on some NDAs, I've never initiated any, so if you've had a conversation with me on any topic please consider the information in the public domain and feel free to share it here.

Creditors Committee
Committee work is ongoing. Apart from the information which is publicly available I'd prefer not to divulge any other information or my opinion of the process here, lest it jeopardise our position on the creditors committee. Much to my chagrin, the Debtor renewed their NDA to committee members, and legal counsel gave the go-ahead to execute on it. What I can say is that I don't serve solely as representative of DigiMex on the committee, US bankruptcy law allows for a alternate DigiMex representative on the committee and I felt it prudent to solicit that representation. The appointed person was also instrumental in the structuring of our filed proof of claim, which is backed by contractual guarantees.

Pool Development
There is much to say regarding the ongoing bitcoin mining development work that we're involved in. I agree with 297 that an update on the status of developments and the reasons for the pool undertaking is due. After a full year of what can only really be described as "damage control" it made sense to leverage the lessons we've learnt from the problems we (and others) faced and use them to build something which has the potential for long-term relevance.

We are the owners of hashmine.io and commissioned the development of ckpool.

We've been working with Con & Kano on this for a few months now, and I must say it's a pleasure to see the masters at work. In a sense, the work was a natural progression of the solo-mining/gbt work on cgminer we commissioned earlier this year.

I started on basic visualization/GUI layer here: http://cpui.hashmine.io/ - changes to that sync with Kano's web implementation @ http://ice.kano.is/
Current focus is on browser compatibility, making it work and look serviceable on all devices. Priority is bugfixes and basic user management workflows, will look @ i18n and l10n after that.
This current UI is mainly a test for the REST API I'm building on Kano's ckdb work and testing the servicing of historical reporting. Will add more visualizations & reporting in the coming days.
Still very much in debug mode as daily changes are coming in, but will try to keep up with Kano & Con as time goes on.

hashmine.io takes a flat rate 1.5% fee, of which 0.5% goes directly to ckpool development (controlled by Con, and issued @ coinbase at time of blocksolve). Newly minted coins go directly into cold storage and I process them manually when the blocks mature. A payout history is available @ the above-mentioned UI. Will do this until I've worked through the security aspects of automation.

There's still much to do on this technical path (hardware, software, architecture, distribution, etc.) and this project will probably always be on-going. Once things calm down a bit we'll go into the unique-selling points of hashmine and the direction we'd like to take with it.

Will update this post with progress as I push changes.

Hi all

A project update follows:

Hashfast Bankcruptcy
Latest development from court is that the UST filed a motion to appoint a trustee to wind down the entity, which was denied by the judge. The motion to substantively consolidate the estates was granted. As it stands it's clear that the estate and its assets will be auctioned off in a controlled manner and details regarding the auction will be made available shortly. A further status conference is set for 24 October.

Mine Update
A decision has been made to move the equipment to a different facility in the US. Negotiation of both the final endpoint and the earlier termination of the existing hosting agreement is almost complete. I'll let the person who did this great work introduce themselves here as they have indicated that they would be willing to furnish this forum with more regular and detailed updates henceforth.

Pool Development
1st release candidate has been in play for a while now, and we clocked it stable (massively expandable) at around 2.1 Ph/s for a few days, allowing us to hit the milestone of 1000th bitcoin blocked on software we developed and/or commissioned for solo and/or pooled mining. Details on what makes this pool project so different will be made clear over the coming days as we prepare for launch to a wider audience.

Company reorganization
We are currently in progress to move from a single-sig to a multi-sig wallet handling solution. Some of the major PU holders will hold part of the keys to this wallet. This should improve the day to day financial-handling as we choose a fund manager. A simple dividend payout plan has been suggested and I support it fully.

Cryptomex
Now, while  Cryptomex isn't very technically advanced it did make some decent regulatory/compliance strides in that it passed an initial round of questioning and scrutiny by the HK SFC. The main issue I have with the project is that it loses impetus every time I step away from it for a while, which is a pity. How/if we continue with this project will be decided in the coming days.

Hi All

Latest financial statement here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6SRkWwzShz6OGZ5QTkyOW9kQ1E

I've asked for some assistance on financial planning/structuring for the business, so we'll get stuck into that next. This will be done with interested shareholders and the accountant.

A new round of PU assignments has been completed @ cryptomex.io for new sign-ups.

If you've signed up after the initial reward assignments, you should now be able to initiate withdrawal of those (retroactively assigned) amounts.

Hi

Financial statement came through this morning. Will give it a look over today and post when ready.

A round of new sign-up PU assignments is planned for today, along with retroactive reward assignments to those accounts.

After this, we'll announce a new reward assignment. My aim is to get this done before Friday.

Committee work is ongoing; I'd love to share more details on it, and am advocating for a more open process and transparent communication, but it's not up to me what can and can't be made public.

Will

Each controller snapshot is taken at a different time within a space of ~15 mins, the interval at which we monitor each miner instance (see elapsed column for # of seconds worker-instance uptime). The OPNAME is the serial number on the side of the box (add SR in front and 13 @ end, capitalize).

Monitor changes resulted in duplications. Check the serial numbers (OPNAMEs) in your screenshot.

I'm advocating for opening it up to the public (at any scale), yes. And I'm not alone. As for spending some of the current ID working capital on it, it does seem a valid re-investment strategy. But only if the terms are favourable for both the franchisee as well as the creditors. As it stands, we'd probably be on both sides of that coin, so I'm confident  the ongoing work will result in a fair proposal.

I'll do another assignment for new sign-ups next week. Easier to do all that in one go.

Hi everyone, apologies about the delay of this post.

Amount of Bitcoin currently held: 720 BTC
Amount of Bitcoin paid out so far: 40 000 USD worth

Update on the committee: As most of the information is confidential until the it is open for public, I would recommend to follow the discussion in the following thread for updates: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.10300

Update from CMX: The hardware migration is now complete and the platform is up and running again.

CMX is a separate entity and no funds from IceDrill was spent building it. Link here for a description on who's involved with it: https://www.cryptomex.io/cryptomex/about_us.php

Update on Financial report: The accountant is wrapping up the last things and we should receive the report by the beginning of next week. (Please note that the CoinTerra shares will not be included in the report as we are waiting for the new valuation).

Update on next payout: Now that CMX is up again and the financial report is incoming, we will resume the payouts. A new payout, along with retroactive PU assignments and new PUS assignments for recent sign-ups will scheduled for the end of July.

Franchise mine: This is something we are actively working on and where I've spent much of my time in the last few weeks (since committee formation on June 23). The franchise design process is necessarily a bit more involved because we have to work within the context of chapter 11. The design is in an advanced stage and should be with committee for approval soon.

Yes, we're actively involved in developing the program and making good progress. I'll post a comprehensive update on all fronts this weekend.

Thank you for the "carrot-on-stick" nomination, it highlights a great shortcoming of mine: not communicating as frequently as I'd like to on this public forum.

Please know that you (passive-aggressively?) declined more frequent communication here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269216.msg5782761#msg5782761

The offer remains open to you, and everyone here.

Everything that is in the wallets qualify for a reward payment. The mined coins are still there. I just need accounting to give me a solid go ahead on what would be the best way to move forward with reward payments (how much & how often). The basic idea is to enable trading at around the same time the new financial report is published (end of June). New KYC docs (less invasive) should be in play this week.

The two initial reward assignments were token amounts (~$20k in BTC each), mainly to test whether the end-to-end process works as designed (apart from the decimal issue which needs fixing, it does), as well as checking whether the retroactive assignments (unclaimed shares claimed after the fact) work. Though it's code-complete (deterministic) I've not yet run the retroactive assignment. Will communicate better on this process when I run it.

So far, other than the complaints about non-instant withdrawals, is there anything that needs addressing? I saw movement on that specific issue earlier today so it should improve henceforth. I have a weekly call with the cryptomex team on Tuesdays, I can bring it up then.

Operational update:

Legal track on bankruptcy claim is coming along, though not as quickly as I'd like. Will try to accelerate, depending on requirements. There are six of us working through it, all people I respect and who don't care about disagreeing with me as is often the case, which I prefer.

Some networking going on in location 0 at the moment, one of the large stacks "l0.charlie" is out of external monitor range at the moment. It's mining @ Guild according @ internal monitor. Should be back up @ minestate soon. Live webcam not a bad idea actually, will ask tech to look into it and DC if they'll allow it. Should be ok, as long we don't show other ppl's stuff.

CMX withdrawals aren't being denied, might just be slow on the processing. Will check. Funds_sent = N means it's not processed yet. Have sent automation code over, the CMX team needs to harden it in its control-environment.

Keen to get a financial report out for end of June, so kicked off that process.

Hi All

The first reward assignment process has been completed.

A few things to note:
1. This 1st reward payment was for 31.64556962 BTC: 0.00000241 BTC/PU.
2. We need to ensure the processes work as planned in production. Please consider this first reward assignment as a test run, we've done a whole bunch of testing in dev and backend and checks and balances are in place. We'll do another once all the new processes are confirmed working as designed.
3. Current PU claims @ cryptomex are for 7744318 PUs, 59.04% of the total. The previous total claimed/verified @ icedrill.io was 7155150, about 54.54% of the total.
4. The cryptomex team will get back to us on the expected withdrawal processing times, we'd like to keep a close eye on things for this 1st run.
5. The delays were due to a potentially confusing UI display caused by the direct backend assignment process. It needed sorting before the assignment could be done. This was entirely my fault, I let the Hong Kong team know too late in the week for the adjustment to occur before the weekend.