Topic: Should Giga be tagged as a scammer? - page 10. (Read 17477 times)

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

Consider what happens in those two cases if he is unable to mine for a week.  In the new version clearly the "outcome of this processing" is zero - and ANY portion of zero is still zero.  In the original contract the payment would be equivalent to X MH/s worth of mining.  That's obviously just the most extreme example - but same principle applies to any other rise or fall in his actual mining results.

It's an entirely different thing.  It's not just some rewording  - it's an attempt to cover his arse by pretending he offered data processing rather than a bond paying a calculated amount per week irrespective of what the outcome was of his actual operation.  And you're not dumb enough not to have already realised that.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts.

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

@BadBear: I completely agree with your argumentation.

In my opininion the scammer tag identifies as well people that couldn't keep their agreements.

@Giga I think you are in a very nasty situation (of course it depends on the point of view) it leaves a lot of room for speculation...
I just don't like, that you change NOW the terms of operation, I doubt, if you would have asked all this information before, that anybody would have had invested into your bond ?!

Of course everybody can understand that you might feeel pushed by law, but in my opinion you had to think about this before you issued your bond. I am sure there is many other miners that didn't issue any shares/bonds etc. via GLBSE because exactly of this reason !

Probably there will be no "clean solution" that's gonna satisfy everybody...

No learning to do that is the theory they teach, now what actually gets put into practice is another matter...

A few days before Nefario decided to move and start releasing information, I was talking with Gigavps on IRC and he mentioned getting a lawyer and making attempts to retrieve the data. Had this data not be recovered at all, proof of ownership would be impossible for anyone. I am certain Gigavps's effort helped the situation progress.

Me and a few reputable members/asset issuers were not on some assets list although we should and for large amounts of shares. Which tells us we should be precautious about the received data. The identification and affidavit purpose is really in case if there are false claims that get paid, you know who to go after to get back the stolen funds, should further data be uncovered that others were actually owed the funds. No, there was no indication that any identification document would be collected when the contracts were bought. But the fact "official data" would get lost/dubious was not planned and Gigavps made no official promise as to how people could collect the produced Bitcoins other than he'd give a predetermined amount per contract. He is, technically, still willing to fulfill all his contractual promises which is to pay 5 mhash/s of Bitcoins generation per contract.

As far as I'm concerned, the willingness to execute the contract clauses is all that matter. If the "how" he attempts to execute it does not satisfy others, I do not hold him responsible for that as neither party agreed on how the Bitcoins would be collectable should GLBSE close down. If he insists on protecting himself legally, I see no reason to try and force him to do otherwise.

You've got some learnin' to do.

The state exists to guarantee your rights as a citizen until such time as they are taken from you by a court of law.

The only thing that will work in the current system is if someone rich or famous gets stolen from. They dont care if you get your drug money stolen.

The point is neither will work. And the state prevents you from taking the only option that does.

The state exists to protect criminals and without it they would face real consequences. Its not there for your protection.

Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic.

Name one person who has gotten bitcoins back from going to the state ?

I think scammers would have  a field day if it got involved, only the scammers would be the government workers and they would have the guns to back the theft. They can use laws to avoid any repurcussion at all such as bankruptcy. Better to find a third way, that we are in fact on an island and there are no police. Say what you like about the mafia but if you rip them off there are consequences. The cops dont even investigate if your house gets burgled, unless you are famous or rich.

I think it's a short term vs. long term debate.

In the short term yes, you may be able to go to the state and rely on their muscle to get some money back. But in the long term our reliance on the state prevents us from discovering better alternatives.

Maybe in theory but not in practice.

Better than going to the state. Granted, for the people who lost a ton of coin, a scammer tag is hardly restitution.

The truth is that we're in the process of creating a new economy. There are going to be trials and errors. There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.

Agreed. And it fills up the forum with garbage.

This is atually a major problem, people are too dependent on scammer tags and consider it  "prosecution".

Yes, GPG would have solved this issue and many others associated with the collapse of GLBSE.

Let us together read one such contract:


MPEx in fact is set up in such a manner that IT COULD NOT reveal anything. Let's read from the FAQ: