Hello, please confirm by PM your full GLBSE email and BTC address provided as well as if the amount shown on these spreadsheet is correct:

BTC-MINING: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdDFUajZmcWtQc2xVZUlGNXBvbWg1ZXc#gid=0
BTC-BOND: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdFItM2RwdWU3VHJMeldkSm1IckZNbUE#gid=0
BTC-KRAKEN: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdDFsNlpydVNvektWeW9yWEpKYjA3OVE#gid=0

If you are not in the list, please check with Nefario as to why you are not included. Reasons might include not returning the accidental double payment he sent to some people.

It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.

Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.

If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

A few days before Nefario decided to move and start releasing information, I was talking with Gigavps on IRC and he mentioned getting a lawyer and making attempts to retrieve the data. Had this data not be recovered at all, proof of ownership would be impossible for anyone. I am certain Gigavps's effort helped the situation progress.

Me and a few reputable members/asset issuers were not on some assets list although we should and for large amounts of shares. Which tells us we should be precautious about the received data. The identification and affidavit purpose is really in case if there are false claims that get paid, you know who to go after to get back the stolen funds, should further data be uncovered that others were actually owed the funds. No, there was no indication that any identification document would be collected when the contracts were bought. But the fact "official data" would get lost/dubious was not planned and Gigavps made no official promise as to how people could collect the produced Bitcoins other than he'd give a predetermined amount per contract. He is, technically, still willing to fulfill all his contractual promises which is to pay 5 mhash/s of Bitcoins generation per contract.

As far as I'm concerned, the willingness to execute the contract clauses is all that matter. If the "how" he attempts to execute it does not satisfy others, I do not hold him responsible for that as neither party agreed on how the Bitcoins would be collectable should GLBSE close down. If he insists on protecting himself legally, I see no reason to try and force him to do otherwise.

Installing a simple mailing list script to maintain communication with the holders is simple enough. Holders can easily be contacted. I see no reason not to contact holders.

Definitely. Only issuers received such information and can contact holders. Holders might not know what they hold exactly.

If you can't identify your line, PM me to talk about it.

Can you PM me the email you provided, stepkrav?

Partial asset list received.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvwwyRGyc1WgdDFUajZmcWtQc2xVZUlGNXBvbWg1ZXc&pli=1#gid=0

Please check this link and check if you are included and amount of shares is correct (Only the first characters of email/BTC address are shown)

PM me with confirmation of which entry you are and if entry is correct.

Basically, came down to his promise that deposit could be withdrawn anytime for Starfish or that any losses for Kraken would be covered personally.

It was pretty much a promise to take responsibility for any occurring loss.

If you're strictly receiving BTC from shares and don't/won't be allowed to send them to someone else or need to change the address, then signing communications won't be needed.

Otherwise, any change would need to be signed.

Apparently for both.

This time there's BTC addresses associated.

Holders can sign their communications with their private key.

Identifying yourself should be more than safe and easy with that method.

Except I simply believe the mistake is not common and Patrick still owes the deposits for promising it with no conditional clause to execute said promise.

Patrick to depositor:
 - (X) You can withdraw anytime.
   - (Y) Because I can cover it.
     - (Y2) Because I make non BS&T loans to people.

Is the same as

Lendee to bank
 - (X) I will repay the loan.
   - (Y) Because I can pay for it.
     - (Y2) Because I have a business providing income.

The persons extending funds do not accept the arguments to directly prove that X can be made true because X can only be true once it becomes realized. (X) is fulfilled only if (X) is fulfilled. Any argument you can make can point toward that (X) will be fullfilled but cannot prove (X) will be fulfilled. They never accept to take any risk related to the arguments or that they can actually lead to X. Just the the borrower has made its case and we'll extend the fund.

Yes, I agree 100% with the rest of what you've just said however, including non-enforceability of those contract (Not because the contract was not legal but because you can hardly provide proof you entered that agreement. Patrick paid 5% per month or 60% per year which would have been the limit before breaching usury legislation, at least in my case.) That they didn't sign the contract and insufficient investigation is the mistake the depositors made when deciding to extend deposits to Patrick. They'd have a hard time proving it but it is still a verbal contract. You can call them whatever you want for putting themselves in that situation.

But Patrick's mistake is promising what he could not end up delivering and binding himself into the promise of repaying deposits without any conditional clause to protect him. Had he not created such a contractual offer and advertised it and exploited his business as he did, he would not have incurred the loss. Patrick created his loss when he willingly took responsibility for that potential loss by making a promise to repay his debt anytime. The lendee will still owe his debt even if he told the lender he wanted to use his loan for his business that does Y. It concerns not the lender that the lendee lose the deposit in his business other than it hinders the repayment of his funded he loaned to Patrick.

Had Patrick stated he would pay back deposits anytime IF not too many lendees defaulted, I'd input the full blame on lendees for the loss of funds and blamed Patrick and the Depositor conjointly for getting themselves conjointly into accepting the risk of lendees defaulting. But the depositor never accepted that.

X was never promised because Y. Otherwise by arguing that you can repay the loan (X) because you have a stable job (Y), you're not making to your bank the promise to repay the loan, you're strictly making the promise to the bank of having a stable job, not that you will repay the loan.

You agreed that in the case of the lendee stating he could repay a loan because he had a stable business or assets, the bank is not at common fault for considering his arguments sufficient.

The party does not accept that X is true because Y is true. The bank doesn't loan on the promise to repay the loan (X) because the argument he has a stable job (Y) inherently makes X (the actual promise) to be true. He just agrees that the Ys argued are sufficient to expect the other to honor his promise. When he states X because Y, he never strictly promised that he had a stable job to the bank. He's trying to provide reasons for the bank to believe him when he says he can repay the loan (X) which is what he actually promises. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed.

The Ys can be factual, but are strictly provided as arguments to convince the promise X can be honored. They are not provided as premises that can guarantee the conclusion (that the promise X can be held true.) Ys are there to convince that the promise X can potentially be true. Not that Y being true automatically cause X to be true. The parties are not attempting to establish logical truths which are impossible. Both party cannot foresee the future events that would make the promise (X) an absolute truth that will be executed before the party promising it executes or sees it becoming a fact as he promised, rendering it a truth through the direct realization of that promise.

I will repay the loan(X) only if I repay the loan (X). The deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X) only if the deposit pay X% and can be instantly withdrawn (X). No arguments can prove those Xs to be absolutely true other than X becoming an accomplished fact. I don't see how you can assume that someone should not accept any arguments Y until such arguments proves without a doubt the conclusion the promise X will be executed because that is simply impossible. As such, no arguments can be contractual. By stating "because", he his arguing why he possibly can execute the promise. He cannot prove his promise will happen with any argument. Had he used the word "if", he would have made a conditional promise that he would honor his promise IF and only IF another event holds to be true.

By making a promise (X), you establish that it will be executed because it will be executed. Any arguments (Y)s are strictly there to point toward the fact you possibly can make (X) be a truth as you promised and for convincing the other party in that matter.

It is actually a quite interesting debate about common mistake in contract law, accountability and general arguments for moral opinions of how things should be accounted for. Not so much about the scammer tag which Patrick will almost certainly receive for another case. The thread seems to be mostly dead other than this debate.

JoelKatz, perhaps you would agree to pursue this debate outside of this forum? It seems we're taking quite some space for something no one else seems to care about.

And as such, Patrick's depositors make the same uncommon mistake as this example in believing his argument to be sufficient to expect him to be able to repay the loan. Not that these arguments were requirements/truths or that the repayment of the deposits were 100% dependent on those arguments. That the borrower spends the money as he said he would or that his arguments were truths does not free the debtor of his debt if a problem occurs.

Yes, I certainly hope people expected there was high risk at extending funds for such high rate. Yes they probably should learn from it. Yes, it could have been foreseen, although you cannot possibly argue that everyone was assured of that. If the person learns from the mistake, good for him/her. High returns, high risks of loss. But that it was risky certainly does not frees Patrick to fill his promised claim: I will honor withdrawals instantly and pay you X% on deposits.

Your statement that "This is false" is void of any valid argument. Please elaborate. Although I must agree it's probably not the best example I could have made to point my case.


I stress again that the arguments are NOT part of the contract just as you have agreed in the above example about the bank.

The doctor factual and contractual claim he made is a promise:
- (Factual) That you will not pay.
- (Argument) because the insurer pays for it. (false)
When his argument proved insufficient to make, he ended up paying because he had to honor is promise of the factual claim the you will not pay.

Patrick similarly made the promise that:
- (Factual) I can cover your deposit (He also made the other promise to pay X% interest)
- (Argument) because I have sufficient assets which are not invested in BS&T. (true)
When that argument proved insufficient to make his factual promise to held true, he still owes to fulfill that contractual claim.

The same way you agreed about the borrower of a bank that:
- (Factual) I can repay the loan
- (Argument) because I have a good credit rating. (true)
- (Argument) because I have a stable job. (true)
- (Argument) because I have enough assets to cover the loan should problems arise. (true)
Even if his arguments are true and the bank granted the loan, he did not make the same mistake as the bank. His arguments do not make the factual promise true and he has to respect what he promised.

In all these case the two parties make the same different mistake. One makes the factual promise and bring arguments (which can be factual (true) or not) that this promise is realizable, the other accept their arguments as sufficient to expect that promise to be achievable. The arguments were never part of the contract as exceptions to the factual claim or reasons not to honor it. When you make a promise, you have to fulfill it or otherwise fulfill it has much as you possibly can, regardless of personal consequences or whatever arguments you brought up to convince the other party to trust you.

Patrick knows what he promised, knows who he owes this promise to and provided no evidence he fulfilled his promise as much as it could possibly fulfill it. As far as I know he has personal asset left an he his willingly not departing with them. So he's not fulfilling his promise as much as he could have. You also agreed that the person accepting the contract is not at at cause for the loss for merely enabling it to occur because he accepted the contract. By accepting the contract of sending Patrick funds, they enabled the people (the lendees) who caused Patrick's losses to cause them. Not the depositors. Patrick is neither willingly causing that loss to himself, but he did create the loss to depositor by making the promise he could cover their deposits when it ended up he could not. The depositors lost funds because they lended them on Patrick's promise that he could cover them and pay X% fixed interest.

Because the unfairness was caused by pirate which rendered the lendees incapable who themselves are responsible for the unfairness through lying to  Patrick, making it impossible for Patrick to repay his debt except through his personal assets. Patrick then renders it unfair for depositors by claiming coverage of the deposit and not reimbursing .

If I take a large business loan for expanding the operation and lose my funds because someone steals it, it is not my fault and it hinders my ability to repay. But since I'm operating as myself, I personally owe that money because I promised it. I cannot try to void part of the loan on behalf I lost the funds.

I strictly promised the bank to repay the business loan. I argued I had a good credit score and a stable business which would make me capable of repaying the loan providing a business plan detailing how I'd use the funds. But when the bank tells me those arguments are accepted to grant the loan, no party ever agrees the repayment promise is directly dependent on the arguments I offered to hold true and being sufficient. My business went down the drain because someone stole my funds putting me in serious debt. Yet I still owe the bank the funds because that's the only promise I made them. The arguments I gave were purely to convince them. Can I keep the assets I have left and default on the loan because those specific funds were stolen by the third party because I gave it to that third party?

The bank makes the mistake of believing the arguments to be sufficient to expect me to repay the loan.
I made the mistake of badly choosing who I'd then pay those funds to and gave them to the wrong individual which commits a financial fraud (accepting payment and not delivering anything in return.) I myself made the mistake that hinders the repayment of the loan, causing loss to the bank.

The mistake is far from being common. The depositor blindly believe Patrick can be expected to deliver based on his arguments. They put themselve in the situation, it was a mistake, but it does not cause the loss of the deposit being irrecoverable, just like you didn't cause the loss of the test's costs by accepting your doctor's claims.

The loss is caused to the depositor when Patrick loaned the funds to wrong person who then didn't pay him back, something over which the depositor had no control. Patrick bears the responsibility of making that mistake.

The mere fact that the depositor not making the mistake of giving Patrick the funds he asked for his business would have not enabled Patrick to make that loss does not make them responsible. Consider this: should a person making the mistake of handling over a knife to some shady individual asking for it to cook would place that personal equally responsible for the death of someone when said individual proceeds to kill somebody, because you enabled that murder? Both made the mistake to entrust something they shouldn't have to someone they did not really know, enabling a loss to someone (Financial to yourself in the first case or of someone else's life in the later). Both giving party made a mistake enabling something to happen by entrusting their property to someone else, which is a far different from the mistake of doing the mishandling creating the loss when you had no control of it.

When you accepted your doctor's claim, you enabled the loss by proceeding with the test which would have been impossible otherwise. But you did not cause it, the doctor did by promising you would not pay and then the insurer not paying as he expected, so he paid for the test since he promised you would not pay for it. I could argue you are just as responsible as Patrick's depositor who did not do due diligence in investigating before proceeding. Had you had investigated and called your insurer, you would have known the test was not covered and the doctor would not have to bear the loss.

The first makes a mistake which enables the situation to happen. The person who made the promise the other would incur no financial loss makes the actual mistakes which cause his own loss, regardless if he was mistaken on his external parties on which he base his promises (such as the doctor) or if those parties outright scammed him like for Patrick. The mistake is not a common one.

The only common decision is accepting the contract. Patrick's contract was a bad contract. He made lending mistake which caused him to lose the deposits. The contract in itself (That Patrick would be able to cover deposits and pay X%) did not cause the loss. The depositor should have known better than accept such a poor proposition placing himself in the situation. But ultimately Patrick's mishandling of the funds is the mistake which made the promise he offered impossible to hold and created that loss. Not that both entered the agreement and transaction which enabled the loss. The depositor made a mistake in accepting a bad offer but I currently remain with the conviction it is a different mistake that is not common.

I would have ZERO problem with that if Patrick came forward trying to find a compromise or offering to slowly refund deposits personally or attempted to at least try to renegotiate anything and showing he cannot current repay the debt. In which case I would call it a default on his debt because of inability to repay. But so far he remains silent and has done nothing to resolve the situation or shown his willingness to depart with any wealth to cover his debt. Hence why I believe he should be considered as a scammer until his debt is repaid or renegotiated or that he paid as much as he could possibly pay.

They made a risk misjudgement in that Patrick's argument were sufficient to reasonably expect him to be able to cover the deposits.

Patrick made a mistake in promising something he could not deliver as promised.

Since when do you include arguments into contract as common mistakes?

Can you contest/support otherwise than this example:

or this example: