Gigamining / Teramining

[Bitcoin Oz]

Can someone point out where this was in the gigamining contract ?

[1713410592]

1713410592

[1713410592]

1713410592

[novusordo]

Heh. Glad I sold all my Gigamining before GLBSE imploded.

[randomguy7]

Wow, wtf. But on the other hand, business as usual, invest in a bitcoin business and you can be sure to get ass raped sooner or later. That's right what the bitcoin economy needs to grow.

I didn't sign up for this and demand to get my coins. I can send you my bitcoin claim address and the amount of bonds I own so you can crosscheck it (as nefario obviously is not to be trusted). I also have a plan B to prove that I'm the rightful owner of x bonds. That information must suffice.

Can someone point out where this was in the gigamining contract ?

This.

[S3052]

Request for claims

http://gigamining.com/claims.html

To the bitcoin/gigamining community:

Virtual Processing Solutions, LLC (hereinafter VPS) has entered into a number of assignable agreements (sometimes known as “gigamining”), whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of “bitcoins” to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.  

These agreements were offered and subsequently traded on www.glbse.com.  As you may be aware, www.glbse.com has suspended normal operations.  It is the intention of VPS to comply with its obligations pursuant to these agreements to the extent consistent with U.S., international, and local law.  While VPS is not aware of any current regulatory action involving www.glbse.com or itself, it is clear that trade in “bitcoins” is attracting increased regulatory and taxation scrutiny.  Accordingly, VPS has retained the Law Offices of Carlos M. Fleites, to resolve such outstanding agreements in a lawful manner.

If you believe you are the beneficial assignee of such an agreement, you are requested to contact the Law Offices of Carlos M. Fleites in writing at the below listed e-mail or physical address to provide the following information:

• The bitcoin payment address associated with your glbse.com claim
• Name of the person or entity claiming beneficial assignment of the agreement,
• The physical address of the person or entity (no Post Office boxes or mail suites),
• The tax identification number of the person or entity claiming beneficial assignment,
• For real persons: a photocopy or scanned PDF of government issued photo identification, or, for corporations the document number and issuing jurisdiction of the incorporating charter and proof of current good standing.
• An affidavit attesting to the beneficial assignment of the agreement, which has been notarized (US residents/corporations) or local equivalent bearing the apostille of the competent jurisdiction.  Copies of an acceptable affidavit can be obtained upon request from the law offices.

All information provided will be held in confidence and used only for the purposes of lawfully fulfilling the obligations of the agreements and not shared with outside parties except as required by law.  If you have any questions or concerns, please address these to the law offices at the following e-mail or mailing address.

qpage@mylawyr.com

or

Law Offices of Carlos M. Fleites, ATTN: Quentin A. Page
407 Lincoln Road, Suite 12-E
Miami Beach, FL 33139
USA

Finally, since no unique identification exists for outstanding agreements, ALL CURRENT BENEFICIAL ASSIGNEES ARE STRONGLY ADVISED NOT TO ENGAGE IN ANY TRANSFER, SALE, OR ASSIGNMENT OF THESE AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE OF GLBSE, AS IT MAY RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY AND SERVICE SUCH AGREEMENTS.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.

This can't be true. Are you joking???

I have waited to reply to calm down the emotions but many hours later I am stil UPSET.

This should lead to a scammer tag, in the most prominent way.


You can not suddenly increase requirements leading to holding funds and dividends and shares hostage for so many people

[occulta]

How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1 to Nefario, who looks like he will come out of this with a clear conscience at least

[S3052]

How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1.

Agree. I think the bicoin community should finally do a revolution against such practices. I am happy to throw in all my few gigamining assets to go to court against them

[Graet]

Dear James,
No thank you.
You are welcome to purchase my bonds back at last glbse price and send me the BTC.
The addrees I used to receive funds fromn GLBse was 1CDTRQcCTs5ZHLmUmvjFCk5veu3pB5SPZA
The amount of my funds in any bond I held did not meet AML/KYC limits in any jurisdiction. This is excessive and would appear to be an efort to drive off people trying to get thier BTC back so you can profit.
The cost of doing this legal paperwork and posting it to you would be more than the BTC you owe me.
Thank you,
Graeme Tee
Graet
Ozcoin Pooled Mining

copy of email to James and his lawyer
I call B.S. I thought giga was one of the good guys...

The only thing I'm unsure about is how to notorize an email response.

I can send that question to your lawyer if I must.

Just curious, do you have to pay the legal fees if I ask questions to them?

Please direct your question to the email listed in the request.

I have paid and will continue to pay all legal fees in this matter.

when you say "all" I assume you don't mean mine and 100's of other bond holders fees rather your fees and costs? If you do I guess your lawyer has advised on bankruptcy preparations...?

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

The amount of my funds in any bond I held did not meet AML/KYC limits in any jurisdiction.

This is actually irrelevant, because only specific types of businesses need to adhere to AML/KYC, and I don't think gigamining is one of those businesses.

[nebulus]

[Deprived]

How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1.

Agree. I think the bicoin community should finally do a revolution against such practices. I am happy to throw in all my few gigamining assets to go to court against them

You're being too premature.  Before you can even consider "going to court" (which would be a long time and a lot of expense away) you need to contact his lawyer and find out:

Whether he will pay all reasonable costs associated with fulfilling his demands for information,
If you're unable (or unwilling) to provide that information, what is he intending to do (e.g. keep the funds from you and not deliver any of his part of the agreement).

At the moment the official post doesn't address either of those points - and it's what he proposes to do in respect of those that would provide the basis for any action against him.  The demand itself is just that - a demand - if you choose to comply with it then that's your call.  If you'd prefer not to comply (or to have your costs reimbursed if you do) then you need to find out his stance on that before you can complain about it.

If the response is along the lines of "Either you comply or we'll keep your BTC and not fulfil our half of the agreement" THEN you have something to complain about.  Right now, that hasn't been said - so you need it to be said by his lawyer (of course it won't be worded in quite that way).

You could also ask WHY the information is being requested, how it will be stored, who will have access to it, what it will be used for, how long it will be kept for etc.  And IF it's being requested as part of giga's obligations to a regulatory body, which body that is - so you can check that his request is in accordance with the relevant rules/guidelines.  I only know the relevant UK situation - so it may be a bit different where he is.

[S3052]

How comes nefario paid out bitcoin based on 3 items of information that were not intrusive, yet you feel the need to pull this?

+1.

Agree. I think the bicoin community should finally do a revolution against such practices. I am happy to throw in all my few gigamining assets to go to court against them

You're being too premature.  Before you can even consider "going to court" (which would be a long time and a lot of expense away) you need to contact his lawyer and find out:

Whether he will pay all reasonable costs associated with fulfilling his demands for information,
If you're unable (or unwilling) to provide that information, what is he intending to do (e.g. keep the funds from you and not deliver any of his part of the agreement).

At the moment the official post doesn't address either of those points - and it's what he proposes to do in respect of those that would provide the basis for any action against him.  The demand itself is just that - a demand - if you choose to comply with it then that's your call.  If you'd prefer not to comply (or to have your costs reimbursed if you do) then you need to find out his stance on that before you can complain about it.

If the response is along the lines of "Either you comply or we'll keep your BTC and not fulfil our half of the agreement" THEN you have something to complain about.  Right now, that hasn't been said - so you need it to be said by his lawyer (of course it won't be worded in quite that way).

You could also ask WHY the information is being requested, how it will be stored, who will have access to it, what it will be used for, how long it will be kept for etc.  And IF it's being requested as part of giga's obligations to a regulatory body, which body that is - so you can check that his request is in accordance with the relevant rules/guidelines.  I only know the relevant UK situation - so it may be a bit different where he is.

Thanks a lot. I will do exactly what you proposed.

[burnside]

Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

I think Deprived hit the nail on the head.

I also suspect that gigavps is violating his contract he had with his bond holders, and is thus exposing himself while trying to unexpose himself.  If you cannot continue operating under those terms, better to close out the bonds in an orderly fashion while abiding by the contract than to screw over everyone whose hand you shook while you took their money.

Then you can start up some new bonds with a clean conscience and follow all the rules.

[MPOE-PR]

If gigavps needs that information in order to deliver on his obligations then there's no alternative other than to providing it.  However all costs associated with providing that information should be covered by him.

He wrote the contract.  He chose the site on which the trades were transacted.  At no stage was it made clear that this information would be needed - and it was never previously requested in order to disburse dividends or trade shares.

He's attempting to insert into the contract a requirement (which has costs to satify) on the other party unilaterally.  As such, all costs associating with fulfilling HIS new requirement should be met by him.

Well now, that's an argument that may have a lot of merit. I'm not prepared to argue any side of it, really.

It may be the case that "it was made clear by default", as a sort of the statutory catch-all (for instance, even if common law contracts don't include a clause saying that should the contract become disputed the courts will disentangle it according to their own practice and case law, that's nevertheless what happens, and any party's complaints that they didn't specifically agree to X precedent being relevant are dismissed).

It may be the case that identity is part of any contract dealing with property by logical necessity (since property cannot exist but with the identity of the proprietor - you can't go to the bank and ask for your money if you refuse to identify who you are even if it is in fact your money).

It may be that in fact gigavps should pay the notarization costs of legitimate claimants. It may be that the cost burden imposed on claimants is in fact so small as to be properly disregarded. My construction of the events was that gigavps sunk whatever dollar amount into BTC R&D in the shape of retaining counsel, for the first time ever having a set of questions answered by counsel etc. This is beneficial for BTC. In this context the users were expected to contribute a small fraction per capita, which they chaff at doing because in spite of the questions being important and the research valuable they can't manage to care about anything outside themselves - they have no practice doing business and no understanding of the costs of doing business (hence my comments about consumers). The case of Bitcoinica is rather similar.  

All of this is pretty much speculation on our part, but since this is a forum and all...why not.

On the point about claims arising later - that's essentially no different to what was previously happening.

Well...depends what essentially means. I suspect if someone complained in August about missing anything giga would have directed them to glbse, and the consensus would have been that he's right in doing so. I am guessing this is no different, really.

All that's happening now is that the list for distribution is being given to giga so he can disburse them directly.  Giga had no way previously of ensuring that dividends went to the correct counter-parties - and no means of rectifying any issues that arose over claims disputing ownership of rights.  He had to trust nefario then - same as he does now.

Exactly. Same as he does now. For him to get out of this situation, and for things to be different from how they are right now - for him to accept part of Nefario's liability - he has first to put in place some clear protections and limitations. He has to clearly pick and choose which bits he's accepting. He can't simply go about and accept the other man's bed of thorns. He didn't make it, there's no reason to ask him to lie in it.

Plus it's pretty unlikely that in 5 years time someone would be able to "prove" they owned shares now - without having even made any comment about it anyway.

The likeliness or unlikeliness doesn't enter into it tho, not at this level of discussion.

Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

This may also be, it explains just as well as the alternative above why he'd need to talk to identified people.

To the person saying what to do if you're under 18

This is actually an entirely fresh hell, and tbh it might quash the entire arrangement. I have no idea if the lawyer involved knows that some of the parties are underage, but it is one of those wildcards that nobody has much of a clue how to deal with.

always treat any formal demand as the starting point for negotiation, not as some absolute end point which has to be accepted or rejected.

This is good advice in the very general.

[stochastic]

For those not wanting to go through this process, why not hire a proxy to make the claims.  All GLBSE gave giga was email and bitcoin address and the total number of units held.

[conspirosphere.tk]

For those not wanting to go through this process, why not hire a proxy to make the claims.  All GLBSE gave giga was email and bitcoin address and the total number of units held.

Not so bad idea, but in so doing we would expose ourselves to another scam opportunity (from the proxy, in case Giga pays him)
This if freaking unbelievable. It never ends

[Deprived]

If gigavps needs that information in order to deliver on his obligations then there's no alternative other than to providing it.  However all costs associated with providing that information should be covered by him.

He wrote the contract.  He chose the site on which the trades were transacted.  At no stage was it made clear that this information would be needed - and it was never previously requested in order to disburse dividends or trade shares.

He's attempting to insert into the contract a requirement (which has costs to satify) on the other party unilaterally.  As such, all costs associating with fulfilling HIS new requirement should be met by him.

Well now, that's an argument that may have a lot of merit. I'm not prepared to argue any side of it, really.

It may be the case that "it was made clear by default", as a sort of the statutory catch-all (for instance, even if common law contracts don't include a clause saying that should the contract become disputed the courts will disentangle it according to their own practice and case law, that's nevertheless what happens, and any party's complaints that they didn't specifically agree to X precedent being relevant are dismissed).

It may be the case that identity is part of any contract dealing with property by logical necessity (since property cannot exist but with the identity of the proprietor - you can't go to the bank and ask for your money if you refuse to identify who you are even if it is in fact your money).

It may be that in fact gigavps should pay the notarization costs of legitimate claimants. It may be that the cost burden imposed on claimants is in fact so small as to be properly disregarded. My construction of the events was that gigavps sunk whatever dollar amount into BTC R&D in the shape of retaining counsel, for the first time ever having a set of questions answered by counsel etc. This is beneficial for BTC. In this context the users were expected to contribute a small fraction per capita, which they chaff at doing because in spite of the questions being important and the research valuable they can't manage to care about anything outside themselves - they have no practice doing business and no understanding of the costs of doing business (hence my comments about consumers). The case of Bitcoinica is rather similar.  

All of this is pretty much speculation on our part, but since this is a forum and all...why not.

On the point about claims arising later - that's essentially no different to what was previously happening.

Well...depends what essentially means. I suspect if someone complained in August about missing anything giga would have directed them to glbse, and the consensus would have been that he's right in doing so. I am guessing this is no different, really.

All that's happening now is that the list for distribution is being given to giga so he can disburse them directly.  Giga had no way previously of ensuring that dividends went to the correct counter-parties - and no means of rectifying any issues that arose over claims disputing ownership of rights.  He had to trust nefario then - same as he does now.

Exactly. Same as he does now. For him to get out of this situation, and for things to be different from how they are right now - for him to accept part of Nefario's liability - he has first to put in place some clear protections and limitations. He has to clearly pick and choose which bits he's accepting. He can't simply go about and accept the other man's bed of thorns. He didn't make it, there's no reason to ask him to lie in it.

Plus it's pretty unlikely that in 5 years time someone would be able to "prove" they owned shares now - without having even made any comment about it anyway.

The likeliness or unlikeliness doesn't enter into it tho, not at this level of discussion.

Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

This may also be, it explains just as well as the alternative above why he'd need to talk to identified people.

To the person saying what to do if you're under 18

This is actually an entirely fresh hell, and tbh it might quash the entire arrangement. I have no idea if the lawyer involved knows that some of the parties are underage, but it is one of those wildcards that nobody has much of a clue how to deal with.

always treat any formal demand as the starting point for negotiation, not as some absolute end point which has to be accepted or rejected.

This is good advice in the very general.

Won't address all of what you say - as a lot of it is is pure speculation at this point: particularly until his lawyer clarifies what will happen if information isn't provided and who foots the bill for providing the information.

I'm in the UK - so likely there's some differences.  One thing many people get wrong is over what happens if you refuse to comply with AML/KYC demands (which is likely to be the stated reason for wanting the information).  Companies who have to follow the AML/KYC equirements also have to have a policy on how they handle the situation where a (prospective) client sends funds then is unable (or unwilling) to provide the information.  In brief, the ONLY two options they have are to return the funds to wherever they came from or to file a report with the relevant authority.  There's no "we'll just keep it" option.

On the issue that maybe providing ID is a reasonable prerequisite for forming a contract (bear in mind this ISN'T about ownership of property - these aren't shares but more like bonds) the issue of timeliness arises.  I'd say it's fair to conclude that many (maybe all) of those entering into these agreements were not aware there would be requirement for this ID.  I'd say it's fair to conclude that any competent individual would conclude that Giga was the senior party in this agreement.  Giga's actions in using the funds to purchase the hardware etc BEFORE requesting the ID have made the contract difficult to reverse.  Had he requested the ID before people bought the bonds then likely many would have chosen not to purchase them.  So EITHER:

Giga didn't HIMSELF know the ID was required when the contract was made.  If the senior party didn't know it, then you can't reasonably conclude the junior one did.

OR

Giga DID know the ID was required when the contract was made - but failed to disclose it.  And then acted in such a manner as to make the contract irreversible BEFORE requesting it.

Anyway - next step for everyone is pretty obvious, irrespective.  Find out precisely what his lawyer is claiming his stance is - including the really awkward bits ("Were you aware when you offered to enter into these agreements that you would need this information in order to deliver on your obligations?" , "At what stage - and why - did you change from not needing this information to sell unlicensed securities to needing this information?" etc).

And finally, do bear in mind, that when giga went and asked his lawyer what to do there's one certainty about the reply was going to be.  It would be something which generated more work for the lawyer.

[Kluge]

For those not wanting to go through this process, why not hire a proxy to make the claims.  All GLBSE gave giga was email and bitcoin address and the total number of units held.

Building on that, I don't see why one person could not theoretically have multiple accounts with different email addresses.

Maybe that person could charge 2BTC per user + 10% of whatever's paid out, not fulfilling a batch of users' proxy claims unless there's at least 50BTC worth of commissions in the pot to justify getting all the legal nonsense and tax nonsense dealt with. That person should have at least thousands of dollars worth of losses this year. ........ ................................

On a related note, I lost >$50k this year paying out losses from BDK. ... Just sayin'.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

It may be the case that identity is part of any contract dealing with property by logical necessity (since property cannot exist but with the identity of the proprietor - you can't go to the bank and ask for your money if you refuse to identify who you are even if it is in fact your money).

This is surely not the case. GLBSE did not know the identity of the users, so this information cannot be used for authenticating the request against gigamining.

The bank also only needs this information because you proved your identity to them when you were opening an account in the first place, and there also used to be bearer-instruments. Due to stupid laws, these have been to a large extent eliminated, but when I was younger, there were bearer passbooks.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

It may be that in fact gigavps should pay the notarization costs of legitimate claimants. It may be that the cost burden imposed on claimants is in fact so small as to be properly disregarded. My construction of the events was that gigavps sunk whatever dollar amount into BTC R&D in the shape of retaining counsel, for the first time ever having a set of questions answered by counsel etc. This is beneficial for BTC. In this context the users were expected to contribute a small fraction per capita, which they chaff at doing because in spite of the questions being important and the research valuable they can't manage to care about anything outside themselves - they have no practice doing business and no understanding of the costs of doing business (hence my comments about consumers). The case of Bitcoinica is rather similar.

The economic problem is that these costs are per-claimant, not per bond. In some cases, these costs exceed the amount gigavps owes the bondholder. From a legal point of view, this is obviously irrelevant, I just want to point out that this whole mess needs to be replaced by a proper decentralised system based on cryptography. This case only proves the problems of barriers to entry and other types of transaction costs the legal system places on conducting business. There is nothing inherent in these costs, it's all just crap that for one reason or another accumulated over centuries.

[PsychoticBoy]