The BCH value in forum wallets

[TECSHARE]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

[1714056856]

1714056856

[1714056856]

1714056856

[1714056856]

1714056856

[1714056856]

1714056856

[1714056856]

1714056856

[TwitchySeal]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

It also seems like many of the people who attack Lauda the most are defending OGNasty.

If it's the exact scenario I guess everyone that attacked Lauda but not OG, or OG but not Lauda is a hypocrite, and especially OGNasty and Lauda.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

Personally I believe its far more than just unprofessional, but im not quite as chilled a character as you.

Is that the understatement of the year, or what?   Should frame that one.   

hahahaha

 

[OgNasty]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

The scenarios are not even remotely similar.  Stop it.  Lauda (along with minerjones and blazed) profited from their role in a scam that saw users lose their funds because Lauda sent them to a scammer without anyone else's approval (not to mention storing them on an exchange when he claimed he'd store them at a multisig address).  I safeguarded forum BTC and returned 100% of them along with additional alts.

Never touching the forum's BTC was something I did for the forum.  Where is the BCH/BSV/BTG I should have received for the payments for my treasury services I didn't receive until months/years later?  Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.  Did I complain?  Nope.  This is my first mention of it, perhaps to justify my "tacky" behavior.

Let's stop the childish name calling and criticizing my good deeds.  I returned what theymos asked for, even though I had no obligation to do so with the forks and I did it quickly with a positive attitude.  It was a good deed and I feel I went above and beyond by never complaining for missed back pay, and always doing whatever I was asked.

[PrimeNumber7]

Full reserve is not a requirement

I believe this requirement was actually added into the treasury agreement.

I think it probably would have been best to get on the same page with theymos (the owner of the coin you were holding) ahead of time. I don’t see a contract violation and even if there was one, it appears have been forgiven based on theymos’ comment about all other coin derived from the treasury funds being gifted to you.

[suchmoon]

Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.  Did I complain?  Nope.  This is my first mention of it, perhaps to justify my "tacky" behavior.

Let's stop the childish name calling and criticizing my good deeds.  I returned what theymos asked for, even though I had no obligation to do so with the forks and I did it quickly with a positive attitude.  It was a good deed and I feel I went above and beyond by never complaining for missed back pay, and always doing whatever I was asked.

How is this malignant narcissist still trustworthy enough to be a treasurer is a mystery to me. Piss him off and you owe him. But at least he never complains. Ever.

[TMAN]

I don’t see a contract violation.

There is no violation, this is a question of ethics and/or morals.. This is all a discussion now, no witch hunt, no abuse, just a general discussion about the behavior and if its morally or ethically wrong.. ill leave others to comment, we all know my thoughts about the snake oil salesman.

my point here - which will be saved in internet history for ever and ever and ever (I wont edit this post, unlike others) is that the whole problem could go away if the BTC that was obtained in a way that theymos doesn't agree with is given to charity - then the whole issue goes away. Everyones rep is restored, this thread will die - fuck a real charity will benefit - but that will entail OgNAsty to disclose the full amount gained personally from airdrops and it will also entail him dusting off the wallet for something other than personal gain!

but - lets see... my bet is walls of text from TOAA, denials from OG and a few of his gimps coming to his rescue with excuses about Lauda, Lauda's brother and any other fucker.


xxxx peace out peeps!

[DireWolfM14]

Where is the BCH/BSV/BTG I should have received for the payments for my treasury services I didn't receive until months/years later?  Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.

If it's one thing I've noticed in my year and a half hanging out here is that Theymos is a pretty laid back, easy going character.  If you feel like percentage of the forkcoins should be added to your commission you should have spoken up about it.  I doubt anyone would have denied you the request.

I returned what theymos asked for, even though I had no obligation to do so with the forks and I did it quickly with a positive attitude.  It was a good deed and I feel I went above and beyond by never complaining for missed back pay, and always doing whatever I was asked.

I must admit I find this a curious philosophy.  It's my opinion that since the bitcoin belongs to the forum, and any forks also belong to the forum.  A practical analogy would be a stock split or a company spin-off.  When HP spun-off Agilent, Fidelity Investment Group didn't get to keep my Agilent shares.  Why would anyone believe they have a claim to them?

[OgNasty]

Full reserve is not a requirement

I believe this requirement was actually added into the treasury agreement.

It's been many years since I've looked at that section of the old agreement and referred to the public thread where the info is still listed but you may very well be correct.  That is a moot point anyway I added for sensationalism but I'll remove it to attempt to keep this somewhat on topic.

Where is the BCH/BSV/BTG I should have received for the payments for my treasury services I didn't receive until months/years later?  Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.

If it's one thing I've noticed in my year and a half hanging out here is that Theymos is a pretty laid back, easy going character.  If you feel like percentage of the forkcoins should be added to your commission you should have spoken up about it.  I doubt anyone would have denied you the request.

I'm sure he would have paid the funds to me had I spoken up about it.  Just like I would have paid him whatever GBYTE had he spoken up about it.

/thread

[theymos]

Never touching the forum's BTC was something I did for the forum.  Where is the BCH/BSV/BTG I should have received for the payments for my treasury services I didn't receive until months/years later?  Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.  Did I complain?  Nope.  This is my first mention of it, perhaps to justify my "tacky" behavior.

I offered partial reserve when I was looking for treasurers. Since you offered full-reserve, the treasury agreement itself says:

After the treasurer receives the Held Amount of bitcoins, the treasurer owes the Forum the held bitcoins and must keep the entire amount safe at a particular address, never transferring them except: ...

"Held bitcoins" in the agreement is ambiguous as to what a "bitcoin" is, but due to the whole context of the agreement, and especially because of the full-reserve requirement, I claim that the most supportable interpretation is that all forkcoins (ie. coins forking from Bitcoin's block chain and calling themselves "Bitcoin") were forum property from the beginning. (I do not claim this for airdrops.)

[PrimeNumber7]

I don’t see a contract violation.

There is no violation, this is a question of ethics and/or morals.. This is all a discussion now, no witch hunt, no abuse, just a general discussion about the behavior and if its morally or ethically wrong.. ill leave others to comment, we all know my thoughts about the snake oil salesman.

I have said before that I don’t think what happen was ideal.

From my perspective this did look a lot like a witch hunt to me, and I don’t like the idea of myself being subjected to mob justice, so I felt obligated to defend him. This topic was brought up after theymos said OgNasty returned everything he was obliged to return and the airdrop in question happened years ago. I watched the impeachment hearing a few weeks ago and this thread looked similar to how the democrats were acting.

Some have made the point that banks charge to hold deposits and can lend out their deposits and earn interest/income on those loans. The amount of money made from this airdrop was probably less than a bank would hope to earn lending out deposits.

[eddie13]

- Not asking was unprofessional.

I agree that OG not discussing this with theymos was a mistake on OG's part, but I doubt it was done out of malice..
I think he could have casually claimed airdrops from all of his keys, not skipping this key, and didn't really think anything of it, but should have consulted theymos about it..

I think this is an interesting philosophical question of who has the right to these sorts of miscellaneous fork/airdrop values based on who owns the keys or what is contracted with the contents of the keys..

Ideally, it should be handled explicitly in the agreement, but this agreement predated the concept of forkcoins.

This situation occurred mostly because their was little to no foresight into this evolutionary step of cryptocurrency where fork coins and airdrops exploded out of the middle of nowhere.. With the ever changing world of crypto situations like this are likely to even come up again in the future as things change, especially in relation to long term contracts..

the agreement definitely didn't require it, demanding it now could be perceived as exploiting the political atmosphere here to shake down a counterparty.

It is a slip up but it is being over exploited IMO..

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

It also seems like many of the people who are attacked by Lauda the most are defending OGNasty.

FTFY..
I was just attacked with Red trust by Lauda partially in reference to my postings in this thread.. I deserve a negative rating for speaking my mind and exploring contrary points of logic? I don't think so..
Do you want a diversity of ideas or an echo chamber?

I don’t like the idea of myself being subjected to mob justice, so I felt obligated to defend him.

Same here, but see what happens?


As of an hour or so ago last I checked OGNasty is still on theymos's trust list so I don't think this whole thing is as big of a deal as many are trying to make it out to be, or I imagine he would have been removed/excluded..

[TECSHARE]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

The scenarios are not even remotely similar.  Stop it.  Lauda (along with minerjones and blazed) profited from their role in a scam that saw users lose their funds because Lauda sent them to a scammer without anyone else's approval (not to mention storing them on an exchange when he claimed he'd store them at a multisig address).  I safeguarded forum BTC and returned 100% of them along with additional alts.

Never touching the forum's BTC was something I did for the forum.  Where is the BCH/BSV/BTG I should have received for the payments for my treasury services I didn't receive until months/years later?  Seems odd that the forum didn't pay me the forked coins after the fact, even though I paid them to the forum.  Did I complain?  Nope.  This is my first mention of it, perhaps to justify my "tacky" behavior.

Let's stop the childish name calling and criticizing my good deeds.  I returned what theymos asked for, even though I had no obligation to do so with the forks and I did it quickly with a positive attitude.  It was a good deed and I feel I went above and beyond by never complaining for missed back pay, and always doing whatever I was asked.

I was referring to the fork coins only, not the rest of the circumstances. Obviously what went down with Lauda was shady start to finish. I don't think you did anything wrong in your circumstance, though I do think you probably could have handled it better just knowing how thirsty a certain group of people here are to attack you over anything they can and defend even more indefensible actions of others they support.

[Vispilio]

Really? Multiply the assets for himself, or for the one who has entrusted him with the money?

Typically, multiply the assets for the original owner (in very risk adverse ways, as discussed before), while taking a cut out of the profits,
the percentage depending on what the parties agree on, which effectively happened in this case:

... I claim that the most supportable interpretation is that all forkcoins (ie. coins forking from Bitcoin's block chain and calling themselves "Bitcoin") were forum property from the beginning. (I do not claim this for airdrops.)

theymos got all the hard forks with Bitcoin denomination, while OGNasty keeps the airdrops, both parties feel content that it's a fair distribution of the net profits generated by the preservation of the forum's BTC, the original task that the treasurer also successfully completed, so all in all most independent observers would agree this collaboration between theymos and OG has been fruitful and beneficial to both parties...

[hacker1001101001]

I was referring to the fork coins only, not the rest of the circumstances. Obviously what went down with Lauda was shady start to finish. I don't think you did anything wrong in your circumstance, though I do think you probably could have handled it better just knowing how thirsty a certain group of people here are to attack you over anything they can and defend even more indefensible actions of others they support.

Yes, just because it was the great OGnasty, one sees double standards to attack him in a such an aggressive way, even after theymos said he doesn't think it was wrong from OGs side but just a bit "tacky". It is not surprising either, as it's already been done with him many times in the past.

I think OG should have his own Walk Down Memory Lane.

theymos got all the hard forks with Bitcoin denomination, while OGNasty keeps the airdrops, both parties feel content that it's a fair distribution of the net profits generated by the preservation of the forum's BTC, the original task that the treasurer also successfully completed, so all in all most independent observers would agree this collaboration between theymos and OG has been fruitful and beneficial to both parties...

Yes, of course this deal was already successful when OgNasty returned the forum funds ( what he received from the forum). This is just an after air. Not even OP intended to accuse someone out of this thread.

[TwitchySeal]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

I was referring to the fork coins only, not the rest of the circumstances.

I don't know much about the Lauda drama, but I know enough to know the forked coins were handled very different in each scenario (OG / Lauda).
OgNasty returned the forked coins when asked.  Lauda didn't return the forked coins (BCH) when asked.

[TECSHARE]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

I was referring to the fork coins only, not the rest of the circumstances.

I don't know much about the Lauda drama, but I know enough to know the forked coins were handled very different in each scenario (OG / Lauda).
OgNasty returned the forked coins when asked.  Lauda didn't return the forked coins (BCH) when asked.

Absolutely. Yet many of the same people who vigorously defended Lauda, or were silent in that case are here attacking OGNasty.

[TwitchySeal]

I find it interesting a lot of the most vocal people here attacking OG Nasty were silent when this exact scenario occurred under Lauda's custody.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

I was referring to the fork coins only, not the rest of the circumstances.

I don't know much about the Lauda drama, but I know enough to know the forked coins were handled very different in each scenario (OG / Lauda).
OgNasty returned the forked coins when asked.  Lauda didn't return the forked coins (BCH) when asked.

Absolutely. Yet many of the same people who vigorously defended Lauda, or were silent in that case are here attacking OGNasty.

And many of the people that attacked Lauda were silent  or vigorously defended OGNasty and his history of ponzi schemes and other lies.  Not really related to the topic though.

Nobody is accusing OG of actually scamming here in regards to the Treasury funds, just acting a little slimy.

[TECSHARE]

And many of the people that attacked Lauda were silent  or vigorously defended OGNasty and his history of ponzi schemes and other lies.  Not really related to the topic though.

Nobody is accusing OG of actually scamming here in regards to the Treasury funds, just acting a little slimy.

You sure do love false equivalence don't you? Lauda's fraud is well documented. The stream of accusations (mind you all by the same people) are not well documented and consist of a string of accusations based on the creative interpretations of those with a grudge against him. None of the accusations against him are supported with evidence, only attempts at operant conditioning via repetition.

[The-One-Above-All]

I was just attacked with Red trust by Lauda partially in reference to my postings in this thread.. I deserve a negative rating for speaking my mind and exploring contrary points of logic? I don't think so..
Do you want a diversity of ideas or an echo chamber?

But he says if you stop saying things he does not like/agree with he "may" later not consider you malignant .... so just turn into a lauda assfeltching clown (ask LFC, pharmacist, suchmoon, moronpigsnoz or any of those for a guide of how to perform) and you may get the red trust removed.

Red trust is very useful as the stick , merit is the carrot   - when used together the echo chamber is pretty much guaranteed.

Red trust for virtue signalling?  I thought he already warned you you may get a flag or tag for suggesting free speech should be permitted previously?

Have a care though, I mean saying the board should not become an echo chamber is kind of virtue signalling according to him since that is kind of like the same thing as permitting free speech

Until these scammers and their scammer supporters are removed this will happen to anyone that

1. brings up his observable pasts behaviors
2. say anything he believes may impact upon his rev streams here.


Anyway good to see OG has come and explained his side of it. Seems to be the end of the matter I guess.

Seeing the quote TMAN plastered by OG all over this thread makes me wonder why OG ever removed laudas red trust. I mean that is just 1 incident when you start to realize that is the slim edge of the scamming wedge if lauda does not warrant red trust NO member deserves red trust.

Him and ANY DT including him should be blacklisted by now.

I mean the initial post was really just about the forked bitcoin alts right? unless this was a set up from the start.