This.  Josh has repeatedly said that they have no chips to test and no working prototypes.  Even under-performing chips could have been used to demonstrate that they have something.

It probably seemed like a good idea when he was tripping so hard he lost his phone.  He probably thought he could soak up some of the sun's energy and survive on solar power alone (the eyes being the "window to the soul" and all that).

Telstra is a public company for a start and not even comparable to a private company.   It is an entity which has a separate legal existence from its owners and operators.  BitcoinGlobal is neither a private company, a public company nor a limited liability partnership - literally none of the protections which are available to shareholders/investors in those kinds of legal entities are available to you.  

It doesn't matter how wrong I think Nefario's conduct is - and I do think it's wrong - it's ludicrous not to get legal advice before going into business with someone.  The onus to be aware of the legal implications of investing in BitcoinGlobal rested with what you insist on calling the "shareholders" (who were either investors or partners, depending on what kind of legal entity you believe BitcoinGlobal most resembles).  Stop trying to draw comparisons with Enron and Telstra when you know for a fact that they are not valid.

Nope.  People understand that GLBSE is most likely really a general partnership, which means that its "shareholders" are actually ordinary partners and therefore jointly and severally liable.  It would be different if GLBSE was an actual company or an actual limited liability partnership, but everything that's been posted indicates that it's not and therefore the protections which would be available to shareholders/investors (from what you've said the role the "shareholders" played was more like that of investors in a limited liability partnership than that of shareholders in a private company) aren't available to you.

In your shoes I would have taken all the steps necessary to verify that the watch was authentic before listing it for sale.  I also would have posted a decent photo of the watch (seriously, it's upside down in the picture for one thing).  Losing your phone doesn't excuse the crappy photo you posted when you still had it.

As I've already said, I don't think you really care what the watch sells for because it was a gift (or you know it's counterfeit/stolen) - so you're not willing to go to any effort to sell it because it's all profit anyway.

You do not need a camera in order to tell people the serial number, though - you've repeatedly ignored requests for that information.  Whether you "can't be bothered" or you're with-holding information because you know damned well that you're misrepresenting the watch hardly matters - your own actions have now created a presumption that the watch is fake and the onus is now on you to prove otherwise.

In the real world, distinctions are made between shareholders, directors, investors, partners, actual management staff (such as CEOs), etc and the legal responsibilities of those people are different.  A great deal depends on what people actually do in respect of a company's operations rather than the title they hold - many protections from liability only apply given certain circumstances (for example, not being an "official" director generally won't protect you from liability if you've been undertaking the activities a director undertakes, investors are often only protected if their role is restricted to "safe harbour" activities).

A lot of Bitcoin enterprises represent themselves as "companies" and use the language associated with companies when in fact they are sole traders (which appear to be the case with usagi) or general partnerships (which appears to be the case with BitcoinGlobal and GLBSE) - entities which are totally different in terms of liability.

People were talking about it in the Shoutbox.  More than one person reported receiving the email. 

If Nasser is telling the truth, wouldn't it mean that either a) the chips haven't even been produced yet or b) the bullet run for the chips happened but they're going to scrap all the chips from that run and another bullet run (which will happen fuck knows when) will be needed to produce the chips with the new design?

BFL posters have reported receiving email stating that new delivery date for bASIC is January 2013.  You never know whether these target dates are best or worse case scenarios.

Posters on BFL forums are reporting having received email from bASIC giving a new shipping date of January 2013. 

From the face alone it's hard to guess which model it might be.  The serial number will tell us that.  Some Rolexes from the 1960s have a similar face and some of the limited additions from that era are worth a lot of money even if the original band has been replaced, they need refinishing, etc.  If it's genuine, there are a ton of places where collectors will snap it up at the price you're asking - but no matter where you try to sell it, buyers are going to want proof of its authenticity.  Your friend could be sitting on a fucking motherlode and not even know it (if he owned the coins you've been selling and both the coins and the watch were gifts from grandparents then there's a possibility this watch is worth a hell of a lot more than a couple of thousand dollars).  As others have pointed out, Rolex can supply an authentication certificate if the original has been lost - even if the watch was bought 50 years ago.

Right now, it just looks like you're relying on your past history to convince people that you wouldn't sell them a fake - the classic "long con" - because your reasons for refusing to authenticate the watch are ridiculous.

If love is all you need, then why are you trying to sell shit and invest in BTC?

The stupidist thing about your attitude, dank, is that there's a high demand for genuine, vintage Rolexes.  If you can prove that the watch you're selling is authentic, you can almost certainly sell it for more than the 142 BTC you're asking.  The exact model number determines how much it's worth.

Yet again, though, you're not prepared to put in any effort.  If you don't get off your ass and put in the effort, people are only going to be willing to pay the price a Rolex knock-off would command.  I guess it's all profit anyway if you're selling a gift so why bother, hey?

We have people who borrowed in order to place pre-orders whose loans are now falling due.  We probably also have people who were counting on income from their ASICs for Christmas and who now realise that even if they get their ASICs on 11 December, they aren't going to earn enough in two weeks to pay for Christmas.  So yeah, I think we're going to see a round of cancellations for financial reasons in addition to those cancellations from people who are just tired over the delays.

Apparently even people within BFL itself don't keep Josh updated on what's happening.  According to Nasser, the chips are not flawed and the delay is being caused by BFL making changes.


https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/437-asic-update-26-november-2012-a-4.html#post6311

It's more than ridiculous that Josh is not being kept informed of things like this.  BFL's a small enterprise and even people whose role is purely technical must be aware that with the slip in shipping dates customers want both explanations of what's happening and information about when they can really expect to receive their ASICs.

Lose eyesight, lose penis or stuck in broken lift with Dank playing his guitar for 8 hours?

I'd seek clarification from the liquidator about filling in the open orders section and how to include it in your total claim.  Perhaps when you contact him you could suggest that he make a post about it or send out an email about it as I suspect many people are going to have the same question.

That's just an estimate of the value of the Bitcoins on MtGox and the value of the Bitcoin claims at this point in time.  The early estimates of the value of assets are often incorrect.  The way I'm reading it, right now they want you to list any USD you're owed and any BTC you're owed separately (and not to convert one to the other).  They're not asking you for the dollar value of the BTC you're owed.  If you're only owed Bitcoin, then list only Bitcoin.  If you're only owed USD, then list only USD.  If you're owed both, then list the amounts of each you're owed.

My understanding is that Rolex also keeps records of every service ever performed by them on a watch and maintains a list of genuine watches reported to them as stolen (and that this list can be accessed by the public to verify that a watch hasn't been reported to Rolex as stolen).

dank's "I don't need to prove it's genuine" approach is just precious.  If he's not willing to verify the authenticity and genuine ownership of the Rolex, then you have to wonder about how the coins he's been selling were acquired, too.

I can't be the only person wondering whether Zhou will have the temerity to lodge a claim and if so for how much.