PYX Resources: Achieving volume and diversification milestones. Watch the video here.
By those standards our village greengrocer is also one of the most undervalued blockchain companies because it's just as prepared to develop one but is equally under the radar. After all, you can't get a less visible blockchain than one that doesn't exist.
Isdeer, there are already people on those boards who've researched the companies and posted their findings, initiating discussions on the significance for the shares' prospects. There's no need to add another voice when the debate is already under way.
Then again, I write a couple of conciliatory posts reiterating my motives and assuring people that I'm solely interested in researching discrepancies I find between what is claimed for a company - any company whatsoever - and what it appears able to deliver. And apologise for any unintended upset. And the response is yet more libellous accusations that I'm taking money to destroy the share price. What do people want? Medical certificates? Bank statements for the last seven years? Employment references? Letters from every stockbroking firm in the country confirming they've never heard of me?
Dave, while our findings often coincide (after all, facts are facts so the same answer will inevitably be found by different people asking the same questions), can I just say that some of your posts make me feel uncomfortable as they can verge on the same kind of personal attack that I/we object to when investors attack us in lieu of providing any kind of facts to counter what we've found. The majority of people on these boards such as John and other professionals in particular, come across as thoroughly intelligent people who are genuine believers in the investment positions they have taken, and see facts countering the views as attacks on their intelligence. A couple of them in particular, such as John, come across as friendly, concerned and clever people who are just defending their positions. If I wish they approached their investment plans differently, it's purely a difference of opinion as to what would seem to be the best investment strategy, not any feeling of a sense of superiority that we can post publicly on these boards. I'm sorry, I'm not suggesting you are posting anything remotely to the degree of those posted against anyone stating facts like ours, just that we all need to keep an eye on the tone of our messages. I'm only too aware that I've transgressed a couple of times myself in this manner, simply out of frustration. I'm sure that, in theory at least, we could all be considered more convincing if we sticked purely stating and analysing facts.
Isdeer, I've not seen your name while I've been posting so perhaps you haven't seen the posts about my background and motives. I don't want to go into detail again as it annoys people but I'll just explain for your benefit that I have absolutely no interest in buying shares; I've never bought or sold a single one and never shall. It's purely a passion for keeping my mind occupied in research (of any description) and an intellectual exercise in looking for reasons behind them.
Oneandonly, re your 05:09 on Bitreturn. I've not looked at it in any great detail but people keep asking why I chose this company to research and one of the things that focussed my interest was its planned involvement in blockchains. I've read the description by Bitreturn on what they do, which is principally to mine online currencies. The method they describe is actually rather old-fashioned and very slow. Seven or eight years ago I was reading about the processes behind Bitcoin. This was in the days of Bitcoin 0.x, when the mining algorithm was simple enough to allow anyone to mine coins without the need for expensive dedicated hardware. Sitting there one night it occurred to me that there I was, sole sysadmin of a webfarm of a dozen dual and quad CPU servers. At that time, web servers were bandwidth-hungry but very light on CPU cycles and, of course, with no need to draw screens, hardly used the GPUs at all. So It was the perfect position to experiment with blockchain hashes piggybacked on our servers. It was a really interesting experiment but, as it needed electricity paid for by my employers, and a great deal of it, once I established the proof of concept I wound it down and pretty much forgot about it.
Does anyone know how to strangle predictive text on Android phones? In my last post "as hominem" should obviously be "ad hominem".
Tony, sorry my last post was awry. Fingers locked up and obviously didn't intend to hit the post button. It's an indicator that I needed to rest, which is why I hadn't replied. Re your post at 09:05. Please give me some examples of where I "slipped up a few times showing a group operating here". It's so childish and lazy to keep making completely groundless accusations without making the slightest attempt to back up anything you say, not to say contemptible to accuse someone of being paid when the sole ground you have is that I've said something with which you disagree. Also, and this much easier, but it's not clear from your post. Who are are you referring to as being "on so many oil/gas/mineral companies" that makes you disbelieve me? I've explained that I read a few of these boards out of human interest but I've never posted on any. I just wish you'd give logical, eveidentiary reasons for writing off the facts I've found and reported here, instead of nothing but as hominem attacks. Have you any idea of the impression reasonable people form when they see someone responding to reasoned facts with a stream of personal insults?
Blutony, please tell me ssssxsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx😮😮😚
Thanks, the idea of two or three people seeing an opportunity to gain by singing from the same songsheet to promote a share up or down does seem much better evidenced than larger numbers, which never seem to go beyond accusations sounding like conspiracy theory. I actually came across Cloudtag a couple of years ago when I was investigating fitness monitors for a medical problems I have. I saw some very excitable share predictions but that wasn't of any interest attached he time. The a few weeks ago I foud this web site in the course of other research for another company. I remembered Cloudtag ad thought I'd just take a look. It proved really interesting and, just to show what a sad but I am and how much dead time I have I went back to pretty much the first post ad looked through its entire history. So in fact, although I didn't experience it in real time as you did, I did get the rollercoaster ride, and know exactly what you meant about Aberdeenman and somebody else who put a awful lot of effort I to pushing it. Although I am an arch sceptic in my scientific work, (I've managed to overturn some very well respected and embedded textbook 'facts', some of them my own!) when dealing with people I always think the best of them and accept what they say as the gospel truth. At least unless and until I see discrepancies, at which point the trained brain cells kick in and I start to question. As you say, there are many examples on these boards of ramping by twosand threes. Just in the last couple of days JOG and another share that rose about 200% in a couple of days, then fell 60% the nextare good instances. I saw NFX but didn't follow its connection to a previous existence. I'll look at LVRT. Thanks for the tip.
Dougb, I'm really sorry for the overly sweeping comment. As the top of the tree when it comes to opioid painkillers, fentanyl works really well, thank God but I have noticed it causes shortcuts in my thinking and a certain inhibition. I definitely need to make a mental note that I shouldn't post on forums when I've taken it. Incidentally the 'paranoia' and other comments weren't aimed at you - I specifically said you were one of the people who wasn't subject to the limited thinking that was prevalent. Yes, on consideration I agree there are many investors like yourself with considerable curiousity, business knowledge and acumen but would you agree they're not in the majority? The advantage (and limitation) of having no interest in the investment process or vehicles themselves means I'm free to look at whichever bulletin boards seem most interesting (dare I say entertaining, probably shouldn't given there's so much at stake for those involved). As a technical stock, CTAG does seem to have attracted board participants who tend to be more free thinking than most. There's about a dozen boards that I at least skim through when something interesting happens and the herd mentality is typically very much stronger on some, such as UKOG, than on here. So many of my thoughts are based on that kind of behaviour rather than what occurs among the people posting here. One thing for which I very much want to apologise to all of you. Because I have never held any shares except for those of a family business, and latterly my late partners family business as well, it's easy for me to lapse into trivialising issues that are critical to the position of posters and their families. I've said I'm aware of what's at stake in the context of investing behaviour but I clearly slipped into too facetious a manner in expressing myself. I've always taken a very sceptical and light-hearted approach to every aspect of life, so the line between what I believe deep down and what I say as just a passing fancy of no consequence can get blurred. That's happened to an extent here and I'm sorry that any flippancy has upset or annoyed anyone. That wasn't my conscious intention in any shape or form. Good luck everyone with this and all your investments. I really do hope you all attain your goals by investing.
I think the assumption that anything at all is being orchestrated on any kind of regular basis doesn't really hold water. When you look at most of the contributions to these boards, would you honestly conclude that the people behind them could organise the proverbial brewery event, let alone an illegal(?) concert party to ramp shares? (I know concert parties to arrange a takeover or a couple of other corporate activities would be a crime but don't know about promoting shares up or down). Certainly there are the occasional attempted coups against companies in very specific situations but I can't really see BBs as a way of doing it. For one thing, only a tiny fraction of investors even see them.
Sorry and thanks for the advice. Feel humiliated as my first net comms were in 1978 and I was on UseNet when it was still being developed - or when its protocol requirements were still being writte if that's not clouding another issue. I hadn't checked for the reply button so in original BB fashion thought it picked up the thread from the subject entered.
In fact given the level of paranoia present, what if I've not written these posts myself, but coded a bot to write them for me? I'll leave you to consider the ramifications of that possibility.
The import of those early experiments was later to be found to be somewhat overestimated, as they didn't accurately replicate conditions and the results weren't as clear as initially thought. However, you may have seen the recent paper on how easy it's turned out to create new artificial bases for incorporation in DNA, and go on to produce completely new proteins. Out of something like 120 amino acids, nature uses 21. The great question now is how likely is the occurrence of the first significant step of creating self-replicating molecules within a sac of its own creation. We know its happened once and so far that's all. There's conjecture some archaic organisms arose separately but I it's not proven. We now know there are several places in this solar system alone where it could have happened. And it seems there are billions of places in the universe. Once that step is reached, life has proved remarkably tenacious. I'm aware of the use of bots to produce content. In a more recent incarnation I moved into IT and I've written a few myself. But they just retrieved existing content from elsewhere and combined it in various permutations. I'm not sure if anyone's produced one that could generate convingly responsive posts to bulletin boards. That would be pretty close to passing the Turing test, however overrated we biologists may consider it. Incidentally, people watching isn't a recent move. It's part of the curiousity that got me into the sciences in the first place. I don't know if you're old enough to remember this but somewhere I still have a couple of the books by Desmond Morris from the 1960s and '70s in which he coined the phrase and built on it.
Dougb, I'm not contradicting myself at all. It IS possible to come up with thousands of examples where the phase protocol requirements is used. That's because it's a phrase which has been adopted throughout the sciences. In all those cases it will mean the same thing regarding a plan but refer to different technical matters, as with banking protocols and design protocols and, yes, block-chain protocols. However, when we ask which is the most likely application in this instance, one answer is much, much the more likely. That it has the standard definition of a plan outlining the task in hand, which in this case is trials of the device they've produced. It really ought to be very, very simple and evident indeed and I can't understand the drive to make so much more of it.
OK, as some aren't convinced let's try another approach. I mentioned Occam. Which is more likely? That someone in a technical company would pick a technical term because its accepted definition means exactly what he wanted to say, or that, in attempting to say something completely different, he used a stock phrase but forgot to tell you he meant something else entirely? Surely, if using it in a non-standard way he would have realised the need to explain the context. As nothing the company has done bears any relationship whatsoever to, say, block-chain technology, it would mean this is the company's first notification they were diversifying into a new field and that need would have been obvious.
I'm sorry but you lost me when you went on to biogenesis and bots. Could you clarify? As I said, I'm only here for the sake of something to fill the time while I can't get out and about. Then a large number of people asked a question I could answer and I only wanted to be helpful, as I saw them jumping off on all kinds of tangents. Unfortunately, with only one or two exceptions such as you I find very little evidence of a questioning nature; quite the opposite, there's a frightening speed in adopting entrenched positions. Going all Mr. Spock for a moment, I should have thought it would be really important to remain detached. I know some successful investors and they all share a willingness to be open-minded, recognise and fix mistakes quickly and remain sceptical about investments they've made. They'd certainly never open their very first conversation with a total stranger by calling them a prick and telling them to **** off! I'm afraid HITS' list of attributes seems only too accurate for many of the investors on these boards. The herd mentality certainly rules the responses to anyone who dares to express a contrary opinion. It is, if you like, an extremely unscientific approach.
Dougb, but the whole point is that there IS a globally accepted, decades-long established "exact answer to the exact meaning of protocol requirements" and that's the one I gave. The word protocol is, broadly speaking, just a word meaning design or plan. You'll find thousands upon thousands of instances of its use in hundreds of technical fields. There's absolutely no need, or indeed point, to dropping on, say, block-chain coding and saying "Ah, they use the word protocol too, so it could be what the RNS was referring to". This is exactly the same as, oh just a random example, if they said they were working on a 'trials plan'. Would you think it reasonable for someone to come along and say "I think they actually mean they're going to launch in Russia, because I've discovered web sites referring to Hitler's plan to invade Russia". Just because they use they same word doesn't mean there's any connection. I'm not being unscientific in reining in my curiosity. I'm just being realistic in accepting standard usage. There's no need for the businessman who wrote the RNS to have any scientific knowledge. I'm sure, though, that as his business is a technical one, he'll have access to an expert with whom to hold a conversation that went something like this: "What's our next step in getting this device to market?" "Well, we need to get it tested by someone outside the company who can try it with a number of subjects, so we need to arrange some trials." "OK, I need to write a note for shareholders, so what can I tell them we're doing? Can I say we're running clinical trials?" "We can't really say that yet, there's a lot we need to work out first. Just tell them we're working on the protocol requirements for trials." People are building such a mountain out of a molehill, and there's a real danger, that I've seen so often on these boards, of investor hype, thinking that the company is involved in The Next Big Thing. It's an awfully big leap just because they happen to have a single word in common. Would you think CTAG are moving into banking just because you've heard the phrase 'banking protocol', or car manufacturing because you've seen a reference to Jaguar having a design protocol? Of course you wouldn't.
HITS, thank you very much for the compliment. I'mmale, by the way; the name is just alliterative. Yes, conspiracy theory really stands out concerning shorters, but I continue to be surprised by the level of vituperation that greats any poster who registers anything less than total support. I don't understand why people can't just civilly disagree with one another. I can understand that people feel sensitive about what they see as judgements on their abilities as investors but it hardly justifies the level of ad hominem attacks. It comes down to the age-old question of why can't people just like one another. Not a psychologist by training by the way, actually a freshwater biologist. But the curiousity of a scientific mind that led me to spend months in boats on Swedish lakes studying acidification (long before acid rain became popular knowledge), years peering down microscopes at little green things, then goodness knows how long writing software to track satellites and a few other pursuits also left me with an inveterate interest in people watching. Looking at the behaviour on these boards is just the latest manifestation. So I really don't have any agenda. As I said, I really only posted on the spur of the moment because I could provide an answer to a question. I probably shouldn't have volunteered the rest but once I started ...