1000500+ entries in 0.665s
knotwork: some lawyer pursuing
the person on behalf of a bunch of layr-client-priviledged PGP keys
knotwork: nah it'd have
to be a PGP-class action suit :)
BTC-Mining: Where if you were
to pursue some actual person for financial fraud.
BTC-Mining: knotwork, yes
there's signed digital statements, but I meant
to answer Mircea's statement about commercial litigation house
knotwork: take it as a hint
that you read
too much :)
knotwork: oh he has one of
those you read
too much
things?
knotwork: and
that same private key can also sign a digital statement
to
the effect
that it wants
them back and why
BTC-Mining: And if
that person was always dealing from
TOR, never
tied
the bitcoins
to a
transaction
toward one of his bank account and denies owning
the address, you can't provide a proof.
knotwork: and I do not have
to prove I sent
them,
the blockchain proves a certain private key ordered
them sent
BTC-Mining: Ah, sorry. I was not using legal
terms, only
the general meaning of stealing.
knotwork: it gets into why I sent
them
to
them in
the first place
knotwork: sending
them
to someone who
then fails
to do right by me in regard
to
them is a bit more complicated
knotwork: stolen is when I didnt send
them
to anyone yet I no longer have
them
knotwork: no,
that would be
to attempt
to claim fraud or fiduciary negligence etc
BTC-Mining: No,
to prove someone stole your funds, you'd have
to prove you ever sent it
to
that person.
knotwork: to prove someone stole my wallet I have
to prove where I spent its contents?
BTC-Mining: And
that may well be denied by
the defendant and impossible
to prove.
BTC-Mining: I meant
that for any case where funds were stolen, you'd have
to prove in courts who you sent
the bitcoins
to.
knotwork: your PGP identity is your offshore or not corp
that does or does not reveal its owners
knotwork: in other words, if you wanted anonymity you provided it
to yourself if you didnt well sorry you didnt, not my problem
knotwork: re "They", maybe "they" would say of course your offshore corp in a place
that doesnt reveal corp owners is not anonymous and we will not hide its identity
smickles: or maybe another side of
the same 'beta-coin'
smickles: oh,
that musta been beta b/f
the beta i knew of
BTC-Mining: Where criterions are
the applicable laws and
the fact
the case does not bring any receivable proof for
the litigation
to apply
those laws.
knotwork: he wanted well known/identified people
to come look at his system and consider issuing something
there
BTC-Mining: Mircea,
they'd all say: "We're sorry, but
the criterions for your case does not make you not eligible
to be a client of ours."
knotwork: also it was more about issuing assets maybe
than buying other peoples assets
smickles: heh, sry
to seal you
thunder :)
knotwork: though had I wanted
to use an anonymous one maybe ...
smickles: i
think you only had
to prove an ident was you, not have it be
the ident for mpex
knotwork: I was an early adopter invitee, so possibly
the invite actually was contingent upon my using my OTC identity?
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i
tell you,
the shit we get involved in here would put
to shame a full fledged commercial paper litigation house
mircea_popescu: knotwork
this is something
that MAY happen, but i'll still
try and protect
them
BTC-Mining: I believe he'll pay out what Gigamining's shares pay
to
the ETF holder if any receivable claim arrise in
the future, where
the info would eventually be disclosed and Gigavps would resume payments, and where
the claimer has receivable proof he held ETF units.
knotwork: so if I owned giga passsthrough shares I would of course suffer
the consequences of having used a known identity
mircea_popescu: and in general it'd be a premier way
to cause a mess. i'll pass
smickles: and why should giga
trust
that mircea_popescu only issued a proportional amount of
the etf shares?
mircea_popescu: knotwork
there's plenty of problems. for once
the scale is 1:1000, for another it wasn't a direct holding, and i see no good reason
to pressure giga
this way (which would be really abusive
tbh)
smickles: i'm sure not everyone did
that
knotwork: any relation between
those identities and actual people
the people were warned up front not
to cause/create
knotwork: only
the information about a bunch of anonymous sock puppets / PGP identities would be released
knotwork: their infomration wont be disclosed
to gigavps
BTC-Mining: I don't see mircea going around asking
the ETF holders if
they want
their information disclosed
to Gigavps
knotwork: oh is he one of
the "I never sold anyone anything" like Goat not long ago said?
knotwork: regardless, giga can no doubt handle it, nd you can give him
that info sooner
than he hears from GLBSE how many actual shares your entire bunch of PGP people had between
them
knotwork: was
the scale such
that some owners might have owned
thereby a fractional number of actual gigavps?
knotwork: so
there ya go mircea, just give giga
the full data on how much of your passthrough each PGP identity owned
knotwork: some idiot service recently refused
to let me use
that identity because I sent
them
the email from a real email address
that can actually accept email
mircea_popescu: knotwork nah gpg string is just submited as a post
to an url.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining back a year or so ago mpoe
traded by email. i
think knotwork isn't up
to date with
the new
trade paradigm
knotwork: but unlike GLBSE he need not do weird codes shit, since he
told everyone up front
that if
they want
to be anonymous
they should create a PGP identity no one knows is
them. didnt he? or am I confused having just read bunch of how
to
Torify email sites?
mircea_popescu: knotwork "anyone could have made up any ficitional but syntactically possible email address
to make up a PGP identity for" <<
this part is correct
knotwork: he should just send giga
the list of shareholders just like GLBSE is
theoretically imagined
to be planning
to maybe someday do
knotwork: Mircea should not have
to worry about later claims and honouring
them
knotwork: later I say one could paste into a web form but was
that
the only way? was
there never a send orders by email?
knotwork: I
thought I registered
there by sending a PGP-crypted email?
knotwork: doesn't MPEx
take orders via email?
knotwork: Because, I recall being annoyed recently at some other site or service or somesuch
that rejected my PGP identity seemingly due
to its email address (one
that does not exist
thus doesnt receive spam) not being where I emailed from
knotwork: I am pretty sure MPEx does not refuse email orders
that come from an email address
that is not officially
tied
to
the PGP identity whose orders
that email address is sending
knotwork: thus whether giga would learn who
they are given
their PGP identity is up
to
them, as
they were
told from
the start
knotwork: I
think MPEx did let me do
that, and if so,
then anyone could have made up any ficitional but syntactically possible email address
to make up a PGP identity for
BTC-Mining: It seems
that if appropriate and feasible, and someone makes a claim with a signed statement Mircea finds out
to be receivable, he will honor
the claim.
knotwork: possibly it might even be
that MPEx can simply directly
tell gigavps which PGP identity held how much
knotwork: since people were explicitly warned up front
that whether
the PGP identity
they use at MPEx would correlate
to
their real identity was in
their own hands,
knotwork: send gagavps data
that will allow MPEx people who held gigavps shares
through GLBSE->MPEx
to contact giva directly
knotwork: ok done
the backscroll. Sounds like MPEx should do like GLBSE ought
to, which is, release
the info
to in
this case givavps
BTC-Mining: It looks like BenDavis has no understanding of
the concept of "intent" in
the law.
BTC-Mining: [05:35] <@BenDavis> So. You sending
them when
they are not yours... makes YOU
the
thief.
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <@Geebus> By
that definition, our users have stolen 26200 bitcoins from us
through
transactions we have sent
to
them.
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <@BenDavis> Are
they YOUR coins, yes or no.
BTC-Mining: [05:34] <phantomcircuit> so
the answer isn't yes or no
BTC-Mining: Hmm, I somehow managed
to end up reading a
thread about some Intersango drama dating september 2011
BTC-Mining: In
the end, everything was fine, but we each lost ~2-3 hours of meaningless argumentation.
BTC-Mining: Well, basically, yes. I was asking mircea about what was going
to be deleted and understood his statements differently
than what he meant.
knotwork: but, you did use
the
term ETF rather
than pass-through, even
though you also commented maybe casually rather
than stated officially/technically
that it was kind of sort of maybe at least much akin
to a passthrough
knotwork: so even
though it was you who dealt with Nefario
the people you got
them for still have claim
through
to Nefario, "in equity", maybe
knotwork: you got
the stuff from Nefario/GLBSE for
the purpose of others receiving it
knotwork: seems maybe similar/related
to
the "a beneficiary was intended" stuff in contracts, mentioned in some pirate
threads
knotwork: the "discarded as worthless" part is what? more a colloquialism? or a
technical
term meaning something specific?
knotwork: oh right,
the real actual effect is actual de-listing
mircea_popescu: no, im just
trying
to explain
to ppl why starting dec 1st
there won't be any f.giga.etf listed in
their STAT responses
knotwork: Or are you basically
trying
to buy
them all back so
that by
the
time
they are "discarded as worthless" no one is stuck with any anyway?
mircea_popescu: you know, you can't just not show people symbols in stats w/o
teling
them in advance
knotwork: a
technical loophole - we dis-carded as in its not writ on stone nor cardboard anymore, more of a mere paper
trail ow
knotwork: (yes we deleted
the shares as worthless. Oh suddenly dividends
turn up? no we didn't delete rcords, presto undelete...)
mircea_popescu: well i guess all
this is new, so people make varied assumptions
knotwork: Not asleep, just
taking a long
time
to backtrack
to figure out if
the whole dramafest-recap-and-rerun was ultimately just something
thinking "discard as worthless" implied or intended "deletion of records"