Bitcoin Forum
April 23, 2014, 11:08:25 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: ...
. - 0 (0%)
.. - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 0

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
  Print  
Author Topic: Gigamining / Teramining  (Read 136043 times)
MoPac
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 08:02:19 PM
 #1561

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.

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
Buy a Blade, Get a 5-Chip Free!
Start Mining with GAWMiners.com
24/7 Live Phone & Tech Support
Free Hosting & Electricity for 1 Year!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1398294505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398294505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398294505
Reply with quote  #2

1398294505
Report to moderator
1398294505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398294505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398294505
Reply with quote  #2

1398294505
Report to moderator
SAC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 08:34:46 PM
 #1562

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 08:52:14 PM
 #1563

(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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


Regime change begins at home


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 08:57:46 PM
 #1564

(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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 09:11:26 PM
 #1565

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Truth may get delay, but NEVER fails


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 09:43:25 PM
 #1566

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

Quote
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
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 09:58:07 PM
 #1567

(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. 

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
MoPac
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:08:27 PM
 #1568

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.

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


Wat


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:09:17 PM
 #1569

BITBOND just pwned Giga by relisting on cryptostocks.

Gotta love competition.

conspirosphere.tk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


Regime change begins at home


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:13:08 PM
 #1570

You have a silly idea of the law: if you break it (especially the criminal one), then you did it. You can't reverse so easily what you have done. If you commit another crime to cover the traces of your previous crime, then you commited 2 crimes.

Giga knew perfectly well like anyone that GLBSE was illegal, but he played along until the going was good. So now he is just getting the chance for another hit at his investors.

edit: I personally don't trust to send my ID to no one here, nor to their lawyers. And Giga's bet is that many are of the same opinion.

Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:42:59 PM
 #1571

(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.

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.  

Not sure this is at all relevant.  My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later.  He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.

Where you appear to be getting confused is in mixing up what was/is required of Giga to be legal where he is and what was/is required of investors to comply with whatever rules apply to them.  IF the scenario is that the information required by Giga is absolutely essential for him to have (debatable - but that's really for him to decide) AND that the cost of providing such information is disproportionately burdensome on investors (which it clearly is for anyone whose investment is worth less than the cost of obtaining an Apostille) then the standard remedy is to null the contract - reversing all payments made by both parties as though the contract were never entered into.

That is also the standard procedure in the UK (where I am) if someone sends funds to a regulated company then is unable or unwilling to provide personal identity information.  It's also standard in other countries - e.g. in India where Dishwara is from (Their Supreme Court or equivalent ruled that even banks can't freeze funds if someone won't provide ID - the banks either have to allow the account to continue to operate or close the account and refund everything in it).

If one party to a contract has onerous/costly requirements and expects that cost to be met by the other party then it's THEIR responsibility to disclose that at the start.  It's not the other party's obligation to try to guess what they're likely to need in the future when even the country in which the service operates hasn't been disclosed.  Your position (and that of Giga's) appears to be along the lines of:

"Sorry but I've now found out you have to incur a $100 cost to claim the $10 worth of benefit due to you from the contract we agreed.  You either have to pay that $100 or let me dispose of the $10 in some undefined way which won't benefit you."

That's totally against commonsense, decency and established practice.  And also specifically against the law/relevant regulations in at least some countries.  A proper position would be:

"Sorry but I've now found out you have to incur a $100 cost to claim the $10 worth of benefit due to you from the contract we agreed.  Either I'll refund the $100 costs you incur or we'll have to annull the contract as though it never happened and I'll refund the moneys paid to me less those returned to you already in the form of dividends."

Obviously cancelling the contract would mean investors would lose out on all the massive profit they would otherwise make from this investment - but I'm sure that's preferable to getting nothing.

It's HIS responsibility to ensure that he fulfilled whatever legal/statutory/regulatory demands are on him - not the responsibility of his investors.  Had he initially disclosed that he was in the US and was supposed to obtain such information (but wasn't doing so) then the situation would be somewhat different.  His mistake - he should pay for it one way or another basically.
MoPac
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:59:09 PM
 #1572

Not sure this is at all relevant.  My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later.  He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.

This isn't something I was aware of.  The original post on this thread was on April 7th, and the second post is on the same day and is talking about GLBSE, so I was under the strong impression that all of these contracts were originally sold through GLBSE, with GLBSE set up to process the dividend payments.

If instead it is the case that these contracts were originally issued by Giga directly, with Giga as the actual payment processor of the dividends, and Giga failed (as GLBSE later did) to request the right information, then I am more sympathetic to what you are saying -- at least insofar as it affects those people who bought bonds before dividend the payment processing was moved to GLBSE.

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 11:13:35 PM
 #1573

Not sure this is at all relevant.  My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later.  He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.

This isn't something I was aware of.  The original post on this thread was on April 7th, and the second post is on the same day and is talking about GLBSE, so I was under the strong impression that all of these contracts were originally sold through GLBSE, with GLBSE set up to process the dividend payments.

If instead it is the case that these contracts were originally issued by Giga directly, with Giga as the actual payment processor of the dividends, and Giga failed (as GLBSE later did) to request the right information, then I am more sympathetic to what you are saying -- at least insofar as it affects those people who bought bonds before dividend the payment processing was moved to GLBSE.

Well I could be wrong on it - but I had the impression that there was some issue with listing on GLBSE and at least some contracts were issued directly.  Even after it was listed on GLBSE some contracts were entered into directly with other parties rather than through the market (e.g. the one for the MP pass-through).

It's still not particularly relevant anyway - Giga chose the payment processor and so had the responsibility to ensure they met whatever requirements HE had for them to be legal in his jurisdiction.  If he's now saying he needs that information to take on the role of payment processor himself then he needs to be offering an equitable choice for those who don't want to meet the associated costs.  Or if he's saying he's obliged to obtain that information (by law or regulation) to even recognise a contract with the other party then he needs to be cancelling and refunding on contracts where it isn't provided.  If provision of the information is a pre-condition for the contract to be legally binding then in the absence of such information the contract has to be annulled and all payments already made in respect of it reversed.

Or do you seriously believe there's a case to be made that Giga wasn't the senior party in the contract?

EDIT:  Just scanned first pages of thread.  Seems like vast majority of first batch were sold by private arrangement rather then through the market.  Those were done by transfer - where GLBSE were not an intermediary between two unknown parties and were just acting as record-keepers.  Clearly Giga had the ability to request whatever information he needed from those purchasers - and ensure they met any limitations he faced on who he could enter an arrangement with.  Plus any requirement (legal/regulatory) on him to obtain such information would also compel him to ensure that any third-party he chose to act on his behalf met the same requirements anyway - as irrespective of who processed payments his obligations were still to (and in respect of) the beneficiary owners of the contracts.
MoPac
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 11:47:34 PM
 #1574

Not sure this is at all relevant.  My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later.  He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.

This isn't something I was aware of.  The original post on this thread was on April 7th, and the second post is on the same day and is talking about GLBSE, so I was under the strong impression that all of these contracts were originally sold through GLBSE, with GLBSE set up to process the dividend payments.

If instead it is the case that these contracts were originally issued by Giga directly, with Giga as the actual payment processor of the dividends, and Giga failed (as GLBSE later did) to request the right information, then I am more sympathetic to what you are saying -- at least insofar as it affects those people who bought bonds before dividend the payment processing was moved to GLBSE.

Well I could be wrong on it - but I had the impression that there was some issue with listing on GLBSE and at least some contracts were issued directly.  Even after it was listed on GLBSE some contracts were entered into directly with other parties rather than through the market (e.g. the one for the MP pass-through).

It's still not particularly relevant anyway - Giga chose the payment processor and so had the responsibility to ensure they met whatever requirements HE had for them to be legal in his jurisdiction.  If he's now saying he needs that information to take on the role of payment processor himself then he needs to be offering an equitable choice for those who don't want to meet the associated costs.  Or if he's saying he's obliged to obtain that information (by law or regulation) to even recognise a contract with the other party then he needs to be cancelling and refunding on contracts where it isn't provided.  If provision of the information is a pre-condition for the contract to be legally binding then in the absence of such information the contract has to be annulled and all payments already made in respect of it reversed.

Or do you seriously believe there's a case to be made that Giga wasn't the senior party in the contract?

EDIT:  Just scanned first pages of thread.  Seems like vast majority of first batch were sold by private arrangement rather then through the market.  Those were done by transfer - where GLBSE were not an intermediary between two unknown parties and were just acting as record-keepers.  Clearly Giga had the ability to request whatever information he needed from those purchasers - and ensure they met any limitations he faced on who he could enter an arrangement with.  Plus any requirement (legal/regulatory) on him to obtain such information would also compel him to ensure that any third-party he chose to act on his behalf met the same requirements anyway - as irrespective of who processed payments his obligations were still to (and in respect of) the beneficiary owners of the contracts.

I think you make a very valid point.  In terms of the cost burden, I wonder, though.  The cost of trying to do refunds, given the depreciation of the mining hardware, is probably quite substantial (it's not like Giga was just holding the money).  

For U.S. residents, an apostille is of course not necessary, and most people can get notarizing done for free or a very nominal fee.  For foreign residents, where I think the concerns are less about tax and more about OFAC issues, I wonder if a transaction designed as an attempt to undo the whole payment history of the contract can be done without itself having OFAC issues.  I don't know exactly how the sanctions regulations are set up, but of course we are all aware that plenty of sanctions regimes involve freezing assets that are owned by the other party, not settling all the accounts and then freezing them out.  So I'm not sure whether Giga is in a position where he could do a buyback for those people who are looking at a big expense for apostille, since those are the people for whom OFAC regulations become an issue.

A good way to make progress here might be for the lawyer to look at ways in which identity could potentially be verified without the expense of apostille -- maybe there is a solution involving a combination of verifying photo ID in conjunction with a withdrawal-address-signed message?  This could be brought up with Quentin if the apostille expense is the real issue.  It has been my impression that, for most people in the thread, the bigger issue wasn't the burden of apostille but indignation at having to comply with regulations at all.

Giga chose the payment processor and so had the responsibility to ensure they met whatever requirements...
I'm a bit torn on this one.  If Merrill Lynch screws up on information collection when they set up your brokerage account or when they issue you your 1099 that has a municipal bond on it, would you really consider the city that issued the bond to be on the hook?

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
Sukrim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 12:31:19 AM
 #1575

For U.S. residents, an apostille is of course not necessary, and most people can get notarizing done for free or a very nominal fee.  [...] So I'm not sure whether Giga is in a position where he could do a buyback for those people who are looking at a big expense for apostille, since those are the people for whom OFAC regulations become an issue.

Wrong and wrong. An apostille + getting a notary look at you while you sign something costs quite a bit around here not because my home country is fighting the US or something but simply because we have a much higher GDP and standard of living than the US. Also to open a bank account (and getting a credit card on top of that with a few thousand EUR limit) I need less paperwork than to finally get my ~5-6 EUR worth of dividends off shares that I bought for ~40 EUR worth at that time.

As far as I understand it, all I owned all the time was a simple contract that was bought from giga (or someone else who bought it from giga) that guaranteed me that he'd be hashing Bitcoins and send me an amount that was specified in the contract in certain intervals. This is not much more than any renderfarm or provider of webservers does. I guess all the fear and "lawyering" stems from the fact that Bitcoin might in the future(?) considered some kind of money which would mean I bought a contract for getting money and not a simple service. Maybe something along the lines of buying a money printing press collectively...

However, I'd like to see proof that Bitcoin are actually money first and/or creating Bitcoin is an act of cerating money and not equivalent to rendering a frame of Big Buck Bunny or Elephant's Dream (just with different algorithms running) before I comply with these regulations prematurely. Actually anyone sending their info to this lawyer (if he even exists/is a lawyer!) might get into far bigger trouble should Bitcoin really be considered money and Bitcoin mining be considered an act of creating money.

https://bitfinex.com <-- leveraged trading of BTCUSD, LTCUSD and LTCBTC (long and short) - 10% discount on fees for the first 30 days with this refcode: x5K9YtL3Zb
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf | https://just-dice.com/ <-- Bitcoin gambling done right!
MoPac
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 12:40:49 AM
 #1576

For U.S. residents, an apostille is of course not necessary, and most people can get notarizing done for free or a very nominal fee.  [...] So I'm not sure whether Giga is in a position where he could do a buyback for those people who are looking at a big expense for apostille, since those are the people for whom OFAC regulations become an issue.

Wrong and wrong. An apostille + getting a notary look at you while you sign something costs quite a bit around here...

I think you misread my statement.  I was referring to this being very cheap/free for US residents and potentially quite expensive for foreign residents.

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 01:39:23 AM
 #1577

I think you make a very valid point.  In terms of the cost burden, I wonder, though.  The cost of trying to do refunds, given the depreciation of the mining hardware, is probably quite substantial (it's not like Giga was just holding the money).  

Remember that if the contract is totally cancelled then the amount refunded is issue price LESS all dividends paid to date (the dividends have to be cancelled as well) - as ALL transactions have to be reversed.  If mining gear depreciation has outpaced generation of dividends then it was a shitty investment in the first place (as by definition that means investors have made a loss).  It's not like block-reward halving, steadily increasing difficulty or technological advances were somehow unexpected is it?  I somehow can't see Giga claiming that he either totally failed to understand basic issues about mining OR intentionally sold an investment he expected to make a loss for investors.  So how could he claim that somehow at this juncture reversing contracts isn't financially possible - as surely that lets him keep all the profit made from investments that are now refunded at IPO price - total dividends?
Epoch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798



View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 04:49:59 AM
 #1578

I think you make a very valid point.  In terms of the cost burden, I wonder, though.  The cost of trying to do refunds, given the depreciation of the mining hardware, is probably quite substantial (it's not like Giga was just holding the money).  
Remember that if the contract is totally cancelled then the amount refunded is issue price LESS all dividends paid to date (the dividends have to be cancelled as well) - as ALL transactions have to be reversed.  If mining gear depreciation has outpaced generation of dividends then it was a shitty investment in the first place (as by definition that means investors have made a loss).  It's not like block-reward halving, steadily increasing difficulty or technological advances were somehow unexpected is it?  I somehow can't see Giga claiming that he either totally failed to understand basic issues about mining OR intentionally sold an investment he expected to make a loss for investors.  So how could he claim that somehow at this juncture reversing contracts isn't financially possible - as surely that lets him keep all the profit made from investments that are now refunded at IPO price - total dividends?
Regarding hardware depreciation, realize that the majority of gigamining hardware (in terms of hashrate) is BFL minirigs and Singles. These do not 'depreciate' in the normal sense; in fact they can be traded in for BFL ASICs at their full original purchase price until March 1, 2013. Or sold to someone else who wants to trade in for ASICs. Gigavps has already taken advantage of this program. So most (if not all) of the gear is still worth its full original value.

BTC: 1DJVUnLuPA2bERTkyeir8bKn1eSoRCrYvx
NMC: NFcfHSBBnq622pAr1Xoh9KtnBPA5CUn6id
MoPac
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 06:02:50 AM
 #1579

I was doing the math on this reversal idea earlier, and I think there is an aspect being overlooked.

There were five tranches of shares issued, starting at 5k and eventually reaching 40k.  Just for demonstration, I'll focus on shares in the first tranche.

If I understand correctly, the contracts were sold for 1 BTC.  This generated approximately $5.12 for Giga to spend in the normal economy on hardware and other business costs for the operation.

Counting up until the last dividend that was actually paid on GLBSE, the share generated a total of about 0.48 BTC for the owner, leaving 0.52 BTC to pay to the owner in order to negate the original contract, according to what has been proposed here.

But due to the dramatic increase in BTC value, Giga would actually have to spend about $7.01 this week just to cover that 0.52 BTC, significantly more than the dollar capital that the whole share generated in the first place to actually buy equipment, space, and electricity!

One other perspective that you might or might not find to be relevant: it is easy to calculate the fair market value in dollars of each dividend at the time it was paid.  The cumulative FMV of all the dividends that were actually paid through GLBSE is $3.68 on that trache of shares, or 72% of the $5.12 FMV that went in. If you sum all the way through the Dec 10 dividend payment in the queue, the total rises to about $4.84 in dividends, or 95%.  

That's assuming that each dividend is immediately cashed out into dollars.  If a holder of a share in that tranche has kept the whole 0.48 BTC in dividends in their wallet, its FMV now is $6.49, still a return significantly over 100% of the dollars it took to acquire the share at the time. Naturally, that ignores opportunity cost, etc, but it's till something interesting to know.

Adam Colligan
AdamColligan.net/gpg
fcmatt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 06:15:07 AM
 #1580

I think you make a very valid point.  In terms of the cost burden, I wonder, though.  The cost of trying to do refunds, given the depreciation of the mining hardware, is probably quite substantial (it's not like Giga was just holding the money).  
Remember that if the contract is totally cancelled then the amount refunded is issue price LESS all dividends paid to date (the dividends have to be cancelled as well) - as ALL transactions have to be reversed.  If mining gear depreciation has outpaced generation of dividends then it was a shitty investment in the first place (as by definition that means investors have made a loss).  It's not like block-reward halving, steadily increasing difficulty or technological advances were somehow unexpected is it?  I somehow can't see Giga claiming that he either totally failed to understand basic issues about mining OR intentionally sold an investment he expected to make a loss for investors.  So how could he claim that somehow at this juncture reversing contracts isn't financially possible - as surely that lets him keep all the profit made from investments that are now refunded at IPO price - total dividends?
Regarding hardware depreciation, realize that the majority of gigamining hardware (in terms of hashrate) is BFL minirigs and Singles. These do not 'depreciate' in the normal sense; in fact they can be traded in for BFL ASICs at their full original purchase price until March 1, 2013. Or sold to someone else who wants to trade in for ASICs. Gigavps has already taken advantage of this program. So most (if not all) of the gear is still worth its full original value.


So the original contract is lost.
The gear is being traded in at full value.
Glcrapbse is gone and no way to determine fair price per bond/coupon/whatever.
The summarized from memory contract says forever you will be paid unless a forced buyback at 105% of glcrapbse price.

Seems to me that buy back price will be quite hefty. Especially since the contract was broken and mining profits not being paid as planned. Seems to me the operator has failed and the gear belongs to the coupon holders now. Liquidate and spread the money to them.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!