Bitcoin Forum
September 15, 2019, 11:12:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BitFunder] G.ASICMINER-PT  (Read 74343 times)
lan787
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 05:39:11 PM
 #381

If DeaDTerra has the direct shares, then he can make a signed request to FC asking FC to transfer ownership of his (DeaDTerra's) shares to each of us (at our bitfunder public addresses).

So, why did DeaDTerra say to ask Ukyo?

DeaDTerra does not take any fees for this PT operation. I believe he "outsourced" that part of his job to Ukyo.

Will the amount of shares needed for a transfer out of the PT remain at min. 250?

This was no longer the case as of a month ago.

If you do not like my service and the PT I provide, then I advice you to switch Smiley
If anyone feels that they don't want to be part of this anymore then I am more then happy to provide you with a free transfer out of the PT, regardless of share number.
//DeaDTerra

If a high limit for transfers was to be reintroduced now, it would be a big step backwards by the new operator, so I trust he won't do this...? Smiley

I considered his offer a one-time-only deal. But I may have misread this.
It was meant to be a one time thing Smiley
As for how Ukyo decides to do it, I do now know.
//DeaDTerra
1568589147
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568589147

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568589147
Reply with quote  #2

1568589147
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 05:57:53 PM
 #382

If DeaDTerra has the direct shares, then he can make a signed request to FC asking FC to transfer ownership of his (DeaDTerra's) shares to each of us (at our bitfunder public addresses).

So, why did DeaDTerra say to ask Ukyo?

DeaDTerra does not take any fees for this PT operation. I believe he "outsourced" that part of his job to Ukyo.

Will the amount of shares needed for a transfer out of the PT remain at min. 250?

This was no longer the case as of a month ago.

If you do not like my service and the PT I provide, then I advice you to switch Smiley
If anyone feels that they don't want to be part of this anymore then I am more then happy to provide you with a free transfer out of the PT, regardless of share number.
//DeaDTerra

If a high limit for transfers was to be reintroduced now, it would be a big step backwards by the new operator, so I trust he won't do this...? Smiley

I considered his offer a one-time-only deal. But I may have misread this.
It was meant to be a one time thing Smiley
As for how Ukyo decides to do it, I do now know.
//DeaDTerra

DT has absolutely no power in this PT anymore.
lan787
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 05:59:31 PM
 #383

oh my... Since when?
puck2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 06:34:19 PM
 #384

DT has absolutely no power in this PT anymore.

Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?
donut
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 244
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 07:35:45 PM
 #385


Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

We use this: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist
puck2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:16:37 PM
 #386


Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

We use this: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

Right, but how? Can the asset list be partially used to convert individual blocks of  PT shares to direct shares? Can the list be used to convert only G.ASICMINER-PT to direct shares while leaving other assets at Bitfunder? What would be the mechanisms/processes in each of these scenarios?
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:23:28 PM
 #387


Let's play a thought experiment. What if Ukyo is MIA? What well PT shareholders recourse be? What course of action can we take to convert or shares to direct?

We use this: https://bitfunder.com/assetlist

Right, but how? Can the asset list be partially used to convert individual blocks of  PT shares to direct shares? Can the list be used to convert only G.ASICMINER-PT to direct shares while leaving other assets at Bitfunder? What would be the mechanisms/processes in each of these scenarios?
FriedCat would have to use the assetlist to transfer the G.ASICMINER-PT shares into direct shares.
bitmoon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
 #388

feels like everybody wants to leave bitfunder, including non US. due to weexchange ID requirements.

then wouldnt ukyo loose customers?

if ukyo has the backing direct shares for your AM-pt, then i dont think friedcat will pull the direct shares from ukyo without authorization from ukyo per customer request.

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

btw, if ukyo accept your request, i bet very few to none will be left staying on am-pt, it will be ghost, less liquitidy.
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 08:55:58 AM
 #389

btw, if ukyo accept your request, i bet very few to none will be left staying on am-pt, it will be ghost, less liquitidy.
I don't think so. Folks are just selling right now because they're afraid the PT can't be transferred to direct shares. If Ukyo goes ahead and clears the situation I am sure the price will stabelize. On BTCT you could get direct shares without a problem, but it was still traded on the exchange because thats way more convenient.
gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 10:51:50 AM
 #390

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 11:52:09 AM
 #391

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...
Indeed, if Ukyo does not react within a reasonable amount of time, I'm sure FC would be able to handle the situation. It's in his interest to solve the problem.
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 12:23:15 PM
 #392

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...
No, as in Ukyo has X direct shares backing the PT but the asset list adds up to X+1 shares.
thejestre
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 04:26:00 PM
 #393

I need to transfer my shares out of this PT and into direct shares.  Please tell me how.

Thank you,

_theJestre
I sent a signed PM about this, still no response.
ThickAsThieves
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 11, 2013, 04:46:51 PM
 #394

I need to transfer my shares out of this PT and into direct shares.  Please tell me how.

Thank you,

_theJestre
I sent a signed PM about this, still no response.

G.ASIC would need to be frozen for Friedcat to perform such a task. Even then, it would be theft, as these are Ukyo's shares, not yours or FC's.

Even then, some people have likely chosen wallet addresses they can't sign, bringing more problems.

If you have more than 250 shares, and you want to export to direct, simply contact Ukyo every few days ... and wait. He has no right to deny exports from people meeting the requirements in the asset description.

Everyone else must either hold, or sell.
puck2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 11, 2013, 05:45:19 PM
 #395

G.ASIC would need to be frozen for Friedcat to perform such a task. Even then, it would be theft, as these are Ukyo's shares, not yours or FC's.

Even then, some people have likely chosen wallet addresses they can't sign, bringing more problems.

If you have more than 250 shares, and you want to export to direct, simply contact Ukyo every few days ... and wait. He has no right to deny exports from people meeting the requirements in the asset description.

Everyone else must either hold, or sell.

Another choice... Liquidate and wait for share price to justify re-entering shares in other location (PT or direct)... Such is the beauty of Bitcoin, as it shows the liquidity of the asset itself while highlighting the lack thereof when dealing with individuals and gov'ts.

SEC, Bitfunder, Ukyo, friedcat, etc... Fuggedaboutit... nothing beats cold hard bitcoins.
gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 06:04:20 PM
 #396

if friedcat acted on asset list alone, then it would be fried cats loss, becuase ukyo still has the direct shares which backs the pt shares.

No, FC would transfer the shares from Ukyo to the asset list holders...
No, as in Ukyo has X direct shares backing the PT but the asset list adds up to X+1 shares.
Yes, Ukyo would then be motivated to release the shares so the number of his direct shares equals the number of shares in his PT.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 06:06:26 PM
 #397

Another choice... Liquidate and wait for share price to justify re-entering shares in other location (PT or direct)... Such is the beauty of Bitcoin, as it shows the liquidity of the asset itself while highlighting the lack thereof when dealing with individuals and gov'ts.

Liquidation could be an option if Ukyo didn't stop bids on bitfunder...

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 06:19:36 PM
Last edit: October 11, 2013, 06:29:40 PM by gotpetum
 #398

G.ASIC would need to be frozen for Friedcat to perform such a task. Even then, it would be theft, as these are Ukyo's shares, not yours or FC's.

Oh, I don't like to assign such charged words to actions :-) FC would merely be updating records in a database he owns, with the goodwill intention of mitigating the effect of Ukyo being MIA and unable to manage the PT himself.


"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 07:34:57 PM
 #399

We could group up to hit the 250 shares mark to transfer the shares for example to Havelock.
gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 07:38:58 PM
 #400

We could group up to hit the 250 shares mark to transfer the shares for example to Havelock.

Yes, I like that idea. Are you sure transfers haven't been (or won't be) disabled too?!

I recall (with uncertainty) that people with >= 250 shares have also had trouble withdrawing.


"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!