[Arm-netbook] EOMA68 / Libre RISC-V team financing

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Luca Saiu <positron at gnu.org> wrote:
> On 2017-12-27 at 11:37, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Luca Saiu <positron at gnu.org> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-27 at 09:59, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>>
>>>> (1) is there anyone who does NOT wish to put their own money into
>>>> buying bitclub shares who would like ME to sign them up, and, over the
>>>> next few weeks and months, PAY their membership AND pay for their
>>>> equipment.
>>>
>>> Me.
>>
>>  cool.  gnu.org email address, good enough for me.  if you sign up
>> (don't pay membership), then privately email me the username you added
>> i'll keep an eye on it over the next few weeks/months, and when i have
>> available funds from the mining i'll pay your membership and
>> progressively pay for some equipment as well.
>
> I answered "Me" when you asked who would NOT like their funds to be
> invested in bitclub.

 oh, sorry.  ah, i know what happened: you read only the *first* part
of the sentence, where it was actually a *compound* sentence.


> Sorry, I will not sign up, and please do not use my name in anything
> related to bitclub.

 of course not!


> It is not unique, and there is no hard proof that the money being
> generated actually comes from mining.

 it's a legitimate concern, and one that can't really be answered [not
without direct access to their database, which would be a massive
privacy violation and security violation].   we could theoretically
make some guesses and calculations on exactly how much money people in
the network will be receiving vs the amount of money that is going
"in", and see if the "scam" concept stacks up so to speak.  if the
amount of BTC going out is GREATER than the BTC coming in, then,
clearly and logically, that would be unsustainable, meaning that they
would HAVE to get some extra BTC from somewhere....

 ... and the most likely place that they would be getting that extra
BTC would be.... oh.... say... a massive pool of mining equipment
distributed world-wide in different geographical locations that is, in
total, generating 3% of the world's bitcoin according to globally
unforgeable statistics.

 the fact that the pool exists is one of the most compelling arguments
- even without having access to the [private] statistics.  *why* would
they be mining 3% of the world's total bitcoin being generated right
now... and yet *still operate a ponzi scheme*???  it just does not
make any sense... yeah?

l.