|
Don't post off-topic replies. This thread is about GLBSE history and not child porn, spam, how better other exchanges are than the now dead GLBSE.
|
|
|
|
|
Since BitcoinGlobal partners refuse to remove Nefario from its CEO position, will BitcoinGlobal publish an official statement of when GLBSE users bitcoins and GLBSE issuers asset lists are expected to be returned? I see no reason why this process should not be instantaneous.
|
|
|
|
The scammer tag might be better applied by a tribunal or something resembling a "judicial court" of individuals who willingly disclose all their Bitcoin-related holdings on a monthly basis. The problem is, of course, the more people involved, the slower the results and an admin/mod is still involved. I like the idea that if I do research on someone and find overwhelming evidence of them beng a scammer I only have to send it to a handful of people.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68343.msg797850#msg797850 |
|
|
|
Think; it's been open for quite a while and a mod hasn't even asked a question about it? That is not very surprising. Mod interaction or non-interaction does not constitute approval or disapproval of scammer accusations. Look at the very clear and obvious scam accusations leveled at dank for misreprenting a fraudulent product as being the one ordered. No mod showed up to ask questions, but instead the defrauded customer Rarity was banned, again without mod comment. That is because this forum is run by an oligarchy and if the mods started to giving out scammer tags to people that really deserved it, then they would end up with them as well. |
|
|
|
Source is twitter?
Yes, GLBSE had a some what live streaming trade data through twitter. Yes, assbot on #bitcoin-assets is doing the same thing. One thing we noticed, twitter stream is missing chunks of data. Even though trades happened on GLBSE, there werent echoed to stream. Just FYI. I think it is most likely due to the amount of tweets a twitter user can do in a small time frame. Most of the PPT bonds on here never showed up when they were massively sold. Twitter is a bad way to stream selling data. |
|
|
|
Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Bitcoin. LOL
There's no drama like Bitcoin drama. The "will pirate make contact" storyline returns tomorrow and the new season of "will BFL deliver" starts in a couple of weeks. It's like reality TV without the ads. Which well-known Bitcoin business will suddenly fail next? Who should be voted of the libertarian island? I’m just glad someone here is old enough to get the reference. I don't know what's worse - that I still remember some 40 year old storylines or that the show is still on air. As in DOOL, I suspect we'll see lots of Bitcoin characters return from the dead. If these scams keeps up though, bitcoin will end up like All My Children. |
|
|
|
As an investor who trusted GLBSE as an exchange, I am appalled that anyone who was an "owner" of the holding company whose entire stock in trade was GLBSE would be so utterly arrogant as to make a statement that they have no responsibility because "it wasn't in the bylaws".
I think I would have liked to have known that was the mindset behind the owners of the market BEFORE I sent my funds there for investment. Because that kind of thinking is wrong. Evil wrong. No wonder Goat, Amir, Patrick, Donald, Zhou Tong, Mr. Bitcoin and all the other scammers who are so richly deserving of the tag do not have it to this day. The standard of evidence is whether or not they were able to find some semantic loophole!! How dare you give the tag to Matthew when the standard you claim is exactly as empty as the one he used? Bill Clinton would be proud of how you have turned words into your shield to save you from having to use any integrity.
Having read your bylaws during the brief time that I believed I was an owner of shares (they were GLBSE Fake, which in the long run was probably a better investment than GLBSE Actual) I noted that there were no specific proscriptions in the bylaws against murder, rape, pedophilia, consuming human flesh, pissing in your friend's beer, or having sex with goats. So by the theymos' standard of logic and integrity these practices are all fully acceptable behavior for owners of GLBSE? There is no mention in the bylaws after all, and that is the only moral compass you need, right? Rarity's point about wanting to maintain an illegal operation seems to make a lot more sense now that we see that the treasurer for the organization (and would-be impresario selling out shares under a cloud of scandal) is only responsible for those rules specifically laid out in the bylaws.
Another day in bitcoin land, and another amazing new low for just how far down the standards have fallen. Color me stunned. Just freaking stunned. I throw props to bitcoin.me for at least having the moral fortitude to say what is going on is wrong and for taking ownership of his piece of it. Theymos is pure coward and liar, hiding behind the skirts of playing games with words. Disgusting.
 |
|
|
|
This is why we will get a scammer tag because we cant possibly make the victims whole.
You'll be just fine then - Donald, Patrick and Amir are still scammer tag-free despite their victims not being made whole. And it's not because is hasn't been asked numerous times. I will not scammer-tag great people over something like this. Genjix et al. may have acquired legal responsibility for Bitcoinica's security, but they didn't purposefully lose the BTC, and I only blame them for not being more careful legally.
(Sorry for posting PM.) Wishful thinking seems rampant. Thick as thieves... amateurs. Now we can see why they did not get scammer tags. A precedent didn't want to be set. A precedent of taking responsibility. To me a scammer is someone that does not live up to their word or their integrity. They will find any excuse to get out of responsibility and always casts blame on someone else. A scammer won't accept culpability. A scammer does not need to willfully defraud someone. They may do so unintentionally, but what defines them as a scammer is their inability to right the wrong. |
|
|
|
Wow, that's an awesome explanation. I've been saying for years that we need instant run-off voting. I even wrote to my state representatives about it, but I got no response. yeah i better start calling it instant runoff voting  keep my names correct a similar video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgMRandomly select 10,000 people from the population and ask them who they choose. You have your answer. The hard part is getting a random sample. The hard part for voting is going to the voting station. |
|
|
|
Source is twitter?
Yes, GLBSE had a some what live streaming trade data through twitter. I don't think IPOs ever went into the twitter feed, but this might just because the old Twitter API only allowed 1500 requests an hour (there is a new API out now). Dividends were gathered from the glbse API every 2 hours. |
|
|
|
This is my understanding of the situation now. Which is why I hope Nefario pays back the coins. Because it will take me a long time to pay back 500 coins.
At least you have integrity. |
|
|
|
No you are wrong [Corporations] are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Your liability contract is not with the other partners/members of BitcoinGlobal, your liability contract was with the users of GLBSE. Since you made no contract saying you have limited liability you have unlimited liability, full liability for the debt. You might have a ~2.5% stake, then you can be held liable for 2.5% of the debt BitcoinGlobal owes to its users if Nefario's payback plan fails. I guess I disagree with Rothbard. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to be liable for something he didn't personally do unless this state of affairs is changed through contracts. Why should one certain type of contract have the implicit meaning that one side of the contract takes some liability from the other side? Of course you will disagree with Rothbard when your head is on the chopping block. You may agree with him when you are shouting for another person's head. You started a company, took users funds, kept records in a database. You and the rest of the partners appointed a CEO, Treasurer, and Accountant to oversee those funds and database. Their actions are an extension of your decision. You are a free person that individually decided to join into this partnership. You freely decided who would do what in your company. It doesn't matter who voted for what. You already agreed that your partnership would follow the decisions of a vote. No one forced you to join this association. People knew that GLBSE is controlled by BitcoinGlobal, thus BitcoinGlobal is responsible for all debt of GLBSE. Since there is no written agreement between BitcoinGlobal/GLBSE and its users about limited liability, that means BitcoinGlobal partners have unlimited liability. You can say how unfair it is, but you got yourself into this situation by creating/joining BitcoinGlobal. |
|
|
|
Without a contract transferring liability, each shareholder is only liable (morally, perhaps not legally) for what he personally did. If a corporation consists of one person and that corporation scams someone, that person is liable, regardless of whether the law limits his liability. If a corporation is run purely by majority vote and the shareholders vote to scam someone, only those people who voted to scam and the people who carried out the scam are liable; the other people have not agreed to take on any liability just by being members of the corporation (unless this actually was explicitly agreed to in a contract).
No you are wrong [Corporations] are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Your liability contract is not with the other partners/members of BitcoinGlobal, your liability contract was with the users of GLBSE. Since you made no contract saying you have limited liability you have unlimited liability, full liability for the debt. You might have a ~2.5% stake, then you can be held liable for 2.5% of the debt BitcoinGlobal owes to its users if Nefario's payback plan fails. |
|
|
|
GLBSE Has now opened a form to get your assets back, and without any personal information aside from an email address! Head over there and fill out the form! I've been talking with the founder of GLBSE and it looks like he is on track to get everything resolved within a week. I imagine I will be holding a list of all shareholders containing only: and email, bitcoin address, and the number of shares held. After I receive this list, you should be able to trade assets p2p. Just get in contact with me using the email you gave GLBSE. There are a number of people who will be happy to buy cheap shares After everything is resolved think about restructuring this company, a motion should go out to organize the company. I can only think of three options: 1. As a general partnership 2. As a LLC 3. Sole proprietor or LLC with Garr the only shareholder and people rent hashpower for a monthly fee. |
|
|
|
Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company
But what about partners? Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea. If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable. Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders. It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. Maybe that is the lesson in all this. Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money. It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity. I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets). I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion. Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan. I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied. This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws. If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has. If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers. I think Nefario getting the tag was used as a "lever" for certain people to get what they want, more than anything else. The funny thing is I actually have a pty ltd business setup in Australia called "noagendamarket" which is the name I used as the partner for bitcoinglobal. In effect "noagendamarket" is a company not my actual name. https://www.trisearch.com.au/trisearchASICcc.nsf/ASICOrder?OpenForm&acn=147919239&hdr=ACN&type=APTY&class=LMSH&stat=REGD&namec=NOAGENDAMARKET+PTY+LTD My real name has no ties to bitcoinglobal and Ive never sent fiat money to anyone else involved in it. Nefario got the scammer tag because he broke the bylaws of BitcoinGlobal, this is why theymos requested a scammer tag. Watch out PG will come after you... Is David Hollis the same guy as noagendamarket?
|
|
|
|
That's what I would call a clean shutdown!  If it really works, of course... If it was a clean shutdown, i wouldn't have needed to upload all of my AML info last night. yea you kind of jumped the gun on that. |
|
|
|
Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents. I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground. By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.
I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless. Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).
That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations. It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces. What partnership has shareholders? Answer - none. See the bigger answer above. Corporations or companies with limited liability for their members, partners, or shareholders has not nothing to do with BitcoinGlobal. There is no limited liability for any owner, partner, or member of BitcoinGlobal. So I don't understand your argument that members of BitcoinGlobal are not liable for its debt. |
|
|
|
Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company
But what about partners? Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea. If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable. Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders. It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. Maybe that is the lesson in all this. Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money. It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity. I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets). I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion. Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan. I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied. This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws. If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has. If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers. |
|
|
|
Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents. I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground. By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.
I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless. Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).
That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations. It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces. |
|
|
|
Kudos. Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?
I don't know and I dont speak for anyone else or on behalf of the partnership. In fact its probably breaking some of the partnership bylaws to even post this thread and I think at this point it should be dissolved anyway. For a number of reasons including that the existing structure is clearly insufficient to deal with the situation. I dont intend to hide from responsibility because I clearly would benefit if Nefario pulled off a miracle and somehow made glbse a regulated company. With that responsibility comes fiduciary duties you need to uphold. You seem fine by the bylaws. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
