Pages:
Author

Topic: Gigamining / Teramining - page 71. (Read 216459 times)

legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
November 23, 2012, 01:16:29 PM
For those not wanting to go through this process, why not hire a proxy to make the claims.  All GLBSE gave giga was email and bitcoin address and the total number of units held.

Not so bad idea, but in so doing we would expose ourselves to another scam opportunity (from the proxy, in case Giga pays him)
This if freaking unbelievable. It never ends
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
November 23, 2012, 01:12:48 PM
For those not wanting to go through this process, why not hire a proxy to make the claims.  All GLBSE gave giga was email and bitcoin address and the total number of units held.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 23, 2012, 12:46:53 PM
If gigavps needs that information in order to deliver on his obligations then there's no alternative other than to providing it.  However all costs associated with providing that information should be covered by him.

He wrote the contract.  He chose the site on which the trades were transacted.  At no stage was it made clear that this information would be needed - and it was never previously requested in order to disburse dividends or trade shares.

He's attempting to insert into the contract a requirement (which has costs to satify) on the other party unilaterally.  As such, all costs associating with fulfilling HIS new requirement should be met by him.

Well now, that's an argument that may have a lot of merit. I'm not prepared to argue any side of it, really.

It may be the case that "it was made clear by default", as a sort of the statutory catch-all (for instance, even if common law contracts don't include a clause saying that should the contract become disputed the courts will disentangle it according to their own practice and case law, that's nevertheless what happens, and any party's complaints that they didn't specifically agree to X precedent being relevant are dismissed).

It may be the case that identity is part of any contract dealing with property by logical necessity (since property cannot exist but with the identity of the proprietor - you can't go to the bank and ask for your money if you refuse to identify who you are even if it is in fact your money).

It may be that in fact gigavps should pay the notarization costs of legitimate claimants. It may be that the cost burden imposed on claimants is in fact so small as to be properly disregarded. My construction of the events was that gigavps sunk whatever dollar amount into BTC R&D in the shape of retaining counsel, for the first time ever having a set of questions answered by counsel etc. This is beneficial for BTC. In this context the users were expected to contribute a small fraction per capita, which they chaff at doing because in spite of the questions being important and the research valuable they can't manage to care about anything outside themselves - they have no practice doing business and no understanding of the costs of doing business (hence my comments about consumers). The case of Bitcoinica is rather similar.  

All of this is pretty much speculation on our part, but since this is a forum and all...why not.


On the point about claims arising later - that's essentially no different to what was previously happening.

Well...depends what essentially means. I suspect if someone complained in August about missing anything giga would have directed them to glbse, and the consensus would have been that he's right in doing so. I am guessing this is no different, really.

All that's happening now is that the list for distribution is being given to giga so he can disburse them directly.  Giga had no way previously of ensuring that dividends went to the correct counter-parties - and no means of rectifying any issues that arose over claims disputing ownership of rights.  He had to trust nefario then - same as he does now.

Exactly. Same as he does now. For him to get out of this situation, and for things to be different from how they are right now - for him to accept part of Nefario's liability - he has first to put in place some clear protections and limitations. He has to clearly pick and choose which bits he's accepting. He can't simply go about and accept the other man's bed of thorns. He didn't make it, there's no reason to ask him to lie in it.

Plus it's pretty unlikely that in 5 years time someone would be able to "prove" they owned shares now - without having even made any comment about it anyway.

The likeliness or unlikeliness doesn't enter into it tho, not at this level of discussion.

Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

This may also be, it explains just as well as the alternative above why he'd need to talk to identified people.

To the person saying what to do if you're under 18

This is actually an entirely fresh hell, and tbh it might quash the entire arrangement. I have no idea if the lawyer involved knows that some of the parties are underage, but it is one of those wildcards that nobody has much of a clue how to deal with.

always treat any formal demand as the starting point for negotiation, not as some absolute end point which has to be accepted or rejected.

This is good advice in the very general.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1006
Lead Blockchain Developer
November 23, 2012, 12:44:42 PM
Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

I think Deprived hit the nail on the head.

I also suspect that gigavps is violating his contract he had with his bond holders, and is thus exposing himself while trying to unexpose himself.  If you cannot continue operating under those terms, better to close out the bonds in an orderly fashion while abiding by the contract than to screw over everyone whose hand you shook while you took their money.

Then you can start up some new bonds with a clean conscience and follow all the rules.

legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1000
November 23, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1.

Agree. I think the bicoin community should finally do a revolution against such practices. I am happy to throw in all my few gigamining assets to go to court against them


You're being too premature.  Before you can even consider "going to court" (which would be a long time and a lot of expense away) you need to contact his lawyer and find out:

Whether he will pay all reasonable costs associated with fulfilling his demands for information,
If you're unable (or unwilling) to provide that information, what is he intending to do (e.g. keep the funds from you and not deliver any of his part of the agreement).

At the moment the official post doesn't address either of those points - and it's what he proposes to do in respect of those that would provide the basis for any action against him.  The demand itself is just that - a demand - if you choose to comply with it then that's your call.  If you'd prefer not to comply (or to have your costs reimbursed if you do) then you need to find out his stance on that before you can complain about it.

If the response is along the lines of "Either you comply or we'll keep your BTC and not fulfil our half of the agreement" THEN you have something to complain about.  Right now, that hasn't been said - so you need it to be said by his lawyer (of course it won't be worded in quite that way).

You could also ask WHY the information is being requested, how it will be stored, who will have access to it, what it will be used for, how long it will be kept for etc.  And IF it's being requested as part of giga's obligations to a regulatory body, which body that is - so you can check that his request is in accordance with the relevant rules/guidelines.  I only know the relevant UK situation - so it may be a bit different where he is.

Thanks a lot. I will do exactly what you proposed.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
November 23, 2012, 12:35:23 PM
How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1.

Agree. I think the bicoin community should finally do a revolution against such practices. I am happy to throw in all my few gigamining assets to go to court against them


You're being too premature.  Before you can even consider "going to court" (which would be a long time and a lot of expense away) you need to contact his lawyer and find out:

Whether he will pay all reasonable costs associated with fulfilling his demands for information,
If you're unable (or unwilling) to provide that information, what is he intending to do (e.g. keep the funds from you and not deliver any of his part of the agreement).

At the moment the official post doesn't address either of those points - and it's what he proposes to do in respect of those that would provide the basis for any action against him.  The demand itself is just that - a demand - if you choose to comply with it then that's your call.  If you'd prefer not to comply (or to have your costs reimbursed if you do) then you need to find out his stance on that before you can complain about it.

If the response is along the lines of "Either you comply or we'll keep your BTC and not fulfil our half of the agreement" THEN you have something to complain about.  Right now, that hasn't been said - so you need it to be said by his lawyer (of course it won't be worded in quite that way).

You could also ask WHY the information is being requested, how it will be stored, who will have access to it, what it will be used for, how long it will be kept for etc.  And IF it's being requested as part of giga's obligations to a regulatory body, which body that is - so you can check that his request is in accordance with the relevant rules/guidelines.  I only know the relevant UK situation - so it may be a bit different where he is.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
... it only gets better...
November 23, 2012, 12:34:13 PM
donator
Activity: 544
Merit: 500
November 23, 2012, 12:27:12 PM
The amount of my funds in any bond I held did not meet AML/KYC limits in any jurisdiction.
This is actually irrelevant, because only specific types of businesses need to adhere to AML/KYC, and I don't think gigamining is one of those businesses.
vip
Activity: 980
Merit: 1001
November 23, 2012, 12:25:17 PM
Dear James,
No thank you.
You are welcome to purchase my bonds back at last glbse price and send me the BTC.
The addrees I used to receive funds fromn GLBse was 1CDTRQcCTs5ZHLmUmvjFCk5veu3pB5SPZA
The amount of my funds in any bond I held did not meet AML/KYC limits in any jurisdiction. This is excessive and would appear to be an efort to drive off people trying to get thier BTC back so you can profit.
The cost of doing this legal paperwork and posting it to you would be more than the BTC you owe me.
Thank you,
Graeme Tee
Graet
Ozcoin Pooled Mining

copy of email to James and his lawyer
I call B.S. I thought giga was one of the good guys...

The only thing I'm unsure about is how to notorize an email response.

I can send that question to your lawyer if I must.

Just curious, do you have to pay the legal fees if I ask questions to them?

Please direct your question to the email listed in the request.

I have paid and will continue to pay all legal fees in this matter.
when you say "all" I assume you don't mean mine and 100's of other bond holders fees rather your fees and costs? If you do I guess your lawyer has advised on bankruptcy preparations...?
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1000
November 23, 2012, 12:22:13 PM
How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1.

Agree. I think the bicoin community should finally do a revolution against such practices. I am happy to throw in all my few gigamining assets to go to court against them
full member
Activity: 186
Merit: 100
November 23, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1 to Nefario, who looks like he will come out of this with a clear conscience at least
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1000
November 23, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
November 23, 2012, 12:11:11 PM
Wow, wtf. But on the other hand, business as usual, invest in a bitcoin business and you can be sure to get ass raped sooner or later. That's right what the bitcoin economy needs to grow.

I didn't sign up for this and demand to get my coins. I can send you my bitcoin claim address and the amount of bonds I own so you can crosscheck it (as nefario obviously is not to be trusted). I also have a plan B to prove that I'm the rightful owner of x bonds. That information must suffice.


Can someone point out where this was in the gigamining contract ?
This.
sr. member
Activity: 800
Merit: 250
November 23, 2012, 12:01:27 PM
Heh. Glad I sold all my Gigamining before GLBSE imploded.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
November 23, 2012, 11:58:43 AM
Can someone point out where this was in the gigamining contract ?

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
November 23, 2012, 11:50:27 AM
legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
November 23, 2012, 11:49:09 AM
Think of it in practical terms. Say he accepts 20k BTC worth of claims on the Internet, no questions asked. Five years from now it is proven Nefario lied, and there's new users for about 12k of those BTC. In five years that's a solid million and-then-some dollars.

Nefario could have pulled this and any other sort of scams since day one. But everybody trusted him all along. Just up to now. Now that is payback time is different: now you need an affidavit.
It makes sense.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 23, 2012, 11:37:32 AM
B/S. Since many are not going through the ordeal and expenses to recover their assets, and Giga knows it like anyone, he must even know that it is not him that is going to lose anything.

Think of it in practical terms. Say he accepts 20k BTC worth of claims on the Internet, no questions asked. Five years from now it is proven Nefario lied, and there's new users for about 12k of those BTC. In five years that's a solid million and-then-some dollars.

How is the business he's running supposed to budget for this?

Is he supposed to buy insurance? He can't buy insurance, nobody is selling (except Gumpys a la CPA).
Is he supposed to amortize it? Something a la Shtylman?
Or moreover, do you think he's supposed to just ignore it, because that's been up to date the "Stragetgy" of Gumpy Q. ForumFinancier: "ignore everything I don't understand!"?

The latter avenue, of hiding, ignoring and so forth is the very cause of the mess. It has been the cause of each and every other mess to date (and not just in BTC). It will forever remain the cause and producer of mess for as long as people still think that's an acceptable way to go.

I think it is commendable that someone for once stops with this "let's ignore all contingencies we don't like" and tries to act rationally. Yes, it will hurt a lot of people. Specifically, it will hurt all the people who actually realized a loss at the time GLBSE closed and failed to book it because they don't know what finance is, how business works or pretty much anything else.

As a subsidiary but very important point: the consumer attitude of people involved in Bitcoin has to cease. You are not consumers. Nobody cares if you are inconvenienced, you have no right to convenience. Nobody is taking unbounded liabilities for your comfort.

Bitcoin is not like going to the supermarket.


Very wrong metaphor. We just got another proof that anyone who "invested" on GLBSE should be enraged with his own foolishness first of all.

Indeed. Let's immortalize some textures & moments:

Also by the end of next week GLBSE will have options available (and the ability to make options) on all assets listed on GLBSE.

Nefario, Mircea Popescu spreads so much FUD about you and GLBSE, here and on IRC, you shouldn't go so lightly on him.

This is ridiculous! Why not GLBSE???!

What I don't understand is why S.DICE is going to IPO on this penny-ante exchange instead of GLBSE. I think that Mr. E.V.'s ideological fetishes might be putting the business sensibilities in the back seat. Which is dangerous for investors.

Business sense is not "Ideological fetishes". Time to finally learn that lesson?
newbie
Activity: 29
Merit: 0
November 23, 2012, 11:35:46 AM
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
November 23, 2012, 11:33:33 AM
wow.
Pages:
Jump to: