log☇︎
324300+ entries in 1.922s
mircea_popescu: i don't claim it's perfect or anything, should carry the day
mircea_popescu: smickles what i indicated was 10 dividend periods.
BTC-Mining: The claims were sold to me. I'm the current holder. You are not. You are the issuer. You cannot be the unvoluntary bailee of your own issue.
mircea_popescu: conveniently BTC-Mining is taking the other side, i'm not sure i'd prefer anyone else for it.
mircea_popescu: it is a pretty important point for btc in general, which is why i'm taking the time
mircea_popescu: i can't accept eternal burden of any-and-all 2'
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: 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.
mircea_popescu: nope, i own shares in the glbse miningthing
BTC-Mining: I do not.
smickles: voided or posponed i guess
BTC-Mining: He's not an unintentional holder is what I'm saying.
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.
BTC-Mining: You own rights to Gigamining bonds (on your own will). I own claims to them.
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...
mircea_popescu: i guess if i end up with a windfall it'll just make some worthy cause rich.
smickles: not forced to hold? i giving it all back and nefario stopped that and sent the btc back to me :/
mircea_popescu: o i see
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.
mircea_popescu: i have (indirect) claims on about 1k (more like 1.1 iirc) of gigaminign shares.
mircea_popescu: there's no dispute that in law i can drop the entire thing on oct the 5th.
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.
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.
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
smickles: I'm not going to base my obligation on the shortcomming of an asshat
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.
BTC-Mining: 1 month before delisting, 6 before deleting the data you hold, would be the minimum I find acceptable.
BTC-Mining: All I'm saying is, 1 month is not reasonable delays.
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?
BTC-Mining: I wasn't answering to smickles... in hindsight, I was answering the "lol, srsly", but it was probably destined to smickles.
BTC-Mining: I guess would be were I'm getting at.
BTC-Mining: But you won't keep your side of the data or honor anything, am I right?
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining i can't delete "all data" man. the signed stats will forever exist.
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.
BTC-Mining: I'd say at least 6 months without any news or sight whatsoever of Nefario. Considering it's assets information, it's still very short, but at least more appropriate.
mircea_popescu: sgornick i originally had them directly, but then all pre-ipo holdings were transformed into glbse shares
mircea_popescu: i mean, FOREVER is off the table. now, how long is reasonable ?
mircea_popescu: which is why i think this discussion matters.
smickles: it's not like i'm getting paid to do it
smickles: yeah, what's the reasonable amount of time that I have to secure and maintain this btc?
mircea_popescu: well, i honestly went 10x dividend periods
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
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.
mircea_popescu: originally i was thinking he just paid theymos' funds
smickles: and i put that backward
mircea_popescu: maybe he wants satoshi pairs sent to special mating addresses where they can multiply, what do i know.
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: 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.
mircea_popescu: kuzetsa i own the exchange glbse was trying to compete with.
BTC-Mining: I'm against opinion passing as facts, or misquoting.
mircea_popescu: NEVER have i waited A MONTH for a fucking report.
mircea_popescu: look, i have in fact hired lawyers in this life, i'm not talking out of imagination.
mircea_popescu: i thought you were all against mixing fact and fiction.
BTC-Mining: I'll have to fetch the sources, but it seems likely. Seems to be what GLBSE shareholders claim.
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: 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: 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.
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.
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.
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."
kakobrekla: I think Pirates like Goats Milk.
BTC-Mining: I don't see how GLBSE is the ship. The ship is Gigavps's mining operation.
BTC-Mining: Probably because they consist on thousands upon thousands of tickets looking like: "I haven't received my balance yet. Why?"
mircea_popescu: not what i said tho.
BTC-Mining: I would expect the obligation to be honored, wether the assets resurface in 1 day or 2 years.
BTC-Mining: I'm sure the outcome will be very clear.
BTC-Mining: I would doubt it would go unnoticed.
BTC-Mining: eh, I'd consider that as information not released.
mircea_popescu: i would guess he just mixes the shareholder tables
mircea_popescu: ok, i guess i can go with that for 5 btc
mircea_popescu: but i mean... if not even half the shareholders are reinstated the thing is moot anyway
BTC-Mining: I have no idea what proportion of holders gave their info to be sent to issuer. I would go more by the lack of complaints that some submitted their info and weren't included in the list sent to issuer.
BTC-Mining: feb 1st? I'd bet you 5 BTC it is released by then. (For those who submitted their information, not in full.)
BTC-Mining: After that I'd probably start to assume he managed to lose the database after closing GLBSE
BTC-Mining: Because since Nefario did not disappear with the funds, I still believe it is in the "realm of probable" that he'll release the information, and not in the "realm of possible"
BTC-Mining: At least for mine. I was one of the first paid out I think.
mircea_popescu: if i pay you 100 btc, is it right that my program takes 100 btc to your address and 900 btc to another address of mine ?
mircea_popescu: suppsoe i have a 1k btc payment in my wallet (and it's all i have)
mircea_popescu: i see ~1300 btc ? (why not add a TOTAL at the end ?)