Really.  That sounds like an admission that you intentionally misled people in your OP.


I love how everyone who tried to make their offerings sound legitimate by using language which has real world legal meaning now wants to have it both ways and claim that they weren't really offering shares, bonds or other securities, they just called them that.  Either you were offering stock to the public or you misled people by claiming you were making a public offering of shares.  You can't have it both ways.

Having to fly in medical staff and supplies and extra food by helicopter was one of the things which blew out Woodstock's budget.

Providing adequate toilet facilities alone for a million people is going to be a serious issue.

Also, no point in holding it in Australia in summer.  We already have a few big musical festivals over summer.  There's also no place here where you'd ever get a permit to hold a private event that large.  Sydney's NYE fireworks attract over 1 million people to Sydney Harbour and the cost and logistics of staging that are monumental - and that's a location which is already well-serviced in terms of facilities for large crowds.

Although concerts have been held in the Outback before, you couldn't stage an event for 1 million people there (all the tourists would be dead within 12 hours, for sure).

If you thought that opening a hookah lounge was too complex, you have no idea of what's involved in staging a large public event - either from a practical or financial perspective.

Burning Man is an event which is about a tenth the size of the original Woodstock and a twentieth of the size of the festival you're talking about organising.  It costs about $5 million to stage.

I won't even bother going into the equipment hire costs alone of light shows like those put on by bands like Metallica.

Unless the whole family established social media accounts under stolen identities years ago, Trendon Shavers is his real name and not just an alias he was using.  

Incidentally, today's the day GPUMax is supposed to go offline according to pirate's last communication in IRC.

Do you really care about the forum being "at risk" or are you worried that the Securities sub-form provides a written record of GBLSE's legally questionable activities?  The fact that you're asking for it to be hidden "until the dust settles" rather than for the Marketplace forum to be severed from the boards makes me think that your request is based on self-interest rather than any genuine concern for the forum.  It sounds far more like you're worried about the possibility of what's been written here by those associated with GBLSE being used as evidence by authorities than anything else and asking the forum to cover your tracks.

For the record, I think that the Securities and Lending sub-forums are cesspools which should be severed from the forum.  That's not the same thing as asking theymos to suppress what's already been written here because people who were too stupid to consult lawyers in the first place now fear their posts could be used against them.

It doesn't seem to have caused reddit any legal grief.

It would be a silly thing to do here because banks send information directly to the tax office - when I go to fill out my tax return, the amount of interest I earned during the year is already pre-filled.

Of course even honest business can run into problems if they're buying things for Bitcoins from people who don't want to issue receipts - being unable to claim those expenses might make it not worthwhile to use BTC.

That doesn't mean they're reporting that income, of course.

There's a fine line between discussing illegal activity here and allowing it to be promoted here.  It's obviously up to the forum owners to decide what level of risk they're willing to accept in this regard, not the membership.  This isn't a democracy and nor are we shareholders.  No-one's being forced to use this forum, either.  Both more rules and less rules would piss off different parts of the membership here.

Read up on the actions taken by the US DoJ against offshore services which were offering online gambling services to US residents.  The gambling wasn't illegal per se but transferring money through US entities for that purpose of allowing US residents to gamble online was.  The DoJ seized the domains of the operators and froze the accounts of their payment processors.  Those services now require proof of residence from their clients.

Many nations already have AML/KYC regulations which require consumers of financial services to be identified by the service operators - that information usually requires proof of both identity and address.  In many countries, service operators would be breaking their own nation's laws by not collecting that information whether or not they offered their service to US residents.

"Your country" is Canada according to both your profile here and your 20-something bloggers profile.  I don't think Nefario has much to fear from its "legal and cultural" laws.

Do your own research if your want Nefario's real world information - it's easily found on these forums and elsewhere.

Nobody's stolen anything at this point.  You wouldn't even be able to find a lawyer to write a letter of demand given the short period of time since GLBSE went offline.  Grow up and stop being a drama queen.   Seriously, you sound just like Maria and that's a good way to get yourself ignored around here.

I don't think you can draft legally valid by-laws which prohibit an entity being shut down by its operators without creating perpetual trusts (and many jurisdictions don't allow the creation of perpetual trusts).  The foundation documents usually state what is to happen to any assets of an entity in the event it is ceases operating (in for profit enterprises, any excess is usually distributed to the shareholders after all required payments have been made - in non-profits, any excess is usually donated to another non-profit with similar objectives).  By-laws are only valid to the extent that they don't conflict with the actual law, though.

The IRC conversation which theymos posted seems to confirm that.  It looks like in the process of finding out about "legitimising" GBLSE, Nefario discovered that he was on risky legal ground regarding AML and taxation requirements if he continued operating GBLSE as-is.  This is something he would have known all along - as would the other shareholders - if they'd ever consulted a fucking lawyer, like normal business people do, when they launched the project .  It's not up to users to determine what legal risks service operators should take.  Only the person taking the risks can determine what level of risk is acceptable to them.

Hopefully, future service operators will seek legal opinions and determine what level of risk is acceptable to them before they start handling other people's funds - if you can't afford legal advice, you sure as shit shouldn't be trusted to handle hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of other people's funds.  I wouldn't count on it though.  

What the fuck?  There is no evidence that "the government" has done anything in relation to GBLSE.  Based on what people who've actually had contact with Nefario regarding this have posted, the catalyst for the closure of GBLSE was Nefario finally consulting a lawyer about GBLSE's activities and finding out that his previous (totally unsupported) assumptions that GBLSE wasn't breaking any laws were likely incorrect.  He appears to be concerned about the possibility of being prosecuted for AML/CTF and taxation offences in the future if GBLSE continues operating, rather than having been forced into closure by an external agency.

It does have the potential to be a leapfrog technology in places which lack a financial infrastructure but nobody's going to get rich off that.  I find it utterly ironic that what users have been demanding are the same kind of dodgy financial products which lead to real world economic problems.  Many of them will never be able to generate wealth in conventional financial markets, so they try to create those same type of markets here - with much the same result.

504 means you don't have to provide a full prospectus/product disclosure statement if you meet the exemption requirements.  505 requires you to know the identity of your investors and determine whether or not they're accredited (you can't determine that without knowing their financial resources) and you are not allowed to advertise in order to attract investors.


Are you going to pay his legal fees for defending against the charges?  Are you happy for all funds held by GBLSE to be frozen pending the matter going to trial?  Are you going to visit him in prison or pay his fines if he's not acquitted.

Everyone around here is very brave when it's not their freedom on the line or when they're not the ones who'd have to pay the fines and be banned from operating another business.

They still visit the forums.  They were last online here about 16 hours ago.

I'd try the contact information form on Mr Bitcoin or contacting them by PM - they do seem to be on here quite often even if they don't post.

https://www.mrbitcoins.com/contactus

One thing I did notice when I looked up the registration information for Mr Bitcoin is that the principal place of business address and the address for the service of documents is different from that listed for CryptoXchange.  It's possible that they've relocated the business to a new address and been unable to keep the same phone number.

They do seem to be a lot less accessible than in the past, and that's a pity.

I have to agree.  If Nefario's not willing to come here and make an official statement himself then he needs to write an official statement for posting by someone else.  It's really just adding to the confusion having people who've spoken to Nefario posting stuff which is in conflict with what's been posted on the website.  Either Nefario or the shareholders need to clarify which version of the truth is the factual truth as it's going to affect the willingness of users to submit claims.

Government departments run on statistics.  They know exactly how many people they've busted through data matching, tip-offs from the public, information on returns which flagged the system, routine audits, information provided by law enforcement or financial regulators, etc.  They're also really, really aggressive about getting money owed to them so they investigate every tip-off.

Amir didn't listen when I told him to get legal advice, either.

Few people used The Armory because the majority of users could obtain weapons cheaper, more conveniently and legally elsewhere.  Delivery is the weak point for illegal goods which are physical - it's where the illegal activity is most vulnerable.  Bitcoin is obviously attractive for laundering the proceeds of those illegal activities, though.

With child porn, you have a product which can be delivered digitally - the weak link in the chain is payment.  When you can anonymise both payment and delivery, you lessen the risk of detection.