Don't you think that without appropriate equipment that medical education is going to be pretty useless for anything other than administering bystander CPR (which has a devastatingly low success rate).  The original Woodstock had to have medical supplies and equipment flown in by helicopter (and had to medivac people out) - what on earth makes you think that an event twice that size isn't going to need either?  Not to mention the fact that the indemnity insurance of medical workers isn't going to cover them practising medicine at an event which isn't even going to have public liability insurance.  


Atlas actually got banned for dank's kind of ridiculousness.  I suspect that the only reason the mods haven't moved dank's thread to Off-topic is that it's already located in the scammer forum.

I think that's a bad idea given that he also talked about things such as involving Trendon's wife's ex-husband and stuff.  

Phin, it's obvious that the former employer concerned is The Lending Partners (no surprise there).  As they're a legitimate business, they're probably not going to want to get involved in any kind of vigilante justice so you really need to make sure that whoever talks to them can keep it calm and rational.


Has anyone even tried consulting a US lawyer about possible causes of action against Trendon?  Tried having him served at his father's address?  While any information The Lending Partners can provide is obviously useful in terms of background stuff, it's not relevant to the facts of Trendon's activities within this community.  It might push authorities to regard him as a serial fraudster, though.  One question to ask The Lending Partners is whether they ever considered taking legal action against Trendon and why they decided not to ( does he keep himself "judgement-proof", for instance).

It might also be worth asking whether there was any indication that either Ryland Shavers or Zach Nakaska were involved in Trendon's sketchiness.

It's not the first time similar stuff has come up.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_ECG6JRZs-7SXFtdG1QXy1uSnM/edit

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99222.msg1085617#msg1085617

I just find it ironic that Desolator's so anti-SR when it's pretty obvious he got into Bitcoin during the bubble which was fuelled by Silk Road's existence.  Those who were involved in Bitcoin prior to that bubble - whether they were mining or buying BTC - we're in little danger of losing money when BTC prices went into free-fall last year.  The people who were pissing their pants when the bubble burst were those who got involved at a time when Silk Road was the Bitcoin killer app. driving speculation on Bitcoin.  In February, 2011 - when SR launched - BTC was about parity with the USD.  Following the launch of SR, it climbed to about USD 10, it's value exploding when Gawker made the existence of SR - and by extension, Bitcoin - known to the general public in June 2011.  Apparently Desolator had no moral qualms about getting involved in Bitcoin despite it's value at the time he became involved being substantially driven by Silk Road.

It might be worth whoever contacts the former employer passing on the contact details of the guy from the SEC who was looking into pirate's ponzi.  It couldn't hurt for investigators to be aware that he's acted fraudulently in the past.

Yep, just C&P it with information redacted (you can post that later if it seems appropriate).  A screenshot's not more authentic proof and I think you're trusted enough around here that people are going to accept your word if you say you haven't altered anything significant.

He's just the "ideas guy".  You don't expect him to do any of the actual work do you?  That's what the audio technician, lighting technician, contractor and electrician are for!  What else could possibly need organising?

dank should learn to play this song.  I have a feeling it's going to be his life anthem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Lending or Long-term Offers.

logansryche put more effort into planning his theatre restoration than you've put into this.  You're literally less capable of planning something than logansryche.

I don't think you understand your own source.  That table's referring to the amount of each nation's currency which is engaged in economic activity as a percentage of total world currencies involved in economic activity. The amount of BTC in circulation at any one time is actually relatively low - it would take quite a lot for the amount of Bitcoin in circulation (which is not the same thing as the theoretical value of all BTC produced to date) to reach $1 billion.  To reach $1 billion based on the amount of BTC in circulation today (roughly 30% of all BTC produced to date), BTC would need to be worth USD 333 each.

Not to mention that SR is one of the things which drove BTC adoption last year.  What do you think the impact of them changing from BTC to another form of payment such as one of the alt. currencies would be?  If BTC can no longer be used for SR transactions, the hit to BTC is going to be greater than just the loss of 20% of transaction volume each month.

Yeah but did everyone know a kid who could easily get them other drugs?  Does everyone know how to get hold of research chemicals (which you typically have to get from overseas anyway)?

I think it's inevitable that at some point law enforcement somewhere will use SR as a honey-pot.  That doesn't mean that SR started out that way, though.  The one issue I see for users is that in many places buying locally wouldn't put them at significant legal risk - if they got caught they'd be looking at a minor possession charge or a caution.  Once they're buying from overseas, though, the risk of importation charges arises and those tend to be more severe.

Nothing unexpected about this. 

I notice that pirate's forum account was last used about 10 days ago.

As Tihan already posted, the liquidation proceedings are listed for hearing before the High Court of NZ on 1 November.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109316.msg1243849#msg1243849

The only other Bitcoinica related news is that Intersango have filed a motion to dismiss the Cartmell lawsuit in California - the first case management conference was set for January next year, the motion to stay/dismiss will be hear in mid-November.

I was here when it happened - my registration date is one day after yours.  You've spent a grand total of just under 4 days logged into this forum since you joined, which might explain why you're so out of touch with the opinions of the community in general that you think you'd get any support here for the proposal in your OP.

I think even Satoshi himself would disagree with you on that assertion.

No, but if you are selling the contracts for supply of those items or offering people the opportunity to invest in those contracts then you likely need some kind of financial services licence (a money service business is only one type of financial service provider, there are many others) and are probably required to issue a product disclosure statement/prospectus.

Canadian rules relating to precious metal dealers can be found here.


http://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/re-ed/dpms-eng.asp

Seriously?  LOL.

I wonder how many guests from regulatory authorities were at the conference.

Yeah, there's so much cross-investment in Bitcoin enterprises that I sometimes lose track of who holds interests in what businesses.  I forgot that it's Roger who holds an interest in BitInstant rather than you holding one in MemoryDealers.

If the Foundation is seeking registration as some form of non-profit, then it's likely that voting procedures are outlined by law and that they can't just make them up themselves (here, votes by the membership of non-profits must be overseen by officers of the Electoral Commission who check that members were financial, that the required quorum was met, and that the required formal procedures such as notice, proposers and seconders etc were followed).

So you provided to them all the information they needed to ensure that you complied with tax obligations?  Asked them for regular statements to ensure that you can accurately report your income for tax purposes?  Have included your GLBSE "investments" on any financial statements requiring you to disclose your income and/or assets?

You can certainly claim that you didn't know GLBSE was an illegal securities exchange.  Mounting an argument that you weren't using it for any illegal purpose might be considerably harder, though because you're absolutely expected to be aware of your own taxation liabilities and to keep adequate records to verify your income and investments.  "I didn't know" doesn't fly when it comes to taxation offences.

And yes, it's ridiculous to even be talking about legal action against somebody who is actively paying.