You find nothing wrong with selling a service and then not fully doing it?
I am not sure if this was a reply to me, but I was just curious in how you interpret the GLBSE TOS because on a discussion on the interpretation of contracts listed on GLBSE you seemed to agreed with the statement that things not in the contract can still be done. Things listed in the contract allow for one of the parties to 'reserve the right' to do something, but not necessarily only do things that are listed in the contract. By this interpretation, GLBSE reserves the right to do any and all things in its TOS. There are also implied agreements when using the GLBSE system. No where in the TOS says that GLBSE will list a security after the fee is made, but they do it. By having the authority to list a security, GLBSE also has the authority to remove a security from the exchange. Anyway, I would also argue that whatever is said in a contract or TOS may not always be the right thing to do. As you may remember with our contract dispute; I took responsibility for my badly written contract and paid out of my own pocket. In my opinion the right thing to do is to allow the securities to be relisted, allow a buyback of all the securities at whatever value was agreed to, and then remove them after all accounts have been cleared. |
|
|
|
Oddly enough, you are in the wrong place to make those demands. GLBSE has a forum, and ownership, and means of communication. If you feel you have a claim to make, why not make it with those involved instead of airing your dirty laundry here, where nobody who can do a thing for you gives a damn?
And are you really admitting that you started several assets, offered them for sale, managed them to varying levels of success and failure and did all of this WITHOUT AN AWARENESS OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE? Is that responsible business operation in your opinion? Seriously Goat, isn't understanding what you are offering and where you are offering it sort of basic step number one?
As you know the ToS was changed more than half a dozen times since I started. But in none of the version I did anything that called for a delisting. Deal with it buddy... The reason why Nefario is not saying why he did it is because he will be admitting he is a scammer... If you take advice from a lawyer does that make you a scammer ? I think it is more than fair to give me the refund or to explain why I can't get one... It would be like Theymos just taking away my VIP on the forum with out telling me why. He would need to say what I did wrong or give me a refund. Maybe even both... Nefario sold me a service he is not providing. That is without a doubt scamming. So if it is not specifically in GLBSE TOS then GLBSE cannot do it? |
|
|
|
Today I received this response from adainitiative.org, regarding my query as to whether they would accept Bitcoin donations: Thanks so much for your interest in supporting the Ada Initiative. We've had a couple of donors interested in donating via Bitcoin but for the foreseeable future the legal and tax overhead of Bitcoin donations is too high for us. We've added information to our FAQ: http://donate.adainitiative.org/donation-faq/#bitcoinNotice in the FAQ - they cite EFF's stance: Do you accept donations in Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a online payment system and digital currency. Some donors have expressed interest in donating in Bitcoin, but we have decided not to accept Bitcoin donations for the foreseeable future. The legal and tax issues surrounding a non-profit accepting and spending Bitcoins remain unclear and therefore the overhead of accepting Bitcoin donations and spending them on our programs would be very high. In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) made a similar decision for similar reasons.
It's one thing for the EFF not to accept Bitcoin for it's own reasons specific to legal advocacy - but from the above, we see that their about-face and public statements continue to damage Bitcoin's reputation in the non-profit sphere. From earlier this year: ( http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/effs-own-chilling-breeze.html ) When the founders of Humble Bundle were approached they replied:
"Hey there, we have talked with the EFF and an attorney about this and it is very complicated to say the least. The stakes are very high and there are some extremely serious unknowns about using Bitcoins. While the concept is great, we are not prepared to be its first major test case, after listening to the advice we’ve been given."
also: A statement from someone at Kiva.org (a technical person, not a legal rep) was particularly illustrative of the chilling effect:
"We talked to some fellow non-profits, and the lawyer from one particular organization gave us some strong reasons to not move forward. We then talked some with our lawyer, who cautioned against doing anything that could distract from Kiva’s core mission by bringing about controversy."
I'm not completely certain - but pretty sure the 'particular organization' referred to above is the EFF. So... is it any wonder the bitcoin100.org project ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=52543) has struggled to find recipients for Bitcoin charity? The EFF is an asset to the online community - but their stance here from 2011 ( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin) seems to be an ongoing impediment to Bitcoin adoption amongst non-profits. Does anyone have any inside contacts at the EFF to see if they're ready to revisit their public position - and just as importantly, the obvious behind the scenes advice they have been giving to 'steer clear' of Bitcoin? Donations would probably best be spent on things that will solidify the bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
Can these posts be automatically deleted considering a page of "I put you on ignore." isn't notable or relevant content?
I know there is an ignore ratio, but can we get an automatic ban when that ratio rises above some threshold? |
|
|
|
Should CPA close down operations and buy back shares / make a final dividend payment?
...
So here we are. CPA is stable. We're not in default. We're just floating. Adrift. BMF is okay. NYAN will likely have to be shut down because everything on GLBSE is crashing. But basically I'm at the end of my patience here. So I'm coming to the public for opinions. Do you think an insurance company is needed in Bitcoin-land? We made good money while it lasted but I'm not really willing to keep doing this if no one appreciates what we are doing. Consider this a motion. Each user name which has been registered for at least three months counts as one vote. Thanks and bye.
Yes it should shut down. I think the only effective insurance system that can exist in bitcoin is with a binary market betting system. |
|
|
|
I wish all these ponzi schemes would die in a fire. I hope they all get delisted.
This asset should have not passed the smell test imo.
The sad thing is, real companies shares or bonds can never really materialize on GLBSE or other exchanges until these ponzi scams are removed. When comparing between a return of 10% a year or one that gives 10% in one month, the temptation of greed is too much. Then when the security collapses and the person learned their lesson, they don't have any money to invest in a realistic security. But good investors should be able to see through this. When offered one share with 30% return per month, or another at 10% return per year, the good investor should realize there is a difference in the risk of the two offerings. Not everybody is stupid enough to dump all their money into the highest risk place. Those people who go into the less risky ventures will continue investing, because they have not lost their principal like those who jumped at the shiniest scam. I agree, but it is disheartening. OBSI.HRPT just sucked ~4000 bitcoins out of the investing market. That is 4000 bitcoins that won't flow to legitimate businesses. |
|
|
|
I wish all these ponzi schemes would die in a fire. I hope they all get delisted.
This asset should have not passed the smell test imo.
The sad thing is, real companies shares or bonds can never really materialize on GLBSE or other exchanges until these ponzi scams are removed. When comparing between a return of 10% a year or one that gives 10% in one month, the temptation of greed is too much. Then when the security collapses and the person learned their lesson, they don't have any money to invest in a realistic security. |
|
|
|
The price of OBSI.HRPT has dropped immensly. Obsi is buying back shares, seems to be market price. The way the price is dropping, it is just making it easier and easier for Obsi to walk away with everybodies money.
Asset should be locked and any buyback from the issuer should be done with the function that GLBSE allows issuers to force a buyback. All locking the asset would do is prevent anyone trading the shares. It wouldn't magically move money into obsi's account to be sent to shareholders. If that happened it's pretty much a given that noone would ever get anything other than whatever loose change happens to be in obsi's account. I do hope you don't believe he actually keeps all his BTC sitting on GLBSE. Plus: how has he broken his contract? No buy-back option was ever offered. No dividends were ever guaranteed. No reporting requirements were ever defined. Before taking an action, consider what benefits that action could have. Locking obsi's account on GLBSE would achieve what? Do you propose that GLBSE should FORCE a buyback on all obsi investors (at less than they could get selling on the market)? That would go down really well if obsi then showed up and said "doh - sorry guys, I just got back our funds from the pass-through and was going to reimburse them but GLBSE just made you sell out at 0.00001 per share.". If you want to sell out - use the market. If you want to wait, wait. If you believe obsi's broken his contract then go make a thread in scammer's forum. Wow, I should have wrote a bad contract for my asset, promised many things on bitcointalk, then tell all my investors I am closing down without any word of a repurchase plan, delete all my past promises, and purchase the assets back for pennies. It is a good thing these kinds of assets can't be listed anymore on GLBSE. |
|
|
|
The price of OBSI.HRPT has dropped immensly. Obsi is buying back shares, seems to be market price. The way the price is dropping, it is just making it easier and easier for Obsi to walk away with everybodies money.
Asset should be locked and any buyback from the issuer should be done with the function that GLBSE allows issuers to force a buyback. |
|
|
|
This seems to be a troll thread.
OBSI sold 1MHS shares for 0.10 and bought them back for 0.10, and he also sold ABMO shares for 0.10 and bought them back for 0.10, and he is also in the process of buying back all of HRPT for IPO price.
So, if hes such the scammer you claim he is, why is he buying them back at all?
But has he bought back at .1 for HRPT? Bid is .02 and ask is .03 with 24 hour average at .044 ? Well, if people are stupid enough to be selling it below IPO price, I can't blame him for buying it back at low prices. 24 hour volume is only 63 BTC. To me it does not look like he is buy much, if any up. He mentioned he was going to buy back OBSI.HRPT at market prices before he disappeared. The number of shares receiving dividend has dropped slightly. Perhaps he will buy up to IPO price (0.1 btc), perhaps not, so it makes sense to sell the shares for what you can get. Although, if he is going to buy them all back, then you could make a lot of money by buying at market price and selling at IPO price. But then again, he might only buy back some and then stop. Futurefund was given a final dividend near market price and then the asset was delisted. Actually, GLBSE is fucked up. When you use the interface to buy back shares, it shows it as a large dividend. 1MHS and ABMO were also delisted this way as well. I have no reason to believe Obsi won't also delist his final asset, HRPT, correctly as well. He has no interest in screwing people, he was just tired of nefario's bullshit. I have done a few buybacks and have never seen the interface list them as a dividend. Also, my dividend tables never pick up buybacks. If OBSI.HRPT did a forced buyback at IPO price then there would not be a problem. |
|
|
|
Well Maged demanded that I send him and Theymos the e-mails I sent to Nefario or be banned in 48 hours for lying.
That's awesome.  Yeah, imagine that. Theymos owns what? 21% of GLBSE? No conflict of interest there. I only asked that it be sent to theymos as a reference. Theymos is not in charge of this investigation. Additionally, I did not ask for the previous communications. I only asked that a NEW email be sent to Nefario that included the address that would be CC'd to us. I needed proof that Goat wasn't just lying about having sent the address, since Nefario told me that the address he was sent wasn't validating. After reading his message again Maged did not ask for the old e-mails. He only asked for the bitcoin address. (That was my mistake but still.. I think I proved my point that I did not lie and that I was acting in good faith... This was the part of the message from Maged that made me think I should send the old e-mails. "Failure to do so will result in you being marked as a scammer and possibly even banned for the following reasons: 1) Publicly lying about having sent Nefario a Bitcoin address. This will be considered libel and ALL posts, made by anybody, referencing this specific lie will be DELETED to protect the forum from legal action." but in fairness he did only ask for an address. Thanks. Why not just post the address on the forums? Anyway, this is all kind of ridiculous. Couldn't Maged just ask Nefario if he got the emails with the bitcoin address? |
|
|
|
 Here we have it. Welcome to the new scrutinized Foundation users. On top of that, CloudFlare’s CEO Matthew Prince made a weird, glib admission that he decided to start the company only after the Department of Homeland Security gave him a call in 2007 and suggested he take the technology behind Project Honey Pot one step further…
And that makes CloudFlare a whole different story: People who sign up for the service are allowing CloudFlare to monitor, observe and scrutinize all of their site’s traffic, which makes it much easier for intel or law enforcement agencies to collect info on websites and without having to hack or request the logs from each hosting company separately. Wow. Wonder who decided on the choice of hosting. . That is all. You missed aesthetics, ease-of-use, customer service, and personality of exchange manager. |
|
|
|
It is with great sadness and regret that I must announce my plan to close down the fund (NYAN.B).
Your choice of an equal weighting of 3 to 5 securities from NYAN.B or NYAN.C.
To encourage everyone to get this done quickly, it's going to be first-come first-serve as to who gets to choose which assets. After all shares have been exchanged back into the fund and/or bought back, NYAN.B will be delisted. It sucks, but I'm going to do the right thing here. Again, if you *prefer* any of these assets, let me know.
Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.B (Balanced Risk Fund)
1. The Balanced Risk Fund ("NYAN.B") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, bitcoin businesses which are not mining operations and not exposed to "pirate".
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on sector; we seek to invest in the bitcoin community at large; but again, no mining, and no pirate.
3. NYAN.B will pay as dividend from the pool of A, B and C the lesser of 0.02 bitcoins per fund unit and the amount remaining after NYAN.A pays dividends.
4. Holders of NYAN.B are guaranteed second claim (after holders of NYAN.A) to any holdings, bitcoins or other assets of NYAN.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.
Nyancat Financial Contract for NYAN.C (High Risk Fund)
1. The High-Risk Fund ("NYAN.C") profits solely from investment in, and ownership of, high-yield securities.
2. Investments are chosen entirely based on their interest rate without regard to the risk profile.
3. NYAN.C will be paid whatever isn't paid to NYAN.A and NYAN.B.
4. Holders of NYAN.C are guaranteed no rights or claim to any assets of NYAN, NYAN.A, or NYAN.B.
5. Dividends are paid weekly, to be paid within 30 days of the end of any unpaid calendar week.
Usagi should not be shutting down NYAN in this order. It's simple contract violation. Did you contact usagi about this? GLBSE? other shareholders? What was their response? |
|
|
|
|
scamming = To defraud; swindle.
scamming != A disagreement
|
|
|
|
You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.
no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK. Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies. (FTFY) Which may of course be the biggest problem when those bodies are contacted. Certainly, in the US, it's a significant issue to sell securities to unaccredited, non-sophisticated investors (especially unregistered securities) - thus it's a potential issue for and foreign citizen selling securities to US citizens. The US has brass balls when enforcing money regulations. (it's illegal to sell securities to non-sophisticated investors because a fraudulent issuer could present a rosy picture, much as usagi has, and coerce more money out of non-sophisticated investors than they can actually afford to lose....i.e. the old man's life savings) Also, just because a security is unregistered doesn't mean it's un regulated. Furthermore they are the bodies in those countries that investigate securities fraud, which is what I certainly suspect is going on here. It's not like those agencies will not investigate suspected securities fraud simply because the security wasn't registered. Just because it's bitcoin, not dollars or yen, doesn't mean they won't investigate either. The SEC doesn't care if investments are denominated in USD, EUR, JPY, coal, gold, or bitcoins. Investments are investments; the definition of "security" is quite broad. So you are willing to purchase unregistered securities but when you don't get your way then you will contact the State? Seems hypocritical. Remember, anyone that promoted any of the securities on GLBSE is technically doing something potentially against regulation. If you kick a hornets nest, don't be surprised if it stings you too. If you want to buy securities with disclosure rules then go buy stock from the NYSE or NASDAQ. In truth, some of the disclosures from GLBSE securities are better than some developing world stock markets. If you are unhappy with the contract or you think the operations do not conform to the contract then contact GLBSE/nefario. |
|
|
|
This thread is full of fail. There will be no Bitcoin Council because it's essentially the same thing as the Foundation was as initially proposed. What remains to be seen if the true colors in this forum take down the now starting BTC Foundation and Bitcoin along with it.  I think what people fail to see is that any group of people can create a bitcoin foundation. Any group of people can raise money to hire developers for bitcoin. Any group of people can raise money to hire lobbyists to make sure the state keeps its hands off bitcoin. It does not have to be one group, it can be many. If you don't like the direction of one group, then go form your own. Humans are not solitary organisms. We are social creatures. If you were not, you would not be on a forum. I ask, who has more money to waste on a bitcoin council? A few for profit companies that runs on slim margins, or thousands of individuals that are willing to forgo a latte to instead fund their favorite bitcoin group to achieve their stated goals? A lot of people, like me, became interested in bitcoin because of the potential cryptocurrencies have in the natural progression of cryptoanarchist and anarcho-capitalist philosophies. Those philosophies don't say "no government." Instead they say "voluntary government." Of course people can act like cats and refuse to form pacts, but don't be sad when the world leaves you behind. The meek shall inherit the earth; the strong and wise will keep moving. What you fail to see is that The Bitcoin Foundation intends to control Bitcoin development as the United States intends to control the Middle East. So form your own foundation to fight back, or are you just going to bitch and moan? |
|
|
|
This thread is full of fail. There will be no Bitcoin Council because it's essentially the same thing as the Foundation was as initially proposed. What remains to be seen if the true colors in this forum take down the now starting BTC Foundation and Bitcoin along with it. I think what people fail to see is that any group of people can create a bitcoin foundation. Any group of people can raise money to hire developers for bitcoin. Any group of people can raise money to hire lobbyists to make sure the state keeps its hands off bitcoin. It does not have to be one group, it can be many. If you don't like the direction of one group, then go form your own. Humans are not solitary organisms. We are social creatures. If you were not, you would not be on a forum. I ask, who has more money to waste on a bitcoin council? A few for profit companies that runs on slim margins, or thousands of individuals that are willing to forgo a latte to instead fund their favorite bitcoin group to achieve their stated goals? A lot of people, like me, became interested in bitcoin because of the potential cryptocurrencies have in the natural progression of cryptoanarchist and anarcho-capitalist philosophies. Those philosophies don't say "no government." Instead they say "voluntary government." Of course people can act like cats and refuse to form pacts, but don't be sad when the world leaves you behind. The meek shall inherit the earth; the strong and wise will keep moving. |
|
|
|
I nominate no one. I want an anonymous bitcoin council to be created using multisignature transactions. It will be sort of like kickstarter, but for the advancement of bitcoin.
Basically a site needs to be set up on Tor where people can look at proposals. Then, people can vote with their money. If enough money is there for a project idea then the transaction is executed and the funds delivered to the project. Note that no one needs to be involved with the distribution of money because it's based on multisignature transactions. That's the whole point of bitcoin.
This is not a bad idea but the only way to make it totally anonymous is to randomly select the members of a committee Maybe have a random lottery to select the anonymous people like the Greeks use to do (minus the anonymous part). What would the power be of such a committee? ADDITIONAL ON POWER: Maybe the committee could be members of each industry union (consumers, speculators, exchanges, miners, and so forth) and the committee is randomly selected from those members. The committee could then use dues paid by the trade unions to direct public policy on bitcoin with the rest of the world and solve disputes between unions of the committee. |
|
|
|
There should be a sticky explaining what a scammer is and what is needed for someone to be tagged a scammer.
Thanks.
To me a scammer is someone that purposely defrauds someone else and not necessarily defaults on a loan or breaks a contract. |
|
|
|
This is sick. Now we, the users, can choose between red and blue? I can predict the next movement: What about a council of ancient and wise users to judge and arbitrate conflicts in the bitcoin world?  It's not going to work. We just need to keep Bitcoin and its ecosystem the more decentralized and pseudonymous we can. Well I agree, we do not want to be blue. However you might look at it a different way. Gavin and the like are setting themselves as the king, we should at least organize a Senate... I would rather not have to do this but our options are not many. LOL. Yes, please make a senate. When you find out that your senate can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do, and neither can the foundation, will all of you stop bitching about the foundation? Well if all the miners sign up  There should be unions where miners, base users, speculators, exchanges, and developers all set up their own foundations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
