One question that might be too early to ask:
Do you have the intent to allow people to sell/trade their shares on a private basis or on a platform you provide for that purpose after everything is sorted out, if legal counsel says it would be ok?
Topic: Gigamining / Teramining - page 63. (Read 216459 times)
I don't really get how a lot of people should be able to produce "Tax IDs" (what are these exactly anyways?!) who live outside of the US.
Also the cost for an Apostille is far greater than any coins I could get back from my few gigamining (soon Teramining... remember?!) shares.
Thirdly, I really don't trust some random lawyer in the US (http://mylawyr.com/ <-- lol), please also send the information you require from us (picture ID, Tax ID, apostille...) stating that your company(?!!) actually IS engaged with this lawyer. The mail I received is NOT signed with any Bitcoin address used by gigamining, actually not signed at all and asks from me some information that is highly unreasonable to ask for something worth the equivalent of a few dozen bucks.
This is the last post you'll see from me in this matter, the remaining communication will be coming from my lawyer - and I hope a few US citizens also grow the balls to simply go to the police, report potential idendity theft and fraud and the chance that someone just wants to get away by pulling an LLC out of his rear end.
Oh, and a last point:
Currently there's no way to see which Bitcoin address one actually has submitted to GLBSE, so quite a few people might have problems even knowing it...
Also the cost for an Apostille is far greater than any coins I could get back from my few gigamining (soon Teramining... remember?!) shares.
Thirdly, I really don't trust some random lawyer in the US (http://mylawyr.com/ <-- lol), please also send the information you require from us (picture ID, Tax ID, apostille...) stating that your company(?!!) actually IS engaged with this lawyer. The mail I received is NOT signed with any Bitcoin address used by gigamining, actually not signed at all and asks from me some information that is highly unreasonable to ask for something worth the equivalent of a few dozen bucks.
This is the last post you'll see from me in this matter, the remaining communication will be coming from my lawyer - and I hope a few US citizens also grow the balls to simply go to the police, report potential idendity theft and fraud and the chance that someone just wants to get away by pulling an LLC out of his rear end.
Oh, and a last point:
Currently there's no way to see which Bitcoin address one actually has submitted to GLBSE, so quite a few people might have problems even knowing it...
If some people are unwilling to release their personal details and would rather sign a message with the associated btc address invalidating their claim, I think that those coins can be donated to the Bitcoin Foundation.
So you are ready to accept an email to give the coins to a third party but not to return them to their owners?
It makes sense.
Perhaps this is all a Bitcoin Foundation long con after all???
That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
Well, presumably because nobody would try to defraud him for the benefit of the Foundation.
The idea of only requiring ID of users over a certain (small) threshold may be a good one. After all, the logistics of organizing the scam (esp if the Nefario list is also used) aren't justified by obtaining a couple of shares. The problem that I can see is that there's no way to establish that threshold fairly, as anywhere you place it there will be some people who were *just* left out. Then again, maybe there is, who knows.
I guess gigavps is in the best position to know/find out from his lawyer if something like this is feasible at all. From what I've seen of the lists that were published, two thirds or more of the owners own one bitcoin's worth or less of shares.
seems to imply to me that he won't be buying bonds back, just another scammer who will continue to mine on the 150ghash we helped him buy
You can see all past and future dividends at http://gigamining.com. There have not been any decisions made about buybacks nor does the current contract enable this since the price to quote is from GLBSE.
Love how he quotes contracts when it can be manipulated to his benefit.
No glcrapbse. Thus go by issue price.
That way everyone can feel good about him keeping the hardware free and clear.
seems to imply to me that he won't be buying bonds back, just another scammer who will continue to mine on the 150ghash we helped him buy
or he could always just put the bonds on another exchange wait a few days for the price to collapse to almost nothing and then he will buy them back
You can see all past and future dividends at http://gigamining.com. There have not been any decisions made about buybacks nor does the current contract enable this since the price to quote is from GLBSE.
or he could always just put the bonds on another exchange wait a few days for the price to collapse to almost nothing and then he will buy them back
I am really surprised I see no discussion of how much each bond should be bought back for now that glcrapbse is done.
Issue price seems reasonable times 1.05. Payable in btc of course with divs.
The operator should eat his dog food.
Issue price seems reasonable times 1.05. Payable in btc of course with divs.
The operator should eat his dog food.
Maybe the forum needs a tag that says "saved my own ass and came out roses".
You also seems to not read anything I write. The list is a starting point. The list needs to be verified. I need to have legal recourse if things go awry. This is to protect all Gigaminers.
That's not true.
How does it protect a Gigaminer whose investment is worth less than the cost to notarise/apostille?
It protects you, there's a decent argument that it protects very large investors (especially ones not on the list provided by nefario) but it absolutely does not protect the interests of small investors. Maybe edit it to "This is to protect myself and SOME gigaminers" - then at least it would be true.
I dont see why you cant pay out to people who can prove they own a bitcoin address you previousy paid too.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Because, we lack faith in Nefario. If Nefario fudged the addresses and accounts, he may be sending coins to non-asset holders, such as Nefario.
Then whats the point of listing on an exchange in the first place....
Well, that's part of the debate.
I sort of feel that Giga should just see if the list he has matches the number of shares he knows are outstanding. If it does, just go with it. If somebody claims that they are on the list, and they AREN"T, then their anger should be directed at Nefario, not Giga.
I dont see why you cant pay out to people who can prove they own a bitcoin address you previousy paid too.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Because, we lack faith in Nefario. If Nefario fudged the addresses and accounts, he may be sending coins to non-asset holders, such as Nefario.
Then whats the point of listing on an exchange in the first place....
Gigavps, how about other ways to prove ownership?
For example I only had gigamining shares in glbse, directly bought from you. I've withdrawn the weekly payments x bonds generated on every monday to address y. I've never bought any new shares or sold any, so the amounts transfered to y always are what x bonds generated.
I can sign a message for address y and confirm the information I used in the glbse claim process. If that information matches the information you got from nefario, I think that's pretty good prove of ownership.
Still I'd be willing to wait some time after submitting that information to make sure there are no other claims for these bonds (which probably would be there if I was a scammer).
I'd also be willing to donate some coins (if I get them back first) to recover some of the costs to squeeze the shareholder list out of nefario.
For example I only had gigamining shares in glbse, directly bought from you. I've withdrawn the weekly payments x bonds generated on every monday to address y. I've never bought any new shares or sold any, so the amounts transfered to y always are what x bonds generated.
I can sign a message for address y and confirm the information I used in the glbse claim process. If that information matches the information you got from nefario, I think that's pretty good prove of ownership.
Still I'd be willing to wait some time after submitting that information to make sure there are no other claims for these bonds (which probably would be there if I was a scammer).
I'd also be willing to donate some coins (if I get them back first) to recover some of the costs to squeeze the shareholder list out of nefario.
I dont see why you cant pay out to people who can prove they own a bitcoin address you previousy paid too.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Because, we lack faith in Nefario. If Nefario fudged the addresses and accounts, he may be sending coins to non-asset holders, such as Nefario.
I dont see why you cant pay out to people who can prove they own a bitcoin address you previousy paid too.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
Unless Im missing something obvious.
He was paying out before.. Why is he not paying out now? Did the bitcoin addresses go bad when glcrapbse went down?
Yes and to expand all the information required to determine the payments/ownership of the bonds is contained in the payments made that are in the blockchain. It should be simple enough to continue the payments due based on list of address in already sent payments since those are based on the bonds owned by that address you have your ownership determined.. Too simple a solution with not enough scam potential in it so probably why it was not thought of to be used.
I never took my BTC outside of GLBSE and therefore never entered the blockchain with my dividends. I would be unable to verify ownership because nothing was ever paid to me - from gigamining or GLBSE.
then there would be leftover btc to pay these people. at least you do not put a burden on everyone. just the people in edge cases.
That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
Please Deprived, since you have a horse in this race, why don't you just armchair quarterback the whole situation and we'll let you get all of the nastygrams.
It's an idea, someone else's idea.
I think the point he's making is that if you're willing to send coins somewhere, ANYWHERE, based on btc address sig alone, why isn't it enough to do for all of the addresses. I mean, it is entirely possible that Nefario created a bunch of small accounts where users will claim to be legitimate, and then trick you into sending coins to the Bitcoin Foundation.
Perhaps this is all a Bitcoin Foundation long con after all???
He was paying out before.. Why is he not paying out now? Did the bitcoin addresses go bad when glcrapbse went down?
Yes and to expand all the information required to determine the payments/ownership of the bonds is contained in the payments made that are in the blockchain. It should be simple enough to continue the payments due based on list of address in already sent payments since those are based on the bonds owned by that address you have your ownership determined.. Too simple a solution with not enough scam potential in it so probably why it was not thought of to be used.
I never took my BTC outside of GLBSE and therefore never entered the blockchain with my dividends. I would be unable to verify ownership because nothing was ever paid to me - from gigamining or GLBSE.
I'd much rather see my money to go the Bitcoin foundation.
If some people are unwilling to release their personal details and would rather sign a message with the associated btc address invalidating their claim, I think that those coins can be donated to the Bitcoin Foundation.
This is not an unreasonable request and I will speak with counsel to see if something like this can work.
That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
heh.
That makes absolutely ZERO sense.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
If you're willing to send the money to Bitcoin Foundation if they sign the message with their BTC address, then why can't they just do that and then you send THEM the bitcoins? That's totally and utterly inconsistent.
Please Deprived, since you have a horse in this race, why don't you just armchair quarterback the whole situation and we'll let you get all of the nastygrams.
It's an idea, someone else's idea.
Jump to: