If the invoice is addressed to a Limited Company (Ltd), it is a b2b sale with all applicable rights/laws related to such.
If the invoice is addressed to an individual, it is a b2c sale with all applicable rights/laws related to such. Can you provide any support in law for those claims? 1. Overview
If you sell a customer a product or a service, you need to give them an invoice (bill) by law if both you and the customer are registered for VAT (a business to business transaction). An invoice is not the same as a receipt, which is an acknowledgement of payment. That isn't the same thing you said above. A Ltd company doesn't have to be registered for VAT, and an individual could choose to register without incorporating. |
|
|
|
If the invoice is addressed to a Limited Company (Ltd), it is a b2b sale with all applicable rights/laws related to such.
If the invoice is addressed to an individual, it is a b2c sale with all applicable rights/laws related to such. Can you provide any support in law for those claims? |
|
|
|
Multihaslet, maybe brown, i guess!!!!!
you cannot change the pool of a Hashlet Solo, it sticks with the pool you bought it for, in your case Multipool Wafflepool (is the brown one) What happens if the operator of Wafflepool shuts down the site? I didn't really understand the price increase just for the ability to switch pools or stay on one pool. Did GAW make deals with the pool operators? Like Clevermining and Wafflepool? It hasn't made sense to mine SCRYPT on Wafflepool in a long time, or am I missing something? Several pool operators have confirmed that they have had no contact with GAW whatsoever, and have not seen any rise in hashrate commensurate with GAW's claimed power. There is no evidence that the Hashlets exist in any form, or are actually mining on any pool, or any coin.What you are buying is a contract which will pay you the equivalent rate that you would have earned if you were hashing on Wafflepool, minus maintenance fees. They may or may not actually be mining. As the expected overall return from that contract is negative, GAW could simply take your initial money, then slowly return it to you, and still make a profit, with no actual mining required. And there's no proof they aren't. GAW is not taking your money and giving it back. They have invested in 3 data centers, their main office and bought a domain for $1 million. If they wanted to pay you back your own money they'd just sell fake contracts like Lunamine without the need for any facilities. They also host actual hardware. But hashlets are not actual hardware...they are "digital," whatever that means. I have to agree with murraypaul here...I doubt there is any hardware backing these things, with the possible exception of Zen/Prime (which might have a positive expected return). It's not really a Ponzi, since I think they will be able to pay everyone (e.g. the expected return is negative). We're basically loaning them money with a negative interest rate ;-) Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Hashlets do or don't represent actual mining. I'm just saying there is zero evidence that they do. They don't even actually claim that they do. From their terms of service: You understand that Hashlets are virtual service units related to mining services, but are not mining hardware. Hashlets earnings depend on the pool chosen and Payouts reflect respective Pool Payouts. Selecting a Pool does not imply physically or electronically mining at the selected Pool. Rather, selecting a Pool determines a Payout corresponding to a calculation based on the selected Pool’s payout (based on, for example, real-time Megahash/second/day calculations). A Hashlet is virtual software. You will receive Payouts according to the Pool with with the Hashlet is associated. You expressly understand the the Company’s sole obligation to You is to Provide a Payout based on the Pool you choose. It may take 24-48 hours for your Hashlet to appear on Your Portal. Company reserves the right to refund You, and terminate services, at any time and for any reason. All sales are final. |
|
|
|
Only stupid believe bitcoin will replace Fiat  I believe bitcoin will replace fiat, and statistically speaking there's an approximately 93% chance I 'm more intelligent have a higher IQ than you. I corrected your post for you. The only thing an IQ test measures is IQ, not intelligence. |
|
|
|
You knew that using Purse to get Amazon gift cards was risky, not least because several people, including myself, told you so. You received a considerable premium for your Bitcoins sold that way. That premium includes the risk of losing your money. Amazon did not voluntarily involve themselves in your trade, that was between you, your (fraudulent) trading partner, and Purse. Respondents raised the topic of fraud and concerns I could be liable for a bidder making an illicit purchase on my behalf, causing me to contact Purse.io You contacted Purse, not Amazon, and Purse reassured you, not Amazon. Your grievance is firstly with your trading partner, and secondarily with Purse. If you had gone to Amazon, explained the situation, and asked them if they would guarantee your gift cards in the event of fraud by your trading partner, what do you think they would have said? Amazon had no part of that transaction, or any knowledge of it. Amazon have cancelled the gift cards due to fraud by the person who actually bought them, which is your trading partner, not you, who most likely either used a stolen credit card or performinged a charge-back. Amazon have now not been paid for the gift cards, why should they continue to redeem them? They have no way of knowing that you are not working with the fraudulent trading partner, after all. In conclusion I request that Amazon reinstate the gift cards I have purchased You didn't purchase any gift cards from AmazonYour fraudulent trading partner did. You have no relationship with Amazon other than being the recipient of fraudulently purchased gift cards. We are not the guilty party and should not be defrauded Amazon are not the guilty party either, why should they be defrauded? You should be directing your complains to Purse, not Amazon. You chose to make a risky deal with an unknown purchaser for a considerable risk premium, Amazon did not. Purse were involved in your original transaction, Amazon were not. Purse reassured you about the risk of your transaction, Amazon did not. Purse handled the escrowing of your funds, Amazon did not. They took on the burden of the theft themselves rather than trying to escape responsibility for inadequate security. Amazon, take note! Pot, kettle, black. You knowingly chose to enter into a risky transaction, and ended up losing money, Now you are trying to escape responsibility for that by expecting Amazon to pay for your loss. An organization like a pawnshop understands the risks of dealing with potential stolen property and builds that risk into their business model and profit margins. Exactly. You are the pawnshop here. You accepted goods from an unknown source, and they turned out to be fraudulently purchased. You should have built that risk into your business model. |
|
|
|
A point that seems to be missed is that Bitcoin is already replacing fiat to the extent of approx $30 million per day. If bitcoin/crypto did not exist fiat would have to be used for most of that volume of transaction. Not really, a large proportion of bitcoin transaction volume is purely self-referential, and doesn't touch the 'real' economy. Coin generation, fees, payouts from mining pools to users, transfers between wallets, payment for cloud hashing, and so on. Add in transfers to and from alt-coin exchanges, dice and other gambling sites. How much is left which represents real payments which would still have taken place without Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Multihaslet, maybe brown, i guess!!!!!
you cannot change the pool of a Hashlet Solo, it sticks with the pool you bought it for, in your case Multipool Wafflepool (is the brown one) What happens if the operator of Wafflepool shuts down the site? I didn't really understand the price increase just for the ability to switch pools or stay on one pool. Did GAW make deals with the pool operators? Like Clevermining and Wafflepool? It hasn't made sense to mine SCRYPT on Wafflepool in a long time, or am I missing something? Several pool operators have confirmed that they have had no contact with GAW whatsoever, and have not seen any rise in hashrate commensurate with GAW's claimed power. There is no evidence that the Hashlets exist in any form, or are actually mining on any pool, or any coin. What you are buying is a contract which will pay you the equivalent rate that you would have earned if you were hashing on Wafflepool, minus maintenance fees. They may or may not actually be mining. As the expected overall return from that contract is negative, GAW could simply take your initial money, then slowly return it to you, and still make a profit, with no actual mining required. |
|
|
|
Wait, so there are free virtual credit cards? How does this work? And why would people offer such a service? Isn't there quite some room for credit abuse that way? Could someone explain the workings of that, please?
They aren't actually free you've to load some money to use their service. Ah okay and how does this work? Why wouldn't people use their own Credit Cards then? Maybe because they're afraid of identity theft? So you basically load up the Credit Card they're providing with money and then you use it? Yes. They are actually virtual Debit cards, not Credit cards, so you can only spend the amount you have preloaded on to them. Therefore they are safer to use online, as you just load on what you need, then spend it immediately. You don't need to give out your real address details, and (at least with Entropay) they will validate any address/location the merchant sends, so you can use them to get around geographical limitations. |
|
|
|
Are they scammers or do they pay out when they are suppose to? Those aren't mutually exclusive options. Madoff paid out when he was supposed to for more than a decade. Most scams pay out initially, to attract more investors. |
|
|
|
Check UK registrar, we are registered there under number - 9201446
Posted: September 03, 2014, 06:39:47 PM From Companies House: Date of Incorporation: 03/09/2014 You registered the same day you posted this. You have provided no actual information in your registration, and are using an postal drop as your company address. This provides zero security to anyone investing in your scam. If you are running an investment fund in the UK, you are required to be registered. Not to do so is an offence. |
|
|
|
United Kingdom deserve to fall apart, because of their destructive and contraproductive influence on the EU.
An independent Scotland will be a part of the European Union. Really? You have a statement from the EU to that effect? The Yes Scotland group say that they will negotiate their entry into the EU between the vote and actual independence, and that they expect to be accepted. They might be wrong. They would also have to join on 'standard' terms, without the various opt-outs that the UK has. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-eu-bid-extremely-difficult-says-jose-manuel-barroso-9131925.htmlIt would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to get the necessary approval from the member states for it to join the European Union (EU), the president of the European Commission has said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11071043/Independent-Scotland-could-not-keep-pound-and-join-EU.htmlScotland must choose between independence and keeping the pound if it wants to be part of the European Union, one of the bloc's top officials has warned.
In a blow to the Yes campaign, Olli Rehn, vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said keeping the pound without consent from Westminster "would simply not be possible" because EU membership requires countries to have access to an independent central bank.
[...]
"As to the question whether 'sterlingisation' were compatible with EU membership, the answer is that this would simply not be possible since that would obviously imply a situation where the candidate country concerned would not have a monetary authority of its own and thus no necessary instruments of the EMU," he wrote. |
|
|
|
Cex.io was always a bad investment. Only affiliates won from it.
Now it is profitable. I made some through mining and trading. Just give it a try. Buy at much lower price and sell it at higher price. Will take a few hours to execute the order. Need to be patient.  Wow, if only everyone else had thought of that! It is a bad investment, because over time each unit will lose value. There is no rational expectation that you will be able to make money trading units. |
|
|
|
American healthcare is a joke. Healthcare should be fundamental human right and free for everyone. Nobody should be paying for healthcare in a civilizied society.
Free? How?. Do you want doctors to work for free, as slaves? Or with "free" do you mean charging others for it, no matter if they agree or not? In most European countries, Healthcare is viewed as an essential public service, alongside the police and fire brigade, coastguard and military, etc.. All these are paid for through taxes, not at point of use. Do you think you should have to pay for police services? How about fire services? |
|
|
|
It will be good for them in any case. Their head of state won't be so crazy, at least. If Scotland became independent, they would keep the same head of state. |
|
|
|
Capitalism and socialism are both huge red herrings. It is important to note that many, such as the above poster, have no idea what socialism is, considering that they think "corporate bailouts" = "socialism."  It's socialism in the sense that there's a distribution of resources, from those that are productive and made good decisions to those that made mistakes. Bail-ins are a distribution of resources from taxpayers to shareholders and bondholders. Socialism would be for the state to take over the failed companies. |
|
|
|
this is a picture of Josh with the scrypt miners
Those are just boxes on warehouse shelves. Nothing is plugged in, where are all the wires? Behind it? You can see between and under each shelf. There is nothing there. No power, no networking, no air conditioning. You can see stacks of pallets in the background. It is a warehouse, setup to take a nice photo. This is a crypto datacentre: http://imgur.com/a/CcIhX |
|
|
|
What I find ironic is that black people tend to vote for democrats, but the cities that are run by democrats (Chicago for example) are run horribly with much higher then average crime rates, unemployment rates, tax rates, and lower job opportunities, and property values.
You don't think that perhaps you have confused cause and effect? Maybe cities with more social problems vote democrat, and nice safe areas vote republican? |
|
|
|
this is a picture of Josh with the scrypt miners  Those are just boxes on warehouse shelves. Nothing is plugged in, where are all the wires? |
|
|
|
Ofcourse they should be allowed to, that is like asking should BTC be allowed to exist, no? I say more power to them but best to improve upon the foundation Bitcoin has laid out. I think it could be a good way to generate money to their economy and can't blame them for trying it out.
This looks like a step in the in the right direction... Question: Wouldn't there be a legal issue if they use Bitcoin tech (particularly blockchain tech) and not keep it open source? How would the open source license be enforced? No. Bitcoin is licensed under the MIT License, which does not require sharing of derived source code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/COPYINGCopyright (c) 2009-2014 Bitcoin Developers
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE. If the only library is closed source, then there's a project to make an open source one.
If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL one.
If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.
I don't question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS. For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
