conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
 |
November 23, 2012, 07:00:22 PM |
|
Anyway - next step for everyone is pretty obvious, irrespective. Find out precisely what his lawyer is claiming his stance is
In order to do that, you already have to identify yourself, and some could not like it as a start. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlike traditional banking where clients have only a few account numbers, with Bitcoin people can create an unlimited number of accounts (addresses). This can be used to easily track payments, and it improves anonymity.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
GeoRW
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 257
Trust No One
|
|
November 23, 2012, 07:08:10 PM |
|
This must be a joke  |
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
November 23, 2012, 07:10:29 PM |
|
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. Most transactions are conducted using Debit/Credit Cards and you prove ownership not by providing ID but by providing knowledge of a secret (the PIN number). Similarly the exchange with which MPOE-PR is associated (MPEX) allows withdrawals and transaction without providing ID - but by proving knowledge of a secret (a private key). To an equal extent ownership of an email and/or BTC address can be proven without providing ID. In this case no ID was provided (or requested) when entering the arrangement - so proving ID NOW doesn't get anywhere nearer proving you controlled that email address/BTC address at the time at which the agreement was entered into. To be clear: If you believe nefario's list then you don't need the ID to prove ownership. If the list is treated as unreliable (i.e. the existence of an email/BTC address on there isn't itself accepted as proof of ownership by whoever controls them) then providing ID doesn't prove OR disprove ownership. That's why I'd conclude the request has nothing to do with proving ownership - and everything to do with trying to cover his arse: the costs of which (to investors as well as to him) are his responsibility as (in short) he's the one who chose not to do it in the first place and the one who had the responsibility to disclose the need for it if it was required of him by regulation/law to obtain it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
November 23, 2012, 07:15:50 PM |
|
Anyway - next step for everyone is pretty obvious, irrespective. Find out precisely what his lawyer is claiming his stance is
In order to do that, you already have to identify yourself, and some could not like it as a start. No you don't. "If you have any questions or concerns, please address these to the law offices at the following e-mail or mailing address." Rather obviously you want your questions and concerns addressed BEFORE you submit the requested information - would be a bit late afterwards. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
November 23, 2012, 07:31:56 PM |
|
No you don't.
I mean: do you sign your email to his lawyer? With your real name? Because if you don't sign it, he might say that he doe snot deal with anons, and if you use a fake name it may start another mess. |
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 23, 2012, 07:47:07 PM |
|
I see your speculation tag and raise you two speculation tags. Yes, it is. (which is likely to be the stated reason for wanting the information).
This may be true. What I still believe is that the reason for wanting the information is that you can't enter into contracts with unknown parties. Logically the way to resolve this would be to tell everyone who identifies that they will be given X in compensation and ask them to sign a settlement renouncing any other claims. You need the people's ID to draft such an agreement. I'm not better informed than anyone on the matter, I don't have this from Giga or anything of the kind, it's just my guess based on how one'd reasonably go from the lawyer's position (ie, trying to untangle this mess somehow). 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.
It's for the future tho, not for the past. |
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:03:06 PM |
|
I forgot to mention that I just opened a new bank account (here: http://tinyurl.com/astnu2j ) and they did not ask me all the sh*t Giga asks, and absolutely no affidavit. Just figure. |
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:25:31 PM |
|
The alternative is calling a halt to the entire thing.
I vote for the alternative. Just send me my coins back. BTW: just after the huge mess that Nefario did trying to go legit, it can't believe someone paid a lawyer to produce the same expecting a different result. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Oz
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:31:27 PM |
|
This must be a joke I call it getting GLBSE'D Definition: You invest coins in a bitcoin project and that project uses your coins to hire a lawyer who proceeds to use legal avenues to make it practically impossible you will get your bitcoins back. GLBSE'D |
|
|
|
|
pieppiep
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:42:37 PM |
|
I call it getting GLBSE'D
Definition: You invest coins in a bitcoin project and that project uses your coins to hire a lawyer who proceeds to use legal avenues to make it practically impossible you will get your bitcoins back.
GLBSE'D
Can anyone point my to the post where gigavps tells if he pays the lawyer with the bitcoins invested by other people? I can't seem to find it. |
|
|
|
|
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1015
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:47:22 PM |
|
Seriously? The one person who seeks licensed legal advice and follows that advice, at his own expense, is getting pounced on?
Picture yourself in his position, for just a minute. You make an appointment with a corporate attorney. You walk into his office and have to explain bitcoin, then explain bitcoin mining operations, then explain offshore securities exchanges denominated in bitcoin, then explain this exchange's controller going rogue and shutting down operations without providing information identifying just who holds shares in your corporation.
Now, picture the number of times this guy asks you,"What the fuck were you thinking?" during this conversation.
The attorney is going to try to correlate this to something he understands and can defend. He obviously wants to establish identification of partners in the corporation, or at the very least, counter parties in the various contracts.
I understand the unwillingness to reveal your identity to some random Internet dude, even if he has been paying you for months. However, this legal approach is laying the groundwork for a sustainable operation. The alternative is calling a halt to the entire thing.
He could be a total bastard and open a temporary exchange for people who are willing to disclose ownership and use that for the cost basis for buyback. Undoubtedly, he or another party could suppress prices for the period necessary to buy shares back for satoshis on the coin.
Cut him some slack and think for a minute.
Probably a good time to remember just how large an operation "Gigamining" is. It's not some guy in his mom's basement looking for weed money, and with the legal ambiguity surrounding what he does - if he isn't paying legal fees now to move Gigamining away from the darkness in legally gray territory, he'll likely pay much, much more later, even if he were to win future cases. Unfortunately, the cost of "going legal" is also pushed onto unit-holders, who didn't sign up for this, and are rightfully pissed. It's a shitty situation. -But, the alternative could be Giga's facilities and house being raided with all electronics confiscated, resulting in a near-worthless operation. Think of it this way -- Giga's name and locations are (roughly, at least) known. The SEC has been prosecuting and investigating people who've issued some form of security for BTC. Giga's under much more legal scrutiny now than earlier this year, and now the legal shield of GLBSE (which was responsible for complying with many regulations, previously) is no longer in existence - so now all that legal risk's on Gigamining/VPS, which previously operated in a legal minefield even ignoring the legal risks Nefario or another exchange would take on. It's very possible, and probably likely, that Gigamining would be worthless within a year given the operation is high-value and no longer afforded the legal protections of an exchange taking most of the regulatory risk (Giga effectively has to issue some new security or figure out some other way to pay back unit-holders - and he's surely being watched by regulatory agents). |
|
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:51:48 PM |
|
Can anyone point my to the post where gigavps tells if he pays the lawyer with the bitcoins invested by other people? I can't seem to find it.
Can you point us where he negates that? But who cares. At this point I hope that his lawyer will bankrupt him. |
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:52:13 PM |
|
He could be a total bastard and open a temporary exchange for people who are willing to disclose ownership and use that for the cost basis for buyback. Undoubtedly, he or another party could suppress prices for the period necessary to buy shares back for satoshis on the coin.
He wouldn't even need to do any suppressing or anything else nefarious. The MPEx ETF was trading in the .08 - 0.03 range or something like that back in Oct. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Oz
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:53:45 PM |
|
Honestly its better if he sells the whole operation. Im sure he could still get a decent amount for the equipment he has.
Trying to continue the operation if it is practically impossible will be an exercise in futility. Even if he has to buy the equipment personally and quarantine all funds from doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
SAC
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:54:37 PM |
|
Seriously? The one person who seeks licensed legal advice and follows that advice, at his own expense, is getting pounced on?
Pftt he is still spending the excess he got from these fools, none of his personal money has been touched. |
|
|
|
|
|
nebulus
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:55:04 PM |
|
I call it getting GLBSE'D
Definition: You invest coins in a bitcoin project and that project uses your coins to hire a lawyer who proceeds to use legal avenues to make it practically impossible you will get your bitcoins back.
GLBSE'D
Can anyone point my to the post where gigavps tells if he pays the lawyer with the bitcoins invested by other people? I can't seem to find it. You gotta read between the lines! *doh* |
|
|
|
conspirosphere.tk
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1064
Bitcoin is antisemitic
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:56:27 PM |
|
Unfortunately, the cost of "going legal" is also pushed onto unit-holders, who didn't sign up for this, and are rightfully pissed. It's a shitty situation. -But, the alternative could be Giga's facilities and house being raided with all electronics confiscated, resulting in a near-worthless operation.
OK, then he shoud ask that info just from whom wants to go along with that, and just refund who does not and wants out. |
|
|
|
|
|
pieppiep
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:58:12 PM |
|
All I read 'between the lines' is that he wants to honor the contract.
The contract says he pays the amount 5Mhash/s gives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 23, 2012, 08:59:04 PM |
|
Honestly its better if he sells the whole operation. Im sure he could still get a decent amount for the equipment he has.
Trying to continue the operation if it is practically impossible will be an exercise in futility. Even if he has to buy the equipment personally and quarantine all funds from doing so.
Who do you think has the capital to buy outright? |
|
|
|
|
Poll
