Topic: Should Giga be tagged as a scammer? - page 11. (Read 17449 times)

I agree with you and myself


But seriously.  This is an evident problem with securities issued in the Bitcoin space.  Because issuers don't formally establish pseudonymity status in the contract language they are *free to reveal personal details that jeopardize asset holders that wish to maintain their pseudonymity when the issuer faces meatspace regulatory problems.

* Free to reveal their own personal details and then request the personal data of others while not being prosecuted for it in the pseudonymous community.
As evidenced by Theymos' ruling not to give Giga a scammer tag.

What I wish to see is exchanges taking up the matter of whether an asset contract should be considered supporting pseudonymity.  This would be part of the asset listing process where pseudonymity status would have to be contractually defined.

Then, when the shit hits the fan we can persecute these asset issuers that don't really care about the privacy of others.

Probably on the grounds that he's never met a private individual by the name of Gigavps.


This actually sounds pretty convincing.


Ooof. So this group actually exists.

No this is incorrect, there is another group of people besides those that have received double payments or those that have not submitted a claim to GLBSE that are not in the asset list provided by Nefario.  These are people, like me, who have submitted a claim and not received a double payment, yet are still not listed in the asset lists.

Do your homework before acting like Nefario's parrot.

On what basis did you conclude that it wasn't unreasonable for gigavps to make agreements as a private individual and now attempt to alter history (and limit his own liability) by falsely claiming that those agreements were made with an LLC?  This is about the only issue on which I believe it likely giga deserves a scammer tag right now.

Do you believe it reasonable that someone holding say 1 giga share who doesn't live in the US is now expected to pay probably $50-$100 in fees to satisfy giga's requirements and obtain back their <1 BTC worth of assets?  Or is it reasonable that they should just give up on their claim "because nefario"?

I could partially understand giga's position if the requirements for ID etc were applied only to investors who EITHER:

a) Had large holdings,
OR
b) Didn't have details in the list provided by nefario.

But requesting it from all?  Is that really reasonable?

Next: let's imagine I submit a claim (with all the relevant documents) - I'm either on the list or I'm not.  Now what?  Is my claim approved regardless?  If so - then it's a scammer's charter as there's no likely means by which it could ever be proven that I DIDN'T own the shares.

Or is my some other basis used to determine whether the claim is approved?  If so - what value is the ID actually adding to the process?  There's nothing it can be compared against.  Sure - in theory it allows recourse against me - but that's a theory that could almost certainly never be put into practice (how to prove I didn't believe I owned shares).

This approach WILL totally deter small scammers - and equally totally make it impractical for smaller investors to reclaim their assets.  It's a minor to middling inconvenience for large investors - and a huge bonus for any big scammers, as it adds a negligible amount of risk whilst giving a greatly improved chance of them actually getting something.  

If the argument gos along the lines of "well we won't pay out big claims until nefario's confirmed their details" then what's the point of requesting ID from anyone not on the list?  Surely they should just be told to contact nefario and get themselves on the next updated list - and the ID becomes irrelevant as the list is (essentially) being relied on.

For the record I'm not submitting a claim and am 99.99% sure I didn't hold any giga when GLBSE closed (the .001% is the chance that other assets sold and a buy order for giga filled in the last 10 minutes of trading, but I don't believe I even had a giga buy order up).

Do you realize that if Nefario gave fake info in the list is his exclusive responsibility? Now this is a good alibi isn't it? Since that info could be incorrect Giga is going to keep all the assets of the investors who have too little to lose money in translations, lawyers and official b/s.

Nice of you to NOT pay any attention to the law when BTC was collected. But lets not dwell on that.


This NOT a news that the list will be incomplete. Why? Because James sent out some coin twice by mistake. Some returned the coin, some did not.
Those who did not return the coin got the warning that their names will be removed from asset holders list until they return the coin (some thread in the forum)
There is a good chance, that some people have not even returned to GLBSE and completed the simple step required to be on the list.
1) Deal with people who ARE on the list
2) Collect the claims from those who are NOT on the list and call James to find out, wtf is going on wit them
[/quote]

see 2


Wow, nice hyperbole indeed.
See 1 and 2

No James, it is not. All you have done is pissed everyone off because you changed the rules and now you demand information, costly to share holders,  that will not! help you in any fkn way to clear up this mess.

Put on your thinking hat and tell your blood sucking lawyer to piss off and fuck himself
Cheers darling

My previous question about non-complete shareholders list is answered here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1353048

I have been sent PMs on the forum with claims that are currently not on the GLBSE lists given.


Revealing your identity provides legal recourse should you not be entitled to payments received. Verifying that you own a public key does little other show you own the address.

So... Nefario didn't send giga the whole list of shareholders? I can't imagine the reason behind this. I know about the double payment issue, and Nefario waiting for the extra payments to be returned, but this seems to be unrelated issue.
Question for giga: people contacted by you via email was on the Nefario's list, or you have some other sources?
Question to everyone: How can revealing of identity prove you are rightful shareholder, if giga doesn't have trustworthy source to compare with (if we consider Nefarios list untrustworthy)?

It has already been explained above why this is at all effects a scam.
And I see a clear malicious intent because he is asking for things that in many countries cost much more than the asset's value of the average investor. Since I don't think that he is willing to pay for official translations, lawyers and time lost for all of his investors, he must know like anyone else that a lot of his bonds cannot be claimed in this way.

How do you know Nerfario isnt 25% of the claimants ?

OK, I'll accept that you are of the point of view that now that the lists are released, those addresses should be paid without any further verification. I accept that as a valid argument.

I also accept gigavps' argument that if he doesn't do further verification of these lists, he opens himself to a mess if nefario is proven to have lied about the info in the future.

I think you both have good-faith arguments there. I just want to point out that without the "invented legal bullshit", specifically without the pressure gigavps' lawyer put on nefario to release lists that nefario must have had no intention of ever releasing, based on his actions up to the escalation of the legal pressure,  there would be no lists, and no addresses to repay.

So I accept that some people will consider gigavps a scammer for not paying the lists as given by nefario, but gigavps' work in obtaining these lists in the first place, precludes the possibility of his intentions being to not pay at all. So say he should pay dividends indefinitely without any further info because you think that's the right thing to do, but don't project false intent to scam back to everything he did.

I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.

To the bitcoin community:

We are all in the very unenviable position of riding in the wake of the aftermath of James McCarthy. I have been placed in a very bad spot in this wake, and my only goal is to protect and serve Gigaminers as I have over the last half year.

I would like to point out that I am the only asset issuer on GLBSE, as far as I am aware, who is trying to move forward and abide by all the laws of local, state, federal and international law. I am the only asset issuer, as far as I am aware, to hire legal counsel and to send via certified mail, a demand letter to James McCarthy after multiple unanswered emails and phone calls. I am fairly confident that the asset lists only started arriving once the letter was received.

Further more, how exactly would you like me to handle situations where claims are made against gigamining that are not in the list provided from GLBSE? Should I and all Gigaminers just keep trusting nefario? This is the exact reason to have a claims process in the first place. Nefario is withholding information for a mistake he made, Gigaminers should not have to suffer because of Nefario's mistakes any longer.

I have received claims for over 10% of Gigamining that are NOT on the lists given to me by GLBSE. This is a significant percentage and it warrants the claims process.

Finally, what should happen if I pay the wrong individual a large amount of the held coins? Guess what, I'm still on the hook according to the law. It is only right to protect the interests of all Gigaminers by making sure I have legal recourse should such a situation occur.

I hope it is clear that I am only trying to clean up and move forward from the situation at hand.

Best regards,
James

He has already all the info needed to pay his investors. If the lists are incomplete, he can start paying who is already in the list. There is no freaking need of any invented legal bullshit.

No. If he had not been the one to legally pressure nefario into providing the lists, it wouldn't have mattered one bit that he is not anonymous, it is impossible to pay people if you don't have those lists. By the way, nefario has admitted the lists are even incomplete.

The difference is that he is not anonymous, and that in this way he can steal legally (or quasi-legally).
See the light?

If that were the case it would have been much easier to do nothing than to hire a lawyer to express to nefario several times on the record that if he didn't send the lists there would be consequences. If giga wanted to make it difficult for investors to get paid he wouldn't have done this, and it would have been near impossible for investors in any other glbse asset to get paid either.

Yes, I expect an inflation of scammers tags soon. But spare me your delusions about Giga's integrity. He's openly looking for a way to make as difficult as possible for his investors to get paid.

Its telling that Giga hasnt responded to the allegations.

He really needs to state his case.