1011000+ entries in 0.805s
midnightmagic: OneEyed: I would be interested
to know about
the "name of a guy who didn't even speak English" part. Where did you read
that?
OneEyed: Smoovious: sure, as I don't expect water
to
turn into wine on my
table, if it does, well, so much
the better
midnightmagic: OneEyed: You should be more careful about
the word "testified".
midnightmagic: OneEyed: If I had concluded it was not a scam, I would have been on
the "buying up pirate debt"
train a long
time ago.
OneEyed: Smoovious: a lot of *facts* call for scam. He
took
the money. He met only selected people in Vegas when he
told he would meet anyone willing
to, and some people have
testified
that
they asked him
to meet. He pretended
that
Trendon Shavers was a DBA, and
that it was
the name of a guy who didn't even speak English.
midnightmagic: OneEyed:
That is correct, it would be foolish
to assume or conclude it is not a scam.
midnightmagic: Disclosure: I have zero dollars invested; I "own" zero pirate debt. I have zero
to gain from his being, or not being, a scam, except in
the circuitous rep-of-bitcoin sense.
OneEyed: midnightmagic: sure, it would be foolish
to assume in any way it is not a scam, as not a single fact suggests
that it is not one. Not one! Did we find out
the accounts supposed
to have been repayed for example? Or did we get an amount? Nothing, none, zip.
midnightmagic: OneEyed: I just
told you. I don't believe it's a non-scam. Why do you
think
this is a binary choice?
OneEyed: midnightmagic: once again, what makes you believe it can be a non-scam? Only his declarations? You're a
trusting guy :)
midnightmagic: OneEyed: Yes,
that is why I say
the balance appears
to be on "scam". However, in
the absence of facts, it is foolish
to draw firmer conclusions.
midnightmagic: But why explain when it could
taint any legal defence he might be mounting?
OneEyed: midnightmagic: so
turn it
the other way: only vague declarations may suggest an alternate explanation --
that it is not a scam.
midnightmagic: There are no actual facts about
the movement of money either way.
OneEyed: midnightmagic:
the explanations were not backed by any fact, right? Any.
midnightmagic: OneEyed: Yes.
The explanations he's given, so far, do not suggest scam. Only
the actions
themselves suggest an alternate explanation--that being scam.
OneEyed: midnightmagic: judging if an investment is a scam is not
the same
thing as judging people,
there is no "innocent until proven guilty",
this is much more balanced. And right now,
the balance clearly goes
to
the scam side, and by an enormous lot
OneEyed: midnightmagic: you have probably seen many signals
that indicate
that it may be a scam (people not getting money for
the main one, without any explanation). Have you seen any signal
that may indicate it is not a scam?
midnightmagic: OneEyed: Don't get me wrong.
The balance is on
the scam side.
midnightmagic: OneEyed: And no, given
the balance of probabilities, "most likely" is
too strong, even now.
OneEyed: (it may not be a scam, but pirateat40 has not offered any evidence [not even soft evidence]
that
the bitcoins were invested in anything real)
OneEyed: midnightmagic: what I'm saying is
that in
the absence of proof
that it is a scam and in
the absence of proof
that it isn't, given
the current situation, it is most likely a scam
OneEyed: midnightmagic: note
the "may", as we may discover it is a scam by proving it is a scam if, for example, accounting books are found
OneEyed: midnightmagic: according
to your reasoning, we may never be able
to call it a scam, if he continues
to pretend he will pay later for centuries. Right?
midnightmagic: mircea_popescu: Your -pr girl wasn't
the only one calling pirate a scam.
There were lots of other people. On
the other hand,
there's still no hard evidence
that anyone has seen
that it is. Not yet.
The only
thing going for
the notion is
time, but
there are alternative explanations.
OneEyed: "Now you can follow
thought leaders on LinkedIn - Barack Obama - Follow Barack"
OneEyed: Is
that new
that LinkedIn is
trying
to be
the new
Twitter?
OneEyed: Smoovious: why not invest in $? Or do you want
to bring in people with € as well,
through BTC?
OneEyed: Smoovious: why would such a guy
take a BTC loan with all
the risks if brings?
mircea_popescu: it means
there are very few competent people, and nobody is interested in a.
taking over a blown asset ; b. doing anything on glbse
OneEyed: Or does
that mean
that he doesn't know competent people, or
that
those people wouldn't
touch CPA with a 10 foot pole?
OneEyed: I don't know, but he would probably know people
trusting him
to get a healthy asset and
that he
trusts
to hand it over
OneEyed: One
thing I don't understand about usagi desire
to close CPA: why doesn't he hand it over
to someone else if he doesnt' want
to manage it anymore?
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: I hadn't read
the whole
thread, I just read your new local rules indeed :)
OneEyed: Btw, I see in Usagi
thread (NYAN.B closing)
that
the girl and others were "locally banned". Is
that enforced by
the moderators, or do you control yourself?
OneEyed: A bug which you have nailed down, but reappears
three days later
OneEyed: I've read about Jesus bugs
today
mircea_popescu: my pr girl called
the pirate
thing a scam, at a
time nobody else was,
the list goes on and on. for better or worse, i r messiah.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: don't act as if you were *the* messiah announcing what's
true and what's not :)
mircea_popescu: people never noticed before mostly cause i wasn't around
to point it out.
OneEyed: Where does
the contract I've read from
then?
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: is it really
the case?
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: if you refer
to claims made outside of
the contract, I have
to agree with you, however, if you stick
to
the contract, I don't see he defrauded people.
mircea_popescu: OneEyed
the
terms of goat's contract were, at all
times relevant, "test".
mircea_popescu: take a simpler example : if you write a bad check, whether you eventually cover it or not, you still break
the law.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: I would use
the same
terms as Goat contract, but replace PPS 1MH/s by "average air
temperature at 6:00 minus 20 degrees"
mircea_popescu: if you claim
that you're selling it on
the basis of your vast holdings of hot air
then yes it is.
mircea_popescu: OneEyed depends if you sell me
this bond and claim you will invest into hot air or not
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: if I sell you a "temperature bond" whose dividends are indexed on what
the average
temperature is at 6:00 in Paris every day, would it be a fraud not
to invest into hot air?
jurov: i'm working on it part
time since mpex launched beta.. and going crazy from it ...
mircea_popescu: obviously it's unclear how much of
that does or should carry over into btc.
mircea_popescu: that people in general don't bother is
true, but it's still what it is.
mircea_popescu: but back
to
the contract : if i sell you a car when i own no car, even if later i acquire and deliver you a car i can still be charged for fraud.
mircea_popescu: tho in
truth
there were maybe 8 or 9 people/teams
that at some point started
mircea_popescu: jurov has been working at it for >3 months now i
think
OneEyed: Working
together, even if you have nothing
to do
to make it happen, just let it happen :)
mircea_popescu: OneEyed its not a violation of
the contract. it's a contract under false premises.
OneEyed: I really hope
the coinbr/MPEX deal will make a better exchange system.
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: yes, I understand. But even knowing he doesn't own some, as long as
the investors get exactly what
they paid for, i.e. coupons indexed on PPS 1MH/s, I don't see as a violation of
the contract itself. But I won't redo
the discussion here :)
PsychoticBoy: I know, I also asked goat back in may, but he only said: go ride a bike little boy, so at
that point I really lhate goat
mircea_popescu: i belong
to
those who knew he doesn't and pretty much said so 6 months ago
OneEyed: mircea_popescu: you belong
to
those
thinking he has
to own mining rigs
to offer such a contract whose coupons are based on a fixed mining performance?
mircea_popescu: OneEyed do you
think i should dig up
the logs of where i was asking goat
to put up pics of his imaginary righs ?
OneEyed: Smoovious: which is close
to my previous point:
the contract was imprecise, and did not require nor imply (IMO)
that mining hardware would be acquired. Now, GLBSE should
take its share of blame for allowing such vague contracts.
pigeons: capex is
the most corrupt of all
the SL exchanges
mircea_popescu: maybe if someone half-competent
took over management. which isn't likely given
the sort of money it makes.
mircea_popescu: <PsychoticBoy> I personally got more
than 1.5k btc in glbse assets so plz let glbse live << doesn't seem likely at
this point.
OneEyed: The only difference I see is
that in
the real world,
the company itself has
the needed information
to invite shareholders
to general assemblies and such
OneEyed: PsychoticBoy: why not in
this case? You even see coinbr starting as a broker for
the MPEX exchange
PsychoticBoy: It is not compareble with
the stock world you know it, its not nasdaq or AEX or some
OneEyed: Smoovious: it is obviously, as it is
the sole owner of
the shares attribution
OneEyed: (I haven't seen
the message on
the forum)
OneEyed: Smoovious: how are bond holders supposed
to contact Goat? By email?
OneEyed: I don't have any share managed by Goat (nor any share at all at
this
time), so I can't see
the message
OneEyed: Smoovious: I used bitcoins before I joined bitcointalk or
the bitcoin channels on IRC. I could have used GLBSE without joining
them
too (this is not
the case as I happened
to discover about GLBSE on
the forum)
femtotube: what do you guy do withe
those GLBSE codes? Do I need
to send it
to nefario
to get my coin back?
OneEyed: Smoovious: he has *no way*
to contact
them, does he?
OneEyed: Smoovious: let's agree
to disagree here, I just read
the contract, I don't see a fraud, but
that is my interpretation. People should learn
to read contracts
too before investing.
OneEyed: And handling
the brokering part
to Goat
this way is wrong: not only Nefario didn't use a secure way of identifying
the claims, prevent double claims and so on, but also he forces people
to go
to Goat, while some of
them had maybe invested in Goat assets only because GLBSE acted as a middle man
OneEyed: Smoovious: he acts not only as an exchange but also as a broker.
The brokering part cannot be stopped
this way, even if
the exchange delists (by freezing for example)
the asset.
OneEyed: Smoovious: I fault him for
the way he handled it as well.
OneEyed: So unless he intends
to run, I see
that more as a guarantee. I would prefer
to invest into a guaranteed 1MH/s equivalent rather
than some hardware whose returns would be distributed
to me capped at 1MH/s equivalent.
femtotube: "Smoovious | and come on... I can't be
the only one who saw how obvious..." Every one with a half a brain must have understood it but you see, lots of pole have coin in his crap so...
OneEyed: Smoovious: did he not pay and say "sorry guys, I'm broke and I didn't invest your money"? *That* would be a scam, and I would be 100% on your side. But here, now
that people know
that he doesn't have mining hardware, he cannot even say "My hardware broke, sorry, no returns until I get a replacement"
OneEyed: Smoovious: but why do you
think
the risk is heavier? Did he fail
to pay?
OneEyed: So even if Goat is at fault, which may be
totally
the case, Nefario also is.
OneEyed: Smoovious: sure, I don't know anything about
their dispute. Except
that I've seen
that Nefario did not explain why he did
this, and I lost
the
trust I had in GLBSE at
this
time, since I don't know if
the same kind of dispute could happen with other asset owners or not.
OneEyed: That was my only point. If he had invested into a mining operation,
then
the investors would not have lost or gained one satoshi. So I don't see why investors are complaining.
OneEyed: The fact
that you now *know*
that he didn't buy hardware should not change anything of
the perception you have of
the contract and
the expected returns, since
they are equivalent.
OneEyed: They would have gained or lost exactly
the same amount of money.
OneEyed: But even if it had been a real mining operation, it would have been
the same for
the investors.