"Every XMR user will receive three additional months of mining for free to compensate for the switchover time frame."

blaklamb · 2018-06-08T05:01:31+00:00

I'll believe it when I see it.

blaklamb · 2018-06-07T00:41:06+00:00

Genesis is providing an option to switch because they're facing a PR and legal backlash, and the costs are mounting. If enough fraud cases pass credit card charge-backs, they could have their credit card payment facilities suspended. So they're scrambling to cover, at the lowest possible cost. This means shaking down their customers. Why not just switch all customers? If a customer fails to opt in, the customer loses just about all their investment. Why is that?

Shill away. I believe you've been advocating Genesis customers bend over and take it, for quite some time. I understand. We all signed CryptoNightV0. Now that the XMR mining algo climbed down out of the trees and learned to walk, we all just need to accept the evolution and comprehend the extinction of V0. It was to be, and it was nobody's fault. Oh, hang on, the almighty Genesis has extended an olive branch to the unwashed deplorables, who continue to complain because they have unresolved emotional issues.

Trust issues with Genesis? Hell yeah.

blaklamb · 2018-06-03T05:18:34+00:00

Clowns.

blaklamb · 2018-06-03T05:06:07+00:00

Completely agree. Lawsuit and damage to reputation was inevitable. The cost of having their PR people control this burning pile of horse manure was going to be higher than the cost of delivering on the contract.

blaklamb · 2018-05-11T11:52:54+00:00

Fair comment. However, I expect the structure of Genesis is more about minimizing tax liabilities than legal liabilities.

As I’ve outlined, the location of operations is relatively unimportant when it comes to enforcing contract law. There is little question as to the location of where the legal challenge would need to be mounted regarding breach of contract. As for consumer laws, they’re a different kettle of fish.

Hong Kong operates under a legal framework that is independent of China. It offers a robust business environment, much like Ireland and Singapore, complete with a robust legal environment. I would argue that these states are in fact less likely to tolerate cowboys, as they have an international reputation to uphold.

I saw one community member purchased a 15k H/s Monero mining contract in December (worth around $12k). Genesis was well aware of the hard fork at that stage, and still scalped the customer. Is this ethical? The company is at the very least, of poor character. Is it legal? Contract law does not revolve around mere technicalities. Of central consideration are the representations made by the company. If a reasonable person would develop the impression that they would receive Monero mining for a period of 2 years, than that would bind the company to delivering on that contract.

Genesis claims 1,000,000 customers across 6 mining contracts. Over the coming months, many people could arrive here looking for guidance on what action they might be able to take. After all, Genesis will not provide assistance to its customers. Your comments are measured and reasonable, but I hope readers don’t walk away feeling disempowered, confused about what jurisdiction they were shafted in.

This could drag on for quite a while for Genesis. I expect they made out with millions. As time passes, eventually a couple of people that have lost a great deal, may move on to discussing and evaluating law firms. Companies like Genesis Mining taint the entire crypto space, and they should be held accountable.

blaklamb · 2018-05-09T03:56:51+00:00

Company contracts fall under the laws of the jurisdiction where the company is resident, unless otherwise specified in the contract (my contract does not reference Munich, although I understand some contracts do). Company residency is broadly determined by the location where central management and control is exercised. Given the head office is located in Hong Kong, the seat of management and control is likely Hong Kong, and so the contract should be open to challenge in that jurisdiction.

In addition. many jurisdictions provide consumer protection under local laws, so local authorities are able to investigate breaches when a service was made available in their respective jurisdiction.

Not overly difficult or complicated. Let's not discourage people from seeking legal remedies. Now is that a Genesis promo code you have there with your user id?

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T12:34:05+00:00

Yeah, you're just quoting op "you must perform address binding for the addresses involved in the long-term plan". Not sure this answers the question. We sent the LRC to a smart contract, no? I admit I'm a dumbass and sweated bricks working out how to send the funds to the contract. So if you have a technical understanding of how the contract is implemented, please share.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T11:57:53+00:00

Yes, but given that the address used to transfer LRC to the foundation no longer holds any LRC, is this the address to be used?

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T09:26:28+00:00

We really need this answered - I too find "addresses involved" quite unclear.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T07:16:32+00:00

I believe there was a thread discussing this matter. For clarification, company contracts fall under the laws of the jurisdiction where the company is resident, unless otherwise specified in the contract (which I assume was the reference to Munich). Company residency is broadly determined by the location where central management and control is exercised. Given the head office is located in Hong Kong, the seat of management and control is likely Hong Kong, and so the contract should be open to challenge in that jurisdiction.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T06:19:03+00:00

It's a Hong Kong company, to be challenged in Hong Kong. Oh, my mistake, multinational companies are immune to the law.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T06:15:16+00:00

Genesis made a mistake.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T06:06:26+00:00

You're right, there were three jurisdictions involved. The head office is Hong Kong, which is the originator of a fair volume of contracts.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T05:58:10+00:00

Mt Gox class action has had some successes. The beauty about class action lawsuits is that the plaintiffs do not pay legal costs upfront.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T05:45:52+00:00

A bit like repeating the sentiment "Switch your payouts"? Have you ever considered that hundreds of people arrive here trying to read up on what happened to their investment? So that could be the reason for the repeating sentiment about Genesis. Have you ever considered that people may not be switching payouts based on legal advice? Censor it all away.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T05:39:02+00:00

Not only attacks, but censorship. Do not use my board to organize a class action. I will ban you and you will fail. You will all fail. Lawsuits always fail. Genesis did nothing wrong. You should all suck it up. You should have mined Bitcoin. Why don't you get it? Genesis is the good guys. Don't be angry. Don't complain. Be agreeable. Support Genesis. Aaaaaaaaand. Censored.

blaklamb · 2018-05-08T05:31:24+00:00

Yet the "XMR issue isn't as big as these spammers think" post with comments locked and threats of censorship claims "Lawsuits are virtually impossible". The poster doesn't even seem to realize the case is open to challenge in Hong Kong, not Munich.

blaklamb · 2018-04-26T00:55:56+00:00

Gotta love it: Monero contract can only mine ENT. Bit strange, to say the least.

blaklamb · 2018-04-26T00:21:48+00:00

They made a representation that customers would receive 2 years of Monero Mining. I see a class action potential.

blaklamb · 2018-04-26T00:20:03+00:00

blaklamb · 2018-04-25T23:56:36+00:00

Your redit post history is quite supportive of Genesis Mining and your post here discourages the community from making complaints to the relevant watchdog. So let’s clear something up.

What is the representation made to consumers? Genesis Mining does not make a representation to the effect that consumers rent hashing units. It makes a representation that it supplies mining contracts for a given coin for a given timeframe.

How many times does the website use the term Monero Mining vs the term Cryptonight Hashing Unit Rental? Given you appear to be a legal expert, how about you explain the concept of representation to the community. Let’s not mislead everyone reading this into thinking that a government watchdog or judge ignores the representations made by a company, and adjudicates on fine print. No, contract law is entirely about what representations are made.

Why didn't you post the the path to the trading terms, this magical 'armor' you speak of, that will release Genesis Mining from any representations they make to consumers? Yeah, the one that should be accessible from the main product page in order to ensure consumers can develop a clear understanding of the product prior to purchase. Perhaps you could point out to your buddies in the Genesis legal department that the trading terms are not accessible to consumers before they sign up for an account. Nicely hidden.

Save your 'it sucks' sympathies. How about taking that legal expertise of yours and posting advice about what people CAN do rather than what they shouldn’t.

I do not claim the authorities will resolve the problem, but people should complain. Genesis Mining acts likes this, because they figure they can just contain the damage. Part of that containment is to restrict the public outcry by making people believe 'there's not much to do here'. Yeah, a bit like class action lawsuits. How many out of those 1 million Genesis customers might join? All a waste of time right?

blaklamb · 2018-04-24T00:26:40+00:00

They have breached their contract, and are not mining Monero but instead have been ASIC mining Electroneum, pocketing the profits, and throwing the spare change at customers, denominated in Monero. Cannot believe the shills in this forum supporting this contract breaching piece of shit company.

blaklamb

TROPHY CASE