GLBSE is completely legal, I don't know what part of the world you're from, but here in the UK something has to be forbidden or outlawed to become illegal, everything that is not... is legal.


You had no problem with IPO's on GLBSE until recently (some of which you invested in...I'm sure), and it's not EU law, it's the UK's implementation of that law, and since I am British, and live in the UK, I am subject to those laws.

If I so obviously violated the data protection act, as you are looking for, it would be the end of GLBSE, we would be fined into oblivion, and since GLBSE is being registered as a business when I arrive back from my holiday, I am particularly wary of taking such foolish action.


What consequences will I be facing for not turning over my users details to some random person (pirate hasn't even asked me, do you know how hurtful that is!).


A person needs to commit a crime to be a crook, you willing gave your money to be given to pirate, an anonymous person, who wouldn't tell you what he was doing with it, and paying unreal returns. I think that was a dumb thing to do, but you willingly went and did it anyway, blinded by your greed (it was greed that motivated you wasn't it? those ROI were oh so tempting).

All I and goat did was allow you to do what you wanted to.

You should be able to change the type of chart.

Tell pirate to go speak to the EU then, because the data protection act (1998) is the implementation of an EU wide directive, all EU countries must enact legislation that implements the directive.

So I can't by law give out shareholders details, and I believe the US has something similar. What pirate asking for is illegal.

Of course, that has always been his position until he had to pay.


I don't see your reasoning, AFAIK all PPT have been explicit, funds are repaid when pirate pays, not repaid if he defaults. The exceptions to this were the insured PPT's which have already paid out insurance in at least 2 instances (Goat and DeadTerra).

I couldn't hand over the information if I wanted to (which I don't), as the data protection act prevents me from doing so (see here and here for information on the data protection act, to which I am subject).

Also how is it me and goat screwing over the little people what do we profit from this?

All I've done is created a platform and allowed people to use it.
All Goat has done is everything he said he would.

People knew what they were “invested" in and the risk was theirs, are you saying people should not be responsible for their own decisions?

Lol, fucked a goat, but seriously, since I disagreed with you on the details（accusations, you know, I used facts, which you seemed immune to) of your crusade against goat (who I don't have much love for BTW) you've had it in for me.


What are you talking about? Pull me down? All the down to China town? Really bro get a grip.

I'm sure the PPT issuers have some brains and will do just this, make a single claim and not on behalf of asset holders.

Regarding giving the information of asset holders to pirate (for whatever reason he requested it), is not happening, even if goat wanted to comply (which of course he does not, and he's right not to) I would refuse. Not only is it violating the TOS that GLBSE operates under but would cause us to violate the data protection act (as I'm based in the UK).

Pirate has no contract contact or deal with GLBSE asset holders, only with Goat, as pirate has expressly pointed out to me before when I asked him about it, and I believe he made the same point in a forum post somewhere, anyone care to look it up?

What has a JavaScript chart got to do with security? That's like saying the sites logo is off center a little, must mean they can be hacked.

Anyway, a new version of charts will be live shortly after I get back to London on the 31st, a lot fast and I'm adding a slider which will allow you to specify a range of prices to show (eliminating the problem)

And hovering over a trade to get the blob will give you the price/time.

Nefario.

Pirate has no assets on GLBSE, he is not an issuer, why would I give him any details of GLBSE users?

What we deem to be "needed details of account holders" is a list of codes with how many of the asset each code as, then the GLBSE user is given the code, with which they are free to go to the issuer. They are also free not to.

I've said this in another thread but it bears repeating here, we don't give user details to outside parties, and PPT asset holders have no contract, contact, or deal with pirate, it is with the asset issuers.

Pirate himself has said exactly this, both to me personally via PM and in a public forum post. That he has no deal with "sub-account" holders, and he is only responsible for the people who have accounts directly with him.

mother fucker can't have his cake and eat it too.

Awesome! I've got this on my phone.

Governments have a lot of power and our only real protection is cryptography, so governments have created laws to try to remove this protection, threat of imprisonment if we don't give them the password or key.

I don't know the US legislation but in the UK it's RIPPA(or RIPA not sure).

So the only alternative is to split the data from the key, and keep them in different locations/jurisdictions. Sure you could get the other person but it's a lot more work.

We ran an anonymous market exchange for nearly a year, it was a total failure in the practical, ideological and economic sense. It made almost no money, no one "investing" made any profit or return because the vast majority of assets were scams, most of the rest were failures, with a few late arrivals being successful (when we added verification).

Also you're argument about being forced to release information is moot. We're implementing a separation of powers for verification data we hold. Similar to our disaster plan if I get killed.

One party holds the data encrypted while the other has the key, with only one party being publicly known (me) and the other in a very different jurisdiction.

We did this with GLBSE 1.0, you talk a lot of theory but what it boiled down to is it didn't work, GLBSE got a reputation for being full of scams, which hurt GLBSE overall.


The result of this was that users did not do their due diligence, then cried fowl and labelled GLBSE a scamshop. And even those who did still got burned by what most even considered to be decent securities.

No one came along to slice and dice risk or even to rate shares properly, our experience was that if we didn't do it no one would. Adding verification has made a huge change, what once was anonymous people issuing shares and almost always running off with the funds whether right away or later. Because no one (trusted 3rd party) had their real life identity, there were no consequences to skipping off, so it happened again and again and again.


Thats all well and fine, but is a strawman of an argument, when did I say we were looking to out trade secrets or peoples identities? Never.

What has been proposed is market segregation where with each tier comes with additional requirements.

These requirements being proper accounting, outside auditing, deeper verification of the issuers(which is kept private) and publishing of quarterly accounts. All these allow said businesses to keep their privacy and trade secrets while getting good standard information to the market.

I'm thinking of tier names right now. Tier 1 would be GLBSEBlue for "bluechip" shares, Tier 3 being GLBSEPink for pink sheets (and all the risk, none of the requirements).

Anyone have a good name for Tier 2 middle tier?

When did I say A B or C issuers would ever lose their privacy? GLBSE has never released the identity of any issuers.


Strawman again, have never said issuers need to "expose" themselves. Getting verified means GLBSE knows who you are, no one else, NOT getting verified has a proven track record of disaster for shareholders (with very few exceptions).

I don't think that the identity of an issuer need be known all around the world for them to list on B or A markets, but GLBSE needs to know who they are. Failing to do this doesn't just result in scams, it ruins the market as a whole and it's reputation (as was our experience with GLBSE 1.0).

We'll have this done in the next couple of days.

Not for long.

Also there are several on GLBSE at the moment that would only need a little help in reaching that status.

A cap on the amount any one person or group could raise, why shouldn't it? C market is for smaller unproven projects from people with little or no track record.

They shouldn't be able to raise millions of USD worth of bitcoin for a massive project that they have almost no experience for, that is a recipe for disaster, for larger projects or funds you need to have a track record and your level of responsibility grows. If the C market isn't enough for someone to raise the capital they need then they need to qualify for the B market. It's not unreasonable and not a huge step up.


Why now and not before? Experience. When GLBSE first started we had no rules or even any form of verification, after about 6 months of this total absolute freedom GLBSE was a ghetto of scams and failed assets. Then we started to tidy things up, we moved to GLBSE 2.0 and added verification. The quality of assets skyrocketed and trade flourished.

I think looking back we can see where GLBSE has gone wrong and where it needs improvement, a little more market segregation and a few reasonable rules will help a lot.

Regarding your libertarian comment, I don't think you understand what the term free market means. It doesn't mean no rules at all, that's a free for all.

It means the owner of the football gets to decide the rules of play instead of the government, that a free market is free of government regulation. We don't run GLBSE for the purpose of collecting tax, we run it with the intention of helping investors, projects, business and people. So it's in our interest to try to ensure the market runs as smoothly as possible to the benefit of everyone.

I don't want to see any more rules on GLBSE than are absolutely needed, and the ones that are in place are there for a good reason and are clearly not enough. I, we at GLBSE hate rules because every one means more work and expense for us, it's against our own profit interest to have any, but at the same time it's against our profit interest to have an exchange that is full of scams and nothing else, that is not a market with a future.  

We need to strike a balance.

Have a look at this thread, seems to be a continuation of this topic and has some really good points.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103268.0

I'll be adding tags in the next couple of days for things like bonds, mining etc. to shorten the assets page.

But what I actually had in mind was having 3 different markets (or 3 different market pages) with differing requirements to get into each of them.

The (C) market could be unverified, no accounting records etc. and considered very risky, it would also have the lowest starting fees and maybe a limit on the amount that can be raised.

(B) market would be where most of the good assets currently stand, verified to the current level, but I think providing monthly accounting statements, they'd need to have a running business as well (compared to funds to get a project started). So it would only be a little more effort (I think mostly for the accounting side) for some existing assets to get into this category.

(A) market would have even higher levels of verification than now(background and credit checks), would also require a treasurer to approve the use of funds, provide GAAP accounts and be audited by an external source.

This way an asset could start off in the C market and as they grow (if they're successful) they will be moved to B market and then eventually A market, each step up raising the levels of capital they have access to.

We still wouldn't allow assets that would make GLBSE a target for government regulators/police (i.e. drugs, prostitution).

On the suggestion of someone else, we would consider setting up a B market, with lower requirements, lower startup fees, and obviously more risk.

opinions?

Hope they don't hold their breadth, otherwise pirates going to also be responsible for mass deaths 

Not exactly.

No more IPO's for non-existent businesses. I think we've already gone through our .com phase of projects that had little or nothing to show after the money has gone so enough of that. Also enough of Pass thru's for schemes like pirates, I think overall he's had a bad effect on the bitconomy, at the very least raising expectations of returns to unrealistic levels, and funding through GLBSE has been a very large part of that.

For businesses with revenue (doesn't mean profitable) looking for capital to grow, we'll work with them to IPO (the IPO's are going to be a lot larger as well).

I think for the time being we'll leave mining untouched as that's worked out well so far, the offers are fairly transparent.

For smaller projects we're looking at starting a fund that will get them to the point of a viable business or project and then IPO them on GLBSE (think ycombinator for bitcoin).

I think the 100% hands off approach has proven not to be the best for GLBSE, investors, and the projects themselves.

I'd like opinions and suggestions on where to go from here.