Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 23, 2012, 04:20:08 PM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on November 23, 2012, 03:52:16 PM

B/S. Since many are not going through the ordeal and expenses to recover their assets, and Giga knows it like anyone, he must even know that it is not him that is going to lose anything.

Think of it in practical terms. Say he accepts 20k BTC worth of claims on the Internet, no questions asked. Five years from now it is proven Nefario lied, and there's new users for about 12k of those BTC. In five years that's a solid million and-then-some dollars.

How is the business he's running supposed to budget for this?

Is he supposed to buy insurance? He can't buy insurance, nobody is selling (except Gumpys a la CPA).
Is he supposed to amortize it? Something a la Shtylman?
Or moreover, do you think he's supposed to just ignore it, because that's been up to date the "Stragetgy" of Gumpy Q. ForumFinancier: "ignore everything I don't understand!"?

The latter avenue, of hiding, ignoring and so forth is the very cause of the mess. It has been the cause of each and every other mess to date (and not just in BTC). It will forever remain the cause and producer of mess for as long as people still think that's an acceptable way to go.

I think it is commendable that someone for once stops with this "let's ignore all contingencies we don't like" and tries to act rationally. Yes, it will hurt a lot of people. Specifically, it will hurt all the people who actually realized a loss at the time GLBSE closed and failed to book it because they don't know what finance is, how business works or pretty much anything else.

As a subsidiary but very important point: the consumer attitude of people involved in Bitcoin has to cease. You are not consumers. Nobody cares if you are inconvenienced, you have no right to convenience. Nobody is taking unbounded liabilities for your comfort.

Bitcoin is not like going to the supermarket.

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on November 23, 2012, 03:52:16 PM

Very wrong metaphor. We just got another proof that anyone who "invested" on GLBSE should be enraged with his own foolishness first of all.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but fundamentally disagree on one major issue.

If gigavps needs that information in order to deliver on his obligations then there's no alternative other than to providing it. However all costs associated with providing that information should be covered by him.

He wrote the contract. He chose the site on which the trades were transacted. At no stage was it made clear that this information would be needed - and it was never previously requested in order to disburse dividends or trade shares.

He's attempting to insert into the contract a requirement (which has costs to satify) on the other party unilaterally. As such, all costs associating with fulfilling HIS new requirement should be met by him.

On the point about claims arising later - that's essentially no different to what was previously happening. Previously (when GLBSE ran) giga was sending dividend payments to GLBSE (nefario) who then distributed them out between who he claimed (via his database) had ownership of the shares/bonds. All that's happening now is that the list for distribution is being given to giga so he can disburse them directly. Giga had no way previously of ensuring that dividends went to the correct counter-parties - and no means of rectifying any issues that arose over claims disputing ownership of rights. He had to trust nefario then - same as he does now. Plus it's pretty unlikely that in 5 years time someone would be able to "prove" they owned shares now - without having even made any comment about it anyway.

Don't think giga's actions have much to do with insurance or risj of fraud - more to do with attempting to (after the fact) make his operation appear to be a private rather than a public offering: which involves knowing the identity of the other parties and no trading of the "securities".

I don't have any Gigamining units. If I did then my very first email to his lawyer would be asking whether giga was going to cover all reasonable costs associated with providing the required information and, if not, on what basis he was claiming those costs were my responsibility.

You need to find out what his position is before you can decide how to proceed. I don't think there's ANY way to refuse to provide that information (though see next paragraph) but who has to pay for the costs associated (included YOUR time) is far more open to debate.

To the person saying what to do if you're under 18, don't have the ID etc. Email his lawayer. Explain that you're under 18, have no ID etc. Explain that he never requested such information, stipulated that he wouldn't deal with under 18s or made any effort to establish that parties he dealt with were of legal age to enter such agreements with him. Ask his lawyer who the local body is to whom you should make a complaint that he entered into a financial arrangement with a minor, with no attempt to ascertain whether or not they were a minor, and is now attempting to get out of his obligations by making requirements that a minor can't fulfil. You may not get a clear answer - but at least you'll then know that issue is being proper consideration.

For those with small holdings your options may well end up being either walk away or try to cause grief by reporting what happened to as many regulatory bodies as you can. Your call on which of those options you take. But first some of you need to contact his lawyer and find out precisely what the situation is - always treat any formal demand as the starting point for negotiation, not as some absolute end point which has to be accepted or rejected.