Bitcoin Forum

Revenue-Growth.JPG

TOS - April 7 2012.doc

BitcoinGlobal - Annual Report - March 2012.pdf

BitcoinGlobalGoverningBylaws.pdf

Balance-Sheet-Aug-1-2012.JPG

Financials-Apr-May-June-2012.JPG
    
Financials-May-July-2012.JPG

Rev-Sources-Apr-May-June 2012.JPG

BG-AGM-Minutes-April-13-2012.pdf

BG-Shareholder-Meeting-Minutes-August-10th-2012.pdf

BG-Shareholder-Meeting-Minutes-May-26-2012.pdf

BG-Shareholder-Meeting-Minutes-Sept-22nd-2012.pdf

Where those supposed to be links to files, or, what?  ???

It is a list of files which I received in a compacted archive. This files reveals interesting details about the GLBSE enterprise which were not disclosed by the original shareholders.

This might be a silly question, but considering that Nefario already lost all the trust and share issuers are slowly getting over all the shit caused by the infamous "cleanest shutdown ever", what's the point of this stupid voting thread, and why don't you just release what you have so we can all learn from mistakes of GLBSE?
edit:
I really hate people who are publicly saying things like "I got these interesting documents that could get him and him into the trouble" but not willing to release them. I meet people like this every day, and I am sick of them.

I definitely think this should be released.

The point is to let the users of this forum decide if they are really interested to look into the documents. Keep in mind that GLBSE had 13 shareholders. Most of this shareholders are active users in this forum. So they are also entitled to participate in this decision.


I understand your hate, but I am not one of these 'people' since I am willing to release the documents. However, I want to know if the users if this forum are also willing to look into the documents.

When are you going to make a decision - when a certain date arrives or when a certain number of people vote "yes".

Good question!

I will set a threshold to determine the final decision.

By the way, why do you think I received this documents from an anonymous user without any instruction at all?

I presume they expected that you'd "publish and be damned".

You could post them and then people who are interested could look and those who aren't could ignore them, right?

I'm guessin' the sender's a horny ~45 y/o Bitcoiner who wears pajamas, if you know what I mean, Gavar bean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guar).

Just UP the files somewhere. There's no need for drama or suspense.

Otherwise, you made up those files.

Good answer.

That was my first thought when I decide to understand the expectation of the anonymous sender.

Completely right!

However I am very interested to know what the forum users thoughts before I release the documents.

The documents could be fake.

Could be, but I don't think that the partners in GLBSE are a cohesive enough group that every single one of them would lie about the authenticity of the documents. 

I did not 'made up those files'.

The documents contains references to OpenPGP certificates of the GLBSE shareholders. That is impossible to forge.

I am very aware of this.

Perhaps parts of the documents were doctored and then sent to me.

Do you have any of the files listed?

Sure, there is possibility that documents are fake or has been altered. People should be aware of this.
However same argument was used by Giga and others regarding the shareholder list from Nefario. They simply said it could not be trusted. Giga then forced all shareholders to identify themselves. But that's another story...

this is BS, these "sensitive documents" can't be trusted, so who gives a f*** what they say...

You heard of wikileaks, right?

Notably, when contacted privately, OP was not interested in posting hashes for the data, leaving no way for the data to be verified by other entities as fiction, or non-fiction (without a line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence comparison).

Smells like fiction + drama.

Yes, I know what is Wikileaks.

How do you differ fictional data from factual data only with 'hashes'?

Suppose someone wanted to release that data.

Why would they send it to you instead of just posting it online anonymously?

Secondly, why don't you post it online anonymously? Nobody would be able to prove it was you, or the original sender or anyone else.

Perhaps because I am able to verify the evidence with an unbiased approach.


Because I am trying to establish why the documents were sent to me.

You and everyone else would also be able to verify any alleged evidence after the documents had been made public anonymously. Your answer is not a reason why anyone would send it to you instead of posting anonymously online.



Okay then we are both on the same page for once.

Still, no reason to keep the documents to yourself. If you post them online anonymously nobody can prove you released them. And it doesn't prohibit you from establishing why the documents were sent to you. The community is more likely to find any answers than you alone.

You need someone with an authentic copy to cooperate. Okay, they probably would have released them in the first place if they would cooperate in such a circumstance, but I don't see any reason not to publish the hashes either. If they are indeed factual, it's unlikely that people will come out and claim that they aren't based on the hashes, because that would need a conspiracy, which would be hard to establish at this point. So, by not releasing the hashes, you are making a case against yourself.

How are you unbiased? You are one of the few people who have been defending usagi's scamming practices, you have stated that you highly respect theymos and you are VIP donator on this forum. Theymos and usagi were both involved in GLBSE.

I'm all for an unbiased approach, but you are certainly not unbiased.

That is why I posted the encrypted written declaration with details of the compacted archive. That will show I did not altered the original compacted archive sent to my electronic mail.

Coming from an user which could not present one single evidence to prove that Usagi was defrauding his investors, your opinion about my ability to examine documents is quite meaningless. Furthermore, I would work with two additional agents to produce a final report. So that would eliminate any possible bias in the investigation since both agents would not be related to the GLBSE enterprise.

Thanks for confirming my opinion about you. The self-importance and delusional rationalization is just too obvious. I'll keep ignoring you.

I guess anyone who wants to support your attention whoring or use your superior investigation skills is free to do so.

I think you need to make up your mind what you want.

Motivation 1:

Motivation 2:

Motivation 3:

Are you here to find out why the documents were sent, or to find out what people think to satisfy your curiosity, or to let people decide if they want to see them or not?  Or for some other purpose (such as to create and enjoy drama and receive attention)?  Once your mind is made up, I think you should pursue that goal and not let the others get in the way.

Actually, I think you should think primarily about the victims here.  If there's wrongdoing and these documents shed light on it, I think you should put your personal motivations aside and provide what you have to them so that people can know the truth about what was done with their money.  If you consider them first and put your personal curiosity second, I think you'll be able to receive all of the above.

No, that's not the concern. I was merely wondering why you don't publish individual hashes.

Anyone else with the documents may compare their hash to the hash of the data you post.

Thus "verified by other entities"

Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not).  Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting.

If you are in the bitcoin community and do not understand what a hash algorithm does, that is quite odd.

You were an asset issuer on GLBSE, you offered Nefario to set up a community panel, you contacted theymos when he wanted to sell his GLBSE shares and in that process you received insider information about GLBSE. And this is only the stuff we know about.

But you were not involved with GLBSE. Whatever, usagi.

This was an answer to adamstgBit:

OK, I'm going to throw in my two cents here.

The lack of transparency relating to failed Bitcoin enterprises bugs the shit out of me.  In the real world, you lose the right to remain opaque if your business venture fails owing people money - even if you're a private company - and I see no reason why that same principle should not apply in the Bitcoin community.  Transparency fosters accountability and it creates a repository of information which others can use to mitigate the risk of failure in similar future ventures.

Because the risk that these documents have been altered cannot be discounted, the possibility that they were sent to augustocroppo to damage his credibility has to be considered.  Why release these documents through augustocroppo if they're authentic when they can be released anonymously without involving any third party?

While my attitude is definitely "publish and be damned" - because I do think that GLBSE has lost its presumed right to any kind of confidentiality - I find myself in the very curious situation of simultaneously encouraging augustocroppo to publish them and advising him to remain aware that someone could be setting him up here.

I am here to gauge the responses of the users of this forum before I release the documents. I am letting the users present their arguments to me understand the point of view of everyone. I think it is imperative to first debate the matter and then determine if the release is necessary or not. This is not a drama, this is a serious subject. The documents could answer many questions raised by different user in the last months after the GLBSE shutdown.


You have to understand that who you consider a victim, another user could consider a perpetrator. Moreover, without an appropriate unbiased investigation, people will hardly know the truth. Few users are already assuming the documents are false. They can be right. The documents sent to me can contain false information. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the documents, I can only vouch that I did not changed any part of the documents since I received it from the anonymous sender.

Few documents in the list are a converted version of the original file.

E.g.

BG-Shareholder-Meeting-Minutes-August-10th-2012.pdf

That minutes were originally recorded in a text file because the meeting happened in an IRC channel. The original file is TXT format, not PDF format. Two different formats with the same content generates different 'hashes'.

So your insistence for the documents 'hashes' is completely cluless.


I listed details of each file: name, date and size. Any change made in any file would change one or more of that details and change the total size of the decompressed files. Therefore, the encrypted version of the written declaration will PROVE that I did NOT changed any part of the documents.


Seriously, get a clue about what you are talking about. This discussion is not about my ability to understand what a algorithm does (although I know what an algorithm does). Moreover, many user in this forum do not understand what an algorithm does, but they know very well how to send and receive Bitcoins.

My sincere compliments for this precious 'two cents'!

I have the same thoughts as you.

You are understanding my situation better than any another user.

No, that is not the case at all.  And it is sad that anyone in a crypto community would make this false claim.

All right. Could you demonstrate that? I am happily waiting to learn from you!

He can run md5 against the files now... What's the difference now or 10 days ago? Noone can verify the files unless well glbse owners verify them, and I am not sure we can trust them.

Right... But how that demonstrated that I could change the documents after I received it?

Is it safe to assume...

• You've read the files.
• One of the shareholders of GLBSE/BitcoinGlobal sent them.

Yes, I made a careful examination of all files. I also obtained OpenPGP certificates and extra documents from the Internet in accordance with references present in the documents.

I strongly suspect the documents were sent to me by a GLBSE shareholder, but I have no evidence to prove that.

File modification time is simply a data field in the compressed archive, trivial to change.

Getting the compressed and uncompress archive sizes to match is only marginally more difficult.

The compressed archive likely includes per-file hashes or CRCs already... that is the data highly difficult to duplicate (i.e. the part you did not post).


Irrelevant.  OpenPGP data is typically already public... it needs to be, to independently verify signatures.

Thanks, bud. I suggest keeping the files away from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fii7MWPQGr8

I can understand chat logs not matching (timestamps and whatnot, regardless of format), since they are likely created by the person you claim to have sent you these. However since reports and images are likely distributed as is, your argument has zero merit. Okay some files won't match by their nature. So?

Also, please release these files ASAP. There is no reason to not release them, and assuming they are authentic, they will be very helpful in developing a better way to do business, if not in helping GLBSE victims. If they are not authentic, well, you won't get an answer to that by creating drama here.

I asked you to demonstrate how that is done, not to explain how that is done. If you do not present an demonstration of how that is done, I will assume you are just trying to discredit me because I did not provide you with some 'hashes'.


Irrelevant is your opinion.

What really matter is the content of the documents, not the 'hashes'.


Of course there are reasons to not release the documents. One of the reasons is the insistence that the documents are not authentic because I did not provide some 'hashes' in the written declaration.

Sorry but what you are saying didn't make any sense to me. You don't need to release hashes if you release the documents. Am I missing something? Hashes provide means to check authenticity without releasing the documents. I'm flabbergasted by your arguments, I really don't know how I can explain this better.

What I mean is that I will not release the documents for users which have already demonstrated bias to examine the compacted archive. I am glad that you are not demanding 'hashes' to trust that I did not changed the documents. I offer my apologies for my imprecise answer.

I think you probably need to make a decision soon on whether or not to release the documents.  Some people are going to review them objectively and some aren't - there's really nothing you can do to control that. 

Keep in mind that you can expect biased users to be more vocal, so there is a bias that makes you think biased users are more effective than they really are.

Also, I haven't seen much reaction about the data being released, mostly questions about its authenticity, which is a pretty obvious question.

One of the most stupid threads I've read lately...
Release them or just shut the fuck up. There's nothing to discuss about you "being in possession of some documents". If you don't release the files they don't exist and there's nothing to discuss, plain and simple.
In other words, I want my 10 minutes back.

Chega atrasado para a discussão e reclama que não há nada para discutir?

Se o assunto não lhe agrada, ignore o debate.

Este é um assunto delicado e sua resposta está fora do tópico em pauta.

PT: Desculpa, mas como posso chegar atrasado para algo que nao existe?
EN: Sorry, how can I be late for something which doesn't exist?

PT: Pode escrever em ingles para que os outros entendam, eu nao tenho problema algum com isso, mas vc talvez tenha.
EN: You can write in English so everybody else can understand, I have no problems with that but maybe you have.

PT: Assunto delicado, o caralho... Se nao posta os documentos, nao passa de um mentiroso que gosta de atencao. Os documentos nao existem. Prova que estou errado. A bola ta do seu lado.
EN: Delicate subject my ass... If you don't release the documents you're just an attention-whoring liar. The documents don't exist. Prove me wrong. The ball is on your court.

Don't mean to be offensive but this seems to be the consensus at this point.

Really?

Well, one more reason to me not release the documents.

You can be sure that you are not going to receive the documents from me.

Hahaha classic kindergarten stuff. AugustoCroppo, the forum clown.

You need professional help man.

This is getting absurd.

Here are the docs. Have fun.

http://db.tt/ol13E9Hh

Thank to you, now I have evidence that you are the anonymous user or that you also received the same documents.

Haha, and you're a private investigator? LOL

Well, I for one thought he showed his humorous side here for the first time. I'll go with that. It's nicer.

Wait... I thought I was a liar? A clown? A whore looking for attention? Do you believe in what I say now?

It is very interesting to gauge user responses and notice the selective reasoning.

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

LOL. If you had actually opened the 7z file (which is what any good "private investigator" would've done, or heck just even look at the file size) you would realize that is not the case.

If they do happen to be the same as the documents you have, I can understand why you didn't publish them.

And with the poll showing >80% thinking you should release, you don't. Congrats man, great work here...

Well. I did it. Every file contains the same phrase, "Augustocroppo is an attention whore".

I even notice that greyhawk compacted archive have 17.01 KB, which is a different size from the compacted archive I have.

I merely played with Greyhawk sarcasm.

You and other users are proving that you select what is true or not in accordance with your bias.

That is why I decided to gauge the responses from the forum users, to know who could be trusted or not with the documents.

At no moment I declared the poll would be the only reference to determine the release the documents.

Inb4 kangaroo court.

I actually didn't think that you were a liar, a clown, or an attention whore but you convinced me otherwise. Please keep your documents.

Yeah, right...

One GLBSE shareholder sent me a personal message with good arguments to not release the documents. His request is very convincing. Many users participating in this thread have already indicated they are not qualified to examine the documents. So I am very inclined to not release the documents to protect the privacy of the GLBSE shareholders. Furthermore, I have a great deal of respect for Theymos because he never acted with malice when dealing with forum discussions where I was involved. So I do not want cause more unnecessary issues for him with the release of the documents.

I can confirm that augustocroppo has the files that he listed, and at least some parts of these files seem genuine.

Of course one would have to ask, what problems these documents could cause to theymos? But I respect theymos too much to care :))

False accusations, misinterpretations of intention, speculations regarding liability, etc.

Just read again the responses trying to discredit me in this thread and you will have a good idea of what could happen not only against Theymos, but against all other undisclosed shareholders. It is imperative to me not only look after the wishes of the forum users, but also after the welfare of the undisclosed GLBSE shareholders.

So at this point is quite unlikely I will disclose the documents.

Those are all possibilities you were aware of when you started this thread.

My concern is that many Bitcoin enterprises are already ridiculously opaque.  I believe that when they fail, the identities and the actions of those involved with the business should no longer be protected - they should be subject to public scrutiny just as they are in the real world. 

Without such scrutiny, people have no idea whether the same people who were associated with one failed enterprise are operating a new one and they have little information on which to judge whether the failure was due to incompetence, malice, or factors which were truly beyond the control of the operators. 

I don't believe it is reasonable to expect the community to accept at face value the unexamined claims by service operators of why their business failed.

My guess is that we will never see these, or they would have been released by now.

Unless, of course, the documents were also sent to another party. I'm just saying.

slightly lost the plot!!!

can anyone clarify my position as a previous shareholder of companies listed on glbse?

I know nefario released shareholder names to "companies" on the 12th december 2012. Since then, three I held shares with have contacted me and upheld their contracts/ dividends but five have not?.

Do I just wait and hope they will come forward? or do I name them and hope shame them into a reaction of sorts (even an acknowledgement would help)?

Or do I ask others in the same situation to band together to find a solution?

Or is there already a place this is happening?

How do the documents here help shareholders (of companies not contacting their shareholders?)exactly and will a resolution of that data resolve shareholders concerns?  Any clarification would be helpful. reg.

ok so I posted the question to the thread originator but got no reply- so re-posting as I am unwilling to just let this and my btc's go. reg