Quote from: Endlessa on March 10, 2014, 06:34:07 PM

Quote from: Lab_Rat on March 10, 2014, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: BKM on March 10, 2014, 06:25:42 PM

Quote from: rangerbob21 on March 10, 2014, 06:08:19 PM

With the change to the original terms, If I do not agree, do I get my original 1 BTC investment back? Fair question, I think.

The very question implies a complete lack of understanding of the investment you have made. Your original 1 BTC investement, for accounting purposes, is converted to USD at the time it is was made. The tax system does not function under BTC - think of it as if you had bought Euros or Yen six months ago and then sold them today at a loss or a gain. Furthermore, the market is the place you go to sell your bonds (or whatever the hell they are actually supposed to be called) just like you would with any company where you wanted to sell your stake. There is no right of redemption in the "real world" of investments, nor should one be implied with any investment in the wild west of BTC land.

I do not intend this reply as a defense of LRM or any other company in the world of BTC but rather as a comment on the seemingly basic and essential lack of understanding regarding accounting and business that seems to come through loud and clear when the shit hits the fan(s).

Also, while I took a pretty hard stance towards LRM in my initial reaction to this situation, I await further guidance from Zach, particularly in regards to the disposition of the incoming hardware, before a decision that this is bad or good. In fact, this may turn out very, very well not only for us but also for the entire space that this kind of business is working within. Its the bleeding edge people, get your red blood cell count up because you might bleed a little more before its done.

This is correct, your original investment could have been in the range of $80, so 0.12BTC in hand that LRM has paid you is equivalent in the eyes of the US.

this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them.

Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable.

"this were tradable assets, so the payments are not relevant to the value of the asset but instead are a benefit of holding them." makes no legal sense whatsoever.

"Also please point me to the place where it's been stated since the beginning that these contracts are malleable." would have been up on bitfunder the entire time the "asset" was listed.