What to expect from Bitcoin Magazine

[boonies4u]

Dear Bittalk Media Ltd, Mihai Alisie and some others I offer you an opportunity to publicly retract any defamatory statements made by you which must be accompanied  by your public and sincere apology. Legal action for defamation is being prepared and once it is filed it likely will ultimately result in a number of corporate and personal bankruptcies. It is not what I would want but you are forcing my hand.

Who didn't see this coming??

[repentance]

Of all the ways in which the US legal system sucks, at least there's the fact that libel and slander laws have such a high burden of proof, and are so easy to defend against, that most people never need to worry about them.

Most ordinary people in Commonwealth countries don't have to worry about them either because defamation actions are typically extremely expensive to mount and awards often barely cover costs.  It's generally not worth suing people for defamation unless the defendants have deep pockets, and most media outlets carry defamation insurance anyway. 

[repentance]

Given how theymos feels about free speech, he's gonna love being served in a defamation action.

[ElectricMucus]

Isn't there some Internet Law about threatening defamation lawsuits?

[itsgoldbaby]

Dear Bittalk Media Ltd, Mihai Alisie and some others I offer you an opportunity to publicly retract all defamatory statements made by you which must be accompanied  by your public and sincere apology. Failing that legal action against you at this point is unavoidable.

Legal action for defamation is being prepared and once it is filed it likely will ultimately result in a number of corporate and personal bankruptcies. It is not what I would want but you are forcing my hand.

 

[LightRider]

Hmmm...tell someone you're sorry or go through an odious legal battle...

It's amazing that this is an actual choice someone has to make.

What a sick culture.

[repentance]

Hmmm...tell someone you're sorry or go through an odious legal battle...

It's amazing that this is an actual choice someone has to make.

What a sick culture.

I'm just waiting for the "you say sorry first" episode of this soap opera.

[LightRider]

Hmmm...tell someone you're sorry or go through an odious legal battle...

It's amazing that this is an actual choice someone has to make.

What a sick culture.

I'm just waiting for the "you say sorry first" episode of this soap opera.

AKA the counter suit.

[stochastic]

Here is another reason NEVER to form partnerships with other people.  If you don't have the cash to pay someone for doing work on your business then don't give them an equity stake.  Instead give them a guaranteed percentage of the profits.

Guess what happens when someone that owns 51% of the company decides to sell it?  It is sold.  Tough luck for the 49%.

[repentance]

Here is another reason NEVER to form partnerships with other people.  If you don't have the cash to pay someone for doing work on your business then don't give them an equity stake.  Instead give them a guaranteed percentage of the profits.

Guess what happens when someone that owns 51% of the company decides to sell it?  It is sold.  Tough luck for the 49%.

There are ways you can give people equity without risking control of a company but it's generally a bad idea to just hand out equity every time you can't pay someone for something (and there probably aren't going to be any profits for a long time in many start-ups).  It's hard enough to form a partnership with people who know and trust each other and whose visions and goals are aligned.  Adding people to that mix on an ad hoc basis usually just creates a "management by committee" clusterfuck in which every 1%-er wants to have input into every decision and the business becomes paralysed.

[cunicula]

I think you are legally obligated to notify minority shareholders if you reduce the firm's business activities by 75% or more, even if their is no formal dissolution.

It's possible that both sides have behaved wrongly.

Okay, I'm completely willing to admit that. I don't have all the facts in the matter. It is certainly conceivable that Vladimir did some crafty shit to piss Mihai off and that Mihai responded to this in kind. I just felt that Vladimir's arguments were getting ignored. There seemed to be a concentrated effort to paint him in the worst possible light on the basis of rather flimsy evidence. I guess this expense report business seemed pretty trivial to me.

Moreover, the only apparently neutral shareholder who came forward in the thread seemed to support Vladimir's claim that minority shareholders were not notified of the sale. And no, I don't think majority owners can legally sell off most of the assets of an LLC instanteously like this. If you are selling off almost all of the assets, you are required to give the minority owners a chance to comment on the sale before you can proceed with it, not after it is already completed. If it is just a portion of the assets, then it is considered part of the regular business of the company and there is no need to notify shareholders in advance.

[Any lawyer here who can shed some light on this?]

[jgarzik]

Here is another reason NEVER to form partnerships with other people.

That's sorta like saying "trust no one."  Follow that rule religiously, and you will lead a barren, lonely life.

Sure, some humans are fallible and will let you down.  But other humans are wonderful and will boost you up.

[LightRider]

Here is another reason NEVER to form partnerships with other people.

That's sorta like saying "trust no one."  Follow that rule religiously, and you will lead a barren, lonely life.

Sure, some humans are fallible and will let you down.  But other humans are wonderful and will boost you up.

Bitcoin is based on the trust no one idea though. Better to trust many.

[jimbobway]

Here is another reason NEVER to form partnerships with other people.

That's sorta like saying "trust no one."  Follow that rule religiously, and you will lead a barren, lonely life.

Funny you say that since bitcoin is based on zero-trust between its participants.  Bitcoin trusts no one.  Bitcoin is lonely.

[molecular]

Legal action for defamation is being prepared and once it is filed it likely will ultimately result in a number of corporate and personal bankruptcies. It is not what I would want but you are forcing my hand.

Vlad, I have some questions, I'm genuinely interested:

1.) While I think it might be past the point of reaching some agreement (after all you're threatening to bankrupt people, that's usually a sign that other options have failed): What would you want Mihai (and maybe others, I don't know who exactly, but it seems Mihai is the main "opponent" here) to do at this point that would calm you down and respect you and your wifes interests?

2.) What are your reasons for taking this issue to the public of bitcointalk?

[The_Duke]

I think I just figured out what the secret gift is going to be that Bitcoin Magazine is going to send out: a big basket of popcorn to go with this thread. 

You gotta give bitcoin one thing, just when you think it's got nothing more to give, it will always pull shit like this out of the basket 

[repentance]

Moreover, the only apparently neutral shareholder who came forward in the thread seemed to support Vladimir's claim that minority shareholders were not notified of the sale. And no, I don't think majority owners can legally sell off most of the assets of an LLC instanteously like this. If you are selling off almost all of the assets, you are required to give the minority owners a chance to comment on the sale before you can proceed with it, not after it is already completed. If it is just a portion of the assets, then it is considered part of the regular business of the company and there is no need to notify shareholders in advance.

[Any lawyer here who can shed some light on this?]

This appears to be one of those cases where the parties have received totally different legal advice (remember it's claimed that the sale itself was handled by a lawyer) regarding the events which took place and how they could be handled under the specific circumstances which applied.  There would be no lawsuits ever if lawyers having different opinions about the same set of facts wasn't a frequent occurrence.  They should certainly be aware enough of on-point case law to know whether the principals on which they based their advice would survive a legal challenge. 

The one piece of advice the parties shouldn't need to pay their lawyers to receive is to shut the fuck up and stop making public statements.

[davidspitzer]

I don't pretend to know all the issues except for the issue I never got after paying for it 3 or 4 months ago

[LightRider]

I don't pretend to know all the issues except for the issue I never got after paying for it 3 or 4 months ago

You should demand an apology and threaten to sue if you don't get one.

After the apology/lawsuit, you should demand that you receive the issue and threaten to sue if you don't get it.

After getting the magazine/lawsuit, you should demand psychological counselling services due to the overwhelming stress of the multiple lawsuits being forced upon you, or threaten to sue if you don't receive them.

After getting the counselling/lawsuit...

[davidspitzer]

I don't pretend to know all the issues except for the issue I never got after paying for it 3 or 4 months ago

You should demand an apology and threaten to sue if you don't get one.

After the apology/lawsuit, you should demand that you receive the issue and threaten to sue if you don't get it.

After getting the magazine/lawsuit, you should demand psychological counselling services due to the overwhelming stress of the multiple lawsuits being forced upon you, or threaten to sue if you don't receive them.

After getting the counselling/lawsuit...

That was etremely insightful and helpful