Quote from: Endlessa on April 05, 2014, 08:55:49 PM

Quote from: mufa23 on April 05, 2014, 01:07:52 PM

Quote from: LostDutchman on April 04, 2014, 09:58:29 PM

You guys and dolls haven't yet figured out what the "legal issues" most likely are, have you?

Check the recent IRS rulings and FIN-Cen requirements, especially those requirements concerning Money Transmitters.

Yeah, we've all seen and read those requirements. To the best of my knowledge, none of them should warrant labrat from keeping us out of the loop. He's implying a different issue.

Quote from: Frankthechicken on April 05, 2014, 12:05:34 AM

@mufa23, the idea that LR is just recycling the bitcoin originally acquired through IPO into dividends seems extremely unlikely IMO. There would have to be an accomplice selling him recently mined coins and letting him use the stats feed from CEX.io (which just jumped to near 23TH... that seems promising). That seems like an overly complicated (and expensive) way to scam. But I suspect you don't really think that, just making a point that pictures of the hardware are long overdue. Which I agree. I was really looking forward to pictures once the first batch of bitfury equipment came in.

Not all that expensive. 23 TH/s isn't that much... I am personally mining at a few Terahashes myself with about BTC10. Those Antminer S1's are worth the investment. Granted of course, they probably costed a few extra Bitcoin per unit back in December. But lets say he paid top dollar. Real wild example, so bear with me: You can reach 23 TH/s with 46 of BFL's old 500GH/s (the ones that costed a little over $20k back in the day). That's still only a small portion of the Bitcoin we've given him.

Exactly this. There is absolutely no legal reason why we can't be made aware what the issue itself is. There is no reason for the statements like "I'm talking to my lawyer about stuff" (not a real quote, but just the idea around it). We don't necessarily need the solution, but the description of the problem would be nice. It is complete bullshit, imo, that we still don't know exactly where the issue lies. Fortunately for labrat, my husband has been on vacation during this time and I've taken a breather. That time is not infinite. With the lack of value left in the shares, there is very little to lose by asking government agencies to look into the legality/execution of this project. I do believe we have passed the acceptable time frame for "my lawyer is sick", "my dog ate my homework", "my aunt died" and "I'm working on it". . . .and then some

Regarding the bolded part, I guess my perspective is opposite yours. I see it as there is a lot to lose. The entire upside potential, since we have NO idea what is going on and what the proposed solution will look like, it seems hasty to assume that the near zero value we have at the moment will be a persistent thing. Right now the potential downside is losing the final few pennies per 'contract' but the upside potential I think is pretty significant.

Best case scenario I think is all the new hardware has been hashing for a month and after restructuring we get back dividends and things move on as originally intended and share value returns to what it was prior to "the announcement". Or even better, we get some form of exchange and the 'contract' price goes up. Assuming trust is repaired, transparency improves etc etc.

I am patiently waiting(for now) because there will be plenty of time (years) to pursue lawsuits and criminal charges if things do not shake out favorably for 'contract' holders. Any sort of lawsuit would likely take a long time to resolve, at the very least a year or more, by which time all of the assets owned by LRM that could be liquidated would be almost worthless and worse yet, any damages wouldn't be recovered in terms of BTC but in terms of USD you paid for the 'contracts' when you first acquired them at the exchange rate AT THE TIME you acquired them and possibly just the USD value at the time of the IPO. Courts may even look at the USD value of the BTC received weekly per 'bond' and determine that all USD value of payments received exceed the original cost of the 'bond' so there are no damages to claim. Bitcoin is in new uncharted waters so it seems pretty hard to predict how any sort of legal action would be resolved. I see a lot more downside risk to legal action than upside potential.

Has anyone ever bought shares in a company with lawn furniture or hammers? Since the IRS has advised bitcoin is to be treated as property, courts may compare it more to lawn furniture than to dollars or gold / silver.

I'll probably start to run out of patience though around mid to late May. That would be a full 6 months since this issue came up on the radar judging by the 'for 2 to 3 months' comment. A description of the issue at hand would be really nice. I am hoping the issue is 'we want to avoid a need to collect personal information and issue 1099's' or even 'we want to avoid having to register as a MSB'. Those seem like the most likely legal issues to me. And I am pretty sure there would be legal means around both of them. I really would like to know more about what is going on.