Pages:
Author

Topic: Gigamining / Teramining - page 53. (Read 216462 times)

legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
December 08, 2012, 03:57:46 PM
(1) You don't think you should have to comply with the law as now explained by lawyers, and you are mad at Giga for bringing the law into this when you think everybody could have just gotten away with doing the payments as "gentlemen" without needing to involve the pesky notion of tax and sanction compliance steps.  In your mind,

Are you faking to be stupid or for real?
Either Giga was not legal before -when he took our coins- AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL
or:
he was legal when he took our coins - AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL STEALING OUR COINS BECAUSE OF B/S LEGAL INVENTIONS
There is no alternative.
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1001
December 08, 2012, 03:52:14 PM
(1) there is not a single shred of evidence that the law gives a rat's ass about giga, glcrapbse, or anything about this.

(2) you write like this is a multi million dollar deal. This is a bunch of nerds getting together to buy gear and to share the profits from mining.

He ran to a lawyer because it benefits him. plain and simple. not to obey laws he clearly did not care about in the first place. the goal is to
get as much as possible out of this instead of being "cool" and realizing things went sour and i should treat people nice by giving them as
much as possible without taking a loss.

but that is what a person does when they prefer to have respect over money. a way for the community to know you are a straight
shooter instead of what is going on now.
SAC
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
December 08, 2012, 03:34:46 PM
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth.

It's like you quoted what I wrote and didn't even read it.

If it made actual sense it may have been worth responding to point by point but as it is you do nothing but try to excuse his attempt to commit fraud and draw others into it. PLONK.
newbie
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
December 08, 2012, 03:02:19 PM
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth.

It's like you quoted what I wrote and didn't even read it.
newbie
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
December 08, 2012, 02:58:12 PM
...Keep gear. Trade in for newer asic gear and keep itfree and clear....

Given the depreciation of the current hardware, especially given the anticipation of Bitcoin-specific ASICs, it seems unlikely that this course of action would really be very profitable for Giga.


A gentlemans agreement and plan that does not require a lawyer if a person just keeps his side of the bargain....

...

...we have the operator running to a lawyer which is always a bad sign in my book when involving something of this size.
It screams, to me, i have no idea how to deal fairly with others in a time of crisis...

I hope that someone scams you badly, and then pulls out a lawyer to fu*k you over again. Then I will come to comment on how silly are you.

This point of view seems like it could come from one of two places.  

(1) You don't think you should have to comply with the law as now explained by lawyers, and you are mad at Giga for bringing the law into this when you think everybody could have just gotten away with doing the payments as "gentlemen" without needing to involve the pesky notion of tax and sanction compliance steps.  In your mind, you agreed to do something whether it was legal or not, knowing that it might turn out not to be and not really caring about that. You were under the impression that Giga had the same mentality, and so now that he's telling you he will only do things in a way he thinks is strictly legal, you are angry.  

So you then (a) mock him for not being on board with your idea that Bitcoin contracts should exist in their own plane outside of secular law.  And/or (b) you declare that he must actually have the same mentality as you, and so his moves must have nothing to do with his desire to be legit but must just be convenient, cynical ways to cheat you out of your money.

You are wrong because (a) from the entire record, there seems to be no evidence that Giga ever had or expressed the perspective that he was committed to his scheme whether or not it was legal.  You are projecting your own view of Bitcoin onto him, and so long as you incorrectly do that, his moves will continue to baffle you.

And from my own personal perspective, you are further wrong because (b) tax and sanctions compliance are positive moral imperatives that you should embrace regardless of anything that Giga says or has said.


(2) You do care whether or not something is legal, and maybe you recognize that paying dividends without tax information turns out not to be legal.  But you blame Giga for this -- basically, he should never have agreed to this in the first place, and it's his duty to take a big hit in his liquidity -- or even destroy his business -- to buy back from you rather than demand that you do anything, even something that costs you nothing, like providing extra info.  On principle.

You are wrong because (a) both parties to these contracts are responsible for any failures in initial due diligence in this matter, and both parties share responsibility for acting reasonably and equitably to work things out once due diligence finally gets done by someone later.  It's irrelevant whether it was eventually his lawyer telling him he needed to issue 1099s, and then him putting demands to you, as opposed to your lawyer telling you you were owed a 1099, and you demanding action from him.  

You are further wrong because (b) the initial counterparty that would have needed to do the tax compliance due diligence was not even Giga at all -- it was GLBSE, because exchanges and brokers are normally the ones responsible for producing the tax documentation, not issuers.  Remember, Giga never even had your BTC withdrawal address or any other kind of payment information while GLBSE was operating: it was only GLBSE that would have been in a position of setting up the proper reporting procedures for documenting payments.  This burden only shifted to Giga once GLBSE shuttered and put him in the position of being the actual payer of counterparties.  

From what I can tell, Giga went to his lawyer and did his due diligence immediately once his obligations extended into this arena.  That is in contrast to you, who did not do your legal due diligence when it was GLBSE on the other side -- never ensuring that the exchange was provided with all of the information needed for tax compliance, and never bothering to learn from your own legal advice that that should have been the case.  

So if either party bears a greater burden in making things up to snuff at this point, it's might actually be you and not Giga, even leaving aside the fact that what he's asking you to do is free, and what you're asking him to do (buyback) is potentially very expensive.  Note, for example, this:

*) Giga may not have the liquidity to do a buyback.  I know on LTC-MINING it'd be pretty hard for me to do a buyback on all of them at once.  All the proceeds of the sales went into hardware.  That hardware resale value is probably not more than 60% of what I paid for it new.
SAC
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
December 08, 2012, 02:23:24 PM
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth.
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
December 08, 2012, 01:28:47 PM
They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

I hope that someone scams you badly, and then pulls out a lawyer to fu*k you over again. Then I will come to comment on how silly are you.

[edit]: a reminder for my sell offer of Giga's bonds off-the-counter:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1385577
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1385639
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
December 08, 2012, 01:28:00 PM
The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

That's one take.

The other take is that you can both be legal, and continue, and not screw anyone by closing down the original contract.  (execute buyback)  Then re-open a new contract.

There are two problems with closing down the original that I see.

*) The contract was 105% of the traded price on GLBSE in the last XX days.  Obviously this cannot be used directly, GLBSE is gone.  You'd have to go with the last 15 days of trades before GLBSE went offline or something.  (easy to grab btw from the twitter feed.)

*) Giga may not have the liquidity to do a buyback.  I know on LTC-MINING it'd be pretty hard for me to do a buyback on all of them at once.  All the proceeds of the sales went into hardware.  That hardware resale value is probably not more than 60% of what I paid for it new.

I think the middle ground would be to offer up an option of buyback or new contract.  But there'd have to be a pretty good incentive to go new contract or too many people would go buyback and we're back into liquidity problems.

Giga's definitely in a lose-lose situation, I do not envy his position.  At least he hasn't cut and run as many issuers seem to be doing.
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1001
December 08, 2012, 01:14:45 PM
Honor is the proper way to phrase it. This is a rinky dink operation to give someone money to buy mining gear and those who gave get returns of the mining. A gentlemans agreement and plan that does not require a lawyer if a person just keeps his side of the bargain. Give them their fricking money from mining, sell the gear, and buy back the bonds to the best of your ability while being totally transparent. I doubt a single investor would complain if it was done straight up. Get the info and square it away with users.

Instead we have the operator running to a lawyer which is always a bad sign in my book when involving something of this size.
It screams, to me, i have no idea how to deal fairly with others in a time of crisis and i better cover MY ass first. Plus i have everything and others can kiss my ass as i make the rules as i scheme them up.

The end game is this. Pay mining profits. Buy back bonds for next to nothing. Keep gear. Trade in for newer asic gear and keep itfree and clear. Highly doubtful operator will start new bond/share plan. Just mine with asics for himself.
newbie
Activity: 41
Merit: 0
December 08, 2012, 01:03:16 PM
A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Casper - A failed entrepenuer who looks like Zhou
December 08, 2012, 10:47:29 AM
So if i have 2 shares, will it be possible for me to pass through those crazy things?
legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
December 08, 2012, 10:45:55 AM
I'd like to ask when will the "small shares direct claim" process start. The one for who have just a few shares to claim, could pass through the "lawyer step" by providing the bitcoin address and some details
Won't happen, unless shares are worth less than 10 USD total and stay below that limit (which currently actually is probably the case for quite a big number of shares...)
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
Casper - A failed entrepenuer who looks like Zhou
December 08, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
I'd like to ask when will or will there be a "small shares direct claim" process. The one for who have just a few shares to claim, could pass through the "lawyer step" by providing the bitcoin address and some details. (As you provided the hash check thing)
vip
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
AKA: gigavps
December 08, 2012, 10:38:27 AM
Also regarding this post... I don't have a Tax Identification number?  Am I supposed to go get one for 30 shares and a few BTC in dividends?  Or if I am willing to give you my info can I leave that blank? 

Naelr

This is a question for Quentin. Please email him.

Giga, I have emailed Quentin with this exact question at the beginning of the process and have not heard back from him with an answer if my SSN will be sufficient. I don't know if others are hearing back - could you check in with him and see how answering emails is going?

My email was sent on Nov 24th, and as one of 3 questions asked "...I have no Tax ID number. What should I provide in this situation?" On the forum you have answered the other 2 questions that I asked in the email, but I would like to get the answers from your representation instead of on a forum.

SSN == Tax ID
sr. member
Activity: 411
Merit: 250
December 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
Also regarding this post... I don't have a Tax Identification number?  Am I supposed to go get one for 30 shares and a few BTC in dividends?  Or if I am willing to give you my info can I leave that blank? 

Naelr

This is a question for Quentin. Please email him.

Giga, I have emailed Quentin with this exact question at the beginning of the process and have not heard back from him with an answer if my SSN will be sufficient. I don't know if others are hearing back - could you check in with him and see how answering emails is going?

My email was sent on Nov 24th, and as one of 3 questions asked "...I have no Tax ID number. What should I provide in this situation?" On the forum you have answered the other 2 questions that I asked in the email, but I would like to get the answers from your representation instead of on a forum.
legendary
Activity: 2618
Merit: 1007
December 07, 2012, 08:37:03 PM
Similar for me, but I'd like to get the payments from Giga to my address. I'm looking for someone to hold/own the shares but keep the payout address on one of my addresses. I'm not 100% sure if this contradicts #5 in the affidavit though.

Otherwise I'd also sell the right to claim my shares + all payments for a fair price. Anything that giga requires short of stuff that costs me money (yes, apostilles DO cost money, more than I could ever earn on these shares as it currently looks like!) or that is illegal (copying IDs + sending them to strangers on the internet - btw. the person "Quentin Page" that claims to be Giga's lawyer is not mentioned on that lawyer's website: http://www.miamicriminalattorney.ws/miami-criminal-lawyer-legal-team.php) can of course be done be me, I'm still in sole possession of the email account and the private key to the address sent by GLBSE to gigavps and I'm not going anywhere soon... Payments could be forwarded of course until you are allowed by giga to change the address.
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
December 07, 2012, 07:05:48 PM
AFAIK there is only one claim for BTC address, so how can someone claim twice. I can't see how this can work...

If the buyer is a Giga's shareholder, he would need someone else who is not to sign the affidavit and figure as another.
[edit:] but there is not any reason why the same person could not have more than one GLBSE account and so reclaim them with a single affidavit.

That's a bit elaborate, but I am not selling at 50%+ discount for nothing.
About following up with cooperation by email if needed, no problem on my side (even to state anything in the name of anyone).

Only problem is about the wallet that I used for my GLBSE transactions: I am not ready to give it away since the situation with other issuers of shares that I own(ed?) is still fluid. So we should figure something about this. In the past I sent back significant wrong payments that I received from 2 respected members (provable), so my word that I will forward to the buyer any payment for his bonds until he change the address may be enough, otherwise we can think about a fix.
hero member
Activity: 547
Merit: 531
First bits: 12good
December 07, 2012, 06:52:13 PM
I may consider your offer, but first I need confirmation from Gigavps that this can be done.

Obviously not according him, since it would mean less stolen shares for him.
The question is: can he practically avoid it / know who is doing it?

AFAIK there is only one claim for BTC address, so how can someone claim twice. I can't see how this can work...
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
December 07, 2012, 06:45:47 PM
I may consider your offer, but first I need confirmation from Gigavps that this can be done.

Obviously not according him, since it would mean less stolen shares for him.
The question is: can he practically avoid it / know who is doing it?

Note: Just out of curiosity, someone interested in buying the right to claim 300 bonds?

This is not advisable. Please see the quote below.

Quote
Finally, since no unique identification exists for outstanding agreements, ALL CURRENT BENEFICIAL ASSIGNEES ARE STRONGLY ADVISED NOT TO ENGAGE IN ANY TRANSFER, SALE, OR ASSIGNMENT OF THESE AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF GLBSE, AS IT MAY RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY AND SERVICE SUCH AGREEMENTS.

I think the problem is that once you buy the shares from someone, you're going to have to pretend you're that someone in order for Giga to be able to match up your claim with the list he has from GLBSE.  What do you do if part of his verification process is to send a request to the email on the list, expecting a reply, and the person you bought 'em from does not reply?

There's definitely risk involved.




legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
December 07, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
I may consider your offer, but first I need confirmation from Gigavps that this can be done.

Obviously not according him, since it would mean less stolen shares for him.
The question is: can he practically avoid it / know who is doing it?
Pages:
Jump to: