445200+ entries in 0.132s
mircea_popescu: now if you imagine that i will out of my own time and money a) go through whatever hoops Y comes up with and b) pay counsel to advise as to whether those hoops are safe
mircea_popescu: basically, the way this worked out is this : i had X owned by Y on exchange Z. exchange Z dissapeared, destroying the records of X. there's some indication of the ownership on the basis of which Y wants to create unspecified something which you assume is X'.
mircea_popescu: they are, insamuch as they arise from the actual issuer.
mircea_popescu: the logical thing would be for him to offer a dollar settlement to all applicants.
mircea_popescu: and for the record, i'd be rather surprised if what giga offers actually is a weekly btc payout.
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: do you understand why i'd want a lawyer to research and report as to whether i'd better claim as a real person or as a legal person ?
mircea_popescu: then a month or so down the road they run you into a wall
mircea_popescu: i'd have to research as what i'm accepting them. i'd have to research how can i handle them once accepted. i'd prolly have to take them off mpex. on it goes.
mircea_popescu: the very reason people are stuck with messes such as giga's is exactly that : they find themselves in a situation where they have to assign other people's propetyu
mircea_popescu: and i don't dispute the released lists are some indication of ownership
mircea_popescu: a "proof of ownership" that fails to disprove contrary claim is no such proof.
mircea_popescu: something doesn't become acceptable just because it's the only straw you have Namjies
mircea_popescu: smickles sadly the "do not further assign thing" fucks this.
mircea_popescu: how do you on the basis of this proof of yours disprove his claim ?
mircea_popescu: i don't see why you think it's good enough for claims. what weigh does it have ?
mircea_popescu: since glbse is not solvent this is a moot point however.
mircea_popescu: the correct civil avenue is : all shareholders sue glbse.
mircea_popescu: the fact that people still expect to be paid... well... of course they do, people always do. but they have pretty much no claim to it.
mircea_popescu: this is what you'd like it to be. whether it actually is ... well...
mircea_popescu: they weren't. they were just destroyed, practically speaking.
mircea_popescu: and no, when shares go off the exchanges into the pink sheets the funds do not keep them.
mircea_popescu: the case of exchanges dropping assets is irrelevant. glbse had not the ability to do that.
mircea_popescu: in general it would depend on the particulars. in the particulars of all glbse securities, this is true, any reconstruction either private or on a new exchange is a new security.
mircea_popescu: so if it has not changed then i don't need to do anything.
mircea_popescu: that was about the upgrade i think, back in august or w/e
mircea_popescu: i specifically said, even here iirc to you, that i'm not doing anything actively
mircea_popescu: smickles i imagine towards the end of the year someone's finally going to make a proper asic run.
mircea_popescu: <Namjies> So keeping ownership of the bonds and keeping payments going should be dropped because it involves administrative/legal fees? <<< should any admin/legal fees be expended whatsoever to guarantee someone's shares ?
mircea_popescu: blowing the current hacked-together stuff out of water.
mircea_popescu: smickles i suspect there's going to be a "real" asic run
mircea_popescu: i'm not pulling anything. you expect something to happen. i ask why,. you say cause you expect it. i say ok.
mircea_popescu: it didn't work out. that's business. no point in raising nonsensical arguments out of it.
mircea_popescu: looky. had you gotten lucky and things went smooth with giga, you'd have made some money, i imagine.
mircea_popescu: on the theory that then you can claim vague should be construed in your favour ?
mircea_popescu: so you bought a distressed asset on a vague contract and didn't ask
mircea_popescu: <mircea_popescu> but to the point : when did you actually buy these shares ? <<<
mircea_popescu: but to the point : when did you actually buy these shares ?
mircea_popescu: anyway, the fiduciary duty is mostly : to not have conflicting duties, to not profit by fiduciary position
mircea_popescu: Namjies when did you buy these ? (i presume you actually have some ?)
mircea_popescu: heh. i don't think you can get that much mileage out of this.
mircea_popescu: eventually someone brings asics to the table. maybe not this month, maybe not the next.
mircea_popescu: by the time the stuff is actually processed and alll... heh.
mircea_popescu: i'd be much surprised if the entire series is actually worth 300 btc right now.
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.
mircea_popescu: well, he's asking to identify myself in a particular way
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: there you go. did i receive revenue i've not distributed ?