Chesterfield, you have a call waiting on line 6.

I think it was a good idea to have some sort of shareholder representation, but I agree that "advisory board" is not the best way to think of the group. It should be something more along the lines of "shareholder representatives" or something. The problem with the idea of keeping Sam accountable is that shareholders have no real power - unless and until we can prove his identity (which he is loathe to do) and keep him accountable under pain of actual legal action. So we can't really form a "board of directors" (in the traditional meaning) that Sam would report to, because it's not like we can fire him. Then again, he's probably even LESS likely now to give us his real identity because people are starting to go after Tatti by way of his employer. (Whether or not Sam is actually Tatti is irrelevant to this, as I believe either he is and he's pissed off that his employer is being contacted, or he's not and he's scared to see what Tatti is going through.)

We can say that we "require" him to do certain things, but it has no teeth, unfortunately. We can give him ultimatums, but what can *actually* be done about it that has real world consequences for him unless we have proof of identity? It all boils down to Sam's intent. If he wants to see the project succeed, he should be willing to hear input from a group of people who are better able to solve the problems he's running into - and he must trust that group of people to give him sound advice without fear of getting arrested or accosted in the street even after giving a good-faith effort. If this is the case going forward, we need to have thoughtful, deliberate, and rational people working to ensure they understand the big picture as well as the individual issues that are coming up on an ongoing basis.

If, however, he does not intend for the project to succeed, then he already has all the bitcoins, and we still don't know with any reliable amount of certainty who the real person is behind the keyboard. He's going to simply walk, and it won't matter what kind of machinations we go through to try and keep him accountable.

So, this is my viewpoint:
We form a group of 5 or so volunteers/nominees (no more than 10 in any case) who agree to meet regularly with each other, and also with Sam to discuss problems facing the project. There should be at least one EE on board, or at minimum someone with real experience with actual ASIC development. There should be a few people who understand business management, and at least one person with project management experience. This group should include at least one person who considers this a scam, and at least one person who considers this a sure thing. We need to have a balance of opinion here so that all sides are considered. Can't lose sight of the crazies, because sometimes they actually have a good point to make.

The group should meet at least weekly on their own, without Sam, to discuss what should happen during the following meeting with Sam. When the group meets with Sam, the meeting should cover past project goals, issues that have come up since the last meeting, and the plan for the next week, 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days. Assuming Sam wants the project to succeed, this should not only keep him accountable, but also give him a way to offload/outsource (sorry, couldn't help myself there) assistance from the shareholders.

Is that an agreeable format?

Either way, nominations/volunteers should be considered within the next 24 hours.

haven't read the balance of the thread yet (there are like 6 or so pages to read still), but I am willing to facilitate. I have a lot of personal business today and won't have a lot of time to put into this today. Perhaps tomorrow, unless someone else picks up the baton in the meantime.

Edit: so the only other thread I see is a checklist? Are we supposed to discuss the shareholder reps there or no? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305686

be back later today to offer input if I can

might have missed it, but did someone start a nomination process for the shareholder reps?

This is by far the best summary I've ever seen

Ever had your identity stolen? I did once, it was absolute hell to clear up - it took 4 years and thousands of dollars in legal fees. All the person who did it needed to do was find my name, my address, and a phone number. From there, they started opening non-credit accounts in my name to establish 3rd party credibility, then opened checking and credit accounts using the 3rd party account as collateral, and started cashing so many bad checks that it would make a Congressman blush. All of this took just a few hours. They never even needed my social security number to start the ruse (I'm in the US).

The point is, if it's that trivially easy to convince a highly regulated bank that you're someone else simply by using their name and providing a few identifying details, it's that much easier when you're not dealing with regulated entities. Don't be so sure that anyone publically identified here are the actual people associated with said accounts.

Chat available here: http://irc.radiumsoup.com/freenode/labcoin/ with link to the logs (updated near real-time) at the top

What *you* know is irrelevant to what may or may not happen to Burnside. He's lawyered up, so he's well aware of what he may or may not be facing in the future in re: SEC et al. Much more aware than we are, no matter what it is you think "we know". I can pretty much guarantee that if they ever try to take any action against burnside, they're not going to shoot you a PM on bitcointalk for your input.

my point was that the US does not have unilateral jurisdiction here.

http://www.gov.cn/english/laws/2005-09/22/content_68710.htm

Article 8 The request for extradition made by a foreign state to the People's Republic of China shall be rejected if:

　　(1) the person sought is a national of the People's Republic of China under the laws of the People's Republic of China;

for posterity

I couldn't resist:



/sorry

That... that right there.... that's hilarious. XD

I'm pretty sure the operator of Bitfunder is also the operator for WeExchange, and he's trying to gin up business for WeExchange.

https://ripple.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17#p131

(not that there's anything wrong with that, just answering the question)

to me, it seems designed to keep btc on deposit, which suggests to me they do not keep all users' bitcoins available for withdrawal.

edit:

if what szmarco says is indeed true, that would confirm my suspicion. I'd never put coins there. If labcoin moves to 796, I will divest.

I'm pretty sure he meant, "until the new platform is available" - or "until btct is not available"... something to indicate divs will continue to be paid on BTCT as long as BTCT is still the exchange of record.

only half of that, at best, is worth reading at all. Most of it is self aggrandization by the poster shilling for their own reputation.

$vote_for_bitfunder++

US law enforcement agencies have a tendency to overstep their bounds in almost everything they do. As for the SEC specifically:
https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oia.shtml

/US citizen
//edit: wrong URL