Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2018, 11:50:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Diablo Mining Company  (Read 95476 times)
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:44:31 PM
 #661

Haven't you noticed you are the only troll left?

Actually, since you started posting here, Ive only heard of one single presumed shareholder who seemed to think what you proposed was a good idea, and just a few posts ago, he started having questions too; questions you are not addressing. That you are the only one left thinking this plan has any merit is probably closer to the truth, but maybe you can still convince Nebulus.
1527076202
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527076202

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527076202
Reply with quote  #2

1527076202
Report to moderator
1527076202
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527076202

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527076202
Reply with quote  #2

1527076202
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
nebulus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 500


... it only gets better...


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:47:06 PM
 #662

Banks change contracts all the time.
Here is a situation why changing a contract is actually useful.

Let's say the contract keeps a company obligated working with a certain supplier but the supplier produces defective product. It is in company's interest to get rid of the supplier regardless whether there are shareholders who oppose the move. Now, how its done its another story.

puffn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:47:31 PM
 #663

Diablo should get 50% of nav per share increases on a month to month basis based upon accounting by smickles.

Looking for safe diversification? YABIF: Good Returns, Low Fees, Low Risk.

GLBSE
Bitcointalk Page

I hold significant interest in
Bitcoin Mining Investments
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:48:53 PM
 #664

Banks change contracts all the time.

Indeed - and the means by which this occurs is detailed in the contract in the first place: not the case here.

And you are given a period of notice during which you can withdraw all your assets from them rather than agree to the new terms.
bitcoinbear
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
 #665

Haven't you noticed you are the only troll left?

Heh, far from it. Everybody is still watching you make an ass out of yourself.

Really, the way you are handling this situation has made me reconsider every other asset you are involved with. I was considering investing some money in one of your funds, but now I think that is a bad idea.

CryptoNote needs you! Join the elite merged mining forces right now here in Fantomcoin topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598823.0
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:54:02 PM
 #666

For the record,  I am deprived, Factory, Bitcoinbear, puffn, Deeplink, ianbakewell, MoinCoin, EskimoBob, Newar and Red Emerald. Not too mention, Pirate.
nebulus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 500


... it only gets better...


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 06:56:08 PM
 #667

Banks change contracts all the time.

Indeed - and the means by which this occurs is detailed in the contract in the first place: not the case here.

And you are given a period of notice during which you can withdraw all your assets from them rather than agree to the new terms.

Well, man, one thing man...

You should have brought it up before buying shares because apparently no solution sticks with you.

Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
 #668

You can't change the terms of the contract by motion.

Thank you for outing yourself as puppet. You DO realize that you are the only person who thinks this?

Here's an explanation you can hopefully understand:

If you have 1000 contracts with someone and I have 1 identical contract with that same party then you can ONLY change your own 1000.  Not my 1.  Shares ARE a contract - their value is determined by the rights/obligations they confer/impose on the parties to that contract.  You can't change the contract of DMC unless you own, control or have the agreement of every single other share-holder.

Nope.

If you want a changed contract for DMC you need the agreement of myself, puppet, deeplink etc.  You aren't going about things the right way to get that.

*shrug* If you want the company liquidated, then voice your concerns to Nefario. How many times do I have to say it? This isn't a court of public opinion. As Diablo-D3's representative I will be speaking to Nefario on this directly.

a) Diablo was reported for breaking his contract.
b) The ASICMINER trades were done with the consent of the 50-60% majority shareholder at the time.
c) The ASICMINER trades were explained to Nefario and ColdHardMetal in IRC at the time and were cleared. They won't be reversed unless there is a successful shareholder motion.
d) We are proposing a change to the contract which solves the ACTUAL COMPLAINTS which caused Nefario to freeze DMC.
e) We will propose the current motion be rescinded, the contract changed, and Diablo-D3 reinstated as CEO.
f) If you have failed to understand A-E, they will be repeated to you until you give up.

Dear Trolls; this is not going to go your way. This is not about the ASICMINER trade and it is not a court of public opinion. Have a nice day... lol

This isn't even as serious as you make it out to be.

Your only line of argument seems to be:

"You're wrong"
"You don't understand"
"You don't get it"

etc etc

Just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "No" every time someone says anything is NOT proof of anything other than your own ignorance.

I'm getting near the point of requesting you be barred from this thread for trolling - just repeatedly saying "You're wrong" is totally unproductive.

To address your listed points:

a) agreed
b) The agreement of the 60% share-holder is irrelevant.  Either Diablo had the authority to do that trade under his contract or he didn't.  If he had the right to do the trade then no agreement of anyone was necessary.  If the trade breached his contract then no percentage of shareholders less than 100% could agree to vary the contract and make the trade allowable.
c) Not hugely relevant.
d) You can't vary the contract without the unanimous assent of all shareholders - as there is no mechanism within the contract for such a change.  Where contracts DO contain a mechanism for being varied then there is always an associated means by which all parties are given notice and a way to withdraw from the contract without losing any of the value they were entitled to under the original contract.
e) You can vote down the current motion.  You can't change the contract.  Diablo still is CEO - he hasn't been fired, just suspended during investigtion.
f)  You can repeat things as often as you want.  It won't make you any more correct.

Saying "I have lots of contracts so I can change yours as well" is wrong.  Saying it 100 times doesn't make you any less wrong - it just makes you look progressively more stupid.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 07:35:52 PM
 #669

Banks change contracts all the time.

Indeed - and the means by which this occurs is detailed in the contract in the first place: not the case here.

And you are given a period of notice during which you can withdraw all your assets from them rather than agree to the new terms.

Well, man, one thing man...

You should have brought it up before buying shares because apparently no solution sticks with you.

Why would I need to do that?  In buying the shares I accepted the associated contract.  Provided that contract is adhered to I have no problems.  Obviously if the contract is broken and I suffer material loss as a result of those breaches then I may want to pursue recompense for such loss.  To clarify that:

If I make a contract with someone that they will do X
And instead they do Y and Y is in breach of their contract
And doing Y rather X makes me suffer a loss

Then I have a very strong claim for the loss caused by them doing Y rather than X.

It's not my contention (at this stage) that the above scenario is what happened - the audit and whatever explanations Diablo/his mouthpiece provide will be needed to clarify that.

And there's no right in the DMC contract to change the contract (any such clause would also need to define what happened if I chose not to agree to the new contract) - so why would I need to bring anything up?
Factory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 09:33:17 PM
 #670

Usagi, could you please respond to my concerns and criticism raised about amendment 2a that I posted earlier today? I highlighted some serious issues to be had with that amendment. I believe that is one of the most controversial clauses and deserves more attention. If you could be as thorough and concise as possible, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
deeplink
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


In cryptography we trust


View Profile
September 17, 2012, 11:47:59 PM
 #671

I just want to wait for the result of both the audit and Nefario's motion.

Thank you for saying what was on my mind for me. As for you being a shareholder, keep in mind this is a democracy, and no one has more shares than I do of DMC going into this motion. Why do you think I was accepted by Diablo-D3 as his representative here?

If you acquired your shares in a fair way you may be right. Shareholders should be able to decide that after an audit, because until now we still have no information at all what has happened exactly.

An audit will show that either:

1) Diablo has mismanaged the company and/or misled his investors, in that case you should not be allowed to vote on any motions as you are now an accomplice

2) You and Diablo are in the clear and shareholders have to accept your "proposal" because you hold the majority of the shares. To me this is not democracy but more like dictatorship. Shareholders have been played because a single party has taken possession of the company without anyone noticing. No wonder Diablo has turned to you as his representative. You now own him.

Either way the market will decide if you and Diablo can be trusted again with other people's money.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 02:13:36 AM
 #672

Latest update on the audit is that it's about 1/3 complete. If it's not ready before the vote, allowing adequate time for discussion and analysis then I will move the vote expiration date back.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Red Emerald
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 02:18:25 AM
 #673

At this point, I would prefer DMC to liquidated as I see that as my only way out. Do we have the necessary numbers to tell how large of a loss that would be? A new and separate contract with whatever changes you want could easily be drafted.

If the 20% salary is changed to profit or Diablo is paid in shares (where he is still paid from profits), I would be happier, but would likely still prefer to be out of this altogether as my faith in the company has been heartily shaken.

Usagi, not everyone is super active on the forums.  Sometimes I need a day or so to respond.  Puppet is most definitely not the only one voicing his concerns in this public forum.

Also, please answer all of Factory's questions.  I also want to know the answers.

Thanks for helping out with this Nefario.  Without you here, there would be no actual recourse for shareholders.  I'm not saying Diablo would have necessarily run away with everyone's coin (what little is left at least), but I don't see how any of this discussion could have happened if you had not stepped in.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 03:00:22 AM
 #674

I think Factory makes a lot of sense and Diabo should be paid from net income not from gross revenue.

fwiw I just reread DMC contract and it doesnt say anything about what price shares can or cannot be sold. The contract doesnt say much at all except the way earnings will be divided.


Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
September 18, 2012, 04:29:01 AM
 #675

I just want to wait for the result of both the audit and Nefario's motion.

Thank you for saying what was on my mind for me. As for you being a shareholder, keep in mind this is a democracy, and no one has more shares than I do of DMC going into this motion. Why do you think I was accepted by Diablo-D3 as his representative here?

If you acquired your shares in a fair way you may be right. Shareholders should be able to decide that after an audit, because until now we still have no information at all what has happened exactly.

An audit will show that either:

1) Diablo has mismanaged the company and/or misled his investors, in that case you should not be allowed to vote on any motions as you are now an accomplice

2) You and Diablo are in the clear and shareholders have to accept your "proposal" because you hold the majority of the shares. To me this is not democracy but more like dictatorship. Shareholders have been played because a single party has taken possession of the company without anyone noticing. No wonder Diablo has turned to you as his representative. You now own him.

Either way the market will decide if you and Diablo can be trusted again with other people's money.


An audit will show that either:

1) Your IQ is below 100

2) You are the one who is actually responsible for the DMC fiasco, and whether or not you can be trusted with other people's money.

Either way, you cannot hide from the truth.

And Diablo paid you 5 BTC to say that on his behalf?  He's getting really great PR for his money.
Newar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000


https://gliph.me/hUF


View Profile
September 18, 2012, 06:19:05 AM
 #676

Latest update on the audit is that it's about 1/3 complete. If it's not ready before the vote, allowing adequate time for discussion and analysis then I will move the vote expiration date back.
Good. Let's wait for the audit and then take it from there.

OTC rating | GPG keyid 1DC91318EE785FDE | Gliph: lightning bicycle tree music | Mycelium, a swift & secure Bitcoin client for Android | LocalBitcoins
matthewh3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 09:31:43 AM
 #677

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.0 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

matthewh3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 09:59:07 AM
 #678

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.0 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

Or after RSM receives the DMC assets we could sell (some) them to purchase BFL-ASIC's so RSM's >57(MH/s)per share isn't hit too bad by paying DMC in RSM shares.

matthewh3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 12:43:55 PM
 #679

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.0 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

Or after RSM receives the DMC assets we could sell (some) them to purchase BFL-ASIC's so RSM's >57(MH/s)per share isn't hit too bad by paying DMC in RSM shares.

RSM motions would be held on DMC first.  With the result of the DMC motion being used to vote on its shares within the RSM motion.

matthewh3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
September 18, 2012, 02:24:20 PM
 #680

If you are to vote on changing the CEO I may be able to help by absorbing your DMC assets into Red Star Mining - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63257.0 -.  RSM is currently working on a motion to raise us to 57.142857143(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 each or 1(GH/s)@BTC5.25.  What I think best would happen is RSM absorbs DMC assets and pays DMC around the going rate for them in RSM shares.  So DMC receives weekly dividends from RSM and then I use them or pay them out as DMC share holders see fit in a motion.  I can't promise to be able to offer this service yet as I'd have to get it to pass a motion of RSM shareholders.  Also RSM shareholders would only take it on if it wasn't going to hurt them and can profit from it as well some how.

Or after RSM receives the DMC assets we could sell (some) them to purchase BFL-ASIC's so RSM's >57(MH/s)per share isn't hit too bad by paying DMC in RSM shares.

RSM motions would be held on DMC first.  With the result of the DMC motion being used to vote on its shares within the RSM motion.

I've successfully managed to steer RSM from GPU > FPGA > ASIC and rather than just liquidize your assets you could invest them into RSM.  We are already working on >57(MH/s)per share at BTC0.30 and with DMC assets we could improve that (MH/s)per share rate greatly.  Any ideas can be put to the table by DMC shareholders but RSM shareholders will only agree if it doesn't hurt them and they can profit too.  So if any DMC share holders want this to go to a vote then show some support for a motion.  Thanks. Matt CEO of RSM. 

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
  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!