This has been discussed allot.  Just look back in a few of the recent pages.

A couple of folks have changed the code to add a longer wait and the authors have it fixed in the git tree.  But the fix hasn't been released yet.  So you can compile the code yourself and test it or wait for the next release.
Sam

This is a very interesting case, indeed. Thus, I'll split my post into two parts: One regarding this individual agreement on its own, and the other based on a broader view of things.

Part one:
Unless there is any objection to the log that was posted, it seems pretty clear that the original agreement should be considered void. Fjordbit has a good point, however, in that the silence portion should have its own value. Thus I would like to see one of the two following outcomes:
1) EskimoBob refunds 5.3 BTC and the shares are returned to him. No, he will not need to pay the original escrow fee. The reason he should not have to pay the escrow fee is because usagi agreed to pay the fee himself, instead of asking EskimoBob to split the fee with him or at least including the escrow fee as a penalty should the agreement be broken. Additionally, the escrow failed to follow the agreement all the way through by releasing the funds immediately instead of waiting an agreed upon amount of time to ensure that the agreement was kept by BOTH parties. This is besides the fact that it is not legal to indefinitely buy someone's silence. However, I think that we can all agree that EskimoBob did not stay silent long enough to be considered reasonable by anyone's standards.
2) EskimoBob refunds the difference between the market value of those shares at the time of the agreement and the value he sold them to usagi for (.53 BTC/share) and usagi provides nothing in return (other than the satisfaction that the agreement was successfully unwound). It's safe to assume that this difference was the agreed upon value of silence for EskimoBob.

Part two:
Here's where things get interesting. It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case. I will absolutely need to do more reading into this. If anybody can help shed some light on the issue of usagi allegedly investing BMF funds into non-mining operations, I would appreciate that.

There's also the matter of where the funds used to pay EskimoBob came from. Did they come from a business that was in default? If so, that automatically makes usagi a scammer, placing EskimoBob off the hook.

For these reasons, it will most likely take a few weeks to decide this case. If EskimoBob wants to make it easy on me, he can simply do one of the two options I laid out in part one. As always, the scammer tag decision does not have anything to do with the actual legal system, so keep that in mind when deciding what to do.

I have received demand for a stock split.

Some people have been wanting to buy shares in S²CM but have not been able to as the current price per share does not allow them to purchase in the required portions to maintain their desired balance of assets.

As a split does not harm the value held by shareholders, and, due to this demand, would seem to increase the market value, unless there are any objections,

I will arrange a 100-for-1 split to occur on September 4th.

Thanks, it is sad that people like psy attack before reading   What a Fussy Prick I must be...

Edit: Psy's website  http://bitcoin-shitlist.com/2012/02/24/chaang-noi-goat-is-a-fussy-prick/ 

Alberto is back home, and has paid the coupon of 0.032 BTC per bond, which includes the compensation for being 2 days overdue.

We have also discussed the future of the BDT bonds in light of the recent accusations on reddit and the forum and decided the following:
1. It will be hard to establish trust when Alberto is sitting on 10K BTC of debt which some people are worrying they're not getting back.
2. It's going to take a lot of time to establish trust in the Bitdaytrade platform, during which he pays a lot of coupons on the bonds without a revenue stream to show for it.

Therefore we are taking a strategic move to significantly lower his debt. As part of the process he has already recalled 2000 BDT bonds that were in my possession; he sent me about 4200 BTC to start offering people to sell their bonds back at their face value of 1 BTC each, and a bid has been placed. More bids will be placed once Alberto shuffles some funds around, as will I; it is expected that everyone will have a chance to sell. (In this I am letting go of the "not handling the funds myself" rule, but given the circumstances I believe it's best if I take the lead in handling this.)

I recommend that people take us on our offer. It makes sense for all parties involved, and ideally Alberto will only be in debt to me until we can figure out exactly how much capital he needs and at what terms. This is not a forced buyback though and people have a right to keep their bonds.

Alberto will make an announcement discussing the suggested security deficiencies and what he plans for the future of the Bitdaytrade platform.

As part of my tour to the USA I will be mountain climbing in Wyoming from the 4th to the 13th (Aug).

usagi has stated that YARR holds 3700 BTC in assets. Therefore, it's unreasonable to think that he would force the 1.3 BTC buyback: that would mean a loss of 1110 BTC. At least in this case, the invisible hand -- everyone doing what's best for them -- means the best for everyone.

this is precisely how I've evaluated YARR. It is in fact, a partially insured bond. The typical trading price makes the insurance considerably less valuable, and(or) the premium exceptionally high.

the current offer to sell all of YARR to the highest bidder
A. calls into question the true value of the insurance provided
B. the solidity of any investment in YARR until such time as the asset is transferred to the eventual purchaser.

I would personally be interested in YARR at 1.1-1.2.

Hopefully your sale of the YARR business will go quickly.

Shares of UDN https://glbse.com/asset/view/UDN are now available at bargain prices compared to dividends, but I can not see a related topic on the forum.

Anyone knows who they are? Can they be trusted? And if yes, why the price is so low?

Long Term Goal - - UDN will slowly buy back the shares that are for sell, by doing this the MHs will increase for everyone.

.....And I have 5000 BTC on the line, more than 95% of the Pirate lenders.

It has been real sluggish for me in the last week or so.
Anyone else experiencing the same ?

Let's keep it simple for starters. We could really use a hint as to why returns are so strongly dependent on the size of individual deposits, if not for the reason documented in the Currin Trading Ponzi (http://web.archive.org/web/20091026234156/http://geocities.com/currintrading/ On a side note, the text also documented neatly why an operator rarely replies to garbage like this).

1) Go to the router and press the reset button while your dad is not home.
2) Visit 192.168.0.1 and login with default credentials (usually admin/admin or admin/BLANK)
3) Set your own password so your dad can't get in.
4) Start blocking sites that your dad visits.
5) ? ? ? ?
6) Profit