Gigamining / Teramining

[yochdog]

That's not the question that was asked.

This thread is a train wreck. Is there something about Hero Member tags that turn everyday folk into scammers?

I hope not.

[1713885990]

1713885990

[1713885990]

1713885990

[1713885990]

1713885990

[1713885990]

1713885990

[randomguy7]

Dude how about answering my post? You've been online for the last 1,5 hours now and been reading the forum, also managed to answer that post just after mine. Don't hide behind that hide-online-status flag you toggled during the shitstorm, we still know you're there. An answer would be highly expected.

It seems very clear at this point that Giga does not think that it is legally or economically safe to do what you are asking him to do.  Why is asking him harder going to help?

Fixed it for you.


Giga, thx for at least an answer. I had read everything you wrote, I still don't see how this answers my questions.

...
The buyback clause will not be executed at this time.
...

So you decided to simply break the existing bond contract by changing the contract the way it pleasures you (request all kind of funny stuff and silently pass on liabilities to a LLC). Also you claim this is to make sure to not pay the wrong guys (or to sue it back in case false claims are made), yet you ignore every kind of proof of ownership shown to you.

You could at least ask for additional claims with only email/btc address/bond amount (without making any guarantees yet), and look if the total amount of claimed bonds is higher than the actual bonds, and of course how many non unique claims there are. Then start from there. There probably still are cases where there's no better solution than requesting id's to scare of scammers but probably most wouldn't have to go through this hassle.

Still waiting for an answer to my 2 emails from over a week ago btw.

Quentin will be answering emails once a week after the affidavit is sent out. I've stated this numerous times already.

I've sent my emails to you directly, not Quentin. I don't have any business relation to that LLC your request-for-claims mail talks about. Hell if it was legal to simply replace the own entity in contracts by <insert-favored-LLC> whenever people want to, literally everybody would be buying a shitload of stuff/make huge loans, transfer liabilities to LLC, close LLC. ?. Profit.

Not impressed

I'll just have to add it to the other coins stolen/scammed from me

.....

Losing faith in the Bitcoin "community"
Graet

This pretty much. 300 bonds down the toilet, awweesome  .



Note: Just out of curiosity, someone interested in buying the right to claim 300 bonds?

[jamesg]

Giga, thx for at least an answer.

You are welcome.

I had read everything you wrote, I still don't see how this answers my questions.

I do not believe this to be the case, so I will help you some more.

So you decided to simply break the existing bond contract by changing the contract the way it pleasures you (request all kind of funny stuff and silently pass on liabilities to a LLC).

http://gigamining.com/faq.html

Virtual Processing Solutions, LLC is the business I have owned and operated by me, James Gibson, since July 20, 2011 to encompass all mining and business activities I have been a part of in the bitcoin community. These records are available via the Florida government websites and this business is in good standing with all local, state and federal agencies which govern it.

Also you claim this is to make sure to not pay the wrong guys (or to sue it back in case false claims are made), yet you ignore every kind of proof of ownership shown to you.

The PII (personally identifiable information) is required for multiple reasons including complying with federal laws. In the US, federal, state and local laws supersede any contract. The tax identification number is required to file the proper paperwork at year's end.

You could at least ask for additional claims with only email/btc address/bond amount (without making any guarantees yet), and look if the total amount of claimed bonds is higher than the actual bonds, and of course how many non unique claims there are. Then start from there. There probably still are cases where there's no better solution than requesting id's to scare of scammers but probably most wouldn't have to go through this hassle.

Please see my previous statements.

I've sent my emails to you directly, not Quentin.

I didn't realize that was the case and I apologize for not responding.

This pretty much. 300 bonds down the toilet, awweesome  .

This certainly does not. Please file the claim and you will be paid.

Note: Just out of curiosity, someone interested in buying the right to claim 300 bonds?

This is not advisable. Please see the quote below.

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.

[randomguy7]

Again thx for the answer.

Giga, thx for at least an answer.

You are welcome.

I had read everything you wrote, I still don't see how this answers my questions.

I do not believe this to be the case, so I will help you some more.

So you decided to simply break the existing bond contract by changing the contract the way it pleasures you (request all kind of funny stuff and silently pass on liabilities to a LLC).

http://gigamining.com/faq.html

Virtual Processing Solutions, LLC is the business I have owned and operated by me, James Gibson, since July 20, 2011 to encompass all mining and business activities I have been a part of in the bitcoin community. These records are available via the Florida government websites and this business is in good standing with all local, state and federal agencies which govern it.

Also you claim this is to make sure to not pay the wrong guys (or to sue it back in case false claims are made), yet you ignore every kind of proof of ownership shown to you.

The PII (personally identifiable information) is required for multiple reasons including complying with federal laws. In the US, federal, state and local laws supersede any contract. The tax identification number is required to file the proper paperwork at year's end.

You could at least ask for additional claims with only email/btc address/bond amount (without making any guarantees yet), and look if the total amount of claimed bonds is higher than the actual bonds, and of course how many non unique claims there are. Then start from there. There probably still are cases where there's no better solution than requesting id's to scare of scammers but probably most wouldn't have to go through this hassle.

Please see my previous statements.

I see your point but most of this isn't news for me and there are questions left open.

1) Afaik nobody knew they were dealing with an llc (please anybody correct me if I'm wrong here). I assumed doing business with a natural person. But whatever, I care way more about point two.

2) What I didn't know is that you also need the PII to comply to the law and thereby to run this thing legit. I won't bitch now about the fact that this wasn't that important when gigamining started because I think it's your good right to stop exposing yourself to the risks involved by running this thing non legit.
But making this thing legit also comes with changes which are incompatible with the existing contracts. Enforcing the new terms on existing bond holders is THAT main thing I'm so pissed about. I understand that you want to go legit, but not that you force everybody to make that switch with you.
In my opinion the only way to keep your name clean and make people happy is to comply with current contracts while going legit, and the only way to do this I can think of is to offer a buy back for those who don't want to participate under the new terms.
Yes I've read that there won't be a buy back but this had to be said.

I've sent my emails to you directly, not Quentin.

I didn't realize that was the case and I apologize for not responding.

Thx. Please note that when I wrote the emails, I didn't know that you need the PII to comply to the law. Please see point 2.

This pretty much. 300 bonds down the toilet, awweesome  .

This certainly does not. Please file the claim and you will be paid.

Sadly yes as I'm not willing to participate in this under the new terms. Toilet pretty much.

Note: Just out of curiosity, someone interested in buying the right to claim 300 bonds?

This is not advisable. Please see the quote below.

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.

Yes, and this also is only in theory, but there would be no way of ever knowing about it.

[bixcoin]

I contacted qpage@mylawyr.com on 24th of November and didnt get a response from him til today. Reminds me a lot of how GLBSE played it to win time.

[jamesg]

2) What I didn't know is that you also need the PII to comply to the law and thereby to run this thing legit.

I am glad that I made this clear for you.

I won't bitch now about the fact that this wasn't that important when gigamining started because I think it's your good right to stop exposing yourself to the risks involved by running this thing non legit.

I appreciate and thank you for taking a look at my side of the situation. I would like to be doing this 5 years from now and with the Gigaminers that are still on board today. But to be able to make this a reality, things need to change.

Going down the same path as GLBSE will only ensure that we end in the same place. This is the last thing I want.

In my opinion the only way to keep your name clean and make people happy is to comply with current contracts while going legit, and the only way to do this I can think of is to offer a buy back for those who don't want to participate under the new terms.
Yes I've read that there won't be a buy back but this had to be said.

I've already lost in the court of bitcointalk opinion. No matter what I do, someone will not like it. If you look back 20-22 pages in this thread you will see people telling me to get a lawyer. Now that I have one and am listening to what they have to say, others are upset.

Sadly yes as I'm not willing to participate in this under the new terms. Toilet pretty much.

I am sorry to hear this.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Sadly yes as I'm not willing to participate in this under the new terms. Toilet pretty much.

I am sorry to hear this.

I believe that very much, since is free money for you.  Talkin 'bout zero-sum game. You won, until you didn't.
But you are right being sarcastic with whom shows you a fake deference. That's very evil. I like it.

[server]

This pretty much. 300 bonds down the toilet, awweesome  .

This certainly does not. Please file the claim and you will be paid.

Sadly yes as I'm not willing to participate in this under the new terms. Toilet pretty much.

I think a lot of the guys use photoshopped [] doc's and I just wanted to say that this is not legal.

[bixcoin]

This pretty much. 300 bonds down the toilet, awweesome  .

This certainly does not. Please file the claim and you will be paid.

Sadly yes as I'm not willing to participate in this under the new terms. Toilet pretty much.

I think a lot of the guys use photoshopped [] doc's and I just wanted to say that this is not legal.

For most europeans its not legal to send in scanned ID's anyway. What should they do?

[randomguy7]

In my opinion the only way to keep your name clean and make people happy is to comply with current contracts while going legit, and the only way to do this I can think of is to offer a buy back for those who don't want to participate under the new terms.
Yes I've read that there won't be a buy back but this had to be said.

I've already lost in the court of bitcointalk opinion. No matter what I do, someone will not like it. If you look back 20-22 pages in this thread you will see people telling me to get a lawyer. Now that I have one and am listening to what they have to say, others are upset.

Maybe I should have phrased this differently, this is less about the public opinion than it's about the obligations from the old contract. If the old contract isn't continued they must be switched to a new contract (which requires bond owners permissions) or terminated. The old contract provides exactly one way to terminate bonds which is to buy them back. People who don't want to switch thereby must have the possibility to terminate their bonds through a buy-back. Refusing this possibility is scamming/theft.

[jamesg]

Maybe I should have phrased this differently, this is less about the public opinion than it's about the obligations from the old contract. If the old contract isn't continued they must be switched to a new contract (which requires bond owners permissions) or terminated. The old contract provides exactly one way to terminate bonds which is to buy them back. People who don't want to switch thereby must have the possibility to terminate their bonds through a buy-back. Refusing this possibility is scamming/theft.

The text below is an approximation of the actual contract hosted on GLBSE since it couldn't be found in Google's cache. I've bolded the part that talks about a buyback.

The holder of this contract will receive as coupons a number of bitcoins equivalent to 100% PPS output of 5Mh/s for as long as they hold the contract. THE ISSUER has the right to buy back any contract at any time at a price equivalent to 105% of the highest price the bond was traded on GLBSE over the previous 15 days (360 hours).

The contract specifically states that if I want to enact a buyback, I can, at the highest traded price on GLBSE over the last 15 days. The highest traded price on GLBSE over the last 15 days was 0. The highest traded price on MPEx over the last 15 days was around .03 BTC.

Even if we came to an agreement on price, I'd still need your information to make the payment and comply with federal regulations.

[conspirosphere.tk]

The contract specifically states that if I want to enact a buyback, I can, at the highest traded price on GLBSE over the last 15 days. The highest traded price on GLBSE over the last 15 days was 0. The highest traded price on MPEx over the last 15 days was around .03 BTC.
Even if we came to an agreement on price, I'd still need your information to make the payment and comply with federal regulations.

Try to scam harder: in order to be "traded" on GLBSE, GLBSE must be operating. So you can only refer to the price going when GLBSE was working. And now it is too late to ask for pseudo-legal b/s. You should have asked for it before taking our coins.

[miscreanity]

I've already lost in the court of bitcointalk opinion. No matter what I do, someone will not like it. If you look back 20-22 pages in this thread you will see people telling me to get a lawyer. Now that I have one and am listening to what they have to say, others are upset.

The problem from the community is not that you've obtained legal counsel, it is that it's being applied retroactively. That is being viewed as a hostile action because it effectively freezes assets which were entrusted to VPS, regardless of the status of any contract. While it's admirable that you're remaining in the community and making a solid effort to maintain reputation, it simply seems that you're prematurely tying up currently available options that probably won't be possible in the future.

Even if we came to an agreement on price, I'd still need your information to make the payment and comply with federal regulations.

Write it off. An opportunity for a clean start exists, but only if the legal advice is applied to VPS operations after the GLBSE shutdown. The residual claims have to be let go, otherwise they will remain as a stigma for some time to come, and could cause potentially greater issues down the line. The blockchain is an irrefutable record.

Do you want to deal with claims in the tens to hundreds or thousands of dollars range now, or wait and see if Bitcoin climbs in valuation until the claims are worth 7-figures or greater? If a single Bitcoin is worth six digits in fiat, you can bet there will be a legal arsenal aimed at the business.

Best effort verification would allow for much of the assets held prior to GLBSE's failure to be cleaned out. If those asset holders wish to pursue continuing business, they can follow the new legal procedures to renew their investments.

What is the threshold, in fiat dollar terms, for paying out without requiring personal information? If exchanges can accept up to several hundred dollars without AML/KYC information, you should be able to as well.

[jamesg]

Try to scam harder: in order to be "traded" on GLBSE, GLBSE must be operating.

But GLBSE isn't operating. That's the whole reason we are here having this lovely discussion.

So you can only refer to the price going when GLBSE was working. And now it is too late to ask for pseudo-legal b/s.

I'm glad you agree that there is vagueness here and each party will do it's best to push the price one way or the other.

Meni has stated that he would only enact his buyback clause after we are well into ASICs being released making sure the buyback is next to nothing.

[Monster Tent]

Regardless of wanting to go legit this whole saga proves that you cant keep your word. Once upon a time a mans word was his bond and by taking this route it shows you arent trustworthy and should get a scammer tag to warn others when signing any sort of contract with you.

Good luck finding all those bitcoiners wanting to pay tax....

[boonies4u]

The contract specifically states that if I want to enact a buyback, I can, at the highest traded price on GLBSE over the last 15 days. The highest traded price on GLBSE over the last 15 days was 0. The highest traded price on MPEx over the last 15 days was around .03 BTC.

Even if we came to an agreement on price, I'd still need your information to make the payment and comply with federal regulations.

Buyback sounds like something that could only be done feasibly with GLBSE up. I suppose it is kind of proper that with GLBSE down you feel inclined to ask for compliance with federal regulation, especially since a buyback would be trivial with it up and running.

I'm still not sure how I should feel given that I didn't end up holding GIGAMINING bonds when it went down. Best of luck to those who did... and yourself.

[jamesg]

The problem from the community is not that you've obtained legal counsel, it is that it's being applied retroactively. That is being viewed as a hostile action because it effectively freezes assets which were entrusted to VPS, regardless of the status of any contract.

I certainly do not want to be in the position I am in but were are here. I cannot change the past, I can only make sure that direct payments are done correctly.

Write it off. An opportunity for a clean start exists, but only if the legal advice is applied to VPS operations after the GLBSE shutdown.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please explain further.

The residual claims have to be let go, otherwise they will remain as a stigma for some time to come, and could cause potentially greater issues down the line.

There are plans to keep funds set aside to deal with this.

The blockchain is an irrefutable record.

I am not sure what you mean by this either. There is no way to tell what BTC purchased what assets.

Do you want to deal with claims in the tens to hundreds or thousands of dollars range now, or wait and see if Bitcoin climbs in valuation until the claims are worth 7-figures or greater?

The one thing you forget is that bitcoin mining produces bitcoins. While I don't want to deal with claims for years to come, nefario has left me little choice since his lists are incomplete and in some cases excluding Gigaminers without any known cause.

Best effort verification would allow for much of the assets held prior to GLBSE's failure to be cleaned out. If those asset holders wish to pursue continuing business, they can follow the new legal procedures to renew their investments.

Isn't this exactly what I am doing? Again, to make direct payments, VPS needs to know who they are dealing with. The penalties for not doing so are very high, so high that they might take me away from my responsibilities as a father. That is unacceptable.

What is the threshold, in fiat dollar terms, for paying out without requiring personal information?

As stated in Quentin's response, the threshold is $10 - $600.

[2GOOD]

For real persons: a photocopy or scanned PDF of government issued photo identification

Can we use Driving License instead of ID.
Thanks.

P.S.
===
PDF ?!

[jamesg]

Can we use Driving License instead of ID.

Yes.

P.S.
===
PDF ?!

I should be receiving it in the morning. I'll post when it is up.

[miscreanity]

Write it off. An opportunity for a clean start exists, but only if the legal advice is applied to VPS operations after the GLBSE shutdown.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please explain further.

Legal advice was obtained after GLBSE closed. Prior to that, assets were held by VPS. Any business conducted after that point would have to be subject to the proposed rules and personal information requests. I would expect this to include dividends generated during the interim, but for assets being held before then, such a retroactively applied stipulation becomes a bait-and-switch scenario.

The blockchain is an irrefutable record.

I am not sure what you mean by this either. There is no way to tell what BTC purchased what assets.

At the moment and to my knowledge, no. Digital forensics is not a static field, though. There is always a possibility that links could be established beyond what Nefario has provided.

Do you want to deal with claims in the tens to hundreds or thousands of dollars range now, or wait and see if Bitcoin climbs in valuation until the claims are worth 7-figures or greater?

The one thing you forget is that bitcoin mining produces bitcoins. While I don't want to deal with claims for years to come, nefario has left me little choice since his lists are incomplete and in some cases excluding Gigaminers without any known cause.

The fact that mining generates bitcoins is exactly why this is concerning - the longer dividend yields accrue, the more the stored value becomes a target for litigation. The fewer claimed assets are held by VPS, the lower the long-term risk.

Best effort verification would allow for much of the assets held prior to GLBSE's failure to be cleaned out. If those asset holders wish to pursue continuing business, they can follow the new legal procedures to renew their investments.

Isn't this exactly what I am doing? Again, to make direct payments, VPS needs to know who they are dealing with. The penalties for not doing so are very high, so high that they might take me away from my responsibilities as a father. That is unacceptable.

Yes and no. This again hinges on the circumstances before and after GLBSE closing.

There are ways of protecting yourself and your family that don't involve the legal mess currently surrounding VPS. Still, there's only so much that can be done when in the lion's den, regardless of whether you make every humanly possible effort to remain compliant or not. I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone made a martyr in any form, but that may be unavoidable for a lot of people no matter what's done now.

What is the threshold, in fiat dollar terms, for paying out without requiring personal information?

As stated in Quentin's response, the threshold is $10 - $600.

Would it be possible to pay out in batches of value equivalent to less than $10-600?

Are there any further details on the automated system or a potential time-frame?