BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
|
 |
January 03, 2013, 02:19:39 AM |
|
+1 stochastic
I don't think we are going to get the board admin to change the scammer procedure anytime soon. However your suggestions make great sense to me.
If you are able to contribute to direction of the clusterfuck of a thread(s) you help or additional input would be great appreciated.
While I no believe that usagi broke promises and/or violated his stated contracts with his investors and thus should be tagged a scammer any resolution to this thread would, i'm sure be welcomed by all.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
|
|
January 03, 2013, 02:20:49 AM |
|
usagi doxxed Bitcoin oz??!!
That was fucking harsh and totally uncalled for.
|
|
|
|
|
BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
|
|
January 03, 2013, 02:46:11 AM |
|
Additional info added at the link above. |
|
|
|
|
BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
|
|
January 03, 2013, 03:01:46 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 03:13:18 AM |
|
"Augustocroppo, someone whom I have little to no relation..." - usagi
Usagi you know this guy is your only defender right now??
Yeah but if I stay close to him I am afraid people will accuse him of conspiracy with me or of being a sock puppet. This has happened in the past. The truth is I am very thankful to him and I need his help. Also I have meet Vampire in person and can personally vouch for his stability and integrity.
It was a mistake for him to threaten my family. That was stupid. I'm very upset at that. For what it is worth most of my family is dead and I don't contact any relatives in Canada. It is the principle which pisses me off. How dare he make a threat on my family? Please have someone on this board vouch for you stability and integrity.
and answer a few simple questions.
would you please.
Here is my answer: You're fired. You have made judgements on me before presenting the evidence (see kongzi.ca/BCB/misrepresent1) and you refuse to allow me proper time to make a response ( judgement passed before evidence has been examined). You have shown that you simply don't understand that you are being unfair. I am going to work on a settlement directly with shareholders. My primary responsibility is to them, not you. Once I make ends with my shareholders, you will have no business here. I lost a lot of respect for you in this case. I'm going to ask you to please leave me alone now. You can do what you want. No, I do not accept your judgement and I dislike how you have inserted yourself in this pretending to be an arbiter and then jumping to unjust conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
|
stochastic
|
|
January 03, 2013, 03:16:31 AM |
|
Truthfully, I don't believe a scammer tag should be issued until some acceptable standards are created. Traditionally, a scammer tag has only been issued to those that are clearly purported a fraudulent activity for economic gain. I am all for giving scammer tags to people that mismanage their bitcoin businesses and refuse to take personal responsibilities for the liabilities due to their incompetence, but this standard needs to be clearly established by the bitcointalk moderators and not handed in an unjust and schizophrenic manner.
|
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
vampire
|
|
January 03, 2013, 03:21:01 AM |
|
It was a mistake for him to threaten my family. That was stupid. I'm very upset at that. For what it is worth most of my family is dead and I don't contact any relatives in Canada. It is the principle which pisses me off. How dare he make a threat on my family?
Really? I threatened your family? I didn't do so, I threatened to dox you if you gonna dox anyone else. You doxed BitcoinOZ. You threatened me. Now feel the same asshole. |
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 03:22:31 AM |
|
It was a mistake for him to threaten my family. That was stupid. I'm very upset at that. For what it is worth most of my family is dead and I don't contact any relatives in Canada. It is the principle which pisses me off. How dare he make a threat on my family?
Really? I threatened your family? I didn't do so, I threatened to dox you if you gonna dox anyone else. You doxed BitcoinOZ. You threatened me. Now feel the same asshole. First of all I did not threaten you. Secondly I did not dox anyone. Furthermore you asked for proof I did not lie when I said puppet admitted he was wrong about the hardware. Fine, here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1431774#msg1431774Now can you please leave me alone? Your two complaints have been proven in my favor. I didn't do anything to piss you off. Leave me alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 03:45:54 AM
Last edit: January 03, 2013, 03:57:34 AM by usagi |
|
.... wat? "It's probably in your best interest now to stop making wild accusations, and give the evidence you have to BCB." This isn't a threat.. for fuck sakes vampire cut it out. I qualified the statement on the very next line: "I will not have time or energy to respond to 5 different people anymore. Go through him... just a thought." Will you please stop making wild accusations? Like I threatened you? Look I'm sorry if you thought that was a threat but it wasn't! Second, no I did not dox him. I knew his name because he posted it in quite a few places on the internet with respect to his company and work in the community. We all use handles here -- that doesn't mean we're anonymous per se. Like how you say you know my real name. Fine, you know. That's fine. that's not doxxing. If you think that's doxxing, then what precisely do you mean when you say you will "doxx" me as everyone knows my name and where I live? Clearly your definition of "doxxing" changes when it moves from what I did to what you are threatening to do to me and my family. I was just replying to this: Puppet said that he was wrong? Really? I really want to see where he said "I am wrong, your pricing calculations totally matches MTGOX and not off by 20%".
You see when I said puppet said he was wrong I also didn't mention hardware, but that is what I was referring to. I couldn't provide a link because I had deleted the post. Finally... the quote is from a FAQ post at the top of the thread. You can check it yourself, I am pretty sure it's from the FAQ post #2. It shows the post creation time. Vampire........ I'm not lying to you. Puppet said: "writing question #2 I realized you are actually right about them  The value should be counted as the price you would pay for them, shipping included; as this is what counts in buying your shares vs. buying the gear and mining directly." |
|
|
|
|
|
stochastic
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:01:15 AM |
|
It was a mistake for him to threaten my family. That was stupid. I'm very upset at that. For what it is worth most of my family is dead and I don't contact any relatives in Canada. It is the principle which pisses me off. How dare he make a threat on my family?
Really? I threatened your family? I didn't do so, I threatened to dox you if you gonna dox anyone else. You doxed BitcoinOZ. You threatened me. Now feel the same asshole. ? |
Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:06:46 AM |
|
Posting this here - but obviously it's for BCB, so no need for usagi to respond directly to me. Latest undeletes have got back the post needed to conclusively show usagi has been lieing about the BMF/CPA insurance issue. You will recall that usagi's recent claim has been that the contract was accelerated, had no material value and was just a test that was never intended to be honoured as an actual commitment to insurance/indemnification. Check bottom of this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1431741#msg1431741Here's the key part (from very last paragraph) : "The reason why BMF has not requested any money is simply because I'm confident I can repair the value of BMF by itself within a few more months. Plus, CPA is having obvious financial problems, people have defaulted on us for over 1,500 (hashking alone was 527BTC)." That's clear acknowledgement that the contract was still at force at that point (and had NOT been accelerated). It also confirms what I've previosuly alleged: that the reason the contract wasn't paid out had nothing to do with acceleration etc, but was just because CPA was short of cash so usagi screwed BMF investors by not claiming to protect CPA. The explanation in that restored post very clearly puts the lie to usagi's recent explanations. It also puts the lie to usagi's claims in other restored posts that all insurance claims had been paid (usagi failing to make a claim on behalf of BMF is identical in all practical respects to usagi claiming it then CPA failing to honour it). The post also clearly demonstrates him acting against BMF investors' interests by not claiming when his post makes plain they were entitled to. Pretty clearly not in BMF's interest to take out insurance then not claim on it when entitled to just in case they can make back the loss - their interest is best served by making the claim then trying to make the same profit, leaving them ABOVE 1.0 NAV. Plainly BMF investors were defrauded at that point by the amount they were entitled to claim. Which is multiple blocks of 100 BTC up to the lower of (500 BTC and amount necessary to take NAV/U to 1.0). Although only 100 BTC could be claimed at a time there was no cool-down period specificed between claims - and by the time of that post BMF's NAV/U had been under 1.0 for a few months. Any settlement would obviously be for significantly LESS than that - as BMF would have to continue making 5 BTC/week payments. Do note that post's restored date/time is wrong - as is the case with many others (which explains vampire's confusion over puppet saying something before his account was registered - the undelete you're using is messing up some dates). The post was actually obviously made some time after Pirate defaulted - at the end of august/beginning of september. |
|
|
|
|
|
vampire
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:10:18 AM |
|
Meh. My name has no interesting history, no drama, nada. I did a search awhile ago and it was boring. It isn't that hard to figure it out, but wouldn't really help much. Even if usagi figured out, he wouldn't really find any juicy stuff. I am gonna take easy for now, since: Mods wont tag/ban usagi, though nefario was tagged for less (imo) Scammer tag is useless I am getting sick of typing these posts. So adios until usagi tries to call me out again. So I granted your wish usagi, but don't bother me. |
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:19:05 AM
Last edit: January 03, 2013, 04:30:13 AM by usagi |
|
Latest undeletes have got back the post needed to conclusively show usagi has been lieing about the BMF/CPA insurance issue.
NO, see below: You will recall that usagi's recent claim has been that the contract was accelerated, had no material value and was just a test that was never intended to be honoured as an actual commitment to insurance/indemnification. Check bottom of this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133823.msg1431741#msg1431741Here's the key part (from very last paragraph) : "The reason why BMF has not requested any money is simply because I'm confident I can repair the value of BMF by itself within a few more months. Plus, CPA is having obvious financial problems, people have defaulted on us for over 1,500 (hashking alone was 527BTC)." That's clear acknowledgement that the contract was still at force at that point (and had NOT been accelerated). It also confirms what I've previosuly alleged: that the reason the contract wasn't paid out had nothing to do with acceleration etc, but was just because CPA was short of cash so usagi screwed BMF investors by not claiming to protect CPA. We couldn't pay it without destroying CPA, so I accelerated the contract. If I hadn't done this people would have accused me of destroying CPA and extreme mismanagement. This was the only thing I could do. The explanation in that restored post very clearly puts the lie to usagi's recent explanations. It also puts the lie to usagi's claims in other restored posts that all insurance claims had been paid (usagi failing to make a claim on behalf of BMF is identical in all practical respects to usagi claiming it then CPA failing to honour it).
The post also clearly demonstrates him acting against BMF investors' interests by not claiming when his post makes plain they were entitled to.
That is not entirely true. I did in fact give at least one payment to BMF but I admit it was not as often as I would have liked to. I also returned on one occasion ~100 BTC worth (IIRC) of personal shares to BMF. Third via motion 80 I donated 100 BTC to BMF, and finally I did give CPA shares to BMF, although it does not represent a payment of 100 BTC it was the best CPA could do at the time. We were under a lot of problems because people we relied on couldn't pay us. Even GBF stated they were refusing withdrawls for almost a 2 week period. We were going to collapse unless I did something, so I accelerated the contract and took care of what else I could personally. When pirate collapsed I foresaw these problems but not on the order of magnitude they occurred. I immediately contacted hashking, patrick harnett, deadterra and imsaguy. I negotiated partial payments from everyone, no one was willing to pay out. If I had not done that immediately it would have blown up and CPA and NYAN would have collapsed. I did in fact support BMF, just not as often as I would have liked to. It would have taken 2,500 BTC to move BMF from 0.5 to 1.0 with 5132 outstanding shares. The 500 BTC in the contract was only enough to move it from 0.45 to 0.55. I did the best I could. I'm sorry for what happened but really, it was totally out of my hands. The 500 BTC in the contract was a token amount to test how this would work. It was real but it was also a test. Maybe I was too optimistic and hopeful so I am sorry but I just tried to do what I felt was right. Pretty clearly not in BMF's interest to take out insurance then not claim on it when entitled to just in case they can make back the loss - their interest is best served by making the claim then trying to make the same profit, leaving them ABOVE 1.0 NAV.
Plainly BMF investors were defrauded at that point by the amount they were entitled to claim. Which is multiple blocks of 100 BTC up to the lower of (500 BTC and amount necessary to take NAV/U to 1.0). Although only 100 BTC could be claimed at a time there was no cool-down period specificed between claims - and by the time of that post BMF's NAV/U had been under 1.0 for a few months. Any settlement would obviously be for significantly LESS than that - as BMF would have to continue making 5 BTC/week payments.
I understand your contention but I did not intend to lie as I had thought to cancel (accelerate) the contract at that time. I also note I have no proof of this but I have e-mailed James begging for the CSV files and our holdings. However since I understand your contention i am currently working on a settlement to shareholders. Keep in mind, that I did in fact make at least one payment of 100 BTC value to BMF. Can you please be reasonable about this. There is evidence I tried to do the right thing. I've sent an e-mail to James requesting the CSV file as it is the only way to prove that I did so. I also donated CPA shares to BMF and gave BMF 100 btc of my own money in motion 80. I did this all in part because I was afraid it would destroy CPA if I just transferred money out of CPA into BMF en masse. I really don't believe I defrauded BMF shareholders, and as you and others have said I am working now to resolve the issue with my shareholders. I've asked BCB to mediate a settlement and he has refused. So I'm doing it directly. |
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:20:08 AM |
|
Meh. My name has no interesting history, no drama, nada. I did a search awhile ago and it was boring. It isn't that hard to figure it out, but wouldn't really help much. Even if usagi figured out, he wouldn't really find any juicy stuff. I am gonna take easy for now, since: Mods wont tag/ban usagi, though nefario was tagged for less (imo) Scammer tag is useless I am getting sick of typing these posts. So adios until usagi tries to call me out again. So I granted your wish usagi, but don't bother me. Thank you and for what it is worth I am sorry if I offended you and I am planning to make a large settlement with my shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:25:37 AM |
|
We couldn't pay it without destroying CPA, so I accelerated the contract.
That was my assertion all along. Your responsibility to BMF investors was to claim - irrespective of whether it destroyed CPA. This is the conflict of interest I kept harping on about that you denied existed. Your conflict of interest was simple: 1. You had a responsibility to BMF to claim - it was clearly in their interest to do. Doubly so, in fact, if it destroyed CPA - as then they'd be released from their obligation to continue paying premiums but would keep whatever payments they'd received. 2. You didn't want to cause CPA to collapse. That's as clear a conflict of interest as you can get - yet when I accused you of not claiming because of a conflict of interest you called me a liar and claimed there was NO conflict of interest. You defrauded BMF to protect CPA. And then lied claiming it was ALWAYS the intention to accelerate when clearly that intent never formed until it would have been painful to CPA to pay. |
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 04:36:27 AM
Last edit: January 03, 2013, 04:46:34 AM by usagi |
|
We couldn't pay it without destroying CPA, so I accelerated the contract.
That was my assertion all along. Your responsibility to BMF investors was to claim - irrespective of whether it destroyed CPA. This is the conflict of interest I kept harping on about that you denied existed. Your conflict of interest was simple: 1. You had a responsibility to BMF to claim - it was clearly in their interest to do. Doubly so, in fact, if it destroyed CPA - as then they'd be released from their obligation to continue paying premiums but would keep whatever payments they'd received. No it would not release them from the obligation to pay. CPA would go through a wind down process and the worst is we could attempt to sell the debt. We're not talking about bankrupcy here. I'd just pay out the money and then keep CPA around to collect the payments. Worst case I'd pay for it myself and then collect the money myself. But other than that it would ruin CPA so I see the general point you are making. 2. You didn't want to cause CPA to collapse.
That's as clear a conflict of interest as you can get - yet when I accused you of not claiming because of a conflict of interest you called me a liar and claimed there was NO conflict of interest.
You defrauded BMF to protect CPA. And then lied claiming it was ALWAYS the intention to accelerate when clearly that intent never formed until it would have been painful to CPA to pay.
So if I go back and make reparations BMF would be forced to continue paying money to CPA and no one wants to extend this forever. Under the contract I HAVE to accelerate it at this point no matter what. BMF already got way more out of this than it ended up paying. What do you suggest I offer to BMF investors? Everyone who bought in because of this gained money from it already. I even donated the assumed mining output of my single to BMF before it arrived out of my own pocket. I gave 100 BTC to bmf investors and something like 200 personal shares. I was desperate to make BMF work and make shareholders happy. Now all I get are accusations that I caused them damage. Ok, whatever! I admit there was a conflict of interest but what am I expected to do? You are making these claims and not suggesting any way they can be repaired. That paints me into a corner and makes me feel the situation hopeless. You already won, I gave up a long time ago, what is it precisely that you want? I will not get a scammer tag if I make a settlement with my shareholders, right? So why push for it? Why not do the right thing and work on fixing the damage you say I caused? Doesn't that make sense? |
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
January 03, 2013, 05:02:45 AM |
|
So if I go back and make reparations BMF would be forced to continue paying money to CPA and no one wants to extend this forever. Under the contract I HAVE to accelerate it at this point no matter what.
BMF already got way more out of this than it ended up paying. What do you suggest I offer to BMF investors? Everyone who bought in because of this gained money from it already. I even donated the assumed mining output of my single to BMF before it arrived out of my own pocket. I gave 100 BTC to bmf investors and something like 200 personal shares. I was desperate to make BMF work and make shareholders happy. Now all I get are accusations that I caused them damage. Ok, whatever! I admit there was a conflict of interest but what am I expected to do? You are making these claims and not suggesting any way they can be repaired. That paints me into a corner and makes me feel the situation hopeless.
You already won, I gave up a long time ago, what is it precisely that you want? I will not get a scammer tag if I make a settlement with my shareholders, right? So why push for it? Why not do the right thing and work on fixing the damage you say I caused? Doesn't that make sense?
Just to address the first point - no, BMF wouldn't be forced to continue paying money if the claim had been made and settled when it first should have. Reason is that after a few payments of 100 BTC from CPA, CPA would have gone broke. At that stage CPA would no longer be able to honour its end of the contract (providing cover) so no future premiums would be due. Moving to the issue of settlement this is where it all gets really silly. I raised this issue in the BMF thread NOT in the scammer forum. At that stage you stone-walled and insisted there was no conflict of interest and nothing had been done. I ONLY moved my complaint to this thread after you refused to address it and TOLD me to take it here - here being the place where you go (in my view) when there's no longer any chance of settlement. What makes it more irksome is that just before GLBSE died there was ongoing discussion about this (mainly between yourself and actual BMF investors if I recall correctly). You'd reached the point of agreeing that maybe in theory CPA owed BMF money and were asking what should be done. You even raised various possibilities - such as returning BMF shares from CPA to BMF etc (though noted that if you did so it could leave CPA with no assets). I was actually going to make a post in that thread the day GLBSE died - pointing out that any settlement would necessarily have to be for significantly lower than the 500 BTC cover. Then GLBSE happened and after you reappeared you were back to stone-walling and explicitly stating that the contract was always intended to be accelerated and never to have material value (a direct contradiction to the post I just quoted - which ackowledges that the contract hadn't been accelerated a few months after its start). Settlement should be discussed with BMF investors - not here really. Here's where it's determined whether someone scammed or not - not where it's determined what payment is necessary to make the person "a scammer who paid back" rather than "a scammer who didn't pay back". You defrauded BMF for the financial benefit of CPA (blatantly admitted). You then lied about it - and deleted the post which proved you were lieing. When confronted about it (by me) instead of settling you told me to take it to the scammers forum - as clear a statement of intent not to settle as could be made. But here's where it comes down to something I don't know for sure: what's the forum's policy on scammer tags? If pirate came back and settled with everyone would his tag be removed (not claiming your behaviour is on same scale as pirate's - just talking about the principle)? If forum policy is that tags are removed when settlement is made then I'd agree that if you settle no tag should be given for it. If, on the other hand, policy is that once it's proven someone scammed they keep the tag forever then a tag should be awarded irrespective of whether settlement occurs or not. Not my call - and I'm not convinced there's even a consistent policy on it. BCB: can you check edit history of the post I was referring to? WOuld like to know whether I somehow missed what usagi said at the time or whether it was edited out. Because I don't recall ever seeing it before (which basically means I didn't see it before) - which could just be my oversight, or could alternatively be usagi editing it out back then after realising it was effectively an admission of guilt. |
|
|
|
|
BCB
CTG
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
BCJ
|
|
January 03, 2013, 05:39:29 AM |
|
usagi Motion 80 seems to be relevent to this discussion. could you please restore it. quote author=usagi link=topic=116232.msg991365#msg991365 date=1340718379] What is the outcome of the motion?
Motion 80 has passed 3,234.. to 5. This represents a clear majority of more than 99.9% of shareholders. https://glbse.com/vote/view/80I personally offer to buy back the shares of the people who voted no at the full price (1 bitcoin). Just send me a PM if you are interested. As per the motion, I have wired money to Mt. Gox this afternoon, and I should be able to deposit the 100 coins on or before friday. I will post an updated NAV then. I thank the unitholders for their support. I've been working on a new and updated dividends page which is about to be released soon -- please keep an eye on our holdings & NAV page for updates and information! [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
usagi
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
13
|
|
January 03, 2013, 05:43:02 AM |
|
Just to address the first point - no, BMF wouldn't be forced to continue paying money if the claim had been made and settled when it first should have. Reason is that after a few payments of 100 BTC from CPA, CPA would have gone broke. At that stage CPA would no longer be able to honour its end of the contract (providing cover) so no future premiums would be due.
I get what you are saying but as I have said I would have stepped in personally no, CPA would not release it's title under the contract. I just wouldn't allow it to happen. Moving to the issue of settlement this is where it all gets really silly.
Then don't get silly and just take the chance to move on. You said: Settlement should be discussed with BMF investors - not here really.
...
But here's where it comes down to something I don't know for sure: what's the forum's policy on scammer tags? If pirate came back and settled with everyone would his tag be removed (not claiming your behaviour is on same scale as pirate's - just talking about the principle)? If forum policy is that tags are removed when settlement is made then I'd agree that if you settle no tag should be given for it. If, on the other hand, policy is that once it's proven someone scammed they keep the tag forever then a tag should be awarded irrespective of whether settlement occurs or not. Not my call - and I'm not convinced there's even a consistent policy on it.
I agree. Let me the time alone to make reparations to my shareholders, for example here, and in the soon-to-be announced settlement offer. Additionally please stop clamoring for a scammer tag in such a noisy fashion at least until I have paid investors back and reached a settlement. I've called Ian and apologized and that end of things is over. I've apologized to vampire and he has agreed that end of things is over. Some but not all of the things puppet said to me he has retracted, such as misvaluing hardware. It's been shown I was not guilty of misrepresenting how I valued assets in one case. At this point it's my personal belief you are just harming the process. Let me be to resolve my issues with my shareholders and then if you want you can be as vocal as you want about getting me a scammer tag. Please see this post. I have a lot of work to do without having to defend myself here, as you've said, some but possibly not all of the accusations are frivolous. If you have evidence give it to BCB. Does that idea seem like it will be a good way of resolving this? |
|
|
|
|
|
