Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 23, 2012, 09:14:54 PM

He should sell the equipment off and send it to bondholders. Pay out the bonds is what I am saying. Then he can start fresh with his reputation intact.

Or do you defend him changing a contract after he signed it to the detriment of the other party? Think carefully about how you answer this.

I'm not defending anything, I'm just pointing out that gigavps runs iirc one of the largest farms and buying him out isn't exactly easy on the capital. Hence the question, who do you think can afford to do it? Not to mention...didn't he have a bunch of pre-paid spots in the BFL ASIC queue?

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 09:24:13 PM

Reason giga's insisting on you contacting his lawyer rather than answeing himself is entirely straight-forward and standard. You don't buy a guard-dog and then bark yourself.

I lolled. This is quotable.

Quote from: SAC on November 23, 2012, 09:25:21 PM

I had it all figured out once what he took in on this "deal" it was over twice the amount of the equipment costs getting close to the three times on this even taking into account the ponzi payments he made for the first month or so without the machines he should still have had double what the cost of the machine were laying around which the machines would have had to come out of so plenty of excess. That is unless he spends like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse on payday. BTW for those of you with a litigious nature search on unjust enrichment that concept as it applies to contracts just may be your best friend, and of course the old stand by back up plan issuing securities without a license not exactly an encouraged practice under the laws governing them as they now exist.

I never followed it that close. Is this actually true/documentable?

Quote from: Daily Anarchist on November 23, 2012, 09:38:45 PM

their underground money

They're not, are they?

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 09:41:13 PM

Would be interesting to compare his lawyer's characterisation of the agreement with what was actually agreed.

I did note the identification of GIGAMINING bonds with assignments. Honestly, it looks like a reasonable construction from a legal standpoint, not sure if it's the most reasonable based on the actual deal but possibly.

Quote from: Deprived on November 23, 2012, 09:41:13 PM

And was the agreement actually made with VPS (i.e. were they identified as the other party)? Or is he now attempting to transfer his obligations under the agreement to an LLC without investors' consent? I honestly don't know the answer to this (as I can't see the original agreement anywhere)?

Iirc the contract was talking about "gigavps".