Unit-holders need to start pestering their issuers to take claims. As time increases, chance of recovering funds decreases, both with Nefario and issuers. It's been so long, it's insane to count on Nefario releasing anything at this point. Unit-holders really need to press getting a comprehensive claims process up if you have an issuer without one, especially if they haven't been talking throughout this. Don't let your Issuer just keep withholding dividends and saying he still wants to wait for Nefario -- the time for that ended last month. Stochastic made a .csv from the Twitter logs GLBSE posted. If users have their own account history in .csv they turn over to Issuers, it's pretty solid evidence of a valid claim. Stochastic's .csv can be found @ https://dl.dropbox.com/s/8f1j19jbsa84ans/_historyGLBSEraw.csv?dl=1 -- It doesn't say who owns what, but it appears Nefario's the only one who could've told us that. Issuers need to still salvage the situation, even though it won't be perfect. I agree with this. I think Nefario is overly paranoid and mentally unstable. We have seen his maturity when someone questions his ability and how he reacts to competition. I don't think he will ever give up the information he has held, it is likely he deleted the information so whoever Nefario thinks is after him won't have the information. That was the original intention I had in publishing all the data I collected from GLBSE in regards to purchase history and dividend history. If the data is already publicly available then Nefario would not have any incentive to delete his own. Also I think if the asset issuers work together on the claims process it would then allow more data to be compared and maybe reduce the processing of fraudulent claims. There is no way to remove 100% of fraudulent claims, in fact who can say that even if Nefario returned the asset information that he would not modify it so that he would receive shares. The point is to find the best way to allow the unit holders to get access to their property. See my post on my claims process idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126673.0 |
|
|
|
If he is scared about some government agency reguarding trading securities without a license then it makes sense he wouldn't ever send out the share info.
However, there is absolutely no reason to keep our BTC in the accounts hostage. I am waiting on ~30 myself. He obviously had some repayments on the extra coins, though he has yet to send any more out. What good reason is there to keep these coins? This is straight up theft.
Watching his youtube videos makes me sick. He was a real badass until the first sign of trouble, typical internet tough guy.
Nefario obviously cannot be trusted in properly managing a project like GLBSE, why would anyone think he can handle the funds properly. He was probably skimming bitcoins from GLBSE and now he is short of bitcoins for the claims process. |
|
|
|
It seems like a decent starting point - but what's to stop someone either:
1. Adding lines into the .csv file,
2. Deleting sales from the .csv file - so the record of them buying shares is still there, but not the record of them subsequently selling them.
Haven't got a GLBSE .csv file on this computer, but last time I looked at one, I don't remember it being GPG signed or anything to allow guaranteeing its unmodified nature. It would deter casual scammers - but actually could be used to give credibility to slightly more sophisticated ones.
One thing it DOES do (in its favour) is link shares claimed to specific transactions - so anyone inserting lines would run the risk of claiming a sale to someone else was to them and having it contradicted by the genuine buyer submitting a claim on the same transaction.
My idea to prevent the addition of fraudulent buys and sell history in the file would be to compare the csv file with the GLBSE history and also against other claimants. If there are was only one purchase at a given time yet two people are claiming that they bought the shares at that time point, then both of those claims would need to be considered suspect and evaluated further. Yeah - mentioned that in my last paragraph. The real weakness is that it allows people to delete just their sell line - and leave in their buy. With the buy being genuine (so unlikely to be contested) it would give huge credibility to someone who had bought/sold shares but was now claiming to only have ever bought them. All it can really show is that at some point they probably owned some shares - not that they still retained them when GLBSE closed down. That is a good point that I did not think of. People would have to remove any withdraws from the csv file as well (if they made any withdraws) as they can't remove bitcoins that they aren't suppose to have. |
|
|
|
It seems like a decent starting point - but what's to stop someone either:
1. Adding lines into the .csv file,
2. Deleting sales from the .csv file - so the record of them buying shares is still there, but not the record of them subsequently selling them.
Haven't got a GLBSE .csv file on this computer, but last time I looked at one, I don't remember it being GPG signed or anything to allow guaranteeing its unmodified nature. It would deter casual scammers - but actually could be used to give credibility to slightly more sophisticated ones.
One thing it DOES do (in its favour) is link shares claimed to specific transactions - so anyone inserting lines would run the risk of claiming a sale to someone else was to them and having it contradicted by the genuine buyer submitting a claim on the same transaction.
My idea to prevent the addition of fraudulent buys and sell history in the file would be to compare the csv file with the GLBSE history and also against other claimants. If there are was only one purchase at a given time yet two people are claiming that they bought the shares at that time point, then both of those claims would need to be considered suspect and evaluated further. |
|
|
|
You believe in god, because god is you. God is your self. What does the phrase god bless you mean? I thank you. It is showing love from a point of self to another individual.
Earth sent a message, looking for love and happiness out into space, thought. The answer is came back, is here. The answer is you.
If you find god, will you take it, as the truth?
I am someone who has found god and came back to earth to share it with you. When you find god, you can do anything, so I chose my destiny with the power of freewill.
When you use logic, talking, you find the same answer. Everything is made inside your head, your brain perceives everything. You developed a language and intelligence complicated enough to comprehend the nature of the universe. You learn. You become self aware. You have found heaven. It is up to you to believe, to manifest god and love into reality, to spread the word of god.
To be with god, yourself, is to have understanding, unity. You create division from yourself when you lie.
Thoughts are ultimately alternate realities you are connected to, the experience of others. We are multidimensional beings, humans we're created to be separate from god, each other. Humans didn't have feelings.
Water cures the body. Time isn't real, so the more you drink, the more your body heals.
Eating food is your ego, it is destruction of yourself.
When the entire universe we live in is positive energy, we will transcend further to another dimension. This is the process of life.
|
|
|
|
|
Call this number when you feel the urge.
1-800-522-4700
|
|
|
|
Here's a better idea: do this publicly for a few years, but using your own money. (Yes, the fact that you can't do that is all the signal that you shouldn't be doing this that you could ever possibly need).
I understand what you're saying but isn't this the exact purpose of an investor club? Most investor clubs actually delegate responsibilities to multiple people in the club. There becomes a board of directors and others that might do research on other investment strategies and then present their findings. What you are proposing is an investment fund. |
|
|
|
No such thing as a closed border. Interstate ones are so ridiculously porous that they would literally need to build a wall to keep anyone from crossing.
I'm fairly sure that if a state did try to leave, that the federal government would instantly impose all sorts of sanctions against them and probably bomb the hell out of them... The very best thing we could hope for in that scenario is the national guard on the border to keep the state contained... but that really isn't likely either. That's a second Civil War. After the fiasco the first one was, I don't know if they'd be willing to try a second one. And "bomb the hell out of"... whom? The state legislature? The United States should be expanding its borders, not bickering over how to crack an egg. I'm a fan of small governments... very small governments. Single person governments. No need to "expand borders" when we should be removing them. If you expand a border large enough, then there is no more border. The same could be said for shrinking borders. If everyone had their own border then that would not eliminate them, it would just multiply them. |
|
|
|
No such thing as a closed border. Interstate ones are so ridiculously porous that they would literally need to build a wall to keep anyone from crossing.
I'm fairly sure that if a state did try to leave, that the federal government would instantly impose all sorts of sanctions against them and probably bomb the hell out of them... The very best thing we could hope for in that scenario is the national guard on the border to keep the state contained... but that really isn't likely either. That's a second Civil War. After the fiasco the first one was, I don't know if they'd be willing to try a second one. And "bomb the hell out of"... whom? The state legislature? The United States should be expanding its borders, not bickering over how to crack an egg. I'm a fan of small governments... very small governments. Single person governments. No need to "expand borders" when we should be removing them. If you expand a border large enough, then there is no more border. |
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/18/us-palestinians-israel-hamas-idUSBRE8AD0WP20121118Obama is quick to respond but tentative to intervene as the conflict escalates (A tendency that is being mirrored by leaders around the world including many EU nations). I am also noticing that most people who are commenting on these stories across the various news sites are convinced that the media is being biased against their 'side of the conflict' (if you will). What surprises me is that in most of the articles I've read there appears to be little to no bias in either direction, just a statement of what happened, how many died, and what various nation's responses were. It seems that instead of taking into account all information and THEN making a decision, most people seem content to simply refuse any information that goes against what they already believe (or rather what they've already been told to believe by their political parties). I have always been a proponent of a 1 state solution, or the Lock-in solution. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104359/i-mean-come-on |
|
|
|
No such thing as a closed border. Interstate ones are so ridiculously porous that they would literally need to build a wall to keep anyone from crossing.
I'm fairly sure that if a state did try to leave, that the federal government would instantly impose all sorts of sanctions against them and probably bomb the hell out of them... The very best thing we could hope for in that scenario is the national guard on the border to keep the state contained... but that really isn't likely either. That's a second Civil War. After the fiasco the first one was, I don't know if they'd be willing to try a second one. And "bomb the hell out of"... whom? The state legislature? The United States should be expanding its borders, not bickering over how to crack an egg. |
|
|
|
Because being forced to join a union and pay dues is um... un-libertarian?
I think he's starting to get it... "forced to" anything is un-libertarian. The laws are not a perfect solution - no law is. But it's an attempt to protect unions from themselves... to prevent the sort of thing that happened to Hostess.  I once read that the truest liberty is the liberty to enslave others. Only tyrants can be truly free. For the rest of us, liberty is limited to the equal rights of others, as Jefferson said. As for right to work. I never understood why a union gets to have a monopoly over the workers of some company. I am not anti-union, but I am suspicious over any monopoly. |
|
|
|
Why is everyone so surprised at legalization of weed? This has been coming for a long time. Even my mother-in-law in Washington voted for legalization. The real question is "why was it ever illegal?"
Yes finally, in the 21st century with... Iran? wtf.  |
|
|
|
|
I don't see how that was a scam in the first place...
|
|
|
|
Okay then. Either a scammer or a fool. Now we are really on the same page! I always described these types as "either a scammer or an idiot."
They are usually observationally equivalent.
Hmmm. I wonder why you choose "fool", while I choose "idiot." To me "fool" sounds slightly more polite.
I usually reserve "idiot" for those who invest with fools.  I assure you, I wasn't trying to be polite. I genuinely think Patrick was an idiot at the beginning, and gradually shifted to scammer as the amounts got larger and he started to realize how high the risks were. From the beginning, my argument was essentially this: Either Patrick was making decent profits, or he wasn't. If he was making decent profits, his first order of business, if he's not an idiot, would be to pay down his outrageously usurious debt. Yet he was taking on more and more of it. So either he's an idiot, and only fools invest with idiots, or he's not making decent profits. But if he's not making decent profits, why would he take on all this risk and do all this work? It could be because he's an idiot, but again, who wants to invest with an idiot? The most likely other possibility is that he intends to walk away with everyone's money and it sure as hell means he wouldn't honor the guarantee if he suffered huge losses. In retrospect, I would have made a better argument (more focused on why he wouldn't honor his guarantee). But anyone can make better arguments in hindsight. I agree with your scenario. over optimistic fool with very weak integrity -> disappointed fool with very weak integrity -> scammer Maybe next time people will ask for a credit report before loaning money to a stranger. That is what they are for. |
|
|
|
I believe I might have a possible solution for asset issuers for claim processing since it looks doubtful every passing day that Nefario is seriously going to send out the asset information. I was looking through my GLBSE account history as downloaded from GLBSE in csv format and I noticed that there is the bitcoin address for withdraw and deposits. This information is invaluable as it can be checked against the blockchain for confirmation. Also the asset history has a list of all purchases and sales of assets and we have a history of all the orders. This might be time consuming, especially for the large issuers, but it is a potential way that assets can be claimed. Claimants can send their claims to the asset issuers with the account history that was downloaded from GLBSE and the total number of shares they remember owning before GLBSE shut down. The claims team can then take that information and verify the claim by looking at the bitcoin addresses for withdraws and deposits and identifying that they actually occurred in the blockchain. Then the claim team can check to see if the history adds up. For example, if a claimant says they owned 1000 shares of some asset yet only deposited 2 bitcoins in their GLBSE account, then it would be possible to identify that this claim is false. Also, once the bitcoin transfers and balance have been verified, those past bitcoin address can be confirmed to be controlled by the claimant. Bitcoin address are listed in the Deposit and Withdraw of the csv file. If you look at the address that is listed from the deposit it will list the GLBSE bitcoin address, but the bitcoin address listed in the withdraw will the the claimant's bitcoin address. I think this might work, but I would like input from others on potential ways fraudulent claims could be submitted and whether it could bypass a check as I proposed above. |
|
|
|
|
I have been interested in learning Japanese for a while but I fail to see how your method differs from purchasing a Japanese language book, listening to audio such as from Pimsleur, and going on italki.com and practicing with native Japanese speakers.
Will you post your CV to back up your teaching qualifications?
Also, could you provide references of past students or maybe post a letter of recommendation from them? I have written recommendation letters for my past language teachers.
|
|
|
|
I have screen capture from right before the closing and a .csv file as well.
I think the only thing that would be informative is the csv file as it contains a lot of information proving when and what trades occurred and who actually owns the account. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126673.0 for a possible claims process. |
|
|
|
he doesn't even understand. news flash: bitcoin doesn't charge 23.99% APR on purchases
I'm confused. Neither do credit cards if you pay your balance each month. Are you an undischarged bankrupt? why use his credit card if he could pay the fucker off. localbitcoins.com easier than buying bitcoins with a f'ing credit card didn't know you were the one who made the original statement
Just read their press announcement. The bitcoin option isn't meant for users like you. This is for people who have trouble using CC and paypal. If it truly is cheaper they would be smart to offer a discount paying with that option. Like you said there are probably other issues like their contracts with the CC company though.
Sounds like it is mainly for marketing reasons then. Bitcoin, apparently, is hip. totally hip don't forget people who dont have credit cards but have laptops Did they buy the laptop with bitcoins? What ever happened to debit cards? |
|
|
|
I love how the wheel is constantly re-invented. It is called a surety. Say Alice wants to contract something with Bob, but Bob does not have any reputation. Alice goes to Zack who guarantees that Bob will do what the contract says. Alice transfers the risk of Bob not honoring the contract to Zack, whom charges a small fee for the accepting of that risk. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
