There was a toxx on him being a "famous" guitarist before the end of the year - he agreed to the scammer tag on that one.

Tangible Cryptography has helped people with the logistics of paying back BTC that are in default before.  It's going to be hard to get anyone to help you while you're still trying to borrow money because those of us who've had our own demons know damned well that if you're still trying to borrow money you're almost certainly kidding yourself by thinking you won't gamble any more.  Chances are that you'll gamble the $150 you save and the repayments due to lenders unless you get help and completely stop borrowing money.

People initially rejected the notion of a scammer tag out of compassion for you.  But you've continued to borrow money and you're actively involved in gambling on this board (and who knows where else).  The people to whom you owe money have a right to feel that you've continued to deceive them after purportedly coming clean.

Again, not what you wanted to hear but those to whom you already owe money have every right to be be intolerant of your attempts to borrow more given your track record.  You're coming across as trying to manipulate people into giving you funds to help out your lenders.  Legal documents mean little with compulsive gamblers because you can't get blood from a stone.

In the real world?  No.  But it's all going to take place in dank's mind anyway so just ingest some research chemicals and you'll be able to experience the festival through shared consciousness complete with closed eye visuals.

I don't think they have access to that at this time from what they said in the report.  They said that Patrick provided them with information on outstanding balances, though, so they'll probably be able to check your claim against that.

Maybe this matter should go before the MPEx Rota for resolution.

Says the guy who's selling his belongings not giving them away.   

It's just that people have reason to be suspicious around here because we've had a lot of scammers.  When people are trying to sell a high value item for BTC and it's known that item is frequently counterfeited, the onus is going to be on them to prove the authenticity of the item.  Someone new to the boards trying to sell a similar item would have been given a much harder time than dank was, but even long-standing members don't get the benefit of the doubt just because they've been around for a while and nor should they.


You would think so.  But then you'd think they would have gone to the trouble of getting a certificate of authenticity, too.  I have little doubt that dank will send the watch.  He just mightn't get the price he wants without the certificate if the person who buys it is looking to sell it down the track.

PM.

Generally speaking, you're expected to conduct due diligence.  Generally speaking, those making an offering should provide sufficient information for you to do so relatively easily - company numbers, licence numbers, etc.   You can very often verify basic information about a company free of charge, so it's becoming more and more difficult to justify not doing due diligence.  

A blatantly false claim - saying that Microsoft has invested in a company, for instance, when they haven't - designed to mislead investors into a false sense of security can shift liability, though, especially if it can't be easily verified.  At that level, though, you're often looking at investors wanting to examine the company's books before making an investment so it's a different ball game (and at that level, the amount of due diligence expected is considerable).

It's probably also worth pointing out that the extent to which you're involved in company activities often determines liability.  "Investor" is a generic term and the means and manner of investment often have a great deal of bearing on liability.

You should check out this dank.   This guy thinks a tsunami is going to hit the US East Coast.

http://dangerousmother.com/

Whether it affects your capacity to pay your debts or not isn't really the point.  It demonstrates to everyone that you're not distancing yourself from gambling and makes people who might have been considering helping you out of your current mess less inclined to do so.

You should all be considerate of usagi and accept Japanese lessons in return for what you are owed (I guess usagi's lender didn't like that option).  If you don't leave him alone and he drinks so much that he ends up in hospital again, it will be all. your. fault. doncha know.

I'm fine.  No financial disasters or anything else requiring me to ask others for a hand (out).  I just wondered if people really think it should be that easy.

Less customers is not necessarily a bad thing.  In many industries now the ideal customer is "high profit/low maintenance" and companies intentionally implement policies which will discourage low profit or high maintenance customers from using their service - they literally want you to take your business elsewhere because you're likely going to cost them more to service than they'll make in profit from trading with you. 

When I was working in financial services and low profit/high maintenance customers used to threaten to take their business elsewhere (usually because they'd been hit by one of the policies designed to get rid of low value/high risk customers), I was often tempted to say "please do" because the truth is that business isn't a charity or community service and you don't actually want customers on whom you lose money.

For reference, the image I linked to is a screen-cap I took Monday, ‎8 ‎October ‎2012, ‏‎7:49:34 PM Australian Eastern Daylight Time if anyone wants/needs to check for modifications.

BMF insurance contract (click image).

I don't see why dank can't just consult these people on the astral plane.

If you decide to slum it and meet these people in person, dank, please webcast the part where you tell them that the date for this event is only three weeks away.

My guess is that it also helped you gain a more concrete understanding of your rights and responsibilities and what's potentially at stake, making you far less likely to proceed with the business if you're not willing to accept those responsibilities.

It pisses me off no end when people claim that they "can't afford a lawyer" when they start a business.  It tells me that they don't care about understanding and meeting their legal obligations or protecting their own or their customers' interests - why the hell would I want to do business with someone like that?

Somewhat true.  Shareholders only get a distribution from any surplus left after all other debts have been satisfied unless they have a secured or preferential interest.  So even if usagi is the major shareholder, all other debts of the entity in question need to be satisfied before he can receive his share of the surplus.  All creditors within the same class must be treated equally.

The major problem with usagi's approach (from a practical as well as a technical point of view) is that there is no guarantee that any other assets of BMF will be realised.  If the equipment is the only asset which is realised, then usagi has given himself preferential treatment at the expense of other BMF creditors in order to pay off a CPA debt (which is essentially a personal debt).  usagi has provided no evidence that he had a secured interest in the mining equipment (which doesn't come about purely because he's the major shareholder in BMF or because his name might be on the receipt for the equipment).  He needs to explain how that secured interest was created and how he's legally a secured or preferential creditor of BMF.


He deleted literally hundreds upon hundreds of posts.  Here's one thread in which it some stuff was discussed.

The second post quotes in full an October 4 post by usagi which is pretty critical to the way this has all been handled.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=printpage;topic=115284.0

I have screen caps of the account 12, account 15 and account 16 CPA contracts if anyone needs them. 

Cuba crossed my mind as well.