I'm not sure what you're getting at here, bitlane. Pirate stated ages ago that GPUMAX and BS&T shared a bitcoin wallet:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91661.msg1026140#msg1026140

Nor would I. It may be a trap. The PPT operator might have a legal claim against pirate's assets if pirate is declaring bankruptcy, but the passthrough holders certainly don't.

It may be better to submit one overall claim. If some of the asset-holders prefer to submit individual claims, a consolidated claim should be submitted for the remaining funds.

(I'm not financially involved in this.)

Don't do it, hashking! It may be a trap. As PPT operator, you might have a legal claim against pirate's assets, but your passthrough holders certainly don't. If pirate is declaring bankruptcy, you may be throwing away a chance to get a share of what's left.

It may serve the interests of your asset-holders better for you to submit one overall claim. If some of your asset-holders prefer to submit individual claims, you should submit a consolidated claim for the remaining funds.

Here's why pirate might hypothetically want the details of passthrough asset-holders. Suppose pirate has consulted a lawyer and decided to go the bankruptcy route.

Pirate could insist on getting a list of the PPT asset-holders, to be entered into the bankruptcy proceedings as the claimants against pirate's assets (instead of the PPT operators being the claimants). The bankruptcy court would probably rule that these asset-holders have no claim against pirate's assets, because their claim (if any) is against the PPT operators.

In an insolvency, you don't get two bites at the cherry. If your claim is disallowed, you can't have another try. So in one fell swoop, pirate's outstanding debt (as believed by the bankruptcy court) is vastly reduced.

The above is just one speculative possibility. I have no financial involvement with pirate or with any passthrough. But if I was a PPT operator, I would be lodging a single claim with pirate rather than a set of claims on behalf of my asset-holders.

I have had a number of dealings with Meni Rosenfeld, all of which have been very satisfactory.

That's great to hear ... but ... Long Live Nefario!

Those are great features! Thanks for creating and enhancing GLBSE.

Ideally I'd like to see the following feature added to the list:

"Globally-distributed bulletproof backups, so that the data and software can be recovered in the event of the operator's disappearance or demise, or seizure of the GLBSE data."

Exactly. 500k coins is about 5% of the current coins. Consider the three possibilities:

1. The entity hoards the coins and never spends them: wow, everyone else's coins have 5% greater spending power!

2. The entity spends or slowly sells the coins: ok, the coins enter circulation and everyone's coins have their "normal" spending power.

3. The entity dumps the coins all at once. The market tanks at first, then is unstable for a few days, but ends up with each bitcoin having exactly the same spending power as it had in possibility number 2. The prudent advice is to not sell your coins in the first few days after a dump this big. After that, life proceeds as normal.

Agreed. Pirate actually defaulted on Monday.

But in the terms of his bet with Vandroiy he has two weeks grace. And in the terms of Matthew's bet he has three weeks grace.

Agreed. If pirate's aim is to end up with as many BTC as possible, your scenario makes sense. But if his aim is to end up with a substantial profit, yet still be able to claim to have repaid all the loans, my scenario could do it (at the extremes of possibility, admittedly).

laszlo, the guy who bought the pizza for 10,000 BTC

I think if you are a donator, you can get a Scammer tag by requesting it from theymos.

Here's a guide to how the Totnes currency was set up. It covers legal and practical issues, and is quite interesting:
http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/Lewes-Pound-How-To-Guide.pdf

Here's an overview of some other UK local currencies:
http://quezi.com/11087

There might be a slight "first mover" effect. But if every city has its own currency, it also stops "capital influx" from other areas.

But that's not why most of these currencies succeed or fail. Most of them fail because to the user they are less useful than national currency: "Here, give me one pound that you can spend anywhere in the UK, and I'll give you one pound that you can only spend in Bristol." That's a losing proposition.

Monday February 29, 2013.

No, I don't think so. Buying his debt at discount is one way he could actually avoid technically defaulting. For example (using exaggerated numbers to make the math easier):

1. Suppose pirate has taken 50,000 BTC in direct loans, and 500,000 BTC via passthroughs.
2. Suppose pirate, after paying weekly interest, still has 150,000 BTC in his bitcoin wallet.
3. Suppose pirate pays back the direct loans, leaving him with 100,000 BTC.
3. Suppose the passthrough shares are being sold for 10% of their face value.
4. Suppose pirate buys all the passthrough shares for 50,000 BTC, leaving him with 50,000 BTC.
5. Suppose pirate pays back the passthroughs, 50,000 BTC at a time.
6. The coins pass through, back to pirate, who then pays back the next tranche of 50,000 BTC.
7. Repeat ten times, and pirate has technically not defaulted (although he has screwed those who sold their passthrough shares at 10% of their face value).

Sure, there are a lot of suppositions and extreme figures above. But something like this is not impossible.

Matthew, please increase my earlier wager to:

250BTC
18pChH7Mf8DjP5Vxxva8R4UxRT22eMZd2j
"Only Live Once"

In that case, Matthew's regular brain is going to be livid when it is returned to his body by the aliens who borrowed it for experimentation.

It's fine to have a wild, speculative wager. As Matthew said, you only live once. But when he talks about keeping his offer open for 3 weeks, that makes no sense under any circumstances.

The real Matthew is going to be livid when he returns from his travels and discovers that his forum account has been hacked

"The Good Wife" is significant because of the Bitcoin episode.

A low risk growth stock with a P/E of 10 would indeed be a bargain. But the catch here is that SatoshiDice is so easy to copy that it may not be a growth stock.