127100+ entries in 3.23s
Namjies: Technically, I can'
t make the difference between shares owned in each account. They're aggregated as one in my list.
Namjies: Which didn'
t include pretty much anyone with subaccounts, not just people who received double payments.
jurov: don'
t know, never tried
gigavps: i've already talked with one of them and they aren'
t even on the list
copumpkin: I wouldn'
t say trust is as much of an issue. The thing about a perpetuity is that the later payments are effectively meaningless
gigavps: EskimoBob if i pay someone i shouldn'
t have, i need legal recourse, especially if this comes to light when btc is $1000/coin
Diablo-D3: EskimoBob: refinancing them doesn'
t make sense imo
gigavps: EskimoBob if there are enough claims that don'
t match with glbse, we can start making demands for the database
gigavps: mircea_popescu don'
t be daft
gigavps: EskimoBob nefario can'
t even send me a properly formatted yaml file
jcpham: distribution and retail aren'
t the same
gigavps: gigaminers shouldn'
t have to conceed to nefario's incompetence
mircea_popescu: i didn'
t realise "incomplete" means... two thirds or less.
mircea_popescu: court won'
t quash a trial that names him just because it names some foreign corp
Namjies: Especially if that person didn'
t hold shares strictly for you.
Namjies: If you don'
t have an account, then it's the GLBSE account owner who technically has to make the claim. He was the one proxying for you who was proxying for the ETF holders.
mircea_popescu: didn;
t you hold a bunch of giga on glbse too ? or am i confused
smickles: Namjies: thing is, as described, the giga.etf wasn'
t actually an etf
Namjies: Well I'll default on assuming it was an automatic/index one since you didn'
t charge a fee, even if not specified as such.
smickles: the etf contracts i've read don'
t explicitly mention the fee
Namjies: Well fine. I'd say so too. I don'
t believe it's fair to require you to incur the fee now required after GLBSE's fiasco. But the need for simple thing, I still say it doesn'
t excuse you would have required a proper contract where you had protective clauses for yourself.
mircea_popescu: it's true the etf holders can'
t be held for those fees.
Namjies: But being listed as the owner and manager of the ETF, dropping the bonds altogether because it involves legal fees doesn'
t seem to be the best way to do that. The ETF's manager legal liability and related costs are not ETF holders concerns.
mircea_popescu: so in short : i'm glad you see a duty of care for the btc thing. i don'
t see why you imagine it can be extended into this "free anything forever" construction.
mircea_popescu: and i don'
t dispute the released lists are some indication of ownership
mircea_popescu: something doesn'
t become acceptable just because it's the only straw you have Namjies
mircea_popescu: i don'
t see why you think it's good enough for claims. what weigh does it have ?
Namjies: technically, the exchange didn'
t drop them. The exchange was closed definitly.
mircea_popescu: they weren'
t. they were just destroyed, practically speaking.
Namjies: That it would somehow be a "new" security, with an identical contract but that doesn'
t relate at all to the previous one on the exchange.
mircea_popescu: so if it has not changed then i don'
t need to do anything.
mircea_popescu: it didn'
t work out. that's business. no point in raising nonsensical arguments out of it.
mircea_popescu: so you bought a distressed asset on a vague contract and didn'
t ask
Namjies: [19:45] <Namjies> I don'
t recall the date. Over a month ago I believe.
Namjies: That the deposits are lost didn'
t matter as per the contract.
Namjies: I don'
t recall the date. Over a month ago I believe.
smickles: ok then, mircea_popescu still owns the bonds, giga has an address to send cupons to, why is it mircea's fault the dividends arn'
t being sent?
mircea_popescu: heh. i don'
t think you can get that much mileage out of this.
mircea_popescu: which, because of it's nature, imposes a cost on my part, which isn'
t trivial, cause i have to put lawyers at work.
smickles: i dunno, mircea_popescu it is a little shocking that you arn'
t trying to recover the value there
mircea_popescu: and if tomorrow gigavps comes up with a 10x dividend payment if i sleep with him, irrespective of what you may think my duty is, i ain'
t sleeping with him either.
mircea_popescu: it doesn'
t say "all revenue paid will be distributed and all revenue offered for claim will be claimed"
mircea_popescu: srsly, just because you imagine things a certain way doesn'
t mean they are a certain way.
Namjies: Technically, your ETF doesn'
t contractually require the shares to be on GLBSE or any exchange. It says "The Owner will never own less shares of the underlying than the total float of this asset implies." No conditional statement. As such if bonds remain valid and your property, you have to claim them.
mircea_popescu: you've made some presupositions which aren'
t borne by the facts, but would prefer to present these as fact.
Namjies: The issuer is still honoring them. Do you have any statement to the effect Gigavps will not honor them or claimed he won'
t pay them?
mircea_popescu: well, they in principle don'
t have to, all things are in principle possible. these, however, were.
Namjies: The bonds are off an exchange now. Securities don'
t have to be on an exchange.
Namjies: You can'
t charge for registration of stock you already own.
Namjies: The fact GLBSE doesn'
t deserve the appelation of an exchange because it was so bad doesn'
t change the fact it worked as such.
mircea_popescu: i don'
t think you get to randomly create an imaginary vehicle just because the actual vehicle imploded.
mircea_popescu: it wasn'
t an instrument to jump through random hoops and then pass along the value thus obtained.
Namjies: Because you don'
t write off an account because it requires administrative procedures or otherwise? Who voids funds/value because of procedures?
Namjies: Glad to know I'm not the only one which doesn'
t bother.
smickles: "While it has been said that the ECB report doesn'
t deny or disprove that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, it doesn'
t accuse it of being a Ponzi either. The Reuters source is just a headline (as far as it saying anyone even mentions Ponzi and Bitcoin in the same sentence). Headlines are often written by people other than the article's author for the purpose of attracting eyeballs, not communicating relevant information. The other citation (currently us
smickles: I can'
t imagine this giga issue would require anything above the 'inked rubber stamp' variety tho
smickles: he hawa all coy, like, "i won'
t tell you how I was betting"
smickles: "What I don'
t understand is why S.DICE is going to IPO on this penny-ante exchange instead of GLBSE. I think that Mr. E.V.'s ideological fetishes might be putting the business sensibilities in the back seat. Which is dangerous for investors."
sgornick: i.e., lots of need for these, as we decide technology can enable what the law won'
t.
mircea_popescu: "as a lawyer, I hereby promise to be a lawyer and behave accordingly to the rules. if I don'
t, with or without this useless declaration I am still held liable"
gigavps: i haven'
t been looking forward to this
mircea_popescu: (for once i don'
t mean about you, i mean about bitcoin in general)
rdponticelli: But you can'
t do much on the site without a balance...
smickles: but you wouldn'
t expect to profit if the odds are a certain way
smickles: kk, one sec, i don'
t think i can copypasta
mircea_popescu: can you just quote the thing here so i don'
t have to make a new fish ?
mircea_popescu: smickles i don'
t know that he isn'
t, which is whuy im asking.
pigeons: EskimoBob defrauded me, he lied that he owend one share of something usagi had, and usagi the honaorable said he didn'
t, so by some way i haven'
t figured out yet, bob scammed me
mircea_popescu: smickles you wouldn'
t expect bitcoin magazine to make sense would you.
smickles: yeah, I didn'
t look into it far enough to find out why you were redacted