Should Giga be tagged as a scammer?

[Philj]

Better than going to the state.

Maybe in theory but not in practice.

Name one person who has gotten bitcoins back from going to the state ?

Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic.

So nefario is a scammer, and I was able to get my coins back from him.

[1714791877]

1714791877

[1714791877]

1714791877

[1714791877]

1714791877

[1714791877]

1714791877

[1714791877]

1714791877

[MPOE-PR]

1. With no central authority ANYONE can issue an asset or more shares/units of an existing one (if they own it) at any time.  So it would get flooded with junk assets pretty quickly.  Don't think that's quite as bad as it at first seems.

Indeed. It is not as bad as it first seems, it's much worse than that. The idea of a decentralized exchange was just shot dead.

Not that pseudo-investors and wannabe-financiers aren't entirely free to re-try the failure of GLBSE after some cosmetic improvements. But, as bad as the technical side of GLBSE was, what sunk it was financial incompetence, not technical incompetence (tho the latter didn't help, especially in the later stages).

[Deprived]

1. With no central authority ANYONE can issue an asset or more shares/units of an existing one (if they own it) at any time.  So it would get flooded with junk assets pretty quickly.  Don't think that's quite as bad as it at first seems.

Indeed. It is not as bad as it first seems, it's much worse than that. The idea of a decentralized exchange was just shot dead.

Not that pseudo-investors and wannabe-financiers aren't entirely free to re-try the failure of GLBSE after some cosmetic improvements. But, as bad as the technical side of GLBSE was, what sunk it was financial incompetence, not technical incompetence (tho the latter didn't help, especially in the later stages).

Nah, there's at least two ways to address that issue (which is why I said it's not as bad as it at first looked).  This'll be my last post on this subject - as it's off-topic - but here's the concept behind two ways to address it:

A fee for creation of the asset - either sent to the developer's wallet or destroyed.

External vetting authorities (no need for them to be predefined) who approve asset issues.   Whilst any asset can be listed, users can choose to the restrict the list of ones they SEE to those with approval from their own list of vetting authorities.  Vetting authorities could be individuals, companies or a forum thread where votes were held and one trusted individual then signs the approval transaction with a defined key.  Such authorities are self-appointed, can't block an asset issue, can't cancel one - but CAN be used as a means to filter out the spam.

If you have to PAY to spam AND most people won't even see it, do you see how that addresses the problem?

[MPOE-PR]

do you see how that addresses the problem?

I don't, because it doesn't. And in the immortal words of Tim Roth (in 4 Rooms), "Problems. Plural."

[lenny_]

He should be tagged as scammer. He refuses to pay dividends and buyback bonds. Instead we have agreement to sign with notarized stamp!

[SAC]

He should be tagged as scammer. He refuses to pay dividends and buyback bonds. Instead we have agreement to sign with notarized stamp!

Also a claims process that requires you to be part of the deception as to the true nature of the relationship that was in place as he tries to cover his ass with your help in doing it. BTW I would add that lying in a legal document such as a notarized statement is a criminal offense in most countries.

[Shadow383]

He was already an accessory to a massive ponzi scheme - why anyone would have expected any other outcome in all this is beyond me 

[Bitcoin Oz]

He was already an accessory to a massive ponzi scheme - why anyone would have expected any other outcome in all this is beyond me 

Didnt Trendon go to a lawyer too?

[burnside]

I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.

Personally I believe the scammer tag is premature.  If Giga listens to his bond holders he can still right the ship fairly easily, and there is reasonable evidence that we have the lists in the first place largely due to Giga.  If he fails to make good on the original contract within a reasonable amount of time, then by all means, it's a scammer tag.

However... having a GLBSE owner/shareholder/nefario screwee making the determination seems like it could be an issue, no?  No one is ever going to believe that you made the determination impartially.

Cheers.

[flower1024]

i do not own any gigamining shares (glad i sold them fast enough).
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.

if giga would use your coins to pay his lawyer: scammer

asking for documents just to make sure nobody can sue him: no scammer tag

its a tradegy that we live in a world of bureaucrats which needs signed documents which costs money. but that is not gigavps' fault.

[Daily Anarchist]

i do not own any gigamining shares (glad i sold them fast enough).
but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.

if giga would use your coins to pay his lawyer: scammer

asking for documents just to make sure nobody can sue him: no scammer tag

its a tradegy that we live in a world of bureaucrats which needs signed documents which costs money. but that is not gigavps' fault.

The issue is that he had no problem taking the coins without a lawyer, but doesn't want to give them back without a lawyer, and that he knows this will price out a lot of small investors.

[Deprived]

but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.

You're another one getting confused over the role of lawyers.  They aren't magical beings, they don't act in the interest of some wider good, they aren't trying to be fair to all parties.  They're paid to give advice to someone on how best to protect that person's own interests.

When someone says "My lawyer advised me to do X" you need to read it as "My lawyer told me that doing X would gain me personally more benefit than not doing X".  You shouldn't read it as "Doing X is right" or "Doing X is fair to those I dealt with" or "doing X is 'good'".  A lawyer's responsibilities are to their client (though they DO have to follow certain rules - but many of those are easily side-stepped), not to the public at large.

Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased.  They aren't.  They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public).  It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).

Following a lawyer's advice is neither here not there when it comes to getting a scammer tag.  Or do you believe scammers can't hire lawyers?  Anyone can have a lawyer - and that lawyer will (if a decent one) give them advice on how best to protect their interests.  That act (having a lawyer) doesn't make them any more (or less) guilty of scamming than they would have been had they not had a lawyer.

[burnside]

but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.

You're another one getting confused over the role of lawyers.  They aren't magical beings, they don't act in the interest of some wider good, they aren't trying to be fair to all parties.  They're paid to give advice to someone on how best to protect that person's own interests.

When someone says "My lawyer advised me to do X" you need to read it as "My lawyer told me that doing X would gain me personally more benefit than not doing X".  You shouldn't read it as "Doing X is right" or "Doing X is fair to those I dealt with" or "doing X is 'good'".  A lawyer's responsibilities are to their client (though they DO have to follow certain rules - but many of those are easily side-stepped), not to the public at large.

Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased.  They aren't.  They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public).  It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).

Following a lawyer's advice is neither here not there when it comes to getting a scammer tag.  Or do you believe scammers can't hire lawyers?  Anyone can have a lawyer - and that lawyer will (if a decent one) give them advice on how best to protect their interests.  That act (having a lawyer) doesn't make them any more (or less) guilty of scamming than they would have been had they not had a lawyer.

+1

A lawyer is duty-bound to advise what they believe is in their clients best interest.  Giga hiring a lawyer was to protect himself.  Don't read more into it.  Even the positive actions (lawyer putting pressure on GLBSE) are because it was in Giga's best interest.

A lawyer does not order you or force you to do something.  They give you advice and help you understand what the repercussions of your choices are.  YOU then choose what to do, hopefully with a better understanding what the possible outcomes of your actions are.

I still think that Giga should be given a week or so to figure things out, but I'll also re-iterate that I do not believe Theymos should be involved in the scammer tag proceedings.  I believe there's a fairly clear conflict of interest.

Cheers.

[SAC]

Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased.  They aren't.  They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public).  It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).

And you seem to have drank the kool aid on lawyers being lying weasels only out for them and their clients selves. Lawyers are required in the systems you speak of to use every legal means possible to protect their clients interests. They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding. Now they cannot be compelled to tell anything a client has told them but they cannot once knowing a fact from a client present anything to lead the courts/legal system to believe any different. ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand  to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told. What they can and will do when a client has told them of their guilt is try to show the evidence presented against their client in the worst possible light to introduce doubt as its a beyond reasonable doubt evidence test in the systems you cite not the truth involved in its application of this test that is the goal. 

[flower1024]

but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.

You're another one getting confused over the role of lawyers.  They aren't magical beings, they don't act in the interest of some wider good, they aren't trying to be fair to all parties.  They're paid to give advice to someone on how best to protect that person's own interests.

When someone says "My lawyer advised me to do X" you need to read it as "My lawyer told me that doing X would gain me personally more benefit than not doing X".  You shouldn't read it as "Doing X is right" or "Doing X is fair to those I dealt with" or "doing X is 'good'".  A lawyer's responsibilities are to their client (though they DO have to follow certain rules - but many of those are easily side-stepped), not to the public at large.

Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased.  They aren't.  They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public).  It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).

Following a lawyer's advice is neither here not there when it comes to getting a scammer tag.  Or do you believe scammers can't hire lawyers?  Anyone can have a lawyer - and that lawyer will (if a decent one) give them advice on how best to protect their interests.  That act (having a lawyer) doesn't make them any more (or less) guilty of scamming than they would have been had they not had a lawyer.

of course scammers have lawyers too.
my point was that i dont think its sufficient to request documents (even if they costs some money) to get a scammer tag. and gigavps has very good reasons to want to know his customers. he simple cannot trust nefario's list. i dont see another way for him to be sure to pay his investors.

what about this: tell gigavps to donate all bonds which are not claimed in february. if he say yes: there is no reason left for a scammer tag.

[SAC]

i dont see another way for him to be sure to pay his investors.

what about this: tell gigavps to donate all bonds which are not claimed in february. if he say yes: there is no reason left for a scammer tag.

According to the claims page these are not investments anymore rather a leasing type of arrangement, changing those terms is a scam. The process of claims as I have said before requires these bond holders to perjury themselves on a legal document, a criminal offense most places, to get their funds back. This is hardly the actions of man trying to help his investors rather one of a man trying to cover his own ass from the shit he has got himself into.

[MPOE-PR]

It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK

It really has little to do with the common law. That's how lawyers work in civil systems too, that's how they worked in the old Roman empire, it's how they worked in the Republic and in Athens and generally speaking, it's how a lawyer works. A lawyer is a hireling with a job to do, not some charity for the public good.

To the more general point: I think what you're arguing against is ultimately the basic understanding of the random nitwit that he has no clue as to how the world works, and as such once people with an actual clue get involved it's about time to stfu. Sort of like saying "an adult advised me!" among preschoolers. Sure an adult is not here nor there as to whether the advice is sound, in principle. In practice, at least he's not 5.

but I'll also re-iterate that I do not believe Theymos should be involved in the scammer tag proceedings.  I believe there's a fairly clear conflict of interest.

FTR, what is the conflict?

And at the rate things are going scammer tags will prolly just get phased out, the mods lack both the training to handle the ever-increasingly complex arguments brought and the drive to even bother, on top of which the constant haranguing which necessarily comes with the territory is wearing everyone thin.

Sooner or later we'll have to have some sort of court set-up, and the logistics of that are staggering.

They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding.

This is patently untrue. You can verify it very easily: go kill someone, call up your lawyer, tell them you've killed the someone and see if he stands up in court and says "Your Honor...he has told me he killed X".

ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand  to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told.

Who the hell told you this? If things actually worked that way we'd have a simple test now wouldn't we. In other news:

A state bar association has suspended the license of a lawyer for making truthful statements in court filings.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/telling-truth-costs-lawyer-her-license.html

(Yes, obviously it's different in civil proceedings. A lawyer who knowingly allows a civil defendant or any witness to give false testimony can be disciplined and even lose the right to practice law. A lawyer who doesn't allow a criminal defendant who insists on lying under oath to claim his or her innocence will be disciplined. Your using of the wrong example would seem to indicate you don't know what you're talking about.)

[SAC]

They are required to tell the truth as they know it at all times in a legal proceeding.

This is patently untrue. You can verify it very easily: go kill someone, call up your lawyer, tell them you've killed the someone and see if he stands up in court and says "Your Honor...he has told me he killed X".

ie. client tells lawyer he killed someone lawyer cannot put client on stand  to testify if he knows the client will deny the fact he has been told.

Who the hell told you this? If things actually worked that way we'd have a simple test now wouldn't we.

Nice selective quoting you tried there missing the entire point being made which was your lawyer cannot be compelled to incriminate you even if you have confessed to them but they cannot knowingly allow you to commit perjury. I don't know where your at but where I am lawyers are not permitted to lie to the court or knowingly allow lies to be told to the court.

[Bitcoin Oz]

but i dont think anybody deserves a scammer tag for talking to an lawyer and following his advice.

You're another one getting confused over the role of lawyers.  They aren't magical beings, they don't act in the interest of some wider good, they aren't trying to be fair to all parties.  They're paid to give advice to someone on how best to protect that person's own interests.

When someone says "My lawyer advised me to do X" you need to read it as "My lawyer told me that doing X would gain me personally more benefit than not doing X".  You shouldn't read it as "Doing X is right" or "Doing X is fair to those I dealt with" or "doing X is 'good'".  A lawyer's responsibilities are to their client (though they DO have to follow certain rules - but many of those are easily side-stepped), not to the public at large.

Too many people have this strange (to me, as someone who deals with lawyers a lot in the course of my business) view that lawyers are somehow unbiased.  They aren't.  They're VERY biased towards helping the clients who pay them - and, to a large extent (but not totally), they're actually MEANT to be biased (and compelled by law to be biased - they have to give advice that's in the interest of their client, irrespective of whether it's in the interest of the wider public).  It's a natural effect of the adversarial legal system employed in the US and UK - where the layers on each side of a dispute are MEANT to try to win rather than to find out the truth (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but that's a whole big topic of its own to discuss).

Following a lawyer's advice is neither here not there when it comes to getting a scammer tag.  Or do you believe scammers can't hire lawyers?  Anyone can have a lawyer - and that lawyer will (if a decent one) give them advice on how best to protect their interests.  That act (having a lawyer) doesn't make them any more (or less) guilty of scamming than they would have been had they not had a lawyer.

of course scammers have lawyers too.
my point was that i dont think its sufficient to request documents (even if they costs some money) to get a scammer tag. and gigavps has very good reasons to want to know his customers. he simple cannot trust nefario's list. i dont see another way for him to be sure to pay his investors.

what about this: tell gigavps to donate all bonds which are not claimed in february. if he say yes: there is no reason left for a scammer tag.

Once they have scammed hundreds of thousands of bitcoins they can afford bloody good lawyers...and the victims cant afford them.

[PsychoticBoy]

Quit the talk, it is all obvious.

SCAMMER TAG, it is time for action theymos.