When did Bitcoinica "move to London"?  The only UK involvement in Bitcoinica is the share/interest swap which saw Wendon acquire shares in Intersango (which is a UK entity).  That Amir lives in the UK doesn't mean that Bitcoinica was operating under UK jurisdiction.

And yes, I'm sure there's plenty of bribery and corruption happening behind the scenes in the Bitcoin world just as there are plenty of stealth acquisitions, though I suspect that it's not being perpetrated by those who wish to see "Bitcoin harmed" but by those who want to expand their power and influence and increase their own wealth at the expense of others.

What a crock of shit.

If you apply to register a security a number of things can happen.  It can be approved for registration.  It can be exempted from the need for registration. It can be given a special classification, such as being made available only to sophisticated investors and not being offered to the general public.  And it can be outright classed as a product which can't be legally offered.

The law is not obliged to provide you with a remedy if it's accusing you of a crime.  It's not obliged to provide you with a legal means of doing anything you want.  The onus is always on you to be aware of the legality or otherwise of your business activities and failure to seek legal advice is always going to be interpreted as having no intention of complying with any regulations and laws applying to your business operations.

Even apart from the securities issues, most of these entities are likely breaking a ton of tax laws by not sending information about their users' financial activity to their country's taxation authority and for not not with-holding tax where inadequate user information has been provided.  They're likely also required to issue their users with financial activity summaries in a specific format at the end of the financial year, too.  I haven't seen a single Bitcoin related financial service mention making such statements available for their users.  I suspect that at least some Bitcoin related services would refuse to issue such a statement even if a user requested one so they could include Bitcoin stuff on their tax return.

Bitcoin businesses who aren't AML/CTF compliant have been warned about this likelihood for a long time.  There's really not much of an excuse for not being prepared for it either on the operator side or the user side.  When businesses are providing financial services without requiring KYC information, users know damned well that those businesses are at risk of encountering legal problems for AML/CTF and tax evasion issues.  Operators and users are perfectly free to ignore that risk, but they knowingly do so at their own peril.

Where such businesses have actively misled their users with statements that their service is not at legal risk because...Bitcoins, then a "scam" label is probably warranted.  For the most part, though, it would be more accurate to label the operators of such services as arrogant, reckless and incompetent.


It's standard language for all 34 FATF member nations, which is why you'll find financial institutions all over the world talking about AML/CTF/KYC requirements.  The administrative burden for complying with those requirements is enormous, but small entities don't have the the resources to wear the consequences of non-compliance.

Of course it's hypocritical, but there's no shortage of people around here who are happy to tolerate legal ambiguity or outright illegality as long as it's benefiting them financially.  When they lose money in those same schemes (which are always at risk of being shut down suddenly and forcibly even if they're not outright scams), they want to find a scapegoat and portray themselves as victims.

In the absence of any kind of secured claim on his financial interests or formal proceeding directing that his assets must be disbursed to creditors, he can do whatever he wants with the money.  Creditors can certainly pursue him for their claims, but he's not automatically obliged to pay them with any money he receives from any source.  Right now, I don't think anyone's even obtained a judgement against pirate for what they're owed - which is what unsecured creditors normally need to do before they can force involuntary payment through liens, garnishee orders and the like.

If people actually relied on his statements about the legality of GBLSE's activity and there was absolutely no basis for him making those statements (because he'd never obtained any legal opinion in respect of GBLSE's activities), then those people may feel that they were "scammed" in the sense of being misled. Only a week ago Nefario was confidently asserting on here that the SEC could not exert any jurisdiction over GLBSE.  An investigating authority may well view such statements as being intentionally deceptive.

Of course it will.  It will dominate the forum for a week or two and then be replaced by another drama du jour.

Not to mention that the issuers themselves were describing their products as securities - if they were representing as securities things which are not securities then they were obtaining a financial advantage by deception.

Given that this forum was the main place where products listed on GBLSE and GBLSE itself were promoted, anyone who doesn't think that what was written here - including any unsupported statements that GBLSE wasn't operating illegally - isn't potential evidence is hopelessly naive.

Nobody knows at this point what legal issue has brought about the sudden closure of GLBSE because Nefario has so far refused to reveal that information.  While the catalyst may well have been the SEC's investigation into pirate, it could be the UK's FSA which has delivered the smack down.  While it's true that regulators rarely pursue criminal charges against small operators, that doesn't mean that they don't issue administrative penalties against small operators.  Regulators also decide to blitz specific types of illegal activity from time to time and they generally throw the book at anyone who gets caught during such blitzes.

That GLBSE was offering unregistered securities to the public is only one legal issue.  It also played a role in facilitating pirate's scam and that may create a bigger legal problem for the owners than simply operating an unregulated exchange.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum. 

Rubbish.  He can still be charged over the period he was operating the exchange illegally, although the penalties would most likely be administrative.  Whether the FSA/SEC or whomever would actually pursue charges is a different issue but we're not talking about a restraining order/injunction here where the obligation to refrain from a behaviour doesn't start until a legal request to desist is issued and non-compliance with that request creates the illegality.  

Launched on, but that wasn't the actual cost - CCR's fee alone was $10,000.  Hendrix was paid over $30,000.  Woodstock had serious money behind it from day one and cost about $2.6 million to stage (it's original budget was $500,000).  That's 1969 dollars. The festival itself actually lost money.  The organisers eventually recouped their investment through record sales and the documentary on Woodstock.

So he's not telling you what he needs a lawyer for, but he wants BG to pay for it?  I hate to sound like a bitch, but he needs to produce evidence of the need for a lawyer first - something quite specific and in writing - and user funds can't be used to pay for it even if there is a legitimate need.  Even if BG has some of its own reserves which could be used for this purpose, they should not be channelled towards legal fees for Nefario until you have a written legal opinion stating that none of the shareholders are in legal jeopardy - otherwise you're all screwed if Nefario gets legal advice on BG's dime and you guys find yourselves facing legal problems later.

Honestly, the shareholders - and especially you - themselves need legal advice at this point.  At the very least, you want the other shareholders to indemnify you against any liability which arises as a result of you complying with their demand for you to hand funds over to Nefario.  And you want that indemnity drafted by your lawyer, not theirs.

It works that way if they're legally incorporated as such.  If they're not, the business has no separate legal status from the individuals who comprise it - all of the individuals.  Even if it was incorporated, the office-holders are legally liable and the treasurer is an office-bearer.

Shrug?

Could you clarify this a bit please theymos.  How did he have access to the user deposits?  If he was "borrowing" them without authorisation, that's straight up embezzlement regardless of whether he intended to return them at a later time.  When did the shareholders become aware that he was spending user deposits and how did you become aware of his intention to replace them with money from BitcoinGlobal?  I'm confused about whether the shareholders effectively authorised him taking a "loan" from the business post hoc by agreeing that he would pay back the misappropriated funds from BG money.

I hate to say it, but if you send Nefario user funds knowing full well that he has already misappropriated funds, you're laying yourself wide open to liability. His access to funds needs to be blocked and a way of returning user deposits worked out which doesn't involve Nefario.

For someone who's been "meditating for years" you seem to have an awful lot of attachment to desire left.


Do you honestly believe that nobody in this thread has been attracted to similar philosophies in the past?  The whole thing about philosophies is that they're frameworks - they're not "true" or "false" or "real" or "not real", they're constructs or models.  

As far as your spiritual beliefs go, do you really think that nobody in this thread has ever heard of Buddhism or Jung?  There is nothing unique about your particular belief system.  You're assuming that people who don't believe the same as you do have never examined similar beliefs to yours.  Just as you reject other belief systems, not everyone is going to find your belief system convincing.

The Akashic Records are a Hindu belief, while other things you've mentioned have their foundation in Buddhism.  Sounds like you're picking and choosing from different belief systems and creating an incoherent patchwork.


I have a son who tested very high as a child - it became an incredible burden throughout his school life because many teachers wanted him to be their pet prodigy and push him in a specific direction.  The gap between his social and emotional development and his intellect also caused him a lot of problems.  For the record, the methods for testing IQ in children don't translate to adulthood.  A child who scores 160 on an IQ test won't necessarily test that high as an adult.

Skim.  I find it more of a problem that we end up with multiple threads across multiple forums each of which will contain a little bit of relevant and valid information.  I'd much rather have one or two central threads where information is located and skim through those than have to go hunting for information all over the forums and miss some of it because it's located in non-intuitive places.

And the relationship between the Big Bang and consciousness is...what? 

Sigh.