334400+ entries in 2.37s
smickles: i have no patients for giving people
a little more time
mircea_popescu: smickles but at least it'd be you know... he said by today, it's not done yet... well let's give it
a little and see
smickles: mircea_popescu: yeah, but releasing the data by the end of the month is unreasonably long, unless he could point to
a specific detail (law) which prevented him from doing so in that time frame
mircea_popescu: i wouldn't accept one day.
a week's
a week. fuck you, pay me.
smickles: and without
a declared timeframe from nefario, i'm starting to think that we can't reasonably expect to get the data in
a reasonable amount of time
mircea_popescu: so listen, if i run
a payday loan service, and i lend some guy 50 bucks for
a week
BTC-Mining: Nowhere does he states how much time he will take to do it. Just that he's suddenly very concerned by
a few regulations.
smickles: 03:42 < BTC-Mining> Yes, but the delays should be set accordingly to the expected time it will take them to do so, and you usually add an extra on that in case. << the expecte time for him to release the shareholder info should've been about
a week
BTC-Mining: It's how long it takes to retrieve it from the database. Not how long it takes to disclose it for some paranoid fuck who just started consulting
a lawyer.
BTC-Mining: You're unilaterally taking
a decision to void claims because Nefario does not release information fast enough for you, regardless of it it will be released or not.
copumpkin: nah, I actually didn't join
a frat in college
mircea_popescu: but i stil lfail to see how the whole month of november is an unreasonable allowance to fucking pull some fields from
a db and send them to peopkle
BTC-Mining: So why not have
a more reasonable delay, on general principal. Balances have been partially paid out. Nefario communicated with the shareholder his intent to not act upon their vote if it was not lawful to do so.
BTC-Mining: Eh, I thought so too. 1 month is just
a token period. You'd erase the data right away if it wouldn't raise protest. You already consider it gone.
BTC-Mining: He got
a scammer tag because Theymos was
a shareholder and got screwed in this because Nefario doesn't recognize their decisive power because he claims he can't honor requests that would make him break the law.
copumpkin: little did you know that Chaang-Noi was
a hedge fund manager
BTC-Mining: We didn't wait
a month, that's the thing.
BTC-Mining: "[23:25] <mircea_popescu> we waited
a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow""
smickles: and if you disagree on first principles, one of you is
a turnip
mircea_popescu: we waited
a month, and you are saying "well we should wait six cause this guy is slow"
BTC-Mining: No. Because it has to be set as
a hard limit.
mircea_popescu: cause it's purely arbitrary. yes, the chances to get something decrease with time. so, if nothing happens in one week, better wait
a month.
BTC-Mining: Because it's perfectably expectable for information to be released in more than
a month, while it is not in 10 years without any news.
mircea_popescu: anyway, even the example as given is simplified, because it gonflates giga and glbse into
A.
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining there's no limitation that you can only be ib if you can divest in
a manner convenient to all partsi nvolved
BTC-Mining: To be the involuntary bailee, you'd have to be holding the claim from C to
A. Where you could throw out the claim or quite simply give it to it's actual beneficiary.
mircea_popescu: this makes B the involuntary bailee of C's claim, because B never leased to C any such thing as "future claims to the office space conditional on
A's performance in court"
mircea_popescu: smickles no, it's more complicated. person
A leases
a building to person B. person B leases office space to C. person
A is arrested and the building confiscated. C demands from B that B ensures C gets the office space at
a future time if the building is returned to
A.
smickles: assumes there was not
a force majeure clause in the lease
smickles: mircea_popescu leased an office in
a building, the building is taken out by
a tornado
mircea_popescu: it has in practice been replaced by
a vague sort of claim thing.
smickles: BTC-Mining: didn't you claim to have bought
a bunch of f.giga when glbse went down?
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: 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.
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.
mircea_popescu: i guess if i end up with
a windfall it'll just make some worthy cause rich.
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: 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.
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
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: 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
BTC-Mining: Even if you're not at fault, professionalism would recommend you allow
a long delay to account for that.
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.
mircea_popescu: 6 months "without sight" ? what if the bloke pulls
a strateman, drops by every season on btctalk to post
a trollface ?
mircea_popescu: BTC-Mining yes, but in order to have
a deadline you have to have
a deadline
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.
sgornick: > mircea_popescu wonders if everyone else is alseep/sexting/busy not giving
a shit or quite the contrary,
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 ?
mircea_popescu: maybe
a couple of weeks, if it was REALLY involved and complex and needed loads of research
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: even though this was not specifically written out in thecontract,
a set interval of time will be allowed for recovery
mircea_popescu: that more time could conceivably helpand thus is
a right ?
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: your irl broker will move on after 10 dividend periods, aka
a decade irl. mpex moves on after 10 dividend periods, aka 2 months irl.
BTC-Mining: Time does not move at
a different pace?
mircea_popescu: time moves at
a different pace here, as proven by the fact dividends are not paid yearly.
mircea_popescu: will you be surprised if your broker says, after
a few years/
a decade, "sorry" and moves on ?
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: 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
BTC-Mining: Because GLBSE was never the shares or represented them, they were merely
a platform to exchange the bonds.
BTC-Mining: Nefario still talked to
a few people recently. But doesn't answer publicly or to support requests.
mircea_popescu: basically, the reasoning is this : there was
a company organised to finance
a ship sent to wherever.
BTC-Mining: Hmm, but the data does exist. Wouldn't
a simple backup of the tables containing the data for the ETF be enough?
BTC-Mining: The total amount of shares vary
a lot.
mircea_popescu: and seeing how there's maybe
a coupla dozen actual people with actual investments
BTC-Mining: He'll accidentally provoke
a vacuum metastability event, resulting in
a stabler state propagating throughout the Universe at the speed of light, defining new constants for the laws of physics, rendering all Earth and its matter... different.
BTC-Mining: Let's say, if any of gigamining, asicminer or bitbond have together
a total of at least 2 or more complaints from members with 50+ posts that they submitted their info but are not included in the released list, or the information for any of those 3 asset is not released at all by February 1st, it shall be deamed the information was not released.
mircea_popescu: mkay. so " by feb 1st more than half the shareholders are reinstated in at least two of gigamining, asicminer, bitbond as
a result of nefario releasing the lists to the respective asset owners"
BTC-Mining: and quite
a few lowball mining operations
mircea_popescu: what were decent-ish assets there ? giga, asicminer and what'd be
a third ?
BTC-Mining: You know how it was. Nefario would say he'd have
a new feature released next week and end up completing it 2 month laters.
mircea_popescu: suppsoe i have
a 1k btc payment in my wallet (and it's all i have)
mircea_popescu: but anyway,
a key consideration is that those shareholder lists are only useful early on. they decay so to speak