The idea was you could communicate directly with him over the air waves since he is the co-founder of Zinc, that Homero claims to have purchased, and perhaps have a good chat with him. Also noted in one of Homero's past interviews he claims they were the one's who told him that he would have direct purchase relationships with the main vendors.
Be interesting if you could chat with him over the airwaves about all of this. No email servers, no logging of anything, unless Homero has his own spy in the sky of some sort to intercept even that.
Eric is now asking if you or someone else could provide some links to where Josh claimed anything regarding him or Zinc since it is obviously not true. Scott- hmm can't be two things with the same name can it? https://archive.today/DbKmwhttp://www.businessinsider.com/zinc-save-bitcoin-extension-for-amazon-2014-3Is the same two guys: http://zinc.io/about/http://zinc.io/docs/Go to the Zinc site. Click on JoeLister. Note the phone number. Compare that phone number w/ the number listed here (ohio area code, btw): http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2013_11_EO/04-2665319_990O_201305.pdf |
|
|
|
Team pay coin is owned by his church buddy Adam right?
Yes. @Gava said: @GAWCEO I notice your update is slowing turning into an announcement actually :-p Might wanna rename it, just saying. Also if we want to dissect individual wording etc. If you want a perfect launch for the Honors program, should we expect delays this week if the devs don't knock it out of the park? Also you saved resources to re-stabilize Paycoin? Does that mean you didn't use your resources before to stabilize it despite saying they were being used? Or is this newly found funds? Any reason the honors program terms can't be released ahead of time? And I'll save everything else for later, just want to get this stuff out of the way.
@GAWCEO said: The answers to your questions are on the PayBase Blog. ... except there is nothing of the sort in that blog. OMG Josh has lost the plot. If anyone believes this they are well...I cant help them. These are obvious red flags, The thing with Josh that those left on Hashtalk are not seeing or are refusing to believe its happening, Josh is pumping his shitcoin with shit nothing news and most of the time lies.. Remember at the conference we constantly heard 400k merchants ready to go - now they are NOT EVEN bothering to fix paybase and its features. They are not even bothering to do the right thing and yet like all the news for the week - they are forgotten and never to be repeated and people act as if its all working and happened. Wake up nothing is working. All Josh is doing is now doing this stupid honor program for people who cried like a little bitch about a 20 dollar floor - that is priority number 1 for GAW and JOSH  ? That is the direction the idiots left on hashtalk have pushed the entire coin/forum/company with their greed and I hate greedy fuckstains - its mind numbing absurd since only very little amount of xpy will be able to be in the programme. And I dare say GAW will fill up all available slots. Screw the customer he is putting in a program that is nothing more than a good will gesture because it will also be plagued with issues...such is the nature of gaw programmers - poor. Never mind that paybase is a pile of shit with nothing working, the lies after lies, the false promises after false promises - everything is carefully calculated to pump or dump the shit coin - those that have been trading coins for a while will know exactly whats going on and can play the swings perfectly - such is the obvious nature of this clusterfuck. Are there still users over there that had their BTC stolen after gaw/paybase reversed the transactions that were part of that flash crash a few weeks back (during the Miami conference) and that have yet to be compensated/reimbursed for the theft? |
|
|
|
|
Really appreciate the feedback, Sir.
FWIW - about a year ago, your website helped me get some miners going using an imac. You're a great contributor to the community and especially to those of us that aren't techies and that are forced to fumble along a steep learning curve.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, this may be a silly/noob question. I have a BeeMiner/Dragon clone btc miner - 5 Boards w/ 8 A1 chips per board. The boards are controlled with a Raspberry Pi contained within the miner. The SD card became corrupted and I have no way of contacting the manufacturer to obtain a replacement card. Will the multiminer software, or any software you all know of, work w/ my hashing boards if I install on a new SD card and insert it into Raspberry Pi? I have no idea on how to get this miner going again - any help would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Joe - Lets take the theory a little further w/ a related matter:
Assume two JM's do exist/existed; lets also assume CTO JM is no longer w/ GAW - who is running the GAW miners down at the mining farm in Hattiesburg, MS?
JM, as GAW CTO, being a stolen identity may make it a little easier to fabricate a story about mining, data centers, etc.
|
|
|
|
1. Depending on the jurisdiction, contracts w/ an indefinite duration are not enforceable. I took a quick read-through of the NDA and it looks like the term is indefinite.
I am in the UK - to me its a moot point 2. Also, its not effective until both parties sign and deliver the NDA. Delivery methods, unless defined, often refer to physical delivery of the documents or notice. This NDA doesn't seem to authorize electronic delivery. I'm guessing both sides did not sign and deliver physical copies of this document - but I'm just speculating and have no way of knowing the truth.
Actually, GAW allowed us all to return it via electronic means, with electronic signatures if need be - we never received a copy back 3. Generally, courts frown on retraints on trade. There's a movement away from the enforceability of non-compete agreements and NDAs for this reason. That would be another angle I'd explore if I were looking for a way to attack this document.
Its not even their NDA they copied it from an Animal Sanctuary RE: 2 - doesn't matter if they allowed it to be returned electronically. There's a provision in that agreement that says the written agreement alone represents the entire agreement between the parties and that any deviation has to be done in writing. So, possibly nobody signed it given they didn't provide you w/ a signed copy.  |
|
|
|
To me, there are several angles I'd use to attack this document if I had a client in my state trying to get out of the same - assuming the document were a document governed by the laws of my state. Few examples: 1. Depending on the jurisdiction, contracts w/ an indefinite duration are not enforceable. I took a quick read-through of the NDA and it looks like the term is indefinite. 2. Also, its not effective until both parties sign and deliver the NDA. Delivery methods, unless defined, often refer to physical delivery of the documents or notice. This NDA doesn't seem to authorize electronic delivery. I'm guessing both sides did not sign and deliver physical copies of this document - but I'm just speculating and have no way of knowing the truth. 3. Generally, courts frown on retraints on trade. There's a movement away from the enforceability of non-compete agreements and NDAs for this reason. That would be another angle I'd explore if I were looking for a way to attack this document. Not legal advice. I'm not your lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
@ Scott - SOOOOO Many. Maybe we should create a ranking system to sort through these ostriches. Might be fun.
|
|
|
|
All is silent at Fort Shitcoin no words from anyone, many accounts still on lock down beware my friends shit winds are a commin.
Look, someone found this thread  https://hashtalk.org/topic/29755Ironically the poster shitting on CoinFire is from that "news" site that got sold to rootdude. A bit of a pot/kettle moment there. Do these guys even read? Nope. That has been apparent for a while. You can lead a horse to water . . . (you know the rest). |
|
|
|
I'm sure heads are going to roll but not at Coinfire. The investigation started with the death threats from the gaw crowd to the editor at Coinfire. I wouldn't be surprised to see an FBI investigation after this. @CoinFire - very interesting article. I have been and remain deeply troubled by what I've seen from GAW & co. However, I'm wondering why you were given the documents you quoted from. I'm not sure why the SEC would give you anything or comment on an investigation - unless you are the SEC. Anyway, the article seems like good work - just can't wrap my head around why you'd have the kind of access you apparently do - seems like it may blow the lid off of any ongoing investigations or surveillance efforts. Heads might roll if I were the boss.  Yes, not CoinFire's heads. More like an employee at the Commission - if that even happens. |
|
|
|
@CoinFire - very interesting article. I have been and remain deeply troubled by what I've seen from GAW & co. However, I'm wondering why you were given the documents you quoted from. I'm not sure why the SEC would give you anything or comment on an investigation - unless you are the SEC. Anyway, the article seems like good work - just can't wrap my head around why you'd have the kind of access you apparently do - seems like it may blow the lid off of any ongoing investigations or surveillance efforts. Heads might roll if I were the boss. |
|
|
|
As far as I can tell from the internet, to call an action a fraud requires that it has three elements. - a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact
- intent to deceive
- damages as a result of the deception
The first one is easy peasy, as there are plenty of records of falsehoods that were later edited out of existence, most notably the magnitude of the price support behind XPY. You can also add merchant support, etc. as things that were misrepresented. The second is a little trickier. They can attribute a good number of the false statements to internal communication errors. The trick here is to get access to their internal communication. I'm guessing that those message board posts the CEO made prior to all of this, while not absolutely conclusive, might be enough to get a warrant for internal emails and private online messages. The third one is trickier than it sounds. The most brilliant move they made was to convert those hashpoints to paycoins and let people sell them on the market. That reduced the number of potential claims, as most people who wanted out at that point sold their coins, at a profit, to those who wanted to stay in. This is in line with a lot of the private messages that have been posted on the board. The CEO didn't want customers who asked questions or otherwise didn't agree to follow him blindly. He banned liberally anyone who wasn't on board. That way all of the liability lands in the hands of a few true believers who are likely to blame external forces (dumpers, regulatory agencies, etc.) for their losses instead of GAW. They can probably handle a couple of malcontents with decent settlements. The people who didn't buy in completely pretty much all made money or broke even. I have a set of my state's civil jury instructions in my office. Here are the elements a jury would have to find to support a judgment for Fraud (keep in mind, these instructions are negotiable by and between the parties to a case, their counsel, and the judge; these instructions are also pegged to a particular state's law): For the plaintiff to recover from the defendant on his/her claim of deceit based on fraud, you must find all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The defendant made a false representation of a past or present material fact; 2. The fact was material; 3. At the time the representation was made, the defendant: _(a) knew the representation was false; or, _(b) was aware that he/she did not know whether the representation was true or false 4. The defendant made the representation w/ the intent that the plaintiff would rely on the representation 5. The plaintiff did rely on the representation; 6. The plaintiff's reliance was justified; and 7. This reliance caused injuries or damages tot he plaintiff. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
As someone who writes scholastic papers and online articles, I find it offensive when people steal others' work and claim it as their own. In my opinion, it shows no class or progressive thought. Then again, what would one expect from someone supporting Garza - AND comparing him to the likes of Edison no less?! Seriously... I about lost my breakfast when I read that. These days, services like Turnitin are good at catching plagiarists within minutes of scanning their content, but some people still don't get it. Oh well... such is life. Scott- Totally agree with this. I used to teach at university. We had an honor code and council to deal w/ plagiarism - its a big deal if you ask me (and really offensive to the instructors and asshole-ish to the authors/scholars). On more than one occasion I have though about how the digital currency ecosystem could use its own honor code/set of standards notwithstanding whatever laws and regulations are also applicable to the industry. |
|
|
|
Anyway, is someone who invests with gaw with the purpose of suing afterward really blameworthy in a "you deserve to lose money" sense?
Why invest with the purpose of suing? Just don't invest. Don't risk your money and don't give them even the slightest chance to gain anything. How can you expect higher returns by suing? That by itself sounds shady. The best you should hope from a lawsuit is your damages minus legal expenses, and your damages are not $20 per coin. Which is a moot point anyway because even if you win it also depends on GAW actually being able to pay up. Congrats  "In a majority of cases, however, injustice is avoided by awarding the plaintiff an amount consistent with the value of the promise. Other cases avoid injustice by awarding the plaintiff only an amount necessary to compensate her for the economic detriment actually suffered." So there's a good chance of getting the full $20 out of them. That quote is about recovery. It also doesn't account for affirmative defenses, like: failure to mitigate damages, accord & satisfaction, waiver, estoppel, etc. Its never black and white. Typically, the easy cases settle - its often the hard and murky cases where both sides think they're going to win that a court/jury has to make a decision. |
|
|
|
I just received an enquiry...
Has anyone talked with the powers that be at Cryptsy to get XPY delisted for what can be seen as verifiable market manipulation?
May be time to seek a meeting with "BigVern"...
Scott-
Know anybody in Belize? I think that exchange is registered there IIRC. Not sure whether the CFTO can regulate an exchange based outside the US like FinCEN or the SEC regulate non-US companies engaging US citizens. EDIT - not saying Cryptsy is physically in Belize - just that they may be registered there and technically subject to exchange laws in Belize and not the U.S. |
|
|
|
This is EXACTLY what the SEC and other financial authorities would like to hear...: "...We will move the market ourselves ..." ...  VERY NICE shot in the leg, Retard ...I mean Homero...  Clear case of Documented Market Manipulation... ZiG The SEC might not care about a virtual market though. I'm not defending GAW, but the law is trailing so far behind, PayCoin might as well be the equivalent of in-game gold in an RPG, baseball cards, coupons, or bottlecaps. They might not really care about a new virtual currency... They might get a slap on the wrist for being a money transmitter, if they didn't have that license with FINCEN. If GAW created the market and a virtual currency, that's not much different than selling parker brothers monopoly money on ebay. There's a thread somewhere around here about reporting them as a ponzi, that would probably carry the most weight and get the most attention from the feds to be taken seriously. FinCEN doesn't issue licenses for MSBs, states do (most of them anyway). FinCEN requires MSBs to register with them and to file various reports when certain transactions occur per the Bank Secrecy Act. CFTC may care about market manipulation generally. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
