Topic: The BCH value in forum wallets - page 6. (Read 2837 times)

If he didn't return the 500 BTC that wouldn't be a scam then? Because the BTC was all his according to the code.


Search for OOUIJTHWY5PANA7P2YUJX67VVN2QZYIX here:

http://transition.obyte.org/

no mate think the GBYTE was much more, let me look at some numbers and ask people who bothered to claim - i know real money was made by some

If I got this correctly, there is cca 10BTC not claimed by Theymos and cca 7BTC claimed by OG? ~17 btc doesn't sound like it is "not big deal", but whatever  

Can you please post link? Most addresses from that list are, as I can see, OG's, but what about this one? Does it mean mindtrip is OG's alt account?

Then why did the Treasurer hand over BCH and whatever other shitcoins?
Why did he not hand over the GBYTE?

I can answer that - everyone knew about the BCH and forks. The Treasurer omitted to tell Theymos or anyone else about said GBYTE - especially damming when they were worth 0.3BTC each at some point.

lets play a game - who can do the math.... if its less than 10BTC ill keep quiet and move on about my day - if its more than that - how about you just shhh....

As a reminder: theymos responded already:
I learned a new word (tacky), it's a clear view on the matter, so I don't think this leaves anything else to discuss.

See this post.

LOL.  I definitely see your point.  

OK, so is this what actually happened?  I haven't read every post in this thread but I've read most of them (I think)--did OgNasty claim the BCH for himself or not?  It sounds like not.  

How about the other forks, the shittier ones than BCH?  There's like Bitcoin Gold, Diamond, Private, etc., and they aren't worth nothing by any means.  Not that this is any of my concern.  I'm just mildly curious.  When all of these forks happened I had zilch for bitcoin holdings and thus wasn't entitled to those ass nuggets masquerading as cryptocurrency.

This is kind of the same argument that was made against Lauda a while back in that escrow deal (if I'm recalling correctly).  There was a fork during the time period of the escrow that wasn't turned over to the people who were to receive the BTC.  I remember questioning this issue at the time, because it was kind of a unique situation and wondered whether it had been discussed beforehand or not.  So I guess I'm wondering whether this was discussed between OgNasty and Theymos beforehand.  The sums of money are not insignificant I'm pretty sure.

Edit:
Alright, thank you I appreciate you pointing my ADHD-addled brain in the right direction.  That's what I get for posting before reading everything.

Forum contract, HIS coins..
You own a contract with that escrow or exchange you deposit to, they (the keyholder) own the coins..

Forum Coins, Forum Coins.

He claimed them from HIS keys.. HIS keys..
It possibly would have been a nice thing for him to offer this claimed value to theymos, but I do not think it is or was a requirement to do so..
I don't know if it was a requirement for him to hand over ANY forks or anything claimed from HIS keys in order to abide by the contract, which was for the return of BTC only, but it is awful nice of him to have done so, because he is a good guy and it's the right thing to do..

He owned the keys period, so even giving the BTC back is nothing more than a testament to his morality and trustworthiness, because when those Bitcoins were on HIS keys, the Bitcoin code says he owned them too.. Bitcoin doesn't give one shit about anything you write, be it a joke or a contract, unless you fork/insert it into the Bitcoin code itself, he who owns the keys owns the contents..

We preach all the time about owning your own keys guys, lol..


I don't think that matters because the keys are his and technically so were all the BTC in the keys at the time according to the code..


I wouldn't consider it shady at all..
I consider it if you cared about it you should have owned your own keys or atleast had an agreement with the keyholder on the topic of forks/airdrops, as is usually how it goes..

Why should they NOT claim anything they can?
It's just nice of them to give it to you if they do, if it wasn't stipulated in any contract..


Only if theymos asks for them..


He returned the huge amount of BTC and now all the "major" forks..
His reputation is only getting better, lol..

actually would of been loads more - IIRC there were loads of drops (I was too stupid to listen to a mate about it) he ended up buying a new car off the back of all the returns.. and he didn't have 500BTC sat in a wallet.

He didn't have to.  It was obviously the morally right thing to do though.

Handing over the airdrop funds also seems like the only ethical thing to do.

OG will have less motivation to do the right thing now since his reputation will suffer whether or not he hands over the funds (unlike the BCH situation)

Hand over the air drop funds:
Confirms that he believes it's the right thing to do, also confirms that he knew it was wrong to be sneaky about it.  Many will assume he only did the 'right thing' because he got caught.


Keep the airdrop funds:
He might be able to convince some people he did nothing wrong at all since it's a bit complicated. The free money isn't bad either.  I think it would do considerably more damage to his reputation in the long run though.

Yeah but most airdrops depended on the amount of BTC in that address, except maybe CLAM, but even that required a certain minimum. Og is entitled to sign a message with that address and to get 0 GBYTE for the 0 BTC he had in it.


I would consider that quite shady, if not technically a scam (because they didn't promise me any airdrops).

Granted the only custodial account of any significance that I had at the time was with Coinbase and they did eventually credit BCH to my account. I don't know if they claimed GBYTE. I think that's very unlikely.

Jolly good for you.. I don't ask your mum what colour panties I should wear today either, see the correlation here? you are not trusted with funds so why would you communicate anything?

The wallet address had forum funds, without the escrow in that wallet the address would not of been eligible for the airdrop....

Right, but the keys are his property..
You can't claim an airdrop with a screenshot of your balance in a 3rd party wallet/exchange either, or by showing an escrow contract..


Well, is the local systems admin the owner of the keys or just contracted to manipulate the keys owned by the company?
I would think the keys would be owned by the company, and an employee doing anything with the keys outside of their job expectation would be unethical up to the point of stealing the same as if they were to take everything off of the company's keys..

I don't ask theymos for consent on what I do with my keys either..

But did he have to hand over the BCH and other "major" forks in order to fulfill the contract, or was he just a good guy for doing so?

If all of that is true, I would LOVE to see the backtracking that will take place.

EDIT..


So that proves that Mr Nasty had not communicated his intention to claim GBYTE from the forum funds. This does question his integrity IMO

I think it's safe to assume the answer is 'no'.

OG signed up for the airdrop
Theymos did not sign up for the airdrop
1st Time Theymos heard about the airdrop was in this thread (if I am reading his post correctly)
OG claimed the Airdrop coins without Theymos's consent or knowledge
OG did not offer to send the Airdropped coins/or converted BTC equivalent as theymos didn't know about it.
OG handed over the BCH, president has been set there.
Theymos chose to not ask for the shittest of shitcoins - don't blame him, who can be arsed.

please do not take the above as gospel (I am not TOAA) - but it would be interesting to hear from Mr Nasty about what happened to the GBYTE and or BTC gained from said shitcoindrop...

The amount of GBYTE airdropped was based entirely on the Bitcoin holdings on the address. So if someone joined by signing a message from an empty private key, he got nothing.

Some exchanges have indeed done that. But what if it's just their local system administrator who claims it for himself instead of the company?

Yes I would consider this a "waste" of an opportunity to..

1. Dump on shitcoins..
2. Increase holdings of BTC by dumping shitcoins for BTC..
3. Increase the general value of BTC by dumping on shitcoins, taking that value out of the shitcoin and putting it back into BTC..

From the perspective of a self admitted Bitcoin supremacist (me), relentlessly dumping on any airdrops and forks is good for Bitcoin..


The question of if the topic of airdrops was discussed between OG and theymos is a question.. I wonder if their has been any mention of this subject between them at all..

If OG simply had to sign a BTC message from HIS keys it is debatable if the airdrop value should be his or not anyway, because they are OG's keys..
The forum's BTC on OG's keys is the forum's bitcoin, but the keys themselves are the property of OG and not theymos or the forum..

Understanding this, I think it could be debated that if not stated otherwise in any contract all forks and airdrops are the property of the key owner period, and therefore ANY value from forks or airdrops given to the escrow customer along with the BTC could be considered nothing more than a good deed, even as far as a donation..

At what point is an escrow responsible to claim all forks and airdrops for whoever they are holding coin for?
I think many escrows, exchanges, etc. now have disclaimers about this as in "I will not be held responsible for getting your forks/airdrops for you. I may, but may not." now that forks and airdrops are common, but back when the escrow contract for the forum funds was made I believe was before them to be common or of any concern..

Is an exchange a scam if they claim airdrops on their keys that are full of customer funds and not disperse these claimed values to the customer?

I think this is an interesting philosophical question of who has the right to these sorts of miscellaneous fork/airdrop values based on who owns the keys or what is contracted with the contents of the keys..