Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2024, 08:21:41 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [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.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BTC-TC] Deprived Mining Speculation (DMS)  (Read 198981 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
twentyseventy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 01:02:28 PM
 #1901

What baffles me is how people can send so many coins to a supposedly anonymous person. Do you give out unsecured loans to random strangers who you meet for the first time?

Are you new to this subforum?
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491


LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 10:09:25 PM
 #1902

What baffles me is how people can send so many coins to a supposedly anonymous person. Do you give out unsecured loans to random strangers who you meet for the first time?

Are you new to this subforum?

Are you trying to be funny?

Please re-read what I wrote.

Full Disclosure: I haven't ever invested into a project/business/security who was operated by another party.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS.
 
junkonator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 26, 2014, 12:00:53 AM
 #1903

What baffles me is how people can send so many coins to a supposedly anonymous person. Do you give out unsecured loans to random strangers who you meet for the first time?

Are you new to this subforum?
+1 funny. Especially from you, 2070.
twentyseventy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 26, 2014, 12:41:50 AM
 #1904

What baffles me is how people can send so many coins to a supposedly anonymous person. Do you give out unsecured loans to random strangers who you meet for the first time?

Are you new to this subforum?

Are you trying to be funny?

Please re-read what I wrote.

Full Disclosure: I haven't ever invested into a project/business/security who was operated by another party.

Contrary to your thoughts, I'm not out for humor.

I ask because this subforum is built upon semi-anonymous non-secured loans. So, if you are/were new to this subforum, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

But, yes, most everyone here is providing funding to people that they don't know with no backing assets.
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491


LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper


View Profile
July 26, 2014, 04:37:39 AM
 #1905

What baffles me is how people can send so many coins to a supposedly anonymous person. Do you give out unsecured loans to random strangers who you meet for the first time?

Are you new to this subforum?

Are you trying to be funny?

Please re-read what I wrote.

Full Disclosure: I haven't ever invested into a project/business/security who was operated by another party.

Contrary to your thoughts, I'm not out for humor.

I ask because this subforum is built upon semi-anonymous non-secured loans. So, if you are/were new to this subforum, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

But, yes, most everyone here is providing funding to people that they don't know with no backing assets.

No this forum is not built upon semi-anonymous non-secured loans.

Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous.

This forum is not built on loans. Let's get that straight as I do not take out loans from my customers, for example.

Obviously you are in a position where you think you know what you are talking about but it appears you are clueless.  Roll Eyes

Loans can be secure in several ways via having the other party consent to giving you their personal information in case you need recourse or using some sort of collateral or escrow to keep the borrowing party accountable.

All I said was it baffles me how many people send money to people they haven't got any information on over the internet. UNSECURED-LOANS. Nowhere did I say it surprised me of the nature of Bitcoin and loans denominated in it.


███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS.
 
junkonator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 26, 2014, 11:35:53 AM
 #1906


No this forum is not built upon semi-anonymous non-secured loans.

Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous.

This forum is not built on loans. Let's get that straight as I do not take out loans from my customers, for example.

Obviously you are in a position where you think you know what you are talking about but it appears you are clueless.  Roll Eyes

Loans can be secure in several ways via having the other party consent to giving you their personal information in case you need recourse or using some sort of collateral or escrow to keep the borrowing party accountable.

All I said was it baffles me how many people send money to people they haven't got any information on over the internet. UNSECURED-LOANS. Nowhere did I say it surprised me of the nature of Bitcoin and loans denominated in it.
I don't know how this could work in reality. The personal information is worth nothing i you can't take the counterparty to court. Let's say I live in France and want to take a russian guy of who I have the credentials to court over 2000 $ at the time of lending and 4000 $ at the time I wanna start sueing. Really, what are the chances this will lead anywhere?

I think other forms of LIMITING the needed trust - like the system 2070 has in place with BDD - are much more fitting to BTC ecosystem. A system of pawning can maybe work, too like this one lending page (forgot the name) had with btct.co shares.

Had btct.co not collapsed, I doubt Deprived would have just taken the money and run. Also there was this strange deal with Ukyo, what happened to that one?
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491


LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper


View Profile
July 26, 2014, 09:36:08 PM
 #1907


No this forum is not built upon semi-anonymous non-secured loans.

Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous.

This forum is not built on loans. Let's get that straight as I do not take out loans from my customers, for example.

Obviously you are in a position where you think you know what you are talking about but it appears you are clueless.  Roll Eyes

Loans can be secure in several ways via having the other party consent to giving you their personal information in case you need recourse or using some sort of collateral or escrow to keep the borrowing party accountable.

All I said was it baffles me how many people send money to people they haven't got any information on over the internet. UNSECURED-LOANS. Nowhere did I say it surprised me of the nature of Bitcoin and loans denominated in it.
I don't know how this could work in reality. The personal information is worth nothing i you can't take the counterparty to court. Let's say I live in France and want to take a russian guy of who I have the credentials to court over 2000 $ at the time of lending and 4000 $ at the time I wanna start sueing. Really, what are the chances this will lead anywhere?

I think other forms of LIMITING the needed trust - like the system 2070 has in place with BDD - are much more fitting to BTC ecosystem. A system of pawning can maybe work, too like this one lending page (forgot the name) had with btct.co shares.

Had btct.co not collapsed, I doubt Deprived would have just taken the money and run. Also there was this strange deal with Ukyo, what happened to that one?

1. Of course not all circumstances are feasible to recourse. That is pretty obvious. But anyone doing their due diligence to get the information from the borrower would not lend to people say, outside of their country.

2. Deprived supposedly has access to all of the funds that belong to his investors. BTCT.co has nothing to do with it as far as I am aware.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS.
 
JohnWasser
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 17
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 22, 2014, 02:54:50 PM
 #1908

Looks like the Cyphermine.B1 bonds were purchased on September 10, 2013 so in a few weeks Deprived will be able to redeem them for face value with no penalty. Maybe that is what he is waiting for. If he can redeem the bonds he can pay all back dividends and close down the fund cleanly.

I hope he uses this opportunity.
twentyseventy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 22, 2014, 03:10:46 PM
 #1909

Looks like the Cyphermine.B1 bonds were purchased on September 10, 2013 so in a few weeks Deprived will be able to redeem them for face value with no penalty. Maybe that is what he is waiting for. If he can redeem the bonds he can pay all back dividends and close down the fund cleanly.

I hope he uses this opportunity.

Unfortuntately, there are two issues here:

1. Deprived's disappearance from the community
2. CIPHERMINE is either a fraud, a scam, or just plain not honoring redemption requests:

Hi everyone,

My name is Phillip Monk, and I hold about 1500 CIPHERMINE.B1 bonds. I live in Australia. I hold some legal qualifications, but I am not a lawyer.

In March this year I gave Kate 3 month's notice that I wanted my bonds redeemed. She acknowledged my notice.

In early June, the redemption date came and went. I received nothing, so I asked Kate what the problem was.

She told me that Ciphermine didn't have the funds to pay me back. She cited a number of reasons for not paying up, including exponential difficulty, delayed hardware and an increase in the price of BTC.

She said that she was working out what to do, and asked me to keep the information confidential. I waited for a while, but heard nothing. I noted that during this period Ciphermine paid at least one dividend to its shareholders on June 29, and apparently put new hardware into service. Presumably Ciphermine are still operating that hardware.

In July I engaged a lawyer based in the UK to request payment. Since then, there has been some back and forth between her lawyer and mine, but essentially she has not conceded liability to me, nor has she offered any payment.

My analysis of the situation (which Kate's lawyers have neither confirmed or denied), is that the founders of Ciphermine (Kate, Giles Russel, Ross Martin and Simon Weald) were not operating under a corporate structure at the time the bonds were available on btct.co in September and October last year. Therefore, I believe that the bondholders are in a contractual relationship with the founders, and the founders are personally liable to the bondholders for the value of the bonds.

The latest response from her lawyer to mine was fairly terse and claimed that Kate and the other founders were relying on an exclusion clause which was (I presume) listed on the asset details page for CIPHERMINE.B1 on the btct.co website:


Quote
Warning

CipherBond is a virtual security whose shares (bonds) and dividends are to be quoted and distributed in a virtual cryptocoin commodity (Bitcoin) which is not recognised as a legal security in any jurisdiction. It is Ciphermine's intention to uphold this shareholder agreement, but we, Kate Craig-Wood, Wood Technology LLP, Giles Russell, and all other individuals and legal entities associated directly or indirectly with this security, are in no way liable for any losses you may incur in connection with CipherBond or CipherMine.

Further, be aware that the BTC Trading Company is unregulated and legally considered an online game. Should something go wrong you have no recourse in law. CipherMine is a virtual company and the management team, staff and its associated (sic), are not bound by law, corporate or otherwise, nor are we qualified to provide financial advice.

DO NOT INVEST MORE THAN YOU CAN AFFORD TO LOSE!


So, does she get away with it? I don't think so. There's a bit of unqualified legal opinion coming here (i.e., it's mine).



Unfairness

The clause that Kate is relying on is void for unfairness. It basically permits Ciphermine to take the funds raised and not pay anything back.

Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 a party cannot rely on an unfair term to avoid liability (s3). From studying the Act I would appear to meet the definition of a 'consumer' (s12) and the clause would appear to fail the 'reasonableness' test in s11 (basically as it would deprive me of the right to enjoy the benefit of the contract if it was relied upon, and it was not reasonable for Kate and the other founders to expect me to think that they would be unable to pay me back). Indeed, Kate herself said:

There should be no losses associated with the bond. CipherMine will take all necessary measures to ensure that it is repaid, as any company would in such a situation. The ultimate back-stop would be to sell the assets themselves, though by then even in a dire scenario we should have been able to repay most if not all the face value from the mining yields. That they are secured by the assets purchased should only ever come into play if something went disastrously wrong (ie. CipherMine had completely exhausted its funds attempting to honor the loan).

Has she taken all necessary measures to ensure the bonds were repaid? No. She has apparently continued to operate Ciphermine after she refused to redeem my bonds (new hardware was received on 14 June apparently), and has even paid dividends to her shareholders (last one was paid around 29 June).

Onerous clauses and reasonable notice

I also had a quick look at common law. Cases like Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] 1 QB 433 have held that reasonable notice of onerous clauses must be given for them to be effective.

I based my decision to invest in CIPHERMINE.B1 on the basis of the terms given on bitcointalk (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286634.msg3071632#msg3071632). This posting did not mention the liability disclaimer, which I presume was only listed on the CIPHERMINE.B1 asset details page on btct.co (the crypto exchange the asset was listed on).

It did include a statement at the bottom linking to the home page of btct.co:


For further details please see CIPHERMINE.B1 on BTC TC.


However this link only takes you to the btct.co home page, not to the asset details page with the full terms. There was no requirement to acknowledge and accept the term in order to purchase the bonds. In my opinion, Kate and the other founders did not do enough to draw this onerous (and unreasonable) clause to the attention of prospective bondholders (though, as I said earlier, I believe the clause is void for unfairness anyway).



So, that's pretty much what I've been up to on this. I do not see any prospect of Kate honouring the contract, and I do not intend to reward her conduct, so it's time to move on to other measures. I have instructed my lawyer to refer this matter to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK, which he informs me can investigate what the Ciphermine founders have been up to, and if necessary enforce the contract. I have also instructed him to report this to other law enforcement authorities in the UK as he sees fit.

Whilst it's a good development that the authorities in the UK are about to become involved, I am also considering filing an action against her and possibly the other founders on my own behalf. The benefits of filing are (as explained to me by my lawyer):

  • As the coins are not considered currency, the claim would be for breach of contract, not a money claim. Therefore costs may be awarded (basically I get most of my legal costs back).
  • It may be quicker than relying on the FCA, who have to prioritize any investigation with other work that they are doing.

So far I have funded this out of my own pocket, but if it becomes necessary or desirable to file there will be more costs. I am asking people to come forward if they wish to consider a joint action, and potentially save some money.

If you wish to find out more, you can PM me here. It is entirely up to you but it might be helpful if you tell me which country you are in, an idea of how many bonds you own and whether you have tried to redeem them yourself yet. All of the bonds become redeemable on September 10, so we are not that far away from all bondholders being in the same boat I am in (unless for some reason you were able to charm Kate into repaying you).

Cheers.






Lohoris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


Bitgoblin


View Profile
August 22, 2014, 04:49:19 PM
 #1910

2. CIPHERMINE is either a fraud, a scam, or just plain not honoring redemption requests:
is there a difference between the three?

1LohorisJie8bGGG7X4dCS9MAVsTEbzrhu
DefaultTrust is very BAD.
twentyseventy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 22, 2014, 05:19:21 PM
 #1911

2. CIPHERMINE is either a fraud, a scam, or just plain not honoring redemption requests:
is there a difference between the three?


Technically, yes. Practically, no. Never liked Kate and CIPHER myself, personally. The whole thing just seems even more strange when combined with Deprived's disappearance and his relatively close ties to them.
stereotype
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 22, 2014, 09:45:30 PM
 #1912

"Should something go wrong you have no recourse in law."

Fine. So if your legal path yields no result/s, dont rely on law then.
I would have thought it wouldn't take much organisation, to start educating her seemingly extensive business contacts and circles (or is all that bullshit as well?).
She is not exactly low profile.   
stripykitteh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
August 22, 2014, 10:10:43 PM
Last edit: August 22, 2014, 10:57:49 PM by stripykitteh
 #1913

"Should something go wrong you have no recourse in law."

Fine. So if your legal path yields no result/s, dont rely on law then.
I would have thought it wouldn't take much organisation, to start educating her seemingly extensive business contacts and circles (or is all that bullshit as well?).
She is not exactly low profile.    

As I discussed in my substantive posting on the CIPHERMINE.B1 thread, I believe that clause is meaningless.

But either way this is not going to enhance her reputation.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
stripykitteh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
August 22, 2014, 10:24:32 PM
 #1914

2. CIPHERMINE is either a fraud, a scam, or just plain not honoring redemption requests:
is there a difference between the three?


Technically, yes. Practically, no. Never liked Kate and CIPHER myself, personally. The whole thing just seems even more strange when combined with Deprived's disappearance and his relatively close ties to them.

In hindsight, and now having read everything Kate wrote and everything Deprived wrote, he just seems on a completely different level intellectually to her. She came over as narcissistic and somewhat naive, whereas he seemed to be one of the most able minds there was in the crypto-community.

For sure Deprived's decision to buy into CIPHERMINE.B1 had an influence on my decision to do the same, though I admit my own fault for not having done more to look at her with a skeptical eye. A lesson learned.

Having said that, she also sold herself as having run a number of successful businesses, and having spent so much effort on self-promotion I couldn't believe that she would risk her own reputation by taking the course of action that she has. I saw that as my insurance policy against the bonds not being redeemed. I mean, even if she escapes this without legal penalty, how can things ever be the same again?


 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
stereotype
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 23, 2014, 07:13:50 AM
 #1915

I was going to cut n paste a paragraph or two, to highlight her now completely compromised position, but actually, there's tons of vacuous nonsense on there when you start reading. Hindsight is a beautiful thing!

How long before she removes this shit?

http://kate.craig-wood.com/business.php
Bonam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 09, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
 #1916

Anyone make any progress in tracking down Deprived or uncovering his rl identity?
eltopo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 230
Merit: 100



View Profile
September 13, 2014, 09:29:09 AM
 #1917

Anyone make any progress in tracking down Deprived or uncovering his rl identity?

I think this is no more relevant, as the ciphermine bond is officially worth nothing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286634.msg8732682#msg8732682

And DMS holdings consist of 70% (?) ciphermine bonds, though even if Deprived shows up again it wouldn't matter much...
junkonator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 13, 2014, 10:39:02 AM
 #1918

I think this is no more relevant, as the ciphermine bond is officially worth nothing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286634.msg8732682#msg8732682

And DMS holdings consist of 70% (?) ciphermine bonds, though even if Deprived shows up again it wouldn't matter much...
Reading Kate's email she seems to think that she is more obliged to honour the bonds than the Ciphertrade shares. Depending on how this all pans out, IF anybody sees money from the Cipher* scam then it's the bond holders and with ot the DMS holders.
stripykitteh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
September 13, 2014, 11:06:26 AM
 #1919

Anyone make any progress in tracking down Deprived or uncovering his rl identity?

I think this is no more relevant, as the ciphermine bond is officially worth nothing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286634.msg8732682#msg8732682

And DMS holdings consist of 70% (?) ciphermine bonds, though even if Deprived shows up again it wouldn't matter much...

Without trying to sugarcoat this, it's still too early to say it is officially worthless. In my opinion Kate and potentially the other founders and operators of Ciphermine are personally liable to redeem the bond. If I'm right, the only way the bond is not repaid in full is if they all go bankrupt.

I've reported Kate to the FCA in the UK. I believe others intend to do the same. All I can suggest at the moment is to wait and see how things develop.

My recollection is that DMS's share of the bonds was about 250 BTC, and the remaining value of the fund was 150 BTC in cash.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
junkonator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 149
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 13, 2014, 03:44:27 PM
 #1920

Without trying to sugarcoat this, it's still too early to say it is officially worthless. In my opinion Kate and potentially the other founders and operators of Ciphermine are personally liable to redeem the bond. If I'm right, the only way the bond is not repaid in full is if they all go bankrupt.

I've reported Kate to the FCA in the UK. I believe others intend to do the same. All I can suggest at the moment is to wait and see how things develop.

My recollection is that DMS's share of the bonds was about 250 BTC, and the remaining value of the fund was 150 BTC in cash.
The problem is then that DMS holders would have to prove ownership of DMS. This could prove difficult without the help of Deprived or burnside. Even if the ownership is proven, Kate can - and I think she will - at least stall paying to the owners directly rather than to Deprived/DMS.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!