Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 23, 2012, 05:46:53 PM

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

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.

Well now, that's an argument that may have a lot of merit. I'm not prepared to argue any side of it, really.

It may be the case that "it was made clear by default", as a sort of the statutory catch-all (for instance, even if common law contracts don't include a clause saying that should the contract become disputed the courts will disentangle it according to their own practice and case law, that's nevertheless what happens, and any party's complaints that they didn't specifically agree to X precedent being relevant are dismissed).

It may be the case that identity is part of any contract dealing with property by logical necessity (since property cannot exist but with the identity of the proprietor - you can't go to the bank and ask for your money if you refuse to identify who you are even if it is in fact your money).

It may be that in fact gigavps should pay the notarization costs of legitimate claimants. It may be that the cost burden imposed on claimants is in fact so small as to be properly disregarded. My construction of the events was that gigavps sunk whatever dollar amount into BTC R&D in the shape of retaining counsel, for the first time ever having a set of questions answered by counsel etc. This is beneficial for BTC. In this context the users were expected to contribute a small fraction per capita, which they chaff at doing because in spite of the questions being important and the research valuable they can't manage to care about anything outside themselves - they have no practice doing business and no understanding of the costs of doing business (hence my comments about consumers). The case of Bitcoinica is rather similar.

All of this is pretty much speculation on our part, but since this is a forum and all...why not.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

On the point about claims arising later - that's essentially no different to what was previously happening.

Well...depends what essentially means. I suspect if someone complained in August about missing anything giga would have directed them to glbse, and the consensus would have been that he's right in doing so. I am guessing this is no different, really.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

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.

Exactly. Same as he does now. For him to get out of this situation, and for things to be different from how they are right now - for him to accept part of Nefario's liability - he has first to put in place some clear protections and limitations. He has to clearly pick and choose which bits he's accepting. He can't simply go about and accept the other man's bed of thorns. He didn't make it, there's no reason to ask him to lie in it.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

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.

The likeliness or unlikeliness doesn't enter into it tho, not at this level of discussion.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

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".

This may also be, it explains just as well as the alternative above why he'd need to talk to identified people.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

To the person saying what to do if you're under 18

This is actually an entirely fresh hell, and tbh it might quash the entire arrangement. I have no idea if the lawyer involved knows that some of the parties are underage, but it is one of those wildcards that nobody has much of a clue how to deal with.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 04:50:27 PM

always treat any formal demand as the starting point for negotiation, not as some absolute end point which has to be accepted or rejected.

This is good advice in the very general.

Won't address all of what you say - as a lot of it is is pure speculation at this point: particularly until his lawyer clarifies what will happen if information isn't provided and who foots the bill for providing the information.

I'm in the UK - so likely there's some differences. One thing many people get wrong is over what happens if you refuse to comply with AML/KYC demands (which is likely to be the stated reason for wanting the information). Companies who have to follow the AML/KYC equirements also have to have a policy on how they handle the situation where a (prospective) client sends funds then is unable (or unwilling) to provide the information. In brief, the ONLY two options they have are to return the funds to wherever they came from or to file a report with the relevant authority. There's no "we'll just keep it" option.

On the issue that maybe providing ID is a reasonable prerequisite for forming a contract (bear in mind this ISN'T about ownership of property - these aren't shares but more like bonds) the issue of timeliness arises. I'd say it's fair to conclude that many (maybe all) of those entering into these agreements were not aware there would be requirement for this ID. I'd say it's fair to conclude that any competent individual would conclude that Giga was the senior party in this agreement. Giga's actions in using the funds to purchase the hardware etc BEFORE requesting the ID have made the contract difficult to reverse. Had he requested the ID before people bought the bonds then likely many would have chosen not to purchase them. So EITHER:

Giga didn't HIMSELF know the ID was required when the contract was made. If the senior party didn't know it, then you can't reasonably conclude the junior one did.

OR

Giga DID know the ID was required when the contract was made - but failed to disclose it. And then acted in such a manner as to make the contract irreversible BEFORE requesting it.

Anyway - next step for everyone is pretty obvious, irrespective. Find out precisely what his lawyer is claiming his stance is - including the really awkward bits ("Were you aware when you offered to enter into these agreements that you would need this information in order to deliver on your obligations?" , "At what stage - and why - did you change from not needing this information to sell unlicensed securities to needing this information?" etc).

And finally, do bear in mind, that when giga went and asked his lawyer what to do there's one certainty about the reply was going to be. It would be something which generated more work for the lawyer.