1000900+ entries in 0.677s
mircea_popescu: it is a pretty important point for btc in general, which is why i'm
taking
the
time
smickles: this is a facinating issue
to me :)
mircea_popescu: but even if i forfeit
this entitlement, i can only do it in a
time-limited way
mircea_popescu: in law i'm perfectly allowed
to not do it at all (hence
the discussion of involuntary bailee, you purport
to make me
the depositor of a 2' device which i never should have
to hold)
mircea_popescu: i might extend something like
this as a courtesy, and for a limited
time
mircea_popescu: once 2 goes away, you propose
that it is my obligation
to create a 2' vehicle
to bridge
this gap.
mircea_popescu: well, let it be on record
that what i mean by "GLBSE's mining
thing" is Gigamining shares, issued and
traded on GLBSE
mircea_popescu: again, if i had off-glbse private bonds
this entire discussion would be moot.
BTC-Mining: You own Gigamining shares, issued and
traded on GLBSE, but not "GLBSE's mining
thing"
BTC-Mining: You own shares in
the mining
thing, not
the glbse mining
thing.
BTC-Mining: He has no such clauses or anything reserving himself
the right
to arbitrarily and unilaterally void
the claims he sold himself.
smickles: overwhelming force has voided
the f.giga contract
smickles: the fractional claim is
the question?
smickles: so
the shares are his anyway
then
BTC-Mining: He didn't get
the shares unintentionally. He bought
them
to
then sell fractional claims
to
them.
mircea_popescu: 1. giga made a mining
thing ; 2. glbse listed
the mining
thing ; 3. i own shares in
the glbse mining
thing ; 4 i made a mpex
thing ; 5 you own shares in
the mpex
thing.
smickles: BTC-Mining: involuntary bailee seems
to say
that if someone is in possesion of something
that isn't
theirs, and
they came by
this possesion unintintionally,
then
they are not responsible
to
the real owner for what happens
to it
BTC-Mining: You own rights
to Gigamining bonds (on your own will). I own claims
to
them.
BTC-Mining: You're not even divesting from
the Gigamining shares, you're destroying your own ETF, issued by you. Divesting requires departing yourself of
the asset. But if information is disclosed, you will be in
their possession. What you are destroying are
the claims
to
them, which you are:
mircea_popescu: so, i made
thing A.
thing A is no longer. you want me
to be
the holder of substitute-thing B until such a
time
that you're satisfied.
smickles: i dunno
that much about involuntary bailee, i'm just searching for any sort of similar
thing
to what's going on here
BTC-Mining: And since you were not forced
to hold
them for
the ETF, I
think
that voids your right
to be entitled
to divest yourself of
the certificate either.
mircea_popescu: i wonder who should get it
this
time, pdpc got it last
time...
smickles: not forced
to hold? i giving it all back and nefario stopped
that and sent
the btc back
to me :/
BTC-Mining: Because you would have deleted all data with no intent
to further honor it, it stands as a financial gain. Gigavps keeps
track of what is due and would start paying out all missed payments.
BTC-Mining: I said if information was released after December 1st, you'd now be in possession of
those bonds.
BTC-Mining: You don't have
them now, no...
That's not what I said either.
mircea_popescu: if i had 1k bonds
this discussion wouldn't exist, i'd be paying dividends on
them lol.
BTC-Mining: Financial benefit? You are now in possession of ~1000 Gigamining bonds with no data of who held
the ETF or intention
to honor it.
BTC-Mining: But
that's
the
thing, you were not forced
to held
these for us and would gain a huge financial benefit if
the information is disclosed after you deleted
the data.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining because you can't force somebody
to hold something for you at
their expense ?
smickles: BTC-Mining: seems
to be statutory in common law
BTC-Mining: And does
that automatically make
that delay appropriate for everything? (the 10 days
thing)
mircea_popescu: there's no dispute
that in law i can drop
the entire
thing on oct
the 5th.
smickles: An exception
to all
the above is
the case of an involuntary bailee, one who by not intentional acts is made a bailee. For example, if one is given a stock certificate but it
turns out
to be
the wrong certificate (intended for someone else), he is an unintentional bailee, he has made no intentional act
to become a bailee. He is
therefore entitled
to divest himself of
the certificate regardless of a duty of care, so long as he does no malicious or
mircea_popescu: i mean, BTC-Mining : i received recently a request from neustar
to prove
that indeed i am entitled
to hold a .us domain
BTC-Mining: Delays for data recovery can never be determined exactly. I don't see why it would require
to be proven
to be acceptable or not.
mircea_popescu: smickles afaik
that's always been limited
to real property.
mircea_popescu: showing
that it's not convenient in
this particular case isn't much.
mircea_popescu: but
the only way
to quash
this would be
to show
that a
two month delay is not acceptable in principle.
BTC-Mining: I already stated he's relevant because he's
the only one holding
the assets information and able
to disclose it.
BTC-Mining: If he had never sent out so many payment and just stopped business like Pirate did and just stayed around, I would not have minded
the 1 month delay.
mircea_popescu: you keep refering
to nefario as if he's relevant. i don't see why he is relevant at all.
BTC-Mining: Because any individual, especially when dealing with
them personnally, can often report
to later for months
to a few years before resolving
the dispute or admitting he can't. And Nefario admitted he wouldn't accept any decision by GLBSE shareholder and would act however he wished
to protect himself.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i don't dispute, a long delay. why's 2 months not a long delay
tho.
smickles: BTC-Mining: from what i'm reading, it seems
that a resonable period of
time may be between 1 and 3 years
mircea_popescu: smickles in any event, i don't
think escheat would be
the controlling doctrine. more like
treasure
trove or somesuch
BTC-Mining: Even if you're not at fault, professionalism would recommend you allow a long delay
to account for
that.
smickles: I'm not going
to base my obligation on
the shortcomming of an asshat
BTC-Mining: But
there's none, because only Nefario can release
the data. And he's unreliable.
mircea_popescu: you
think we'll just change
the
terms based on each low-life
that happens
to blow
this way ?
mircea_popescu: man, but
this subject can'tbe decided based on nefario. nefario is below a negligible quantity.
BTC-Mining: Yes it's an opinion. Based on
the fact Nefario has been unreliable and he doesn't have an history of completing
task
this fast. So I find it unreasonable
to give a delay of 1 month.
gribble: Nick 'thestringpuller', with hostmask 'thestringpuller!~leflor@99-39-98-185.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net', is identified as user
thestringpuller, with GPG key id 0FF2943DA179E169, key fingerprint 6ACE36E786F39A4ADC4506DE0FF2943DA179E169, and bitcoin address None
BTC-Mining: 1 month before delisting, 6 before deleting
the data you hold, would be
the minimum I find acceptable.
BTC-Mining: Sorry.
The business stopped paying suddenly one day.
mircea_popescu: and it was "an obvious ponzi" pretty much
to
three people iirc.
mircea_popescu: if
those next few months are november,
then absolutely.
mircea_popescu: this notion
that
they hang on
the hope of pirate repaying 30 years later...
BTC-Mining: I don't expect 30 years. I'm just asking, suppose
the data is released in
the next few months, would you honor
the most recent information?
mircea_popescu: no but in general, people will have
to start reading up on write-offs.
BTC-Mining: I wasn't answering
to smickles... in hindsight, I was answering
the "lol, srsly", but it was probably destined
to smickles.
mircea_popescu: didn't you just say above you understand
there will have
to be some limit ?!
smickles: BTC-Mining: you expect
the data
to be kept for 30 years?
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: So you're actually going
to keep
the data?
mircea_popescu: (as well as in your backups, if you're downloading
the mpex backups with any frequency)
BTC-Mining: But you won't keep your side of
the data or honor anything, am I right?
mircea_popescu: anyone can keep
the stat saying "x F.GIGA" for as long as
they
think it's worth it.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i can't delete "all data" man.
the signed stats will forever exist.
smickles: thing is, Uncertainty and Doubt are good
things
mircea_popescu: 6 months "without sight" ? what if
the bloke pulls a strateman, drops by every season on btctalk
to post a
trollface ?
smickles: 6 months and
then what BTC-Mining ?
mircea_popescu: smickles i didn't want
to do it, i asked at
the
time
to keep it private, but eventually didn't want
to cause
trouble.
mircea_popescu: sgornick i originally had
them directly, but
then all pre-ipo holdings were
transformed into glbse shares
smickles: is
there any legal position
to be informed by?
sgornick: Wait, did
the giga.ETF manager obtain
the gigamining shares
through GLBSE, or direct from gigamiing?
mircea_popescu: i mean, FOREVER is off
the
table. now, how long is reasonable ?
smickles: it's not like i'm getting paid
to do it