Gigamining / Teramining

[vrtrasura]

GLBSE was auto-terminated in a big mess, now Giga makes the rules of how this will go forward in a way that he feels will protect him from potential problems, he insists you follow his claims process & doesn't allow any bonds/shares to be sold or transferred to others, he is not offering any buy backs atm mostly due to their being no market in which to value them & maybe for other reasons, anyway he's not negotiating on this so you either accept that or not.

I haven't posted since Giga said he felt a bit bad and would post about the number of unclaimed and his plan to resolve them.  It's been almost 2 weeks.
This is serious bs.  Otoh, just because you had enough money invested with Giga that you need to kiss up to him doesn't mean the rest of us should stop pushing for what is right.  How about just a refund, as if I never bought anything.  AML doesn't restrict a business from giving someone their money back.  Regardless of what Giga decides, he's broken his original contract with all of us and should fix it or get a scammer tag.  He's a smart guy, I'm sure there are ways we could all compromise.  He's stealing our money instead. 

[Otoh]

GLBSE was auto-terminated in a big mess, now Giga makes the rules of how this will go forward in a way that he feels will protect him from potential problems, he insists you follow his claims process & doesn't allow any bonds/shares to be sold or transferred to others, he is not offering any buy backs atm mostly due to their being no market in which to value them & maybe for other reasons, anyway he's not negotiating on this so you either accept that or not.

I haven't posted since Giga said he felt a bit bad and would post about the number of unclaimed and his plan to resolve them.  It's been almost 2 weeks.
This is serious bs.  Otoh, just because you had enough money invested with Giga that you need to kiss up to him doesn't mean the rest of us should stop pushing for what is right.  How about just a refund, as if I never bought anything.  AML doesn't restrict a business from giving someone their money back.  Regardless of what Giga decides, he's broken his original contract with all of us and should fix it or get a scammer tag.  He's a smart guy, I'm sure there are ways we could all compromise.  He's stealing our money instead. 

I don't disagree with you, I objected strongly to his demands & only went along with them when it was clear that was the only way that I would likely see some of the money I'd invested returned to me, I don't call being forced in to doing something 'kissing up' & yes I had enough shares that it would have been stupid with the ever rising Bitcoin price to not accept that he was calling the shots on this & it was a take it or leave it option.

When replying to others who like me before objected to his way of handling this then I am just letting them know how things stand atm as far as I know, I am in no way condoning his handling of the matter & I do expect that with all he's made from those who invested in him that he will eventually be more flexible re small investors, minors & others who the claims process doesn't work well for if it's just a small percent of the bonds involved that are unclaimed - I hope so anyway though it seems like he can & will do as he chooses.

[herzmeister]

excuse me for some short intermezzo, but now that we have this FinCEN paper, doesn't it turn out that all this legal stuff isn't necessary after all?

seems that miners are not regulated, unless they directly sell for fiat, which this service doesn't do apparently?  

[BurtW]

excuse me for some short intermezzo, but now that we have this FinCEN paper, doesn't it turn out that all this legal stuff isn't necessary after all?

seems that miners are not regulated, unless they directly sell for fiat, which this service doesn't do apparently?  

Not clear.  Read this very carefully, especially the bolded part:

A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Now it seem to me that it might be argued that Giga/Tera is not selling us BTC that what is being sold is a contract to use his mining equipment to produce BTC for us.  Therefore as long as you use the BTC to buy stuff you are not a money transmitter - but if you sell the BTC for fiat you are then a money transmitter.  Anyway he has a lawyer to help him figure this out - I do not.

[Otoh]

No [BFL - ASIC] news is good news update ~ only check it if you've time to waste

A maybe won't ship until April type thread ~ if needed

[nadrimajstor]

Regarding FinCEN paper http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

I assume that there will be no change in the rules because it will not be fair to others who went trough affidavit process. 

As claim process will end soon, it is obvious that I will not going to make it (not that I don't want to - but for me US Embassy is far away, both in terms of distance and money).

James, what will happen now with my shares and dividends?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Regarding FinCEN paper http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

I assume that there will be no change in the rules because it will not be fair to others who went trough affidavit process. 

As claim process will end soon, it is obvious that I will not going to make it (not that I don't want to - but for me US Embassy is far away, both in terms of distance and money).

James, what will happen now with my shares and dividends?

You still haven't figured out he's eating it?

[jamesg]

James, what will happen now with my shares and dividends?

I am coming up with a plan and will make it public when it is ready. With the new FINCEN guidelines, my attention has been diverted while I work with the attorneys to get clarifications around who exactly needs to be an MSB and what is required from those who do need to become one.

While the FINCEN guidance is very good for bitcoin, the playing field laid out for those who run businesses around Bitcoin has become a bit more thorny.

[Holographic]

Hi Gigavps,

I have 50 Gigamining shares or "agreements", but have not yet claimed them for various reasons. I am now considering going through with the claims process, but I am unsure when the last chance for filing this claim is. I tried searching, but all I could find was your statement from november when you said "not at this time". What is currently the last chance date for claims? If my searching was not good enough, I apologize, but please clear this up anyways.

I am also wondering if you would extend this date, since you are now "coming up with a plan" in light of the FINCEN guidelines?

Bottom line is, I really don't want to jump through your hoops, but I might still do it, if this plan you are coming up with does not involve getting my coins back without doing so. Greed vs. principles...yeah I know.

So does waiting to hear your plan before claiming make me lose my coins forever? Thanks in advance for any info and clarification. I'm excited to hear this plan of yours.

[Deprived]

Hi Gigavps,

I have 50 Gigamining shares or "agreements", but have not yet claimed them for various reasons. I am now considering going through with the claims process, but I am unsure when the last chance for filing this claim is. I tried searching, but all I could find was your statement from november when you said "not at this time". What is currently the last chance date for claims? If my searching was not good enough, I apologize, but please clear this up anyways.

I am also wondering if you would extend this date, since you are now "coming up with a plan" in light of the FINCEN guidelines?

Bottom line is, I really don't want to jump through your hoops, but I might still do it, if this plan you are coming up with does not involve getting my coins back without doing so. Greed vs. principles...yeah I know.

So does waiting to hear your plan before claiming make me lose my coins forever? Thanks in advance for any info and clarification. I'm excited to hear this plan of yours.

A bit of advice to you and others in your position.

IF your position is that you'd LIKE to claim the benefits of the bonds but can't/don't want to bear the costs of affidavit etc then send an email to Giga, his lawyer AND to someone reputable you know (who would later be willing to assert they received it).  In that email state that you assert claim to the bonds/contracts but do not believe the onus of bearing the costs of affidavit etc should rest on you given that HE added that requirement AFTER the contract had been purchased.  You could also offer that, if it isn't economically viable for him to cover those costs, then you are willing to cancel the contract entirely in return for the original investment less dividends to date back.

You then have a claim on record of ownership - AND have registered a dispute over who is liable for the costs.  Any arbitrary date he then sets for end of claims is NOT going to apply to you unless/until the dispute over who has responsibility for the cost of affidavit etc has been resolved.  Don't make the mistake of believing that if someone (or their lawyer) offers you two choices (do as I say or get nothing) that those ARE your only two options.

You could also copy his local Trading Standards (or whatever the local equivalent is) in on the email - but would need to explain a bit more of the background if you did that.  In general such bodies take a dim view of companies that attempt to add extra costs to something after it has been sold.

[BurtW]

A bit of advice to you and others in your position.

IF your position is that you'd LIKE to claim the benefits of the bonds but can't/don't want to bear the costs of affidavit etc then send an email to Giga, his lawyer AND to someone reputable you know (who would later be willing to assert they received it).  In that email state that you assert claim to the bonds/contracts but do not believe the onus of bearing the costs of affidavit etc should rest on you given that HE added that requirement AFTER the contract had been purchased.  You could also offer that, if it isn't economically viable for him to cover those costs, then you are willing to cancel the contract entirely in return for the original investment less dividends to date back.

You then have a claim on record of ownership - AND have registered a dispute over who is liable for the costs.  Any arbitrary date he then sets for end of claims is NOT going to apply to you unless/until the dispute over who has responsibility for the cost of affidavit etc has been resolved.  Don't make the mistake of believing that if someone (or their lawyer) offers you two choices (do as I say or get nothing) that those ARE your only two options.

You could also copy his local Trading Standards (or whatever the local equivalent is) in on the email - but would need to explain a bit more of the background if you did that.  In general such bodies take a dim view of companies that attempt to add extra costs to something after it has been sold.

Be sure to have all of the various notices suggested above be delivered by certified mail (so you can prove they were sent and when) and it wouldn't hurt to have them all notarized.  Oh, wait...

[Sukrim]

Be sure to have all of the various notices suggested above be delivered by certified mail (so you can prove they were sent and when) and it wouldn't hurt to have them all notarized.  Oh, wait...

... oh, no problem, as I could send certified mails, PDFs and so on with my personal DIGITAL SIGNATURE that is valid even in court but apparently not good enough for this Florida "lawyer".

I recently bought shares in a company with this signature, which was magnitudes above what I'd get out as dividend in Bitcoin here...
Anyways, I'm still waiting for that "soon" update about how many shares were claimed by how many shareholders and how many are still out there not claiming under these conditions.

[Deprived]

A bit of advice to you and others in your position.

IF your position is that you'd LIKE to claim the benefits of the bonds but can't/don't want to bear the costs of affidavit etc then send an email to Giga, his lawyer AND to someone reputable you know (who would later be willing to assert they received it).  In that email state that you assert claim to the bonds/contracts but do not believe the onus of bearing the costs of affidavit etc should rest on you given that HE added that requirement AFTER the contract had been purchased.  You could also offer that, if it isn't economically viable for him to cover those costs, then you are willing to cancel the contract entirely in return for the original investment less dividends to date back.

You then have a claim on record of ownership - AND have registered a dispute over who is liable for the costs.  Any arbitrary date he then sets for end of claims is NOT going to apply to you unless/until the dispute over who has responsibility for the cost of affidavit etc has been resolved.  Don't make the mistake of believing that if someone (or their lawyer) offers you two choices (do as I say or get nothing) that those ARE your only two options.

You could also copy his local Trading Standards (or whatever the local equivalent is) in on the email - but would need to explain a bit more of the background if you did that.  In general such bodies take a dim view of companies that attempt to add extra costs to something after it has been sold.

Be sure to have all of the various notices suggested above be delivered by certified mail (so you can prove they were sent and when) and it wouldn't hurt to have them all notarized.  Oh, wait...

No need for that - as Giga has already provided an email address for his lawyer.  As far as proof of delivery is concerned, that's only of relevance if delivery is denied.  It may shock you to learn that you only have to prove things when the other side disputes them.  Now often lawayers will attempt to put the other side to "strict proof" - where they essentially say that they ask for everything the other side says to be proven without committing themselves to accepting or denying it.  It doesn't work like that in small cases.

Obviously (I hope) anyone sending such an email would either want a response or would keep hounding on here about it and resending it until giga acknowledged receipt.  He asked for questions to be sent by email - all they're doing is following that instruction and, at the same time, making a statement that they intend to claim once the raised issue is resolved.  Then it's just a case of waiting to see what reason Giga's lawyer gives why the other party should pay costs arising because of Giga's error without any option to cancel the agreement.

[Holographic]

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins

[S3052]

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins

Thank you for bringing this up again.

1. I agree with you that Gigavps should DEFINITELY GET THE SCAMMER TAG
2. I also agree that based on the FINCEN info it is clear that we should request our shares back and otherwise sue him.

Gigavps you better fasten your seat belt.

[Holographic]

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins

Thank you for bringing this up again.

1. I agree with you that Gigavps should DEFINITELY GET THE SCAMMER TAG
2. I also agree that based on the FINCEN info it is clear that we should request our shares back and otherwise sue him.

Gigavps you better fasten your seat belt.

To be fair, I never said I think he should definitely get the scammer tag, although I am inclined to agree with this. I was merely asking for the specific reasons he didn't get it. I am yet to hear one single reasonable and/or relevant argument as to why he should not get the scammer tag (I honestly don't feel the reasons Theymos gave were reasonable). Especially now, in light of the FINCEN guidelines, it is becoming clear to me that this extremely convoluted "claims process" was just a way to pocket my coins and saying "oops, sorry guys my hands are tied!" It's strange how all the other GLBSE listings I had invested in, has had no problems paying back coins or continuing their operations, without a similar claims process.

As I live in Norway, it would be an extremely cumbersome and expensive affair to sue Mr. James Gibson. My 50 shares would of course not be worth the hassle either, and if the end result is me losing my coins, so be it. I will learn from the experience and I will surely be wiser next time.

Like I said earlier, I'm excited to hear this plan he is coming up with. I still have some faint hope that he will actually do the right thing now that FINCEN has cleared a few things up for us. After all, James is human like the rest of us, and I'm sure he knows that it is the actions of a man who makes a scammer or a thief, not some tag on a forum.

[ianspain]

I appreciate your advice Deprived, and I will look into this option.

I have to say the new guidelines from FINCEN makes this whole ordeal even more absurd. To some degree it indicates that there was never any legal pressure on Gigavps, and that all this verification was really not needed in the first place, but rather a way to prevent people like myself claiming what was theirs under the original contract. I will await Gigavps' answer and plan, and decide on a course of action then.

I feel really bad about this whole situation, not because I could not afford to lose these coins, but since I actually recommended Gigamining to some of my friends and coworkers. They have now lost everything they invested. They could of course also afford losing it all, but it still stings a little. I trusted Gigavps with my coins and felt that he was one of the most upstanding members of the bitcoin community.

Can someone explain to me why Gigavps has not been awarded the scammer tag? I know there is a thread on it, but there was never any real or sensible arguments presented as to how he could get away with it all. This is not a troll question, I'm actually just interested in what specific circumstances made it OK for Gigavps to change the contract, and simply keep the coins? Has there been any proof of government intervention, legal pressure or anything like this at all? Does he have friends in "high places"? Who actually decides who gets the scammer tag?

Gigavps, I would still like to thank you for changing your profile picture. There was something really infuriating about that snug smile of yours, knowing you had all of our increasingly valuable coins

Thank you for bringing this up again.

1. I agree with you that Gigavps should DEFINITELY GET THE SCAMMER TAG
2. I also agree that based on the FINCEN info it is clear that we should request our shares back and otherwise sue him.

Gigavps you better fasten your seat belt.

well stated

[jamesg]

Tried to send out payments this morning but it seems blockchain.info changed something with their SSL cert that java clients do not like. I have a support request open with piuk and continue to research the issue.

Needless to say, Monday payments will be delayed until this issue is resolved.

Best,
James

[GoWest]

So, given the fact that Butterfly Labs has not yet delivered, and may not deliver for several more weeks, if not months, could you at least give some consideration to those of us who have converted to a useless contract (Teramining) and pay out the dividends we would have received had we not converted?

I held 2484 shares of Gigamining, which cost me over 1 BTC each, on average. That was a lot of money that went into your pocket, and now you're keeping the dividends to yourself under the guise that "you signed the contract, too bad, so sad," even though it would take nearly zero effort on your part to make the change and pay out the dividends to the rightful shareholders.

[Otoh]

I paid for the early adapters upgrade to Tera because you assured me that it would work out to more than make up for the Giga dividends that I'd then miss, so far it's been 4 payments approx (7 + 7 + 6 + 6 BTC) totaling 26 BTC = about $2,000 that you've held on to, I trust that you will stand by your assurance that this will have been worth it or if it is becoming impractical due to BFL's delays then to scrap that plan, pay past dividends & treat all upgraders as equals when Tera starts.

Here's an Avalon update from the competition btw: https://i.imgur.com/78Iq4Mu.jpg