Gigamining / Teramining

[theGECK]

Also regarding this post... I don't have a Tax Identification number?  Am I supposed to go get one for 30 shares and a few BTC in dividends?  Or if I am willing to give you my info can I leave that blank? 

Naelr

This is a question for Quentin. Please email him.

Giga, I have emailed Quentin with this exact question at the beginning of the process and have not heard back from him with an answer if my SSN will be sufficient. I don't know if others are hearing back - could you check in with him and see how answering emails is going?

My email was sent on Nov 24th, and as one of 3 questions asked "...I have no Tax ID number. What should I provide in this situation?" On the forum you have answered the other 2 questions that I asked in the email, but I would like to get the answers from your representation instead of on a forum.

[jamesg]

Also regarding this post... I don't have a Tax Identification number?  Am I supposed to go get one for 30 shares and a few BTC in dividends?  Or if I am willing to give you my info can I leave that blank? 

Naelr

This is a question for Quentin. Please email him.

Giga, I have emailed Quentin with this exact question at the beginning of the process and have not heard back from him with an answer if my SSN will be sufficient. I don't know if others are hearing back - could you check in with him and see how answering emails is going?

My email was sent on Nov 24th, and as one of 3 questions asked "...I have no Tax ID number. What should I provide in this situation?" On the forum you have answered the other 2 questions that I asked in the email, but I would like to get the answers from your representation instead of on a forum.

SSN == Tax ID

[001sonkit]

I'd like to ask when will or will there be a "small shares direct claim" process. The one for who have just a few shares to claim, could pass through the "lawyer step" by providing the bitcoin address and some details. (As you provided the hash check thing)

[Sukrim]

I'd like to ask when will the "small shares direct claim" process start. The one for who have just a few shares to claim, could pass through the "lawyer step" by providing the bitcoin address and some details

Won't happen, unless shares are worth less than 10 USD total and stay below that limit (which currently actually is probably the case for quite a big number of shares...)

[001sonkit]

So if i have 2 shares, will it be possible for me to pass through those crazy things?

[MoPac]

A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

[fcmatt]

Honor is the proper way to phrase it. This is a rinky dink operation to give someone money to buy mining gear and those who gave get returns of the mining. A gentlemans agreement and plan that does not require a lawyer if a person just keeps his side of the bargain. Give them their fricking money from mining, sell the gear, and buy back the bonds to the best of your ability while being totally transparent. I doubt a single investor would complain if it was done straight up. Get the info and square it away with users.

Instead we have the operator running to a lawyer which is always a bad sign in my book when involving something of this size.
It screams, to me, i have no idea how to deal fairly with others in a time of crisis and i better cover MY ass first. Plus i have everything and others can kiss my ass as i make the rules as i scheme them up.

The end game is this. Pay mining profits. Buy back bonds for next to nothing. Keep gear. Trade in for newer asic gear and keep itfree and clear. Highly doubtful operator will start new bond/share plan. Just mine with asics for himself.

[burnside]

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

That's one take.

The other take is that you can both be legal, and continue, and not screw anyone by closing down the original contract.  (execute buyback)  Then re-open a new contract.

There are two problems with closing down the original that I see.

*) The contract was 105% of the traded price on GLBSE in the last XX days.  Obviously this cannot be used directly, GLBSE is gone.  You'd have to go with the last 15 days of trades before GLBSE went offline or something.  (easy to grab btw from the twitter feed.)

*) Giga may not have the liquidity to do a buyback.  I know on LTC-MINING it'd be pretty hard for me to do a buyback on all of them at once.  All the proceeds of the sales went into hardware.  That hardware resale value is probably not more than 60% of what I paid for it new.

I think the middle ground would be to offer up an option of buyback or new contract.  But there'd have to be a pretty good incentive to go new contract or too many people would go buyback and we're back into liquidity problems.

Giga's definitely in a lose-lose situation, I do not envy his position.  At least he hasn't cut and run as many issuers seem to be doing.

[conspirosphere.tk]

They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

I hope that someone scams you badly, and then pulls out a lawyer to fu*k you over again. Then I will come to comment on how silly are you.

[edit]: a reminder for my sell offer of Giga's bonds off-the-counter:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75802.msg1385577#msg1385577
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75802.msg1385639#msg1385639

[SAC]

A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth.

[MoPac]

...Keep gear. Trade in for newer asic gear and keep itfree and clear....

Given the depreciation of the current hardware, especially given the anticipation of Bitcoin-specific ASICs, it seems unlikely that this course of action would really be very profitable for Giga.

A gentlemans agreement and plan that does not require a lawyer if a person just keeps his side of the bargain....

...

...we have the operator running to a lawyer which is always a bad sign in my book when involving something of this size.
It screams, to me, i have no idea how to deal fairly with others in a time of crisis...

I hope that someone scams you badly, and then pulls out a lawyer to fu*k you over again. Then I will come to comment on how silly are you.

This point of view seems like it could come from one of two places.  

(1) You don't think you should have to comply with the law as now explained by lawyers, and you are mad at Giga for bringing the law into this when you think everybody could have just gotten away with doing the payments as "gentlemen" without needing to involve the pesky notion of tax and sanction compliance steps.  In your mind, you agreed to do something whether it was legal or not, knowing that it might turn out not to be and not really caring about that. You were under the impression that Giga had the same mentality, and so now that he's telling you he will only do things in a way he thinks is strictly legal, you are angry.  

So you then (a) mock him for not being on board with your idea that Bitcoin contracts should exist in their own plane outside of secular law.  And/or (b) you declare that he must actually have the same mentality as you, and so his moves must have nothing to do with his desire to be legit but must just be convenient, cynical ways to cheat you out of your money.

You are wrong because (a) from the entire record, there seems to be no evidence that Giga ever had or expressed the perspective that he was committed to his scheme whether or not it was legal.  You are projecting your own view of Bitcoin onto him, and so long as you incorrectly do that, his moves will continue to baffle you.

And from my own personal perspective, you are further wrong because (b) tax and sanctions compliance are positive moral imperatives that you should embrace regardless of anything that Giga says or has said.


(2) You do care whether or not something is legal, and maybe you recognize that paying dividends without tax information turns out not to be legal.  But you blame Giga for this -- basically, he should never have agreed to this in the first place, and it's his duty to take a big hit in his liquidity -- or even destroy his business -- to buy back from you rather than demand that you do anything, even something that costs you nothing, like providing extra info.  On principle.

You are wrong because (a) both parties to these contracts are responsible for any failures in initial due diligence in this matter, and both parties share responsibility for acting reasonably and equitably to work things out once due diligence finally gets done by someone later.  It's irrelevant whether it was eventually his lawyer telling him he needed to issue 1099s, and then him putting demands to you, as opposed to your lawyer telling you you were owed a 1099, and you demanding action from him.  

You are further wrong because (b) the initial counterparty that would have needed to do the tax compliance due diligence was not even Giga at all -- it was GLBSE, because exchanges and brokers are normally the ones responsible for producing the tax documentation, not issuers.  Remember, Giga never even had your BTC withdrawal address or any other kind of payment information while GLBSE was operating: it was only GLBSE that would have been in a position of setting up the proper reporting procedures for documenting payments.  This burden only shifted to Giga once GLBSE shuttered and put him in the position of being the actual payer of counterparties.  

From what I can tell, Giga went to his lawyer and did his due diligence immediately once his obligations extended into this arena.  That is in contrast to you, who did not do your legal due diligence when it was GLBSE on the other side -- never ensuring that the exchange was provided with all of the information needed for tax compliance, and never bothering to learn from your own legal advice that that should have been the case.  

So if either party bears a greater burden in making things up to snuff at this point, it's might actually be you and not Giga, even leaving aside the fact that what he's asking you to do is free, and what you're asking him to do (buyback) is potentially very expensive.  Note, for example, this:

*) Giga may not have the liquidity to do a buyback.  I know on LTC-MINING it'd be pretty hard for me to do a buyback on all of them at once.  All the proceeds of the sales went into hardware.  That hardware resale value is probably not more than 60% of what I paid for it new.

[MoPac]

A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth.

It's like you quoted what I wrote and didn't even read it.

[SAC]

A bond is an instrument that provides a fixed rate of return on the investment made. It could be considered a form of contract the difference here is in the claims process you are swearing out a legal document that in its own words says to the best of your knowledge what you are claiming is true. Now the people doing this claims process know it was not a contract they bought but a bond purchase as they were sold it. So this whole thing has been structured to foist a fraud upon the legal process with anyone who submits a claim form as it is written committing perjury.

This doesn't make any sense to me.  A bond "instrument" is a contract: it is a contract of debt sale.  One party provides value up front, and the other party provides the contractual right to receive payments in the future in such amounts and under such conditions as the bond specifies.  From what you write, you seem to think that it's true and accurate for an affidavit to state:

"Giga is indebted to me for this many shares of the mining proceeds because there was an agreement that ties certain chunks of indebtedness to an original act of giving Giga money, and I have subsequently bought these rights."

...And yet you are trying to say that it's "fraudulent" for an affidavit to state, as Quentin's does:

"I am the owner of one party's rights and obligations in a number of contracts to which Giga is the other party, and so I hereby make a claim to the payments that Giga needs to make in order to fulfill his end." (The actual text being "I am the lawful beneficial asignee" of contracts).

I'm pretty sure these really, really are the same thing.  

The real debate and griping on this thread seems actually to center on the "lawful" part rather than the "contracts" part. People are noting that the parties originally thought it would work one way, and then by subsequent events (GLBSE closure) and revelations (legal advice) it turns that executing the contracts lawfully will require more from both sides.  They seem to be saying that that Giga should, for the sake of honor or something, execute the original vision rather than the revised "actually legal" vision, sacrificing compliance on the altar of the original contract's purity and integrity.  That strikes me as a bit silly -- but not nearly as silly as trying to claim that there are no "contracts" at all.

They were bonds issued not contracts they are now being claimed to not be bonds because his criminal lawyer has told him he is in deep doggie poo. Now he tries to re-write history because he knows what he has already done is illegal bringing in all his claimants as participants in the deception as he tries to spin his actions as something they were not in a legal process where you are obligated to tell the truth.

It's like you quoted what I wrote and didn't even read it.

If it made actual sense it may have been worth responding to point by point but as it is you do nothing but try to excuse his attempt to commit fraud and draw others into it. PLONK.

[fcmatt]

(1) there is not a single shred of evidence that the law gives a rat's ass about giga, glcrapbse, or anything about this.

(2) you write like this is a multi million dollar deal. This is a bunch of nerds getting together to buy gear and to share the profits from mining.

He ran to a lawyer because it benefits him. plain and simple. not to obey laws he clearly did not care about in the first place. the goal is to
get as much as possible out of this instead of being "cool" and realizing things went sour and i should treat people nice by giving them as
much as possible without taking a loss.

but that is what a person does when they prefer to have respect over money. a way for the community to know you are a straight
shooter instead of what is going on now.

[conspirosphere.tk]

(1) You don't think you should have to comply with the law as now explained by lawyers, and you are mad at Giga for bringing the law into this when you think everybody could have just gotten away with doing the payments as "gentlemen" without needing to involve the pesky notion of tax and sanction compliance steps.  In your mind,

Are you faking to be stupid or for real?
Either Giga was not legal before -when he took our coins- AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL
or:
he was legal when he took our coins - AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL STEALING OUR COINS BECAUSE OF B/S LEGAL INVENTIONS
There is no alternative.

[SAC]

He ran to a lawyer because it benefits him.

That and he needs one if you have not noticed he went to criminal lawyer not a commercial lawyer who does business deals.

[dishwara]

If You wants us, the investors to go in CORRECT LEGAL WAY to get back claims, then you MUST ALSO GO THE SAME CORRECT LEGAL WAY.

Are you ready to go jail, for not doing legal things, creating and issuing illegal security bonds with the help of GLBSE?

Why you not dragging nefario to solve this, instead you carrying on your head?
What is the dealing you have with nefario?
If nefario comes out, then all mess be easily solved.
why you showing soft corner to the nefario & screwing bond holders?

http://www.afternoondc.in/business-investment/the-fake-currency-notes-syndrome/article_65486

Who is De La Rue?
Roberto Gyori is known by the name of “Currency King” all over the world. Roberto is called the “Currency King” because he is the owner of the company named “De La Rue”. 90% of the business of printing the currencies of many countries of the world are in the hands of this company. Chauthi Duniya, in many of its reports earlier has revealed this fact and how this company might be involved in the printing of fake currency notes in India. The De La Rue Company had its biggest contract with the RBI, where they supplied bank note paper with its special watermark to the bank.

There were news reports in January 2011 that the Indian Government had broken its relationship with the company. The Government gave the contract of printing 16,000 tons of currency paper to 4 competitors of the De La Rue Company. The RBI did not even invite the De La Rue Company to take part in this tender. Why was this decision taken by the RBI and the Indian Government? Was Parliament informed about this decision?

The answers to these questions are important. Despite this, the relationship between the De La Rue Company and India did not end. The company has a big office in Gurgaon. Apart from currency papers, the De La Rue Company deals with passports, high security paper, security printing, hologram and cash processing solutions at its Gurgaon office. Significantly, this company also sells fake note detection machines in India. What could be more interesting:  the very company suspected of printing fake currency notes is also providing the fake note detection machines to India. If the Investigative Agencies are stating that the paper of the real notes is similar to that of the fake notes, then why is the Government not taking any action against the company and how is the company still running its office in the country?

If even Indian government itself gets cheated, what is the proof that my personal details WILL NEVER USED BY ANY ONE TO DO ILLEGAL THINGS IN MY NAME?

[MoPac]

(1) You don't think you should have to comply with the law as now explained by lawyers, and you are mad at Giga for bringing the law into this when you think everybody could have just gotten away with doing the payments as "gentlemen" without needing to involve the pesky notion of tax and sanction compliance steps.  In your mind,

Are you faking to be stupid or for real?
Either Giga was not legal before -when he took our coins- AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL
or:
he was legal when he took our coins - AND SO HE IS A FUCKING CRIMINAL STEALING OUR COINS BECAUSE OF B/S LEGAL INVENTIONS
There is no alternative.

There are actually two alternatives.  

One is that the contract was, unwittingly, not legal in the first place, and both parties bear responsibility for not doing enough due diligence to realize this.  Giga is now, having done the due diligence, executing his obligations in the nearest possible manner consistent with the law.  Since this thread right now is really about dividend payment rather than the fact that it was an exchange security, this alternative isn't super relevant to the current debate. But it still fits the situation as you describe it.

The other alternative, which is more relevant right now, is this.  GLBSE was not legal before in terms of its dividend payment processing system because it did not collect all the information it should have and did not issue the proper tax documentation.  Now, Giga is taking over this processing functionality, which used to be GLBSE's responsibility, and he is doing it differently than GLBSE did in order to be legal.  You are mad at Giga because you are now having to provide more information than you did before.  

But your anger is misplaced. The difference that you are experiencing does not stem from Giga changing his mind about what what he wants from you.  The difference stems from the fact that you are moving from one payment processor to another.  Your old payment processor, GLBSE, apparently didn't ask you for the right things.  Your new payment processor, who happens go be Giga himself but could just as easily be a different exchange or processing contractor, is now asking you for the right things.

If you want to be mad at somebody, be mad at GLBSE for making you think in the first place that you could receive these kinds of payments without supplying tax information. 

[MoPac]

Why you not dragging nefario to solve this, instead you carrying on your head?
What is the dealing you have with nefario?
If nefario comes out, then all mess be easily solved.
why you showing soft corner to the nefario & screwing bond holders?

Nefario apparently actually scammed people, is terrified of prosecution, and has crawled under a rock.  What you seem to be asking for here is the right to give your tax ID number and other identifying personal information to Nefario rather than Giga. 

Firstly, given Nefario's current attitude, it is extremely unlikely that anyone could convince him to re-open the GLBSE dividend system and open a repository of users' tax and ID information.  So someone would have to take protracted, expensive, uncertain legal action to try to force Nefario to do this, and in the meantime you would not get your dividends.

Secondly, from a personal security perspective, I find it hard to believe that there is anyone out there who would rather entrust their sensitive details to Nefario rather than to Giga's law firm.

[Bitcoin Oz]

BITBOND just pwned Giga by relisting on cryptostocks.

Gotta love competition.