Topic: The BCH value in forum wallets - page 4. (Read 2837 times)

This reminds me of a similar situation. Yet it was you who was accused of wrongdoing and OGNasty who was one of the most vocal posters, yet here we are in a thread about him and not 1 comment? why on earth would that be ?

here are a few quotes I briefly took from the other thread - being me probably fucked up the order so don't hold it against me, blame my fat fingers.. I am sure someone else could do a better summary from the thread if they chose to.










Paid to do a job = staff... I believe some people are here.

Exactly, plus evident double-standards depending on who we are talking about. "No risk" my ass.

maybe he should donate them to Free Ross? or maybe an official charity?

It's hard to put the blockchain in a real world analogy. For my example I can imagine that the FED had the ability to issue money electronically and attach or detach currency based on holdings, which it could track.

Building upon the previous, I think a more proper analogy would be a bank claiming a currency issue for its own benefit by utilizing deposits in it's secure box service.

Now, the fact that there was no clause in the agreement to prevent this, doesn't mean that it doesn't violate ownership laws. If the intended recipient is the owner of the cash, he should have the power to decide what to do with the new cash. The bank wasn't given permission (ignoring regional law enforcement regulations) to access secure box contents on demand.
AND, the new currency issue, attaches to the cash (coins), and not the box (btc address). The fact that the cash was in the bank's box, only gives it the ability to access the cash and its attachments, but not permission to.

Coming back to BTC and forks, I would argue that since the original owner of the coins agrees with the treasurer that coins are just to be held secure, not spent, then airdrops should fall under the same umbrella. Since they were dropped to the treasurer only because of someone else's property, then the treasurer should abide by the rules treating them as BTC. Treasurer would not be getting an airdrops on the treasury address if it weren't for the treasurer coins anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to comment Theymos. Personally I believe its far more than just unprofessional, but im not quite as chilled a character as you.


See that's the bit that got me, personal greed without communicating intentions to the owner of the coins. That is far more than unprofessional, more underhand and slippery.

Sorry for that

It would indeed have looked much better if a forum treasurer managed to give back a few percent more more than he owed.

But he never risked any of the money to multiply it!


Oh wait nevermind:

Yes, and the very same financial experts that are rotting in prison you mean?

Both illegal unless agreed and intended upon before.

---

Double standards.

Yes that is certainly a matter that should be talked about and sorted out between the two parties. Either prior or even after if both are sensible and honest.

I don't think we should attempt to white wash or demonize until we have ALL of the details and the final agreement between the two parties concluded.

I certainly DO NOT THINK we should have people that have done THE SAME or WORSE all gathering and colluding into a lynch mob here for their OWN PERSONAL ENDS.

This is why you can not have people that are guilty of the same or WORSE trying to punish people without turning the entire board to a warzone

People dishing out disapproval/disgust/indignation and punishment need to be SQUEAKY clean themselves or human nature says fuck that bullshit.

(that is not aimed at you since we have no experience with you here, we are referring to others gathering)

Really? Multiply the assets for himself, or for the one who has entrusted him with the money?

As for banks et al. that usually entails them sharing the returns with the depositors' and they provide other services your average treasurer safeguarding other peoples' money won't provide.

Good points, the analogy stands and can be further extended.

Far more liberties are routinely taken with depositors' funds by banks, unions, retirement pools etc. to generate profits on a regular basis, so the outrage expressed by some members here is grossly exaggerated...

Philosophically it makes sense to hand over the hard-fork coins to the forum that purported to be direct competitors to BTC, like BCH & BSV; but with other airdrops and similar, the treasurer generating added value for himself, while abiding by his duties to the forum, should be totally fine.

Many financial experts would even further argue that it's the sign of a competent treasurer if he can make the assets entrusted to him multiply with reasonably risk-free activities   ...

Maybe OG informed nonnakip about airdrop and helped them to claim it to OG's addy.

Fair enough. We won't mention stellar airdrop then.

Ideally, it should be handled explicitly in the agreement, but this agreement predated the concept of forkcoins.

Hardforks are not impossible in Bitcoin, Bitcoin is not ruled by miners, and there is no objective way to determine what the true Bitcoin is.
It's annoying because:
 - Not asking was unprofessional.
 - Taking a private key out of cold storage always has some amount of risk.
 - I now have to spend time on this drama.

The airdrop amount is unimportant, and I'd feel exactly the same if the airdrop amount was 100x more or 100x less. If I'd been holding the BTC, no airdrops would've been received at all, since I never participate in those.

Almost positive they aren't the same person.  nonna just help run the ponzi seats.

---

He knew everyone was watching and expecting him to make those payments.
He didn't think anyone was watching for the airdrops though.

"Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching."
-CS Lewis

nonnakip = OG ?

or am I missing something here?

I don't think there is a need for another croatian dog yapping in here. Go yap at your croatian pal or alt lauda for doing the same thing in his escrow with other peoples BTC.

Theymos has ALREADY said he thinks it is a bit slimy so I see no need to keep giving opinions on it when theymos is well aware clearly now of what has happened.

This is how this bunch of colluders work here they all turn a blind eye to their own actions on doing the exact same thing or actually support each other for doing it. Then when someone else does the same or less they all harp on about it like they are totally disgusted by it LOL

We get it , it appears it could be a bit slimy. But your pals have done far worse.

Now let's wait for OG's comment himself.

It's strange THE SAME BUNCH are so mortified at behaviors they endorse from their pals. LOL

Doh! I know difference between airdrop and fork   Not really my point. Why OG returned BCH and didn't return GBYTE? Why he returned BCH, he was escrowing BTC for forum and owned 500BTC to forum, not BCH, not any other fork, BTC! Because those funds have never been his in first place, he was payed to keep them safe, it is like putting something into bank's safe deposit box, bank is not allowed to touch it. The same with airdrop - he claimed something with funds which are not his and instead informing owner of funds about his actions and handing funds over he closed his mouth shout and hoped no one will notice. It is just like bank breaking into your safe deposit box and using your property to make money, at least it would be morally right to send those funds to forum.

Now, we can argue should he keep that funds or not - I am sure we have very different opinion about this and we will probably spin in circle, you and some other members will say yes, me and some other members will say no, and that is ok, different people have different opinions but you can't argue that not informing theymos about this is pretty much dick move. New all time low by OG.

---

Thanks. So:
Is nonnakip's address.

Nice to virtue signal whilst supporting the other undeniable scammers and scammer supporters circling here trying to stir up shit against OG for the EXACT SAME THINGS (using other peoples funds to profit for themselves on forks) they have done previously to other members.

OG should be allowed to comment before his known enemies here that will say or do anything to discredit him.

LOL like you would be ever seeing that 500 BTC again if you had given it to lauda, tman, owlcatz, yogg or any other scum bag here bad mouthing him like hypocrites for things they have done themselves OR actually they have done far worse.

This thread seems to have been derailed and theymos has answered the original points addressed in the initial post.

OG should just comment to clear it all up.  Then if theymos says it is fair the board has a slice of any forks claimed that would be for them to work out between them.

Wait for OG to come here and comment himself.

Theymos has said it looks a bit" skanky" or whatever to have done this so I'm sure OG is off crying somewhere lashing himself since I have never seen him dare to answer theymos back before although I know he fucking hates the new "improved" systems of control. Those stern words from theymos will have been devastating for him.

Let's not forget he gave the " good" forks and all the 500BTC back after years of holding it.  I wonder how many other members theymos would have counted on for that.  Don't think he would be asking tman, lauda or the newanon here to hold 500 btc for a few years for me would you haha

He knew everyone was watching and expecting him to make those payments.
He didn't think anyone was watching for the airdrops though.

"Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching."
-CS Lewis

That sums it up nicely.  All we can really do for the future is try to encourage the standardisation of clauses in escrow contracts that would share the profits of any airdrops/forks/whatever-new-methods-of-claiming-free-alts-arise-in-future, so that it might be of mutual benefit to both parties.  Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

//EDIT:  DireWolfM14 beat me by a minute, heh.

//DOUBLE_EDIT:  I'll add a second point so as not to be repetitive:


I can see you're still not happy about it, but, technically, didn't we, as an entire community, drop the ball on this one?  If we knew of the existence of the forum funds and also knew of the existence of a no-risk airdrop and collectively didn't manage to put 2+2 together, aren't we all a little bit culpable for this?  I mean, obviously in hindsight, it feels like a no-brainer.  But still, I kinda feel like it should have occurred to more of us to point it out sooner.