Not sure why I'm responding to someone who has my on ignore, but I do agree that if breaching anonymity would harm collection efforts, that would justify preserving it. I would think the depositors deserve to be told specifically which loans are being kept anonymous for that reason, and if there wasn't reasonable progress towards collection on a reasonable schedule, anonymity should then be breached. Without being a jerk, the threat of publicized default can be leveraged to obtain collection. It's not that you're abusing this to pressure them to pay, it's just that realistically, those covering the default are entitled to either reasonable payments or knowing who defaulted on them.
The tricky case would be the guy who says something like, "Keep me anonymous, and I'll pay 35%. Tell anyone who I am, and I'll pay nothing."
Not so tricky. Patrick should then simply make public the extortion and let deposit holders decide if they want to accept it or not. Its their money on the line, so its their choice if they would rather lose 100% but know who owes it, or 65% to someone unknown. |
|
|
|
Please post it again or link it (I'm too lazy to search for it), maybe we could make a funny meme out of it  It was defintely not trendon. Not really fair to take things out on a baby Ok, my bad, I assumed it was. |
|
|
|
|
Received my price. Thank you very much and congrats to the others.
|
|
|
|
I cannot simply release the CSV for any account without the account owners permission. There is a motion now up available for voting, it has 5 days to vote on https://glbse.com/vote/view/126IF you have DMC shares please vote. Also, I will need someone to audit the CSV and account to work out a basic profit and loss(balance sheet is easy), and a simple report. There will be a couple of bitcoin for the completion of this task(paid out of GLBSE's pocket). Nefario. Its linked to the wrong asset. DI.BFLSC.SUCCEED instead of DMC |
|
|
|
It was unfair and not right. I'm a fair guy.
I thought it was funny, and I saw nothing unfair about it. It was a picture of trendon (as a kid), no one else was on the picture, and the picture was on a public album. Are we now worried about protecting the privacy of bitcoins biggest scammer? |
|
|
|
BTW, I find it somewhat strange that an embattled CEO would even need to give permission for records to be released to the shareholders who paid for this trainwreck. At most a shareholder motion would have to be sufficient IMO.
Several shareholders have already asked for the motion to keep me to be put up now, nefario refuses to do this. Why expect nefario to do anything else? Shareholder that you virtually gave shares to from the unsold pool for like 0.01BTC, or shareholder that actually purchased your shares? Regardless, just answer the question: do you object to the records being published or not? If you have nothing to hide, why would you? I object to nefario trying to destroy DMC based on rumors and without shareholder approval. So you object to shareholders finding out what you did exactly with their money? |
|
|
|
Did he mention this mining insurance thing before the BS&T default?
Of course not. And seriously, how is mining going to pay for this over 3 years? In just 3 months his mining operation will be almost worthless and it will take 3000 years to pay back his obligations. Has he paid anyone yet? Yes, a few tiny accounts. Very much like Pirate did. |
|
|
|
+1
IF you are going to +1 it, you might at least address Joel's point. Why would you want to protect the anonymity of defaulted lenders from the depositors that have to pay for it? |
|
|
|
BTW, I find it somewhat strange that an embattled CEO would even need to give permission for records to be released to the shareholders who paid for this trainwreck. At most a shareholder motion would have to be sufficient IMO.
Several shareholders have already asked for the motion to keep me to be put up now, nefario refuses to do this. Why expect nefario to do anything else? Shareholder that you virtually gave shares to from the unsold pool for like 0.01BTC, or shareholder that actually purchased your shares? Regardless, just answer the question: do you object to the records being published or not? If you have nothing to hide, why would you? |
|
|
|
The csv could potentially contain legitimate personal transactions. Privacy issues abound.
Diablo has both claimed to have personal holdings, and to have no holdings except those under DMC control.
What the truth is, who knows...
I was assuming the CSV would only contain DMC related transactions. If Diablo has a private account of his own and trades with that for himself, I see no reason to publish that (unless, well, there is a very good reason to(like insider trading with DMC). Since I never set up an asset on GLBSE, Im not sure how its structured, but Im sure there is a way to distinguish between private and corporate transactions? |
|
|
|
|
BTW, I find it somewhat strange that an embattled CEO would even need to give permission for records to be released to the shareholders who paid for this trainwreck. At most a shareholder motion would have to be sufficient IMO.
|
|
|
|
I think there is another option: Continue DMC with a new operator. - continue operation of DMC but with a conservative investment strategy
(maybe 50%/50% dividends/investments like the original contract)
concentrating to conserve or increase NAV (minimal trade volume)
- Each shareholder should have an option to transfer in his DMC shares and get an equal proportion of shares which DMC owns (modulo arithmetics)
- If rounding is not optimal you can sell your shares, so another shareholder can swap shares
But at first an audit on previous transactions has to be done. Whats the point of continuing this? The only sensible thing to do is reverse some recent fraudulent trades when possible, and then distribute the assets among share holders. Not that there is much left to distribute. |
|
|
|
I believe my shareholders have a right to know.
I think your shareholders have a right first and foremost to know what exactly you did with their bitcoins. All the rest is a sideshow drama. I invested them in companies that I believe can return the most value. I think you missed a word there. If what you say is correct, then just give Nefario permission to publish the data so shareholders can decide for themselves. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't like to do a stupid choice, Then dont buy OBSI.HRPT. Problem solved. but I'd like BTC economy to grow Financing ponzi's isnt helping, its hurting bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I believe my shareholders have a right to know.
I think your shareholders have a right first and foremost to know what exactly you did with their bitcoins. All the rest is a sideshow drama. |
|
|
|
They did so for the investments into pirate@40
Most of those "insurances" turned out to be a scam. The ones that did pay out paid far less than the difference in interest was worth. IOW, it didnt make any sense to buy that insurance, you would have been far better off just investing proportionally less in to pirate, and calling the coins you did not invest your "insurance". If you want that kind of insurance, I can give it to you, but if you do the math you will realize how stupid you would be. |
|
|
|
Suing Matthew ? ffsakes.. Can we do something more productive ?
Dont we have actual bigger fish to fry.. ie (Douchbag@40)
have to agree. What matthew did was wrong, but he was punished sufficiently for it. Labeled a scammer, "excommunicated", lost his job and (soon?) all his bitcoin related assets that he helped create. Considering there was no conceivable way Matthew was going to profit from this "scam", he didnt profit from it, and its difficult to argue anyone really lost anything, Matthew has paid a fair price for his mistake IMO, particularly when you compare it to pirate, and the scams that are still ongoing today. Energy would better be directed there than kicking matthew while he's down. |
|
|
|
|
I also wondered if Pirate had promised payments over the next 3 years, if he wouldnt have been labeled a scammer? After all, both hashking and pirate seem to have paid out a very small number of small accounts, and promised to pay the rest later.
|
|
|
|
my 'cut' was non-existent pirate money. i'm not sure how many more times i need to say that before people get it.
i wish i actually cashed out $1200 a week.
That you didnt is no one's fault but your own. It doesnt really matter if you lost your cut playing poker or by reinvesting it in pirate, that is your problem. |
|
|
|
I read "The family ties and identities have been confirmed". I would just like to know how they were verified before everyone goes after the wrong family.
So, it's OK to call the family when they scam people for 20 BTC but it isn't OK to call them for 500K BTC... Got it! No you dont. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
