Quote from: reeses on October 04, 2012, 12:25:02 AM

Quote from: Maged on October 04, 2012, 12:12:04 AM

Quote from: reeses on October 03, 2012, 03:10:06 PM

Quote from: EskimoBob on October 03, 2012, 01:46:08 PM

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! Cheesy

I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

Quote

.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

FUUUUUUUCK indeed. Smart one, Maged. And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.

To clarify, that just means that we won't give you a scammer tag in that situation. You're still an asshole if you do that, though. Even then, the evidence that you're posting needs to be pretty significant.

By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.

Mayhap I didn't clarify the cause of my reaction.

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?

No, there is literally no need to back fixed mh/s bonds with mining equipment if its not written into the contract. They only need to pay the equivalent rewards for a certain amount of mh/s.

People have pointed this loophole out on numerous occasions.