If you want to play hard-ball Ukyo lets do it.
I think Ken should sue you for the damage to our business that will have occurred due to these funds being lost. We could have used this money for many tasks but Ken has had to take it off our balance sheet. We have not been able to plan around these funds.
I expect a million dollar law suit would put you into debt for the rest of your life and its something we have a high chance of winning. Lets play ball.
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread [Self-Moderated] - page 96. (Read 771280 times)
January 23, 2014, 05:59:49 AM
January 23, 2014, 05:41:10 AM
Also it occurs to me that its amazing there are more updates about my personal shares than about ActM.
the same could be said about you and the weex money.
We are waiting for an update since when? 1 month?
And we still haven't a vague date of when (and if) the btc could be unstucked.
By the way, I agree that Ken has no rights to sell the Ukyo shares and pays back his debt with him
January 23, 2014, 05:36:54 AM
Talking about "no information at all", Ukyo what about our money? Where? How? Why? When?
You started everything, sorry.
You started everything, sorry.
Also it occurs to me that its amazing there are more updates about my personal shares than about ActM.
If everything is paid for, why are you so desperate for your 100btc worth?
Why not leave the shares locked until I have paid everyone back. Are you now having to heavily count on this 100btc?
This small fraction of btc that was taken in even though everything's been paid for?
Is it really worth the legal risk for the company to make arbitrary decisions with these shares or are you just in such a horrible need of money?
Be the risk from me, a court appointed trustee, or weex users ?
Seems like a rather rash and fast decision without need.
If everything is paid for, why are you so desperate for your 100btc worth?
Why not leave the shares locked until I have paid everyone back. Are you now having to heavily count on this 100btc?
This small fraction of btc that was taken in even though everything's been paid for?
Is it really worth the legal risk for the company to make arbitrary decisions with these shares or are you just in such a horrible need of money?
Be the risk from me, a court appointed trustee, or weex users ?
Seems like a rather rash and fast decision without need.
January 23, 2014, 05:30:34 AM
Also it occurs to me that its amazing there are more updates about my personal shares than about ActM.
If everything is paid for, why are you so desperate for your 100btc worth?
Why not leave the shares locked until I have paid everyone back. Are you now having to heavily count on this 100btc?
This small fraction of btc that was taken in even though everything's been paid for?
Is it really worth the legal risk for the company to make arbitrary decisions with these shares or are you just in such a horrible need of money?
Be the risk from me, a court appointed trustee, or weex users ?
Seems like a rather rash and fast decision without need.
If everything is paid for, why are you so desperate for your 100btc worth?
Why not leave the shares locked until I have paid everyone back. Are you now having to heavily count on this 100btc?
This small fraction of btc that was taken in even though everything's been paid for?
Is it really worth the legal risk for the company to make arbitrary decisions with these shares or are you just in such a horrible need of money?
Be the risk from me, a court appointed trustee, or weex users ?
Seems like a rather rash and fast decision without need.
January 23, 2014, 05:12:54 AM
We are selling Ukyo shares on Crypto-Trade to recover our losses on Bitfunder.
We will start moving Investors shares to Crypto-Trade within the next 7 days.
We will start moving Investors shares to Crypto-Trade within the next 7 days.
I truly hope you have some plans for the following:
a. be able to distribute funds from the sale to weex users in debt.
or
b. explain to a court appointed handler where portions of my assets are.
(As well as explain to other weex users why your debt is more important than theirs)
Also:
What do you plan to do with all remaining funds?
It is no secret that there are plenty of shares to cover your personal accounts 100btc.
Or is the plan to continue to give no information at all, continue without any new information dates
with the last information of any kind about 5 months ago being a broken deadline so cause the prices
of ActM shares to drop so much you can continue to buy them back for pennies on the dollar compared
to what you pumped them to and be able to claim that all the shares I hold are worth less than the 100btc
you are personally having an issue with?
To be clear: I have no issues with 100% of funds from the sale of all ActM Shares assigned to me to be distributed to weex users.
Everyone should be able to see the numbers.
-Ukyo
January 23, 2014, 04:58:00 AM
Interesting how many here defend Ukyo who stole money from the company. I wonder at your motives.
Still owes me a bunch personally - unfortunately Ken can't sell ukyo's shares in lien of what ukyo owes me too.
January 23, 2014, 04:37:57 AM
Interesting how many here defend Ukyo who stole money from the company. I wonder at your motives.
January 23, 2014, 02:34:27 AM
1.9GH/s and 2.5W, estimated end of profitable hashing:
0.20 $/kWh - July
0.15 $/kWh - August
0.10 $/kWh - September
One month extra if BTC at $2k. From selling point, it can make wide customer base for future 28nm but needs high volume, no preorders, sell at costs, deliver on time.
0.20 $/kWh - July
0.15 $/kWh - August
0.10 $/kWh - September
One month extra if BTC at $2k. From selling point, it can make wide customer base for future 28nm but needs high volume, no preorders, sell at costs, deliver on time.
How about 0.017 $/kWh
A simple interpolation of his figures would suggest mid-July.
But that assumes his maths above is correct.
I'd like to see the figures on this - what difficulty increased have you presumed kactech? Please show us your calculation.
0.017 not 0.17
What's the point of calculating electricity costs when none of the significant costs (chips, boards, BOM ) are known?
January 23, 2014, 01:48:57 AM
I don't get how Ukyo can claim he isn't allowed to say what happened to the btc. What could possibly have happened that would require a gag-order? whole thing sounds like b.s. to me, but what do I know, or any of us for that matter since everything is kept secret. It does make sense for design and manufacturing businesses to have NDA clauses, with the competition and all, but money management services should hopefully be a little more transparent than this.
This is all the sort of malfeasance that attracts regulators, sloppy business practices should be strongly discouraged in this community... I feel like half of these exchanges are run by teenagers between getting home from school and dinnertime, not dedicated responsible adults who have ethical business practices and basic common sense.
This is all the sort of malfeasance that attracts regulators, sloppy business practices should be strongly discouraged in this community... I feel like half of these exchanges are run by teenagers between getting home from school and dinnertime, not dedicated responsible adults who have ethical business practices and basic common sense.
January 23, 2014, 12:55:57 AM
happy 420. ukyo is indeed a cunt.
January 23, 2014, 12:53:36 AM
Fuck that. If the guy played with, lost and now owes monies then get it out of him in anyway possible. I don't know why anyone is arguing about or defending this sheister.
January 23, 2014, 12:21:53 AM
Ken would have to notify any other registered parties that Ukyo owes money to about this sale of the assets, and would have to distribute any proceeds over and above what is owed to them.
We are in a grey area as you have indicated. Little in the BTC industry operates within the letter of the law as it is currently written.
The action Ken is taking is within the spirit of the law - that which is the underlying intention. That intention is that an individual or company can hold the assets of a debtor and sell them to recover their losses if the debtor does not or can not pay up. That is as far as you can go.
You are implying that Ukyo could take Ken to court but what legislation would he use? The shares he will claim to own are not registered securities, the BTC he used to buy them is not a legally recognised currency, the exchange he set up was not registered etc etc. Do you see the problem? In other words if Ken can't do X because the legislation does not appply then Ukyo cannot do Y (bring him to court) because the legislation does not apply.
At the end of the day common sense needs to be applied in any Grey Area. So I would maintain that Ken is doing the right thing.
Actually, it isn't in the spirit of the law. Construction liens and garage owners liens are designed to protect tradesmen who invest time, materials and money into your house/car/etc. If they do that and you don't pay them for the work, they are able to put a lien on that item. Even then, there are specific ways they have to go about resolving the lien. If you don't pay your roofer he can't put a lien on your car or cottage, and a garage owner can't put a lien on your house if he worked on your car. If you refuse to pay your roofer after you get shingles installed and he takes your car until you pay him, both he and everyone else who might be owed money on the car have every reason to go after you.
I have no idea what sort of corporation/LLC/entity Ukyo's businesses were registered as, but Ken seizing and selling the ActM shares to cover the We-Ex debt, besides being somewhat morally suspect, is almost certainly not legal.
CORPORATE AND COMPENSATION LAWS
Ukyo was in IRC and I believe said he personally owned ActM Shares. I'm pretty sure Ukyo is aware of what Ken is doing and agreed to it possibly reluctantly (Although it would be nice for him to confirm this)
I don't recall him agreeing at all. I actually remember him saying what Ken is doing is blatantly wrong and illegal. He said something along the lines of his personal shares of ACTM have nothing to do with the Bitfunder/Weexchange issue and Ken can't just take them from him.
January 23, 2014, 12:15:10 AM
Does anyone know the value of Bitcoins ACTM lost out of BitFunder?
Bitfunder/WeExchange Problems:
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be. This 106 BTC has been deducted from our liquid cash position above.
We have ~106 BTC in the Bitfunder/WeExchange system which we can not obtain. We have sent Bitfunder's/WeExchange's Ukyo a Legal Demand For Payment within 72 hours. We expect this problem to result in the loss of the 106 BTC. We are meeting with our Lawyers to determine what our next steps will be. This 106 BTC has been deducted from our liquid cash position above.
January 23, 2014, 12:05:56 AM
Does anyone know the value of Bitcoins ACTM lost out of BitFunder?
January 22, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
Ken would have to notify any other registered parties that Ukyo owes money to about this sale of the assets, and would have to distribute any proceeds over and above what is owed to them.
We are in a grey area as you have indicated. Little in the BTC industry operates within the letter of the law as it is currently written.
The action Ken is taking is within the spirit of the law - that which is the underlying intention. That intention is that an individual or company can hold the assets of a debtor and sell them to recover their losses if the debtor does not or can not pay up. That is as far as you can go.
You are implying that Ukyo could take Ken to court but what legislation would he use? The shares he will claim to own are not registered securities, the BTC he used to buy them is not a legally recognised currency, the exchange he set up was not registered etc etc. Do you see the problem? In other words if Ken can't do X because the legislation does not appply then Ukyo cannot do Y (bring him to court) because the legislation does not apply.
At the end of the day common sense needs to be applied in any Grey Area. So I would maintain that Ken is doing the right thing.
Actually, it isn't in the spirit of the law. Construction liens and garage owners liens are designed to protect tradesmen who invest time, materials and money into your house/car/etc. If they do that and you don't pay them for the work, they are able to put a lien on that item. Even then, there are specific ways they have to go about resolving the lien. If you don't pay your roofer he can't put a lien on your car or cottage, and a garage owner can't put a lien on your house if he worked on your car. If you refuse to pay your roofer after you get shingles installed and he takes your car until you pay him, both he and everyone else who might be owed money on the car have every reason to go after you.
I have no idea what sort of corporation/LLC/entity Ukyo's businesses were registered as, but Ken seizing and selling the ActM shares to cover the We-Ex debt, besides being somewhat morally suspect, is almost certainly not legal.
CORPORATE AND COMPENSATION LAWS
Ukyo was in IRC and I believe said he personally owned ActM Shares. I'm pretty sure Ukyo is aware of what Ken is doing and agreed to it possibly reluctantly (Although it would be nice for him to confirm this)
January 22, 2014, 11:55:25 PM
If you think that Ken has made any of these decisions without the direction of his lawyers you are bonkers.
Ukyo will still be able to recoup his shares minus whatever lien was imposed upon it.
I agree it gets complicated at that point, but the ball is in Ukyo's court on how he would like to challenge it.
I don't really know why everybody is arguing this point, it's somewhat silly.
Ukyo will still be able to recoup his shares minus whatever lien was imposed upon it.
I agree it gets complicated at that point, but the ball is in Ukyo's court on how he would like to challenge it.
I don't really know why everybody is arguing this point, it's somewhat silly.
January 22, 2014, 10:43:23 PM
Ken would have to notify any other registered parties that Ukyo owes money to about this sale of the assets, and would have to distribute any proceeds over and above what is owed to them.
We are in a grey area as you have indicated. Little in the BTC industry operates within the letter of the law as it is currently written.
The action Ken is taking is within the spirit of the law - that which is the underlying intention. That intention is that an individual or company can hold the assets of a debtor and sell them to recover their losses if the debtor does not or can not pay up. That is as far as you can go.
You are implying that Ukyo could take Ken to court but what legislation would he use? The shares he will claim to own are not registered securities, the BTC he used to buy them is not a legally recognised currency, the exchange he set up was not registered etc etc. Do you see the problem? In other words if Ken can't do X because the legislation does not appply then Ukyo cannot do Y (bring him to court) because the legislation does not apply.
At the end of the day common sense needs to be applied in any Grey Area. So I would maintain that Ken is doing the right thing.
Actually, it isn't in the spirit of the law. Construction liens and garage owners liens are designed to protect tradesmen who invest time, materials and money into your house/car/etc. If they do that and you don't pay them for the work, they are able to put a lien on that item. Even then, there are specific ways they have to go about resolving the lien. If you don't pay your roofer he can't put a lien on your car or cottage, and a garage owner can't put a lien on your house if he worked on your car. If you refuse to pay your roofer after you get shingles installed and he takes your car until you pay him, both he and everyone else who might be owed money on the car have every reason to go after you.
I have no idea what sort of corporation/LLC/entity Ukyo's businesses were registered as, but Ken seizing and selling the ActM shares to cover the We-Ex debt, besides being somewhat morally suspect, is almost certainly not legal.
CORPORATE AND COMPENSATION LAWS
January 22, 2014, 10:37:39 PM
Ken would have to notify any other registered parties that Ukyo owes money to about this sale of the assets, and would have to distribute any proceeds over and above what is owed to them.
We are in a grey area as you have indicated. Little in the BTC industry operates within the letter of the law as it is currently written.
The action Ken is taking is within the spirit of the law - that which is the underlying intention. That intention is that an individual or company can hold the assets of a debtor and sell them to recover their losses if the debtor does not or can not pay up. That is as far as you can go.
You are implying that Ukyo could take Ken to court but what legislation would he use? The shares he will claim to own are not registered securities, the BTC he used to buy them is not a legally recognised currency, the exchange he set up was not registered etc etc. Do you see the problem? In other words if Ken can't do X because the legislation does not appply then Ukyo cannot do Y (bring him to court) because the legislation does not apply.
At the end of the day common sense needs to be applied in any Grey Area. So I would maintain that Ken is doing the right thing.
Actually, it isn't in the spirit of the law. Construction liens and garage owners liens are designed to protect tradesmen who invest time, materials and money into your house/car/etc. If they do that and you don't pay them for the work, they are able to put a lien on that item. Even then, there are specific ways they have to go about resolving the lien. If you don't pay your roofer he can't put a lien on your car or cottage, and a garage owner can't put a lien on your house if he worked on your car. If you refuse to pay your roofer after you get shingles installed and he takes your car until you pay him, both he and everyone else who might be owed money on the car have every reason to go after you.
I have no idea what sort of corporation/LLC/entity Ukyo's businesses were registered as, but Ken seizing and selling the ActM shares to cover the We-Ex debt, besides being somewhat morally suspect, is almost certainly not legal.
CORPORATE AND COMPENSATION LAWS
Ken, are you selling Ukyo's shares up to the point where you recoup the funds that were lost through BitFunder and then returning the remaining share?
January 22, 2014, 10:31:03 PM
Vigil is right. Ken needs to create value if we expect to see any shares being sold, at any price. You were all warned over and over that this day would come when everyone holds worthless shares.
January 22, 2014, 10:30:24 PM
Ken would have to notify any other registered parties that Ukyo owes money to about this sale of the assets, and would have to distribute any proceeds over and above what is owed to them.
We are in a grey area as you have indicated. Little in the BTC industry operates within the letter of the law as it is currently written.
The action Ken is taking is within the spirit of the law - that which is the underlying intention. That intention is that an individual or company can hold the assets of a debtor and sell them to recover their losses if the debtor does not or can not pay up. That is as far as you can go.
You are implying that Ukyo could take Ken to court but what legislation would he use? The shares he will claim to own are not registered securities, the BTC he used to buy them is not a legally recognised currency, the exchange he set up was not registered etc etc. Do you see the problem? In other words if Ken can't do X because the legislation does not appply then Ukyo cannot do Y (bring him to court) because the legislation does not apply.
At the end of the day common sense needs to be applied in any Grey Area. So I would maintain that Ken is doing the right thing.
Actually, it isn't in the spirit of the law. Construction liens and garage owners liens are designed to protect tradesmen who invest time, materials and money into your house/car/etc. If they do that and you don't pay them for the work, they are able to put a lien on that item. Even then, there are specific ways they have to go about resolving the lien. If you don't pay your roofer he can't put a lien on your car or cottage, and a garage owner can't put a lien on your house if he worked on your car. If you refuse to pay your roofer after you get shingles installed and he takes your car until you pay him, both he and everyone else who might be owed money on the car have every reason to go after you.
I have no idea what sort of corporation/LLC/entity Ukyo's businesses were registered as, but Ken seizing and selling the ActM shares to cover the We-Ex debt, besides being somewhat morally suspect, is almost certainly not legal.
CORPORATE AND COMPENSATION LAWS
Jump to: