AccountManagement
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
|
 |
December 31, 2013, 03:17:40 PM |
|
That's what makes the whole thing what it is. Both Jon and Ken are playing outside the law, so I have no idea how their lawyers would frame a tort case without both Jon and Ken having to admit to vanable crimes in the process. One issued unregistered shares, the other ran an unlicenced exchange. The bit about taking care of WeEx users is just the cherry on top - "it's for the children!"
|
|
|
|
|
minerpart
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
IIIIII====II====IIIIII
|
|
December 31, 2013, 03:21:08 PM |
|
The hypocrisy of the guy is unbelievable. He gambled away hundreds of thousands of dollars of people's money so the last place he needs to go near is a court room. On the other hand Ken has a legal lien basis for confiscating his personal and/or his company ACtM shares. Period.
Ken has always acted in good faith and in the spirit of the law - despite the technicalities he has not been criminally negligent with other people's money. The law on unregistered securities is there to protect people from the unscrupulous. Ken will be giving everyone a worthy return and if it came to the authorities taking every bitcoin stock to court (unlikely) he would be let off with a slap on the wrist and a fine. The underlying intent is always the deciding factor in any interpretation of the law and Kens has been honest from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
December 31, 2013, 03:33:42 PM |
|
The hypocrisy of the guy is unbelievable. He gambled away hundreds of thousands of dollars of people's money so the last place he needs to go near is a court room. On the other hand Ken has a legal lien basis for confiscating his personal and/or his company ACtM shares. Period.
You're assuming too much in that statement. Why do you think he gambled the WeEx funds? Do you have any evidence of said actions? I don't believe you do. This community is great with pitchforks and poor with logic at times. Don't participate in that. Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing. If he and Jon had come to an arrangement this whole scenario would be different - and initially that is what I thought had happened. That does not appear to be the case. All that said, AccountManagement's point stands. We are talking about a spat involving a nice little chunk of money between two men who are dealing in unregulated securities. I say they resolve this with a shoot out. Outside the OK Coral at dawn. |
|
|
|
|
JoTheKhan
|
|
December 31, 2013, 03:50:07 PM |
|
Happy New Years,
Though this my fall on deft ears I want to at least give it a shot.
Ken you have an update coming out tomorrow;
Urgent
Can you elaborate on our shares and the process of us getting access to them. (When will the shares be tradeable?)
Expected timeline for when we will begin low production. (If you can give estimated dates for shipping hardware I think we are able to get estimated dates for when we start receiving low volume production.)
We are very curious about
Do you have anything to say about the new hashrate that has hit the Eligus pool? Is this hardware that we have shipped. (Others may not see it as good news but I sure as hell would. If you know anything about this can you say so? If this is not something we shipped can you also state this so that we can keep it off this forum then?)
Are the 106BTC locked up in Weexchange ActM's money or your personal money? (I can understand why you wish to take Ukyo's shares as your own if Ukyo has stolen your BTC. We should be privy to the information about whether this is a very personal matter between you two or a business matter between Us and Ukyo).
Again, we look forward to hearing from you.
Hope everyone is enjoying their holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
shaofis
Member
Offline
Activity: 106
Merit: 10
|
|
December 31, 2013, 03:54:47 PM |
|
Has Ken actually indicated he is holding Ukyo's shares? As far as I can tell Ukyo's concern is the same we all hold... without being re-listed all of our shares are on hold. I don't think Ukyo has any special grounds to complain concerning the situation with WeExchange and BitFunder.
Granted we'd all like to see our shares back in our position and listed on an exchange... but until ours are and Ukyo's aren't... he has no grounds to complain beyond what we all hold.
Honestly the entire situation stinks... I'm still curious as to why over 100BTC was stored on BitFunder and if that is 100BTC of ActiveMining's assets or Ken's. He listed it as ActiveMinings... which leaves me curious as to why.
And for crying out loud where are the financials... all things aside this is something that Ken should be obligated to release on a set schedule. And I'm not talking about a brief one liner... but a proper balance sheet etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JoTheKhan
|
|
December 31, 2013, 04:19:29 PM |
|
Has Ken actually indicated he is holding Ukyo's shares? As far as I can tell Ukyo's concern is the same we all hold... without being re-listed all of our shares are on hold. I don't think Ukyo has any special grounds to complain concerning the situation with WeExchange and BitFunder.
Granted we'd all like to see our shares back in our position and listed on an exchange... but until ours are and Ukyo's aren't... he has no grounds to complain beyond what we all hold.
Honestly the entire situation stinks... I'm still curious as to why over 100BTC was stored on BitFunder and if that is 100BTC of ActiveMining's assets or Ken's. He listed it as ActiveMinings... which leaves me curious as to why.
And for crying out loud where are the financials... all things aside this is something that Ken should be obligated to release on a set schedule. And I'm not talking about a brief one liner... but a proper balance sheet etc.
The money could be there for many reasons. One of the simplest being the money is there to pay out divs as they come in. Instead of going through the process of sending the divs through weexchange every time divs are due he could just send one big batch and pay out the amount equal to the divs for that period. I also remember talk of someone stating that ACTM has bought back shares of itself? Not exactly sure what that means. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
December 31, 2013, 04:52:24 PM |
|
Just wanted to wish all you guys a happy new year when it finally hits in your respective timezones! My prediction is that ActM will surprise us (one way or the other) in 2014!  |
|
|
|
|
drawingthesun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
|
|
December 31, 2013, 05:12:11 PM |
|
Just wanted to wish all you guys a happy new year when it finally hits in your respective timezones! My prediction is that ActM will surprise us (one way or the other) in 2014! Lets hope so, my entire net worth is in ActiveMining stock! Happy new year everyone! |
|
|
|
|
|
JoTheKhan
|
|
December 31, 2013, 05:58:15 PM |
|
Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM.
Please... do you still not understand VMC's products? These are not 24TH single unit miners. Actually, the whole "innovation" was to be modular. Just stop watching Eligius. If there are actual good news, they will be told by kslaugther. Exactly you can easily check our Div address to see if this is us or not. Nothing else has to be said or done. |
|
|
|
|
|
Vigil
|
|
December 31, 2013, 06:14:05 PM |
|
Doesn't really answer why hash increments of 25 TH. That really only fits with ActM.
Please... do you still not understand VMC's products? These are not 24TH single unit miners. Actually, the whole "innovation" was to be modular. Just stop watching Eligius. If there are actual good news, they will be told by kslaugther. Exactly you can easily check our Div address to see if this is us or not. Nothing else has to be said or done. I know they are not single units but there isn't any reasonable explanation for the consistent and repeated 25 TH increments... such increments can only bring to mind the maxed-out Platinums from VMC. There is a base unit with up to six expansion units. So, Each 24.567 TH unit consists of a Base + 6 expansion units. So, they do function as whole units, which would make sense that the hash rate is jumping up and down by 25 TH exactly each time. Otherwise we would see dips of 3 TH and then maybe 12 TH or 6.8 TH, etc. You can't run the expansion units alone, you need the base unit. There were only two base units allowed per customer, so the only way this could be someone else is if multiple customers joined together through separate purchases. If Ken wanted to "secretly" establish our mining operation and switched to a different pool (i.e., Eligius with no fees) he may have created a different payout address to be revealed at a later date. |
|
|
|
|
|
VinceSamios
|
|
December 31, 2013, 06:20:32 PM |
|
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine. |
|
|
|
damiano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
103 days, 21 hours and 10 minutes.
|
|
December 31, 2013, 06:36:17 PM |
|
You guys are wasting so much time and energy. Just wait for ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kleeck
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:19:49 PM |
|
Ken does not have a legal leg to stand on if he took Ukyo's shares by force. That's called stealing.
If someone owes you money and you have something of theirs, you can retain possession of that item (or whatever). Lien, Look it up. Obtaining after the fact is stealing, but if you hold the item before hand and are owed money then its fine. It is my understanding that a lien is typically agreed upon by both parties within their agreement. In the cases where it isn't there can be a legal lien applied but it is upheld by a court and the items held by the lean cannot be sold, but are held until payment is rendered. My understanding, in this scenario, is that Ken seized Ukyo's shares without any legal backing, called it a lien, and now is acting as if he owns the shares. As I'm fairly certain no lien was written into the Bitfunder listing agreement, and I know it isn't written into the contract between ActM and its shareholders, I would assume that Ken is exercising it as a matter of law, and that, in my opinion, is where everything false apart. What state's law is imposed? Is it a federal law that grants the ability to implement a lien against a shareholder? I highly doubt it. " As stated before, we have to individuals highly involved in illegal securities. Imposing legal action just doesn't quite work here, in my opinion. All that said, I won't continue to drudge up the Ukyo v Slaughter case here as I'm sure people are growing weary of it. Happy New Year, guys! |
|
|
|
kingcrimson
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1025
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:26:42 PM |
|
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
bromide
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 43
Merit: 0
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:33:37 PM |
|
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
Is that a mach for Jon's "unavailable"?  |
|
|
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:34:14 PM |
|
This seems to be a securities exchange address (not many non-exchanges/early adopters would have 270k btc or so go through them plus last transaction fits with btct paying off last bits of funds): https://blockchain.info/address/1KRj8opQ5y3h2dw8FjnskxuVZ5qtu5UuidThe splitting and later recombining could potentially be attributed to exchange-internal [for lack of better word] mixing? I'm not particularly adept at reading the blockchain but after following several of those 600 threads down for a while that's the best reasoning that I could come up with. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:37:03 PM |
|
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
He can claim whatever he wants, those that followed instructions would have screenshot-proof of share transfers that when combined with Ukyo's records would be more than enough to confirm ownership of shares |
|
|
|
|
|
knybe
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:46:06 PM |
|
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
He can claim whatever he wants, those that followed instructions would have screenshot-proof of share transfers that when combined with Ukyo's records would be more than enough to confirm ownership of shares he was making a funny about WeEx/ButtFunder bitcoins "simply not being there anymore." |
|
|
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
December 31, 2013, 07:49:11 PM |
|
He can always claim the shares are 'simply not there' anymore.
He can claim whatever he wants, those that followed instructions would have screenshot-proof of share transfers that when combined with Ukyo's records would be more than enough to confirm ownership of shares he was making a funny about WeEx/ButtFunder bitcoins "simply not being there anymore." Ah, it whooshed over my head then, apologies |
|
|
|
|
|
