Bitcoin Forum

GOOD NEWS! GLBSE is sending out shareholders data.
Talked to James and he can do about 4 issues per day or so.


EDIT:  Issuers being given shareholder lists (http://blog.glbse.com/issuers-being-given-shareholder-lists)

I'm not sure if I really believe you, but I pray to God what you are saying is true.

Can anyone verify this?

gigavps confirms it...

Thank god. If I really had to sell my Gibson SG and my H&K statesman i'd fucking cry.

OTOH... it may be several months before this is 100% resolved... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25137.0

Get it while you can... cheap... make an offer...

Now to wait for nefario to appear on here in a panic and ask people to send back the lists as he sent them to the wrong people, or doubled the share counts or whatever.

This should be a very interesting turn of events.  Now when that data gets out lets see the fireworks start.  I am sure allot of folks figured this was a dead issue.

Now we can find out, which issuers are starting to play dumb and continue to glbse the share holders.
There is another interesting path. What if some stuff gets listed in another exchange? What happens to all the "managed" portfolios and the share value?

This is the development of the week for sure.


It's sad that something like that sounds pretty plausible.

We'll list any GLBSE refugee asset on BTCTC (https://btct.co/) for free.

We can't guarantee that they'll pass the approval voting process, as that's up to the mods.  PM me after re-creating your asset and we will refund the 5 BTC asset listing fee as soon as we confirm that your asset was listed on the GLBSE prior to it's closing.

I'll also note that picking up operations should be fairly painless.  The platform allows free transfers from account to account, so if you request the asset holder's BTCTC username as part of the claims process, it is quick and easy to transfer the appropriate shares to their BTCTC account.

Thanks!

I'm still waiting for an answer where did they send the 90% of my BTCs they informed me they'd sent weeks ago.

Is this something nefario did or did someone else finally get their hand in this process?

So if gigamining got their asset info on the 19th, its almost the 21st now, has anyone received asset info yet? Wasn't GLBSE going to release info for 3 or 4 assets per day?

Nefario has always been, and admits to being, terrible with time estimations. It's safe to assume +/- 100% of his predictions :P

LOL my question would be why did it take so long to get to this point?

Nefario has shown to be very irresponsible when it comes to the handling of customer funds.

He should never be trusted again in this manner.

. Giga prob got his info back first because he can afford good lawyers.

Gigavps mentioned lawyers, that may have had something to do with it.

I made the offers privately already, but it bears repeating - I am offering assistance to all MPEx passthrough operators. Let your shareholders exchange their GLBSE stock for the real stuff on their CoinBr.com account ;) They will be happy to be able to trade it at time/price that suits them and you'll avoid the payouts hassle.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126560.msg1349915#msg1349915

I am posting this to confirm that I just received YARR holder info.

I'm sure that all ex-GLBSE users will be extremely wary in who they use as a third-party for their investments. What will BTCTC do to ensure that it will not end up like GLBSE?

Will you make it easy for asset issuers to get a copy of their shareholder lists?

Do multiple trusted parties have administrative access to BTCTC's servers, so that we're not ever stuck trusting a single person with all of our assets and bitcoins?

Here is a rough idea to protect issuers, investors and also the exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126533.msg1344816#msg1344816

https://i.imgur.com/14qPV.png

But I have not recieved any info yet, still waiting......

Same here. I've got one share in IBB and 2 shares in asic.coop. Haven't heard shit from glbse.

I would bet on FPGAMINING, who started to scam some time before the closing: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112969.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112969.0)
So I wonder if in such cases Nefario will release verified issuers' identity too.

I think that I've addressed most of this in the BTC-TC and LTC-GLOBAL main threads.  Key differentiators:

- We are a legit registered company, operated by Fidelity Limited in Belize where our corporate offices are located.
- Our ToS and Asset Issuer ToS are drastically different such that they should be legally protective of the site and the issuers.
- We grant access via the site and a JSON API to an asset issuers shareholder list.  Thus they can download it at any time.
- We email the asset issuers a copy of their shareholder list every 12 hours.

We do not lock in asset issuers, and believe that even if we fail, the show must go on.


Addressing the server access...  The company cannot yet afford to hire another systems administrator, but should a systems administrator attain enough shares, (and thus have a vested interest in the success of the exchange) I would not be opposed to granting access.  One of the key issues for me is trust... I consider the data on the servers -extremely- sensitive.  A leak of the site code or the user's data would be a horrible blow to the company.

Cheers.

Doh... I posted without proofreading.  Edit: I have not addressed the administrative access to the servers though.  Right now it is just me, and it will stay that way until (... we find some investors we can trust.)

Getting through the moderator vetting is an ordeal in itself :/

I agree that the server data should be treated with extreme sensitivity obviously. The issue with one person being in control isn't as bad when asset issuers get constant updates of their shareholder lists, so that quells my concern a bit. I still think that there should be more than one person with access, but it makes perfect sense that finding such a person will take time and lots of trust.

Deal breaker for me.  Buy imaginary companies with imaginary tokens from an imaginary currency.  This means anyone can scam a user and not have to face consequences.

I think it would be best to wait for the JOBS act to be implemented and go from there.

I agree that this part sucks, but the fact of the matter is that that line by itself allows the exchange to exist.  Without it, it's illegal to operate and can be taken down by a cranky government at any time.  GLBSE was illegal in the UK, Cryptostocks is illegal in Canada, MPex, I'm not sure about, but I know it's illegal for US citizens to use it.

And, in function, there have been little to no repercussions for failed assets anyway.  Maybe a scammer tag.

JOBS act is not going to work out well for open trading exchanges.  If I read it correctly, shares in JOBS act companies cannot be openly traded.

My take is: keep the legal in mind when investing, be careful, do your research, and make the best of a crap situation.  And ultimately, I'm not going to hold it against anyone that doesn't want to use it.  It was painful to have to put that in there.   :(

Cheers.

Maybe it could be remedied by signing a contract with the issuer externally, which mentions that the tokens on such and such site corresponds to real shares of the company. I wouldn't do this if I was the issuer though, at least while I'm located in the first world.

Obviously IANAL, but I think contracts on GLBSE wouldn't work as proof "by themselves" anyway. Signing contracts directly with the responsible party seems to be the best/only option, regardless of it being an illegal securities exchange or a game.

Best strategy for issuers could be to refrain from making their identity public and instead assign publicly known and trusted arbiters to resolve disputes who have their identity. The arbiters' role can be extended to cover passive audits, like periodically receiving a list of shareholders and even checking the accounts.

Most of the "companies" on glbse were imaginary and in fact so was glbse itself. Tell me one actual listing that was a real registered company in any jurisdiction in the world ?

Then maybe it would be better to go for a p2p exchange and learn to use open transactions, to at least reduce the number of people who can scam you for any single thing. But even with that, you always depend on your trust on someone else with little recurse to the law in case you trusted the wrong guy. So unless someone find an effective system of sanctions in case of scams, this investing thing is not going to float IMHO.

You still have the issuers risk and P2P exchange will note diminish that risk at all. I guess this is what btc asked for :) no central control and looks like it's starting to bite our asses :)

BTW, this is getting way off-topic and has nothing to do with: "GOOD NEWS! GLBSE is sending out shareholders data "

Please use the link I posted above. Here is a rough idea to protect issuers, investors and also the exchange  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126533.msg1344816#msg1344816)

I discussed the open transactions server stuff a bit with several members here on the forums.  I didn't really like how it worked.  It's not how you'd think it would work, all decentralized like bitcoin itself.  It was more like a network of exchanges (each server = it's own exchange) that could trade assets around.  Even the trading of the assets was not what I thought, as a single issue could not leave a single server.  (if you have sheep on server A, and goats on server B, sheep could not move A to B.  You have to trade sheep for goats, -or- the issuer has to issue sheep on both servers.)  I could accomplish nearly the same thing if I added a secure cross-site trading plugin to LTC-GLOBAL, then open sourced the code.

There are single point of failure issues with OT because all the assets go poof if the server they are on goes offline.

Problem also emerges that you might have 100 people all running their own "exchange", making it all that much harder for the trustworthy operators to rise above the noise.

(OT guys feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!)

I don't want to start a flame war or anything.  I admire the work the OT guys are doing.  Just saying that based on what was described to me, it's not yet ready for prime-time.  It has some design flaws that need worked out so that it works more like bitcoin itself, totally distributed and independent of any single point of control or failure.

Cheers.

I prefer having the list of email addresses and how many shares each email address holds. After all what is more p2p than email???

A company does not have to be registered to be 'real'.  All someone has to do is conduct business under a name and that is a company.  It might be breaking the law by soliciting investments from the public, but that does not make it any less real.  When I started to use GLBSE I treated it as a game that if lost it is no big deal, but many people treated it as real exchange.  It can't be both ways, a bitcoin is either something that has value or it doesn't.

As for exchanges that will use imaginary chips/bits, there are many illegal casinos in America that will not exchange their USD for chips.  Instead they go next door and exchange their money for chips, then walk into the 'fantasy casino'.  If the player wins, they can take their chips out of the casino and go next door and exchange their chips for their money.  It doesn't make it any less illegal and the police is fine with shutting down both operations.

I see most of your points, but I am a little confused as to how/why formalizing in the ToS the part in bold leads you to this:


I kind of figured that a lot of people were treating it like that.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have spent the time coding it all.  I formalized the legal around it to make sure we were all on a level playing field.



In that situation it's pretty obvious that the two organizations are operating as one.  I also suspect that the fantasy casino is not making people sign a contract upon entry stating that their games do not pay out.  Maybe they do?

Also, following that logic, even the likes of Chuck-E-Cheese's would be illegal.  You buy tokens, play games, collect tickets, use the tickets to claim prizes, which you could then sell next door at the pawn shop for cash.  This is not unlike BTC-TC.  BTC is a commodity, not unlike the toys you walk out of Chuck-E-Cheese's with.

In situations where the money changing and the business operations are contractually laid out to be educational fantasy and obviously separate (such as BTC-TC) our argument would be that if all things fantasy that have value are illegal and BTC-TC finds itself in legal trouble, then Blizzard, Second Life, Sony Entertainment, etc, would pretty much all have to be on the side of BTC-TC.  Because if BTC-TC lost such a case based solely on what virtual tokens it used, then they would be exposed as well for their virtual tokens, asset exchanges, and tradability.  This extends to the likes of ebay, where in game assets, and various other commodities (BTC) are regularly traded. 

Things may change in the future, but I think for now the exchange is on pretty good ground.

Yay. Received some good info. Got my one share of IBB, good news is good news, now just waiting on asic.coop.

i have about 100 bitcoin in stocks on GLBSE and some cash...

havent gotten anything so far -_-


GLBSE ya serious? do something!

the only shit i got was

"Claim finished

Your claim has been submitted and will be reviewed. You will be contacted (via the email address you provided) to keep you up to date on the status of your account, we will try to get your bitcoin to you as soon as possible."

gimme my money back :/

@gewure ...

Did you receive that response through the claims page of the GLBSE website or via an email to the email address you registered on the page ?

If it was via email, what was the email address you received the response from ? (I'm trying to determine whether or not I have received any emails relating to my claim.)

TIA

If an issuer issues sheep onto servers A, B and C, then the "sheep" currency is now available on three servers.

If you redeem a cheque that was drawn from an account on server A, then your wallet will naturally redeem it at server A,
just the same as a web browser trying to display an image from webserver A, would download that image from webserver A.
(In both cases, the client software just accesses the appropriate server based on what's in the URL.)

There are several ways to move your "sheep" from Server A to Server B:

1. Anyone who has a "sheep" account on both servers, can perform this transfer for you.

2. Including, obviously, the issuer himself. He can take sheep from you on Server A, and give you sheep on Server B.
   (In fact, anyone with accounts on both servers can do this.)

3. You could sell the Sheep on the exchange in return for Bitcoins. Then withdraw the Bitcoins from the server directly, and move them onto server B, where you use the BTC to purchase Sheep again.

4. A protocol could be devised between servers that allows them to open accounts with each other, and thus perform "wire transfers" on behalf of their users.



This is not correct. The whole idea with OT is that the user stores his last signed receipt, and is thus able to prove his balance, as well as which instruments are valid, simply via that last signed receipt. In other words, the receipt is the account, and both parties have a copy of it.


Remember that the OT server cannot change balances or forge receipts. (Your signed request appears on every server-signed receipt. So the server cannot forge a receipt because it cannot forge your signature, because it does not have your private key.)

And as long as the issuer has an auditing protocol in place that meets his standards, then the server cannot commit inflation either.

Therefore, whether there are 100 servers, or 1000 servers, they cannot defraud the issuers or users.


Thanks for the opportunity  :-)

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that.  Definitely helped me understand it better.

The signed receipts as a record sound really helpful.  If the OT server goes offline, then the asset holders can send their receipts to the asset issuer and the asset issuer can use them to determine amounts held?  How does it prevent double spend?  Eg:

- I buy 50 sheep
- I sell 50 sheep
- I buy 50 sheep

I now hold two receipts, representing purchases of 50 sheep.  Is there something the asset issuer can use to tell that the first 50 sheep were sold off?

Cheers.

Each new receipt, you must sign the new balance.

So if you have a 0 balance, and then you receive 50 sheep, you sign a receipt that says, "My balance is 0. I'm receiving 50 sheep. My new balance will be 50."

Then let's say you receive another 50 sheep: "My balance is 50 sheep. I'm receiving 50 more sheep. My new balance will be 100."

Then let's say you send 50 sheep to Bob:  "My balance is 100 sheep. Please send 50 sheep to Bob. My new balance will be 50."


See? You must sign the balance on each new request. Therefore the most recent receipt shows the current balance, with your signature on it (and the server's signature.)

Therefore in any dispute, the winner is the one with the newest receipt.

Sounds pretty solid.  I like it.

I'm gonna have to start building a web frontend for it or something.  :)

What happened with "sending out shareholders data"?
Did you guys received anything?

It's almost a year and I haven't received a single email and (as expected) i was never sent BTCs that i had on GLBSE account.

So, it's game over i guess?

Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

Some people like to pretend like the data was sent.

The fact of the matter is Nefario with a few friends doctored the listings and stole most of the BTC/more valuable assets.

Hopefully the UK's equivalent of the SEC catches up and we see some filings.

LMFAO, I think the SEC will visit the Gypsy trader aka Mircea Popescu first to shut down his Once in a lifetime Wonder Bazar aka MPex.