If anyone is still keeping score, the recent ECB report clearly shows that institution does not regard Bitcoin as either a currency or something they regulate. This would be giving the lie to Nefario once more, seeing how in this context it's highly unlikely the FSA would be investigating a Bitcoin venture. Okay, let's assume he sent a list to all issuers. What about the non-cooperating issuers? I'd at least need, for each company, a separate letter signed by GLBSE that shows my shares. Plus, the identity information of these issuers need to be communicated to the shareholders. Their obligations won't disappear until all the disputes are resolved, though most of is simply as a witness.
There are reasons securities market is heavily regulated. One thing is to prevent entities like GLBSE from withholding or falsifying such information. It's pretty ironic that it's now happening (supposedly) because of regulatory trouble.
There is absolutely no indication regulators have even contacted Nefario. Or that he has even spoken to a lawyer. The only evidence we can rely on is that Nefario is totally incompetent. Actually, seeing how the person he identified as his lawyer didn't return calls/emails in the past couple of weeks, it's highly unlikely that they ever heard of James McNefario or w/e his name is. |
|
|
|
|
Ahh this was nice. Thanks all!
|
|
|
|
If everyone new and unknown is treated as a thief, chased and and defamed, the established forces soon control everything, without being supervised by anyone.
There's two problems with this. First among them, that yes they are being supervised. They are being supervised by Bitcoin itself. You understand this, there's no bailout, there's no too big to fail. The market watches, its hand unseen. This is precisely why we've moved to bitcoin: to get out of the cat-and-mouse game of who's watching the watchers. Bitcoin watches us all. Second, notice that I didn't say the guy should not be doing anything at all. I said he should be tackling a task commensurate with his ability. This is nothing other than natural morals, you don't see a wolf trying to swallow a whale. You don't see a hawk trying to carry away a moose. You sometimes see snakes trying to swallow things they can't, but that's rare and it works as proof that snakes aren't really all that smart. Maybe it got buried under the rest of the words of my previous post, but it's in there: I don't say "don't do", I say "don't do this, it's too much, do something simpler". That's exactly how it should be. |
|
|
|
RG has been most accommodating to me and I think I've been running with BitVPS since pretty much the beginning.
I gave him a positive rating on #bitcoin-otc.
This person is not going to be made happy by anything and it looks like he's just trying to enact some sort of "revenge" by trashing BitVPS on the forum.
Too bad they didn't hop on the IRC channel, someone else might've been able to help a little bit quicker than email.
-p
People often disregard this, irc support is almost always the fastest way to get help. |
|
|
|
I don't have a btc webtrust so I'm making a vouch thread. General user's can just ignore this. I need somewhere to put it.
How about a blog? Just sayin'.... |
|
|
|
MPEx uses a double layer: to talk to it you first clearsign then the resulting pgp message you encrypt (per FAQ). In order to duplicate you would have to re-sign the order somehow. I personally don't like the houses where accepting duplicate(or otherwise confused) orders are part of the business plan. It always ends in litigation when somebody's cat steps on the keyboard and cleans the account.
Mr. P is of the same persuasion, hence MPEx working the way it does. Still, by-connection is probably a perfectly legitimate way to do things, in some cases (which almost never are the cases where it's applied in BTCWorld, but anyway). With the volume and frequency so low I'm inclined to think that the connection-less protocol is not a problem. It will be if the frequency of trades rises.
Care to elaborate? Seems exactly the opposite would be true. |
|
|
|
|
Everyone was paid. Thanks and good luck!
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your concerns, I normally wouldn't bother to post an answer since most has already been addressed in this very thread, but with so much bold statements (see, we are already having pun), it seems like I have to repeat myself. - Your firm is NOT regulated by the FSA and you are lying when you claim to be. Everyone follow these steps:1. Go to http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do2. Type 217689 (This is FXCM - a regulated, respected, and legal broker) 3. Click regulators 4. Notice how it says, "Financial Services Authority" - FXCM is legally regulated 5. Follow step 1-2 with 194835 (The number for VenetFX) 6. Click regulators 7. Notice the void? VenetFX is NOT regulated by the FSA and they claim to be 8. Now click the permissions link for each of the above firms. VenetFX is NOT authorized to transact in foreign exchange, contracts for difference, or spot forex These things take up to 6 months to update in the register. - I have reported this firm and its "subsidiary" to the FSA
I hope they will take you seriously to provide you with a proper reply. have personally done the same and have my trading firm listed with the NFA.
Smells like you are leaking your motives. - We comply to all local regulations. Clients should be compliant with their local regulations.
Spot Forex and Bitcoin is unregulated in Slovenia and through Balkan. We believe in Bitcoin privacy properties strongly and do not ask for any delicate information when clients open a Bitcoin account. - The logic and claims of the website are entirely flawed
False. If you do not understand it, it does not necessarily mean its flawed or wrong. "’cause it’s the opposite of that." (Leroy Van Nuys, 2012) -- "Yes, your Bitcoin deposits are never converted into fiat or any other form"
True. Your balance is denominated in Bitcoin, so are you P/L and withdrawals. I don't know why we should be converting clients deposits. I hold all deposits in a cold storage at all times. With the current dead mans switch implementation, it would take a strategic nuclear weapon that levels 250 km radius around my house to render those Bitcoins useless. Even if Forex blows up, coins are safe. -- When you "buy" EUR/USD, you are selling dollars to buy euros.
With leverage, in Bitcoins. This has been explained already here and is in the FAQ. -- To say that you can trade currencies without converting your BTC is a straight-up lie.
False. This claim blatantly tells you that they are trading against customers or just stealing money.
False. I do not have a clue where or how you derived that from. Also, our Currenex link provider was already covered in this thread, go check up with them. Some things might not be obvious at the first glance, but whoever can't put two and two together from the information published on the website, with perhaps an intelligent question or two following, is encouraged to stay away from Forex trading altogether, disregarding denomination. This is not Bitcoinica. This is not a game. There is no official announcement for the service on this forum for a good reason. Since Pirate defaulted (or glbse if you want to pitty yourself) there is only a handful of people left with more than 100 BTC and only a few of those have heard of Forex before. In conclusion, this will be my final statement in this thread. For more information, I am available on irc, #bitcoin-assets or email info@bit4x.com. " Psi laju, karavane prolaze." Allow me to interject a brief statement: We have taken this matter seriously - Matic Kočevar and Mircea Popescu are working together on a soon to be released project (unrelated) and Mr. P is paranoid about trust & credibility (among other many countless neverending things, hence the capital P). It's agreed the awards graphics in the footer were not a smart move. The claim is that the FSA number is in fact valid. The problem of getting to the bottom of whether it is or it isn't however is not trivial. Irrespective of all this, Matic Kočevar has made it emphatically clear that he holds at the present time all the Bitcoins deposited by users, and this will remain so in the future. This obviously means that he is making himself liable for any legitimate claims from users irrespective of what happens to the forex venture. In short: it's too expensive for our interest at this time to establish whether the underlying business is legitimate or not. It would appear it can be verified that the trades are actually being executed (ie, not a bucket shop). In any event, users are well advised to make their own judgment of the creditworthiness and counterparty risk of kakobrekla, and deposit only according to the results of that judgment. Business as usual in the Bitcoin world, as it were. |
|
|
|
What exactly is to "pan out"? It's already panned.
You should get in touch with his employer http://www.srgexpert.com/patrick.htmlOur core values are independence, integrity and objectivity
I'm sure they'd be interested in this lapse in integrity. His employer, his professional association, his district attorney, the works. |
|
|
|
fain dar totuși ceva cu UI ar fi mai ușor
Try coinbr.com. |
|
|
|
It's about having that person's real name, at least two pieces of government issued photo ID, address, telephone number, bank information, credit rating, a promisory note, a legally binding contract, a co-signer or some collateral.
To do what with? Burn in effigy? |
|
|
|
any news on this scammer?
Who, Kludge or Nefario? Not that it matters, anyway. |
|
|
|
|
What exactly is to "pan out"? It's already panned.
|
|
|
|
It is a form of biometric authentication, people employed in high-value account service have extraordinary auditory memory (or visual memory, for the in-person service).
In other words, a wizard does it? Anyway, given the interest Mr. P wrote out the specification a little, for this thing provisionally called BTC-UXP. All comments more than welcome. I did a quick look&see. It doesn't seem to have the protection against placing duplicate orders in case of transport failure/timeout. At the minimum all the imperative verb calls should have an OrderID argument that needs to be unique. There may be some sort of replay attack made out the above flaw, but I don't have a motivation to delve deeper. That part's intentionally left blank. If the exchange implements by-connection security (cookie based/https website logins are of this sort) then all orders are valid even if duplicate. If the exchange implements stateless by-payload security (such as the GPG scheme MPEx uses) then the exchange should also enforce unique-payload (either through hashing or some other method). In either case these are considerations of exchange security, NOT of communication protocol. At least that's the thinking. |
|
|
|
If he is genuinely stopping you from withdrawing the 500 plus all accrued interest to date, then that is outrageous.
Not sure what you mean by genuinely, but the addresses are up there in the quote, can be easily checked. 500 BTC going in. Not coming out. |
|
|
|
Worst case of design-by-committee I've ever seen. More of a trainwreck than all the XML standards rolled into one.
This is true, but as they say, "it just works". At the cost of who knows how many broken fingers by now. Anyway, given the interest Mr. P wrote out the specification a little, for this thing provisionally called BTC-UXP. All comments more than welcome. I was absolutely floored when I found out that $100 million MBS trades are done by voice telephone call.
This is the power of "people know people". If you found out just how much of today's money, politics and so forth moves on a simple nod and a handshake.... |
|
|
|
|
Just the fact that you're offering this is pretty cool. Props.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh, how far BTCTalk has come in just one short year....
|
|
|
|
|
Well, better luck next month.
|
|
|
|
MPEx sort-of started from there, but changes kept being brought to the point what we use now is barely reminiscent.
Can you describe those changes in a paragraph or two? Was there something missing? I'm actualy more interested in the motivation for changes than the actual software changes. I'd like to understand motives, if possible. Technical details I would consider secondary. Well let's start with an example comparison: 8=FIX.4.2 | 9=178 | 35=8 | 49=PHLX | 56=PERS | 52=20071123-05:30:00.000 | 11=ATOMNOCCC9990900 | 20=3 | 150=E | 39=E | 55=MSFT | 167=CS | 54=1 | 38=15 | 40=2 | 44=15 | 58=PHLX EQUITY TESTING | 59=0 | 47=C | 32=0 | 31=0 | 151=15 | 14=0 | 6=0 | 10=128 | vs DIVIDEND|B.MPCD.A|35000000000|350000 FIX uses predefined tags, which then receive values. This is great if a majority of messages will use only a small fraction of available tags, because it saves some space. However, if most messages use most tags it quickly becomes redundant. In a more FIX-ish approach the above MPEx string would have read 1=DIVIDEND|2=B.MPCD.A|3=35000000000|6=350000] or something like that. Since the vast majority of messages would refer a type of action (1) and a MPSIC (2), most would include a value (3) and few use more than 4-5 fields, the simplified scheme seems preferable. The FIX style would also allow for the mixing of tags, something MPEx does not tolerate. The advantage of something like that seems not worth the mention however (again on account of the short messages). FIX uses checksums and some braindamaged signature implementation. We've dispensed with all that, relying instead on GPG clearsign and armored encrypt, which actually seem a much better solution. You can check out the FAQ for more details on the MPEx protocol. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
