Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 191. (Read 771288 times)
December 31, 2013, 07:23:25 PM
I asked operator of Eligius pool wizkid057 if he could post confirmation that top miner in his pool is not ActM. He did so on Hashfast thread on 29th Dec because they were also excited it may be them. He has activity today so has had opportunity to settle this once and for all however has not. Maybe not proof it is ActM but if it was ActM he would not post here. Also top miner in Eligius makes more in 24 hours than Okyo owes Mr Slaughter.
December 31, 2013, 06:14:08 PM
Fuck the law. Lets get this shit on the road.
Seriously, this convo about the shares is about as boring as all fuck. Lets do more speculation. December 31, 2013, 05:54:46 PM
Fuck the law. Lets get this shit on the road.
December 31, 2013, 05:45:36 PM
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine.
It is my understanding that a lien is typically agreed upon by both parties within their agreement. In the cases where it isn't there can be a legal lien applied but it is upheld by a court and the items held by the lean cannot be sold, but are held until payment is rendered. My understanding, in this scenario, is that Ken seized Ukyo's shares without any legal backing, called it a lien, and now is acting as if he owns the shares. As I'm fairly certain no lien was written into the Bitfunder listing agreement, and I know it isn't written into the contract between ActM and its shareholders, I would assume that Ken is exercising it as a matter of law, and that, in my opinion, is where everything false apart. What state's law is imposed? Is it a federal law that grants the ability to implement a lien against a shareholder? I highly doubt it. "
As stated before, we have to individuals highly involved in illegal securities. Imposing legal action just doesn't quite work here, in my opinion. All that said, I won't continue to drudge up the Ukyo v Slaughter case here as I'm sure people are growing weary of it.
Happy New Year, guys!
In UK law anyway a lein has to be removed through contract, not added through contract.
December 31, 2013, 04:42:38 PM
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine.
It is my understanding that a lien is typically agreed upon by both parties within their agreement. In the cases where it isn't there can be a legal lien applied but it is upheld by a court and the items held by the lean cannot be sold, but are held until payment is rendered. My understanding, in this scenario, is that Ken seized Ukyo's shares without any legal backing, called it a lien, and now is acting as if he owns the shares. As I'm fairly certain no lien was written into the Bitfunder listing agreement, and I know it isn't written into the contract between ActM and its shareholders, I would assume that Ken is exercising it as a matter of law, and that, in my opinion, is where everything false apart. What state's law is imposed? Is it a federal law that grants the ability to implement a lien against a shareholder? I highly doubt it. "
As stated before, we have two individuals highly involved in illegal securities. Imposing legal action just doesn't quite work here, in my opinion. All that said, I won't continue to drudge up the Ukyo v Slaughter case here as I'm sure people are growing weary of it.
Happy New Year, guys!
If I choose not to pay my HOA dues you can bet the HOA will put a lien against my house after 6 months. If I choose not to pay taxes on my home LA county will do the same without warning
Yes. You are referring to an "assessment lien" which is an automatic lien that is optioned once you sign into the HOA. So you agree to it when you join the HOA. Your state/county handling of the lien in the case of delinquent property taxes is a regional law, as well. Who's regional law takes precedent in the Ukyo v Slaughter lien? I really don't think there is a good parallel for this scenario in the "legal world". (Oops! I talked about this nonsense again! Sorry!!)
December 31, 2013, 03:21:47 PM
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine.
It is my understanding that a lien is typically agreed upon by both parties within their agreement. In the cases where it isn't there can be a legal lien applied but it is upheld by a court and the items held by the lean cannot be sold, but are held until payment is rendered. My understanding, in this scenario, is that Ken seized Ukyo's shares without any legal backing, called it a lien, and now is acting as if he owns the shares. As I'm fairly certain no lien was written into the Bitfunder listing agreement, and I know it isn't written into the contract between ActM and its shareholders, I would assume that Ken is exercising it as a matter of law, and that, in my opinion, is where everything false apart. What state's law is imposed? Is it a federal law that grants the ability to implement a lien against a shareholder? I highly doubt it. "
As stated before, we have to individuals highly involved in illegal securities. Imposing legal action just doesn't quite work here, in my opinion. All that said, I won't continue to drudge up the Ukyo v Slaughter case here as I'm sure people are growing weary of it.
Happy New Year, guys!
If I choose not to pay my HOA dues you can bet the HOA will put a lien against my house after 6 months. If I choose not to pay taxes on my home LA county will do the same without warning
December 31, 2013, 02:49:11 PM
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
He can claim whatever he wants, those that followed instructions would have screenshot-proof of share transfers that when combined with Ukyo's records would be more than enough to confirm ownership of shares
he was making a funny about WeEx/ButtFunder bitcoins "simply not being there anymore."
Ah, it whooshed over my head then, apologies
December 31, 2013, 02:46:06 PM
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
He can claim whatever he wants, those that followed instructions would have screenshot-proof of share transfers that when combined with Ukyo's records would be more than enough to confirm ownership of shares
he was making a funny about WeEx/ButtFunder bitcoins "simply not being there anymore."
December 31, 2013, 02:37:03 PM
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
He can claim whatever he wants, those that followed instructions would have screenshot-proof of share transfers that when combined with Ukyo's records would be more than enough to confirm ownership of shares
December 31, 2013, 02:34:14 PM
This seems to be a securities exchange address (not many non-exchanges/early adopters would have 270k btc or so go through them plus last transaction fits with btct paying off last bits of funds): https://blockchain.info/address/1KRj8opQ5y3h2dw8FjnskxuVZ5qtu5Uuid
The splitting and later recombining could potentially be attributed to exchange-internal [for lack of better word] mixing? I'm not particularly adept at reading the blockchain but after following several of those 600 threads down for a while that's the best reasoning that I could come up with.
The splitting and later recombining could potentially be attributed to exchange-internal [for lack of better word] mixing? I'm not particularly adept at reading the blockchain but after following several of those 600 threads down for a while that's the best reasoning that I could come up with.
December 31, 2013, 02:33:37 PM
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
Is that a mach for Jon's "unavailable"?
December 31, 2013, 02:26:42 PM
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
December 31, 2013, 02:19:49 PM
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine.
It is my understanding that a lien is typically agreed upon by both parties within their agreement. In the cases where it isn't there can be a legal lien applied but it is upheld by a court and the items held by the lean cannot be sold, but are held until payment is rendered. My understanding, in this scenario, is that Ken seized Ukyo's shares without any legal backing, called it a lien, and now is acting as if he owns the shares. As I'm fairly certain no lien was written into the Bitfunder listing agreement, and I know it isn't written into the contract between ActM and its shareholders, I would assume that Ken is exercising it as a matter of law, and that, in my opinion, is where everything false apart. What state's law is imposed? Is it a federal law that grants the ability to implement a lien against a shareholder? I highly doubt it. "
As stated before, we have to individuals highly involved in illegal securities. Imposing legal action just doesn't quite work here, in my opinion. All that said, I won't continue to drudge up the Ukyo v Slaughter case here as I'm sure people are growing weary of it.
Happy New Year, guys!
December 31, 2013, 01:40:16 PM
Can I have a sanity check on this:
https://blockchain.info/address/16yTynjmSe5bsRGykDaaCL5bm2pxiEfcqP is the address where IPO funds were sent? It adds up on the timeline.
Which would make this transaction part of the NRE payment - ie. sending btc to the exchange
https://blockchain.info/tx/1569ed840d026d02a6ff9cacc05818e927ab08f6ec3bceb71e0beda2430afd49
Which means 7000 BTC were sent to an exchange between July 31st and August 3rd.
https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=16yTynjmSe5bsRGykDaaCL5bm2pxiEfcqP
Which would have been about $700k
edit:
Although following some strange round numbers (600btc here, 600btc there) down the line we see some odd splitting behaviour.
https://blockchain.info/address/1FkmieFFZLMtwhYn9QRMwFjkB1uWmk784x
https://blockchain.info/address/16yTynjmSe5bsRGykDaaCL5bm2pxiEfcqP is the address where IPO funds were sent? It adds up on the timeline.
Which would make this transaction part of the NRE payment - ie. sending btc to the exchange
https://blockchain.info/tx/1569ed840d026d02a6ff9cacc05818e927ab08f6ec3bceb71e0beda2430afd49
Which means 7000 BTC were sent to an exchange between July 31st and August 3rd.
https://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=16yTynjmSe5bsRGykDaaCL5bm2pxiEfcqP
Which would have been about $700k
edit:
Although following some strange round numbers (600btc here, 600btc there) down the line we see some odd splitting behaviour.
https://blockchain.info/address/1FkmieFFZLMtwhYn9QRMwFjkB1uWmk784x
December 31, 2013, 01:36:17 PM
You guys are wasting so much time and energy. Just wait for ken
December 31, 2013, 01:20:32 PM
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine.
December 31, 2013, 01:14:05 PM
Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM.
Please... do you still not understand VMC's products? These are not 24TH single unit miners. Actually, the whole "innovation" was to be modular.Just stop watching Eligius. If there are actual good news, they will be told by kslaugther.
Exactly you can easily check our Div address to see if this is us or not. Nothing else has to be said or done.
If Ken wanted to "secretly" establish our mining operation and switched to a different pool (i.e., Eligius with no fees) he may have created a different payout address to be revealed at a later date.
December 31, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM.
Please... do you still not understand VMC's products? These are not 24TH single unit miners. Actually, the whole "innovation" was to be modular.Just stop watching Eligius. If there are actual good news, they will be told by kslaugther.
Exactly you can easily check our Div address to see if this is us or not. Nothing else has to be said or done.
December 31, 2013, 12:12:11 PM
Just wanted to wish all you guys a happy new year when it finally hits in your respective timezones! My prediction is that ActM will surprise us (one way or the other) in 2014! 
Lets hope so, my entire net worth is in ActiveMining stock!
Happy new year everyone!
December 31, 2013, 11:52:24 AM
Just wanted to wish all you guys a happy new year when it finally hits in your respective timezones! My prediction is that ActM will surprise us (one way or the other) in 2014!
Jump to: