Bitcoin Forum
October 24, 2017, 06:32:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

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 ... 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 [803] 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 ... 914 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [LABCOIN] IPO [BTCT.CO] - Details/FAQ and Discussion (ASIC dev/sales/mining)  (Read 1042557 times)
TMAN
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:07:52 PM
 #16041

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

E wry thing is on hold with bitfunder takin on new securities until next week, I believe he mentioned he is waiting on legal advice

1508826720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826720
Reply with quote  #2

1508826720
Report to moderator
1508826720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826720
Reply with quote  #2

1508826720
Report to moderator
1508826720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826720
Reply with quote  #2

1508826720
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508826720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826720
Reply with quote  #2

1508826720
Report to moderator
1508826720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826720
Reply with quote  #2

1508826720
Report to moderator
1508826720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508826720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508826720
Reply with quote  #2

1508826720
Report to moderator
massnerder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


No power in the 'verse can stop me.


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:11:09 PM
 #16042

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

yes but say i don't have an account there, or it doesn't get all set up before btct closes....  do we just lose our shares?  do divs continue going to our last known payout address? i am wondering how a share will go from one exchange to the other while remaining mine....  i'm sure nobody will have an answer to that until (if) the official announcement is made.
dhenson
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
 #16043

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

E wry thing is on hold with bitfunder takin on new securities until next week, I believe he mentioned he is waiting on legal advice

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.
VolanicEruptor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:14:03 PM
 #16044

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

E wry thing is on hold with bitfunder takin on new securities until next week, I believe he mentioned he is waiting on legal advice

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.


Ukyo is currently operating legally in his jurisdiction as well.

canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:17:07 PM
 #16045

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

yes but say i don't have an account there, or it doesn't get all set up before btct closes....  do we just lose our shares?  do divs continue going to our last known payout address? i am wondering how a share will go from one exchange to the other while remaining mine....  i'm sure nobody will have an answer to that until (if) the official announcement is made.

If Labcoin gets approved and moves to Bitfunder, then yes you might not be eligible for dividends if you choose to not open an account with Bitfunder.
If on the other hand they don't get approved then I imagine they'll operate as a dividend producing private stock. The larger shareholders can operate passthrough shares on exchanges, presuming that there is approval to get them listed.

addi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 628


https://satoshibet.com


View Profile WWW
September 29, 2013, 09:18:17 PM
 #16046

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Labcoin and Swede keep mentioning Bitfunder, but we have yet to see an official announcement from Ukyo or labcoin

yes but say i don't have an account there, or it doesn't get all set up before btct closes....  do we just lose our shares?  do divs continue going to our last known payout address? i am wondering how a share will go from one exchange to the other while remaining mine....  i'm sure nobody will have an answer to that until (if) the official announcement is made.

If Labcoin gets approved and moves to Bitfunder, then yes you might not be eligible for dividends if you choose to not open an account with Bitfunder.
If on the other hand they don't get approved then I imagine they'll operate as a dividend producing private stock. The larger shareholders can operate passthrough shares on exchanges, presuming that there is approval to get them listed.

I for one really hope Ukyo does not accept Labcoin, too much collateral damage potential

dhenson
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:20:22 PM
 #16047

Ukyo is currently operating legally in his jurisdiction as well.

Can you point me towards your source?  As far as I know we don't know where Ukyo lives... Where he is incorporated is immaterial.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:23:29 PM
 #16048

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.


FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.
zumzero
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


myBitcoin.Garden


View Profile WWW
September 29, 2013, 09:28:13 PM
 #16049

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.


FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

And you can not legally sell bitcoins for fiat without paying taxes.   Wink

https://mybitcoin.garden
Bitcoin game where you can earn up to 220% on each planted garden!
minerpart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

IIIIII====II====IIIIII


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:30:27 PM
 #16050

what I don't get is that if there won't be any trading soon, and there is no new exchange, how does one retain ownership of the shares?  how do we know there will even be a new exchange at this point?

Your ownership (actually every trade ever executed) is recorded in the exchange log. This log will be used to give you an identical number of shares in any new exchange.
moribana
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 167


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:33:28 PM
 #16051

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.


FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:36:26 PM
 #16052

If Ukyo is seeking legal opinion then you can almost bank one one of these three possible outcomes:
1) He will start following AML/KYC laws which means everyone will be required to register and prove identity.  This will be a huge management overhead and not very likely to occur.
2) He will physically move to a country more condusive to this sort of thing.  Unlikely as he already admitted that the site profits were lower than the amount he has spent on lawyers.
3) He will follow burnside's lead and close up shop. Most likely scenario IMO  That leaves 796 and Havelock which are currently operating legally in their jurisdiction.


FFS how many times does one have to post links here to make people understand you can not legally sell unregistered securities to US citizens (or EU or mostly any civilized country) . "their jurisdiction" is meaningless. These exchanges would at the very least have to try to block sales to US citizens, otherwise they would be seen as targeting US (EU, whatever) and therefor be subject to SEC regulations:

III. OFFSHORE OFFERS AND SOLICITATIONS ON THE INTERNET
http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/33-7516.htm

It doesnt matter what country they operate from, all that matters is what market they target. The internet isnt a country, there is a reason I cant get Netflix here, its because I dont live in internetland.

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You're still selling booze to a minor, even if that minor swore up & down that he's 60.  Go figure.
minerpart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

IIIIII====II====IIIIII


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:43:31 PM
 #16053

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:43:41 PM
 #16054

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Did you read my link? Clearly not. Just putting  a message saying only citizens of a banana republic and Mars are allowed,  obviously wouldnt be enough.

Note that the link I provided actually deals about paper securities that have to be shipped. Even then the SEC expects the seller to verify phone number, social security numbers and the like.  For virtual shares that dont need to be sent I imagine they would be even tougher.

And this would also apply for any exchange:

When an offeror, or those acting on its behalf, uses a third-party’s Web site to generate interest in the Internet offer, more stringent precautions by the offeror than those outlined in Section III.B. may be warranted. These precautions may include limiting access to its Internet offering materials to persons who can demonstrate that they are not U.S. persons.
minerpart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

IIIIII====II====IIIIII


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:53:08 PM
 #16055


Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You're still selling booze to a minor, even if that minor swore up & down that he's 60.  Go figure.

You have that the wrong way round. The licenced alcohol seller has to put in safe-guards to ensure they only sell to adults - ID check. So the exchange needs a similar safe-guard to meet the letter of the law. Blocking US ISP is the 'ID check'.

The US cannot dictate to every other citizen of the world how they must operate their exchanges. If US citizens decide to commit fraud and pretend to an exchange they are non-US that is their call. But the US cannot close down business in other countries just because US citizens are acting illegally by using them. That would be absurd. It would be like trying to close down Amsterdam cafes for selling Marijunana to US holiday makers.
dhenson
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 09:57:30 PM
 #16056

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

This post by burnside seems to indicate that he is being forced into shutting down by the government, and that had he not been legally represented, the shutdown would have been immediate.

I know this is a sensitive subject, but there are still a lot of unknowns out there around how governments are going to react to bitcoin.  Using bitcoin is thus inherently risky.  In this case, the government has not reacted in a way beneficial to btct.co and thus a wind down is necessary.

If you're an alcoholic and your city council votes to go dry, do you blame the shopkeeper that can no longer sell you the alcohol?  Or do you blame the city that enacted the new law?

The saving grace for everyone is that the exchange has spent a lot of bitcoins on legal fees to make sure that we have the time to let things wind down in an orderly fashion, thus preserving as much value for everyone as possible.
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 10:02:01 PM
 #16057


Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. You're still selling booze to a minor, even if that minor swore up & down that he's 60.  Go figure.

You have that the wrong way round. The licenced alcohol seller has to put in safe-guards to ensure they only sell to adults - ID check. So the exchange needs a similar safe-guard to meet the letter of the law. Blocking US ISP is the 'ID check'.

The US cannot dictate to every other citizen of the world how they must operate their exchanges. If US citizens decide to commit fraud and pretend to an exchange they are non-US that is their call. But the US cannot close down business in other countries just because US citizens are acting illegally by using them. That would be absurd. It would be like trying to close down Amsterdam cafes for selling Marijunana to US holiday makers.

How did that work out for Liberty Reserve?
You should really find out how this IRL thing works before passing out legal advice on international financial law, especially if you think that US citizens can incorporate in Belize & sell unregistered stocks to US citizens (which is what's happening here).
Edit:  The "holidaymakers" can smoke all the pot they want -- even huff gas, for all i care Cheesy
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
September 29, 2013, 10:23:09 PM
 #16058

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

To "simply register" is neither simple, nor quick nor cost effective. Running a legal security exchange in the USA is not something that can be done without a massive compliance cost.

minerpart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

IIIIII====II====IIIIII


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 10:27:02 PM
 #16059



How did that work out for Liberty Reserve?


Are you unable to read up for yourself then? The US authorities did not shut down LR, Costa Rican authorities applied the pressure. If an exchange is operating legally in another country the US can do bugger all about it. The US do not rule the world.


Liberty Reserve was denied a business license in Costa Rica, according to state prosecutor José Pablo González, due to lack of transparency about how the business was funded.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve
minerpart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280

IIIIII====II====IIIIII


View Profile
September 29, 2013, 10:28:20 PM
 #16060

Can't this problem be solved in the way BTCINVEST on Bitfunder did it? Just explicitly stating that US citizens and residents are prohibited to buy. Of course, this cannot be enforced, but nobody can accuse then of targeting US citizens.

Simple question - why didn't burnside simply register as an exchange with relevant authorities rather than close?

To "simply register" is neither simple, nor quick nor cost effective. Running a legal security exchange in the USA is not something that can be done without a massive compliance cost.

That's a real shame. And I thought you guys lived in the 'Land of the Free'?
Pages: « 1 ... 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 [803] 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 ... 914 »
  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!