|
741
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL fucked us over again
|
on: November 26, 2014, 07:28:28 AM
|
The judge may very well be of the opinion, and there is some strength to it, that granting the preliminary injunction as requested by the FTC would basically be an instant death penalty for BFL.
Calling off the injunction would send absolutely the wrong signal to all businesses in that area: "You all can delay shipments indefinitely, refuse refunds, ship products that are way below spec, and use products built with your clients' money to earn profits that should have gone to them. If the FTC leans on you, all that will happen is slow-down in your business for a couple of months. After that, you need only issue the late refunds and/or ship the machines, at your leisure; and you get to keep all the mony you made with the clients' property." |
|
|
|
|
742
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: November 26, 2014, 06:24:11 AM
|
Smells like a big pile of steaming bullshit to me Could be. There was an earlier announcement which said that Kraken would take over MtGOX and pay customers in bitcoin. This one is more limited and cautious, but it is still not clear what is certain and what is merely a wish of Kraken and/or the clients, that the trustee may concede or not. In particular, the statement that clients will be required to open an account at Kraken in order to receive the refunds seems to be just a wish... |
|
|
|
|
746
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL fucked us over again
|
on: November 26, 2014, 02:00:47 AM
|
Story about him, when shooting Fitzcarraldo (if I'm spelling it correctly). Somewhere in South America; may have been Brazil.
Yes, Fitzcarraldo was shot in the Brazilian Amazon. His recent documentary The Cave of Forgotten Dreams is fascinating because of the subject, but not particuarly good as a movie, IMHO. I liked more an earlier documentary on the Loch Ness monster, that became crazier and crazier as it progressed -- until the very end, when it suddenly made a quite unexpected sense. |
|
|
|
|
748
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Answer the question above with a question.
|
on: November 26, 2014, 01:26:01 AM
|
Who let the dogs out ?
All of them? Wouldn't the answer be Jackson Palmer? Why would it be the answer? Perhaps because of the principle, "ask a stupid question, get a stupid question"? Isn't that not a principle, but a bastardized idiom? What is the difference between a bastardized idiom and an adulterated proverb? Is that one of them proverbial word problems that needs to be put in aquatic form to better fish out the required result? You mean, a liquidity problem? |
|
|
|
|
751
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: SecondMarket Bitcoin Investment Trust Observer
|
on: November 26, 2014, 12:27:23 AM
|
bought 2000+ btc
Something seems to have changed... Their buys used to have an "organic" feel, somehow inversely related to the BTC price. But then suddenly, after months of stagnation, we had two false starts, then three buys of 6000-7000 BTC on three successive weeks. This 2000 BTC buy, if confirmed, breaks this new pattern to some extent, but still goes against the general price trend. Could this apparent change be related to that still-mysterious SEC letter -- allegedly prohibiting withdrawals (liquidation) of shares, but not deposits (investments)? |
|
|
|
|
753
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: November 25, 2014, 07:35:28 PM
|
Effects of the USMS auctionsChart from bitcoinwisdom.com, Bitstamp BTC:USD, 1-day intervals, starting at 2014-04-27  [ click on image to enlarge ] (A) 06-12 Official announcement of ~30'000 BTC auction by USMS (B) 06-27 (Fri) Auction carried out. (C) 06-30 (Mon) USMS announces that all lots were taken by a single bidder. (D) 11-17 USMS announces new 50'000 BTC auction.
|
|
|
|
|
754
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Answer the question above with a question.
|
on: November 25, 2014, 06:47:31 PM
|
Who let the dogs out ?
All of them? Wouldn't the answer be Jackson Palmer? Why would it be the answer? Perhaps because of the principle, "ask a stupid question, get a stupid question"? Isn't that not a principle, but a bastardized idiom? What is the difference between a bastardized idiom and an adulterated proverb? |
|
|
|
|
755
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL fucked us over again
|
on: November 25, 2014, 06:36:23 PM
|
Will they give their current customers their money after the case is over in a few months?
(Not likely, they can't, they would likely fold as a company if they did. I speculate.)
Will they give their current customers obsolete hardware post-FTC actions?
(Probably YES, assuming they don't close their doors right before the case is over.)
Will they declare bankruptcy and cite the FTC as the main reason.
(Why not? It helps to keep what is left over, right?)
I would think that the FTC cannot ship obsolete units to clients. Doing so would make the intervention pointless; they would be doing the same tort to the clients that they are accusing BFL of having done. They may ship only units that were ordered and paid very recently, within the allowed delay/refund time span (two months?), or units whose buyers explicitly opt for the hardware rather than a refund. I guess that the FTC's priority will be to refund all other clients in money, for the full price if at all possible. The receiver will try to extract enough money from the company to make that possible (after paying his own fees and expenses). I suppose that, if necessary, the receiver will auction some of the company's assets, including unsold mining machines (other than those above), stock parts, and (hopefully) all the bitcoins mined with client equipment, and the goods that were bough with the loans to the managers. It would be important to estimate how much money the receiver can squeeze out of BFL, and how much is needed to pay all refunds. The latter is tens of millions of dollars, is that correct? What about the former? I would think that the company cannot close its doors while under receivership. I assume that the FTC intervention is almost a bankruptcy liquidation, except that the assets may be more than enough to pay the debts. I don't think that the FTC or the Court will care about the company's viability after they are done with it: if BFL closes as a result of the intervention, it would be BFL's fault only, not the FTC's. If all customers get their full refunds and all expenses and debts are paid, the owners will keep anything that is left. If the customers get only partial refunds, there should be nothing left. [/quote] |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
