Bitcoin Forum

Nefario on GLBSE took over an asset called "GLBSE" that he assumed was a scam. He then let this stock trade and said that they would become valid GLBSE stock. He let this stock trade over 10 BTC each. GLBSE profited form the sale of these stocks because of commissions collected.

Nefario has the option to trade his real valid GLBSE stock for the "fake" GLBSE stock he said he would make good but he is now going to do a force by back of the shares for .1 BTC. That is less than 1% for what they were trading for.

I bought and held GLBSE and invested my time in GLBSE because I was told that I was a part owner. I was tricked, cheated and more or less scammed.


Nefario could trade me his real stock but refuses to do so and will just steal my GLBSE assets with out my consent.

Fix your links. They are broken for everyone but you.

I have a conflict of interest here. Maged and BadBear will decide whether Nefario deserves a scammer tag.

Nefario and scammer tag?  :o

Must be kidding....

WTF IS GOING ON  ???

It's not a joke, he asked Maged and I to deal with it.

Dealing in PMs is fine with me Goat, just send them to Maged as well, we should both be in the loop.

Between who? GLBSE and bitcointalk.org?

Chang Noi, do you consider investments on GLBSE safe?

By safe, I don't mean the normal risk one takes with investment, I mean more back door type of stuff like easily hacked, unscrupulous admin, etc.

So nefario finally shows his true colors.

I was responding to this post.


He's asked us to deal with it so you would be talking via personal message with me and Maged. Public is fine with me too I don't care either way, I expect you would post the PMs after the fact anyway.

Wonder how this will effect the other stocks on glbse

Bitcoinsoap, a new chapter develops. Somebody should make a movie about it.

I'm calling it now: Nefario will pay for this out of his own pocket. Everything will go back to normal.

Thats called the michael jackson approach.

He would be a fool not to take responsibility for this and protect the reputation of his exchange.

So many scams going around these days, he could really reap the benefits of being known for truth, honesty, integrity, and having a safe exchange.

Goat's plan:

    1) Spread FUD
    2) Buy stock cheap

can someone recap wtf are you talking about or PM it to me?

+1

+1

Let me guess? You give us your word?

Yes, I think we can all agree that having a safe sexchange is of considerable importance to the bitcoin economy. But back onto the topic at hand.

Really what happened is 7-8 months ago there was a scam on GLBSE that a number of people fell for. This was prior to the time that GLBSE started to vet assets. On a weekend when I was away someone launched an asset called GLBSE, a number of people bought it without checking if it was legit.

Total amount scammed was along the lines of about 30BTC.

The problem we currently have was caused by how I dealt with this. Failing to reserve the asset name GLBSE I felt had enabled it to happen. And I announced that those assets that were sold would be honored, at the time I thought I had the power to make this decision.

Turns out I didn't, GLBSE has bylaws and rules which it operates by (despite what some people think I can't do what I like) and to issue more shares (which is what this would amount to) required a vote of approval from existing shareholders. It also requires a vote of approval to allow someone who is not already a shareholder to become one.

Now several months later we're registering GLBSE as a legitimate company, with registered shareholders, because we want to bring on real companies to list. So this means we have to cross the T's and dot the i's. As a result I can't leave this issue as it currently stands.

What can I say, I messed up several months ago and now it's back to bite me in the ass.

Did I make a mistake while running the first bitcoin stock exchange in the early days, yes and I'm probably going to make other mistakes down the line, I'm human and what we're doing has never been done before, so that seems inevitable.

Did I scam people, intentionally mislead or swindle them? No.

GLBSE and I didn't sell any of those shares and we didn't profit from them, quite the contrary we're buying them back at the price they were originally sold, so thats a direct cost to us.

When I made those statements about honoring the asset, I did so in good faith, based on the assumption that I had the power to do so, that assumption turned out to be wrong.

Goat has thus far refused to communicate with me, so I'm going to go ahead and post my thoughts based on the available information.

I don't think Nefario is a scammer.

If Nefario were to honor those shares, he would be in breach of contract with the shareholders. He cannot issue new shares, nor can new shareholders be brought in without a vote from existing shareholders. Giving him a scammer tag for not doing something he legally can't do is not ethical or logical.

I tried to get you to PM me or post on page 1, twice. You haven't yet.

I would like to hear more about this "safe sexchange" you speak of. I'm not saying I'm into that or anything, but anything of considerable importance to Bitcoin is important to me.

Will this be funded by GLBSE?

:-)

-p

Fantastic lol

FWIW:

I remember when this happened, and I remember Nefario telling people NOT to buy stocks in GLBSE because at the time it was in fact a SCAM.

Nefario does not deserve a scammer tag and anyone with any sense knows this.

if Nefario made a promise he cannot "legally" keep than we need to as a community release him of this obligation because I do not believe for one second that he had any malicious intent what so ever.

Send the scammer tag mob someplace else today because Mr. Nefario is as legit as they come and he has contributed much more to this community than most of us.

I'm here if you need me.

we hear enough goat's blatting around here as it is we dont need multiple copies of it on one page

Intended to make the message subliminal, but ... busted

Disclaimer: I am an advocate of safe sex; hold no position on sex change atm.

LOL. Goat is drunk out of his scull.. that tax free gin can do this to a man... and goats.

I was genuinely worried he was having a stroke, was asking where he lived so as to get an ambulance there.

No thanks, any communications I initiate with you will be public for obvious reasons. If you wish to discuss something with me via pm the button is right there. You choosing not to communicate with me is acting in bad faith and not really helping your case.

R.I.P Goat,

Sept. 2012

lol

Apart from the +1 I have no idea what you've just said.

somebody is drunked up

We support you man, we all know your not a scammer. Don't even sweat it my brother.

Gong show was before my time.

"We" need to do this because "you" dont believe....? When did you become so important?

If it wasn't for the post counts I would have sworn that somebody sockied Goatse's identity and was posting those Tourette's comments as an evil joke. But casual observation shows it to be the real Goatse, just quite made because he thought he could corner the market on fake GLBSE shares and extort 10 BTC per share (a 2000% profit) from the real owners of the real GLBSE.

But, once agtain like the amatuer scammer fuck-wit that he is, this move is yet another failed attempt. At least he spiced it up with some creative Thai cursing this time. I'm trying to wrap my imagination around an "ass hat cunt licker" how does that work anyway? Wouldn't the hat get in the way?

I think that's something between a goat and a jackass
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcuNdqarGLaRkGEAmQcNO_E6Oe16jRpYJcvlDqIhf6Cnf1tG5MAw

The one thing I hope this thread accomplishes, is stopping Goat from listing future assets on the GLBSE.

lol @ this thread. Goat is lucky if he gets paid for those shares at all and should thank the real glbse shareholders for anything he gets for them. People were told not to buy them and ignored that advice and its like diving in the water when theres a sign saying there may be submerged logs.

Nefario does not deserve a scammers tag, on the contrary. This thread, however, makes me wish there was an "idiot" tag we could all choose to apply to certain idiotically prominent members. Perhaps a button for each member which would gradually change color as more and more people click it... Let's be nice and not call it "idiot" - how about "ignore"? You know - ignoring, as in not wasting your precious time with self-centered, useless assholes.

Funny, there is an ignore link in everyones profile.

I prefer the word "dunce". In school they used to make you stand in a corner wearing a pointy hat. I guess thats where the ass hat term comes from ?

http://drewpillow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/dunce-cap1-268x300.jpg

I thought it was from Hancock..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z51e45W0Tdk

1:30 or so..

Important factor: What happened to the IPO funds for the phony stock?

You could try thinking win-win to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome for all.
As currently, it seems more like greed at the expense of others and even yourself leading to disappointment and craving.
On the map of consciousness put forth by David Hawkins, such emotions lead to more struggle through a process of enslavement.

For you it appears as disappointment and from the outside, it appears as denial. I think we can agree on that.
Nefario's honesty and transparency is palpable yet again and should trigger a similar response on your part.

To be rich, you need to make someone else rich first. It makes the process much easier in my humble opinion.

So the asset was traded after it was identified as a scam?

The same wouldn't happen again today, would it?

I assume the asset issuer withdrew them.

Yes.

what exactly is your proposal ?

At the time he made that promise, he either knew or should have known that he couldn't keep it based on his existing contractual obligations. He made it anyway. He and others profited from that false statement, whilst people like Goat who had no reason to believe that Nefario wouldn't fulfil the promise he had made - because unlike Nefario they didn't have any way of knowing about the contract stating he couldn't - have lost money.

Extortion of glbse shareholders.

You are admitting to trading stolen property ? I think you need a scammer label...

Interesting sentence...
How could someone tell you were now(at the time) a part owner of GLBSE if you hadn't bought any shares yet?




Drunk? Or just trying to hustle your way to the top?

If Nefario would get a scammer tag, this would be the wrong thing in my p.o.v.

 I suggest you take the buyback price and stfu because its the best youre gonna do.

A scammer created the asset while Nefario was away.
People thought it was real.
Nefario felt that it was his fault for not noticing it and removing it immediately instead it traded for a couple of days.
To be nice Nefario said that he might decide to take up this asset and share any potential profit with the share holders.

Nefario was in a totally other situation then he is today, GLBSE was a small hobby project barely making anything. He was trying to be nice and repay the people that got scammed.
Now by misusing this and forcing Nefario to convert into GLBSE V2 shares you are misusing his word and his promise, he promised out of niceness and because he felt it was his fault. To now come several months after when the situation is totally different and expect a piece of the cake of GLBSE V2 is offensive.

Nefario didn't get anything out of the scam asset called GLBSE on the exchange, the scammer did. Nor was he in the same situation as he is now, a easy way out is to claim that the asset was for GLBSE V1 which is now dead, then he would not broken his promise and he would owe you nothing. But I doubt Nefario will do that, instead he will probably settle it with is private capital, what ever you get take it because it's more then Nefario morally and legally have to give you.

Now can everyone stop taking a shit on Nefario and let him get to work...
//DeaDTerra

He is paying you for it.
I guess you deem it not enough, based on how much you managed to sell it yourself, apparently 10BTC.
There is no basis for expecting 10BTC a share. You cannot solely determine the price of a share, you don't know how many shares there are in total and the market is greater than you.

The price you sell something at cannot be what you expect and demand others to pay you at a future time.
I feel there is less and less in your favour...

You know Goat, just stating the same thing over and over again is pretty boring and not going to get you anywhere.

When you brought these shares (after the fact so you say), there was a good chance that they would have been converted but there were plenty of reasons why that might not happen. If they had been, you would have made a killing. But it was never a dead certainty, so you must accept that there was always a chance this would not pan out. If you had had a bit more foresight, you might have asked additional questions - you might have realised that this would mean dilution of existing shareholders holding and you might have realised that it would require a board decision, not just the word of the ceo.

Its not a scam because it was never the intention to scam. Scam requires intention and it must be obvious that that is not what has happened here. This is the meaning of the word, and its not applicable here. You Goat, took a gamble, and lost. I think you would be lucky to get back what you paid for the scammy glbse stock, after all then you have your money back. (Well let me clarify, perhaps an equivalent to fiat since the value in fiat terms of the bitcoin may have changed since then.)

Probably Nefario was careless in what he said - what he might have said is I will take this to the board with the recommendation that they honour the scammy stock with intention of protecting the good name of GLBSE because it would surely be worth it to the board. But in fact the board have made a different value judgement. They could have agreed, in which case Goat and others would have been quids in!! But they didnt and they are not and its not at all unreasonable to suggest that Goat could have foreseen this as a possible outcome.

If you look at normal stocks and shares, price spikes caused by comments, sometimes careless are common place and you cannot claim afterwards that they should have the value they had during the spike - you brought - you lost out.

Goat keeps on stating the same simple minded statement again and again because he still sees an outside chance that he might profit enormously. But I think that he should be given no more than their original value back for the shares, possible less and that this should be a time-limited offer. (After that the offer is OFF!!) And I'd say no way does Nefario deserve a scammer tag.

If it were up to me. But, of course it is not.

Can we get an exact timespan it was trading for? I was considering purchasing shares of GLBSE for a couple of weeks.

Well he didn't shut down trades.
But it was before he noticed the scam and took action against it.
The asset in it self is older then GLBSE V2 so several months.
//DeaDTerra

I predict Goat will get "face value" ;)

So, let's recap:

• Fake GLBSE shares are not actually real GLBSE shares
• Nefario doesn't has the individual power to convert the fake shares to real shares without a motion (out of his control), so he cannot honor his word
• Nefario didn't specify when he would do such conversion

Hmm. So the best solution seems to be: Freeze all fake GLBSE shares indefinitely. ;D

Why are you assuming goat lost money.  Reading between the lines Goat bought shares at the IPO price, shares he knew were worthless.  He then sold a few of them for 10 BTC ea (a 10,000% profit) to victims and now will get reimbursed in full for the remaining shares.  So please tell me exactly what Goat "lost"?

I am trying to understand what is going on with this but am having a difficult time deciphering the problem.

So there was to be a GLBSE asset that was going to be nefario's and people bought shares, but now it is being said that the GLBSE listing was actually fake?

Now nefario won't use his omnipotent powers of TOS rules or "vetting" to correct the situation, but is instead saying that he can't make changes because of voting? Is this for voting on the "fake" GLBSE or for the real one? Is there a "real" GLBSE listing? Is the "fake" listing still active?

The reals GLBSE assets aren't publicly traded

No none of that is correct.  GLBSE has never been publicly traded.  Foolishly nefario never blocked the ticker symbol GLBSE.  Another scammer, registered a contract under the ticker GLBSE and sold about 30 BTC worth of shares before it was delisted.   At this point neither the fake listing nor the real GLBSE shares are available for trade.   Anyone who had fake GLBSE shares at the point it was delisted has them in their accont.  They can be transfered to another account. 

Goat has some (? number) of shares of the fake stock.  He knew they were the fake stock when he bought them, he knows they are the fake stock now.  He ripped off other users selling what he knew was fake stock for 10 BTC a share (a 10,000% profit for himself).  Nefario has said the fake GLBSE shares will be removed from everyone's accounts and they will be given the IPO price (0.1 BTC).  Goat (the only scammer in the thread) calls that a scam.

Well not GLBSE, but nefario announced that the Bitcoin Global asset listed on GLBSE was in fact officially the company owning and operating GLBSE.

When I saw GLBSE trading months later, I thought perhaps some of the Bitcoin Global shareholders had decided to sell. I had forgotten that the ticker symbol was BG not GLBSE.

Personally, paying 0.1 is too much for them, it's like rewarding exploiters. Even after Nefario told those were fake shares, there are still individuals wanting to exploit his good-will for maximum profit. Incredible!

Do you have a citation for the pricing?  I haven't seen anything to suggest that Goat purchased at the IPO price and then sold for a profit.  It sounds more like he purchased them for 10 BTC each, but I don't think he's actually said that explicitly.

The most equitable resolution to this would be for Nefario to make an offer of purchase for the shares, at his own expense, or if the other shareholders agree, at company expense, at the price each holder paid for them, assuming that such a price can reasonably be demonstrated.  That said, I don't think that failure to do so would be grounds for a scammer tag.  Sounds like an honest mistake on his part, and not ill intent.

GLBSE has real shareholders and bylaws and the only people qualified to buy anyones shares are existing shareholders.

Its Goat we are talking about here.

And Goat is a known troll.

Goat never stated or even implied he bought shares for 10 BTC ea.  He did however sell fake shares he knew were worthless for 10 BTC to unsuspecting fools.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109660.msg1212459#msg1212459

I don't really understand where the debate is. Because Nefario doesn't have the authority to honor his word means that he is 'all good'?

My understanding:

He acknowledged the shares were fake, but agreed to 'honor' them, making them real GLBSE stock

Goat then buys it, thinking that it will become real stock

Nefario cannot make it stock, because he assumed he had more power than he did. Obviously, he could have known he cannot just 'make more stock'

Now to clean it all up, the fake, but then real, but now fake again stock is being bought back for the initial IPO listing price?


However, at the same time, I feel that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. It would be like going to a car dealership and being offered a price that is too low. Being told You are paying $$$$, but the contract says $$$$$. Would the dealership be a 'scammer'?

Ahh.  Found it.


Goat apparently paid something like 0.05 BTC each for them.  Nefario should offer to repurchase them from him at 0.05 or 0.06 BTC each, out of his own personal funds.  If he does, I think that everyone (except possibly Goat) would consider the matter to be equitably resolved.

The matter of the shares that people purchased from Goat is a different matter.  The good news is that it sounds like there are only 3 of them, and I don't think any of them have come forward, so they might be happy with their 10 BTC collector's items.

It's more like: You go to a car dealership and the vendor, by mistake, offered you a price that was too low, let's say 10% of what it was really worth. Later, after seeing he made a mistake, he says he will honor the price. And you say: "Oh, yes? Then I'll buy 10!!!".

So, while he was trying to cover your "losses" out of good-will, you use that good-will to maximize your own profit at his expense. :(

IMO, if Nefario also said not to buy them, he's under no obligation to honour ones bought afterward...

Nefario didnt scam the people Goat sold the shares to for 10btc. Goat scammed them.

This seems to be an unfounded accusation.  Do you have some evidence that he acted in less than good faith?

If Goat had inside information that the Nefario would not honor his word, but that information wasn't also available to the people he sold them to, I could see it.  But your dislike of profit doesn't seem sufficient.

This makes sense. Though wouldn't the car dealer like to do the same to you? Buy back you car for 10% its value or sell you cars at 1000% their value?

Generally, I don't see an issue in exploiting a businesses mistake, because you can't expect to make money on trust.

Since I seemed to have missed that Goat sold his shares for 10BTC each, and now wants a refund its like double dipping. Buying those 10 cars for 10% of their value, and soon returning them, demanding full price back.

yep, he made that pretty clear, imo.

The offer was to reimburse the people who got suckered by the scam issuer. IT was never intended to cover 'illegal' trades executed after that statment time.  Goat knows this.

It's about reasonable expectation.  Goat knew damn well, there was never a reasonable expectation for the fake shares to be worth that. The fact he convinced others of that value changes nothing.

And the damn GLBSE ticker shold ahve been fuggin frozen 7 months ago when this was first talked about...

Can we blame Nefario for all of this since he didn't freeze the ticker? Or block the ticker altogether way back? I like how he handles situations where action has to be taken.

They were scam trades because Goat had no agreement that he could on-sell those shares. Even real glbse shareholders cant sell their shares to non members.Goat is calling Nefario a scammer because Nefario wont let him make 10,000% profit. Can you see how insane that is ???

I will agree with that. It allowed Goat to take advantage of people.

Two insanes don't make a right.

The shares were his property.  He needs no agreement to sell his property.  And you are pushing a double standard here, you say that Goat is guilty because he should have known that they were worthless, but the people he was selling to had the exact same information (unless some evidence is produced that says otherwise), namely a statement from Nefario, and you don't expect the purchasers to know that they are worthless.  If you want to show fraud here, show me a statement from Goat that he knew to be untrue at the time, not one that you, in hindsight, claim that he should have known to be untrue.

Goat might be a douche for wanting Nefario to buy them for 10 BTC each, but that doesn't make him a scammer, and more than Nefario's mistaken statement about honoring them makes him a scammer.

As far as I'm concerned, if Nefario would replace his forced buyback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109660.msg1212435#msg1212435) with a voluntary offer, at the same price, the matter would be fully and successfully resolved.  I'm not a big fan of forced buybacks, and I think that some people may want to hold on to the shares as collector's items.  Hell, I'd pay a couple of BTC for one, if I had a promise from the exchange board that they wouldn't be retracted or renamed, even if they are otherwise totally bogus.

But that isn't my call.  The exchange has considerable authority over such things, and they are in the best position to evaluate their options and the consequences of them.

The issue is a voluntary buyback doesn't resolve the issue of people like Goat committing fraud in the future trying to sell the worthless shares for 10, 100, 1,000 BTC, and then the people saying why didn't GLBSE prevent this.  This all came up again when there was a thread where people were once again attempted to unload the worthless shares.

300 shares of 500 shares is  a lot different than 300 shares of 10,000,000

People wanting these fake shares would do well to remember that wrt to future value.

You opened GLBSE up to serious litigation problems in the future.  I would say find some kind of way to settle this with people that own the fake shares.

Meh.  Just re-list them, with a big notice on the details page that they are only collectors items with no inherent value, and not actual shares in any company, certainly not in the exchange itself.  Then when GLBSE goes public, they can take the ticker GLBSE2, as a history lesson, and a reminder that mistakes can have long lasting and far reaching consequences.

Many of us that are involved with bitcoin are doing so because we find depriving people of their rightful property distasteful.  GLBSE should consider very carefully what messages they want to send to their customers.  Some of us are already uncomfortable that all shares are held in street name.  Well, worse than street name, actually, since a single entity is acting as both brokerage and exchange.  This is an opportunity to show that GLBSE respects the ownership of the properties that it is custodian of, even when it hurts.

Also, love your loaded phrasing.  Classic.

The thief didnt respect the property of GLBSE either. If anyone wants to be mad at someone be mad at them.

You cant just go into a house that has its door open and take their shit without permission.

We've offered to buyback the fake asset for 0.12BTC per asset, and to PM me if you want to do so.

I'm going to be speaking to our lawyer on this in the morning and taking his advice on what action to take regarding this for anyone who doesn't want to take this offer.

Good plan.

A lot of confusion here.  How many shares did Goat buy, at what price, and did he sell them?

I don't think you are going to win this one.  He made a mistake by promising something that wasn't his to give.  Suck it up and be a man, either accept the buyback offer and make a profit on the deal, or keep them with the knowledge that they may vanish some day (I hope not, as I posted before) and will probably never be worth anything.

I'm sorry that you thought that you were part owner of the exchange, but you weren't, and it wasn't a scam, just an honest mistake.

According to our bylaws Theymos has gotten the permission of other GLBSE shareholders to do that, and it depends on who he is selling to, which also requires other GLBSE shareholders permission.

There is an offer to sell your fake asset to us for 0.12BTC, it's a pretty good offer, I suggest anyone who has this fake asset to take it.

You only had property under two conditions:
1) GLBSE shareholders have agreed to honor this. They have not.
2) That you followed our bylaws in how the asset could be bought and sold. you did not.

GLBSE is not your property.

I know the GLBSE shares were started as a scam, but if you actually did say you would honor those shares as real shares of GLBSE but you needed authorization before giving out any more shares by your agreement with other shareholders, you are still liable.  The other owners maybe be able to keep goat from any ownership, but you would be liable for his losses for his perceived ownership.  You might be able to get away with it if you did not really organize the business legally before all this mess happened.  You should refrain from discussing any of this in public anymore and not say anything until instructed by your lawyer.

I actually saw GLBSE shares for sale and was looking into buying them as well, but then I saw the price was at 10BTC.  I did not buy because I thought it was overpriced.  Glad I didn't.

We'll see what the lawyer says.

Goat actually bought all of his "many" shares after the asset was declared fraudulent. If he wants to claim anything it should be with the criminal element that originally listed the asset. Nefario took the extraordinary step of blocking the asset and delisting it to prevent any trade in a worthless item.

perception is empty. Anyone's "perceived" value doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of legal standing. What Goatse bought was fake shares created by a criminal. Whatever his profit motive or ownership goal in those shares was negated when they were identified as fake. That he held them and clearly tried to list them for sale without disclosing any of the tainted history indicated that this is perhaps another case where Goatse has been caught in lies and deceptive practices, and is making loud noises to divert attention from his attempted sale of fraudulent shares.

In fact, I would call for Nefario to compare IP addresses with the original scammer who created GLBSE Fake, and the IP addresses Goatse has used to create his spectrum of efforts on the different GLBSE markets. Wonder if there is any corollary there? Could this just be a desparate endgame to play out for a few more suckers on the 30 BTC somebody has already stolen? I would certainly look into it if I was a legitimate owner of GLBSE, I sure wouldn't want to let a viper into the clubhouse.

Oh, and Goatse? The terms for GLBSE ownership have been publicly posted and available for well over a year that I am aware of. Certainly any businessman worth his slat would have done the due diligence of learning about a company he invested in PRIOR to buying those shares, wouldn't you agree? Or is just plain ignorance going to be your defense this time around?

No slander sonny, just a valid question. You were very active listing assets when it was free and unregulated to do so. This issue came up during a weekend, which was coincidentally when you tended to create your ventures. The language in the contract documents was startlingly similar to the language used in your asset listings.

I just suggest that those with access to the data may want to think about a little comparison to learn why some very vocal children are crying for so much attention.

Your insistence on oblique shifts in discussion do nothing to strengthen your position. Nefario never claimed they were "valid" shares. He claimed that there would be a way of honoring them. Without any stated method for doing so, and with the clear stated and obvious proviso that honoring them was an accommodation for the error in not controlling the name of the asset prior to its criminal implementation. And demanding access to the codicils of an investment group which have been available for over a year is silly. Do your homework before you shoot off at the mouth.

And claiming I listed the asset is churlish and baseless. As Nefario can clear up for you, I was very actively engaged with him at that very time looking for scammers, like yourself, who were destroying the first version of the market. In fact... now that I recall, wasn't Peter Lambert a big fan of yours? And didn't he actively coach you on asset creation? And wasn't that right around the time GLBSE Fake was created, and then the LIF family of funds turned out to be just as fake as the pass-through you ran for pirate?

Are you absolutely certain you want to open up that kettle of fish, rice boy?

If they are valid you broke the glbse bylaws by selling them. Do you not understand this ????

Ignoring all the real problems for a moment... there is nothing binding about the GLBSE bylaws by default. I presume the bylaws forbid transfer of shares to anyone who doesn't contractually accept the bylaws, but that obviously wasn't the case here.

Thats an interesting line of thought.

OMG. Not this again.

Goat, don't you have any feeling for what in morally wrong or right?

Lets assume for a moment you claims where right (which the seem to be not), that doesn't mean you should stick to your claims ant any costs.

That's exactly the same kind of behavior that the people have that sue a coffeehouse because their coffee is to hat and there was no warning.

...

Oh, I know get it. The whole thread was ironic. Good acting Goad. You fooled me.

You may not do anything legally wrong here.

But  you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.

You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.

Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.

?
goat always did what he said (ok, sometimes he does things and does not tell: but he never broke contract)

on the other side nefario (sometimes) does things because he THINKS thats the right thing to do - and sometimes i think otherwise.

as goat offers securities/investments i think he can do whatever he wants as long as he honors his contracts (what he does).

nefario as the owner of the biggest bitcoin exchange should think very wisely before he acts (examples are DMC, publicate IDs, forcing existing listings to provide id, forbid IPO's listings after taken the fee and so on).

Please do not interned extra content into my posts.

I didn't mean that Goat doesn't honor his contract. I mean the opposite. Goat takes contacts and even things said to a level where it just isn't reasonable by common sense anymore.

Just see this thread, or the thread where he tries to get shares on bitcoin magazine.

That's all I meant. I'm still confident that goat will honor all his contracts. I would be carefully if I deal directly with him, or if he would be shareholder of my business, though.

Oh drama... solve this please.

Nefario is not a scammer. (rediculous)

I also bought GLBSE stocks before V2 was introduced, why was this stock available for such a long time if it was not legit ?

GLBSE allowed this scam to happen so GLBSE is responsible.

[sarcasm]Of course I don't believe in property, things can not be owned, they can only allow you to use them for some time.[/sarcasm]

Why you don't have any shares on real GLBSE has been stated over and over in this thread. I'm not going to repeat it.

By no I'm sure that you just don't understand what my problem is here.

I got the feeling that you absolutely don't understand the difference between law and common sense.

Don't get me wrong goat. I think you are a highly intelligent person. But I get the feeling that you have a huge lack in emotional intelligence.


Edit:

After reviewing, I recognized that this sounds much more offensive that I intended it to. Lets say it was due to my lacking skill in the English language.

Goat, can you please add additional info to the OP? It's important what exactly Nefario said, as is a rough idea about face value and volume of the real and extra GLBSE stocks then and now.

I'm all in favor of people sticking to their word, but not if that leads to unreasonable claims under scammy circumstances. Nefario already said he'd pay some sort of compensation, you say it's too small, so how about we look at the compiled numbers and statements? I can't make heads or tails from it as is.

If all you want is to keep you worthless fake GLBSE shares and Nefario wants to force buy them you indeed have a point, IMO.

My understanding was that you wanted a ridiculous price  or ownership in GLBSE for them.

If that's not the case, than please accept my apology.

Not saying it's true or anything, but I've noticed that nicknames seem to speak a lot about people...


ne·far·i·ous

Definition of NEFARIOUS
: flagrantly wicked or impious : evil
— ne·far·i·ous·ly adverb

Examples of NEFARIOUS

    a nefarious scheme to cheat people out of their money

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nefarious




It is so hard to trust anyone in this community at all. You really have to think about long-term implications of "what can go wrong". Everyone seems to be so willing to rush into deals with each other, then are quick to yell "Lawyer Up, dude" when there is some disagreement.

This is exactly what is wrong with the world right now. No personal responsibility.

-p

Just how much do you think GLBSE will be worth when people know you own part of it ?

Doesn't matter anymore. If Nefario just does nothing, everthing will be fine:

So "fake"/"fraudulent" GLBSE shares were listed but also still remain listed and traded?

And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?

Goat, wouldnt your time be better spent on "Going after Trendon Shavers" ? Or was that just bleating?

They are no longer listed or tradeable on the exchange.  They can be "traded" off the exchange by using the transfer function (transfer assets from one account to another account).

What do you value them at? Theymos is selling shares of GLBSE for 0.3BTC.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but Nefario said about 30BTC were sold at an IPO of 0.1. That puts a cap of about 300 shares sold. Goat bought shares at 0.05 to 0.06BTC, so even if he owned 300 of them that he paid 18BTC for them. Since then he's sold 3 for 31BTC. He holds an undisclosed number of existing shares, that he does not want to have bought back for 0.12BTC.
Does that about sum it up?

http://theymos.com/bylaws.pdf

Part 5 Section 8 accepted via motion at the Annual General Meeting held on April 13th, 2012.

To sum it up, since you didn't look very hard, is that it added means of meeting to accept IRC for voting and such.

What were the exact words he said when he made the listing "legitimate"?

Question...  What would Nefario have gained by a deliberate lie?

What I was getting at was that you are calling for a scammer tag, but it is hard to see what the "scam" would have profited him.  If there was a "mistake-er" tag on these forums for people that make mistakes, I think that might apply in this case, but from what I've seen, it seems pretty conclusive that the scammer tag does not.

I never said you would get more stock in the future, we did talk about you becoming a GLBSE investor but that came to nothing, you kept changing your mind and the accusing me of stuff.

See a doctor.

Oh shit. Are you going to peruse this loss of maybe a couple hundred dollars as aggressively as you did the tens of thousands lost to pirate? Watch out Nef, you might get a phone call in 30 years. 

You said you'd think about it and never gave me an answer. Thats not a deal.

An offer does not constitute a contract, and would require shareholder approval before it could go through. Nothing violated.

Nefario... you might want to condition that with "Fuck you, and all offers are off the table for all fake assets that you may have come into possession at any time." Otherwise this silly asswipe is going to continue to generate hundreds of repetitive posts about how he has been savaged by your application of common sense, the bylaws of the asset you own a part of, and basic good business practice.

Just kill the worthless GLBSE Fake. No buyouts, no compensation, no favors because assholes like Goatse will always want more and more and will never be satisfied, and quite frankly, the world is tired of listening to his histrionics. He needs to find some counterfeit Thai Midol and chill the fuck out, the world has no need to experience his period with him.

He gained not having to pay back the people who bought "GLBSE" shares on his exchange as a result of his screw-up. He also gained transaction fees on the GLBSE asset. (Also, the trust of the community by virtue of "doing the right thing", which would make it rather appropriate if he lost that trust again after it turned out he couldn't actually fulfil his generous offer.)

Arguably you're asking the wrong question though. Perhaps what you should be asking is what others lost as a result of his actions - how much direct financial loss did Goat and the other holders of "GLBSE" suffer as a result of sinking Bitcoins into something that turned out to be worth far less than he claimed.

From the outside, you would help your case by not over-simplifying and polarizing this issue any further.

Did you consider that the offer was made as an offer to convince the shareholders to help everyone out?  According the bylaws I just read, a shareholder vote is required to sell shares to non members.

You haven't even mentioned the original issuer of the shares as complicit in any wrong doing.  This is where the scam happened.  Everything after is speculation.

Its pretty clear that the offer you've been given was made in good faith to help you and others in your situation.

Assets get frozen and cancelled on stock exchanges all over the world.  It sucks.  Its part of the risk of trading.

No one is talking about the loss glbse shareholders suffered as a result of the creation of a fake asset.

That asset was listed on the GLBSE assets page for MONTHS. There was ample time to remove it if it was a scam asset. All shares purchase should be honored by the current shareholders of GLBSE, or the whole lot of them are scammers in my book.

I'm afraid that's not true because in this case, there is detrimental reliance sufficient to create promissory estoppel.

"A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires." -- Second Restatement of Contracts

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel
"Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.
A majority of courts apply the doctrine to any situation in which all of these elements are present."

It appears in this case, a promise was made. The promise was relied upon to the detriment of those who relied on it. This reliance was foreseeable and should have been reasonably expected to increase the value of the outstanding shares. However, what the consequences of this should be is a closer question. Enforcing the promise would mean that the promisor would be liable for damages for breach of the promise.

Goat:

GLBSE is a startup and always when you start something new some mistakes are made.

I take it you did even make a huge Profit (in %) trading these shares so on the contrary to the people who bought this shares from you, no financial damage was done to you.

I don't here the people who where damaged by this scam complaining.

Couldn't you just call this a mistake and leave it be?

Must you really fight this to the bitter end? This whole thing has already escalated to much.

Just think for a moment of the possible outcomes if you go through with this to the bitter end:

• Nefario gives in --> You can keep you shares, but trading gets frozen and a warning added that this are not real GLBSE shares (so no naive noob buys them
• Nefario "wins" --> You loose you shares and get nothing
• You "win" --> Nefario gets a Scammer tag, you still get nothing, but you destroyed the most promising BTC Stock exchange

(I now I'm overdrawing a little)

Or you just give in and walk out of this with a profit, whats the harm in that?

Could someone confirm that (upper quote?)?
Especialy Nefario isn't above true? or there is sth. important missing?


Because if it is true I have to agre with the other part:
Anyone wouldn't?




You mised that than in the meantime Goat was told that fake shares will be real.
And that makes you making mess here and trying to make mess.



Just human.

There was some huge mistake and not by Goat but by Nefario, and now you are saying that using someones mistakes is what?


Obviously yes.

+1 because of that



Did he lay anyone?
So he didn't scam anyone.

If someone laying and even do not try to come true his lays, than he is scamer.



So can't you blame Goat that he used that.
He used people according to rules.
And rules are more important than someone losses.



Well said and true for me.





Brutal true - I would prefer to do business with Goat rather than with Nefario, because he is brutal, and do not lay.
It,s just Nefario is the person who want to cheat because he want to take profit (by not giving his shares as the only honest solution exists now (including talking other shareholders to let him do that))



You should be carrefoul when you deal with anyone, rather than to behave as Nefario.

Humor us and post quotes/links.

if he keeps your btc thats simply stealing and he deserves a scammer tag.

but: i dont believe he plan to keep them. nefario sometimes acts a little strange but i am sure he wont steal.

This'd seem to run against the shield-not-sword doctrine tho.

That's what I meant when I said: "This whole thing has already escalated to much."

I takes you both to deescalate this, but you have started this and I think its up to you to take the first step.

This will only work out if both of you swallow their pride and work towards an agreement you could both live with.

Of Nefario I got the impression that he would do so (I could be wrong of course).

Just as Note: You have reached a compromise if both partys are unsatisfied with the solution.

Why didn't you listed:

• Nefario gives in --> You can keep you shares, he get other shareholders let him giv his shares in exchange to fake shares to make his words true

But what the hell haw could and why he closed Goat account?
Now I'm afraid of my account to and my shares and BTC.
Should I redeem that?

Aww, doesn't it just suck when karma bites you on the ass? Goat, you had it coming, if in fact this is what has happened. Guess advise from counsel was to swat the little irritating mosquito. Bummer to be you, huh?

Signed contract or it didn't happen.

Maged and I have both asked him for links/quotes, but he won't for some reason. I wonder what that reason is.

Quoting my post since Goat seems to have missed it.

Here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112071.20

Not that, the original quotes from the time it happened.

I'll look for it now, but how it is is it not enough that Nefario admitted that?! How's that?
Why now you doubt it?

I'm not going to do anything based on your word, I want to see exactly what was said. The original agreement is very important when determining if the agreement was broken, I don't see how that is difficult to understand or why I have to explain it.

But you never got back to him agreeing to that. You waited till now to complain about it instead of doing the decent thing and sorting it out at the time the offer was made. You never agreed to terms of any binding contract and never bothered to find out the terms of being a glbse shareholder. You just assumed you could do whatever the fuck you wanted including selling shares for inflated prices when you had no right to do so.

Goat never got back to him to agree to those terms.  Goat wants to give Nefario a scammer tag because he was too fucking lazy or ignorant to conclude the deal. There is no evidence that Goat agreed to anything just that Nefario made an offer.

Did you ever agree to what Nefario offered ? You cant just ignore the offer and later say "we had a deal" when it wasnt one.

As I see it, it wasn't an offer, it was an statement, or announce even.
Ther wasn't question mark in the end anyway.

I presume he's trying to recover losses, not replace lost profits. If that's not true, then it's a different story.

I can't help you if you don't help me.

What "terms" are you talking about? There were never any terms for anyone to agree to. This wasn't, "If you do X, I'll do Y." this was "I'm going to do X, so you don't have to worry about Y."

This is my huge problem with this whole story.

Goat and nefario do not get along, and act like asshats toward each other. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is what was agreed to by both parties in the past, how the glbse shareholders have responded to the egregious overstepping of authority by nefario, and the offer (and further negotiations) on the table.

IMO, the reason that GLBSE must honor those shares, is they were allowed to trade on the open market for a very very long time. Anyone could have bought them. I almost bought some too. I would have liked to own shares in GLBSE. I am now glad I do not. I wouldn't want to be trying to dump them this week as GLBSE starts to feel the pressure of nefario's bad & arbitrary decisions.

IMO, all of the shareholders of GLBSE should be held accountable for this issue, not just nefario.

I wonder, why the shareholders of GLBSE Real should be held liable for the actions of a criminal in creating GLBSE Fake? There operating partner, Nefario, identified the fraud as soon as it was known, and made no indication AT THAT TIME that there would be any compensation to the victims of the fraud. It was only later, after any reasonable person had a chance to know the state of the fake asset that Nefario extended the courtesy of compensation to the holders of GLBSE Fake. That he did so without the contractual ability to do so was identified almost immediately by the balance of the shareholders of GLBSE Real, and he was stopped from going forward with this plan. His courtesy offer to the holders of those fraudulent shares became an issue now, only because of the scammish behavior of Goat in trying to sell these worthless assets for a massive profit, knowing full well that they were Fakes, and had nothing backing them up.

You are saying the assets were worthless even after Nefario stated he would redeem them? Why? Should Goat have known not to trust Nefario?

I think it was because Goat bought some then started whinging about it that Nefario made the offer.

If so, that means Nefario intended Goat to rely on the offer.

But he never replied to the offer !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law

Yes, but 300 shares out of how many
 

300 shares is going to be pretty worthless in the scheme of things. Goat is going to wish he took the generous offer he got presented.

He didn't have to. The offer didn't ask for people to reply to it. It was a statement that an action would be performed in the future conditional on others performing actions in the future. It's like, "If you bring us 100 pounds of corn, we'll give you $100 off on a car". You don't have to accept the offer, you just have to bring 100 pounds of corn to the place. Goat did what the offer required him to do -- he acquired shares of GLBSE. Nefario then reneged on his offer after Goat completed his part.

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

What losses?

He has profited.

After witnessing the BS that is Goat for nearly 2 years, one thing is clear to me..  crystal clear..


Goat should not, and cannot be in charge of any asset, amount of bitcoin or anything remotely important, and to do business with him is identical to shooting yourself in the foot, and expecting a free ride to the hospital paid for by the people he cheats, and the money he loses of others

Nahhh.. thanks..

I have better things to do then to fight the world..   Clearly you have it under control.. 

So..  did you sue Pirate yet ?

I don't think he called you a scammer.  You are a liability (but then again so is Nefario).  You let tantrums, and games get in the way of profits and business.  You have no common sense, no ability to reach equitable solutions in a dispute, and no real ethics.  Anyone doing business with you WILL LOSE eventually.  That doesn't make you a scammer, it just makes you a liability to be avoided at all cost.

Exactly..

Thank you for putting it a little more eloquently, those are my thoughts precisely

GLBSE, for one, failed to protect its name, and any trademark that might be in the letters GLBSE.

Nefario, for another, allowed the known fake (and promised to be made real) asset, in his companies name, to continue trading on his exchange. I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone would continue to claim this asset to be "fake" - It's been given some value in the past, and it's traded, and never been removed for having been fake (when all the other GLBSE 1.0 fake assets were removed). IOW, nefario allowed a fraud to continued to be perpetrated by allowing the asset to continue trading.

This shows, at least, gross negligence on nefario's part. We really ought to have a tag for that. I'm sure nefario had no intent to deceive people into losing their money. However, his appalling failure to remove dead and scam assets in the past, which seems to be negligence, has lead directly to this incident.

And, yes, I do believe that the exchange is going to become liable for the criminal actions of their users when those criminal actions become known, and any assets created are left to trade, as if created by legitimate issuers. This is the exchanges job to list and delist assets. Their negligence in their process is going to make them liable for damages to investors.

How is an investor to know this is a dead, or fake asset if it's still trading? Search these forums for clues?!

It wasnt trading, it was simply sitting in peoples accounts and didnt exist as a public asset. It has never been available to buy on GLBSE 2.0 except through p2p transfer.

I think it is pretty clear that there is no consensus that Nefario scammed anyone here.

Scammer,no. Breach of fiduciary duty to existing shareholders? Maybe...by not shutting down the fake shares and instead promising to honor them he damaged the other shareholders of the company and as can be seen this damage along with other recent acts has greatly harmed the company. I dont really know what to say about that as he has placed them in between a  rock and a hard place.

I think it was a fairly childish move to kick him off the exchange. I would have halted public trading instead. I haven't made any moves to pull my money off the exchange. The assets Goat ran were pretty worthless to begin with. They were just written off to zero ahead of time.

I think it was a long time coming. A lot of the trash that is on GLBSE needs to be cleaned out. I hope Nefario goes after Obsi next.

Thanks for this. This is the kind of context I was looking for.

Goat, do you disagree with any of the statements in the above quoted post?

You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration.

LG what's the timeline for "almost immediately" I'm just a spectator on this one, but I would like to know. How long did it take nefario to retract his statement? And why is it now deleted?

Perhaps, but no consideration is required because all the elements for promissory estoppel are present. Nefario communicated a promise intending people to rely on it in clearly foreseeable ways. They relied on his promise to their detriment. This renders the promise the equivalent of a contract.

In any event, whether someone's considered a scammer by the community doesn't hinge on the finer points of contract law. It's more about common sense.

However, I think this particular issue may now be completely academic, as it seems Nefario did offer to cover any direct harm Goat suffered from the breach. He's not entitled to lost profits.

I'm not a spectator, and I also would like an answer to this.

Warning came out within 72 hours of the asset being listed. This all happened over a weekend, and if I remember correctly, it was at the time that Nefario was relocating to the UK from China and had only very spotty access. It was caught and identified. There was immediate reaction in the GLBSE forum.

The offer to convert (and note it was an offer, NOT a promise or contract!) was made weeks later, and the retraction within a day or less as GLBSE Real owners challenged Nefario's ability to convert without approval of the majority of shareholders, which by all indications was not going to be forthcoming.

We know that the asset was called a scam quickly orniginally but that is not what we need to know about. I bought the stock after Nefario claimed he would make it real GLBSE stock.

Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote? Was it on this forum or some other website? Also even if Nefario was challenged it does not mean that he agreed (or even knew he was challenged). He let the stock trade for months. He even let it move to GLBSE as a tradeable asset. Either Nefario is just retarded and can't read a contract or he was involved in fraud. Either way it is not good for him.

Also why did Nefario delete his posts? What does he not want us to see?

Also you say he was challenged but you did not say Nefario made a statement. So when you say almost immediately you really mean almost a year?

That's not how I remember it. From what I recall, the offer was made within days and I don't remember seeing any retraction, or anyone else mentioning any retraction, or... In fact, as recently as May this year Nefario was giving the impression that they were still worth shares in GLBSE, it's just that GLBSE shares weren't actually worth a huge amount each:

Sorry Goat, but taking my responses out of context to serve your agenda is not honest.

To address your points:

Nefario said he would convert. He categorically NEVER stated it would become "real" stock, the conversion was undefined.

Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it, and had a lengthy communication with him through the GLBSE forum and PM's as to the resolution of the matter. Note for the record that I am not the one calling this a scam. And no, I will not link you to quotes or share private communications. If you are not able to do your own research to carry out your hysteria, far be it for me to advance your agenda. And the private communication are just that- private. They are none of your business or any other party who was not a part of that conversation.

GLBSE Fake was never a "tradeable" asset after the conversion to GLBSE 2.0, that's why you, and only you as far as anyone can tell, were originally offering to sell them at grossly inflated prices as a transfer. There was no trading in the interim.

Adding ad hominem insults like "retarded" only diminishes your statements. This entire debate is not about mental capacity. Luckily for you! If it was you lost when you established the thread.

Nefario has only modified one post that I can see, by removing a direct and tasteless insult and replacing it with a sarcastic image.

And finally, no, Nefario did not call a press conference and make a statement. There was clear communication in both this forum, and in the GLBSE forum within two days of the offer to "convert" that it was not acceptable to the majority of GLBSE Actual shareholders, and there was a lively debate amongst them concerning it.

A debte, I would point out, that any owner of GLBSE Actual was welcome to be a part of in the private forum dedicated to the actual ownership of GLBSE Actual. Since you were not a part of that community, at no time were you holding real shares of a real company. You were scammed, but scammed by the parties unknown who created GLBSE Fake, not by anyone involved with GLBSE Actual.

And tangentially- your assets have been locked down because you are acting erratically and dishonestly. Your statements have given the owners of GLBSE Actual, the market, clear and compelling reason to de-list your assets as you are acting in a manner that follows a classic scammer profile, and to date have refused to address the concerns that you yourself might be involved in the creation and sale of fraudulent assets.

That is not scamming by the market, that is considered action, after consultation with counsel, and reflects due diligence and sound business practice. That you did not take due diligence in buying an asset that was utterly without value, and are now seeking to steal further funds from people who did not create the scam says volumes about your business ethics. Personally I think the markets are far better off without your brand of "business".

A peppercorn doesn't cease to be good consideration should it become known the payee doesn't like pepper and has thrown away the corn.

Consideration isn't a synonym for gain or profit.  It requires an exchange, a trade.  The commission paid isn't paid for the promise, it is incidental to it.  It may have happened because of the promise, but not in consideration of it.

"If you buy a car from us and are unsatisfied for any reason, we'll give you back your money." You buy the car, relying on the promise. They refuse to give you back your money for the car. Consideration, or no?

Nefario said "if you hold the fake stock, we'll take it back in exchange for real stock". Goat bought the stock relying on the promise.

Nefario was specifically intending to increase the value of the fake stock. His concern was that people had paid more than it was worth and chose to handle it by increasing the value. Of course, he should have frozen trading prior to doing this. This mistake justifies voiding the promise, and that's why Goat is not entitled to lost profits.

Come on Joel that is painfully easy (and not a good analogy).  In your example of course there was consideration.  You paid the dealership for the car.

Your $$$  -->  Dealership  = consideration.

You wouldn't have given them money without them giving you the car and neither would have happened without the promise.  Still in real world you would still be SOL because the sales contract would exclude any verbal promises expressed or implied.

Goat paid GLBSE for stock.

Same here.

Perhaps, but that wouldn't change the fact that if the car dealer didn't intend to keep the promise, they would be scamming. (Though I think Nefario intended to keep the promise and so long as he makes up for any actual losses suffered as a result, he's not scamming in so far as breaching the promise.)

oooh, I'm an internet lawyer too. detrimental reliance.

Terrible analogy.  The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from.  In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.

No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.

No. Categorically no. I did not "tell" Nefario anything at all. I had a discussion in regards to the fake asset. A discussion that is not germane to your rant, nor are you welcome to make assumptions about it in support of your agenda.

What exactly am I "telling" you and the cast of imaginary thousands you refer to as "us"? I responded to a courteous question with a courteous answer. You decided to spin it off into something that it wasn't. I have no obligation, legal or otherwise to make sure that you understand the concept of due diligence. You have held yourself out as a competent businessman and offered your services as manager for other people's funds. One can only hope that you understand the very basic requirements to study those investments before you accept others funds in trust to invest in them, although I fear as your history with the pirate situation has shown, you don't. So, sorry, but is not my job to tell you squat about anything. Do your own damn homework, before you go off playing in the grown up world.

As to standards of evidence- go fuck yourself with a barbed wire condom. You are not in a court of law, yet, and until you are I have no obligation to present anything to you anywhere about any topic. You are a lowlife, a scammer, a criminal and wanna-be white slaver. You are the lowest form of contemptible trash is this community, and I have no obligation to produce anything to prove that to you- the whole world can see it from your incessant words.

No. Categorically no. I never listed any asset at all on GLBSE. I briefly considered a couple of concepts, but watching amateurs like you and Peter pretty much convinced me that GLBSE is a playground for the desperate and intellectually challenged. Not a place I want to put much effort at all. Since there was no asset ever listed, your ridiculous comment that I am a scammer is utterly hollow.

GLBSE Fake was never tradeable on version 2.0 of the market. It was imported as a locked asset. Otherwise you could have just listed them and shilled for yourself as you did for pirate. They were not tradeable so you had to make another of your boring threads seeking to trade them through a direct transfer, while seeking an obscene profit level for your poorly thought out investment.

Unless your feet have become blocks of ice, Hell hasn't frozen over yet, so you can keep waiting for your apology. It will be forthcoming on the twelfth of never. Until then, fall back on fucking yourself you miserable cheat.

The only sad thing about GLBSE and Goat is that you ever discovered it, and somehow managed to slip through the review and list assets. That their legal counsel had advised shutting you and your scams down is a strong testimonial for the integrity they are seeking to build around the brand. Oops, too bad for you little scammer boy.

And again, just in case you remain too dim witted to understand- I never was, never have been nor will ever be an owner in any capacity of GLBSE Actual. If the few shares of GLBSE Fake that I bought on the market during 1.0 and sold on that market during the short window that they could be sold, were in fact sold to you- then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value.

And you would probably be well served to not second guess theymos' motivation in offering some of his shares- you will probably be as wrong on this subject as you are on most all others.

Seriously?  I totally had that impression too, from one of your previous posts.  Oh, here it is.


I hope you can understand why he, and I, and presumably a bunch of other people, thought that you were a shareholder in the exchange.

Every analogy will be different from the thing analogized, that's the point of the analogy. Can you explain why you think those differences make the analogy inapposite?

There is a world of difference between a promise from the agent of an entity selling you something, and from a random dude that happens to be nearby.  Of course my analogy is bad too, but I'd say that in this case, Nefario is a lot closer to the random dude walking by than he is to an agent of the seller.

Goat reasonably believed that Nefario was acting on behalf of the seller's agent. GLBSE was the entity handling the sale and Nefario appeared to be acting on GLBSE's authority. He was in fact an agent of the seller.

Well, I think I have enough information to make my decision. I hereby vote that Nefario did not commit a scam by not honoring the fake GLBSE shares.

My reasoning, in brief:
1) There was no evidence presented that Nefario's original comment that he would convert the shares to Actual GLBSE was anything more than a possible offer.
2) Even then, no evidence was presented that Nefario mentioned what the conversion rate for these false shares would be. It would not be a safe assumption to say that they would be converted at their IPO value.
3) No consideration was provided. Nefario did not gain anything (other than maybe a very small amount of BTC in exchange fees) by offering to convert the fake shares to real shares. If it had actually happened, it would have only been out of the goodness of his heart.
4) Nefario has reasonably offered to buy back the shares at the IPO value. Trades above this (especially the 10 BTC ones) would have been absolutely ridiculous to any legitimate investor who actually did their research. Even if you go by Theymos's outrageous pricing, they've only gone up 600% in value from IPO. Thus, I consider those large trades to have been made out of stupidity and should not be valid for the purpose of this argument.

My decision is pretty firm at this point, but I will remain open to new ideas and opinions as they come in.

+1

I agree with this, though I slightly disagree with some of your reasoning.

I don't really agree with this. But I think it's academic as nobody (so far as I know) has claimed that they suffered actual losses (as opposed to lost profits) as a result of Nefario's representation beyond what he offered in compensation.

I'd like to stay out of the rest of the mud slinging, but wish to state that the following point is incorrect:


GLBSE Fake definitely were trading on GLBSE 2.0. I can provide evidence for it trading on May 3 and May 15.

I also can not recall ever seeing a retraction of Nefario's offer to convert fake to real, and my trading was done on that basis (more for novelty value than anything).

You are quite right, I should have qualified that with "GLBSE Fake", as I have started to do since that time. I was, for a very brief period of time a holder of a few shares of GLBSE Fake. They were all sold under the aegis of 1.0. I have never been, and will not ever be an owner or shareholder of GLBSE Actual or GLBSE Real. (Being the holding company and the eventual public release of shares in the market holding company.)

Although you have edited your original post to the version quoted above, you are still adjusting the facts after the decision has been made. You made the thread because you couldn't get the price you wanted, it had nothing to do with a forced sale. This line of reasoning is your next approach now that you have been denied on the 10,000% profit version of your complaint. I leave it to the eminently qualified gentlemen debating above to adjudicate this as true internet lawyers, but it certainly seems that you are verdict shopping and looking to change your story by degrees until you can garner support for an undefensible position. You bought worthless stocks and cannot sell them. Oh bummer.

Sidebar to brendio- I accept your statement that you traded GLBSE Fake after the establishment of 2.0, without asking to see your evidence. Your credibility is certainly strong enough persuasion for me. I was no longer holding any, and thought that they were not able to be traded, along with the other worthless assets that transferred over from 1.0. I stand corrected.

I wrongly assumed the same thing. I assumed they were locked and not tradeable but it appears they were.

It should have been dealt with properly after the fake shares were discovered as its now a lot more awkward to do so. It does remind me of the facebook movie a bit. I wonder how a judge would see this in future if theres a lawsuit.

I must have missed your retraction in the Goat-scammer thread. Not because Goat isn't shady as all hell (hey, he still hasn't found time to post pics of his supposed mining rigs, 6 months later), just because what you stated there is factually wrong.

I fail to see this distinction you make.


Whoa. Wait just a minute there. You did what?

Yes, after I bought my shares in GLBSE Fake, and before they were identified as Fakes, I immediately listed them with a sale price that would make me a quick profit. I do that with all shares that I buy, set a level that makes me a quick flip and on to the next investment. Someone snatched those shares up, including the one that sold for 10 BTC. Never in a million years though any poor sap would buy any asset on GLBSE for that kind of money, but the top end of the range I offered for sale had to be set somewhere. Looks like I found that little fish in the sea.

Goat- you are wasting your time trying to paint me as a scammer. During the very brief window of time that nobody knew what the shares were I bought and then turned my few shares. That's all. I didn't try to make a Federal case out of not being able to transfer them, I didn't start whining like a little bitch because I couldn't control the price they were sold for, I flipped an asset that was completely legal, using the legal marketplace and established procedures for doing so. That they were later found to be fakes, and you got stuck with 'em? Too bad for you, you wanna play with big boys, you gotta take all the rules and live by them. Or be man enough to change them.

Let me present a totally different angle:

Nefario willfully destroyed the market value of undisputed bonds by the sudden close of Goats account. For example, instead of my TYGRR.BOND-A shares I now have a claim code of dubious value. It has been sufficiently explained how the claim code is a completely different, and insecure instrument to the shares originally offered, and Goat's obligations are at least unclear.

Even if Goat decides to honor the claim code the same way he promised in the original shares contract, there is no guaranteed buy back option in the contract. A large part of the original share value came from its tradeability on the free market on GLBSE, and Nefario destroyed that. Out of spite and to get leverage in a personal fight with Goat. Completely innocent GLBSE customers were taken hostage, and their property greatly reduced in value.

Indirectly Nefario also harmed GLBSE owners, as the angry customer backlash will harm GLBSE. He cannot hide behind GLBSE terms of operation, because:

 1. Clearly he did it out of malice, and not to protect GLBSE.
 2. He did not protect GLBSE, rather the reverse.
 3. The stated terms are laughable and won't stand up in any western court.

I and many other GLBSE customers were harmed. GLBSE owners were harmed. Without cause and reason. Nefario is a scammer, or so stupid it does not make a difference.

-coinft.

PS: this is a sad story. I really liked GLBSE up until now, despite some rough corners and irregularities.

Nice backpedaling. But among other things you said "... then I laugh my ass off at your stupidity in investing in something that was clearly and publicly proclaimed to have no value."

This means you sold something that you knew had no value to someone who you had to know must have believed that they had a value -- that's a pretty scummy thing to do in my opinion. Surely as soon as you were aware that something you were offering for sale was fundamentally defective, you had an obligation to ensure it wasn't sold to someone who wasn't similarly aware.

It also means that you think relying on Nefario to keep his word is "stupidity".

On an unrelated note, I basically agree with coinft's point in the post just above this one. Nefario caused an unjustified breach of GLBSE's obligation to preserve the value of listed assets for GLBSE's customers, robbing them of the value of that listing. I believe he totally failed to consider the impact on those customers and was narrowly focused solely on his disagreement with Goat. His attempts to blame Goat for the harm his actions caused his customers bothers me a lot.

Actually Joel, I'm not backpedaling at all. I was clarifying the conditions that I sold them under. My laughter is only now, after they have been identified as Fakes, and Goat has been caught up in his own whirlwind of trying to sell them after the phony nature has been established. My sale happened before the defective nature of the asset was discovered.

If anything, I suspect that Goat was accumulating these shares looking to make a pressure play on the GLBSE Actual folks. That is what I was laughing at... that he bought heavily AFTER they were identified as worthless, thinking he could profit from them by splitting hairs.

I don't agree with the premise that Nefario "promised" anything, I think he "offered", and in lieu of a counter-offer was given scorn and abuse. The offer was retracted.

Although I think pretty much anyone investing in the GLBSE world without due diligence and a little bit of research is indeed exhibiting "stupidity". I was guilty of it myself in my gleeful investment in GLBSE Fake at IPO when I thought I was buying into the real thing without even so much as checking where the damn issue was coming from, or if they had a legitimate signed offering. Fortunately for me, by the way I handle these "investments", I dumped them within a very short period of time, and limited my losses. Or gave up the novelty value of owning digital representations of a scam, whichever is today's version of the truth.

It meets the legal requirements to be considered a promise. Nefario intended people to rely on his offer -- his specific intent was to fix the problem that people had paid money for a worthless asset by increasing the asset's value. As for it being retracted, you can't retract a promise after someone does what is required to gain its benefit.

But that's really a secondary issue now. As I understand it, Nefario has offered to compensate Goat for the damages he suffered as a result of Nefario's breach. Goat's not entitled to lost unearned profits. Nefario can't keep his promise as he doesn't have the authority to issue GLBSE shares, so all he can do is compensate for the damage he caused. I don't believe for one second Nefario made this offer maliciously or to try to trick anyone. He was trying to do the right thing and just didn't do it very well. (Goat wants to keep his "GLBSE" shares, but Nefario is under no obligation to give Goat his preferred resolution, and I completely understand why that would be something GLBSE would not want.)

However, what he did after that ...

This is everything that's wrong with the community. "I know X is right, but I did Y, and I made some money that time." (I'm not blaming you specifically at all -- it really is the whole community. Somehow, we all know better but we all do worse. And I don't know how we can fix it.)

Example of my experience with them: Hey I want to eat at your restaurant! I pay for lets call it parking, then walk inside the restaurant and sit wherever I feel like since no hostess is present. Then I see the servers standing there looking at me so I figure I will be helped soon.1 hour passes. I call over to a manager and get ignored. 2 hours pass. I call over the manager and say, "Hey, where is my server?" and they respond with, "Oh, well you have only been here 2 hours, they will get to you." And my response is, "Just give me back my parking fee, I don't want to do business with a company who puts me off that long. And besides I saw the way you treated your other customers and I didnt like it." Manager says,"I am sorry you feel that way, even though we didn't provide you with any assistance or services that we do offer and then ignored your service requests, the parking fee is not refundable." So I say "Ok, I guess since I already paid your ridiculous fee and you wont work with the customers, can you tell me how to order?" The manager turns and walks away and ignores me further, then stops by about another 2 hours later to say, "You might want to ask that customer over there, he knows how to order." Then takes off again. And that is where the analogy ends since that is as far as I have gotten so far. Anyone see a problem with this scenario?

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but if you separate the shariah finance rules from the goofy justifications you often hear for them based on primitive economic myths, they're actually not bad. The prohibition against earning or paying interest gets the most attention and is pretty silly if applied universally to a modern, industrial economy. But it's better than the way most Americans manage their personal finances (and you can pretty easily get around it).

Security Comparison of Bitcoin-Denominated Instruments Exchanges (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/security-comparison-of-bitcoin-denominated-instruments-exchanges/). That is all.

You missed aesthetics, ease-of-use, customer service, and personality of exchange manager.

That's ok, you missed the exchange manager entirely.


In some positions stupidity & ignorant conceit = malice pretty much.

Joseph Hazelwood

Whats the result?
Goat got his account & assets back, which was frozen & locked by Nefario?

Tony Hayward?

I expect that Goatse is pretty busy these days dealing with an SEC investigation, and doesn't really have time to manage his other little scams like this particular complaint.

That's strange, didn't they go on the record that it's FSA?

Oddly enough, you are in the wrong place to make those demands. GLBSE has a forum, and ownership, and means of communication. If you feel you have a claim to make, why not make it with those involved instead of airing your dirty laundry here, where nobody who can do a thing for you gives a damn?

And are you really admitting that you started several assets, offered them for sale, managed them to varying levels of success and failure and did all of this WITHOUT AN AWARENESS OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE? Is that responsible business operation in your opinion? Seriously Goat, isn't understanding what you are offering and where you are offering it sort of basic step number one?

As you know the ToS was changed more than half a dozen times since I started. But in none of the version I did anything that called for a delisting.    Deal with it buddy... The reason why Nefario is not saying why he did it is because he will be admitting he is a scammer...

If you take advice from a lawyer does that make you a scammer ?

So if it is not specifically in GLBSE TOS then GLBSE cannot do it?

Depends entirely on the nature of the service contracted for, which in this case you are unsure of what you have purchased. You have an obligation to yourself, and to those who have invested in your projects to understand completely the venue in which you are offering that investment. Whether by your own inattention to the rules, your inability to stay abreast of changes in the terms, or your own ill-considered attack on the market you have failed in your responsibility to your investors and have not maintained even the most basic level of integrity in offering a service.

How is your  ill-informed and half-cocked approach to running a business deserving of special consideration that you should be permitted to be completely irresponsible and still enjoy access to the marketplace? The service of the GLBSE is to provide a marketplace, NOT to insure you a certian level of profit, NOT to offer you endless access to victims for your piss-poor business practices, NOT to cover for your errors in judgement, ethics, or simple basic business procedure, and most assuredly NOT a place of refuge for somebody who is actively being investigated by the SEC for fraudulently offering investment schemes.

"Not fully doing it" is not based on your fantasies of allowing you to run roughshod over every measure of business ethics and honest trade. Your practices have caught up with you, and you are beginning to see the collapse and investigation phase of your demise. Get used to it, it will get a lot uglier for you here, and your pathetic cries of injustice are falling on deaf ears here. Especially given that you are screaming in the wrong place- THIS IS NOT GLBSE. Although there is significant overlap in user bases, THIS IS NOT GLBSE. Take your issues over to GLBSE and see what happens. Here you are just another scammer trying to screw a few more pennies out of everyone, after you have had the door slammed in your face.

Too bad for you little scammer boy.

I am not sure if this was a reply to me, but I was just curious in how you interpret the GLBSE TOS because on a discussion on the interpretation of contracts listed on GLBSE (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113708.msg1231169#msg1231169) you seemed to agreed with the statement that things not in the contract can still be done.  Things listed in the contract allow for one of the parties to 'reserve the right' to do something, but not necessarily only do things that are listed in the contract.  By this interpretation, GLBSE reserves the right to do any and all things in its TOS.  There are also implied agreements when using the GLBSE system.  No where in the TOS says that GLBSE will list a security after the fee is made, but they do it.  By having the authority to list a security, GLBSE also has the authority to remove a security from the exchange.

Anyway, I would also argue that whatever is said in a contract or TOS may not always be the right thing to do.  As you may remember with our contract dispute; I took responsibility for my badly written contract and paid out of my own pocket.

In my opinion the right thing to do is to allow the securities to be relisted, allow a buyback of all the securities at whatever value was agreed to, and then remove them after all accounts have been cleared.

Unless the SEC is now operating out of Viet-Nam I find it rather incredible that goat's being investigated. Were you thinking GLBBQ?


Well, wasn't Nefario proposing that everything not specifically stated in the contract will be construed by a public vote? Or was that about something else.

Actually, Goat operates his business ventures out of Thailand, not Viet Nam. Offering investment vehicles, no matter how obscure or crypto-alien will still subject Goat, as a US citizen, to US law regarding securities trading and offering regardless of where he is located, the force of law is upon where the offer was made and where the sale was concluded. Furthermore, and perhaps even more to the point, is the taxation treaty between the US and Thailand, which essentially grants unlimited license to US agencies to pursue legal action to enforce US law upon persons of Thai or US citizenship operating out of Thailand. Signed into law by Clinton, Goat will find himself as answerable to the SEC as if he was offering his investments in Bumfuck, Kansas. He will find the further entanglement of the Thai Foreign Business Act, which makes his rice-farming venture illegal, will make him a prime target for the Thai authorities, if there is anything left when the US is done with him.

And if indeed pirate is rolling over and giving up his partners in the BS&T scam, then Goat has a lot to be worried about. He has consistently been the loudest and most active voice in support of pirate and the ponzi which pirate operated. He has personally transferred significant amounts of value to pirate directly as a result of these activities, and is being actively investigated as a part of the greater pirate BS&T investigation. Where Goat might want to consider a non-extradition country to move to, is the fact that the SEC will also be forwarding their investigation to other agencies within the US government. The DEA will be very interested in any sort of money laundering activity that was happening near the Golden Triangle, and Goat has openly admitted that he travels across borders with ease to visit remote areas of Laos and Cambodia. American entrepreneurs who travel with that profile typically only do so for a very limited number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with rice farming, gem collecting or bitcoins.

tl;dr You have issues with Goat. You made that point already, though - so much that Helen Keller could have gleaned it from this forum.

Hey, thanks for your insightful comments there youngster, but you missed the point because of your cavalier "tl;dr". It is not about an issue with Goat, it is an issue with criminals bringing their criminal acts and executing them on the bitcoin community. I was offering a clarification to MPOE who mis-stated where Goat is located, a point which has significant bearing on the topic of this discussion.

Interesting that you choose to suck up for Goat so quickly after your defense of usagi and his/her scams with value manipulation. You certainly want to establish a reputation as an apologist for criminal fuck-wits don't you? Or are you just a full time sock puppet scammer-lover who thinks all the bad guys are your boyfriend?

Chances are if Helen Keller were alive today she would have a conversion program that would read the post to her out load, or convert it to braille, so her "gleaning it" really doesn't do much as analogy.

tl;dr I'm a sock-puppet scammer apologist.  :P

And don't talk bad about Goat and usagi - they paid me convinced me of their legitimacy long ago!

If those two were able to convince you in the 34 days since you joined this august company that they are legitimate, and you consider that long ago... well, I hope you are able to get a good price on the GULLIBLE tattoo when they stencil it across your forehead. But? Three posts a day? You go little sock-puppet.

^________^;

I'm not sure the Thai government's FBA applies to Cambodia, which is where goat's 'sharecropping' endeavor is targeted.  As a US citizen (no idea about his Thai immigrant status) that's really between him, the US, and Cambodia.


A) I assume you mean "out loud."  if so
B) Helen Keller was deaf as well.

This is a decent halfway measure.

There seem to be a lot of us that think it was either prematurely delisted, or shouldn't have been delisted at all. If this is true, relisting sounds best. We can just undo the damage in one move.

It had already passed their time frame stated on the site.


Here he tries to just deflect, and again tell me oh I am keeping your btc and sucks to be you.


Well now it is getting personal, Nefario you are a either a thief or a extremely terrible businessman.

I guess nefario/glbse has decided to keep my bitcoins and ignore my emails, I hope my bitcoins I sent in for the IPO help you pay for your legal proceedings when the SEC (or their counterparts in your country) hits you up. I want my bitcoins back, but since your response to that request was this crap I quoted. I know this probably means I won't get my bitcoins back. But I think the fact that I emailed your company twice in 6 days after all this other crap I told him and you just ignored it, or your staff did then I have changed my mind and now feel like a scammer tag would be appropriate for you. I doubt you will even respond, but if you do, do not bother saying, oh we did not get your emails or that it was overlooked. When you have a customer who just purchased a service from you, then they have lots of problems before they even get a chance to use your service, you should probably go out of your way to make your customers happy. Apparently you want to singlehandedly tank GLBSE. Congratulations on helping to sink your companies revenues by crapping on all the people who helped your company make money in the first place.

Protected? As in following his TOS with you? That's why there is no scammer tag, which has been explained to you. In public.

Can you point out what I did wrong to be completely ignored by his service? I should setup a site where I offer to list securities, offer it with a fee for "verification" and once I have the bitcoins I will be happy to state you should have read my laggy, terrible site with 0 assistance or explanation for anything. And since you did not or could not then I will be keeping your bitcoins.

With respect to your rhetorical question form of communicating- I can't tell you everything you did wrong, or anything that you did right. I'm not a part of your discussion with GLBSE. What I can tell you is that you are spending your efforts in the wrong place if you want to debate GLBSE policy on this forum. GLBSE has their own sites and communication methods, which I am sure you are aware of. Part of their agreement with all users, both asset creators, and trading customers, is that you will communicate with them through their methods, and that they categorically do not reply to communications in this forum or to PM's sent through it.

Without offering an opinion if that policy is right or wrong, I note that you are directing your comments towards them in the wrong venue. Here, they don't care, and have told you that. Same thing for Goat's little drama. He refuses to accept that this is not the place for the discussion, and failing to communicate with them, as he agreed to when he started using their service, he is shocked and awed when things don't go his way. You can choose to be as publicly ignorant as him, or you can take your issues up with the folks that can address them, in the place they have told you they will address them.

But, as you observed, trashing them here is probably not the best way to get a favorable consideration on asking them to make an exception for you. Few businesses I am aware of want to be insulted in public with their target audience listening and are then willing to bend over backwards to make exceptions for you. Maybe that's just my experience, but it does go to that whole honey versus vinegar argument.

I actually did use their communication methods. Ticket system, and as quoted, I emailed their support email address. Those were the two locations I was told to contact and they would reply in "24 hours" which its been almost a week after my complaining. Public venue, yes just to get it out there that they are a terrible company to work with and to deter others from using a service that is simply bad. I consider my bitcoins stolen by glbse at this point, and just like this tread is titled Scam Accusations. That was my summary of my accusation.

How low do you think he will have to bow to get his money back? Will any shoe licking be required?

Actually, Goat, I just use the common public understanding of why you are a dick.

You are a chaser. A desperate little failure of a loser who, failing to have any original useful ideas of his own, chases after whatever the hot trending topic or idea is and tries to figure out a way to monetize it for yourself. From solidcoin to pirate's pass throughs to PPCoin to i0coin to assets on GLBSE, you are always Johnny Come Lately, ten minutes after the buzz has peaked, begging other users to teach you how it all works, and then throwing half-assed attempts at mimicry around for the unsuspecting to get caught.

You seem to honestly believe that nobody can see through your lame copycat skillz, and that just because you don't understand something, everyone will forgive and forget, and sign up to teach you the next thing. You are a classic shiny object follower, and bring absolutely nothing of value to the community, the bitcoin experience, or any discussion you are a part of.

That's precisely why most people think you are a dick. Smart ones, and not so smart ones can pretty much see that you are a leech, sucking away on the lifeblood of anything you can attach yourself to, without the courage to stand up for anything.

Dunno- kowtowing is not my department.

Best I can tell from his (jasinlee's) comments he has shot himself in the metaphorical foot with GLBSE. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that Nefario and the rest of Team GLSBE is done with listening to insults from minor league biznessmen who believe telling somebody to go fuck themselves is a good opening gambit in negotiation. It has been pretty clear for a while now that GLBSE can and will change the rules, and will react to anti-social comments spread around. Who seriously thinks that having Goat's public immolation is the way to get your way when requesting anything from anybody. Shoot yourself in the head first, then insult the other guy and only then ask questions? Really? Jasinlee might have a chance, with some mea culpas and a little politeness, while I suspect that Goat's hooves will freeze to the rice paddies on account of Hell freezing over before he sees a dime.

They have already ignored me long enough for me to get the hint. To my knowledge ( but I didnt look too hard ) the scam section only has this thread relating to nefario scamming. So I put my complaints where they belong, I don't care if I shot myself in the foot since I know my bitcoins are already stolen.

I predict after friday things are gonna change and more level heads will prevail.

Not many companies will give you a refund "because you change your mind". I know of a few but they are all major supermarket chains.

Not true. GLBSE/Nefario actually opened the thread about delisting Goat (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112551.0) himself.

They only decided to ignore the forum after the SHTF

This is worth pointing out.

Also, since when does GLBSE have a forum? I'm new around here, but I've asked this at least once before - I was told "no." I'd love to read that forum right now.

They used to have a forum. It's been gone since around the time GLBSE 2.0 launched, and GLBSE launched a support account here because the other forum was poorly supported and resulted in information spread out in two different places.

I see, that is similar to what's been said before. Interesting to know.

I'm not sure on the policy here, but if you believe you have a case for a scammer tag against Nefario, it might be best to post your accusation in a new thread.  Presumably you will get the opportunity to work with BadBear and Maged the same way Goat did, and presumably your interactions will be different, if only more private.  I can see the point in posting here since you are in a way "a victim of the same scam" but I think you are more "a victim of a different scam" or "a victim of piss-poor customer service" and I don't know what anyone else would think, but a separate thread will at least get your complaint seem by more eyes than page 17 of this one.

The problem is that even if you accept this reasoning, you still have Nefario screwing over all those who hold Goat's assets. In fact, there's no evidence Nefario considered any of the obvious harm the sudden delisting would do to GLBSE's customers. And as of yet, we have no explanation for why such a drastic action was even advisable, much less necessary.

Even with the best of imaginable outcomes, you'd have to expect the assets to lose a significant fraction of their value and every asset holder to be inconvenienced by having to track the asset in some system other than the one they were already using. And frankly, it looks like Nefario either didn't think about it or just didn't care. He just wanted to get Goat.

Yes, other people did some things they possibly shouldn't have done. But nothing I can see compares to GLBSE's wholesale abandonment of their customers without explanation.

I see usagi-thought is making inroads. Loup, why not just make some local forum rules?


This is indeed true. Nefario gets brave in front of the mirror, softens up in public.


Lol maybe Loup is trying to revive it?


Twas tried (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114442.0). Very well presented if I may say so myself, didn't go anywhere because c0x.

Ouch. While I certainly have no issue with a good barroom brawl now and again, painting my comments with the usagi-thought brush is just plain mean. My point is simply this- the extremely poorly communicating and somewhat more than occasionally erratic management of GLBSE has made their rules (currently) that you can only communicate with them through their support (yeah right, support, my ass!!) tickets and through their (non-existent) forum. Revive it? Hell, I'm trying actively to dump every shit investment I have in GLBSE before it completely tanks in the next few weeks (just like version 1.0 did) and we all get stuck holding nothing but air, and still enjoying their piss-poor communications.

Far from being an apologist for GLBSE (I'm not, I think their customer service is second only to pirate and possibly bitcoinica for openness and accessibility) I am just trying to make a point that jasinlee might have more success in dealing with them on their terms, rather than taking the Full Goat approach. Full Goat gets your shit delisted, your assets frozen, and your panties in a twist. Just like bitcoinica needed "fucking respect" I find one can do much better treating the delusional demi-gods of investment genius by playing to their vanity, and was trying to offer that advice to jasinlee.

Or stick to the Full Goat Method, it matters not a whit. Chances are you will end up just as royally screwed as pretty much every other venture around here.

There is a new thread on here apparently in the last few weeks this has become the norm.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115393.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115393.0)

And then I just found this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115430.0;topicseen (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115430.0;topicseen)

Guess I am not alone.

Indeed. My guess is he went into silent mode after he realized he single handedly destroyed value of innocent customers fighting Goat with the biggest guns available, instead of the smallest, and he's pondering his liability now.

It's not too late to backtrack and relist the assets for damage mitigation, even if some harm will remain. Another option is to let GLBSE die with as little fuss as possible and run with minor deposits whose owners won't go to court over.

This prediction seems to have been spot on, GLBSE being closed.


Perhaps it was a little rough.


You mean sorta like bitcoinica 2.0? Interesting.

     I will not be mediating the situation between Goat and Nefario. There are better places to do that, with people who know their local laws better than I do. Goat is already taking advice from his lawyer, he should consult him on how best to deal with this situation, he'd probably know better than most people on an internet forum. Unlike both Nefario and Goat, I don't have legal counsel so I'd rather stay out of it. There are just too many uncertainties. 

     My role here is to decide based on the evidence if Nefario deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. Mostly because of the concerns I wrote about above, I'm undecided on this, which likely means no. I need to be certain of guilt to stake someone else's name and reputation on me being right, and undecided is a long way from certain. I'd also rather wait and see what's going on with GLBSE since it's only a couple more days, maybe that will clear things up a bit as to what's going on. I'd also like to see the results of whatever route Goat decides to pursue, hopefully he'll keep us updated on that. If he can get an official ruling on the legalities surrounding the situation then it's likely I'd go along with that.

Great... genjix is endorsing Nefario. That pretty well screws the pooch. GLBSE is a scam.

Indeed. I'm not surprised.

I also see them as yet another stepping stone for the education of the Bitcoin community. As much as I love the idea of Bitcoin (so much so that I'm heavily vested in it) and the drive of the community, I have to remember that the young, inexperienced community is Bitcoin's biggest liability.

Honestly, it's about time that wannabe entrepreneurs started to realise that you can't just do whatever you want within the business environment and claim some kind of magical immunity because...Bitcoins.  I hope the events of the last couple of months do have some kind of chilling effect on start-ups so that we see a much more professional approach to the launching of Bitcoin services in the future. 

Very, very few existing Bitcoin services have the kind of financial reserves necessary to weather regulatory or other legal challenges and that needs to change.  One of the first questions we should be asking those launching services in the future is what their contingency plans are for predictable challenges such as bank accounts being frozen, their service being hacked, regulatory requirements being imposed, etc.

PayPal spent years trying to avoid being regulated and it ended up losing the fight despite having the enormous financial reserves of e-Bay at its disposal.  Facebook abandoned FB credits - which were projected to be a huge source of revenue - in order to avoid potentially expensive legal complications.  I doubt that even the most successful Bitcoin services can afford protracted legal challenges lasting years and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Services need to be far more upfront about what their plans are for dealing with legal and regulatory issues which will almost certainly arise more often as time goes on.  For many services, the honest answer is that they will simply have to close if they come under regulatory or other legal scrutiny - it's about time users were explicitly made aware of that likelihood.

I look forward to the day that every Bitcoin user assumes the existence of counterparty risk when putting their coins to anything rather than assume that they can "trust" someone because they see their friends doing it too.

Goat,  if Nefario ever relists your assets you should make sure never to connect to GLBSE without chaining 15 proxies while using a Linux live CD(at least) ::)

You gotta get with the times man! Linux live thumbdrive!

You gotta get with the times man! Android PC-on-a-stick!

Nope... A thumbdrive can have a persistent filesystem. Better not take any chances ;)

I look forward to the day when Bitcoin users stop crying "scam" every time they lose money.  The majority of real world start-ups fail.  The majority of Bitcoin start-ups are woefully under-capitalised and have nothing resembling a viable business plan.  That does not in and of itself make them scams.  Calling every venture which fails a scam stops us from looking at the factors these failures have in common - it stops us from developing a collective wisdom which can be used to reduce the chance of future ventures failing.

I agree - we investors are thinking too short term. Let's hope that the failures this year lead to less failures next year.

The exchanges have been around for what, six months?

Agreed. But things will stop looking like scams when an operation's principle actors are asking people to just "trust" them. Trust has been common factor behind all of these failures, which is odd since trust is the exact opposite of Bitcoin's architecture. The con in "con game" is short for confidence for a reason.

Let's be honest - the reason why people are willing to put blind faith in these operators boils down to greed.  They're "investing" on the slight possibility that the scheme is both legitimate and sustainable.  Intellectually they might know that there's a high risk of failure, but the remote possibility of easy money hooks them emotionally - especially if they're people who unlikely to ever acquire wealth by conventional means. 

What is utterly ridiculous is that people keep investing more than they can afford to lose in these ventures.  Every time a Bitcoin venture fails we get posts about people having lost funds they needed for day to day expenses, or even worse, losing funds they'd borrowed and now can't return.  If you wouldn't bet the amount you're placing in Bitcoin schemes at the casino, then you need to consider how catastrophic the failure of your investment would be to your real life.

Greed is the constant, yessir. One thing I admire about the Bitcoin design philosophy is that greed appears to have been in mind during the process, hence irreversible payments. No amount of design can protect people from their own shortcomings or inability to employ common sense.


I have a feeling that a fairly high percentage of users would put the rent in a slot machine if given half a chance.

Spot on, actually.

GLBSE has been fleecing the naive since early 2011 actually. MPEx exists since March 2012, Cryptoexchange since June I think.

 The original intent of glbse was to be simply a trading floor not the judge and jury. The exchange shouldnt pick winners and losers.

Do you believe people can govern themselves or do they need a nanny to tell them what to do ?  The best thing the community can do is come up with independent agencies to do credit checks and verifications and the massive scams should have made people realise theres a great business opportunity for someone to do this. Theres only so  much glbse can do with the resources it has and instead of whining about it why arent you providing solutions instead ?

You're asking PR why do they "whine" instead of providing the solutions? What exactly is the thought process that went into that?

Otherwise, MPEx is the solution, and has been, since launch.

Looks like you're on the shit-end of the stick now given your past ramblings of pirate investors etc.

Got any big words you would like to use now that you obviously are in a bad predicament with your "investments"?

Disclosure: I invested $0/0BTC with both pirate and GLBSE.

Have a nice day,

Smoothie

How was it stupid? I'm currently in "profit" and still haven't lost a penny like you my friend. I made that bet in July when Bitcoins were $8.50. Please show me how it was "stupid".

Try harder to troll me.  :D

BTW how much did you have invested with PussyAt30?

Edit: How much also did you have invested with GLBSE (Gigantic Lying Bastards Stealing Eggs?)

Not my eggs!

Didn't BitcoinINV say that the SEC guy mentioned that it "might be a good idea" to remove funds from "the exchange" (though it was unclear which exchange they were referring to)?

Yes I remember this being said vaguely.

Nefario (James McCarthy?) closed the GLBSE and fucked it up for everyone who had made investments.
He was lying in London meeting, how GLBSE can be moved blaa blaa blaa and keep operating no matter what. 
Do we really need more proof that this asshole is a scammer and a liar?

Its ironic that Nefario would be labeled a scammer here for most likely obliging to the law and while presumably not stealing anything from anyone.
An "incompetent" label might be warranted, but I see no evidence of scamming.

Not scamming. Asset issuers hold most of the bitcoins.

That's the paradox here. He practically screwed lot of people by obeying the law :D

It is fully possible to scam people while following the law.

Websters define scam as: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation


1. Let ppl invest money in your venture.
2. Buy stuff for the money or make really bad deals (and know that they were bad)
    - Maybe take a 1/100 shot at fame and fortune for OPM (Other Peoples Money)
3. Company turns belly up and doesnt pay its creditors. And does so according to the law.


This would in my book be a scam, although its fully legal.

The same goes for handling a exchance (like GLBSE) telling people that it will be operating for a long time.
Charging ppl for listing assets and for selling/buying shares.

Then one day close down shop and burn the lists of who owned what.


/GoK

What makes you think he is burning that list?

As for your example, you may find it is indeed illegal and you will be liable for the losses if those loses are the result of gross mismanagement and/or if you didnt properly disclose risks to your investors etc.

If people actually relied on his statements about the legality of GBLSE's activity and there was absolutely no basis for him making those statements (because he'd never obtained any legal opinion in respect of GBLSE's activities), then those people may feel that they were "scammed" in the sense of being misled. Only a week ago Nefario was confidently asserting on here that the SEC could not exert any jurisdiction over GLBSE.  An investigating authority may well view such statements as being intentionally deceptive.

If he believed those statements (as I think he did); that would make him wrong (and an idiot) but not  a scammer. If he made those statements knowing them to be false, it might be different.

Thing is, what GLBSE was doing is most likely illegal, but it has been from the start. Labeling him as scammer now, when he is presumably forced to close down by legal authorities or on advice of his legal counsel, is hypocritical, particularly when these cries come from people who would prefer Nefario to continue operating it illegally.

To clarify my standpoint.


Scamming has to do with ethics.

ethics != law   (sometimes it is sometimes it is not)


/GoK

Of course it's hypocritical, but there's no shortage of people around here who are happy to tolerate legal ambiguity or outright illegality as long as it's benefiting them financially.  When they lose money in those same schemes (which are always at risk of being shut down suddenly and forcibly even if they're not outright scams), they want to find a scapegoat and portray themselves as victims.

Either way, I dont think you can argue someone would have to break the law to avoid being labeled a scammer. If Nefario does what he  (legally)  can do to return the assets and bitcoins to their  owners, then I fail to see a reason to label him a scammer. Theymos should know better than that, it seems he is just pissed his investment didnt pan out. Tough luck for him, he should have done his own due diligence about the legality of running a security exchange.

Not quite if Thaymos says the thrus here about GLBSE funds the Nefario is indeed a scammer.

The GLBSE deals entirely in bitcoins it is a closed system in that respect. Therefore if the government want to claim money laundering, they can indeed, BUT not until they classify bitcoins as a form of money of which they must then accept as payment of tax.

On a side note does anyone have contact details in order to get our shareholder details so we contact the issuers.

What is the email for contacting glbse.

Well it is legislated that you must file tax's whilst earning in foreign countries so yes they do accept euros for payment of tax's, you just file out your 1040's(i think?) slightly differently, this is because it is an international banking cartel, it doesnt care much for any particular country.

The GLBSE is no diffrent from trade within a virtual game it is a closed system, if its money laundering then the government cant have it both ways, bitcoins must be considered money and acceptable as payment for tax's which of course would be immensely positive thing for bitcoins.

This isnt about money laundering.  GLBSE assets are unregistered securities, and a such selling them is illegal - at least in the US.  Securities dont have to be nominated in are traded for fiat. They only need to represent value/debt.

I think the part that makes him a scammer is not listening to the board, he said he would not hand over the company. He should still have to listen to them if there is a legal matter or not.

I think accepting fees for a service he was knowingly going to close down a couple days later makes him no better than any other scammer who simply accepts payment and does not deliver.

GLBSEX did not sell these securities, the issuers did.

It's equivalent to operating an unregistered whorehouse in the financial world. As TPTB want to monopoly this very profitable industry, they make the license fee prohibitively  expensive.
 

But unregistered securities havent been sold thats the point, because it has to be bought with fiat, therefore nothing was officaly sold if nothing was offical bought, the law must provide a remedy if its accusing you of a crime, therefore if you had approached the alleged authroitys and said I need to register these security's they would of turned you away because they would not recognise them as security's therefore you would have had no remedy in law for the accused crime. 

That's a long sentence.

Well take a deep breath then you'll be alright.

Thats not what I read in the securities act of 1933. They have to be traded for value.

(3) The term ‘‘sale’’ or ‘‘sell’’ shall include every contract of
sale or disposition of a security or interest in a security, for
value. The term ‘‘offer to sell’’, ‘‘offer for sale’’, or ‘‘offer’’ shall
include every attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of
an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value.
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

It doesnt mention fiat and good luck making a point for court that bitcoins have no value.

I agree, and thats why I think people like GigaVPS are in a lot of trouble (particularly since he happens to be American and not anonymous).

What we have going on in Bitcoin community is an epidemic of ignorance and oblivion. Most were trading, IPOing, investing, and speculating without any due diligence, without research of legal implications, and ultimately without knowing what they were getting themselves into.  Some even suffer from mental inability to distinguish their own ideological views and fantasies from reality.

Nefario may be doing the right thing for himself and for the Bitcoin in the long run. Time will tell.

Hello, this is after Friday.

You must have missed something. If he wanted to stay beyond the law as he always said, he should have gone the silkroad way on the .onion network or at least offshore hosting. Instead he made a huge mess announcing to the world to be beyond the law and registering an LLC at the same time (and not asking a lawyer about it). How can one be so retard?

Exactly and if you involved yourself in his operation still you have none other than yourself to blame.
Risk it's yours.

With the tiny detail that I knew just yesterday that he never consulted a lawyer. I did not expect that since it is a too big blooper.
BTW: now that I learned to never trust anyone in BTC-related matters, I will keep my coins in cold storage until I sell them. Guess the impact on the BTC economy if most do the same.

No they don't have to be bought with fiat. They can be bought with anything of value, or else anyone could get around this law by buying corn/cows/bitcoin and trading with that. It's not fiat so it doesn't count isn't gonna fly.

If you think the govt hasn't thought this through and don't have a plan or law in place for loopholes you're sorely mistaken.

What a crock of shit.

If you apply to register a security a number of things can happen.  It can be approved for registration.  It can be exempted from the need for registration. It can be given a special classification, such as being made available only to sophisticated investors and not being offered to the general public.  And it can be outright classed as a product which can't be legally offered.

The law is not obliged to provide you with a remedy if it's accusing you of a crime.  It's not obliged to provide you with a legal means of doing anything you want.  The onus is always on you to be aware of the legality or otherwise of your business activities and failure to seek legal advice is always going to be interpreted as having no intention of complying with any regulations and laws applying to your business operations.

Even apart from the securities issues, most of these entities are likely breaking a ton of tax laws by not sending information about their users' financial activity to their country's taxation authority and for not not with-holding tax where inadequate user information has been provided.  They're likely also required to issue their users with financial activity summaries in a specific format at the end of the financial year, too.  I haven't seen a single Bitcoin related financial service mention making such statements available for their users.  I suspect that at least some Bitcoin related services would refuse to issue such a statement even if a user requested one so they could include Bitcoin stuff on their tax return.

Everyone should keep in mind that, while securities are regulated, governments usually allow for exemptions in certain cases. For example, in the US you can incorporate and start raising funds while still being exempt from certain reporting and insurance requirements, see SEC rules 504-506.

I would just caution anyone thinking Reg D (Sec rules 504-506) is an easy loophole to think again.  It is a legal mine field and in the US one is subject to both federal securities law and state securities law.  If the company is in VA, the potential investor is in NJ then that is three sets of securities laws (Federal, NJ, and VA) that the offering needs to be compliant with.   Often the states have incompatible requirements.  In VA for example it is simply defacto impossible to offer anything under Rule 504 due to the way the federal and state regulaitons conflict.  Lastly I would point out that Reg D is intended for PRIVATE securities.  Running a trading exchange is going to blow any cover under Reg D wide open.

Generally Reg D really only makes sense if you are looking to raise $5M or more in equity because because the legal and regulatory costs you are going to spend a couple hundred grand just getting the offering off the ground.  Hopefully the "crowdfunding" provision of the Jobs Act will make it easier to RAISE capital but it was never intended to allow to make it as easy as "ebay for stocks" or allow any type of public trading.

It's honestly pretty useless to simply quote legislation.  What really matters is the case law - ie, how that legislation has been interpreted by courts in the past.  It's further complicated by the fact that many cases involving violation of financial services regulations don't even get to court.  Service providers agree to civil forfeiture in return for not being prosecuted - this is not surprising as not only is the cost of defending against prosecutions significant, the maximum penalties which a court could impose are staggering (literally in the millions per offence).

Thank you, I was about to cite something along the same lines.  Where do people think that you need to buy something with "fiat" to break laws?   Just because it is hard to trace something to you doesn't mean you not break the law in how you use it.

Like Fox Mulder, they want to believe.  If reality is different from what they want to believe, then all of their dreams of easily gained wealth go down the toilet.

Going to be interesting when you can issue securities using bitcoin itself or open transactions.

The law is an ass basically.

Its the same reason taxi plates cost $250 000 plus.