 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
|
|
Hell I would by happy if I got anything from that duche. I had 150 coins with HK, damn it HK give me at least 150$! It's all fun and games over the internet, I am honestly curious how you can live knowing how much legitimate, hard earned money you took from so many families in the USA and around the world.
This topic should be pinned, to show any idiot like we were to NOT TRUST ANYBODY EVER.
So much rage in this thread, what happend to "I've got 11 scary looking dudes in chicago"? Pussies..
HK, fuck you.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it he or she after all?
|
|
|
|
Likewise, I'm willing to pay 500BTC to anyone who can help bring him to justice and recover at least half the BTC he owes.
If anyone manages to get Hashking to pay me what he owes me, I'll give you a bounty of 80BTC  I'll pledge 100 BTC for recovering what Hashking owes me.
I'll also pledge 100 BTC. |
|
|
|
|
... nobody paid him a visit, right?
Did anyone make any legal moves?
|
|
|
|
|
But he is the major shareholder, he dosn't have to care what others want. He got the money, now bye bye.
|
|
|
|
Shareholders are not innocent. Look at it this way: At the time these contracts were launched it was common knowledge that mining, even with FPGA, was not going to be profitable for much longer. Note that is, if you mined yourself with a FPGA. So how did you expect to break even after paying someone a management fee?
ASIC upgrade + possible expansion using money gathered in IPO. Issuer's intention to screw his shareholders was never clear. |
|
|
|
|
Actually the same applies to PGM.
|
|
|
|
I just want you to remember how pathetic you are when you buy your christmas tree with the money you stole. Besides that I also want somebody who is in charge here (Theymos?) to decide wether word "shareholders" may or may not include the issuer if it is as laconic as in this case (original contract https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97263.0). I don't think Paladon had in mind what the jackass here is pulling. I think he is using the situation, abusing the contract. |
|
|
|
|
Let me get this straight. At first you said "56 shares are owned by me ", but when it became obvious that you kept half of the investment to yourself while you should have given it back to the shareholders you picked exactly that moment to surprise us saying that actually YOU are the major shareholder, DESPITE the glbse was at the time DOWN, and despite data pulled from glbse showing that in fact these 573 shares were never sold!
What I don't understand is why this pathetic thief hasn't yet received the scammer tag? Looks like he is not going to admit his "calculus error".
It is just sad how desperatly you are trying to defened yourself, avoiding questions in this thread, rushing into dead ends ("the highest price in 15 days is 0 so you are lucky" shit).. Be a man and just admit you made a mistake, pay back what is NOT yours!
|
|
|
|
|
It is taking quite some time to fabricate so called proof I see.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you want me to paste the same quote from the contract for the third time?
|
|
|
|
|
