Ok.....

In the worlds current education paradigm, that's pretty much standard - Basic education, no marketable skills outside of a factory or corporation.  Now that you've proven what you already knew, why not try teaching them how to do something marketable, and then try it again?

My Firefox tells me the website is untrusted??

Awesome, the new site works for me again

Can you add a SSL Certificate? There are some free.
The red screen scares new investors ...

Yeah I got that already..  your reply is just the tl;dr version of your terms and conditions.

The point of my post was about whether you had any concerns about the types of assets you admit affecting the perception of your business, and likely (IMO) effects on growth.

I think you'll do well from the die-hard libertarian quarter - not so much from the general investor/business community.
Your chosen position is entirely consistent with commonly perceived ideals of deregulation and decentralization in the bitcoin community.

It worries me that operations such as yours will deter many from the general uptake of bitcoin - not just your own business.

If it worries a guy like me - it'll positively send some others packing. Hopefully I'm wrong however and the majority of the world will jump into this wild west with open wallets and reckless abandon!

Should GLBSE really be supporting this sort of scheme as one of it's tradable assets?

While I can sort of see a case for it because it's up front about what it is, it strikes me as the sort of thing that will negatively affect GLBSE's growth.
Why not restrict assets to those that have at least a plausible sustainable investment model - and also are not so likely to attract negative attention from the media and/or various law enforcement/regulatory bodies?

While in general I expect the bitcoin community would be hesitant to get law enforcement involved in disputes - there are perhaps cases involving fraud where there is a place for cooperation with certain agencies. (e.g MTGox indicated they may get law enforcement involved with certain aspects of the recent hack)
Having an asset like bitponzi on the books seems to make it unlikely you'd get any cooperation if for some reason the exchange did need to work with investigators on some issue.

That aside.. it's just likely to scare the average investor off and thus reduce the potential depth of the GLBSE exchange.

Wouldn't it be in your interests to drop bitponzi and at least have a basic 'dress code' for listings? - e.g: 
a) real world contact details which you have verified (can be kept secret - but retained in case of fraud)
b) plausible sustainable business model
c) enough transparency in operations to give credence to b).

I can see you're going for a hands off approach from your terms and conditions.. which is fine to an extent..
but it puts your interests somewhat at odds with those of the average investor.
BitcoinGlobal could be seen to be making a profit from shonky asset operators. 

You state:
"We assume no responsibility or liability for any fraud committed on this exchange but will do our best to prevent its occurrence."
Ponzi schemes aren't likely to fit into most peoples expectations of doing the best to prevent fraud. Even if bitponzi itself is up front about it - you can almost guarantee some early participant will misrepresent it to someone else in order to get more money into the pot.
It's a bit like a company saying they don't spam, yet they encourage their agents to do it on their behalf.

Your exchange your rules.. but it strikes me that you're making a gift for whatever competitors come along and setup an exchange that feels more 'business-like'.

I get 28 bitcent, but I dont know from what assent. How can I know?

A surprisingly high percentage of computer hardware is defective from the getgo.  Considering the fact that he has 14 motherboards, 14 sticks of ram, 14 PSU's, 14 processors, and 28 video cards, well, that's 84 pieces of hardware that could be DOA.  Having only 3 parts (that I am aware of) arrive DOA is actually a pretty good percentage...

this sucks. your extremely unlucky with malfunctioning and DOA parts.

Question: isn't anything appearing in "Southern China's most Read weekly newspaper" inherently approved by the government?

Well, there is this 2009 law that would seem to apply to bitcoin:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/27/content_11610478.htm

I would think at least a few governments would be interested to actually invest in bitcoin as a diversification of their reserves.  For a relatively small amount today, they could establish a decent position in bitcoin and setup a mining operation to help secure the network.  Maybe bitcoin doesn't end up succeeding, on the other hand...

Does anyone know how the government in China looks at bitcoin yet. Will be see people mysteriously 'vanish' when they're caught mining by the secret police? Will bitcoin.org and other sites be blocked? Perhaps chinese residents getting into bitcoin should take their precautions? I am just saying, the Chinese government is know for having strict control and we all know about 'the great firewall of china'.  Apart from these issues, China surely is a huge market!

Ok based on something like this, I'd say we're going to see a HUGE increase in network hashing capability.

One major problem with that it will probably be massive amounts of messed up stuff and botnet traffic to pools. As the average computer users here has 0 comprehension of stuff like security and following instructions to the letter. These normal users are in STARK contrast to a large group of Chinese users with fantastic tech skills but 0 language skills.

This could be a good chance for someone to make a BTC or two by doing a Chinese language GUI for GUIMINER or something similar.


 

Yep, well OpenID is so incredibly poor that we're switching to proper logins when we release the new version of our exchange software.

I didn't register on GLBSE, but I didn't see any links or info to the companies for which symbol belongs. If I am going to buy shares I would like what the company is about.