1000700+ entries in 0.675s
BTC-Mining: You would need
the most recent database backup
to identify legitimate claims would you not?
BTC-Mining: Suppose your ETF has 1000 units. Someone has 900 shares and a signed statement from November
the 29th. Someone has 100 units and 10 accounts, and 10 statement from
the 30th of november for 100 units, one for each of
those accounts.
smickles: oh gawd, i'm going
to be in one of your posts looking silly again arn't i?
BTC-Mining: After
that statement, I
think it went unnanswered and we kind of dropped getting anything clear out of it =/
BTC-Mining: I never addressed smickles or what he said at
that point.
BTC-Mining: No, I stated afterward I answered yes
to your "lol srsly" as if it was an answer
to my question.
mircea_popescu: but you said yes
to smickle's 30 years and i said nope
BTC-Mining: I
think
that part 2 hours ago is where it happened...
BTC-Mining: [22:21] <BTC-Mining> Will you honor
the most recent data available as of who owns what of
the ETF should
the information be disclosed and you get access
to
the funds received
through it?
BTC-Mining: But I guess you were answering
to
the litteral sense of my question...
BTC-Mining: I
think I asked something like, would you honor a signed statement? Which you answered as "No"
mircea_popescu: lol you know i could say "if you only asked
this
two hours ago" just as well :p
BTC-Mining: If you don't want
to pronounce yourself on something with unkown variables, just state it.
mircea_popescu: well, i don't
think it was wasted
time, something
tells me
this discussion will form precedent for many later discussions.
BTC-Mining: Even with 1 month delays or even 1 week delays would be fine with me
then...
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining lol we
talked of
this before, i have no way of knowing from
the onset what exactly is
the form
that's clear
to you
BTC-Mining: Because
that is PERFECTLY fine with me.
BTC-Mining: We could have stopped
this conversation 2 hours ago if you simply and clearly stated it
that way
then...
mircea_popescu: and i fully appreciate it may seem insane or w/e, but
the fact of
the matter is we are involved in very complex
transactions and
the only way
to do all
this is
to do it CORRECTLY
BTC-Mining: Ok, so all signed statement has a CERTAIN claim value, but you won't pronounce yourself on
that value until you know
the facts regarding
the future situation for such claims.
mircea_popescu: turns out i was responsible
to do it,
too, cause it prevented
teh crisis from compounding
to some degree.
mircea_popescu: because i can't make future viewing statements on contingencies like
that.
mircea_popescu: and i had
to stick
to "all i'll do is pass along all
that's passed
to me"
mircea_popescu: no, cause it's a future question and i don't know
the contingencies.
BTC-Mining: I'm really confused... can't you just say if you'll honor or not a valid claim
to any shares?
mircea_popescu: now, it'll all come down
to whether your claim is legitimate at
thatp oint.
BTC-Mining: Okay, let's
take it from another angle.
BTC-Mining: Seriously, why do you even have
them if you nor anyone else accepts
them?
smickles: mircea_popescu: directly, if I had proof
that i owned f.gigg.etf on dec 1, would you give me fair value of
those shares at any point in
the future if i relinquish my ownership of
them?
BTC-Mining: So
the signed statements are pretty much... pointless,
then.
BTC-Mining: But what good would
that do
to be able
to prove you owned
them at some point?
mircea_popescu: but as explained above,
this does not actually degrade anyone's ability
to prove
that
they did own
them at some point.
mircea_popescu: it specifically does not say what happens if
they even later prove
to have been mistakenly discarded as worthless (as in, are worth something).
smickles: yeah, well, i'm inclined
to agree with
that course of action myself :
BTC-Mining: Not about statments from MPEx coming after december 1st because
there would be none.
BTC-Mining: but
that's
the
thing, Mircea said he would not accept any signed statement or backup of his database if asset information is disclosed after December 1st (from GLBSE part)
smickles: (i.e. in
this situation,
the f.giga holder)
smickles: burden of proof is on
the person making
the positive assertion
smickles: i
took
that
to mean a stat made after dec 1
smickles: BTC-Mining: i bet,
that presenting a stat after info is released would get your benefit back
BTC-Mining: It WOULD be good if you
told Gigavps you were writing
them off and we could give him
those signed statements
BTC-Mining: It WOULD be good if you didn't keep any profit from
that decision from GIGAMINING shares and donated it
to a charitable cause.
mircea_popescu: (and
that's why
the mpex system is so good, incidentally)
mircea_popescu: there's
two different
things here, do you realise
this ? your ability
to prove
that you owed X shares of Y is never going away.
that's why you get stats.
mircea_popescu: so at
the very least under
the guise of protecting your interest you're
trying
to
tell me how
to sort my files lol
mircea_popescu: you were
talking about "data being deleted". a customer wanting
to push a claim would be in no worse position
today, on
the 5th of december 2012 or 2015
smickles: save it, send it off
to amazon glacier
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining it at
the very least changes
the customer's position not one bit.
smickles: doesn't
that imply he'll honor
them before dec 1?
BTC-Mining: What good would prior notice and saving
the statement do?
smickles: < mircea_popescu> since for instance i announced
the exact
time, what's
to keep customers from just saving a stat ?
BTC-Mining: You said YOURSELF you won't honor
the statements if
the information is released after December 1st.
smickles: BTC-Mining: i've lost
too high a % of my net worth by extending people courtesies
to continue
the practice
mircea_popescu: since for instance i announced
the exact
time, what's
to keep customers from just saving a stat ?
BTC-Mining: of not pressing "delete" on all
the data for
the ETF's for your customers' sake.
BTC-Mining: What
that 1 month
tells me is because Nefario completly fucked up, although you know about it and although you know he further screwed on
the 16th and you know he's never been quite good at PR, because it could be done in 5 minutes by you (which you know won't happen) or
that he might never disclose it (again, a possibility, not an absolute), you can't be assed
to extend
the courtesy
mircea_popescu: btw copumpkin have you noticed
the "refards" signature in
that email ?
smickles: they
take my spelling away from me
smickles: i have no patients for giving people a little more
time
mircea_popescu: smickles but at least it'd be you know... he said by
today, it's not done yet... well let's give it a little and see
smickles: mircea_popescu: yeah, but releasing
the data by
the end of
the month is unreasonably long, unless he could point
to a specific detail (law) which prevented him from doing so in
that
time frame
mircea_popescu: smickles if he had
the common courtesy
to say you know, on oct 1, we are closed, i expect
to pay everyone by
the end of
this week and release data by
the end of
the month cause so and so problems
smickles: mircea_popescu: go
to missouri eviction legal with one day of default
BTC-Mining: Let me
try
to explain it from my point of view.
smickles: and without a declared
timeframe from nefario, i'm starting
to
think
that we can't reasonably expect
to get
the data in a reasonable amount of
time
BTC-Mining: No. Because
that's 40 years. It's unreasonable.
mircea_popescu: and his employer announces
that next salary will be paid in 2050
smickles: mircea_popescu: have you asked gigga if he'll honor your shares for
the etf?
BTC-Mining: Because he has
the damn information
to release and you have
the claims
to
the shares I have claims
to.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining why do you
think it matters what nefario said after
the giga.etf
thing was made ?
smickles: i'm sure it's april fools day even if it was
the 11th
BTC-Mining: Nowhere does he states how much
time he will
take
to do it. Just
that he's suddenly very concerned by a few regulations.
mircea_popescu: at any rate find me some place nefario says "and btw, if glbse goes down i will
take ~6 months
to release infos" on or around april 11, 2012
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining no such license eh. for one, how it was said it was going
to be done is "instant". check out
the guy's presentations at his nonference
copumpkin: mircea_popescu: omg,
that's exactly what I said
BTC-Mining: The expected
time it will
take, not in as fast you could do it, but how fast it could be expected
to be done according
to how it's been said it's going
to be done.
mircea_popescu: copumpkin fwiw, i contacted his
theoretical lawyer about
two weeks ago.
copumpkin: since
that just looks like shitty excuses for not getting your shit done
copumpkin: if he's bound by laws, he can
tell us what
those laws are, at least
smickles: 03:42 < BTC-Mining> Yes, but
the delays should be set accordingly
to
the expected
time it will
take
them
to do so, and you usually add an extra on
that in case. <<
the expecte
time for him
to release
the shareholder info should've been about a week
mircea_popescu: it's how long
the
thing
takes, not how long
the
thing
takes nefario.
mircea_popescu: dude...
there's no doctrine of "how long it
takes some mentally retarded guy
to pay
the bill"
BTC-Mining: It's how long it
takes
to retrieve it from
the database. Not how long it
takes
to disclose it for some paranoid fuck who just started consulting a lawyer.