He was already an accessory to a massive ponzi scheme - why anyone would have expected any other outcome in all this is beyond me 
Didnt Trendon go to a lawyer too?
Topic: Should Giga be tagged as a scammer? - page 9. (Read 17477 times)
Didnt Trendon go to a lawyer too?
He was already an accessory to a massive ponzi scheme - why anyone would have expected any other outcome in all this is beyond me
He should be tagged as scammer. He refuses to pay dividends and buyback bonds. Instead we have agreement to sign with notarized stamp!
Also a claims process that requires you to be part of the deception as to the true nature of the relationship that was in place as he tries to cover his ass with your help in doing it. BTW I would add that lying in a legal document such as a notarized statement is a criminal offense in most countries.
He should be tagged as scammer. He refuses to pay dividends and buyback bonds. Instead we have agreement to sign with notarized stamp!
do you see how that addresses the problem?
I don't, because it doesn't. And in the immortal words of Tim Roth (in 4 Rooms), "Problems. Plural."
1. With no central authority ANYONE can issue an asset or more shares/units of an existing one (if they own it) at any time. So it would get flooded with junk assets pretty quickly. Don't think that's quite as bad as it at first seems.
Indeed. It is not as bad as it first seems, it's much worse than that. The idea of a decentralized exchange was just shot dead.
Not that pseudo-investors and wannabe-financiers aren't entirely free to re-try the failure of GLBSE after some cosmetic improvements. But, as bad as the technical side of GLBSE was, what sunk it was financial incompetence, not technical incompetence (tho the latter didn't help, especially in the later stages).
Nah, there's at least two ways to address that issue (which is why I said it's not as bad as it at first looked). This'll be my last post on this subject - as it's off-topic - but here's the concept behind two ways to address it:
A fee for creation of the asset - either sent to the developer's wallet or destroyed.
External vetting authorities (no need for them to be predefined) who approve asset issues. Whilst any asset can be listed, users can choose to the restrict the list of ones they SEE to those with approval from their own list of vetting authorities. Vetting authorities could be individuals, companies or a forum thread where votes were held and one trusted individual then signs the approval transaction with a defined key. Such authorities are self-appointed, can't block an asset issue, can't cancel one - but CAN be used as a means to filter out the spam.
If you have to PAY to spam AND most people won't even see it, do you see how that addresses the problem?
1. With no central authority ANYONE can issue an asset or more shares/units of an existing one (if they own it) at any time. So it would get flooded with junk assets pretty quickly. Don't think that's quite as bad as it at first seems.
Indeed. It is not as bad as it first seems, it's much worse than that. The idea of a decentralized exchange was just shot dead.
Not that pseudo-investors and wannabe-financiers aren't entirely free to re-try the failure of GLBSE after some cosmetic improvements. But, as bad as the technical side of GLBSE was, what sunk it was financial incompetence, not technical incompetence (tho the latter didn't help, especially in the later stages).
Better than going to the state.
Maybe in theory but not in practice.
Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic.
So nefario is a scammer, and I was able to get my coins back from him.
There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.
Just for the record, a decentralized exchange is nonsense.
Nah it's not.
Conceptually it isn't all that difficult in fact. There are, however (for the model I have in mind - with a blockchain managing share ownership alongside the existing BTC chain) some pretty serious practical issues with it:
1. With no central authority ANYONE can issue an asset or more shares/units of an existing one (if they own it) at any time. So it would get flooded with junk assets pretty quickly. Don't think that's quite as bad as it at first seems.
2. There would be pretty extreme latency on trade completion.
3. There's be no fast flipping of shares - they'd be locked for a not insignifcant amount of time (talking an hour or two, not days) post transaction.
4. Every client would have to do a fair amount of data processing.
5. All transactions and blocks of shares owned would be linked to a BTC address - if the public is processing transactions rather than a central authority then the public knows that information rather a central authority.
I imagine my concept is very similar to that of many other people's. The key hurdles to ovecome are two:
1. Removing the need for any central body holding/escrowing funds.
2. Matching Bids/Asks.
The first is the biggest one (with that addressed the concept works for matching trades - with deal-makingh aving to be done elsewhere). Easiest way (that I'd have thought of) to do that is to make transactions transferring share ownership conditional upon the existence of a transaction in the BTC block-chain.
So if I want to sell you X shares of company A for Y BTC then:
1. I make a transaction in the share blockchain transferring X shares of company A to you.
2. That transaction is made conditional upon the existence of a tagged transfer (various ways to do this - obvious ones being last few digits of amount, an/or the sending BTC address) in the BTC chain of Y BTC to a specified BTC address.
3. That transaction is processed into the shares block-chain - but is treated as conditional by all clients until the condition is met (and flagged as deleted if the condition isn't met within whatever time-scale is defined).
4. When you're satisfied the conditional transaction is irreversible (i.e. confirmed sufficient as not to worry about it being 51%ed) you send the BTC.
5. When the BTC payment is confirmed, the transaction in the share block-chain becomes confirmed and only then does the client software of all users treat the shares as belonging to you and able to be transferred.
That's just the basic idea - but it's ONE way of removing the need for funds to ever be sent to a third-party. If you master that (obviously all of the above would need to be automated in the client), then implementing Bids/Asks is relatively straightforward.
Can't say I've spent much time on it - but have given it a bit of thought. It would even be possible to develop it with a built in fee for the developer/maintainer (for asset issuing to reduce spam junk assets and/or for actual transaction fees). Haven't addressed incentive for mining the block-chain, but there's a few ways to provide that.
There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.
Just for the record, a decentralized exchange is nonsense.
No, it's not, but it's not a trivial thing to implement. I could describe it for you if you hire me as a consultant.
BTW I know for a fact at least two parties are working on this, and I have consulted with both of them already. I've been told there are others as well.
There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.
Just for the record, a decentralized exchange is nonsense.
do the bond holders have what should have been paid to them on a certain date? NO?
then give him the scammer tag now and let him prove via actions he should not have it.
pay the divs and buy back your crap bonds at issue price since there is no exchange to trade
them at and thus no fair way to value them. thus bond issue price times 1.05.
then give him the scammer tag now and let him prove via actions he should not have it.
pay the divs and buy back your crap bonds at issue price since there is no exchange to trade
them at and thus no fair way to value them. thus bond issue price times 1.05.
Quote
whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
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).
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").
It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.
Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.
If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.
This has now become a legal proceeding what is on that page matters. In order for any legally binding outcome to happen the claims page must truthfully describe the circumstances otherwise it is void. Nor should you even be asked to participate in an act which is a fraud upon the legal proceeding being sought. I do not what kind of lawyer he has got but I for one cannot see his coming out of a law office having been advised to put that page up as it is from a lawyer who knew all the facts. Has to have been him saying well I made this agreement with these guys on the internet now things are screwed where do we go now, no way that page comes up after saying I issued these bonds a lawyer cannot do that and lie about a legal proceeding and its purpose he's disbarred for certain most likely jailed as well.
Quote
whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
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).
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").
It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.
Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.
If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.
A portion of the outcome can never be larger than the outcome. And the word outcome has a specific meaning -use of it precludes something like "fixed" as that isn't dependent on the outcome.
But yeah - the claims page isn't the agreement. However, as it's inviting claims it's pretty important that it accurately reflects the contract otherwise someone who held bonds could look at it and think "Nah - that's not referring to what I have, as I bought fixed-rate bonds and that's talking about something else where I get a part of what is actually mined.". Maybe when they amend it, they should put a copy of the contract up on a second page (and link to it) so it's clear what they're asking people to claim on?
Quote
whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
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).
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").
It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.
Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.
If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.
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.
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.
Quote
whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
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).
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.
Thats because one is a financial instrument and one is an equipment lease.
If he offers the first and admits to it the SEC can have his balls in a sling.
They are already there he is all over this forum, in my very few minutes of searching, stating he is selling bonds in his own words. No getting by that and as I have already wrote his lawyer to remind him of his obligations under the law to not knowingly misrepresent material facts of a legal proceeding. The claims page that does just that may be about to change if not I will contact the proper legal authorities to report both of them.
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.
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.
Quote
whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
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).
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.
Thats because one is a financial instrument and one is an equipment lease.
If he offers the first and admits to it the SEC can have his balls in a sling.
I usually follow the mod's decision without question but in this case, from what Gigavps has said, he issued a contract on GLBSE in full knowledge he would never keep it -- as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning.
Can you please quote me where I have ever said this.
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.
I usually follow the mod's decision without question but in this case, from what Gigavps has said, he issued a contract on GLBSE in full knowledge he would never keep it -- as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning.
This makes him a scammer, because he lied to his investors from the very beginning (ala Kraken fund) about what he was doing.
However I'm not the owner of these forums so this is of course just my opinion.
don't project false intent to scam back to everything he did.
To be clear this is not what I am doing. He actually did have a very real intent to scam, as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning, his contract on GLBSE was fraudulent.
Jump to: