Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2019, 06:11:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ... 158 »
981  Other / Meta / Re: signature filters on: October 01, 2012, 09:40:11 PM
A greasemonkey script should be able to do this pretty easily.
982  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Scammer tag: Nefario. on: October 01, 2012, 06:54:47 PM
I.a. On September 10 he blocked the accounts of DMC, on the grounds that gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder was being alleged in forum threads.

I.b. Subsequently he refused to release a list of shareholders on the rationale that it'd be a breach of their privacy rights.

I.c. He also declared an audit will be held but later refused to release the name of the auditor.

I.d. The accounts were later unblocked without any audit being performed, and without any material changes in the alleged facts.
You are allowed to make mistakes in life. Nefario undid his action and everything there is good again. I consider this issue solved.

II.a. On September 25 he unlisted all of goat's assets, vaguely alleging some sort of malfeasance which was never either explained or documented --it may or may not have to do with goat's refusal to sell back some illegitimate shares created on GLBSE by an unauthorized entity which nevertheless were legitimized by Nefario's own declaration but which was quashed by the actual legitimate owners of GLBSE.

II.b. In contradiction to the claims made with I.b. above, Nefario claims to have issued the list of shareholders to Goat and that all obligations remaining exclude GLBSE, and should be handled between goat and investors alone.
That's because he was delisted. There's a huge difference in what happened in these situations.
III.a. Starting at least as early as September 10 the assets controlled by Usagi (CPA, NYAN.x, BMF) were being scrutinized publicly on this forum for gross negligence possibly amounting to fraud on the part of the asset holder, in the same manner and to an extent equal or greater to that of I.a. above.

III.b. In spite of III.a. Nefario declared Usagi as the head of the ad-hoc commission that was to review GLBSE assets for inclusion in blue/white categories.

III.c. In spite of III.a. and contrary to his conduct in I.a. and II above, Nefario failed to lock the assets controlled by Usagi.
That was Nefario's call, unless you can point to a Terms of Service/contract between the parties that says that one option needed to be done.
For these reasons Nefario should wear the scammer tag unless or until:

A. He personally refunds all investors in any and all Usagi funds to the value of their original investment or
Wait, what?
B. He personally refunds all investors in DMC and TYGR-* to the value of their original investment.
Why?

tl;dr: You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't run away and hide for a couple weeks until people forget. It worked with LIF.x, it worked with the numerous other scams hosted by GLBSE, but it has to end sometime.
Nefario isn't a scammer. He's just made some poor decisions for GLBSE from a customer relations standpoint. You can solve this by creating competition.
983  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 29, 2012, 03:05:58 AM
After much back and forth, I feel that I've come to a reasonable decision: EskimoBob will not be getting a scammer tag for this issue, at least from me. There are a few key reasons for this:

1) I feel that there are too many unknown in this case, in both the agreement and in usagi's actions. I cannot support giving someone the scammer tag if I'm not 100% sure.

2) I agree with this judgement:
I side with Bob, simply because I find the literal idea of buying silence ... I don't know the words, but I do not like it.
If that part of the deal was fairly assigned value, then I think he should send that part back and be done with it.
The issue with assigning a value to the silence part, would be assuming Bob took it as payment for that in the first place.

Would I have been an observer in the live chat, I would have assumed Usagi was overpaying, and doing so to shut Bob up, but not in the literal sense of a scammer tag, more in the line of, "the customer is always right, heres your refund, get out of my store... I have better things to do" you know, like most retail places will "shut you up" should you be unhappy and loud.
With the silence part not being absolutely clear, it's hard to know whether the difference in the market price vs what was offered was just a goodwill concession or not.
It is legal (though probably not constitutional) in the USA to pay off for silence (and it's done all of the time), but the contracts to do so are much more detailed and specific than the simple condition expressed in the forum.  If you really wanted to buy his silence, you should have drafted a real contract and NDA, properly negotiated the terms, signed and notarized.

If you really wanted to stick it to him, you could file in small claims court against him.  The likelihood of him showing up is small and you could probably get a default judgement in your favor without ever having to argue the details of the contract.  But my recommendation, even though you didn't specifically ask it of me... just write it up to a life lesson, refuse his business in the future and move on. 
Again, I agree with this.

Maged, you made two important questions to EskimoBob and he was not able to answer either. Instead of EskimoBob providing a coherent answer explaining how much the shares should worth if the "absurd demands" were not included, EskimoBob decided to play the victim and write off misleading statements. EskimoBob sold back to Usagi the shares above the market price under certain conditions and now EskimoBob is afraid to return the difference. Thus, EskimoBob is trying to evade your judgement since you have already indicated that EskimoBob was overpaid by Usagi.
No, he answered the questions very well, in my opinion.

3) It is very clear that usagi has been posting misleading statements. It may not be enough for a scammer tag, but it's pretty damn close.

Neither side in this case has been particularly blamless, but I don't feel that anybody has acted in a manner befitting of a scammer tag. I'd like to give my thanks for all of the people who gave their opinions

I appologize if this post isn't up to my usual standards in it's explaination, but I was highly distracted while writing it. Rest assured, however, that I was not distracted when I made my decision.
984  Economy / Securities / Re: [BMF] MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT INSIDE on: September 29, 2012, 01:32:52 AM
All I can say is: it will be interesting to see how this performs as the BTC price decreases. usagi, you should be proud of how well you did despite the increase in the price of BTC.

I am not sure if you understand what has happened. I encourage you to read the entire thread. A purchase of BMF @ IPO and sale today would net a ROI of around -40%.
If you knew bitcoin was going up, why would you invest bitcoins in something that is tied to fiat instead of just investing in bitcoin? Trust me, if the bitcoin price had dropped to $2, you'd be celebrating BMF right now. Because of bitcoin's volitility, it is only useful to value companies in USD, and thus should be treated as a regular USD investment and not part of your BTC investment.
985  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 28, 2012, 02:27:46 AM
I have to say, day 3 of this has been pretty intense. Several times, each side had me pretty well conviced that they were in the right, so I'd consider this to be a pretty lively discussion that I am proud to have directed, despite its unfortunate beginings.
Usagi piggipacked his absurd demands on a buy back of BMF shares and now is accusing of a scam. He is mad at me because I and many others are not happy what is happening in BMF and in other portfolios under his management.
This seems like a valid concern. Could you elaborate on why you feel like usagi should have bought back your BMF shares above market value? Also, what value per share, exactly, do you think you deserved to be offered if these "absurd demands" weren't included?

I actually never asked him to sell me the shares back. He made that offer to me, after I told him I am not happy with the current situation and he sold me the shares under the false representation of current situation in BMF.

If you read the log, I never really agreed to any of his rantings freely. He never mentioned, that his yelling of STFU, mixed with insults is some type of a contract. All I wanted now (because he made a unexpected offer) is get out of this crap called BMF and get my coin back.
When he started counting seconds, I asked, "do I need to repeat that Yes?". I had lost all the trust I in this scumbag and a liar, who has obvious memory problems (selective memory?). I wanted to sell my shares back to him and that is what my Yes stands for - Yes, I am transferring you the shares. Nothing less, nothing more.
I do not see contract here. I see just another rant of his, where he calls me with names and adds his "shut the fuck up..." or else.   
I do not sell my silence, my support to some bullshit, I do not write my opinions about incompetent "portfolio managers" for coin and so on.
What are people's opinions of this specific statement? I want to hear what people think, regardless of your relation to the case. Yes, even you guys that are silently lurking in this thread.
986  Economy / Securities / Re: [BMF] MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT INSIDE on: September 28, 2012, 01:32:12 AM
All I can say is: it will be interesting to see how this performs as the BTC price decreases. usagi, you should be proud of how well you did despite the increase in the price of BTC.
987  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: FPGAMINING scam ongoing on: September 27, 2012, 10:00:15 PM
When I first opened this thread, I thought "Oh good. This must be about a well-respected member of the forum who will actually care about the scammer tag." But, then I clicked on the profile.

Seriously, what the hell are you guys thinking? Why should we even bother investigating a case involving such an obvious throw-away account?
988  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Foundation on: September 27, 2012, 05:09:11 PM
Give me an example how a fat ass target foundation will cause us to lose everything?

Imagine USA declares bitcoin illegal and asks the foundation based in this country to leak all the users joined database.
In that case, the Bitcoin Foundation is the best thing we could have asked for in such a time. You see, if that ever happens, the Bitcoin Foundation will have the power and connections in the Bitcoin world to reign holy hell on any country that tries that. Without such an organizational structure in place, we would be squabbling for months over who and how we would counter that move. Want proof? See every bitcoin lawsuit ever made.
989  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: DaiIy Anarchist is most likely a scammer on: September 27, 2012, 03:19:18 AM
It's very probable that it was Matthew N. Wright (from IP logs).  

So you're saying that the guy went from 10k BTC bet extravaganza, to 5 BTC scams? Warm mouth affair surely comes next.

Seriously though, while I don't know him at all, I have an impression that such blatant scam doesn't quite fit his character.
That's how he started when he first came here, so yes, it does fit his character.
990  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nefario GLBSE on: September 27, 2012, 01:38:53 AM
Well, I think I have enough information to make my decision. I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

My reasoning, in brief:
1) There was no evidence presented that Nefario's original comment that he would convert the shares to Actual GLBSE was anything more than a possible offer.
2) Even then, no evidence was presented that Nefario mentioned what the conversion rate for these false shares would be. It would not be a safe assumption to say that they would be converted at their IPO value.
3) No consideration was provided. Nefario did not gain anything (other than maybe a very small amount of BTC in exchange fees) by offering to convert the fake shares to real shares. If it had actually happened, it would have only been out of the goodness of his heart.
4) Nefario has reasonably offered to buy back the shares at the IPO value. Trades above this (especially the 10 BTC ones) would have been absolutely ridiculous to any legitimate investor who actually did their research. Even if you go by Theymos's outrageous pricing, they've only gone up 600% in value from IPO. Thus, I consider those large trades to have been made out of stupidity and should not be valid for the purpose of this argument.

My decision is pretty firm at this point, but I will remain open to new ideas and opinions as they come in.
991  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 27, 2012, 12:51:50 AM
Usagi piggipacked his absurd demands on a buy back of BMF shares and now is accusing of a scam. He is mad at me because I and many others are not happy what is happening in BMF and in other portfolios under his management.
This seems like a valid concern. Could you elaborate on why you feel like usagi should have bought back your BMF shares above market value? Also, what value per share, exactly, do you think you deserved to be offered if these "absurd demands" weren't included?
992  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 27, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
Maged: Please include a sunset clause on any action EskimoBob should take. He has told me in IRC he will not refund any money. A sunset clause would put the final nail in the coffin of a scammer tag for EskimoBob. Thank you.
Absolutely. As of this moment, however, the suggested actions are still just a recommendation until I've fully evaluated this.
Thank you and I accept. Here is my response;

1. If EskimoBob returns the 5.3 BTC I will give him the 10 shares.
Thanks! Agreeing to these recommendations is a start to getting this issue resolved.
2. If EskimoBob refunds the difference (about 1 BTC at today's price) I will accept it.
Going through the historic data, 1.1 BTC looks to be the correct amount.
3. I am willing to give you a signed statement from Nefario (if I can get one) on the holdings of BMF. BMF is not in default.
What would Nefario know that isn't already public?
4. Please see this motion which authorizes me to invest up to 10% of BMF in non-mining assets. This motion was passed 3235 to 5 and is valid until Jan 1st, 2013.
Thanks. I do admit that it is a little hidden, however. I'd like to see some more opinions from people on what that might mean for this case.
5. I am willing to run a shareholder motion on whether or not my shareholders in BMF are satisfied. People like EskimoBob have no right to make up facts and figures. They're not shareholders.
No, that's fine.

The entire point of this thread, Maged, is that people like Eskimobob are complete and total jerkoffs who are truly ruining it for people who are trying to operate an honest business.
In many ways I agree. However, they do serve a purpose in keeping the community on their toes.

It is my position that the fact you are stating that he can return the approximately one BTC difference implies that the silence part did in fact have a value attached. I do not think it is fair to say that no value was stated, and then to assign a value solely for the purposes of refunding the money. But if that is your judgement I will accept it. Thank you.
Keep in mind what my options on this decision were:
1) Consider the silence to be worth 1.1 BTC, the difference between the market value at the time and your offer.
2) Since the silence was never given a value, it has zero value and you just overpaid him for the shares.

I really didn't feel that option 2 was fair, so option 1 is a good compromise.

I like to ask forum moderator to rename the this form thread to: "Usagi is a scammer, witness reports inside", close the thread and tag Usagi as a scammer.

I never planned to tag you Usagi, even after all this bull shit. Now, you left me no choice.
 Are you happy now?
Sorry, but the scammer investigation on usagi started with my previous message since it is needed in order to decide on your case. Your message here means absolutely nothing.
However, if you are looking for a better reason, I would  suggest you look at this post:

Quote
The NAV of BMF is approximately 0.50. We will be placing aggressive bids at .45 to .50.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112734.0

Those are demonstrably lies. First of all, the highest bid is currently 0.4104.
Very interesting. usagi, what's your response to this?
Nobody cares about scammer tags. Give this bob a scammer tag if it makes you feel better. There is nothing going on in this forum right now besides "scammer tag scammer tag theymos maged im angry" and it's getting really, really freaking old.
I'm well aware of this fact. That's why we do everything we can to resolve issues peacefully. In fact, I don't even really investigate cases that either don't involve high-profile people or aren't likely to see a resolution anymore.
Maged: why are you trying to resolve a situation that happened on IRC?
Because it involves people who use this forum. If someone from IRC is already mediating this dispute, let me know.
usagi | ;;rate EskimoBob -4 broke a contract, refused to honor forum mod judgement
usagi, no judgement has yet been made. However, I feel like I'm getting close to a decision.
993  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nefario GLBSE on: September 26, 2012, 05:09:23 AM
LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?
I'm not a spectator, and I also would like an answer to this.
994  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nefario GLBSE on: September 26, 2012, 04:47:42 AM
I wonder, why the shareholders of GLBSE Real should be held liable for the actions of a criminal in creating GLBSE Fake? There operating partner, Nefario, identified the fraud as soon as it was known, and made no indication AT THAT TIME that there would be any compensation to the victims of the fraud. It was only later, after any reasonable person had a chance to know the state of the fake asset that Nefario extended the courtesy of compensation to the holders of GLBSE Fake. That he did so without the contractual ability to do so was identified almost immediately by the balance of the shareholders of GLBSE Real, and he was stopped from going forward with this plan. His courtesy offer to the holders of those fraudulent shares became an issue now, only because of the scammish behavior of Goat in trying to sell these worthless assets for a massive profit, knowing full well that they were Fakes, and had nothing backing them up.
Thanks for this. This is the kind of context I was looking for.

Goat, do you disagree with any of the statements in the above quoted post?
995  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Signed Binaries on: September 26, 2012, 04:31:00 AM
Is there any downside to signing?
As Matt said...
On code signing:
This one is a bit more difficult.  Because Bitcoin will be built deterministically, we have two options.  A. send the code signing private key around to all the devs for that to be a part of the building process (this is even harder as the building happens on Linux via the MinGW cross compiler) or B. find a way to strip out the code signing certificate in the download script and then check the stripped version instead of the signed version.  I googled this pretty quick and saw no simple CLI program which will do this, but I might have missed something as I didnt spend too much time on it.  If anyone finds something, please tell me. 
As you can see, that's a pretty big downside.
996  Other / Meta / Re: What's in a scammer tag? on: September 26, 2012, 04:22:46 AM
If there was a poor kid and a rich kid and the poor kid stole or tricked the rich kid into giving him money because the poor kid refused to be the rich kid's servant to secure his economic survival and because the rich kid failed to go into an economic mutuality with the poor kid, i.e. failing to recognize the poor kid's right to prosperity, either due to segregational beliefs or ignorance.
Simple, the poor kid should go into an economic mutuality with another rich kid. That first rich kid will quickly discover that his money/resources are useless if he isn't willing to use them.

Of course, if there is only one rich kid (i.e. a monopoly) or just a few rich kids (an oligopoly), that's a whole different matter.
997  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 26, 2012, 02:49:13 AM
This is a very interesting case, indeed. Thus, I'll split my post into two parts: One regarding this individual agreement on its own, and the other based on a broader view of things.

Part one:
Unless there is any objection to the log that was posted, it seems pretty clear that the original agreement should be considered void. Fjordbit has a good point, however, in that the silence portion should have its own value. Thus I would like to see one of the two following outcomes:
1) EskimoBob refunds 5.3 BTC and the shares are returned to him. No, he will not need to pay the original escrow fee. The reason he should not have to pay the escrow fee is because usagi agreed to pay the fee himself, instead of asking EskimoBob to split the fee with him or at least including the escrow fee as a penalty should the agreement be broken. Additionally, the escrow failed to follow the agreement all the way through by releasing the funds immediately instead of waiting an agreed upon amount of time to ensure that the agreement was kept by BOTH parties. This is besides the fact that it is not legal to indefinitely buy someone's silence. However, I think that we can all agree that EskimoBob did not stay silent long enough to be considered reasonable by anyone's standards.
2) EskimoBob refunds the difference between the market value of those shares at the time of the agreement and the value he sold them to usagi for (.53 BTC/share) and usagi provides nothing in return (other than the satisfaction that the agreement was successfully unwound). It's safe to assume that this difference was the agreed upon value of silence for EskimoBob.

Part two:
Here's where things get interesting. It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case. I will absolutely need to do more reading into this. If anybody can help shed some light on the issue of usagi allegedly investing BMF funds into non-mining operations, I would appreciate that.

There's also the matter of where the funds used to pay EskimoBob came from. Did they come from a business that was in default? If so, that automatically makes usagi a scammer, placing EskimoBob off the hook.

For these reasons, it will most likely take a few weeks to decide this case. If EskimoBob wants to make it easy on me, he can simply do one of the two options I laid out in part one. As always, the scammer tag decision does not have anything to do with the actual legal system, so keep that in mind when deciding what to do.
998  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 24, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
I'm not seeing a contract...

To be fair that is not really valid. Many people have been marked scammers when no contracts were involved.

I'm not saying he should get a tag or not, but cuz of no contract is well kinda lame.
Contracts do not have to be a piece of paper. What I'm saying is that I'm not seeing the actual agreement that was made. All I see is what happened before and after the agreement.
999  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: EskimoBob is a scammer, witness reports inside on: September 24, 2012, 09:19:29 PM
I'm not seeing a contract...
1000  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Nefario GLBSE on: September 24, 2012, 08:16:41 PM
What were the exact words he said when he made the listing "legitimate"?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ... 158 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!