1001000+ entries in 0.828s
smickles: yeah, what's
the reasonable amount of
time
that I have
to secure and maintain
this btc?
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes, but in order
to have a deadline you have
to have a deadline
mircea_popescu: this is mostly cause i announced
that giga.etf goes away on dec 1st if it's not fixed
smickles: what am I going
to do with all
this btc if i don't get infos
BTC-Mining: Mircea,
the rationale behind
the interval is
that with how
things have been going, it is not clear or obvious
that Nefario lost any data or intends not
to return it. And being highly unpredictable and uncommunicative since
the start, one could expect
the information
to be released way past
the short delay you seem
to allow.
BTC-Mining: People like
to be private around Bitcoins it seems.
smickles: is
there news about
the asset info?
BTC-Mining: mircea, 1.3k is just what was claimed by people on
the forum. Most probably never claimed
their payment on my
thread, or were even aware of it or willing
to disclose how much
they had on it.
mircea_popescu: i mean, at first few days cause it might
take some
time
to recombobulate
the data
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i still don't understand why would he not have issued
the assets, if he's gonna do it.
BTC-Mining: So you could expect he actually intends
to refund everyone. Wether he can or screw up doing so however, is uncertain, since
there's already a screw up.
smickles: heh, he did from
the perspective of
those accounts </troll>
BTC-Mining: He didn't run away with >>ALL<<
the funds
smickles: BTC-Mining: "... He didn't run away with all
the funds. ..." << um actually you can't quite say
this, only 2 of my 3 accounts received btc back
mircea_popescu: maybe he wants satoshi pairs sent
to special mating addresses where
they can multiply, what do i know.
kuzetsa: mircea_popescu: probably
that one :P
sgornick: > mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving a shit or quite
the contrary,
mircea_popescu: so for clarity, you agree with
the principle, but disagree with
the interval ?
BTC-Mining: I do not dispute
the delisting, nor
the need
to eventually move on.
BTC-Mining: And yes, I dispute
the
time interval. Your argument so far was
that if payment periods go faster, why not
the
time allowed
to disclose
the information before considering it gone for good? But you yourself agreed
that
the
two were unrelated.
mircea_popescu: how do we count
that ? was it oct 1st ? or with goat ? or with yest when it finally went offline ?
BTC-Mining: No, after
the 1st December, you'll have kept it for more
than 2 months.
mircea_popescu: well so i said it's kept a month, you want it
to be kept
two. am i correct in inferring
that at least in principle you don't see a problem, and you mostly dispute
the actual
time interval ?
BTC-Mining: If Nefario is screwing
things up or being slow, it wouldn't excuse you from doing just as much in return. Plus it opens you
to accusations. You should keep
the data for at least more
than 2 months is what I am saying.
BTC-Mining: But Nefario seems
to only be able
to aford some lousy lawyer.
mircea_popescu: kuzetsa i own
the exchange glbse was
trying
to compete with.
mircea_popescu: look, i have in fact hired lawyers in
this life, i'm not
talking out of imagination.
kuzetsa: mircea_popescu:
the glbse flaming and whatnot... don't you have
ties
to a competing exchange? as such, isn'
BTC-Mining: Hmm, yes. But fact is, if it's indeed
true, he could limit his liabilities by applying regulations after he's been made aware of it, and would certainly get him
to delay
things a lot while consulting.
mircea_popescu: i
thought you were all against mixing fact and fiction.
mircea_popescu: half
the glbse shareholders are pretty much lieing scumbags, as it came out.
BTC-Mining: I'll have
to fetch
the sources, but it seems likely. Seems
to be what GLBSE shareholders claim.
BTC-Mining: If you don't know
the facts, he claims
to have asked
the FSA about it long ago but
they claimed not
to be concerned by anything Bitcoins related. (Probably miscommunication).
Trying
to go legal, he consulted again and was
told
to stop or he could be charged.
mircea_popescu: even
though
this was not specifically written out in
thecontract, a set interval of
time will be allowed for recovery
mircea_popescu: i mean... maybe he decides
to give us all candy, in
the future. it's possible, why not.
mircea_popescu: i still don't see how any of
this makes any sense or amounts
to an actual challenge
BTC-Mining: Decide
to require AML again for disclosing assets, or anything really.
BTC-Mining: So he could be checking further how
to minimize his liabilities.
BTC-Mining: But he seemed quite concerned of
the legalities when he closed. He didn't run away with all
the funds. He did
take
time
to start processing. He's probably still concerned.
mircea_popescu: nefario could in fact have released all
the data in question in half
the
time we
took discussing his idiocy so far.
mircea_popescu: that more
time could conceivably helpand
thus is a right ?
mircea_popescu: but do you actually claim
that objectively
the
time needed
to retrieve
the data is in
the months rather
than minutes scale ?
BTC-Mining: I claim payment period can possibly be more frequent, but not obligated. I want
to know why, because of
these faster periods (completly unrelated and optional), you feel it's ok
to move on and delete all data just as much faster, without any knowledge of what's happening on Nefario's side?
mircea_popescu: no, i do not. i
think
the weekly
thing is unconscionable.
BTC-Mining: Well who's
to say because it is easy and faster, it will be done so? You could pay out on S.MPOE daily or weekly, but you do not.
mircea_popescu: since
the very reason you gave for faster payment periods was ease of handling
the data
mircea_popescu: it's not like he has
to dig out records from a 5mn folders pile of paper.
mircea_popescu: so you are literally
telling me
that it
takes
two months
to do a couple sql queries on nefario's end ?
mircea_popescu: if "allows income and sharing of it much faster"
that'd seem on
the face
that it... allows...
things...moving...faster.
BTC-Mining: The
time my IRL broker moves on is not based on dividend periods, it's based on leaving
time for
the recovery of record.
That dividends are paid every day or every 10 years matters not.
mircea_popescu: but
the asset has in fact already missed something like 5 or 6 dividend payments, correct ?
BTC-Mining: I would attribute
the frequent dividend
to
the nature of Bitcoins.
They allow it for not being as slow and not requiring such wire fees for sending funds. Plus
the small nature of operations can also manage
to pay more often.
BTC-Mining: The dividends happen faster.
Time does not move faster.
They are different
things.
BTC-Mining: Dividends are paid more often simply because Bitcoins (and bitcoin mining) allows income and sharing of it much faster without all
the financial fees
to send
those funds around. Not because
time magically paces faster around Bitcoins.
mircea_popescu: now, i haven't DONE
THIS FIRST, but announced it with ample
time in advance exactly so as
to have
the opportunity for
this sort of conversation
BTC-Mining: If no
trace are found of records and it's obvious
they were destroyed, I would not mind
that my broker moves on and asks
the same of me. But
this is not
the case.
mircea_popescu: time moves at a different pace here, as proven by
the fact dividends are not paid yearly.
mircea_popescu: so,
to fix your example : if a rain of meteors obliterates
the nyse, and each and all scrap of
trace of
the existance, chain of custody and so forth of an asset
BTC-Mining: Especially with something as easy
to avoid by simply not willingly deleting
the data.
BTC-Mining: Yes, and it should have been done.
The fact GLBSE was 100% central seems moot however. Because
the fact
the data might not resurface and
the broker might not get access
to
the shares he held for me does not excuse him
to erase all data just for
the heck of it based on his personal expectations of what will happen. I would expect
the same from someone managing an ETF.
mircea_popescu: but you are familiar with
the circumstance
that
the nyse merely
trades,
there's clearing houses and depositary isntitutions which actually hold
the shares and settle/clear
the
transactions
BTC-Mining: It's not like someone lost at see who is declared as such because he can't survive
too long in
the open sea so all efforts should be abandoned. Shares can't die, even if lost for years.
BTC-Mining: Because
that's exactly what you're doing? Except
the moment where you
tell me I have
to let go.
BTC-Mining: the
traded company and
their stock don't exist without
the stock exchange. So he'll delete all his records of which stocks
that he held in my name because he consider
the ship lost at see. And if data comes back: "Oh sorry. Can't give you anything, I don't have records showing what I owe you."
BTC-Mining: What you're saying sounds like if my broker, after
the NYSE let's say is hit by a meteor and
trading is halted, coming
to me
to say he has no news of when it will come back and
that holders data might or might not be lost, possibly never
to come back and says "You have
to let go." (said in a very comforting voice, patting you on
the shoulder, with a grin on his face), because obviously
mircea_popescu: sure,
they're desperately needed, but unfortunately did not exist.
mircea_popescu: with glbse, nefario == glbse ==
the shares.
there's no way
to actually make
these distinctions you'd like
mircea_popescu: this is
true of mpex, yes, because mpex is correctly designed
BTC-Mining: Because GLBSE was never
the shares or represented
them,
they were merely a platform
to exchange
the bonds.
mircea_popescu: The shares were
traded on GLBSE. But GLBSE was never
the ship. << what's
this, cognitive dissonance 101 ?
BTC-Mining: The shares were
traded on GLBSE. But GLBSE was never
the ship. It never mined or produced
the returns. It was merely sending
the ship where it was
to be delivered. Now
the ship doesn't know where
to go.
mircea_popescu: there's sufficient reference
to "owning shares"
to satisfy
this point.
BTC-Mining: Your IPO
technically states: "The owner of
this ETF holds 900 perpetual 5.0Mh/s bonds (details), "