Well if he did that when it supposedly wasn't Mt. Gox's fault (I'd still argue that security is their responsibility) and since he has admitted this is 100% Mt. Gox's fault ("oops we didn't notice bitcoin updated - it's not really a core part of our business anyways so we weren't paying attention") does this mean he is going to compensate all Gox customers so they aren't shorted any BTC due to Gox's incompetence?


ell

oh

ell.

ha, I was thinking the same thing.

So let me get this straight: you wrote your own software, were well aware that Bitcoin is regularly updated, and even though it is the CORE of your business you didn't bother to keep up with the software? Oh it's because you were "too busy"? I'm sorry, is this a multi-million dollar company or one guy working out of his mother's garage? As your business grows you need to hire more employees to keep up with the workload - it's not like you couldn't afford it.

"We did not notice this change" is a ridiculous thing to come from one of the largest Bitcoin exchanges. You should have someone CONSTANTLY monitoring the community to keep abreast of all changes that could affect your business. You have a fiduciary duty to your clients to properly handle their money and at this Mt. Gox has clearly failed.

Well what are a few more lawsuits thrown on the pile, right?

Thank you for your quick response!

Can you provide any more information about the company?

Where is Scharmbeck incorporated? Are there any parent/child corps involved? Is the company incorporated in multiple jurisdictions?

100,000 of 1,000,000 shares are being offered - who holds the other 900,000? How many belong to the company / how many belong to individuals/other companies?

Is there a time frame to receive an official response on the FinCEN registration (instead of just an acknowledgement of application)?

Is there a time frame for when the site will become fully operational?

How much funding does the corporation currently have vs what it expects to raise from the stock offering? Does the company require a certain amount of capital before it can begin operations?

Thank you for your contribution to the crypto community and best of luck - can't wait to see this site up and running!

lol.


FTFY.

ps: it is blatantly obvious to everyone that you are avoiding the actual questions in this thread and only making posts to try and troll people. There is no reason to be so evasive to these legitimate questions if you are running a legitimate foundation. You are the only one making yourself look like a scammer here (unless you are actually running a legitimate foundation in which case the way you have handled this entire situation makes you look like a buffoon - hardly much more desirable than scammer).

So call me names or imply that I am smoothie or whoever all you want but that isn't going to change the facts. So which jurisdiction is the Litecoin "Foundation" registered in again? Thailand? USA? Other?

lol.

OK let's forget about the law in Smoothie's country and look at the law in Goat's country - which (supposedly) is Thailand:


It would appear that most (if not all) countries where the rule of law applies frown on the practice of defrauding people under the guise of a fake charitable organization.

Since goat has admitted that this "foundation" isn't a foundation at all but a for-profit business this forum and all other crypto forums should loudly denounce any activities undertaken by "The Litecoin Foundation" as the illegal and dishonest actions that they are.

So I see that goat is very active in this thread when he wants to whine and attack people but as soon as the actual questions show up he is once again nowhere to be found. It's not that he hasn't been on the site either, his forum profile easily gives that away, he's just ignoring this thread. So what's the deal goat, why the sudden lack of interest in this thread?

Care to answer any of the questions posed? In what jurisdiction is the "Litecoin Foundation" registered?  Is it incorporated as a non-profit?

LOL @ "THE LITECOIN FOUNDATION"

I asked some basic but fundamental questions about "The Litecoin Foundation" over TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AGO.

Goat has not answered and continues to ignore these questions. This only further reinforces the appearance that "The Litecoin Foundation" is nothing more than a scam designed to trick unsuspecting users into paying for physical Litecoins under the guise of a "foundation" that is really a for-profit business and not a "foundation" at all.

Instead he comes to the Bitcoin forums to cry like a baby because he doesn't like some posts Smoothie made whining that his reputation has been damaged. The "funny" part is that goat does far more damage to his own reputation than anyone else does by acting like some sort of scam-artist and then passing up opportunities to tell his side of the story and clear the air.

I would imagine there aren't a lot of precedents for that since I believe it is basic contract law.

Once you make a deal with someone you can't just turn around at some future point and say "ahhh I changed my mind, here's your money back so I no longer owe you any obligations" (unless that option was specifically part of the deal).

There are also things you can't contract out of either, which is why the whole "well we said it was final sale only" bit is a hilarious joke if there is legislation that says something to the effect of "if someone pre-orders a product and you don't deliver within x days, you are obligated to provide them with a refund if so requested".

Yeah it's a good thing someone cloned litecoin and renamed it feathercoin to give these people something to attack because you're right, a 500 megahash attack on LTC would have rendered it long dead (although had they attacked LTC instead it would have been referred to as a "3% attack" :lol:)

Of course, because either all ASIC designers have the hundreds of thousands of dollars+ required to develop an ASIC.. or it's possible to design an ASIC from household parts and money isn't an issue.



:lol:

Probably because everyone left. I've got to assume all those small time guys "set it and forget it" (and there was even one guy who was getting from 50-150 MEGAhash who had for at least a week or more somewhat like 90% stales. Incredible.) Burnside, although around here (and seen online at the LTC forums) stopped responding to this thread a while ago (maybe stratum became too much of a PITA to set up?) I'm sure he's still making a bunch from the guys still mining anyways (they had a hell of a lucky day yesterday too looking at their block stats!)

When I used to mine there I think the pool rate was in the mid 300s to low 400s but now it's down to what, 160ish mhash? It's too bad, I really did like this pool when things were working well!

Not that I am questioning your authenticity but how does that prove anything? I think you meant to do it the other way around - post something here about what you WILL post on twitter. There's nothing stopping me from posting a message claiming that I am you now and saying "look I posted that tweet before I made this post"

 


Good luck with your search - it's too bad I'm not in the UK as I'd love someone with more money and data centre space!

If you can get people to pay millions to wait for over a year for a product that doesn't exist and may never come I'd think it would be crazy NOT to start the cycle all over again.

"Hey I might be able to buy a money printing machine and get rich quick?"

http://i.imgur.com/l2Qs0to.gif

I'm confused - are you trying to be an obvious troll now? If you're going to make up something I didn't say don't claim it is in the part you just quoted when it clearly does not say "mtgox had lawyers in court" anywhere in the quote.




Alright my confusion is clearing up - so you ARE just being a troll, right? I *really* hope you aren't a lawyer. Separation of powers doesn't have any bearing here.





:lol: :lol: - well I guess the DHS will be pissed when gox's lawyers show up in court and say "hey guys this law is unconstitutional kthxbai".

See the part where it says "nor shall any person ... be deprived of ... life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Do you know what that means? I guess the government can't throw people in jail either, right? Wrong. That's exactly what the "due process of law" part means. This order follows the due process of law - legislative branch made the law, executive sent out the DHS agents to ensure compliance and now the judicial branch is hearing it. There's your "separation of powers" lol. In any event the US can certainly make a law that says that if you break a law the property used in that lawbreaking is forfeit to the US Government and that's what happened here.

The part about "just compensation" is a restriction on the government's power to exercise eminent domain which is a direct "taking" and different from the case at hand.

Anyways if you seriously think the US government has NO power to seize funds (and can only "buy" them for fair market price) you'll be in for a rude awakening if it ever happens to you.

It isn't "relatively easy" for a number of reasons as I stated. Again, this is the US Government here NOT a private individual so it really has no bearing on what we were actually talking about - lawsuits like coinlab's.


Huh? When word about the DHS thing first came out there wasn't much information. It wasn't clear whether this "court order" was obtained ex-parte or not. That's all I was saying. I never argued that gox did have lawyers in court before the order was made and if I had to guess I'd say they weren't.


Uhh, no they aren't. You actually link to the court order in a later post yet you obviously haven't even read it. If you had, you'd see the law under which the court order was made. 18 U.S.C. section 981 gives the government - yes the government only, not private citizens - the power to seize property that is involved in a transaction violating 18 U.S.C. sections 1956, 1957 or 1960. This was the case here and so the order was made. Coinlab can not do this in their lawsuit.    



As I said above, coinlab could not do this in their lawsuit. Nor is there any question of "priority". If you read the law cited in the decision you will learn that those funds in question become property of the United States which is why the government can seize them. They do not become "recovered funds" that all creditors are allowed some share of. Even if coinlab won a lawsuit today they have no claim to any money in the dwolla accounts as they already belong to the US Government.

And yet you're still wrong! :lol:

You are clearly confusing a private lawsuit with the government here. Coinlab has not had the funds frozen. The US Government stepped in and for whatever reason took action against Dwolla re: gox. Obviously the government will have a much easier time doing things like this than a private citizen - duh!


I'm sure coinlab's lawyers don't need to "watch with interest" to see how to conduct a lawsuit. "Oh they got an order against a company mtgox works with to stop doing business with them? Damn, we should try something like that!" :lol:

If anything every minute that goes by makes you look more foolish since apparently it is "so easy" to freeze funds and now that coinlab's lawyers are apparently "watching with interest" to see how "it is not a large step to see how this could happen to gox". If it's so quick and easy, why hasn't coinlab tried to freeze gox's funding yet? Surely putting their nuts in a vice could help force them to the bargaining table....

:lol:

I'm not sure why it took you two separate messages to reply to the same message... :lol:

Although you've already embarrassed yourself enough let me clear things up for you: this would appear to have NOTHING to do with the coinlab lawsuit:

1) The Department of Homeland Security does *NOT* go around enforcing private civil lawsuits.

2) Coinlab filed their lawsuit in Washington State. The Dwolla court order came from Maryland which is on the exact opposite side of the country.

3) There is nothing saying Mt Gox didn't know about this as you claim. Just because it happened doesn't mean they didn't have lawyers in a courtroom in Maryland arguing against it.

4)  Mt. Gox's business has not been stopped. All that has happened is a completely separate company was given a court order telling them that they were not allowed to continue to process business for Mt Gox.

You need to stop watching so much "Law and Order"  

Yes a freezing order can be made enforceable as in the criteria in the link I posted above or the similar link in your post.

When they say "final" they mean that it is a final order on that specific issue, not of the entire matter.

I can appreciate that this is confusing but what would happen is that a motion would be brought in the course of the lawsuit to have some accounts frozen for a duration and reason (ie: freeze 75,000,000 in this account in case we win our claim for 75,000,000 so there will be funds available to pay it - while I think it is unlikely that they'd get such an order let's assume that they do for purposes of this discussion). There will be some sort of order on that motion either allowing the freezing or dismissing the motion. So while the actual lawsuit itself is still making its way through the court, there could be a final order made on the issue of freezing accounts until the main trial is resolved.

However if there is an interim order on the motion (perhaps the judge orders a temporary freezing of funds for a week while he makes his decision on whether or not to freeze the funds for the duration of the lawsuit) that would not be enforceable in Japan since it is not a final order on the motion.

Does that make sense?