Topic: Gigamining / Teramining - page 70. (Read 216462 times)

Honestly its better if he sells the whole operation. Im sure he could still get a decent amount for the equipment he has.

Trying to continue the operation if it is practically impossible will be an exercise in futility. Even if he has to buy the equipment personally and quarantine all funds from doing so.

He wouldn't even need to do any suppressing or anything else nefarious. The MPEx ETF was trading in the .08 - 0.03 range or something like that back in Oct.

Can you point us where he negates that?
But who cares. At this point I hope that his lawyer will bankrupt him.

Probably a good time to remember just how large an operation "Gigamining" is. It's not some guy in his mom's basement looking for weed money, and with the legal ambiguity surrounding what he does - if he isn't paying legal fees now to move Gigamining away from the darkness in legally gray territory, he'll likely pay much, much more later, even if he were to win future cases. Unfortunately, the cost of "going legal" is also pushed onto unit-holders, who didn't sign up for this, and are rightfully pissed. It's a shitty situation. -But, the alternative could be Giga's facilities and house being raided with all electronics confiscated, resulting in a near-worthless operation.

Think of it this way -- Giga's name and locations are (roughly, at least) known. The SEC has been prosecuting and investigating people who've issued some form of security for BTC. Giga's under much more legal scrutiny now than earlier this year, and now the legal shield of GLBSE (which was responsible for complying with many regulations, previously) is no longer in existence - so now all that legal risk's on Gigamining/VPS, which previously operated in a legal minefield even ignoring the legal risks Nefario or another exchange would take on. It's very possible, and probably likely, that Gigamining would be worthless within a year given the operation is high-value and no longer afforded the legal protections of an exchange taking most of the regulatory risk (Giga effectively has to issue some new security or figure out some other way to pay back unit-holders - and he's surely being watched by regulatory agents).

Can anyone point my to the post where gigavps tells if he pays the lawyer with the bitcoins invested by other people? I can't seem to find it.

I call it getting GLBSE'D

Definition: You invest coins in a bitcoin project and that project uses your coins to hire a lawyer who proceeds to use legal avenues to make it practically impossible you will get your bitcoins back.

GLBSE'D

I vote for the alternative. Just send me my coins back.

BTW: just after the huge mess that Nefario did trying to go legit, it can't believe someone paid a lawyer to produce the same expecting a different result.

I forgot to mention that I just opened a new bank account (here: http://tinyurl.com/astnu2j ) and they did not ask me all the sh*t Giga asks, and absolutely no affidavit.
Just figure.

I see your speculation tag and raise you two speculation tags. Yes, it is.


This may be true. What I still believe is that the reason for wanting the information is that you can't enter into contracts with unknown parties. Logically the way to resolve this would be to tell everyone who identifies that they will be given X in compensation and ask them to sign a settlement renouncing any other claims. You need the people's ID to draft such an agreement.

I'm not better informed than anyone on the matter, I don't have this from Giga or anything of the kind, it's just my guess based on how one'd reasonably go from the lawyer's position (ie, trying to untangle this mess somehow).


It's for the future tho, not for the past.

I mean: do you sign your email to his lawyer? With your real name? Because if you don't sign it, he might say that he doe snot deal with anons, and if you use a fake name it may start another mess.

Scammer time!

No you don't.

"If you have any questions or concerns, please address these to the law offices at the following e-mail or mailing address."

Rather obviously you want your questions and concerns addressed BEFORE you submit the requested information - would be a bit late afterwards.

Most transactions are conducted using Debit/Credit Cards and you prove ownership not by providing ID but by providing knowledge of a secret (the PIN number).

Similarly the exchange with which MPOE-PR is associated (MPEX) allows withdrawals and transaction without providing ID - but by proving knowledge of a secret (a private key).

To an equal extent ownership of an email and/or BTC address can be proven without providing ID.

In this case no ID was provided (or requested) when entering the arrangement - so proving ID NOW doesn't get anywhere nearer proving you controlled that email address/BTC address at the time at which the agreement was entered into.

To be clear: If you believe nefario's list then you don't need the ID to prove ownership.  If the list is treated as unreliable (i.e. the existence of an email/BTC address on there isn't itself accepted as proof of ownership by whoever controls them) then providing ID doesn't prove OR disprove ownership.

That's why I'd conclude the request has nothing to do with proving ownership - and everything to do with trying to cover his arse: the costs of which (to investors as well as to him) are his responsibility as (in short) he's the one who chose not to do it in the first place and the one who had the responsibility to disclose the need for it if it was required of him by regulation/law to obtain it.

This must be a joke 

In order to do that, you already have to identify yourself, and some could not like it as a start.

The economic problem is that these costs are per-claimant, not per bond. In some cases, these costs exceed the amount gigavps owes the bondholder. From a legal point of view, this is obviously irrelevant, I just want to point out that this whole mess needs to be replaced by a proper decentralised system based on cryptography. This case only proves the problems of barriers to entry and other types of transaction costs the legal system places on conducting business. There is nothing inherent in these costs, it's all just crap that for one reason or another accumulated over centuries.

This is surely not the case. GLBSE did not know the identity of the users, so this information cannot be used for authenticating the request against gigamining.

The bank also only needs this information because you proved your identity to them when you were opening an account in the first place, and there also used to be bearer-instruments. Due to stupid laws, these have been to a large extent eliminated, but when I was younger, there were bearer passbooks.

Building on that, I don't see why one person could not theoretically have multiple accounts with different email addresses.

Maybe that person could charge 2BTC per user + 10% of whatever's paid out, not fulfilling a batch of users' proxy claims unless there's at least 50BTC worth of commissions in the pot to justify getting all the legal nonsense and tax nonsense dealt with. That person should have at least thousands of dollars worth of losses this year. ........ ................................

On a related note, I lost >$50k this year paying out losses from BDK. ... Just sayin'.