i dont see another way for him to be sure to pay his investors.
what about this: tell gigavps to donate all bonds which are not claimed in february. if he say yes: there is no reason left for a scammer tag.
According to the claims page these are not investments anymore rather a leasing type of arrangement, changing those terms is a scam. The process of claims as I have said before requires these bond holders to perjury themselves on a legal document, a criminal offense most places, to get their funds back. This is hardly the actions of man trying to help his investors rather one of a man trying to cover his own ass from the shit he has got himself into. |
|
|
|
Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased. They aren't. They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public). It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).
And you seem to have drank the kool aid on lawyers being lying weasels only out for them and their clients selves. Lawyers are required in the systems you speak of to use every legal means possible to protect their clients interests. They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding. Now they cannot be compelled to tell anything a client has told them but they cannot once knowing a fact from a client present anything to lead the courts/legal system to believe any different. ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told. What they can and will do when a client has told them of their guilt is try to show the evidence presented against their client in the worst possible light to introduce doubt as its a beyond reasonable doubt evidence test in the systems you cite not the truth involved in its application of this test that is the goal. |
|
|
|
See that is the issue I have, I will use that exact string and get
Error -5 Enqueueing kernal onto the command queue.
Try removing the .bin files the program creates more specifically the ones with 7168 in the file name then start it up to let it create new one for use. |
|
|
|
Could he or could he not just buy back the shares as per the original agreement?
I mean from a legal standpoint...
The entire venture has no legal legs to stand on, you must be licensed to sell securities in most countries on this planet. This is why that claims document is worded the way it is. Not that it does him any good even if all the other people wish to break the law and lie on a legal document to get their money/protect his ass there is more than enough still left over for people to find to show the true nature of this deal. In short he is fucked if the law goes after him and more than likely fucked by choosing this process to try to get from under that. I know I will be filing the complaints if this BS he is on continues. |
|
|
|
I completely understand the desire to get everything legal but if you care at all, you start by closing out your existing contracts on their original terms, not by defaulting.
You cannot do anything legal by starting with a deception as its basis. It don't work that way you can only get legal relief from having stated the facts you know to be true in the proceeding sought. Any other course of action will be declared null and void once the deception is discovered and proved in a court of law. I'm confused. What deception are you referring to? I don't think I mentioned any deception? The one he is trying to pull namely portraying this venture as a leased equipment type of agreement/deal instead of mining bond it was. If this was bankruptcy we were dealing with and he tried to do that and his lawyer knowingly went along with this they both be in jail or on their way there. As it stands, now I have notified the lawyer of this claims process being a lie in an attempt to deceive people/the legal system, from this point on he is on the hook for any legal ramifications continuing on this path will bring. |
|
|
|
I completely understand the desire to get everything legal but if you care at all, you start by closing out your existing contracts on their original terms, not by defaulting.
You cannot do anything legal by starting with a deception as its basis. It don't work that way you can only get legal relief from having stated the facts you know to be true in the proceeding sought. Any other course of action will be declared null and void once the deception is discovered and proved in a court of law. |
|
|
|
He's not saying multiples of 2, he's saying powers of 2. According to that, they should have gone from 2 cores to 4 cores, skipped 6 cores, and gone straight to 8 cores. Which is really odd cuz I just upgraded from an AMD X3 Tri-core. This is why I'm so confused by what SAC and Jack1 are saying.
Christ have you people never actually read anything about computers or done any work on them. I knew as soon as I said that some fool on here would be on about the cores on a die and not actually have enough of a brain in their head to know that a socket on a board is not a core on a die. Ah well this place and its stupidity never fail to deliver I should start taking bets on it I would make fortune.. Yes yes I know there's a difference. I'm just using that as an example. I actually have worked in computer shops for the past 5 years, but I don't have a Sparky degree, and I fix them, not design them. You still havn't answered my question. Then surely you have seen in the the memory modules that go in the 1, 2, 4, 8 ... sizes. If you are asking about the 3x cores well that is four core chip with one disabled in a true 4 core design. The intel design off the start with this was 2 x 2 put together on the chip with some fancy routing around/interconnections going on inside the die, this same idea applies to the 6 chips there are some workarounds inside the die that gets it all right for the chip to be able to be used in the machine this cannot be/is not done on a board level for the physical sockets. |
|
|
|
He should be tagged as scammer. He refuses to pay dividends and buyback bonds. Instead we have agreement to sign with notarized stamp!
Also a claims process that requires you to be part of the deception as to the true nature of the relationship that was in place as he tries to cover his ass with your help in doing it. BTW I would add that lying in a legal document such as a notarized statement is a criminal offense in most countries. |
|
|
|
I find it kinda funny that it went from 27 -> 54 -> and now 72 GH/s. Over 2.5x the hash rate you paid for.
Relatively simple explanation that I highly doubt will ever satisfy the conspiracy minded implications of your posting but here goes. Tom does numbers thinking on increasing sales and sees that going from the 27 to 54gh/s at 6 chips per module still makes him money. Engineers get back to him reminding him of the power of two principal in computers. The 2, 4, 8 ... way things for them work, now 6 don't work in this world you need 8 Tom realizes he cannot go back to lower speed as he has already sold at 54 so must go to 72 at 8 chips per module to correct for this reality. Conspiracy? Hey man, I just said it was funny! And ya, I've been following the bASIC vs BFL drama for many months. I actually think Tom moved from 27 -> 54Gh/s because he wasn't selling very many. BFL had thousands of orders, and he had maybe a few hundred. Why not take a little less profit from each unit if you can sell 10x the number units, right? Then the move from 54 -> 72 sounds like it was an engineering oversight. They couldn't run the chips as fast as they thought they could (as opposed to BFL which has increased their speeds by 50%, and Avalon which has increased by 10%). But, they can't lower their advertised speed, as their customers would just bitch! And rightly so! So they decided to rework the board and throw an extra chip in per module to increase the speeds. Simple. Your whole thing about having to use 8 chips and not 6...wtf? That doesn't make any sense. Of course they could use 6 chips in a package! Nope that is the way it goes and what was said in the announcement in servers for instance you have 2, 4, 8 ... continuing on the same power of two for however many sockets they put on them there is no odd ball 7, 9, 11 socket machines. On the other was thinking you were BFL troll doing your bit for the cause... Strange, i should own a couple of servers with a 12 core amd cpu. Also i remember having intel servers with 6 core. To me, this multiple of 2 things doesn't sound really right. He's not saying multiples of 2, he's saying powers of 2. According to that, they should have gone from 2 cores to 4 cores, skipped 6 cores, and gone straight to 8 cores. Which is really odd cuz I just upgraded from an AMD X3 Tri-core. This is why I'm so confused by what SAC and Jack1 are saying. Christ have you people never actually read anything about computers or done any work on them. I knew as soon as I said that some fool on here would be on about the cores on a die and not actually have enough of a brain in their head to know that a socket on a board is not a core on a die. Ah well this place and its stupidity never fail to deliver I should start taking bets on it I would make fortune.. |
|
|
|
I find it kinda funny that it went from 27 -> 54 -> and now 72 GH/s. Over 2.5x the hash rate you paid for.
Relatively simple explanation that I highly doubt will ever satisfy the conspiracy minded implications of your posting but here goes. Tom does numbers thinking on increasing sales and sees that going from the 27 to 54gh/s at 6 chips per module still makes him money. Engineers get back to him reminding him of the power of two principal in computers. The 2, 4, 8 ... way things for them work, now 6 don't work in this world you need 8 Tom realizes he cannot go back to lower speed as he has already sold at 54 so must go to 72 at 8 chips per module to correct for this reality. Conspiracy? Hey man, I just said it was funny! And ya, I've been following the bASIC vs BFL drama for many months. I actually think Tom moved from 27 -> 54Gh/s because he wasn't selling very many. BFL had thousands of orders, and he had maybe a few hundred. Why not take a little less profit from each unit if you can sell 10x the number units, right? Then the move from 54 -> 72 sounds like it was an engineering oversight. They couldn't run the chips as fast as they thought they could (as opposed to BFL which has increased their speeds by 50%, and Avalon which has increased by 10%). But, they can't lower their advertised speed, as their customers would just bitch! And rightly so! So they decided to rework the board and throw an extra chip in per module to increase the speeds. Simple. Your whole thing about having to use 8 chips and not 6...wtf? That doesn't make any sense. Of course they could use 6 chips in a package! Nope that is the way it goes and what was said in the announcement in servers for instance you have 2, 4, 8 ... continuing on the same power of two for however many sockets they put on them there is no odd ball 7, 9, 11 socket machines. On the other was thinking you were BFL troll doing your bit for the cause... |
|
|
|
whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded. The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements). The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block. The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate. The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds). It doesn't mean the same thing. The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is. The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing"). It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining. Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim. If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that. This has now become a legal proceeding what is on that page matters. In order for any legally binding outcome to happen the claims page must truthfully describe the circumstances otherwise it is void. Nor should you even be asked to participate in an act which is a fraud upon the legal proceeding being sought. I do not what kind of lawyer he has got but I for one cannot see his coming out of a law office having been advised to put that page up as it is from a lawyer who knew all the facts. Has to have been him saying well I made this agreement with these guys on the internet now things are screwed where do we go now, no way that page comes up after saying I issued these bonds a lawyer cannot do that and lie about a legal proceeding and its purpose he's disbarred for certain most likely jailed as well. |
|
|
|
Lol post got deleted by mods. Apparently attacking alt chains is okay. Explaining how to profit by attacking alt chains is not okay. Forbidden knowledge.
Well you know what they say when life gives you lemons make lemonade. Where is your entrepreneurial spirit great chance for your "Have fun and profit by attacking alt-chains" newsletter/subscription service. |
|
|
|
The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.
Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts. whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.
That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded. The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements). The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block. The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate. The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds). It doesn't mean the same thing. The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is. The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing"). Consider what happens in those two cases if he is unable to mine for a week. In the new version clearly the "outcome of this processing" is zero - and ANY portion of zero is still zero. In the original contract the payment would be equivalent to X MH/s worth of mining. That's obviously just the most extreme example - but same principle applies to any other rise or fall in his actual mining results. It's an entirely different thing. It's not just some rewording - it's an attempt to cover his arse by pretending he offered data processing rather than a bond paying a calculated amount per week irrespective of what the outcome was of his actual operation. And you're not dumb enough not to have already realised that. Thats because one is a financial instrument and one is an equipment lease. If he offers the first and admits to it the SEC can have his balls in a sling. They are already there he is all over this forum, in my very few minutes of searching, stating he is selling bonds in his own words. No getting by that and as I have already wrote his lawyer to remind him of his obligations under the law to not knowingly misrepresent material facts of a legal proceeding. The claims page that does just that may be about to change if not I will contact the proper legal authorities to report both of them. |
|
|
|
The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.
Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts. |
|
|
|
I find it kinda funny that it went from 27 -> 54 -> and now 72 GH/s. Over 2.5x the hash rate you paid for.
Relatively simple explanation that I highly doubt will ever satisfy the conspiracy minded implications of your posting but here goes. Tom does numbers thinking on increasing sales and sees that going from the 27 to 54gh/s at 6 chips per module still makes him money. Engineers get back to him reminding him of the power of two principal in computers. The 2, 4, 8 ... way things for them work, now 6 don't work in this world you need 8 Tom realizes he cannot go back to lower speed as he has already sold at 54 so must go to 72 at 8 chips per module to correct for this reality. |
|
|
|
Better than going to the state.
Maybe in theory but not in practice. Name one person who has gotten bitcoins back from going to the state ? Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic. The point is neither will work. And the state prevents you from taking the only option that does. The state exists to protect criminals and without it they would face real consequences. Its not there for your protection. The state exists to guarantee your rights as a citizen until such time as they are taken from you by a court of law. You've got some learnin' to do. No learning to do that is the theory they teach, now what actually gets put into practice is another matter... |
|
|
|
Better than going to the state.
Maybe in theory but not in practice. Name one person who has gotten bitcoins back from going to the state ? Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic. The point is neither will work. And the state prevents you from taking the only option that does. The state exists to protect criminals and without it they would face real consequences. Its not there for your protection. The state exists to guarantee your rights as a citizen until such time as they are taken from you by a court of law. |
|
|
|
I'll post this again since it's already been buried. To the bitcoin community:
We are all in the very unenviable position of riding in the wake of the aftermath of James McCarthy. I have been placed in a very bad spot in this wake, and my only goal is to protect and serve Gigaminers as I have over the last half year.
Yet you could not be bothered with having a backup plan in place for the bonds issued after such a troubled launch. |
|
|
|
He was paying out before.. Why is he not paying out now? Did the bitcoin addresses go bad when glcrapbse went down?
Yes and to expand all the information required to determine the payments/ownership of the bonds is contained in the payments made that are in the blockchain. It should be simple enough to continue the payments due based on list of address in already sent payments since those are based on the bonds owned by that address you have your ownership determined.. Too simple a solution with not enough scam potential in it so probably why it was not thought of to be used. |
|
|
|
At least then I couldn't be accused of benefiting from others' loss.
That was the entire business model of these mining bonds to start with it is not like they we ever good deal. Oh and if you cast your gaze back in this thread you will see everyones favorite starfish at the moment pointing out the problems this issue had from the start. As disclosure, I have subscribed for 500 bonds, and I am very annoyed at the heavy handed "regulator" approach apparently being shown by GLBSE. I have offered (elsewhere) to run a bond register to facilitate and track user trades for free if GLBSE continues their ridiculous posturing and choses not to register one of the largest and more respectable potential issues we have seen for some time.
This whole farce now playing at this point in time was easily foreseeable yet nothing was done to ensure the running of this venture in the event of further problems like at the beginning |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
