sign.... good and bad of anonymity...
luckily it's just like 3 or 4 BTC (Thats like all of my coins)

[18:23] <DeaDTerra> I just finished off a talk with James
[18:23] <DeaDTerra> We had a good laugh about all the paranoid people on the forums
[18:26] <mircea_popescu> o hey, welcome to my ignore again!
[18:26] <mircea_popescu> this guy has got to be stupid or something.

They just announced that the USD exchange is closing due to low volume. They handle this better than TradeHill did : they put bitcoins on sell to make it easier for people holding USD to get out (Bitcoin withdrawals are faster).

For Nefario, I don't think the speed is as important as keep good communication with the trusted and nice-to-talk forum members to update the progress and status of the closure. And he should discuss with lawyer or other GLBSE shareholders before he give the solutions. I don't think discussion with friends and consultants is harder than facing the criticism on this forum.

I just had a call with James, and he has said that there should be a way to claim what yours on GLBSE within a day, and everything in terms of shareholder info and people getting their btc back should be resolved this week.

He definitely could have closed the exchange a bit more gracefully, but according to him, he doesn't want to hold the high amount of liability he has attained any longer.

So let's stop the fud for a bit, and see how this week goes.

Best of luck to everyone involved,
Garrett

I never said I was selling my own shares. I just said that I was "selling shares".

Buyers would have needed to have been informed about the other sellers before the sale was complete, if only because the share transfer contract would need to indemnify the other sellers as well as myself. In fact, buyers would probably want this info (which looks bad) to not be public if they would finally decide to buy.

All of the buyers in my original 23% were leaving primarily due to the legalization thing, so it's not like investors were jumping from a clearly-sinking ship. My opinion was that Nefario was generally incompetent, and legalization would end up bankrupting GLBSE just because following regulations is so expensive and banning small, "dubious" assets represents a substantial loss in revenue. I'm clearly not going to post such a negative opinion publicly when I'm trying to sell my shares. If anyone would have seriously sought to buy, they would have had all facts and more of my opinions that what I made public. I never imagined that Nefario would be so stupid as to close GLBSE like this.

In any case, I'm not obligated to inform non-buyers of internal info. Keep in mind that my sales thread was only an advertisement for private bids and discussion, not a complete statement about the asset.


1. bitcoin.me was not part of the 23% I was selling.
2. A long time after I posted my thread, and after the TYGRR thing, bitcoin.me also decided to sell. I offered to try and sell his shares after the original 23% I was selling was sold.
3. I doubt he really said that he knew about TYGRR beforehand.
4. bitcoin.me is frequently confused and should generally not be considered reliable.

I did not know about TYGRR beforehand.


I said that I did not know of any SEC investigation, which I didn't and still don't. The whole SEC thing could still be a fake, though the increased number of witnesses nowadays makes that seem less likely. Nefario has not said that the SEC is investigating him, and I doubt it is. (Maybe the FSA is, but I doubt this as well.)


I briefly mentioned it in the sales thread. I didn't say it more explicitly because the fact that I am treasurer was already public (though maybe obscure) knowledge. It was part of the original PGP contract for BitcoinGlobal shares, which was public. Nefario mentioned it in that old forum thread. I've mentioned it on Stack Exchange and Reddit previously.

Acceptance of a buyer was nothing to be worried about because I already solidly had 4 (and later 6) of the 7 votes needed, and the others would be easy. The vote to accept a new shareholder is based on number of shareholders, not number of shares.

I'm not going to keep responding to these ridiculous accusations based on rumors and assumptions.

The nice thing is that they're both chatty enough about it that correlating statements and evaluating consistency is easier than if either of them had the sense to STFU.

I say this as your friend, guys.  You are not helping yourselves at all.

Nefario is stupid but even he has learned that writing things in public CANNOT HELP.

Look at the examples of previous scams/rip-offs/etc.  The clock of forgetfulness starts from the last statement from the offenders.  Every new post rewinds the clock, which runs about two weeks before the spring loses tension.

It looks like if we refuse to provide requested ID information then their designated AML complicance officer would need to make a risk assessment.  If he determined there was no reason to believe the transaction (refund) was an AML risk then they could return the funds.  Otherwise he would need to file an SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) with SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency - approximately UK equivalent of the US FBI) and would be unable to release the funds until either SOCA said to go ahead, or at least 7 days had passed without SOCA telling them to hold the funds.

Of course they then have to deal with the possibly tricky situation of explaining to SOCA why they're requesting AML information and making SARs without being registered with any of the AML supervisory bodies.  But that's their problem - not ours.

Silly thing is that it's likely the vast majority of accounts fall below the threshhold where they need to do any AML checks anyway.  E.g. currency exchanges only need to ask for ID for transactions above a certain amount (I can walk into a high-street bureau and exchange GBP into another currency without giving any ID information at all) .  Same for coneyancing firms (limit there is 15,000 euros - it's defined in euros as the UK law is an implementation of a eurozone-wide directive).

Pretty sure if they go to SOCA whining about someone refusing to provide ID for 10 BTC or even 100 BTC then SOCA would have far more interest in GLBSE than in the customer.

They also DO have an obligation not to unreasonably withhold service if a customer is unable to provide documentation in the form they request - not sure what policy they have for that.  e.g. if someone can't provide the documentation they request then they should be returning funds and (if they believe appropraite) filing an SAR (with a 7 day delay in refunding if they file an SAR).

How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

I know people are upset and don't like this answer but in the end, we need to root out all the scammy activities in Bitcoin and this forum if we want to move forward and create an environment where real business interests can prosper.

This I'd maybe be more inclined to agree with, but it took you 5 or 6 accusations to get there.

At this point it seems pre-emptive to argue for a scammer tag when we presently don't know the legalities surrounding the situation or who knew what and when. This forum has never given scammer tags out indiscriminately. Whenever I've argued for one I've always had to provide overwhelming evidence, and I'd be downright upset if circumstantial evidence alone were sufficient enough for one. At least BadBear and Maged would understand my concerns with this.

Of course, this is all aside from the legalities of the situation, which I may actually agree with the detractors on.

This paints an ugly enough picture as it is. In any event theymos no longer holds the claim to personal integrity required for being the administrator of this forum, or a principal in any other respectable bitcoin venture. A scammer tag may be warranted even if nobody took his bait and so luckily no bitcoin was actually lost: the offer was made in bad faith in any event.

This is anecdotical, but I don't think GLBSE ever acted as the underwriter of any security (they would have had to buy [usually at a discount] all the yet-unsold shares after an IPO, which they didn't).

It's not entrapment.  He's not law enforcement.

He's not a whistleblower, either.  In no way should he be painted as "noble" or "moral".

Here's what it looks like from the outside:

Nefario doesn't know what he's doing.  He can't code, he can't admin, he barely understands securities.  He thought opening an "exchange" based on btc would be a good idea.  He had no idea that he was walking into a legal minefield.

At some point after this, people with more btc, more experience, or just an opportunity to own part of a venture that would be a first in bitcoin.  Bylaws were drafted and a partnership was created among a number of people who also apparently had no idea they were walking into a legal minefield.

GLBSE effectively becomes the underwriter, broker, and agent for a number of "securities", some for legalish enterprises and some...whatever.  He changes rules, creates application fees, and criteria for inclusion on the exchange.

At this point stories differ.  Nefario attempted to register GLBSE with the regulating authorities and was unsuccessful.  The reasons all depend on whom you find the least untrustworthy, but there isn't strong corroboration because Nefario, for the first time in history, is actually smart enough to keep quiet on the matter.

Nefario goes rogue, refuses to step down as CEO if he is voted out by the rest of the partners, starts delisting and seizing assets and generally behaving insanely.  We only have speculation on the reasons why.  "SEC" is bandied about a fair amount.

Theymos lists a bloc of shares for sale.  He mentions that he doesn't want to be part of GLBSE, especially as treasurer, but does not explicitly state that he is the treasurer.  Who knows, maybe someone asked him to be treasurer, and he decided that was time for him to leave?

Now some people, who do not have the sense to remain quiet on the issue; who do not understand that talking can only make them look worse, are trying to paint Nefario in various shades of villain, despite the fact that it was a partnership.

Given this narrative, which parts are in error?  There's so much speculation that the whole story is impossible to understand.

I've never invested in GLBSE nor do I own any assets. Are you seriously accusing me of being a party to this? You're being irrational. If you had any idea of who I actually was you'd know I am not a theymos fan and I regularly provide actual evidence to get scammers thrown off the forum. If you could make a clear and concise explanation or accusation, I'd love to see it. I think you'd be surprised at what I could actually do with it, especially if it has actual criminal implications.

bitcoin.me decided to sell after Nefario booted a previous asset holder. Your accusations are changing constantly, can you make them more clear?

You are making  a retarded argument that  bitcoin itself isnt a money when the founder himself called it that. Its too late for bitcoin or litecoin to get away with that argument so good luck when the feds come knocking. Romania will hand you over just as quickly as anyone else.

18eLg6dJmmSgmWxBgbr5NzTwzhc2vjw48B