Bitcoin Forum

I found myself looking over the forum wallet accounts this evening and thought it was worth an ask. What is the forums plan for the BCH that is available to them?
The forums main wallet - 19XTo6BHpPHSkW5cm183VrgEYpGjVJmQEt currently has 750 BCH available, which could be 23.4 BTC.

I never had to go through the experience of recovering BCH when the fork happened, but am sure that it is something that could be easily handled. So I'm not sure if I'm missing something or the plan has just been to hold BCH as well. This is also the minimum that I assume is available to the forum as there were likely some other hot wallet accounts that had smaller amounts available.

Granted I don't look into BCH often, and just happened to use blockchain.com, so I clicked in the BCH option for kicks. So maybe I'm missing something that is obvious to others.

The IRS (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191502.0) guy settling in to watch this thread like:

https://i.imgur.com/ipTexme.jpg

I love it. To be fair though, I'm sure theymos received one of those fancy little letters saying "we think you have something to do with crypto" or whatever the wording was, his was probably the nice one that said we think you have filed properly. I'd wager theymos has the I's crossed the the T's dotted, when it comes to paying what is required in regards to taxes for the forum. He does comply with the laws of the jurisdiction as required.

The major forks for the BTC previously held by OgNasty will be liquidated sometime before the end of the year. When this is done, you'll see a bunch of BTC sent to 17RTT[...]. The forkcoins for the other BTC will not be liquidated soon.

If this is done in one go we can await some fluctuations in the price of the forked BTC/shitcoins pairs then. Some people will take a chance to make some money from the whole thing.


Good to know. :)

It won't be.

Sounds like a solid plan. Thanks for the response. Maybe you can PM Ver to take it off your hands. Help him get rid of some of that failed Bitcoin core his customers still give him  :P

The result of the liquidation of 500 BTCs' forkcoins was:
   14.272715 from BCH
   6.818999 from BSV
   0.442951 from BTG
 = 21.534665 BTC
 
Due to having low value, other forkcoins on this 500 BTC were not transferred.

I had no desire to play the market here, so the forkcoins were sold in several transactions spread throughout November. And there was no particular reason for doing it in November as opposed to earlier or later: it was just a convenient time.

Selling forks, engaging in the art scene. Sounds like someone has to much free time on their hands  :P
Thanks for the transparency and keeping everyone in the loop.

Why is this being done? You have stated previously that the fourm had no plans to do anything with it? It should have been converted to btc when the ratio was higher.

Why convert it now and not keep it bch if the fourm doesn't need btc.

The BTC was being moved, so the forkcoins had to be handled in some way. The alternative would've been setting up separate long-term storage arrangements for them, but I don't believe in their long-term value, and this is the Bitcoin Forum.


You should start a blog with these valuable backward-looking market timing tips so that everyone can share in the infinite hypothetical BTC that could've been made.

Are the remaining minor fork coins still held in escrow for the forum by OGNasty?

Kill you is the village idiot of the collectibles board Theymos, lovely kid sometimes but doesn’t have too many brain cells,

He was kicked out of the military and the word on the grapevine it was for attempting to touch livestock inappropriately

Should've done it at 0.2BTC :-(. Although it is a bit nicer that you're not using a bull run to manipulate the new comers from retail that they're on to something good by trying to drop your bags there...

Lol. ;D


In almost every country the guy with the proof would probably be convicted for longer...

---

Nice to know the funds are with the forum (in its namesake currency). It might be nice to see another contest with the prize pool coming from the BTG forks (or even subsidise the art contest).

---

ReAdY aNd WaItInG fOr ThE pUmP!!!! ;D

First: I've been wondering about this for a while now, and although I don't want to point fingers, I do like transparency so here it goes: What happened to the "dividend" from airdrops based on Bitcoin holdings?

http://transition.obyte.org/ shows that treasurer address 1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF joined the Byteball airdrop with 500.00051 BTC (0.0771% share):
Verified! (http://brainwalletx.github.io/#verify?vrAddr=1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF&vrMsg=OOUIJTHWY5PANA7P2YUJX67VVN2QZYIX&vrSig=HMdUJW2FnsyZVJAoXhuLuYvt2Zqgdpt5o9xGCqIQqnMVOIyrzkY2ICiwGbAfeCXOiS6SDj%2FUvRRr%2BCvIo%2BzTQJQ%3D)

https://explorer.obyte.org/#OOUIJTHWY5PANA7P2YUJX67VVN2QZYIX shows the GBYTE (now called OBYTE) received on address OOUIJTHWY5PANA7P2YUJX67VVN2QZYIX: on 09.07.2017 13:58:44, approximately 36.174 GBYTE was received. Out of this, 0.0625 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1608859.msg20026523#msg20026523)*500 = 31.25 GBYTE was thanks to forum funds. At the time, this was worth approximately (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/obyte/) 7 BTC.

There were later airdrops too, and Stellar Lumens (https://www.stellar.org/blog/bitcoin-claim-lumens-2/) could have produced a similar amount based on Bitcoin holdings, but I don't think that data is publicly available.

Interesting finds.

@theymos are these funds with you? Assuming you probably weren’t even aware of these freebies yourself

Theymos' address with 750 BTC (19XTo6BHpPHSkW5cm183VrgEYpGjVJmQEt) was not in the airdrop (http://transition.obyte.org/), so unless theymos didn't care about (the tax and administrative complications of) ~10 BTC, he didn't know about it.

Ducking whales not caring about 10BTC..

Maybe Theymos gave it to the old treasurer as a tip?

No, after the major coins were transferred to me, ownership of any remaining forkcoins went to OgNasty.


I didn't know about that. I don't see it as a violation of the treasury agreement, but it's... a bit tacky, I guess. I suppose an analogy would be a fine-art storage company selling selfies with famous artworks.


I never participate in these things. They're a series of risks & headaches for a chance at some profit.

A bit tacky?  wow Theymos you are a pretty mellow fellow! as below



I'd be pissed as fuck over the GBYTE if someone had profited 7BTC off me and kept it quiet, especially as you show how cool you can be letting OG having the other shitcoins, to me that isn't tacky my man, mind you - we  all know my thoughts on OG and his business practices, ill leave it to others to voice their thoughts.

Maybe "someone" donated it to that charitable fan club or whatever the fuck it's called (totally not an investment).

Yes, I did actually LOL when I was typing this.

According to the website you linked, 0.00625 Gigabyte/BTC was disbursed, so your calculations are off by a factor of 10.

If the fork coins were property of the forum, any treasurer would owe the fork coins back to the forum, not the value of a hypothetical trade years before if there was no request to liquidate the fork coins at the time.

By my calculation, the amount in question is about $150.

Does anyone know the value of the btc returned to theymos? 

There were multiple airdrops. The one on July 9 2017 distributed 0.0625 GBYTE per BTC. Funny how you are able to click one link but not the other.

Really but you have no issue with apparently lauda keeping the coins from his 3000bch escrowing debacle. Sounds like some double standards does it not??  was this not very similar behavior from your pal and fellow DT mutual include, fellow scammer and fellow trust abuser?

Are you pissed off at lauda " apparently lauda did this to those he was escrowing for at the time??

Depending when the BB were dumped it would have been a considerable sum. It  was trading at one stage at 0.1 btc per GB of BB. So he could have given a bit back to the board if this is not just speculation and is something that 100% happened.

I don't think it is sensible to leave free coins there for the taking but on the other hand some should be given back to the board perhaps. Then again if theymos does not want them or not bothered fair enough.

Maybe just claimed the BB but did nothing with them.

I think best to wait to hear what OG says before we build up a frenzy and witch hunt.

The address OOUIJTHWY5PANA7P2YUJX67VVN2QZYIX did in fact receive 35.3 GBYTE on June 6, 2017, and 36.1 GBYTE on July 9.

I am unable to substantiate the 0.0625 GBYTE/btc rate on July 9 as stated in the post made by what appears to be a forum user unassociated with the GBYTE/Obyte project.

Reviewing coinmarketcap (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/obyte/), and the distrubution (https://obyte.org/#dist) section of the obyte website, none of the distribution amounts per the blockchain, match the expected amounts based on the total bitcoin linked, and the percentage of total supply per the website. The percentage of the total distribution per http://transition.obyte.org/ also does not match the expected percentage 500 btc should have been per the amount of bitcoin linked per https://obyte.org/#dist

It appears likely that OgNasty received GBYTE from 5 distributions.

I looked at an old (http://archive.is/5IhBE) version of the list of treasurer agreements, and the agreement (http://pastebin.com/raw/jkw3U4FU) between OgNasty and theymos for the coin in question, and it appears OgNasty's obligations were as follows:
 

https://wiki.obyte.org/Airdrop

Whether or not claiming forks/airdrops was part of the agreement, doing it without informing Theymos is extremely dodgy and shady.

OG handing back more escrow value is reason for concern?

Theymos is giving OG the minor forks and shows no concern for minor airdrops..

What about clams?

I'd bet OG would hand over anything related to the escrow that theymos asked him to..

I don't think he handed back anything. I'd love to hear what OG has to say before jumping to any conclusions.

Lmao. Everyone on this earth would bet that OG would give back the fork coins if theymos asked him. What kind of statement is that are you kidding me

Thanks!

In this case, the only "risk" was having to sign a message, and the expected profit was (more or less) known up-front.

Suchmoon is correct: that was for the later airdrops.

That is indeed what happened to the Forkcoins, but I wasn't talking about Forks.

I followed the airdrop back then, and the quote is correct.

I don't really want to dig up all the details because I remember I checked some of the numbers of the airdrop back then, and they were all correct. My guess would be the amounts of Bitcoin that are now shown in the transition log were taken at a later date, for a later airdrop. You'll have to look up the funds on each address on the exact date if you want the exact amounts.

That could be, I didn't look any further as one airdrop was enough to ask for transparency.

I don't think it would be unreasonable at all to ask him to send whatever was generated by the Treasury funds back to the forum since he was already being compensated for holding the funds.  It would be unethical to keep them, even if it's not technically a violation of the agreement.

Bringing Ethics into play - surely the Treasurer should of asked permission to use the funds for his own personal gain at the time of the incident?


a bit tacky is how I would describe what women wear on a night out in Newcastle, using forum funds for personal gain and not mentioning it - it only coming out  when the resident robot did some digging - well that is just plain old grim.

None of us would of imagined the amount of shitcoins/forks/airdrops that happened since the original agreement was put together, and props to OG for doing what was right returning the original funds and no doubt going through the aggravation of getting the BCH ETC over to Theymos.

I guess OG could make it right by disclosing how many of the GBYTE he earned and either offering to send them, or disclosing how much he sold them for and offering to send it to the forum donation address - simple enough to clear this up if it was just an error on his part.

Somehow the thread slipped through my fingers when it was created. Interesting developments. Watching.

Ummm...
All the Bitcoins a while ago and just now all of the "major" fork coins..
As in the title of this thread..


"anything related to the escrow" would include airdrops.. Guy..

If airdrops have not been claimed on forum funds it would just be a waste..

errr....


So Theymos "wastes" the opportunity for free coins - but good old OGNasty doesn't "waste" the opportunity for free coins, he just doesn't tell Theymos that he hasn't "wasted" the opportunity and he didn't give the funds to the forum either.

GBYTE airdrops at the time were worth ~10% of the BTC value or so, if you did most of them up to August 2017 I think. I know I got almost as much from those as I did from BCH. And you didn't need to expose your private keys in any way. So it made sense to claim the airdrops, it's just that everything else about it is shady AF completely in character for Og.

Here is the full list of addresses linked to OOUIJTHWY5PANA7P2YUJX67VVN2QZYIX:

1momVRFPLTPja4vynePcfWma3MEypLRfP
1N2ihXP7FYAJVuNhk3aHzCGFqPrgJQoZNR
1MinDTripG88BFdM2PvpX6EEyvevrZEpU
115B4ESEKo9oGvkLSs1u2jwTaRtbDdrX9z
14BJyFxBn1cesyVzGM1Z9w4Y2TnN348HZ8
1DSXAxxm7TwbBYt49VRzVWyvT2RZXCGqDC
17q1bCwwJboKVyvad9VeJojKPZgHpQxtqR
13dE798ejJUV5UoDad5FkVNFWJsYH6kGmz
16YsWTTAyGsoj7GWjF4q3evgKujsPRE2Ct
1D18g5HvHpgYxYFU2yWDcjVo3VTp9kV8Nq
1Ln1G4rMyyxAsBZGHcvfBymABEq3ggDmqQ
1KCTgBpH8V3Jtac4VjMxqz8R34Ln8hYSGq
15S6Jimb6HyKc6N2A57xQZqC8szL5ohwX8
1NastyPXmduDcoay5aEZzih7fzqt8UzXRK
1ESYU8M62R19cHynPUNcezXFagoyhH1euP
1HxpVvoXEXLSTM1P4sY9eUqa2VGmKDSF5o
1NTf7FPkRtg9H72jrWHvKNdSoZBzMGkZWk
1HJnj1JkxQjXe4waCr1UeDmLYvxmgDHceh
14TdoUUPqVaxGNNQy2VEZiTAK2rmBam8vg
1BGM6a3cYutnZL3jWVCsKzeWHDG1Votnxc
1NastyBTCcxbAQQ22kEijbXqgyBPRujftL
1NastyFRkeUTmMdbMmzggDVTQA6r3ibUoX
1KNswej1AAXWfCrzK9afND1dUNn3BHCGU3
1BTALKaduBnumDo26zjLSg6D9cbsGareLL
1SigAdszeqZZEin8jBJteQmyFfnyYFtB9
1NASTYfxUpKPwin7b1KTBFjeeofrLSgXDJ
1Eog8UqRFLufC71rBLt2nYgfUDskgxAyVF
1ogNastygDXqWZuSyDcvhg8CR4xvetXBm
1MyUMNvuuyNHH6DQcidUibZagMkMwhJY6n
168WXhArv7Fasqvi2xm5MQMfLhG18jifMe

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..

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?

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...

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

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

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

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?

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....

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.

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.

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 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..

Forum Coins, Forum Coins.

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

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.

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5202391.msg53232702#msg53232702).

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....

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=235982) is OG's alt account?

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 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/

That's not all, that was just one of the Byteball airdrops. Soon after the one I mentioned, the value started dropping hard though, and the airdrops stopped, but it was fun while it lasted.
The Stellar Lumens airdrop gave around 975 XLM per Bitcoin, the value since then has been anywhere between 300 and 6000 satoshi. I think it was around 1200 sat/XLM when the airdrop happened. You do the math :P

The earliest airdrops (which I missed) handed out much more (but the value was lower back then), the later ones airdropped less.
(I had my airdrop claiming service (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1871502.0) back then)

Not only did he give the BCH but also gave ALL of the other "major" forks worth much of anything at all.. Very admirably..

Because he is nice..

And how did that go? Who ended up with the BCH value eventually?
Can you refresh my memory on that?



All I see is more witch hunt for OG going on here..

Better get to digging into all of those addresses you can link to OG to find something to complain about..

cool so he is nice and gave the BCH - that is the only reason?

taking that into account and my estimate that GBYTE is in the range, 10BTC+ lets keep up with the nicety and hand that back instead of not informing anyone and pocketing the funds in such a "tacky" way

Theymos thinks it is right for OG to keep the fork funds ( if he got any ). This funds usage totally depends on theymos himself.

totally agree, that isnt what is being discussed here - OG signed up for an airdrop as he had 500BTC of forum funds in an address, he did not inform theymos of this - theymos only found out in this thread!

Even after theymos found it after this thread creation or if he knew before, he said it's OK for him.

he didn't say ok.. he said its a bit tacky.


to educate those not to into slang tacky = trashy or cheap.

hope that helps clear that up for you non native speakers

Well yes, that would be a breach of contract..

An interesting question is, while OG held the coins, did the forum own those coins, or just owned a contract?
I'm not sure.. What do you think?

I often look at it as, if you don't own the keys, all you own is a contract..

Not necessarily. I think you could link several address in an airdrop (more BTC meant more Byteball). I remember Zepher doing some sort of group-airdrop where people sent him BTC.

Interesting quandary.  As a loose analogy, isn't this roughly equivalent to what commercial banks do?  They hold the funds, then use that value to generate additional value?  It's not like they seek permission from you about how they use that wealth.  Maybe you earn some interest in the process, but when you eventually withdraw your funds, the bank do keep the profits they made from the value they generated from you.  

I can see why some people aren't exactly comfortable with someone operating that particular business model when it comes to forum funds, but there was clearly no rule against it.  Depending on your personal stance, the opportunism is either admirable or sickening, heh.

While mob rule is obviously too tempting to resist for some, I'm going to stay on the fence and say that it's ultimately a matter for theymos and OgNasty to work out between themselves.

But you don't pay a bank to hold your money do you? imagine paying a bank 1.2% a year to hold on to your cash? infact the obverse is true, banks pay you so you deposit funds with them, therefore they use those funds to generate profit to pay your interest.

apples and orangutans here man

Yes, but he couldn't exactly engage in fractional reserve banking, or gamble/invest with those funds, because I think the contract stated that the coins were to remain in the specific escrow address, not to be moved around and such..

But signing a BTC signed message from the address did not breach that contract..

Another way to look at it, if OG was claiming airdrops from all of his keys, why skip that key?


It happens..
Many accounts have fees for the use of them..
Negative interest rates happen sometimes too..
Escrow agents are not free..

Then you are using the wrong banks son.


Totally agree with that one as well fella, hence being paid 6BTC a year to hold the funds.

my issue here is transparency and integrity..

I fail to see any integrity in profiting off the Forums funds whilst not informing the man who entrusted him with the funds, even worse when it comes out 2 years after the fact and adding insult to injury it was a forum member who asked the question. Theymos was not aware at all, this does bring into question all the other airdropped coins like XLM..

how much money was actually made off of holding the forums funds? I am sure someone much more experienced in investigating these things will come out with some numbers to inform us all though

Drifting dangerously off topic, but you'd be surprised how much people are really paying their banks, indirectly.  All the costs are hidden, whether it be through inflation, or the mark-up you pay on goods and services designed to cover the fees retailers have to pay to the banks.  The interest they "pay you" doesn't actually cover the true cost you pay to rely on them.  They definitely aren't upfront with the public about how they earn their money.  Perversely, their methods are not just deemed societally acceptable, but fundamental to the continuation of the traditional economy.  

But that's partly what we're all here to shake up with crypto, so the discourse on whether such practices should be frowned upon here is still positive.

I hope he claimed everything possible and dumped hard on them all..
I hope he made a million bazillion BTCs..

I think if we go the "code is law" route then it should have been multisig. Then claiming airdrops would not have been possible without explicit agreement, or at all.

Instead this was a fiat-like escrow/loan/whatchamacallit ("[...] the treasurer owes the Forum the held bitcoins [...]") and I do believe that the forum had more rights to the funds, not merely a contract.

Then there is the question of ethics. Regardless of how the contract is interpreted, in my opinion the ethical thing to do would be to pay all claimed airdrops to the forum, minus a reasonable fee for the effort. This is not so much about the specific instances (I know some here could argue to death that 7 BTC is dust compared to the 500 returned BTC) but about the general interpretation of unforeseen events for the benefit of the customer. Where is the threshold for that to start to matter e.g. in OgNasty's escrow service.

Did the contract even specify which Bitcoin fork would be the real Bitcoin? I don't think it said anything about the longest chain or most POW or anything of the sort. What if theymos and Og had different opinions about that and asked you to arbitrate. What would you say?


LOL, you should really read the 5 pages of small print that you sign when you open an account. Granted you're giving them the rights to everything including your firstborn but that's not the same as saying they can do anything they want without asking.

Why OG didn't inform theymos about this airdrop, but he claimed it?
Why OG returned some other forks and kept this one?
What is difference between bitcoinshith fork and GBYTE airdrop except theymos didn't know about it?
Does it mean, if theymos hasn't been aware of bitcoinshit airdrop, OG could have kept it?
If so, why returning it in first place (BCH, I mean...)?

Also interesting..
I was thinking a few posts ago how crypto is still a new frontier where contracts can become obsolete due to the changing technology..
We are all concerned with forks now but it wasn't even really though of when the contract was made..



Forks require you to move the BTC befor you claim them because claiming them can compromise your private key and they can take everything..
Airdrops you can just sign a message, doesn't risk the keys..

Hence why Theymos did not know about the airdropped coins claimed by Nastytreasurer until this thread popped up and LoyceV asked the question. So we as a community have no idea of how much exactly was claimed, when it or if it was sold and what happened with the funds - same with XLM, there were others but I generally ignored all those shitcoins (wish I hadn't now seeing some of the totals people talk about)

This reminds me of a conflict in a movie I saw, I Love You Philip Morris.  The protagonist got a job as a settlement officer for an insurance company.  When he took the job he was paying out millions in settlements out of a standard checking account.  He then got the bright idea to move the majority of the funds to an investment account, and transfer what he needed to the checking account to cover the disbursements.  The end result was a lot of money was made in the investment fund, that the protagonist kept for himself.  By today's standards we can all agree that was illegal embezzlement, but there was a time when such actions were unprecedented, their legality was vague.

In the fiat world we don't have air-drops and forks (at least none that I know of,) so this is a new paradigm for financial wealth that I believe is also unprecedented.

My opinion is that OG should have included theymos in the decision, or at least offered to share the reward reaped by the 1Eog8 address.  But I also believe my opinion is irrelevant.  Theymos has indicated he wasn't concerned, and OG has chosen to stay silent.  I can't fault OG for taking advantage of free money, other than to say that he earned some of it by holding Other People's Money.  Like others have mentioned, banks do that shit all the time.  

Is it right or wrong?  I would say that depends on the amount of risk OG subjected the OPM.  In this case I think it's safe to say there was no risk.

This type of situation can easily be avoided by future contracts; making it clear how such events are to be handled, and who owns the rights to any proceeds earned by air-drops and forks.  It's a vague and unexpected event that left no one hurt.  At least theymos doesn't seem hurt by it, and his is the only opinion that really matters in this case.

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.

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

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

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 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=86854.msg1496322#msg1496322).

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

nonnakip = OG ?

or am I missing something here?

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

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 (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_is_not_ruled_by_miners), and there is no objective way to determine what the true Bitcoin is.
Therefore, if a fork can claim with any sort of sanity that it is the true Bitcoin merely executing a hardfork, and if the agreement doesn't specify, then whoever owned the original BTC ought to own the forkcoins. Otherwise, whoever makes the choice of which Bitcoin is "real" could make the wrong choice. Airdrops that don't/can't claim to be hardforks are different, since they are much more clearly separate things that someone is giving you for doing something.

In the case of the treasury agreement: all forkcoins were always forum property from the beginning. I voluntarily gifted OgNasty the non-major forkcoins, since dealing with them would be more trouble than they're worth. The three forkcoins transferred to me were ones I specified. Airdrops are different. I don't think that OgNasty should've collected airdrops via forum BTC, but collecting and keeping airdrops was not prohibited by the agreement, and the forum has no agreement-wise claim on those coins.

I don't see it as appropriate to demand (or perhaps even accept) the airdrop proceeds. Because the agreement definitely didn't require it, demanding it now could be perceived as exploiting the political atmosphere here to shake down a counterparty.

I stand by my previous analogy:
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.

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.

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  ;) ...

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.

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)

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

Both illegal unless agreed and intended upon before.

---

Double standards.

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


Oh wait nevermind:

Sorry for that :o

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

This has to be the first time I'm seeing you making a well constructed post ;D.

whilst I dislike bumps I dislike TOAA more - that fool is taking attention away from me.. best lending service...

BCH is no longer the issue as per the OP!

no the issue is AIRDROP...

You cant copy and past OGs posts for different topics on here and they become relevant at all, all you are doing is poking fun at the irony

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

It also seems like many of the people who attack Lauda the most are defending OGNasty.

If it's the exact scenario I guess everyone that attacked Lauda but not OG, or OG but not Lauda is a hypocrite, and especially OGNasty and Lauda.

Is that the understatement of the year, or what?   Should frame that one.   ;)

hahahaha

 :D :D :D :D :D

The scenarios are not even remotely similar.  Stop it.  Lauda (along with minerjones and blazed) profited from their role in a scam that saw users lose their funds because Lauda sent them to a scammer without anyone else's approval (not to mention storing them on an exchange when he claimed he'd store them at a multisig address).  I safeguarded forum BTC and returned 100% of them along with additional alts.

Never touching the forum's BTC was something I did for the forum.  Where is the BCH/BSV/BTG I should have received for the payments for my treasury services I didn't receive until months/years later?  Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.  Did I complain?  Nope.  This is my first mention of it, perhaps to justify my "tacky" behavior.

Let's stop the childish name calling and criticizing my good deeds.  I returned what theymos asked for, even though I had no obligation to do so with the forks and I did it quickly with a positive attitude.  It was a good deed and I feel I went above and beyond by never complaining for missed back pay, and always doing whatever I was asked.

I believe this requirement was actually added into the treasury agreement.

I think it probably would have been best to get on the same page with theymos (the owner of the coin you were holding) ahead of time. I don’t see a contract violation and even if there was one, it appears have been forgiven based on theymos’ comment about all other coin derived from the treasury funds being gifted to you.

How is this malignant narcissist still trustworthy enough to be a treasurer is a mystery to me. Piss him off and you owe him. But at least he never complains. Ever.

There is no violation, this is a question of ethics and/or morals.. This is all a discussion now, no witch hunt, no abuse, just a general discussion about the behavior and if its morally or ethically wrong.. ill leave others to comment, we all know my thoughts about the snake oil salesman.

my point here - which will be saved in internet history for ever and ever and ever (I wont edit this post, unlike others) is that the whole problem could go away if the BTC that was obtained in a way that theymos doesn't agree with is given to charity - then the whole issue goes away. Everyones rep is restored, this thread will die - fuck a real charity will benefit - but that will entail OgNAsty to disclose the full amount gained personally from airdrops and it will also entail him dusting off the wallet for something other than personal gain!

but - lets see... my bet is walls of text from TOAA, denials from OG and a few of his gimps coming to his rescue with excuses about Lauda, Lauda's brother and any other fucker.


xxxx peace out peeps!

If it's one thing I've noticed in my year and a half hanging out here is that Theymos is a pretty laid back, easy going character.  If you feel like percentage of the forkcoins should be added to your commission you should have spoken up about it.  I doubt anyone would have denied you the request.



I must admit I find this a curious philosophy.  It's my opinion that since the bitcoin belongs to the forum, and any forks also belong to the forum.  A practical analogy would be a stock split or a company spin-off.  When HP spun-off Agilent, Fidelity Investment Group didn't get to keep my Agilent shares.  Why would anyone believe they have a claim to them?

It's been many years since I've looked at that section of the old agreement and referred to the public thread where the info is still listed but you may very well be correct.  That is a moot point anyway I added for sensationalism but I'll remove it to attempt to keep this somewhat on topic.



I'm sure he would have paid the funds to me had I spoken up about it.  Just like I would have paid him whatever GBYTE had he spoken up about it.

/thread

I offered partial reserve when I was looking for treasurers. Since you offered full-reserve, the treasury agreement itself says:

"Held bitcoins" in the agreement is ambiguous as to what a "bitcoin" is, but due to the whole context of the agreement, and especially because of the full-reserve requirement, I claim that the most supportable interpretation is that all forkcoins (ie. coins forking from Bitcoin's block chain and calling themselves "Bitcoin") were forum property from the beginning. (I do not claim this for airdrops.)

I have said before that I don’t think what happen was ideal.

From my perspective this did look a lot like a witch hunt to me, and I don’t like the idea of myself being subjected to mob justice, so I felt obligated to defend him. This topic was brought up after theymos said OgNasty returned everything he was obliged to return and the airdrop in question happened years ago. I watched the impeachment hearing a few weeks ago and this thread looked similar to how the democrats were acting.

Some have made the point that banks charge to hold deposits and can lend out their deposits and earn interest/income on those loans. The amount of money made from this airdrop was probably less than a bank would hope to earn lending out deposits.

I agree that OG not discussing this with theymos was a mistake on OG's part, but I doubt it was done out of malice..
I think he could have casually claimed airdrops from all of his keys, not skipping this key, and didn't really think anything of it, but should have consulted theymos about it..

This situation occurred mostly because their was little to no foresight into this evolutionary step of cryptocurrency where fork coins and airdrops exploded out of the middle of nowhere.. With the ever changing world of crypto situations like this are likely to even come up again in the future as things change, especially in relation to long term contracts..

It is a slip up but it is being over exploited IMO..

FTFY..
I was just attacked with Red trust by Lauda partially in reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205331.msg53246451#msg53246451) to my postings in this thread.. I deserve a negative rating for speaking my mind and exploring contrary points of logic? I don't think so..
Do you want a diversity of ideas or an echo chamber?

Same here, but see what happens?


As of an hour or so ago last I checked OGNasty is still on theymos's trust list so I don't think this whole thing is as big of a deal as many are trying to make it out to be, or I imagine he would have been removed/excluded..

I was referring to the fork coins only, not the rest of the circumstances. Obviously what went down with Lauda was shady start to finish. I don't think you did anything wrong in your circumstance, though I do think you probably could have handled it better just knowing how thirsty a certain group of people here are to attack you over anything they can and defend even more indefensible actions of others they support.

Typically, multiply the assets for the original owner (in very risk adverse ways, as discussed before), while taking a cut out of the profits,
the percentage depending on what the parties agree on, which effectively happened in this case:


theymos got all the hard forks with Bitcoin denomination, while OGNasty keeps the airdrops, both parties feel content that it's a fair distribution of the net profits generated by the preservation of the forum's BTC, the original task that the treasurer also successfully completed, so all in all most independent observers would agree this collaboration between theymos and OG has been fruitful and beneficial to both parties...

Yes, just because it was the great OGnasty, one sees double standards to attack him in a such an aggressive way, even after theymos said he doesn't think it was wrong from OGs side but just a bit "tacky". It is not surprising either, as it's already been done with him many times in the past.

I think OG should have his own  Walk Down Memory Lane (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109647.0).

---

Yes, of course this deal was already successful when OgNasty returned the forum funds ( what he received from the forum). This is just an after air. Not even OP intended to accuse someone out of this thread.

I don't know much about the Lauda drama, but I know enough to know the forked coins were handled very different in each scenario (OG / Lauda).
OgNasty returned the forked coins when asked.  Lauda didn't return the forked coins (BCH) when asked.

Absolutely. Yet many of the same people who vigorously defended Lauda, or were silent in that case are here attacking OGNasty.

And many of the people that attacked Lauda were silent  or vigorously defended OGNasty and his history of ponzi schemes and other lies.  Not really related to the topic though.

Nobody is accusing OG of actually scamming here in regards to the Treasury funds, just acting a little slimy.

You sure do love false equivalence don't you? Lauda's fraud is well documented. The stream of accusations (mind you all by the same people) are not well documented and consist of a string of accusations based on the creative interpretations of those with a grudge against him. None of the accusations against him are supported with evidence, only attempts at operant conditioning via repetition.

But he says if you stop saying things he does not like/agree with he "may" later not consider you malignant .... so just turn into a lauda assfeltching clown (ask LFC, pharmacist, suchmoon, moronpigsnoz or any of those for a guide of how to perform) and you may get the red trust removed.

Red trust is very useful as the stick , merit is the carrot   - when used together the echo chamber is pretty much guaranteed.

Red trust for virtue signalling?  I thought he already warned you you may get a flag or tag for suggesting free speech should be permitted previously?

Have a care though, I mean saying the board should not become an echo chamber is kind of virtue signalling according to him since that is kind of like the same thing as permitting free speech :(

Until these scammers and their scammer supporters are removed this will happen to anyone that

1. brings up his observable pasts behaviors
2. say anything he believes may impact upon his rev streams here.


Anyway good to see OG has come and explained his side of it. Seems to be the end of the matter I guess.

Seeing the quote TMAN plastered by OG all over this thread makes me wonder why OG ever removed laudas red trust. I mean that is just 1 incident when you start to realize that is the slim edge of the scamming wedge if lauda does not warrant red trust NO member deserves red trust.

Him and ANY DT including him should be blacklisted by now.

I mean the initial post was really just about the forked bitcoin alts right? unless this was a set up from the start.

Well, I think I documented (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg30944546#msg30944546) his involvement with the biggest crypto ponzi scheme pretty well.  He profited well over BTC1,000 by collecting funds and sending them to a ponzi scheme (pirateat40 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-fraud-texas/texan-gets-one-and-a-half-years-in-prison-for-running-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme-idUSKCN1012W8)) and paying out less than the ponzi scheme was paying.  When the ponzi scheme went down, his 'reserve' fund of less than 5% or what had been collected was returned to investors.  (We don't know exactly how much because he deleted all the posts and won't say).

I'm not 'team lauda' either, btw:
 I do not endorse any website in my signature.<--Hey Lauda, That's Bullshit  (http://I do not endorse any website in my signature.<--Hey Lauda, That's Bullshit)

Did you inform Theymos that you were going to use the forum funds to claim an airdrop? If not, how would you expect Theymos to speak up if he wasn't aware of it?

That is incorrect. Forks were liquidated and merged into the pool, therefore returned. Don't pull in the fake accusations against me into such a well-documented case otherwise the attempt of misdirecting the topic is going to succeed.  ;)

Fun.

Unlike you I was there back then and saw it with my own eyes. Trendon Shavers went to prison. Do you really believe if OGNasty was an active and knowledgeable participant in any related crime they would have just overlooked him? You should work for the FBI or the SEC since you have such unique ability to sniff these things out that they seem unable to.

Last I checked there were victims making claims in Lauda's case. Who is the victim making a claim here? Theymos seems satisfied with the resolution, who else needs to be addressed?

This is again just the same group of jackals trying to create an issue where there is none, simultaneously trying to get people to forget when they excused much worse from other users, because if people remembered it would clearly demonstrate they care only about who it targets and not the principle of the matter.

why is everyone ignoring the actually juicy shit here? not eddie or techcunt or anyone else..

The Dalai Lama and the accused theif are conversing - yet others are trying to confuse the whole thread with shitcunt posts - yes I am talking at you techie...

Very interesting how you decided to selectively edit that quote:


If Theymos has a problem I assure you he doesn't need you to speak for him.

I am well aware of that sweetcheeks. check all my other posts, I have been open about OBSERVABLE instances of "tacky" behaviour by the previous sole holder of keys of 500BTC

we are all aware you cant even count to 500 so your voice/words/thoughts are about as valuable as a TOAA/Crypcunt Post.

so as I have said to others, shh.... let the adults talk - I am very interested in the difference of opinion between OGnasty and our dear leader.

Yeah man, I literally linked an article about Trendon Shavers going to prison in the post you quoted.

OGNasty was offering 8% monthly (obviously not sustainable).  He was then sending the money he collected to pireateat who was paying out 1% daily.  When pirateat was actually paying, OG would make the 8% payment to people he gave the money to and keep the difference (around BTC500 per month for at least a couple months).  When Pirateat stopped, he paid out the 'insurance' ammount which was around 5% of the total invested, far less than the cut he took of the payments.  Then when he found out I was digging through the old threads he deleted a bunch of posts.  These are facts.

That's a ponzi on top of a ponzi.

If you are well aware of that then why are you simply repeating your selectively edited quotes? Unless the harmed party has a complaint, I really don;t give a shit what your opinion in the matter is, and you are most certainly not an ubiased bystander as you say you have been "quite open" about (read intent on slandering) OGNasty.




Wow, you linked an article. Does the article answer my question why you think you have some special information law enforcement didn't? With those kinds of investigative skills you should be working for big brother, you would love it. You could dig through peoples toilet bowls looking for stray peanuts till your heart's content.

Law enforcement definitely has the information on passthrough programs and they know Og was involved.  They probably didn't go after him because it wasn't that much money.

OGNasty was basically picking up the scraps compared to what Pirateat was doing.  His pitch was basically (and I'm paraphrasing here):  "pirateat is an asset to the community, you should invest with him if you can!  If you don't have enough money or an invite though, I'll help you out!"

Good to know you speak for the police now too. Catch you later Captain Hindsight.

https://i.imgur.com/Lt0jrmx.jpg

Not speaking for the police.  I just researched what happened.  You could too, if you wanted.  I've already given you all the info you need to verify what I'm saying is true.

It's frustrating having to spell everything out for you, but here you go:


https://i.gyazo.com/d899021656a9b7d9636f5de683ee298d.png

https://i.gyazo.com/92559a4e2d062d5e85fa4d9176bc6478.png

https://i.gyazo.com/0841c8c6e9acfcc7f7c232ab240fa689.png
https://i.gyazo.com/35129e48a9dfaaca4e9bb8678691e6eb.png

Yet you just did speak for the actions of the police nonetheless. OOO court documents, very official! Clearly everything you say is true, you referenced official court documents after all.

https://i.gyazo.com/0841c8c6e9acfcc7f7c232ab240fa689.png
https://i.gyazo.com/35129e48a9dfaaca4e9bb8678691e6eb.png[/quote]


ouch.. so I see this as a few scenarios...

based on the fact that OG has 0 credibility after the airdrop fiasco..

1) og told the thruth and repaid everyone(whilst being sneaky and not announcing he got a full payout)
2) og paid out only the reserve and pocketed the full refund
3) the courts docs are lies


we need full TRANSPARENCY of OBSERVABLE instances of "tacky" behavior

It's not 1.  He confirmed at least some people took a hit when the scam was confirmed.  Although he also said they were very happy anyway...  

no way... so he has admitted to only paying out the reserve? do you have the post for proof?

if so that is more than just "tacky" that's just plain fucking SKAMMAN

wow - we all (the whole forum minus TOAA and those who have bags of nastyshares/seats & theymos) knew that OG was a bit of a snake oil salesman.. but this is next level shit

fucking popcorn gif please !

That is one hell of a job for TMAN to find court docs about OGnasty. Its almost like he has a vendetta against him or something


Although he also said they were very happy anyway...

You are confusing that, he said they were very happy anyway when that butterfly labs things happened that he invested the mining btc? or was it when he did the reverse splits on the seats or something like that?

If TMAN made a book of all of the posts hes made of the effy things OG has done, it would be at least 100 pages lol

KY do you ever actually spend more than 20 seconds before posting? I didn't  find shit - I quoted twitchy.

FFS son, please leave the adults alone

Kind of an interesting read if you don't mind transcripts: https://www.gwern.net/docs/bitcoin/pirateat40/secvs.pirateat401.pdf

I should prob stop derailing this thread now

"TL;DR, court documents prove all of my baseless speculation true."

Not baseless speculation, I did my research it's well documented:  here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg31367464#msg31367464) (there's a TLDR; at the bottom of this one if it's too many words for you), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg30944546#msg30944546), and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg31441207#msg31441207).  

There's also this:

https://i.gyazo.com/e306d4ed3b3f6ef417db8f44d99e06b7.png

You have established he was involved, so where a lot of high profile people on this forum. The baseless speculation part is where you assume he had knowledge of any criminal activity as you pass judgement after the fact captain hindsight.

Calling OgNasty an utter moron who doesn't know what 7% weekly means? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dude come on I never said that.  I'm accusing him of lying and being deceptive about what happened after the fact to improve his reputation. I explicitly said I wasn't accusing him of scamming. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg31580963#msg31580963

Please just do you own research so I don't have to keep spelling things out for you.

Bumping this, would still like to hear an answer from OG.

Perhaps the whole Pirat ponzi thing should be posted in a new topic, since it is unrelated to this one?

No I am calling you a moron because 7% weekly is in no way an unrealistic return, especially in those days. You pretend like cryptocurrency acts like a classic rational market. All you are doing is looking back with perfect hindsight and exposing your ignorance of the actual market activity of the time.



Please spare me. This is all about impugning OGNasty's character in any way you can manage. Same me the moderate an unbias act. It is easy to look back in retrospect and pretend you would have done everything perfectly. This is a disgusting unending endeavor to drag OG's reputation through the mud. Until any so called victims come forward all this is, is you LARPing as digital Stasi officers. Your motives are transparent.

d-d-d-derailed.

Cryptocurrency ponzis act exactly the same as any other ponzi. In less than two years he would have compounded more than the total number of bitcoins in existence. But math is for morons, right?

And if you only breathed in your lungs would explode from the pressure. Nice non-sequitur.

If my math is right, 7% a week == ~3,300% APY and you would more than 100x your investment in 2 years.

If I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure I'm low.

7% weekly is nuts though.  Because math.

We really need a new thread for this.  Or maybe if TECSHARE asks nicely TMAN will unlock the Ponzi Fans (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.0) thread.

Question...

Were ponzis, or advertising for ponzis, even red trusted, or "scammer tagged" back then?
How "Wild West" was the era of the time?

So, OG fooled everyone who left him positive trust for returning the coins?

I could ask him to take care of my priceless comic collection.  He would return them to me opened and less valuable than when I gave it to him.   Then he would inform everyone I was happy with his escrow.   ::)

The point is not so much Og's cognitive abilities or promoting a scam (if we settle on him being a moron) but that after the ponzi collapsed, i.e. even morons became aware of it being a scam, he kept the presumably illegal/criminal gains instead of returning to scammed users. At least that's how understand Twitchy's presented material. It was before my time so yeah maybe it was cool to scam back then. It certainly wasn't by 2014 when I joined.

This thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.0) would be more appropriate to continue discussing OG history with ponzi schemes.

Who said anything about it lasing for 2 years? Convenient you just get to arbitrarily define a time frame again totally in hindsight to cast the situation in as totally as a negative light as possible and just hide behind "math" as if I disagree with you I am arguing against science. This is pathetic levels of slander and logical fallacy.


Exactly, none of these turds were there. People then and some now still consider all of cryptocurrency a ponzi. It is really easy to call all the shots when they are already passed.

quoted for reference.

Theymos, why did you do this after OGNasty launched a ponzi and lost everything?  Why do you still pay him after he has stolen so much?