Topic: Gigamining / Teramining - page 66. (Read 216459 times)

This begs the question:

If the list given by Nefario to Giga is false, how is a lawyer going to fix this? It's not like the lawyer has the true list and we have to prove ourselves to him first.

The only one who will make a profit is giga's lawyer 

It seems you're focusing on my use of the word 'proof' which I admit was poorly chosen. Perhaps 'verification' would've been more appropriate.


If ownership of an address cannot be established (particularly in conjunction with an email address), then sadly no further action can be taken. In this circumstance, responsibility rests with the address owner as it is completely outside of giga's control, as well as nefario's.


This is the only option offering a reasonable solution because of the ability to sign. Yes, it's still a maybe to the extent that the list could be misrepresented. However, from the contact I've received, the process appears to be above-board (both from the asset-issues and nefario) and I'm inclined to accept it as legitimate thus far.

If existing forum registration exists and can be associated with an email, it could provide an additional form of verification without submitting personally identifiable information. Illegitimate control of both an email address and Bitcoin address is unlikely.

Perhaps giga can put any unclaimed funds back into the operation.


This depends on whether asset ownership is retained or liquidated. If funds are to be returned, then there is no way to truly provide indemnification, even with personal information being provided. On the other hand, if the shares issued are to remain linked to the respective Bitcoin and email addresses, I would have no reason to deny indemnity (which would not require personal information, either). Of course, I cannot speak for everyone.

It's too early to tell and too early to even make tentative plans because gigavps and his legal counsel have no idea how many will end up being unclaimed and what the actual legal responsibilities are for contracts made on GLBSE specificially. Once legal representation is involved, things move slowly - so we might find out the answer to this several months to several years after operations start as normal, depending upon any legal or regulatory action that is taken against his LLC or Bitcoin itself. The primary responsibility is moving forward in a conservative, bureaucratic manner so that the shares that do get claimed don't have another problem like this again.

The right decision is to send the scammer in a supermax jail in company of Madoff a.s.a.p., since he likes the law.

Though the 5 Mh will worth nothing once the ASICs are out. But still, the Bitcoin( dividend of the shares) worth something. Shouldnt they be distrubuted? Giga knows our address!

Good point!!! So there is no right decision...

Just in case you want to become an accomplice of a crime.

This is a good question. Maybe start the gigacharity?

Correct.

IMO it will be best to redistribute them among others. Anyway this topic is getting out of control....

One more thing, about the Terramining upgrade... what will be the terms, it's important to know this information, so that we can decide whether or not to do the claims, because IF everything is OK with the ASICs these 5 MH/s will worth nothing in just several weeks (months), and no point to invest money and time for "affidavit" documents.

Let's sum things up here:

I. GIGAMINING shares were being traded on the GLBSE platform.

II. GLBSE is discontinued (in the most disorderly way possible).

A month passes.

III. The operator is tagged as a scammer.

Another month passes.

IV. A list of asset holders is produced, by the ex-operator now tagged as a scammer. This list is declared incomplete by the author himself. The list is delivered as plaintext over mail to the issuer of GIGAMINING.

This brings us about up to date. Of the multitude of people on this Forum (F), some are (Fo) and some are not (Fno) owners of GIGAMINING shares. Those who claim shares (Fc) will be some but not all of Fo and some but not all of Fno. Of the Fo, some but not all will be on the list. Of the people on the list, it is at this point hoped but unprovable that all are in fact Fo.

There's a lot of sets, a lot of overlap and pretty much nothing definite to go on. Anyone can claim they're in the Fo. With the information so far available there's not in fact any way to either prove or falsify such a claim. Being able to verify the control of a Bitcoin address is a good step forward. However, NOT being able to do so does not necessarily prove anything. Suppose the person used an old wallet they meanwhile abandoned to send money to GLBSE a significant interval ago and never since made withdrawals. Suppose the person only used a 3rd party, such as for instance some webwallet service that doesn't support signing or that mixes client funds.

So look at it from the other end:

1. Person makes claim for Fo, is on list, is able to sign with address. Are they a legitimate owner? Maybe (unless, for instance, they colluded with Nefario to falsify the list for their benefit - which'd be one possible explanation for the delay).
2. Person makes claim for Fo, is on the list, is not able to sign with address. Are they a legitimate owner? Maybe.
3. Person makes claim for Fo, is not on the list. Are they a legitimate owner? Maybe (and they for any of a host of reasons weren't included).
4. Person makes no claim for Fo. Are they a legitimate owner? Maybe.

All I see is Maybes. For this to be resolvable painlessly i'd have to see nothing but Yes or No. No Maybes.

Now, you say "it's reasonable to conclude". Is this you offering an indemnity, in the sense you'll pay out of pocket anything and everything if that assumption turns sour? Yes, my choice of words may not be to your liking. Sticks and stones.

Sticks and stones, because this is a story of sticks and stones, and apparently words cannot quite paper over the chasm of a categorical difference.

It does not seems the wisest move in order to that aims, and I actually hope that it will backfire spectacularly. It is more likely a trick to try to steal legally.
Neither is wise to ask "how high?" when he says "jump!", since the answer may well be "higher".

What's going to happen to the bonds whose owners don't submit the required information? You pocket them? Transfer them to bitcoin foundation? Something else?

Do not the two emails I've received from him already confirm that I am on the list?

You are not and thanks for the support.

Information linking emails to Bitcoin addresses has been provided. The next step is to contact the email address and request a signed message from the respective Bitcoin address. Once that is done, it's reasonable to conclude the owner is legitimate.

Also, exercise restraint when insulting those who may be your own clients.

The request for PM is for if you need to know if you are on the GLBSE list - for instance in my case, isolating which of my BTC addresses associated with an email account had shares on the list from GLBSE. This was resolved quickly, and enables me to file the required information information for the process to go ahead instead of getting mired in a simple question. He's not asking you to provide any information via PM - he is saying that if you are having a similar issue that would prevent you from providing the information to his legal counsel, then PM him and he'll help clear it up to the best of his ability. Hopefully I'm not putting words in gigavps's mouth here.

Except that you can't do business as an individual and then simply transfer your liabilities to another entity (LLC lol) as you wish. That's not how it works.

edit: And lying about your legal form is illegal here, and I'm pretty sure it's in the states, or almost everywhere else.