friedcat - Do you have a plan if GLBSE doesn't come back on line or if (for whatever reason) you're de-listed?
I'm not attacking, but truly curious as to what you've thought about.
It's too early to ask this - let's see what Nefario says first. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all who voted. I am still surprised that so many people think ASICs have been hashing for a while. Other than that, the results are expected, and I bet they reflect the pre-order market share to some extent - wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
That's interesting .. because compliance ordered by a foreign government.. would that stand up.
Even if GLBSE got closed down as a result of investigations initiated by US authorities, it doesn't mean they weren't breaking UK law in respect of unregistered securities. It's highly possible that the existence of GLBSE could be brought to the attention of the UK's FSA and that the FSA would take it from there without US law being involved at all. I have no idea whether US law prevents unregistered securities being offered to US residents by foreign operators. Maybe there is some technicality which allows them to go after off-shore, unregulated exchanges even if those exchanges are legal in their local jurisdiction in the same way that they were able to go after the online poker services which were allowing US players on the technicality of transferring funds through US financial services for the purpose of online poker playing. There are so many things affecting the value of Bitcoin "investments" at the moment that it would not be easy to establish Nefario's role in any decline in value of assets listed on GLBSE. You'd be looking at an expensive legal case, assuming that it wasn't dismissed out of hand (unlike the US, you can't "sue anyone for anything" in Commonwealth countries and lawyers themselves get sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases before the courts). There's no need for anyone to have brought GLBSE to the attention of the FSA - nefario was actually trying to get it registered with them. One pretty reasonable theory on what's happening gos like this: Nefario: Hi FSA, I'd like to register my company GLBSE as a financial services provider. FSA: Do you provide services that are required to be registered with us? Nefario: Yes FSA: Then please submit your application. Oh - and if you're already providing such services then you need to stop until we approve or decline your application to register. The application/approval process typically takes a few months. He can't register with the FSA unless he provides services that they register. And if he DOES provide services that should be registered with them, then he shouldn't be providing such services without being registered. Obviously if GLBSE ends up registered with the FSA then it would have to comply with AML/KYC requirements - so if the announcement on Saturday mentions FSA registration everyone should start getting their photo id, proof of address etc ready if they want to get back access to their assets. Note: I'm in no way saying the GLBSE WILL end up FSA regulated. Nor is the above the only credible scenario for what's happening - just the most likely in my view. Another scenario: Goats will damage and eventually kill trees by browsing on the leaves and shoots, stripping the bark, and rubbing their horns on the trees. |
|
|
|
|
Have you started mining? In case you need to liquidate, few coins can be added into the pile.
If these problems are really due to a legal action (goat, SEC, whatever), I would imagine Nafario would eventually be able to continue trading or at least close the shop and facilitate transfer of the share ownership information. It is not likely that this information would remain hidden forever. Wishful thinking, I know.
|
|
|
|
Since IF GLBSE ever comes back online it seems most likely that a panic selling will happen (even more than the BTC price after the Gox hack), I would guess that we are already royally screwed anyway.
Oh well, it's just money.
How a I screwed if people are panic-selling assets into my hands? |
|
|
|
My partner and I had been talking about the temperary offline of GLBSE till now.
After our discussion, we agreed that we should make the following actions:
1. Accepting any amount of share lock-ins, with no lowest thresholds.
2. Building a platfom to automate the process.
And for MU and MOORE, which are managed in the name of myself, I will offer the same services.
I hope that GLBSE will not impede on this? What are you considering in the event that GLBSE cannot allow for future share trading? (This will require different contracts to be drawn up..) And how do I prove ownership in case trading within GLBSE is halted? Assuming Nefario is able to and willing to cooperate, how would this work? |
|
|
|
I'd like to remind everyone that a GLBSE shutdown does not put your shares directly in danger (in contrast to account hacking). It just prevents ASICMINER shares from being (efficiently) traded.
Good point. Assuming GLBSE comes back online soon, perhaps Friedcat should prepare for all-out transfer of shares per contracts akin to keystroke's above. Yes but how can we prove we own those shares? Does ASICMINER have a record of the current status of all shares traded on GLBSE? We don't know yet what kinds of issues have arisen with GLBSE, but from the lack of explanation it seems that lawyers are involved. If shutdown is temporary, when it comes back online you will decide if you are staying in or transferring shares to Bitfountain's custody. If the shutdown is for more permanent reasons, I hope Nefario would be able to provide ownership information to asset issuers. |
|
|
|
I'd like to remind everyone that a GLBSE shutdown does not put your shares directly in danger (in contrast to account hacking). It just prevents ASICMINER shares from being (efficiently) traded.
Good point. Assuming GLBSE comes back online soon, perhaps Friedcat should prepare for all-out transfer of shares per contracts akin to keystroke's above. |
|
|
|
|
Lack of explanation implies lawyers got involved. Wait and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Yankee, what exactly was the point of posting this picture? |
|
|
|
Don't care about supporting an organization whose name is a lie in itself and will likely mislead people - with the high probability of this being intentional.
Damn that national science foundation, and their monopoly on science. Yes! Did you notice how centralized the science has become? NSF this, NSF that. |
|
|
|
|
Glad to see that ASIC preorders are not paid for using unit funds, and are spread out between different suppliers. Great job so far, keep it up!
|
|
|
|
whichever company has produced the asic first would be stupid not to wait with shipping until another company has finished it's asic.
mining in the meantime will make a fortune...
So company A creates ASICs, and starts mining on them. The difficulty triples (at least), and the entire network hates them. Company B comes out with an ASIC, and starts shipping, so Company A stops mining, and starts shipping? I can guarantee you, no one would ever buy from Company A again, and there would be many returns. Agreed. It's one thing to test out the hardware a bit here and there to make sure it meets specs, but if it turns out Company A was mining on the hardware to make some quick cash I'd be super pissed...mainly because they're now selling me a used product. Even "testing ASICs a bit here and there" on the main net when product is not available to customers hurts existing GPU and FPGA miners - it directly takes away their profits under the pretense of "testing". There is testnet-in-a-box available, and any manufacturer testing on the main net is simply dishonest: it's not about testing, it's about taking away profits from miners. |
|
|
|
Yeah - we should start with a cash-flow and add other features later.
+1 and +1 for johnjay3000 Lets start with a basic Cashflow, later we can expand this thing... Fine by me. Add average hashing rates for each rig, too. |
|
|
|
|
I apologize if this has been asked here already and I missed it (it seems obvious) - are there recent examples of cryptographic algorithms being broken in a sudden, catastrophic fashion? I see it much more likely that a "weakness" is published first, thus giving everyone some time to migrate to a new signature algo and send their coins to the new system. How hard would it be technically to enable spending of "old" ECDSA coins into the network based on a different signing algorithm?
|
|
|
|
+111111111111
Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.
i do support the bitcoin foundation i just (and only) have the fear that mtgox uses this power to convince all bitcoin businness to copy his definition of tainted coins. Why are you afraid of it? Did you steal anyone's wallet? I am a supporter of the Bitcoin Foundation, and I think taint is a horrible idea. All proposals to implement it so far are ineffective and are more likely to hurt naive bitcoin newbies than the thieves themselves. The people who are 'out of the know' concerning taint will accept them, giving thieves a good or service in exchange, and they'll be stuck holding the bag. Keeping bitcoins fungible is important. This thread isn't for debating the merits (or lack thereof) of taint. However, there are plenty of threads that cover why this a bad idea already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=85433.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=67383.0 Oh, okay. It's semantics. If a blockchain can help identify a thief in some cases, I've got nothing against it. Calling coins "tainted" may be taking it too far. How about "blockchain forensics" then? Moving on, back on topic. The issue of blockchain forensics is really something for the law enforcement and businesses to worry about, not the average users or miners. I agree that users and miners should be represented more on the BF board. |
|
|
|
+111111111111
Gavin
Keep moving forward. You are doing a fantastic job. Don't get sidetracked by a few critics. Most people here support you and even if not , they can create their own foundation or club.
i do support the bitcoin foundation i just (and only) have the fear that mtgox uses this power to convince all bitcoin businness to copy his definition of tainted coins. Why are you afraid of it? Did you steal anyone's wallet? |
|
|
|
There is a poll on their portal forum with a "final" list of candidates. I assume that Josh is waiting for that poll to close to announce the person.
That has got nothing to do with this thread and has got everything to do with avoiding the questions asked here. |
|
|
|
So... When's the town hall going to happen, and when will Sonny finally get around to updating his thread?
Why don't you contact them and ask? I've given up on them. The BFL may think that's great, but it's not. |
|
|
|
Why is it that the coins mined in the genesis block can't be spent?
Because it wouldn't be fair: there are no miners to compete for the reward. One more thing about Satoshi. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
