|
A one state solution of Israel-Palestine is the only real viable solution.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your service with stochastically.com
I just made a donation
Thank you. I really appreciate the donation. |
|
|
|
If they are more than a page, most will not read them and won't understand.
Then they shouldn't be investing. That is the reality. The operating agreement for our LLC is 18 pages and is stripped down excluding all legalese and just starting the right and responsibilities of members (LLC have members not shareholders). The operating agreement or articles of incorporation for a major company is on the order of 50-100 pages. If the contract is a paragraph or less then the shareholder really has no rights. It is merely a honor system. The shareholder is implicitly trusting the exchange and asset issuer won't screw them over. Most people don't even read their prospectuses for their mutual funds. It is just the reality of investing. |
|
|
|
That isn't universally true. As long as the contract specifies the contract can be modified under conditions (x,y,z) like say approval of 66% of outstanding shares then a change doesn't violate the original contract. The original contract was subject to modification. The shareholder agreed to that when buying their shares. Doesnt change my opinion that you should not allow it. Allowing it means a majority shareholder can change the contract so that he is entitled 100% of the dividends or give himself the right to buy other shares at 0% of face value. You may argue that the minority shareholder should have thought of that possibility before buying, and technically that might be true, but its still a terrible idea IMO. The issuer will want to have the possibility to alter the contract, so every issuer will put it in there, and its only a matter of time before its grossly abused. Well that possibility exists in every shared contract. However there are remedies. One option would be to prohibit certain actions in the contract and a second would be to allow minority shareholders to challenge any change in arbitration (judge.me for example). You could make a term of the contract that all parties (to include GLBSE, the asset owners, and all shareholders agree to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute). The problem is most contracts to date have been a paragraph is size. They are woefully inadequate to provide shareholders any real protection. If they are more than a page, most will not read them and won't understand. |
|
|
|
That isn't universally true. As long as the contract specifies the contract can be modified under conditions (x,y,z) like say approval of 66% of outstanding shares then a change doesn't violate the original contract. The original contract was subject to modification. The shareholder agreed to that when buying their shares. Doesnt change my opinion that you should not allow it. Allowing it means a majority shareholder can change the contract so that he is entitled 100% of the dividends or give himself the right to buy other shares at 0% of face value. You may argue that the minority shareholder should have thought of that possibility before buying, and technically that might be true, but its still a terrible idea IMO. The issuer will want to have the possibility to alter the contract, so every issuer will put it in there, and its only a matter of time before its grossly abused. Like I said earlier, contracts in the future should require some kind of better organization structure. |
|
|
|
I think you missunderstand, I'm not interested in the 5BTC fee, I would like your opinion on how best to handle proposed changes to asset contracts.
If you are speaking about administrative issues, then those decisions would have to be done by GLBSE. If you are speaking of more the fairness of changing contracts then there could be a lot of opinions of this. It seems if an asset holder wants to amend their contract then of course they need the shareholders approval according to the contract. They then contact GLBSE to get the contact amended. There could be problems with just allowing direct democracy rule though. Asset holders that are not being watched carefully could create more shares, send them to sockpuppet accounts, and then have enough shares to change the contract whenever they want. Another way, might be to require future assets to be listed to not only have one account holder, but a board, maybe the issuer is the head and the next few largest holders could make up the board. They would be required to authorize any more shares/bonds to be issued. For assets that are dead, as in no shares out. The contract could be changed upon request by the asset issuer and approval by GLBSE based on any new contract guidelines. I think what is most important though, is to get a contract between GLBSE and asset issuers. Set out what is required of an asset issuer, the expectations of privacy, the fiduciary duty to shareholders, etc. |
|
|
|
I don't know. What do you suggest, we can't have contracts being changed willy nilly.
Well in my cases I need majority shareholder or higher approval to change the contract, so its not willy nilly. But I could change the contract at any time, as long as i got voter approval with no cost. This appears to me as a shack-down of Asset Owners, because if we don't pay 5 BTC to change our contracts to address all area your default contract will address them.(possibly without shareholder approval) As an asset owner I consider a default contract to be Interference and a direct violation of the contract I made with my Shareholders. Asset issuers have a contract with GLBSE as well. That is the terms the asset issuer had when they created the asset. GLBSE should make it so any new assets that need to be changed will require a 5 btc fee. Any created before the fee change should have the same rate that was done before 0 btc. There did not seem to be any restrictions previously on changing the contract as long as it was per the original contracts requirement. Also, there was no restrictions on changing the assets name. Just grandfather the old assets and make any fee changes on the new assets. |
|
|
|
...
Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.
...
You should post the agreement to having his personal information released then no one could question you releasing the documents. releasing personal info...i dont see ANY sense in it. give it to the police: but never to a public forum... imagine you are ill, get to a hospital... and an angry mob burned down your house NO THANKS Personal info was already released. I was referring to releasing the agreement saying when and how it is OK. |
|
|
|
...
Alberto agreed to have his information released in the event of him scamming or running off with the funds invested when he verified, I would not have made the information public otherwise.
...
You should post the agreement to having his personal information released then no one could question you releasing the documents. |
|
|
|
That is until Shavers keeps records of anyone that contacts his family and countersues for harassment.
That would be a funny thing...  Officer: So, why are they harrasing you and your family?
Trendon: Well, I stole $X,XXX,XXX.XX from them... It is considered a debt right now. Theft is taking something without the permission of the owner. The owners of these bitcoins gave the bitcoins to Shavers voluntarily without any written contract on when it will be paid back. So now people that gave bitcoins to Shavers are trying to collect a debt he has with them where that debt is in a virtual currency that is not legal tender in any jurisdiction. Can we please stop spreading this outright nonsense. Theft can also be done through fraud by deceiving customers. By your argument, Enron execs should be free of any charges and Madoff would be enjoying his billions on an island somewhere. Scamming is illegal and committing large-scale fraud over millions of dollars worth of assets is punishable in the US and almost every other country to speak of. Enron stock isn't legal tender either, but had an easily measurable USD value, just like bitcoins or Pirate deposits. That is why it is called defrauding and not theft. Enron stock was also regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission; bitcoins are regulated by whom? I wish all of you guys to get bitcoins back though. Maybe next time you will put in the contract if someone is unable to pay back their debt in bitcoins in X amount of time, they will be held liable for the funds in fiat currency. |
|
|
|
That is until Shavers keeps records of anyone that contacts his family and countersues for harassment.
That would be a funny thing... Officer: So, why are they harrasing you and your family?
Trendon: Well, I stole $X,XXX,XXX.XX from them... It is considered a debt right now. Theft is taking something without the permission of the owner. The owners of these bitcoins gave the bitcoins to Shavers voluntarily without any written contract on when it will be paid back. So now people that gave bitcoins to Shavers are trying to collect a debt he has with them where that debt is in a virtual currency that is not legal tender in any jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
i personally do not think we should go after family members but we should go after pirate with lawyers... that is what i am working on now.
extortion and wire fraud has a good ring to it...
+1 i really feel ashamed that so many try to hunt down the family His family knows about this / is in on it. Don't have proof, but am working on it slowly. Applying pressure to family members is good. They would find this uneasy, and they would talk to Pirate, and he would have the pressure from his family, and I would think that no matter how cynical he is, he will have some love for his family, and he would probably want to save face as well. On the other hand, perhaps he doesn't care about anything or anybody, and such pressure would be futile, but with the right kind of pressure, it's amazing how people can change their opinions, or change their acts. We should all be glad we don't live in North Corea, then the entire family would be thrown in a workers camp for his wrongdoings. That is until Shavers keeps records of anyone that contacts his family and countersues for harassment. If you don’t have an attorney, a collector may contact other people – but only to find out your address, your home phone number, and where you work. Collectors usually are prohibited from contacting third parties more than once. Other than to obtain this location information about you, a debt collector generally is not permitted to discuss your debt with anyone other than you, your spouse, or your attorney Of course some people may be able to argue that the debt was business debt as he was doing business as "Bitcoin Savings and Trust". |
|
|
|
The current application fee to list an asset on GLBSE is 8BTC.
From this Friday the fee structure will be different.
We are reducing the application fee to 5BTC, and increasing the listing fee to 7BTC.
When creating a new asset 12BTC will be charged, if the application is not accepted 7BTC will be returned but the application fee will not.
Is there any fees to change a contract after it has been accepted? For example, shareholders amend the contract. Very good question, because I need to change the contracts on 3 assets lol Some of mine are blank and or say "test". I would expect assets created would be grandfathered in at no charge to change a contract. |
|
|
|
The current application fee to list an asset on GLBSE is 8BTC.
From this Friday the fee structure will be different.
We are reducing the application fee to 5BTC, and increasing the listing fee to 7BTC.
When creating a new asset 12BTC will be charged, if the application is not accepted 7BTC will be returned but the application fee will not.
Is there any fees to change a contract after it has been accepted? For example, shareholders amend the contract. |
|
|
|
I met all the requirements to list my IPO PPP on the GLBSE and even contacted Nefario prior to the listing to make sure it would be ok. He took my 8BTC and refused to list my IPO. He is now refusing to credit my GLBSE account. This is all due to me not waiting another 3 days to pay his new higher listing fees. I want to see him with a scammer tag if my 8BTC is not refunded as promised by Nefario via pm. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110242.msg1202947#msg1202947Post evidence, such as email communications and private messages. |
|
|
|
Well you didn't do everything. The terms and conditions you agreed to were that the exchange could require verification of any asset owner for any reason. You didn't. The terms also gave the exchange the sole discretion in approving a new listing. They didn't.
The fee was non-refundable and you new it was non-refundable.
That is why I contacted him prior to paying the 8BTC and laid out my entire plan. He knew I was not going to verify and let me pay it anyway without a word of concern despite me asking him directly if my IPO would be approved. That action was premeditated and I believe he baited me into paying the 8BTC will the full intention of denying my listing to steal my 8BTC using his terms of service as a shield. His only word of caution was that I should pay quickly because he was raising the fees on Friday. I am calling scammer. Then collect the personal information you had with GLBSE and then go to the Scammer Accusations forum and make your case. You might be shocked but this topic is not about you. Some users of GLBSE want to be informed about the fee change and the contracts and not about your problems listing your asset. |
|
|
|
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me. GLBSE is private property, generally private property is "controlled". There is a competing exchange and maybe you can start a third one. Not sure where you get the idea that Bitcoin doesn't support rights for private property owners. Actually, 2 competing exchanges. |
|
|
|
i personally do not think we should go after family members but we should go after pirate with lawyers... that is what i am working on now.
extortion and wire fraud has a good ring to it...
I agree too although the authorities may keep bitcoin on the same level as Linden dollars or other virtual currencies. In the States it is illegal to call third parties to collect the debt of one of their family members. It happens often and most collection agencies get away with it because they have a lot of funds, but imagine in civil court where Shavers says, "Oh I would have paid back but I was getting death threats and my family was being harassed and threatened." This might come to a point that users of bitcoin need to organize themselves into trade unions or consumer groups that sign pledges with other groups to insure their members for negligent actions. |
|
|
|
http://bitcoinmagazine.net/walletbit-under-ddos-1000btc-demanded/DDOS extortion for a Bitcoin ransom could be the next big crime wave. I am sure that DDOS attacks are illegal to begin with, they take on a new dimension with extortion for a significant amount of money. Depending on whether or not Bitcoin is considered money, this could mean that law-enforcement agencies may be looking at a new threat vector with cyber-crime. No longer are DDOS attacks done out of politically driven protest, they are now in the business of racketeering. I remember reading an article on online casinos that have this problem. The criminals did not ask for bitcoins, just USD by wire transfer like through western union. Could not find the original article, but here is another one: http://www.blackjackchamp.com/casino-news/15733-online-gambling-sites-face-extortion/ |
|
|
|
https://quantiger.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/why-bitcoin-is-doomed/tl;dr : Suppose I have 10 bitcoins. If I want to loan you money, I have to actually give these coins to you! Where's the profit in that? Ridiculous. Note to quantiger: you can still defraud investors. Happy now? haha! [/captain haddock] reposted here for the lulz Let’s create a game to understand this better. In my game there are 100 QuantCoins and I am the angel investor who holds them all. There are ten players. I loan out 10 QuantCoins to each player and charge 10% interest, and I take a 50% equity position in each player. All players must either pay off their loans, with interest, after 20 rounds of the game or go bankrupt and I collect whatever money they have left. Only if they pay off their loan do they get to keep half of what they made.
Tell me where the players that pay off their interest get the money from. Obviously, everyone can’t pay their interest for the simple reason that the game has been designed to demand 110 total QuantCoins out of a system containing only 100 coins. This is the best rebuttal in the comments to the inflation argument: Could you use a QuantCoin example where the person doing the 100 QC investment doesn’t own all the coins in the system (aka realism)? If there were only $100 in existence and I get back $110 after another $10 is printed, the value of the $110 now is exactly the same as the value of the $100 then, no? Printing the extra $10 didn’t create more value, as I understand it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
