Latest posts of: Deprived

Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 [110] 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 »

2181

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF

on: November 23, 2012, 02:00:38 PM

Exchange-rate : .00511 Adjust Nav/U : 13.8419 Bid at 13.63 The motion allowing issuing of Bonds was passed. As promised there will be an exit route provided for anyone wanting to sell out at full NAV/U because they disagree with us issuing bonds. I WAS going to do this by messing around with transfers, verifying emails (to make sure it was an owner at the time of this offer) etc - but that's far too much like hard work. Instead I'll be doing the following: BUYBACK OFFER FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET OUT OF THE FUND For the next week I'll be placing Bids at 100.3% of current NAV/U - yes, buying back units at more than their actual (book) value. For units sold back in this fashion I'll do one of the following (at my discretion) : 1. Buy them (via transfers) with my private account from the asset issuing account at 100.1% of the cost the fund paid for them, 2. Transfer 0.4% of amount the fund paid from my private account to the asset issuing account. Units bought back in this manner will NOT be sold on the market until after this buyback offer ends. This ensures that remaining investors get a (very tiny) increase in NAV/U if/when such sell-backs occur whilst ensuring anyone who disagrees with the direction we're taking can exit without loss. And I'm fine with personally paying a small premium to get back some units and/or decrease the outstanding units which increases my share of profits. If I haven't updated bid price for a while you MAY want to PM me first - so I can update it to reflect any profits (or losses) from recent trading before you sell. If anyone believes this is in any way unfair please DO let me know. Obviously if there's higher bids on the market already you may choose to sell to those. This offer will last until 23:59:59 GMT on 30th November 2012 As a result of this policy, bid is now at 13.884 NEXT STEPS TODAY Here's what I intend to be doing today on the fund: 1. Update the copy of contract in second post of this thread to reflect the changes passed in the recent motion. 2. Edit the first post of this thread to give general information about LTC-ATF and to show a spreadsheet of past results (already done - just needs to be posted). 3. Create an asset for the bonds on LTC-GLOBAL and write up its contract etc. 4. Create thread in relation to the bond asset on litecoin and bitcoin forums for feedback. 5. Update my spreadsheet to properly account for bonds in fund valuation - and also for depreciation of the cost of creating the asset. I'm creating the asset now so as to get the (potentially lengthy) process of getting 5 moderator votes started. As yet there's nothing to actively trade on BTC.CO, so no immediate need for funds. But it's best to get everything ready now than, down the road, sit here twiddling our thumbs and missing bargains because the asset hasn't been approved. My intent is to release the first batch of bonds BEFORE we can use the funds anyway - as that way we increase our chance of being able to sell them at lower rate of interest (this will be explained in more detail later - after I've done the list of tasks above).

2182

Economy / Securities / Re: [RELISTED ON BTCT.CO] Bitcoin Racing Syndicate. [CLAIM PROCESS UNDERWAY]

on: November 23, 2012, 01:59:44 PM

Quote from: creativex on November 23, 2012, 01:57:33 PM Congrats on getting approved. I noticed you have 800 outstanding shares pre-trading, kinda makes me shy away a bit. Would guess those are the ones for the pass-though on LTC-GLOBAL. Plus he SHOULD have (before long) outstanding shares equal to the ones held by investors on GLBSE. Bear in mind this isn't a new issue - it's the transfer of one from GLBSE, so it WILL already have a load of outstanding shares which willl not be sold via market.

2183

Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

on: November 23, 2012, 08:47:22 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 23, 2012, 01:53:13 AM Well known shareholders doesnt mean much when the one person in charge can keep them out when he wants. Nefario decided to get a big salary and because he had 60% of shares no one could complain even though they then didnt earn dividends that would be worth the shares anymore. In the same time making the shareprices drop big time because they are connected to the dividends. He decided to close glbse and the other shareholders couldnt do a thing. And they then lost the rest of their btc invested into shares for glbse because when its closed its worth nothing anymore. They did have some secret key to get access to the database but thats worth nothing when the database password is changed. So burnside is the one. He is registered here since 6 months only. The owner of mybitcointrade.com, that had an exchange created only to scam, even is registered here since 18 months. Didnt help a thing. So sorry... i dont see how i could trust my money or shares to that exchange. I mean its similar to a online bitcoin wallet. Its a possible big risk without big advantage. Maybe you can convince me but at the moment the risk looks way higher than the gain. After GLBSE I'd expect quite a few will share your sentiments about using ANY online exchange - and that's not unreasonable. It's also the case that there's definitely risks associated with using ANY online exchange - be it BTC.CO, MPEX, CRYPTO or whatever. Even if they provide fairly timely (as if the case with BTC.CO) or very timely (as is the case with MPEX) information to identify shareholders, there's never going to be a total guarantee that they won't just run with your funds. And no company ownership structure can change that - at the end of the day SOMEONE is going to have access to the wallets. Adding more people with that access would increase risk, not decrease it. But on the other side of the coin there's also some of us (myself included) who would like to be able to trade our shares - either selling the ones we have or buying more. In my case I'd like to be able to do both - as I generally trade rather than invest. So isn't the obvious solution for ASICMINER to list on an exchange - but only transfer to it the shares of those who WANT to trade on there (and accept the risks associated with that). As an existing user of LTC-GLOBAL who likes the platform and the way burnside runs things I'm in favour of BTC.CO - but if ASICMINER went to cryptostocks instead I'd settle for that. There's no risk to ASICMINER in such a move: The fee for creating an asset on BTC.CO would be refunded, The distribution of initial shares would be largely automated (once a list had been compiled of those who wanted their shares there), The only funds ASICMINER would have to hold there would be dividends for the shares on there briefly prior to disbursement. Investors who wanted their shares kept off an exchange could just leave the with friedcat to be handled however they'd be dealt with if there wasn't an exchange listing at all. This would allows those who want to trade shares to do so - without friedcat having to participate in it. Any risk to their BTC deposited there would be nothing to do with ASICMINER, and if BTC.CO suddenly vanished then friedcat could just look in his mailbox for the last emailed list of shareholders and use that for ownership of those shares (or he could set up a cron job to query the API every 5 minutes and always have a list no more than 5 minutes out of date). So yeah - there's a risk. But there's also a reward. Let those of use who believe that risk/reward ratio is favourable take the risk - and enjoy the reward.

2184

Economy / Securities / Re: kongzi.ca going live -- investment/presales opportunities

on: November 23, 2012, 08:24:43 AM

Quote from: cunicula on November 23, 2012, 08:02:35 AM Quote from: usagi on November 23, 2012, 07:59:29 AM It's okay. My name isn't Oliver either ;-) So Oliver is also an alias. Who said it was your real name? First reference to the name in connection with usagi came when usagi, a while back, posted his/her/its credentials which included the claim to have written a book. The link provided by usagi in connection to that claim was to information by a book with the author listed as Oliver Richman (or whatever it is - haven't checked in a while). Someone (may have been EB - may have been someone else - can't remember) then did some searching and found the rec.martial-arts (or whatever it is) list entires where someone using the online nick usagi had an email address of the form oliver/richman@ (or similar). Obviously it's possible that there's two people who like to use the nick usagi, have an interest in martial arts, have an interest in pretending to be Japanese and use the pseudonym (or real name) Oliver Richman. There may be other similarities - I've never had enough interest in it to look any further than the initial links posted bt others. How likely that is (2 people with so many things in common), is for everyone to decide themselves. usagi has also explicitly denied that the identity on rec.martialarts is its - but later made a post which at a glance seemed to be saying that in fact it WAS usagi's account (by referring to alleged harassment against that account - and explaining why it happened to usagi). Fuel was added to the fire by pretty clear evidence that usagi (the one here) changes his/her/its claims of gender. Initially posts relating to its business were signed on here as "Serena" but there have been several occasions where usagi has cleared referred to itself using male-gender terms (e.g. just recently referring to itself as "a guy" twice in one post). However usgai has also recently made a straight-forward statement that it is female. But at the same time usagi has also claimed in the past to have a wife. Barring at least two sex-changes and a lesbian marriage it is not possible for all the claims/inferences to be true at the times at which they were made. Now I couldn't care less what gender someone I deal with on the Internet is - I'm more interested in their competence, honesty etc. But when someone lies or intentionally misleads about it, then it naturally leads me to believe that there's a much higher chance of them being untruthful about other (more important) things. To be clear, I have nothing against someone using a pen-name when authoring a book, even if that pen-name is of a different gender to their own. But common-sense would tend to suggest that IF they do that and are then going to refer to themself in the opposite gender then they should make plain from the start that it's a nom de plume rather than their real name - to avoid the sort of debate over it which has now occurred.

2185

Economy / Securities / Re: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

on: November 22, 2012, 08:59:40 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on November 22, 2012, 08:35:14 PM Quote from: DutchBrat on November 22, 2012, 06:34:55 PM Friedcat, this new exchange could be of interest. They have setup a protocol to 'import' an asset if had previously been listed at GLBSE. Now that it seems Nefario is sending out the asset info list in a regular format, it might be practical. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127215.msg1350580#msg1350580 I wont see my shares at this exchange. The owner has 19 posts now and i see no point to trust that exchange. There was another exchange before glbse.com that was in fact a scam. Mybitcointrade.com. Only created to scam. So as long as the owner isnt someone who can be trusted and the protection against the risks glbse offered at the end are better i dont want to have my shares in this exchange. But i think i have enough shares to use "direct" shares now. So i would ask friedcat to handle my shares that way instead. If friedcat would have an exchange it would be another thing. But this new one looks too suspicious to me. Don't be confused by the owner account having only 19 posts - that's just an account created for posting in respect of btc.co. Guess he didn't make that plain anywhere. The manager/developer is burnside who runs LTC-GLOBAL exchange - which you likely wouldn't be aware of as it's for Litecoin so in the Alt currencies section. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101694.0 He also runs a mining bond and a mining pool. The new exchange runs the same code that was used on LTC-GLOBAL. If you look at the thread above you'll be able to see quite clearly that he's a heck of a lot better than nefario ever was at responding to users, updating the site etc. And the site's nothing like the slow, clunky thing that was GLBSE. Some of the shares giving ownership of btc.co are traded on LTC-GLOBAL - they're now proxy shares into the Bermuda-registered company owning the site. I'm also an asset-owner on LTC-GLOBAL (a tiny LTC-denominated fundm and shortly a fixed-rate bond). My fund holds a few ASIC-MINER shares - hence my interest in this thread.

2186

Economy / Securities / Re: GLBSE to BTC-TC Transition & Import Strategy for Asset Issuers

on: November 22, 2012, 12:55:07 AM

Just to add one suggestion to this. GLBSE are only providing PARTIAL lists at the moment - so not all outstanding shares will be accounted for. Here's how I propose you deal with this (this assumes you know how many shares were outstanding in total). After doing everything described in burnside's post create a second account on btc.co yourself (pretty sure you can do this on same email account as your main one if you want). Transfer to this a number of shares such that the outstanding shares on btc.co matches the number that was outstanding on GLBSE. You can now issue dividends (including ones already piled up) and the portion of them due to shares so far unaccounted for will go this second account. When you receive details of an additional shareholder you transfer them their shares from that second account and also transfer to them a portion of the funds held in that account equal to the proportion of shares in that account which were theres. This allows you to resume normal business (dividending, issuing new shares etc) with very little overhead - whilst properly accounting for and segregating funds belonging to unclaimed shares. Just a suggestion.

2187

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF

on: November 22, 2012, 12:11:01 AM

The following motion is being put up to vote on : --- MOTION BELOW THIS LINE --- This motion is to make two changes to the contract: 1. The section of the contract headed "MANAGEMENT FEES" to be amended to: MANAGEMENT FEES At least once per fortnight (with the goal being to do it weekly) a report will be prepared and posted in the forum thread linked above. This will include a current valuation of the NAV and NAV/U for the fund. This valuation will be in LTC (a BTC valuation will also be posted). When that valuation is above the current HWM then the excess is considered to be profit. The manager is entitled to receive 10% of that profit as a management fee, paid in LTC-ATF units at the calculated adjusted NAV/U. 2. A new section to be added to the contract as follows: BOND ISSUING The fund manager is authorised to issue interest-paying bonds with a face value denominated in BTC. These bonds may be issued on ones or more trading platforms of Manager's choice. Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. No additional management fee may be taken for administering these bonds and the manager's fee must be taken on profits AFTER payment of interest due on the bonds. For accounting purposes bonds are treated as a liability at their face value. Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing. The following restrictions are placed in respect of these bonds: Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund. If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed. The fund must maintain BTC-denominated assets such that outstanding bonds amount to a liability of no more than 90% of such assets. When this ratio is not met (such as after issue of new bonds transacted in a currency other than BTC or after significant BTC-denominated trading losses) it must be promptly restored. The interest offered on new bonds issued may not exceed 1/3 of the estimated average trading profit (excluding exchange-rate caused elements) of the fund for the previous 26 weeks (or since the start of the fund if it hasn't been running for 26 weeks). No risks associated with normal trading may be passed on to the bonds - all loss from trading is applied against the value of fund units. The risk of trading-platform failure may, at manager's discretion, be fully or partially shared with the bonds. Manager has authority to define the detail of how bonds will be managed as he sees fit within the above parameters. --- END OF MOTION TEXT --- EXPLANATORY NOTES Hopefully most of this is pretty straight-forward. The first change deletes all the section addressing modification of management fees to deal with changes caused mainly/solely by exchange-rate fluctuation. One of the main point of the bonds is to massively reduce the impact such movement has - and make the mechanism being deleted irrelevant. In practice this will have two effects: 1. If LTC falls more than 5% against BTC then my fee will be slightly larger than it would have been before. 2. If LTC rises more than 5% against BTC then I no longer have the ability to reset the HWM downwards - and get zero management fees until the fund grows back over the previous HWM. This actually a pretty huge improvement for investors in theory - as on the old system if I had a whole bunch of genuine trading losses (or one big one) HWM would still get reset next time currency moved up by more than 5%, allowing me to claim management fees on making back previous trading losses I'd incurred. Had that situation ever arisen I would not, of course, have claimed such fees - but this formalises that in addition to removing my ability to reset HWM when previously I could perfectly legitimately do so. I believe that, on balance (and excluding the loophole - which I wouldn't have exploited, so removing it doesn't actually gain anything) this change has no overall theoretical impact on management fee (I get slightly more when LTC falls and less when it rises than under old system). The second change introduces the ability to offer bonds to raise funds as an alternative to selling more units. The reasons for this (and the benefits/risks) are detailed in the following thread: http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html I'll just address a few specific parts of the proposed change whose purpose may not be immediately clear. "Costs associated with creating these bonds will be charged to the fund and treated as an non-realisable asset depreciated to zero over a period not exceeding 20 weeks. " This is to prevent a sharp(ish) drop in NAV/U if a registration fee is paid to create a bond asset. Having the ability to issue the bonds DOES have a value (or we wouldn't be doing it) so it's not an unreasonable method, More to the point, it removes any incentive for people to sell out before we do so then buy back in lower afterwards (though it's pretty unlikely the opportunity to get back in would exist). So if (as is likely to be the case) there's a 250 LTC fee to list the bonds then that will be written down over up to 20 weeks rather than deducted in full from NAV immediately. "Although face value must be in BTC, the bonds may be transacted (and dividends paid) in any currency of manager's choosing." This is pretty important. I'd previosuly mentioned that we couldn't justify a 5 BTC fee to list the bonds on btc.co - and was considering manually managing them in a forum thread. Since then, the obvious has occurred to me - why not just list them in LTC? Although their FACE value is in BTC, all transactions can still be done in LTC. That way, not only does it serve as a bond - but also as a means by which investors can speculate (or hedge on) the LTC/BTC exchange-rate without having to take funds off of LTC-GLOBAL. The only area where this causes any real inconvenience is that I wouldn't be able to leave a bid-wall up on them unattended (as their price should swing round as exchange-rate moves). But I can still do buybacks by arrangement with no difficulty. "Bonds may not be issued with a total value greater than 1.5 times the NAV of the fund. If, through exchange-rate movement or trading loss, NAV falls below this requirement then either more units must be sold or bonds redeemed." When reading this statement bear in mind that NAV is Assets - Liabilities (The N stands for Net - i.e. not gross). If we have 5k LTC of assets and issue 5K LTC worth of bonds then our NAV remains 5k (10K Assets - 5K liabilities). I'll do the spreadsheet for historical trading profits tomorrow. After this motion passes, I will offer for a week the opportunity for anyone who wants out of the fund to get out at very slightly over NAV (either by purchasing their units myself or by the fund repurchasing them and me repaying the fund the fees element so NAV/U doesn't drop). I strongly believe that if there's any non-trivial change to the contract of a bond/unit then all investors should be given the option to exit at a price no less than what they would receive if the bonds were recalled/fund closed. It may well be the case that you can sell direct to market for more anyway - but, if not, then that offer WILL be in place. I'd recommend you vote yes - but if you have any questions or a reason why this is a bad idea PLEASE speak up. If I'm missing something I'd like to know - and will happily cancel or alter the motion if necessary.

2188

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: There are no mining companies on litecoinglobal.

on: November 21, 2012, 11:09:52 PM

Triple B is nearest thing to a mining company. Unfortunately the asset issuer doesn't seem to know difference between a bond and a share - so it's kind of somewhere in between. Personally, as an investor I would have very little interest in mining companies. Mining profit is fairly marginal (as more capacity gets added any time there's significant to profits to be made until the profit margin drops to being minimal). After whoever runs the company takes their management cut, investors are lucky to get out breaking even (becasue the manager ALWAYS takes their cut out of revenue rather than out of profit). Because of that, capacity will get added even if it becomes unprofitable - as the manager of a mining company can always make profit so long as they can find people who can't do math to invest.

2189

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob - Lied about owning YARR (confirmed)

on: November 21, 2012, 06:43:34 PM

Couple of things: Are there less than 9 YARR shares unaccounted for? If so then that rules out a lot of possibilities. Were there any trades of YARR in last few days of GLBSE (he did say he had them up on Sells)? Also, is it possible EB didn't return a double payment and nefario removed people who'd not returned double payments from the list sent out (don't know if he excluded them - but it was mentioend as possible at one stage)? And, of course, the possibility that nefario just messed up (again) has to rank pretty highly - I submitted my email address but never to date received any email from him (did receive payment) so am pretty much expecting MY email will be left off lists as well (I don't holf any shares in anything of yours) as clearly it was left off the list of email addresses he sent mails about payment to. Obviously I totally agree scammer tag is warranted for anyone who intentionally made a fake claim.

2190

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 05:35:33 PM

Your reading comprehension is shot you bits. What YOU said was untrue. What I said was accurate. Read my post again more carefully please. If you still don't understand it then I'll try again - this time as just a series of simple assertions which you can either agree or disgree with to identify where our disagreement is. If you're seriously ill then I'd suggest you go to bed and re-read my post in the morning.

2191

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.

on: November 21, 2012, 05:20:49 PM

Look - if you're ill you should go to bed. I'll make a deal with you - I wont make any more posts in this thread until tomorrow if you don't make any more posts about me here until then. Then tomorrow when you're hopefully feeling better we'll finish off establishing you were wrong on the first point about me and move on to the next. And in a few weeks we'll likely have agreed (or at least demonstrated to everyone else) that there's zero merit at all in your accusations against me - in part because you regularly reply to what you think I said, rather than to what I actually said.

2192

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 05:10:56 PM

Quote from: usagi on November 21, 2012, 04:19:19 PM Quote from: Deprived on November 21, 2012, 04:12:58 PM So: let's try to identify what specifically you believe I was wrong about. 1. DO you agree that in that thread you said ALL the assets of your company were on GLBSE? 2. Were your mining rigs (or orders for them) on GLBSE? 3. Were the mining rigs (or orders for them) assets? 4. Was your claim (in that thread) that all assets were on GLBSE therefore untrue? 5. Is it fair for me to reasonably assume that you might KNOW you had the mining rigs (or orders for them)? 6 If you know something but make a statement to the contrary is it fair for an observer to conclude you're doing so intentionally - i.e. lieing? 7. Remind me where there's any merit in your claim that it was ME lieing? Look if I said that it means either the FPGA singles we now have on order either weren't ordered yet or hadn't arrived. To date only ONE fpga single has arrived. The TRUTH is that it is something like 50 bitcoins out of over 1000. It's essentially nothing. Sure, I would sell it to pay people back. That's my obligation. I would and likely will do it soon depending on what Nefario is supposed to be sending me. But I did not ever ever intend to deceive anyone at any point in time. I have made that blatantly clear. Again: hardware purchases were announced in the bmf thread. a shareholder motion was successful about buying hardware. hardware was listed on the spreadsheet. hardware updates were posted in the thread re: orders and arrival dates I confirmed in private to loan-holders hardware had arrived. one offered to exchange the single for the debt. I turned him down until I get the info from nefario. I have been repeating this a few times now. Do you see how utterly wrong it is to state or even insinuate I was lying or intending to deceive anyone? Please.. just go away. If you weren't lying, just go away. if you were lying.. just go away. I doubt that you and others will never get a scammer tag even if you don't apologize. All I want is to be left alone. I was very very sick from oct 15th till last week. I had two back to back kidney stones, a deep burn on my leg that took over a week to heal and some kind of tropical stomach flu that blew me out completely. I just want to be left alone. ok? I'm not running any kind of business or taking investors money. You can leave me alone now. I feel like we're making some progress here - I can sense that we're not too far off an admission that this specific complaint against me was totally unwarranted. It's also apparent to me that you've missed a key element of the reason I said what I did (not your fault - as I wasn't clear about it). When I referred to you claiming ALL your assets were on GLBSE I was referring to claims made by you AFTER GLBSE had closed - not to some typo made ages ago. Specifically, to you saying that there was nothing to return to investors as all your assets were on GLBSE. I then pointed out that wasnt true - as BMF investors at least had the mining gear. Now I'll willingly concded that they represent a fairly small part of the overall assets you managed. It was never my contention that it was a BIG lie - just that it was a lie (and the set we could name "Lies" contains both the subset "Big Lies" and the subset "Small Lies"). What confuses me a bit is this: You've specifically accused me of lieing there but now satrt saying things like "If I said that....". Don't you think that MAYBE you should have checked whether you said it before making this post? In the FIRST point we've discussed - which YOU chose somehow being the one to focus - you're already admitting that you didn't check the facts and might be wrong. That doesn't bode well for how the remaining 9 are going to go for you. But let's finish this one up before moving on to them. Hopefully, now you realise/remember the context in which I made my statement we can skup some of the dross. I'm not claiming that you didn't have mining gear - quite the opposite. I'm not claiming that you've denied having it ine the past - quite the contrary. I AM claiming that after GLBSE closed you made a statement that ALL your (companies') assets were on GLBSE. I AM claiming that was factually inaccurate (Again - you're an English teacher - you DO realise "All" has a different meaning to "Most" and to "Nearly all", right? Let's assume we agree that claim was a) Made and b) Inaccurate. a) can easly be proven and b) I don't think there's any dispute on. Isn't that pretty much case closed for what you said being untrue? Again - as you're an English teacher - I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you realise the difference between "untrue" (which I claimed) and "a lie" which I didn't. If you want to want to claim that I was somehow inferring that you were lieing (a claim you haven't so far made) then please let me know - and I'll happily explain to you WHY that argument is wrong and, even better, why I COULD have claimed you were lieing and totally justify that claim (I didn't claim that - but hey, not only am I prepared to demonstrate that what I DID say was correct but to go that extra step and prove that I could have said something stronger and had logic on my side). If you still can't admit you're just totally and utterly wrong in claiming I was even inaccurate - let alone lieing - in this particular point (NOT the other ones - we'll do them later) then I guess we'll just have to go back to basics and see if we can break this down into a serious of small true/false statements until we find out precisely where the difference of opinion is. Unless you have some better suggestion of how to arrive at agreement on you being wrong here.

2193

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 04:43:18 PM

Quote from: usagi on November 21, 2012, 04:23:56 PM Quote from: Deprived on November 21, 2012, 04:14:25 PM And how can I just "go away" when you've made some very serious (lol) accusations against me and I now have to defend myself? If you say you are sorry, or that you will leave me alone, and do so, then I will retract everything I have said about you. Do you get it? I don't want to be here posting this shit. But for four fucking months none of you would leave me alone. You left a very large trail of lies. What you see in the OP was just from what was posted in the scam accusations forum. I still haven't gone through the very large amount of posts on the securities forum to collect the misleading statements people have made about me there. I do not wish to do so. I never want to have to defend myself here against accusations of fraud again. I just want to work on my japanese and publish a book and do some good in this world. Isn't it obvoius? I am taking care of my business, selling a $1000 guitar and $1000 amp and buying bitcoins to pay people back. When GLBSE folded I took a fucking 1 month advance from work to buy 100 bitcoins to support the CPA loan holders. I am not a scammer. I am trying to do the right thing. I just cannot deal with the trolls anymore. I am actually very sick. I need to be left alone from this shit. 4+ months dude. Leave me alone. If you retract what you said about me - does that mean you agree I was correct? Are you in fact admitting that you made this thread just to try to get me to "leave you alone"? Should I now be making a new thread asking for a "Blackmailer/Extortionist" tag for you? Are you actually delusional enough to believe making this thread would in any way reduce the volume of my posts about you? If you'd made your post about your Japanese software/book in the correct forum likely there'd have been no revival in posts about you, But no - you make a thread in which you explicitly state you arent offering a security - and go post it in the securities forum, wjere you KNOW there's lots of people with a low opinion of you. A forum where the past record of people is very important - and one where you'd painstakingly deleted nearly all your old posts. And you're surprised it got commented on? Post in the right forum next time maybe?

2194

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 04:14:25 PM

And how can I just "go away" when you've made some very serious (lol) accusations against me and I now have to defend myself?

2195

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 04:12:58 PM

Quote from: usagi on November 21, 2012, 03:54:12 PM Quote from: Deprived on November 21, 2012, 03:48:44 PM Quoting just in case it mysteriously vanishes. That is annoying and stupid. Look, you have been caught in several lies about me. Now you're upset I've collected (some of) them in one place, so you say you want to "take the gloves off"? WTF? Look you have been lying about me, I have a right to be upset at you. All I did was provide links to your actual quotes and summarize my responses to them. What is your problem? Stop being such a liar and jerk. One of many: 10. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114820.msg1271394#msg1271394 "You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?" During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. A shareholder motion was created over the issue of buying hardware. I made a very public series of posts about it. I never once tried to hide the fact we had a small amount of hardware. I mentioned it several times in PM to various creditors. Will you please stop lying about me? Just GO AWAY. Well let's address this one out of sequence as you seem to think it has some special merit. Pretty sure you're just misunderstanding what I was saying. In the thread where I made that post you had repeatedly said that ALL the assets of your companies were tied up on GLBSE. I was point out that THAT claim (that ALL your assets was on GLBSE) was a lie - as you had (or claimed to have) mining rigs or orders for the same. At no stage did I claim you'd never claimed to have mining gear - that would be pretty dumb of me as my evidence that you DID have them was from your own posts and spreadsheets. Again - my statement referred ONLY to what you'd said in that thread. So: let's try to identify what specifically you believe I was wrong about. 1. DO you agree that in that thread you said ALL the assets of your company were on GLBSE? 2. Were your mining rigs (or orders for them) on GLBSE? 3. Were the mining rigs (or orders for them) assets? 4. Was your claim (in that thread) that all assets were on GLBSE therefore untrue? 5. Is it fair for me to reasonably assume that you might KNOW you had the mining rigs (or orders for them)? 6 If you know something but make a statement to the contrary is it fair for an observer to conclude you're doing so intentionally - i.e. lieing? 7. Remind me where there's any merit in your claim that it was ME lieing?

2196

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 03:48:44 PM

Quote from: usagi on November 21, 2012, 02:12:58 PM Note: I reserve the right to edit this post for content and accuracy. The spirit and substance of what I have said here will not change. ----- I allege that a criminal conspiracy is present on these forums whose sole purpose is to deceive and defraud, and that the parties include but are not limited to: 1. MPOE-PR (Mircea Popescu) 2. Puppet 3. Deprived 4. EskimoBob Further that the following parties, while not directly involved, actively support the conspiract by acting in a like manner (and therefore are equally guilty): 5. Guruvan 6. Ian Bakewell It is of vital importance that all of these people and any party which can be shown to have participated in this clear fraud be given scammer tags and possibly banned from this forum. These are evil, fraudulent people who do not deserve the right to post here. First; what is fraud, exactly? In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. Therefore if I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a) an intentional deception was made b) for personal gain or to damage another individual then the named parties ARE GUILTY OF FRAUD and DESERVE A SCAMMER TAG. What do I want? I want a scammer tag for every person named in this report OR a full apology made on this thread. Although what I really want is to be left alone. I'm tired of these bullshit accusations. I would much rather do someting positive and add value to the community. It is time wasting and energy draining to respond to these trolls. Many people have said I should not respond to trolls. This is a dangerous assumption. Look at what maged and badbear, both high level forum mods, have said about me. Badbear in particular has said I am a scummy fuck because of what others have said about me. He inserts himself into threads he has no business in to slander me and troll me. If we assume his intentions are good then badbear and maged are prime examples of why I cannot ignore these trolls and must make a full response. Because the actions of these people is wrong and irresponsible and causes me direct financial damage, despite there being no actual proof I am a scammer. Although it is difficult for me to remember exact times and dates, I will provide references where I can. Background: Why was I trolled? Why did so many people attack me and no one else? I.E. GIGAMINING lost 40,000 bitcoins of investor money (HALF A MILLION DOLLARS). I did not lose more than a couple thousand because ofa mining crash; not only less in total but less on a % basis. Why was I singled out? Here is my claim: 1. Around the time I put up my letter to shareholders on August 1st, Mircea and I have an argument on #bitcoin-assets where ciuciu and I call him out for not having an education (yet) badmouthing people and arguing about economics. We did this because he was continuously slandering and beraing Nefario for not having a financial education. Well it turns out that Mircea has no education at all (no post secondary education). 2. He puts me on ignore. in one message, "In July, I had an argument with Mircea Popescu on IRC. I had pointed out that it was perceived to be immoral to host porn on the same site as he ran MPEX. He was extremely rude and put me on ignore." 3. August 5th. Mircea contacts EskimoBob and possibly others, requesting that people create sock puppet accounts to discredit me on the forums. 4. Accounts are created in the 2nd and 3rd week of august -- particularly Puppet and Deprived. 5. Attacks begin before they're even out of the newbies forum. They literally leave the newbies forum, and head straight to the Securities forum and start trolling in my threads. "Approximately 2-3 weeks later in early August, a series of new accounts including but not limited to Puppet and Deprived began attacking me on the securities forum. During this time some others began to join the fray; most notably guruvan and most notably of all, EskimoBob. Actually EskimoBob would not be notable in this case except for three suprising facts which I will outline first." 6. After a couple weeks I corner EskimoBob on IRC and he agrees to a contract, which he breaks, netting him a scammer tag accusation (currently under review by Maged). 7. In response to this, he posts logs of a conversation he had with SOMEONE, but with my name in place of whomever it was. 8. TWO DAYS LATER.... MPOE-PR announces that people are being awarded 10,000 shares of MPOE.ETF. [link below] Among them are trolls who have been attacking me, however noticably absent are Puppet and EskimoBob as they had outstanding scammer threads which were under review. If you look at reports from my actual customers such as PsychoticBoy (see post #2 below) you will see I did my job and there were no real complaints. What is the minimum limit of my demonstrable financial loss? 1. EskimoBob intentionally broke a contract that he agreed to seven times on IRC. Although Maged said EskimoBob should not recieve a scammer tag for this, without exception everyone who was present in the IRC channel who chose to speak out about it on EskimoBob's accusation thread agreed that he broke his contract and should recieve a scammer tag. Further to this, in the accusation EskimoBob viciously attacked me and attempted to obfuscate the situation by counter-accusing me of being a scammer and (!!!) Maged seemed to agree that I had made dishonest statements. As a direct result of these trolls, I experienced a demonstratable financial loss; One, Ian Bakewell (and likely BitcoinMiningINV) canceled their contracts with CPA. Secondly, I had lost business in an unrelated transaction on the services forum whereby I needed someone to buy something for me online, and they made reference to that thread and Maged's comments. I also likely (although unprovably) lost business which I would have otherwise gained had EskimoBob and Maged not allowed that thread to derail. See the IAN BAKEWELL section below for where Ian admits that as a direct result of this thread and Maged's comments I was caused a direct financial loss. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1230191#msg1230191 "It is very clear that usagi has been posting misleading statements. It may not be enough for a scammer tag, but it's pretty damn close" Notably, Maged has NEVER, EVER, EVER responded to any call to state exactly what dishonest statements I have made. it is WELL KNOWN that these people are trolls and liars: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112927.msg1260865#msg1260865 (among many other such posts) POINT ONE: I have been damaged by EskimoBob's comments. POINT TWO: There is absolutely no question that I have been damaged by other people's comments, such as puppet, deprived, and deeplink; these people have accused me of various things, none of which has ever been proven true. In short they lied. They had an intent to defame me, in order to defraud investors in CPA. The oddest thing about all of this is that throughtout this entire event, MPOE-PR/Mircea Popescu and EskimoBob were both invested in my companies. Mircea in particular copied my business model (no, he did not invent the CDO, he copied what I did 6 weeks after he saw I was successful at it) and used my own CDO as a basis for his; he invested in at least 100 shares of NYAN.A. examples where eb states he was holding my companies all along: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124391.msg1343097#msg1343097 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126560.msg1343590#msg1343590 (mircea's use of nyan.a was published on his blog, I don't have a link handy sorry). I will now outline (some of) the many damaging statements and lies the people named above have stated. This is VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION because it demonstrates that LIES have been told about me; I have therefore proven that ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE CLEARLY COMMITTED FRAUD. MPOE-PR/Mircea Popescu / Hired people to troll for me. 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1233350#msg1233350 Ironically GLBSE shut down, however at the time this was slander. This was posted in the thread against me because at the time MPOE-PR/Mircea was alledging I was an insider to GLBSE (see below). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114442.msg1234725#msg1234725 "II.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories. III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi." Lies that I was made the head of anything at all (was not, ever), and implicates me in Nefario's scam accusation for no reason. 2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1232128#msg1232128 "Deprived, by this point what would be the cost for you to prepare a complete report, 50 pages or whatever, detailing the thing end to end?" Mircea/MPOE-PR confirms his intent and tendancy/habit to pay people to troll. (Deprived insinuates he will do it in the very next message, showing that it is likely that he was paid to troll me). 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112927.msg1222161#msg1222161 EskimoBob posts the doctored logs that likely took place with Mircea Popescu. If I hired people to troll others why was I the only one trolled, and the trollers paid by Mircea? 4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1224802#msg1224802 "Usagi is the one at the head of the group." I was never at the head of any such group and I am not a member of any such group. 5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112694.msg1219012#msg1219012 MPOE-PR publicly announces payments made to trolls 6. Mircea Popescu slandered me on Bitcoin-OTC: 17405 mircea_popescu 95 Usagi 2012-11-15 19:09:14 -10 Ran a complex array of scams. One of the scammers covered by the GLBSE collapse. Despite never having done a transaction with me, having zero evidence and so forth, he has posted this on OTC. This is an intent to decieve. There is malicious intent here on several fronts; at the least he would like to defraud me because I was a competitor to his own product and it excuses him when his CDO collapsed when GLBSE closed down. Here is my OTC rating. Note that pretty much everyone I have ever done business with has rated me positively: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=Usagi&sign=ANY&type=RECV ESKIMOBOB. Warning. EskimoBob's "ART" security was delisted and he was banned from #assets-otc for life. EskimoBob is a known liar and scammer. Quote from: piotr_n on October 21, 2012, 09:37:31 AM @EskimoBob you asset has just been desisted from #assets-otc and you will never be allowed to list any assets at this service. I sent you the history of your asset by email - all 3 transactions and both the pgp keys. Now go licking some more goats' balls. 0. EskimoBob slandered me on OTC: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=Usagi&sign=ANY&type=RECV 1. EskimoBob said that I had been kicked off numerous internet forums. He has been asked several times to name even one, but he has ignored the question. 2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1242635#msg1242635 "Usagi keep lying to forum readers and publishing unreal NAV's." 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1242670#msg1242670 "Your lies about NYAN*, BMF etc NAV's and so on are all over this forum. " What lies? I've been accused of lying, but no lie has been shown. 4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1338370#msg1338370 "not a single bank trusts him with a CC? WTF!" Baseless accusation, unsupported statement. 5. (ibid) "...long history of trolling. " If you do not know what happened on rec.martial-arts, don't make a fool of yourself. Not a troll. Oh, so you really want to drag up my past history? I was invited to the private neijia mailing list run by M.S. and I have had several discussions with M.S. I wrote the chi faq:http://renli.wordpress.com/chi-faq/ and this is why I was attacked so hard on R.M-A. Over the years the forum became populated by people who did MMA and visciously attacked anyone who did kung fu. Especially tai chi. Although not everyone was a bad apple usenet is full of professional trolls. i was called a troll merely because I did tai chi. That is the whole story. Want to talk about my outrageous claims? Such as like China would get an aircraft carrier in 2012? No one believed me. I live here. I know. But I was attacked for what I said. My entire history on r.m-a was basically trying to get people to realize tai chi was not about shooting chi balls out of your ass. Go read the Chi FAQ and decide for yourself if I believe I can shoot chi balls out my ass. I do not wish to discuss r.m-a and if you think it's an issue, go post about it on r.m-a. I did martial arts for over 20 years. I consider myself retired. If you are interested in martial arts you should probably respect my experience on the subject. I am not saying I cannot be wrong. I am saying martial arts has nothing to do with bitcoin and not everyone always agrees. The arguments stemmed from the fact everyone did different styles of martial arts and couldn't stop bickering and trolling about it. The end. 6. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343640#msg1343640 No unresolved issues. 7. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1217702#msg1217702 "Yes, Usagi scammed me, when he told me lies to sell me some of the shares." What lies? EB bought shares on GLBSE. I had nothing to do with it. 8. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1220627#msg1220627 "Is this farce any way to related to anything you can actually call a contract? No, it is not." Yes, the entire thread was about how he broke a contract he agreed to seven times, and several people weighed in on that in my favor. 9. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1222078#msg1222078 "Other investors are pissed off too." Who? All of the large investors like DeadTerra were not upset. I certainly wasn't upset, I owned a majority of my companies. 10. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1224557#msg1224557 "He even used your name to squeeze me for coin yesterday" ...based on a judgement/suggestion by maged that everyone saw (and EB had replied to, showing that he had read it). This demonstrates a very clear-cut case of misrepresentation by EB. 11. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102010.msg1338329#msg1338329 "wasted and swindled away thousands of investors BTC. " blatant lie. I did not swindle 1 btc let alone 100 let alone 1000s. 12. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102010.msg1276365#msg1276365 "your own stupid mistakes that cost over 7000 BTC to your investors" "you are the scumbag who swindled hundreds if not thousands of coins of your investors money and wasted it of who knows what. Not me. " malicious criminal libel/slander. Extremely irresponsible comments by eskimobob. 13. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102010.msg1274090#msg1274090 again accuses me of destroying 7000 btc in investor capital. 14. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102010.msg1273250#msg1273250 "I am informing project supporters that those are NOT securities." EB scams people by claiming his ART project securities are not securities. 15. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110350.msg1213854#msg1213854 "<EskimoBob> you do not run business. You run some "make believe" bull shit" delusional 16. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1209093#msg1209093 "Investors have forked over to you at least 14 226,2 BTC (if you sold shares only at 0.1 and have not bought back any at lover price). " delusional CUNICULA 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1338424#msg1338424 "We also need hero tags for the people who trolled this fuck." Admitting that it was trolling / had no other purpose than to troll and try and destroy someone's business. 2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343148#msg1343148 "To libertarians and scammers, I am a troll. I wear the label proudly." Admission he's a troll (i.e. liar). 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124391.msg1338029#msg1338029 "Your sample textbook pages include too much English. I am a consumer of language texts. As a consumer, I reject offerings that are full of English language. " This is in reference to the sample PDFs available at http://kongzi.ca/wtj -- anyone looking at the textbook samples can see that the pages contain mostly Japanese. He intentionally lied to make people think my books were bad, to discredit me, to defraud me from business people would have otherwise given me. also: "Your version: "Strictly speaking, given the above breakdown, we're not dealing with a subject-verb-object sentence pattern, we're dealing with a subject-object-verb sentence pattern"" ---> This sentence does not appear anywhere in my sample PDFs. Not sure where he got it from? 4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124391.msg1338361#msg1338361 "...usagi appears to have a long history in scamming." No, just because I have been around for a while does not mean I have a long history in scamming. Where the heck did he get that from? 5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124391.msg1340438#msg1340438 "You must have pulled a lot of scams to have to change your identity so many times. Did any of your scams succeed?" Been around for 20+ years. I don't use the same alias all the time. Doesn't mean a thing. No need to repeatedly claim I am a scammer because I use different handles on different forums. 6. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124391.msg1341108#msg1341108 "I assure you. Usagi has S, C, A, and M level JLPT credentials. " No, I have real provable experience in asian languages and I have published a great deal of my work. I also have been living here in Asia for around 7 years. DEPRIVED. Necro account (!!!): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110350.msg1223457#msg1223457 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1229467#msg1229467 "A brief time-line for BMF - an investment company (mis)managed by usagi. This is relevant to set the scene. ... Obviously usagi then went and did precisely what it had said it wouldn't do" This is a lie. It was not obvious; Deprived has no reasonable grounds to make that statement and then accuse me of having a nefarious intent. 2. (ibid) "Oh really? Where? This is a blatant lie. There is no publicity and no motion prior to the post announcing it as a done deal." The contract was: announced in the securities forum, was published on the company website, and was mentioned in a shareholder letter. It was also discussed on the CPA round table to which DeadTerra, Patrick Harnett, mollison and several others had access. Everyone knew about it. What Deprived said was a lie designed to defame me. 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1229843#msg1229843 "As neither BMF or CPA accounts for actual transactions (just a fairy-tale valuation) there's no way to know." I have said many times I will provide details of transactions if there is any problem. It's called a CSV file. 4. (ibid). "usagi has consistently refused to answer questions about what the insurance policy covered and why there was no claim on it" I think everyone knows how vocal I was answering all of the complaints against me. 5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1230354#msg1230354 "2. "All of my shareholders are happy." is not supported by the facts." It was supported by several shareholder motions and discussions which I had with shareholders in PM. 6. (ibid). "The vote wasn't even announced in the main BMF thread" The vote was announced in a BMF thread. What he said was intentionally misleading. 7. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1231611#msg1231611 "Amusing how usagi totally refuses to discuss the BMF insurance issue." and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1236530#msg1236530 "when I asked in the BMF thread ages ago (and also in the CPA one) why BMF wasn't claiming on its insurance policy (and what that policy covered if it wasn't loss of NAV) you refused to answer it." (see above) 8. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1231972#msg1231972 "Nyan cooking the books to cover up an interest-free loan to CPA" - as it hasn't been discussed anywhere (except briefly by me) and just about all the facts in it are already accepted by usagi." No proof and again, I countered every one of his claims many times. 9. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1346298#msg1346298 "This is also when usagi started defrauding nyan investors (which I never got around to posting about) by making interest free loans to CPA (dressed up as holding YARR shares for the books)." No interest-free loans were ever made to CPA. 10. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114820.msg1271394#msg1271394 "You've said a few times in this thread that EVERYTHING you had was invested on GLBSE - yet that isn't actually true is it?" During the times BMF had hardware on order I had never failed to mention that. A shareholder motion was created over the issue of buying hardware. I made a very public series of posts about it. I never once tried to hide the fact we had a small amount of hardware. I mentioned it several times in PM to various creditors. PUPPET. 0. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97178.msg1217730#msg1217730 "I have no proof it is a scam," Puppet admits he has no proof. also see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1233234#msg1233234 "While no proof or even evidence of scamming," -- puppet is just obfuscating and trolling. 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1229789#msg1229789 "You base your NAV claims on the (un)"real" column and there it still shows your BFL gear at prices way above listprice. ... You are still valuing your ABM shares as if their non upgradable BFL single would somehow be worth 375 BTC." The "real" colum was discussed many times to represent book value. I added a second colum which pulled share prices off the GLBSE. Puppet failed to acknowledge this, and the numerous disclaimers in the spreadsheet (including showing the formulas used). Secondly, ABM was WORTH that much (0.4/share, IIRC), which shows Puppet was flip flopping in his accusations, as the substance of his complaint was that I was overvaluing shares compared to their GLBSE price. 2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114820.msg1264305#msg1264305 "Usagi just deleted all his posts and his website." No, I left numerous posts including information about CPA's liquidity loan as a sign that I was not leaving and did not intend to defraud or default on anyone. GURUVAN 0. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117310.msg1258824#msg1258824 Guruvan admits he did not and never did have any evidence. 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1234299#msg1234299 "The more evidence I see, the more convinced I am that usagi is not incompetent but is acting with the criminal intent to steal funds from investors When I first met usagi, I thought it was an idiot. When it made CPA, I was pretty sure it was a crook. Now that we're starting to look more deeply into the books, I'm quite certain that usagi is a crook. 1. Manipulating held asset value 2. Mind-bogglingly stupid investment decisions that are likely obfuscated attempts to inject funds into the multi-headed ponzi scheme being run 3. Hiding losses through manipulated asset value 4. Double dealing (the BMF-CPA contract is probably criminal in most jurisdictions) 5. Attempts to silence critics - the volume and hysteria has grown the closer to the truth people investigating usagi have gotten. 6. misrepresenting physical asset value 7. apparently representing expenses as assets 8. Has silently defaulted on contracts between its own companies. Apparently failed to notify shareholders of both companies the default. 9. Apparently manipulating shareholder motion votes 10. Manipulation of share prices " A large collection of lies by Guruvan. None of what he has said has ever been proven. He has stated that I have done this but provided no proof. All of these points have been discussed to death and I am guilty of none of them. Silently defaulting for example -- Umm, no, read the contract. Has been discussed numerous times. 2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1342016#msg1342016 "I'm sure the deletion of posts is in response to the likely investigation by major governments' securities regulating agencies (SEC/FSA) - wouldn't want to leave any evidence lying around" I am not under investigation by the government. it is a criminal offense to state that someone is under investigation for a crime when they are not. Guruvan has committed fraud and should be labled as a scammer. 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112927.msg1222081#msg1222081 "Pointing out that you've grossly misrepresented your finances would be, except it's true, and he's pointing out either mismanagement or criminal intent. I completely agree with puppet, and have been hinting at this for some months now (as in, since you showed up and got registered on gribble, after my repeated insistence) I didn't think you were a wise investor then, and I have not changed my opinion. " Once again repeating that I am a criminal/etc. 4. (ibid) "In short, I think you are a significant danger to investors and I will voice that opinion until you get a court injunction against me. (I suppose you could get a mod to silence me on the forum, but not on IRC) You have several people saying the same things and no one defending your position usagi. Your accounting doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it looks like the house of cards is about to collapse. " 5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1219640#msg1219640 "reputation" reputation as con-artist and shell game operator?" The question is rhetorical, so he is stating outright I am a con artist. 6. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1220234#msg1220234 Posting doctored IRC logs that likely/obviously were from Mircea. I was the only one trolled, and they were the only ones paid. See links in the MPOE section. DEEPLINK. 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343400#msg1343400 "3) You have deliberately deleted most of your posts to remove evidence." No, that is not why I deleted some of my posts. 2. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343504#msg1343504 "You have swindled people with fraudulant business schemes." He has been pressed repeatedly to qualify this and has ignored the question each time. This is a very clear cut case of malicious criminal libel, and fraud. 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343554#msg1343554 "Many have pointed out in the last monts before GLBSE closed how usagi was swindling his customers. In the above posts you find a quote stating that Maged agrees with this." No, Maged did not agree and no one had provided any actual evidence (least of all DEEPLINK.) 4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343619#msg1343619 "usagi has been misleading his customers in the past in various fraudulent business schemes" More unsupported statements. 5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124391.msg1338775#msg1338775 Vicious, evil, unsupported demands. IAN BAKEWELL 1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1235273#msg1235273 The case against Ian is long. Ian lied to me about his financial position in BAKEWELL and asked me to reduce his payment. A few days later he said he had to break the contract. He then tried to drag my name thru the mud. Read the above link. it's quite clear I stuck to my contract and he was a total asshole to me. here are some of the lies he told about me: "Wants the shareholders to be paid in an attempt to claw back, as they hold some BAKEWELL shares that would get the divvy." Irelevant. The contract clearly stated the money would be returned to shareholders. Read the thread, people were agreeing with me. 2. (ibid) "I do want the money back, my shareholders do agree, please pay: 1Q1k2uTUZ1ZSSufH2w9xnCnPPzC1QmreEa" No motion was done at this time. He lied. 3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343386#msg1343386 "Long live those trolls." Announces his recognition and support that this is just trolling against me. 4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1343639#msg1343639 No unresolved issues. 5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112443.msg1226222#msg1226222 "I make all my financials available in the third post of my thread & I try to stay as current as possible." Ian did not disclose for several weeks that he could not get his 7990's to work, thereby defrauding investors in his company who were lied to in order that Ian could get more BTC from sale of shares. 6. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1231746#msg1231746 In this post Ian presents himself as a scammer. Read the post. A rough summary is as follows: a. Ian says: "In the time between founding BAKEWELL and creating the shareholder insurance fund with you, and now, the plan for BAKEWELL has dramatically changed. BAKEWELL is a much smaller company than I initially thought I would launch with. We will continue to grow, but on a slow roll out basis. At this time, the dividends from BAKEWELL will not cover the funds fee. As such I am not able to continue with it at this time. I will be utilizing the small dividend I receive to aggressively grow BAKEWELL until the first half of the ipo is sold out. I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you. The fund currently has 4 BTC in it. I would like to work out a refund of this from you, less a small management fee. I would then like to restart this with a larger initial contribution and a payment plan based on dividend income once half of my ipo is cleared out." b. I immediately respond: "Working out a refund is not possible because this is an agreement designed to protect your shareholders in case of a default on your end." c. Ian responds he is aware he CAN NOT cancel the contract in this way: "I am aware of the contract clauses, particularly A4 and section D."\ d. He gets caught in the lie here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1232050#msg1232050 e. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1236142#msg1236142 In this post Ian threatens to drag my name in the mud if I do not accquiesce to his demands of a refund (in violation of the contract he signed, and despite point c. where he states he is aware he may not cancel the contract). f. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=104489.msg1236180#msg1236180 In this post Ian once again states that the "single largest factor" in losing his business was the troll threads. This is in sharp contrast to his statement in a). In short, Ian committed fraud; he defrauded CPA, he lied in order to cancel his contract in full knowledge he could not do this and he attempted to slander me on the forums in order to get out of his contract. This is a clear case of fraud. Quoting just in case it mysteriously vanishes.

2197

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.

on: November 21, 2012, 03:43:29 PM

I think there's another very big reason why usagi hasn't got a scammer tag. Look at the record of who does and doesn't get tags - pretty much without exception tags are only awarded to people who don't ste up and attempt to defend themselves in the complaint thread against them. As soon as they start writing long posts, making stuff up, referring to posts they've deleted etc it becomes a whole load of work to actually reach the truth. Try to find an instance of someone who defended themselves as vigorously as usagi has getting a tag. Sure - most of what it types is total garbage but it takes a lot of time and effort to actually become sure of that. Another (and pretty valid) reason is that most of the complaints about usagi aren't being made by actual investors who lost money. With the possible exception of Eskimo Bob - which is absolutely hilarious (have to wonder if he had a ton of fixed-rate mining bonds as well). I can make a pretty compelling case of various cases of acting in bad faith, robbing one set of investors to bail out a different failed company etc - but as I didn't have any skin in the game the mods can just ignore it until someone who actually lost out complains.

2198

Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: MPOE-PR, EskimoBob, Puppet, Deprived. Etc. -- Fraud and Conspiracy

on: November 21, 2012, 03:35:53 PM

Quote from: usagi on November 21, 2012, 02:12:58 PM Badbear in particular has said I am a scummy fuck because of what others have said about me. No - he didn't say it because of what others said. He said it because you ARE a scummy fuck. If and when I get time I'll respond to each and every of the points made about me specifically - purely for the amusement factor not because there's any chance of your complaint being taken seriously. What I'll do is make a seperate post for each point you raised (in the order you raised them - so there's no basis for accusing me of dodging the "hard" ones. Then when we've exhausted debating that point we can see what opinion is on who's right on that point and move on to the next. Should keep us busy - and everyone else amused - for a good few weeks So far I've played nice - think it might be time to take off the gloves. BTW, haven't checked yet (as I'm kind of busy) - but are the references to an ID on rec.martial.arts anything to do with the Oliver whatveer identity that you a few days back stated wasn't you? Would be hilarious if so - but I guess even you wouldn't be dumb enough to claim an identity in this thread that you'd explicitly denied was yours just last week. That's not an accusation - I seriously haven't checked and don't know.

2199

Economy / Securities / Re: Now offering Progressive ASIC Mining Contracts! Highest Yield Available!

on: November 21, 2012, 02:34:57 PM

Quote from: JMcGrath on November 20, 2012, 09:38:12 PM I see now how that spreadsheet may look misleading and this is something that I will have to change when I get back to the office. I will have our website admin upload the updates later (hopefully this evening). To explain the discrepancy, we offer several different contracts with different reinvestment strategies. The total hashing power of the last 14-day period (after 1 year) is actually about ~11.6TH - not 1.359... This spreadsheet is showing only the Indefinite Contracts @ 400 Contracts sold, rather than the 1,200 that we have actually issued. The BTC Payment column is taken from another spreadsheet page within the book that represents ALL of Progressive Mining's Contracts. (Including Indefinite, 1-Year, 6 and 3-month) So let me get this straight. Your spreadsheet is showing the production from hardware financed by ALL bonds. Then it's sharing that out between JUST the Indefinite Contracts - as though every penny of income raised by ALL contracts went just to them? No wonder the returns look so good.

2200

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [LTC-GLOBAL] LTC-ATF

on: November 21, 2012, 08:00:47 AM

Exchange-rate : .00534 Adjusted NAV/U : 13.63996 Bid at 13.4 Got up to about 30% of funds invested in LTC assets then they all sold and we were back to 100% cash again (more cash than last time of course). Only stayed all cash briefly this time. Getting back to all cash is nice in a way - every time we do it I (and you) can be absolutely confident that at that stage my valuation is totally accurate (ignoring the few GLBSE shares - which are under 5% of our value) and there's nothing toxic we're left stuck with. Will be putting up a motion today to address issuing BTC-denominated bonds and the necessary changes in our contract to accomodate that. A means of getting out at full NAV/U (including reimbursement of the 0.2% fees) WILL be provided for anyone who disagrees: so if you happen to think it's a bad idea DON'T panic and sell into my bid - you'll have a means to sell for full NAV/U (which should hopefully be up around 14 by the time motion passes). I'll also be updating one of the early posts in this thread with a spreasheet showing TRADING profit for each week of operation of the fund (that's profit BEFORE fees and excluding changes caused by exchange-rate changes). That's needed as one of the restrictions on my ability to issue bonds will be that the rate offered is no more than 1/3 long-term trading performance - so clearly that has to be estimated/calculated. Exchange-rate changes will be ignored - as one of the main purpose of the bonds is to make us pretty immune to them, so as they won't have any great impact once bonds are in play they can be ignored when calculating what we can afford to pay for bonds. More on that when I write the motion up later today.

Pages: « 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 [110] 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 »