Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 07:40:51 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: ...
. - 0 (0%)
.. - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 0

Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 [104] 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gigamining / Teramining  (Read 201638 times)
Otoh
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1918



View Profile
March 19, 2013, 06:20:37 PM
 #2061

there's no buy back possible atm, 20 bonds have approx 3.4 btc back dividends due I believe & some value going forward as either free or paid upgrade to Teramining, you will need to do the claims process to realize any of this though, affidavit etc - fairly easy if you're in the US but still worth doing if not with current BTC price.

No buy back?
How's that? so what for do I need this bonds?

How it is possible that there is no buy back?


GLBSE was auto-terminated in a big mess, now Giga makes the rules of how this will go forward in a way that he feels will protect him from potential problems, he insists you follow his claims process & doesn't allow any bonds/shares to be sold or transferred to others, he is not offering any buy backs atm mostly due to their being no market in which to value them & maybe for other reasons, anyway he's not negotiating on this so you either accept that or not.

Node40.com is a leader in DASH hosting, dedicated exclusively to fully managed masternode hosting. Professional, organized, and responsive. I have many dozens of nodes with them.    
BTC = $c²     BTC = 1otohotohMoQoxHuxLBveQiZcV3Pji3Tc      DASH, Digital Cash = www.dash.org   
   CHARITY | MY REP | DICE
1481312451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481312451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481312451
Reply with quote  #2

1481312451
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481312451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481312451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481312451
Reply with quote  #2

1481312451
Report to moderator
1481312451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481312451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481312451
Reply with quote  #2

1481312451
Report to moderator
1481312451
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481312451

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481312451
Reply with quote  #2

1481312451
Report to moderator
vrtrasura
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 62


...


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 10:53:12 PM
 #2062


GLBSE was auto-terminated in a big mess, now Giga makes the rules of how this will go forward in a way that he feels will protect him from potential problems, he insists you follow his claims process & doesn't allow any bonds/shares to be sold or transferred to others, he is not offering any buy backs atm mostly due to their being no market in which to value them & maybe for other reasons, anyway he's not negotiating on this so you either accept that or not.

I haven't posted since Giga said he felt a bit bad and would post about the number of unclaimed and his plan to resolve them.  It's been almost 2 weeks.
This is serious bs.  Otoh, just because you had enough money invested with Giga that you need to kiss up to him doesn't mean the rest of us should stop pushing for what is right.  How about just a refund, as if I never bought anything.  AML doesn't restrict a business from giving someone their money back.  Regardless of what Giga decides, he's broken his original contract with all of us and should fix it or get a scammer tag.  He's a smart guy, I'm sure there are ways we could all compromise.  He's stealing our money instead. 
Otoh
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1918



View Profile
March 19, 2013, 11:22:40 PM
 #2063


GLBSE was auto-terminated in a big mess, now Giga makes the rules of how this will go forward in a way that he feels will protect him from potential problems, he insists you follow his claims process & doesn't allow any bonds/shares to be sold or transferred to others, he is not offering any buy backs atm mostly due to their being no market in which to value them & maybe for other reasons, anyway he's not negotiating on this so you either accept that or not.

I haven't posted since Giga said he felt a bit bad and would post about the number of unclaimed and his plan to resolve them.  It's been almost 2 weeks.
This is serious bs.  Otoh, just because you had enough money invested with Giga that you need to kiss up to him doesn't mean the rest of us should stop pushing for what is right.  How about just a refund, as if I never bought anything.  AML doesn't restrict a business from giving someone their money back.  Regardless of what Giga decides, he's broken his original contract with all of us and should fix it or get a scammer tag.  He's a smart guy, I'm sure there are ways we could all compromise.  He's stealing our money instead. 

I don't disagree with you, I objected strongly to his demands & only went along with them when it was clear that was the only way that I would likely see some of the money I'd invested returned to me, I don't call being forced in to doing something 'kissing up' & yes I had enough shares that it would have been stupid with the ever rising Bitcoin price to not accept that he was calling the shots on this & it was a take it or leave it option.

When replying to others who like me before objected to his way of handling this then I am just letting them know how things stand atm as far as I know, I am in no way condoning his handling of the matter & I do expect that with all he's made from those who invested in him that he will eventually be more flexible re small investors, minors & others who the claims process doesn't work well for if it's just a small percent of the bonds involved that are unclaimed - I hope so anyway though it seems like he can & will do as he chooses.

Node40.com is a leader in DASH hosting, dedicated exclusively to fully managed masternode hosting. Professional, organized, and responsive. I have many dozens of nodes with them.    
BTC = $c²     BTC = 1otohotohMoQoxHuxLBveQiZcV3Pji3Tc      DASH, Digital Cash = www.dash.org   
   CHARITY | MY REP | DICE
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile WWW
March 20, 2013, 12:36:21 AM
 #2064

excuse me for some short intermezzo, but now that we have this FinCEN paper, doesn't it turn out that all this legal stuff isn't necessary after all?

seems that miners are not regulated, unless they directly sell for fiat, which this service doesn't do apparently?  Huh

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
March 20, 2013, 03:59:30 AM
 #2065

excuse me for some short intermezzo, but now that we have this FinCEN paper, doesn't it turn out that all this legal stuff isn't necessary after all?

seems that miners are not regulated, unless they directly sell for fiat, which this service doesn't do apparently?  Huh
Not clear.  Read this very carefully, especially the bolded part:

Quote
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Now it seem to me that it might be argued that Giga/Tera is not selling us BTC that what is being sold is a contract to use his mining equipment to produce BTC for us.  Therefore as long as you use the BTC to buy stuff you are not a money transmitter - but if you sell the BTC for fiat you are then a money transmitter.  Anyway he has a lawyer to help him figure this out - I do not.

Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
Otoh
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1918



View Profile
March 21, 2013, 01:42:24 AM
 #2066

No [BFL - ASIC] news is good news update ~ only check it if you've time to waste

A maybe won't ship until April type thread ~ if needed

Node40.com is a leader in DASH hosting, dedicated exclusively to fully managed masternode hosting. Professional, organized, and responsive. I have many dozens of nodes with them.    
BTC = $c²     BTC = 1otohotohMoQoxHuxLBveQiZcV3Pji3Tc      DASH, Digital Cash = www.dash.org   
   CHARITY | MY REP | DICE
nadrimajstor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30



View Profile
March 21, 2013, 10:03:21 PM
 #2067

Regarding FinCEN paper http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

I assume that there will be no change in the rules because it will not be fair to others who went trough affidavit process.  Undecided

As claim process will end soon, it is obvious that I will not going to make it (not that I don't want to - but for me US Embassy is far away, both in terms of distance and money).

James, what will happen now with my shares and dividends?
TradeFortress
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
March 21, 2013, 10:15:48 PM
 #2068

Regarding FinCEN paper http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

I assume that there will be no change in the rules because it will not be fair to others who went trough affidavit process.  Undecided

As claim process will end soon, it is obvious that I will not going to make it (not that I don't want to - but for me US Embassy is far away, both in terms of distance and money).

James, what will happen now with my shares and dividends?
You still haven't figured out he's eating it?
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
March 21, 2013, 10:20:38 PM
 #2069

James, what will happen now with my shares and dividends?

I am coming up with a plan and will make it public when it is ready. With the new FINCEN guidelines, my attention has been diverted while I work with the attorneys to get clarifications around who exactly needs to be an MSB and what is required from those who do need to become one.

While the FINCEN guidance is very good for bitcoin, the playing field laid out for those who run businesses around Bitcoin has become a bit more thorny.
Holographic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


Global Currency for Global Unity


View Profile
March 22, 2013, 01:44:24 AM
 #2070

Hi Gigavps,

I have 50 Gigamining shares or "agreements", but have not yet claimed them for various reasons. I am now considering going through with the claims process, but I am unsure when the last chance for filing this claim is. I tried searching, but all I could find was your statement from november when you said "not at this time". What is currently the last chance date for claims? If my searching was not good enough, I apologize, but please clear this up anyways.

I am also wondering if you would extend this date, since you are now "coming up with a plan" in light of the FINCEN guidelines?

Bottom line is, I really don't want to jump through your hoops, but I might still do it, if this plan you are coming up with does not involve getting my coins back without doing so. Greed vs. principles...yeah I know.

So does waiting to hear your plan before claiming make me lose my coins forever? Thanks in advance for any info and clarification. I'm excited to hear this plan of yours.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
March 22, 2013, 11:39:22 AM
 #2071

Hi Gigavps,

I have 50 Gigamining shares or "agreements", but have not yet claimed them for various reasons. I am now considering going through with the claims process, but I am unsure when the last chance for filing this claim is. I tried searching, but all I could find was your statement from november when you said "not at this time". What is currently the last chance date for claims? If my searching was not good enough, I apologize, but please clear this up anyways.

I am also wondering if you would extend this date, since you are now "coming up with a plan" in light of the FINCEN guidelines?

Bottom line is, I really don't want to jump through your hoops, but I might still do it, if this plan you are coming up with does not involve getting my coins back without doing so. Greed vs. principles...yeah I know.

So does waiting to hear your plan before claiming make me lose my coins forever? Thanks in advance for any info and clarification. I'm excited to hear this plan of yours.

A bit of advice to you and others in your position.

IF your position is that you'd LIKE to claim the benefits of the bonds but can't/don't want to bear the costs of affidavit etc then send an email to Giga, his lawyer AND to someone reputable you know (who would later be willing to assert they received it).  In that email state that you assert claim to the bonds/contracts but do not believe the onus of bearing the costs of affidavit etc should rest on you given that HE added that requirement AFTER the contract had been purchased.  You could also offer that, if it isn't economically viable for him to cover those costs, then you are willing to cancel the contract entirely in return for the original investment less dividends to date back.

You then have a claim on record of ownership - AND have registered a dispute over who is liable for the costs.  Any arbitrary date he then sets for end of claims is NOT going to apply to you unless/until the dispute over who has responsibility for the cost of affidavit etc has been resolved.  Don't make the mistake of believing that if someone (or their lawyer) offers you two choices (do as I say or get nothing) that those ARE your only two options.

You could also copy his local Trading Standards (or whatever the local equivalent is) in on the email - but would need to explain a bit more of the background if you did that.  In general such bodies take a dim view of companies that attempt to add extra costs to something after it has been sold.
BurtW
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.


View Profile WWW
March 22, 2013, 03:03:25 PM
 #2072


A bit of advice to you and others in your position.

IF your position is that you'd LIKE to claim the benefits of the bonds but can't/don't want to bear the costs of affidavit etc then send an email to Giga, his lawyer AND to someone reputable you know (who would later be willing to assert they received it).  In that email state that you assert claim to the bonds/contracts but do not believe the onus of bearing the costs of affidavit etc should rest on you given that HE added that requirement AFTER the contract had been purchased.  You could also offer that, if it isn't economically viable for him to cover those costs, then you are willing to cancel the contract entirely in return for the original investment less dividends to date back.

You then have a claim on record of ownership - AND have registered a dispute over who is liable for the costs.  Any arbitrary date he then sets for end of claims is NOT going to apply to you unless/until the dispute over who has responsibility for the cost of affidavit etc has been resolved.  Don't make the mistake of believing that if someone (or their lawyer) offers you two choices (do as I say or get nothing) that those ARE your only two options.

You could also copy his local Trading Standards (or whatever the local equivalent is) in on the email - but would need to explain a bit more of the background if you did that.  In general such bodies take a dim view of companies that attempt to add extra costs to something after it has been sold.

Be sure to have all of the various notices suggested above be delivered by certified mail (so you can prove they were sent and when) and it wouldn't hurt to have them all notarized.  Oh, wait...

Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security.  Read all about it here:  http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/  Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
March 22, 2013, 03:51:27 PM
 #2073

Be sure to have all of the various notices suggested above be delivered by certified mail (so you can prove they were sent and when) and it wouldn't hurt to have them all notarized.  Oh, wait...
... oh, no problem, as I could send certified mails, PDFs and so on with my personal DIGITAL SIGNATURE that is valid even in court but apparently not good enough for this Florida "lawyer".

I recently bought shares in a company with this signature, which was magnitudes above what I'd get out as dividend in Bitcoin here...
Anyways, I'm still waiting for that "soon" update about how many shares were claimed by how many shareholders and how many are still out there not claiming under these conditions.

https://bitfinex.com <-- leveraged trading of BTCUSD, LTCUSD and LTCBTC (long and short) - 10% discount on fees for the first 30 days with this refcode: x5K9YtL3Zb
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
March 22, 2013, 04:04:59 PM
 #2074


A bit of advice to you and others in your position.

IF your position is that you'd LIKE to claim the benefits of the bonds but can't/don't want to bear the costs of affidavit etc then send an email to Giga, his lawyer AND to someone reputable you know (who would later be willing to assert they received it).  In that email state that you assert claim to the bonds/contracts but do not believe the onus of bearing the costs of affidavit etc should rest on you given that HE added that requirement AFTER the contract had been purchased.  You could also offer that, if it isn't economically viable for him to cover those costs, then you are willing to cancel the contract entirely in return for the original investment less dividends to date back.

You then have a claim on record of ownership - AND have registered a dispute over who is liable for the costs.  Any arbitrary date he then sets for end of claims is NOT going to apply to you unless/until the dispute over who has responsibility for the cost of affidavit etc has been resolved.  Don't make the mistake of believing that if someone (or their lawyer) offers you two choices (do as I say or get nothing) that those ARE your only two options.

You could also copy his local Trading Standards (or whatever the local equivalent is) in on the email - but would need to explain a bit more of the background if you did that.  In general such bodies take a dim view of companies that attempt to add extra costs to something after it has been sold.

Be sure to have all of the various notices suggested above be delivered by certified mail (so you can prove they were sent and when) and it wouldn't hurt to have them all notarized.  Oh, wait...

No need for that - as Giga has already provided an email address for his lawyer.  As far as proof of delivery is concerned, that's only of relevance if delivery is denied.  It may shock you to learn that you only have to prove things when the other side disputes them.  Now often lawayers will attempt to put the other side to "strict proof" - where they essentially say that they ask for everything the other side says to be proven without committing themselves to accepting or denying it.  It doesn't work like that in small cases.

Obviously (I hope) anyone sending such an email would either want a response or would keep hounding on here about it and resending it until giga acknowledged receipt.  He asked for questions to be sent by email - all they're doing is following that instruction and, at the same time, making a statement that they intend to claim once the raised issue is resolved.  Then it's just a case of waiting to see what reason Giga's lawyer gives why the other party should pay costs arising because of Giga's error without any option to cancel the agreement.
Holographic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


Global Currency for Global Unity


View Profile
March 22, 2013, 05:02:23 PM
 #2075

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins Wink
S3052
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946


BTC Up or Down? go to www.bullbearanalytics.com


View Profile WWW
March 22, 2013, 05:07:36 PM
 #2076

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins Wink

Thank you for bringing this up again.

1. I agree with you that Gigavps should DEFINITELY GET THE SCAMMER TAG
2. I also agree that based on the FINCEN info it is clear that we should request our shares back and otherwise sue him.

Gigavps you better fasten your seat belt.

>15years analysis experience

Always do your own due diligence & consult your financial advisor. Never invest unless you can afford to lose your entire investment.

http://twitter.com/BitcoinAnalyst

Subscribe here
Holographic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 66


Global Currency for Global Unity


View Profile
March 22, 2013, 06:22:57 PM
 #2077

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins Wink

Thank you for bringing this up again.

1. I agree with you that Gigavps should DEFINITELY GET THE SCAMMER TAG
2. I also agree that based on the FINCEN info it is clear that we should request our shares back and otherwise sue him.

Gigavps you better fasten your seat belt.


To be fair, I never said I think he should definitely get the scammer tag, although I am inclined to agree with this. I was merely asking for the specific reasons he didn't get it. I am yet to hear one single reasonable and/or relevant argument as to why he should not get the scammer tag (I honestly don't feel the reasons Theymos gave were reasonable). Especially now, in light of the FINCEN guidelines, it is becoming clear to me that this extremely convoluted "claims process" was just a way to pocket my coins and saying "oops, sorry guys my hands are tied!" It's strange how all the other GLBSE listings I had invested in, has had no problems paying back coins or continuing their operations, without a similar claims process.

As I live in Norway, it would be an extremely cumbersome and expensive affair to sue Mr. James Gibson. My 50 shares would of course not be worth the hassle either, and if the end result is me losing my coins, so be it. I will learn from the experience and I will surely be wiser next time.

Like I said earlier, I'm excited to hear this plan he is coming up with. I still have some faint hope that he will actually do the right thing now that FINCEN has cleared a few things up for us. After all, James is human like the rest of us, and I'm sure he knows that it is the actions of a man who makes a scammer or a thief, not some tag on a forum.
ianspain
Donator
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 164



View Profile
March 24, 2013, 09:14:47 PM
 #2078

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins Wink

Thank you for bringing this up again.

1. I agree with you that Gigavps should DEFINITELY GET THE SCAMMER TAG
2. I also agree that based on the FINCEN info it is clear that we should request our shares back and otherwise sue him.

Gigavps you better fasten your seat belt.


well stated

BlockChain Capital
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
March 25, 2013, 03:11:12 PM
 #2079

Tried to send out payments this morning but it seems blockchain.info changed something with their SSL cert that java clients do not like. I have a support request open with piuk and continue to research the issue.

Needless to say, Monday payments will be delayed until this issue is resolved.

Best,
James
GoWest
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 543


betwithbtc.com


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2013, 04:14:13 PM
 #2080

So, given the fact that Butterfly Labs has not yet delivered, and may not deliver for several more weeks, if not months, could you at least give some consideration to those of us who have converted to a useless contract (Teramining) and pay out the dividends we would have received had we not converted?

I held 2484 shares of Gigamining, which cost me over 1 BTC each, on average. That was a lot of money that went into your pocket, and now you're keeping the dividends to yourself under the guise that "you signed the contract, too bad, so sad," even though it would take nearly zero effort on your part to make the change and pay out the dividends to the rightful shareholders.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 [104] 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 »
  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!