|
Thank you, updated the OP to show issuers at the top.
|
|
|
|
And under what cause could you possibly get him sent to prison? He's still processing payments and hasn't ran away with anyone's money, at least for now. He's also closing GLBSE, which is not a crime in itself. People don't go in prison for merely pissing people off.
I think a lawyer might find a lot of good reasons, even if you could argue that "processing payments" may reasonably take a thousand years. At this regard there is this thread: Legal Actions against Nefariohttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117655.0Thank you. I'll look at those reasons. I have received three payouts: a086ad011a8d0b8f07ba2afd313c89cf208600f365827cd252d8dcd4c3ad3e89 f05343d3b7c64164d94431071e654312bbea5447aec9981bcafca792ea5d433e 826546b1f3844ea8b5b93b22ef0e872cdc6ece8e30d2d3888b12f8fd58dadf81 adding up to a bit more then 600 BTC  //DeaDTerra Mind stating each payment was for which asset's account? |
|
|
|
|
And under what cause could you possibly get him sent to prison? He's still processing payments and hasn't ran away with anyone's money, at least for now. He's also closing GLBSE, which is not a crime in itself. People don't go in prison for merely pissing people off.
|
|
|
|
A few choice quotes from the shareholder meeting. It's a long read but please go read it for other shareholders' point of view about it. This mostly highlight what Nefario claims. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've decided to release the October 5th shareholder meeting minutes. I've removed IP addresses and the names of the shareholders that haven't been outed yet. Except for da2ce7, because he supported Nefario right from the beginning. With those exceptions, nothing else was changed. http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=DRt78Vne[05/10/2012 16:59:18] <shareholder2> da2ce796: we don't even know if there is an investigation or order ... [05/10/2012 16:59:59] <nefario> shareholder2: I can't tell you if there is an order if there IS one ... [05/10/2012 18:05:04] <nefario> shareholder2: we COULD go against what my lawyer says [05/10/2012 18:05:07] <nefario> the result would be [05/10/2012 18:05:10] <shareholder4> suppose, just for a moment, that we vite no [05/10/2012 18:05:11] <nefario> GLBSE gets shut down [05/10/2012 18:05:16] <nefario> and I get imprisoned ... [05/10/2012 18:15:09] <shareholder1> the simple point is some people are gonna lose bitcoins because they cant AML ... [05/10/2012 18:16:05] <shareholder1> but who gets it ? [05/10/2012 18:16:05] <nefario> I don't know [05/10/2012 18:16:06] <chrisrico> you keep it? [05/10/2012 18:16:09] <nefario> HAHA [05/10/2012 18:16:10] <nefario> me [05/10/2012 18:16:11] <nefario> lol ... [05/10/2012 18:16:34] <nefario> I'll ask the lawyer what we do with the funds that are not claimed ... [05/10/2012 18:32:35] <nefario> I propose a motion to have theymos return the user BTC which has in his posstion for the purpose of allowing me to repay users [05/10/2012 18:32:42] <nefario> to me [05/10/2012 18:32:43] <nefario> or [05/10/2012 18:32:44] <nefario> coldhardmetal ... [05/10/2012 18:41:05] <chrisrico> because in THIS case, THEYMOS has the money that NEFARIO wants [05/10/2012 18:41:06] <shareholder1> So theres literally nothing we can do [05/10/2012 18:41:27] <shareholder3_> guys, lets do this together, fighting internally does not help [05/10/2012 18:41:31] <nefario> chrisrico: that is users money, not GLBSE's [05/10/2012 18:41:40] <shareholder3_> lets finish the motion and move forward [05/10/2012 18:41:44] <nefario> I don't want it, I'm happy for coldhardmetal to hold it [05/10/2012 18:42:13] <nefario> we're waiting for cold to toll up the votes so far [05/10/2012 18:42:15] <chrisrico> theymos can hold it [05/10/2012 18:42:17] <shareholder1> I trust chm to do the right thing with it [05/10/2012 18:42:42] <ColdHardMetal> 57.85% for. My vote doesn't matter. Motion carries [05/10/2012 18:42:51] <shareholder2> that's funny [05/10/2012 18:43:09] <shareholder2> nefario who wouldn't observe the result of a motion concerning him forces theymos to do so ... [05/10/2012 18:44:36] <chrisrico> nefario: given that we are paying for this lawyer, please give us his contact information [05/10/2012 18:44:38] <shareholder4> chrisrico: yes but just fot the lulz [05/10/2012 18:44:42] <shareholder3_> not about the legal stuff, but the shutdown process i mean [05/10/2012 18:44:51] <chrisrico> *his or her [05/10/2012 18:44:55] <shareholder1> yes what is the lawyers contact info [05/10/2012 18:45:02] <shareholder3_> so, when and how will glbse communicate with users? [05/10/2012 18:45:15] <ColdHardMetal> asap. [05/10/2012 18:45:15] <nefario> buckworthsolicitors.co.uk ... [05/10/2012 18:49:34] <shareholder2> then i want full transparency since it's our lawyer [05/10/2012 18:49:53] <shareholder2> anything else is dishonest, nefario [05/10/2012 18:49:57] <nefario> shareholder2: then you'll have to give your AML info to me and take the same risk I am for GLBSE ... [05/10/2012 18:53:48] <nefario> these are the basic facts the announcement needs to convey: 1) GLBSE is closing, 2) All BTC will be returned to users, 3) Users need to AML, 4) Issuers who are not already verifified will need to do AML, 5) Issuers who have been AML'd will be given all support to move off GLBSE, 6) Users AML'd will be given all support to move their assets off GLBSE ... [05/10/2012 18:56:08] <nefario> shareholder4: I've talked about this with the lawyer, because there is no way to prove that one person hasn't oppened dozens of accounts with smaller amounts we have to do aml for everyone ... [05/10/2012 18:43:12] <shareholder2> oh well [05/10/2012 18:43:17] <chrisrico> what happened with the vote to remove nefario as CEO? [05/10/2012 18:43:24] <chrisrico> out of curiousity [05/10/2012 18:43:24] <shareholder1> didnt pass [05/10/2012 18:43:24] <ColdHardMetal> didn;t pass [05/10/2012 18:43:31] <nefario> shareholder2: I've not violated the results of any motions |
|
|
|
Fuck them nefarious bastards who kill chickens, use some kind of secret herb and spices, have me pre-order, then make me wait in line for my meal. ~Bruno K~ Eh, yeah, completly missed it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How many persons will be given scammer tag in this forum for not paying back the double payment?
If you know that you received extra money, I think you have a moral responsibility to try and return it (maybe minus a few percent). However, in this case: - You can't return it to the rightful owners directly. - Nefario is obviously very incompetent and untrustworthy, so it would be reasonable to think that returning the money to him would not get the money to the rightful owners. - Nefario is holding hostage your assets and the BTC of most users, so I think you would be morally justified in refusing to return the money until those things are released. So I'm certainly not going to give recipients of the extra money scammer tags at least until Nefario releases most of the BTC and asset info. In short, nefario has been less than honest and open so far - both to users of GLBSE and to his own business partners. There's, thus, no reason anyone should be willing to take his unsupported word on what they're owed. And how much should be sent back anyway? Has he even ever stated whether the whole 2nd payment was an error - or was it meant to be sending the last 10%?
Note: I received all (I believe - though can't confirm obviously) my tiny amount of funds back in the first batch of payments. I haven't received any 2nd payment so have nothing personally to decide whether to return, how much to return or who to return it to. If I HAD received an overpayment then I'd be putting the 2nd payment in cold storage then waiting until I had the information necessary to determine precisely what I WAS owed AND had either received back control of my assets OR received a good explanation of why they weren't being returned before sending any funds anywhere.
If he's spewing funds around at random then there's no guarantee returning them to him would get them to whoever their rightful owner is anyway. He could have just disabled trading/transfers and left the site up so we could withdraw and verify our holdings now that he no longer required ID information. And if there's specific accounts that he can't do that on (e.g. if he has been given specific instructions in respect of asset issuers) then the withdrawal functionality could have been removed from them.
A thief asking to return his stolen money is like asking for "fucking respect".
If you deserve it, you will get it.
That's the thing, you can believe as much as you want that he's incompetent and be angry all you want about GLBSE's closure, in the end, he hasn't stolen those funds. He's trying to distribute them and accidentally rerun the script for the 90% payment. Those funds are needed to pay those who haven't been paid yet. Keeping the funds to do yourself your own justice for GLBSE closing down and making you wait? It's the funds of other depositors you'd be keeping. It's not harming Nefario at all, I don't think his reputation could sink lower around here. Only thing keeping the funds can achieve is depriving other depositors from getting their balance paid out. You can point to other people and say they are the reason why you have no responsibility for your failures. But that is not how I tick. I have hundreds of customers myself and if I make a mistake I always fix it. Even if it costs me money. Customers are never responsible for my mistakes. And I expect the same from everybody else. It is about taking responsibility. Morality will come second. I am sure most people are still honest here and if they feel you deserve it, they will return what is not rightfully theirs. But only after the people responsible for this mess have cleaned it up as good as they can. Deprived, theymos, deeplink, I understand those points, but Nefario has already lost his reputation and I see no reason he would accept any such blackmailing since it's not his funds. Although as I said, Deprived, I perfectly agree that request to return funds should be communicated properly and people can and should request an official request from Nefario, along with an account statement showing your final balance and assets. The issue in holding those funds for not trusting Nefario (even if there's no doubt good reasons to not do so) is that it belongs to other issuers. Holding the funds as escrow to force Nefario to release any data makes you appoints yourself as arbitrator and fund holder. This forces whoever those funds belong to to trust those refusing to send the fund back with their money over trusting Nefario, something they never consented to. If I understand correctly deeplink, you want them to pay for unreturned funds from their own pocket and release info before sending them the BTC which would end up reimbursing what they paid from their own pocket? You're free to do that if you want. It does seem like their funds are tight, but as many already/are planning to return funds, I'm sure they can come up with a few 1000s USD for the remaining. Albeit I don't agree with people appointing themselves as escrow in the name of others, especially since they can't give or deny consent for this. |
|
|
|
As for doing it competently, I cannot say. But the wording on GLBSE.com was pretty clear that asset balances along with email + BTC address would be relayed to issuers.
It is incredibly slow but so far he's been processing accounts. I don't have any reason to believe he would not then start processing sending data to issuers like he's supposed to.
Lets look at the broken promises: Nefario shut down GLBSE without warning. Nefario erroneously paid people almost twice as much as their claim. The partners of BitcoinGlobal will take no responsibility for poor management of user accounts. Then why do you believe Nefario will pay back the total bitcoin claim amounts and give them their asset information? Do you think Nefario will actually cover the loss of bitcoins for those that will not return the funds? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0ASo people should not send back bitcoins from the double payments because there's no reason to believe he'll pay back because he can't cover the loss of the double payment? Is that serious? He has been paying out balances so far, why wouldn't he pursue that? If he wanted to steal those funds he wouldn't have returned any balance at all. As for screwing BitcoinGlobal shareholders and closing GLBSE without warning, yes, I completely agree it's a very bad move. It doesn't mean he's gone and won't do anything. For once a website suddenly closing isn't running away with users funds. We have every reason to be dissatisfied, but I see no reason to think he will not attempt to process all balances & assets as best as he can. For what his best is worth... The logs of his meeting with BitcoinGlobal shareholders screamed of a court order or chickening out in the face of possible legal issues. It doesn't seems he's closing GLBSE for the heck of it. He claims not having a choice. |
|
|
|
|
As for doing it competently, I cannot say. But the wording on GLBSE.com was pretty clear that asset balances along with email + BTC address would be relayed to issuers.
It is incredibly slow but so far he's been processing accounts. I don't have any reason to believe he would not then start processing sending data to issuers like he's supposed to.
|
|
|
|
I have no intention of using funds that were mistakenly sent to me for my personal benefit (as can be attested to by several members of this forum with whom I have worked out errors). At the same time, I have no intention of returning said funds to an incompetent non-communicator until a plan for remediation of this whole g0d-awful situation is outlined. So back way way off on your attempted moralizing until perhaps you have contributed to a planned solution. The funds that I received in error are a very tiny fraction of my hard eaned non scam assets sitting out of my reach with the incompetent.
A plan for remediation? He's currently processing the payment of balances and should afterward work on releasing assets data to issuers. The process is currently ongoing albeit slow. The same address used to receive your balance will be put together with everyone's info and assets balance and be sent to issuers. You'll be able to sign message with your BTC address to issuers which is a safe solution for proving ownership compared to the criticized claim codes used previously. There's not really any solution to further propose. I don't see how keeping the funds would help in anything, other than delaying the repayment of the other depositors. |
|
|
|
But that's the problem, it's GLBSE's users fund. He couldn't give that money to you because it never was his to start with. He was not the owner of those funds. Not quite.
I do however think it is important to establish the fact that doing so is not an indicator of criminality.
poor morals and character sure, but criminal, no way.
If you walk down the strip handing out all your money while drunk, later claiming the recipients stole from you makes no sense.
Your buddies might say, "man, how fucked up were you all drunk and playing santa, here is that fin back"...
but you shouldn't go to the cops and try to charge the homeless dude you also paid, with theft, for not giving it back.
It's more akin to handing a pack of bills to the wrong recipient or someone making you a payment and accidentally having an extra bill in it. He wasn't drunk and willingly giving it away and coming back saying "wait, I changed my mind, I was drunk, bad decision." Because in that example you gave, indeed you couldn't possibly expect to demand the money back as it was given to you willingly. But it's not what happened here, not counting it's not his funds on top of it. Really, it doesn't seem like something that would impact Nefario at all as his reputation is already ruined. It would however hurt other GLBSE users for which no money will be left to proceed with paying out the balance. |
|
|
|
You haven't brought any argument so far other that if someone hands you more cash than intended, you consider it perfectly okay to just keep it and not do anything about it because there was no prior agreement that you would return said fund backs. No contract to show, no way to force a chargeback, you keep it. Perfectly knowing there's too much and the funds are needed to pay others still awaiting there payment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ktvE2vfxSQ&t=1m25sNice quote right there eh |
|
|
|
Welcome to bitcoin.
Sent to address I control = mine. Period.
Need chargebacks, pay with creditcards.
If an agreement for my holding someone elses coin is in place, or I am to provide some value for an investment, etc - and failed to come through, sure I should be ostracized by the community.
But to say that keeping coins that magically appeared one night on my address with absolutely no agreement in place regarding the transaction, are not mine, is laughable.
Ohh, come on people. There is nothing to discuss here about returning the funds or not.
If people were appealing to others to return on strong morals and good character, I would agree there would be nothing to discuss. Unfortunately, people are making loaded statements and claiming that failure to return is "criminal" "scamming" "theft" etc I have made the case that it is not. While taking action to return the funds would be laudable. Taking no action at all should not be considered criminal, scamming, or theft You haven't brought any argument so far other that if someone hands you more cash than intended, you consider it perfectly okay to just keep it and not do anything about it because there was no prior agreement that you would return said fund backs. No contract to show, no way to force a chargeback, you keep it. Perfectly knowing there's too much and the funds are needed to pay others still awaiting there payment. If people were appealing to others to return on strong morals and good character, I would agree there would be nothing to discuss.
Well that's exactly what people here seems to be asking for. To return it on good faith because you know someone's else account needs those funds to be paid out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, for anyone reading this who has gotten a double payment, the return address is 1BgPRMk4uaJrohM1T9Cn4Hd9pHaEL6FH5j
It would be better to return the coins without me having to chase you for them.
About a month ago, the cashier at a restaurant I used to frequent regularly gave me $5 USD too much in change. I immediately bought the mistake to her attention, returning the fin because I like the establishment. Three days later, a cashier at KFC returned to me change which included an extra $10 USD. I nonchalantly pocketed the sawbuck and left the premises. Fuck them nefarious bastards who kill chickens, use some kind of secret herb and spices, have me pre-order, then make me wait in line for my meal. I have no fear of some KFC guy chasing me down to have me return ten bucks. In fact, if it were a hundred dollar mistake, I still wouldn't have a concern. And they're a global entity. I've even returned to the same franchise--twice--taunting them to ask me to return the money, but they have yet to take the bait. I'm willing to bet that they know, that I know, that they know something's afoot, but can put a chicken finger on it. Bottomline, Nefario, kindly ask for the overpayments to be returned, thanking all those who comply. The funds you don't get returned, eat it, continuing to refund those waiting, otherwise the chaser may become the chasee. ~Bruno K~ So depending on if you like the establishment, you'll keep extra change handed? The establishment can take it no problem, but that's really dishonest, especially for the employee who has nothing to do with the quality of the establishment. He just happen to work there and a non-balancing cash register will get him troubles. Especially when your argument is that you do that to them because they make "kill chicken & make you wait in line". It's a fast food. What did you expect? I don't see much value in your statement. You go somewhere on your own free will in a fast food and then avenge yourself for not liking the place because it's managed like you'd expect a fast food to be? Unless the employees were real jerks but you forgot to mention it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A thief asking to return his stolen money is like asking for "fucking respect".
If you deserve it, you will get it.
That's the thing, you can believe as much as you want that he's incompetent and be angry all you want about GLBSE's closure, in the end, he hasn't stolen those funds. He's trying to distribute them and accidentally rerun the script for the 90% payment. Those funds are needed to pay those who haven't been paid yet. Keeping the funds to do yourself your own justice for GLBSE closing down and making you wait? It's the funds of other depositors you'd be keeping. It's not harming Nefario at all, I don't think his reputation could sink lower around here. Only thing keeping the funds can achieve is depriving other depositors from getting their balance paid out. |
|
|
|
|
Well that's more like it. Demanding your account history or personal data along with an official request is perfectly fine to me before returning the double payment.
|
|
|
|
Should I return the full double payment, or take my 10% out of it?
Wouldn't it be better, to mail everyone who has gotten a double payment with a different address, so you can keep track of returned funds and who will get the 10% remaining?
Or will everyone get them no matter if he returns them and you just hope all people are honest (which the aren't).
I will return the funds, but I don't want to make you clusterfuck even worse (all returns in one address, some minus 10%, some full), so please send out a mail to all accounts with details.
Thank you.
I'd think Nefario's expecting the double payment in full and at this point has to trust everyone for their honesty. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, for anyone reading this who has gotten a double payment, the return address is 1BgPRMk4uaJrohM1T9Cn4Hd9pHaEL6FH5j
It would be better to return the coins without me having to chase you for them.
Lol. Without the threat (hypothetically, I didn't actually get paid, certainly not twice) I'd return them, but if he's going to be 'chasing' people I would use his coins to cover defense costs (running shoes?) since you are about as likely to get 'chased' if you pay or not, he doesn't know who sends coins to that address. No idea about that, but I don't think it was meant as a literal threat to chase you. Seems more like he meant it would be easier if people just returned it instead of him losing time and nagging everyone for the return of the BTC. Although without any voice tone, it's impossible to determinate. Poor communication there. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Its not that hard to find who has returned & who hasn't.
He has receivers or members bitcoin address.
Just have to compare it with their GLBSE account, if he sent 90% or 180%.
If its 180%, then i assume he will force them to repay by not returning the assets they have in their GLBSE account.
His only reply after ~20+ days, shows some what aggressive & commanding, instead of requesting or asking or begging.
Since he so far didn't repay any asset issuers their bitcoin, & his commanding reply, shows he has some plans.
Maybe he will just transfer all shares & bonds to LEGAL exchange (Bitcoinglobal).
Coz already, most of the asset issuers identity is known, they cant runaway from government to hide their money, if they do anything illegal in respect to assets they issued.
So for asset issuers, the choice will be transfer all the assets in to new LEGAL exchange & continue business or default assets or get back assets.
Asset issuers cant default, coz it will affect their reputation & future.
Also, getting back assets, will affect their reputation & future business & they loose bitcoins (thats why, he didn't repay them).
So, no good/other way, but go in Nefario's way.
He DID repay asset issuers their Bitcoins. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As for people suggesting to keep the overpayment as ransom until asset information is disclosed, I think that's exactly why asset information is not disclosed. He needs to process payments first before giving the address to issuers and issuers giving payments, otherwise it would get confusing if something is a payment from GLBSE or from an issuer. I'd also think like Chaang that it's plain wrong to hold on to something you know is not yours. Even if by now no one trusts Nefario. It belongs to other persons. At least return the 80% extra and keep 100%, sending from the address you provided to GLBSE, so Nefario knows how much you personally sent back. So long as it's from the same address, he'll know. A lot of people would be better off keeping the overpayment than being able to claim their now worthless shares/bonds from asset issuers so I wish him good luck with trying to get people to honour his request.
Nefario appears to have been taking customer relations lessons from Patrick Strateman.
As for that and others making such claims... plain wrong. Although I don't agree that the shares are now valueless, even if they were... you'd cut your loss by keeping other's balance and leaving others with nothing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Welcome to bitcoin.
Sent to address I control = mine. Period.
Need chargebacks, pay with creditcards.
If an agreement for my holding someone elses coin is in place, or I am to provide some value for an investment, etc - and failed to come through, sure I should be ostracized by the community.
But to say that keeping coins that magically appeared one night on my address with absolutely no agreement in place regarding the transaction, are not mine, is laughable.
If someone accidentally sent you too much money on a bank account you "control", although it's been sent in your possession, a good thing to do would be to return them. Everyone can make errors and if you'd want someone to return the same should you make a similar mistake... simple courtesy, even if according to your convictions, any money handed to you automatically becomes yours. Yes, although laws would say it would not be yours, people might consider things differently, which doesn't mean they'd have to be jerks about it and not notify/give back the extra someone would have mistakenly handed to them. We're all not happy about GLBSE closing down, but the vengeful approach taken by some for actions done by Nefario that are detrimental to other people that were on GLBSE is plain disgusting to me. Good to know who are taking a step on everyone and take the lifeboat for yourself approach when the ship is sinking. (P.S. Before someone counters by saying I don't get to say what's right and wrong. Yes you're free to have your own opinion of right and wrong. Just stating mine.) |
|
|
|
Okay, there was a screw up and a script seems to have been run twice. And yes, Nefario hasn't been communicative at all, at least not by mail/PM (and I'd be ready to bet he has thousands of emails by now each demanding their money.) And honestly, as soon as GLBSE was closed, I didn't expect much in term of communication with the ensuing flood. At least he's processing payments. As for shares, I doubt the info will start getting sent before everyone has been paid. Why? You provided a payment address. If issuers knew your address, you wouldn't be able to distinguish between GLBSE's payment and issuer's payments. Which doesn't mean it's not going to be released soon. Hopefully everything will be processed within a few weeks. Isn't it necessary to fill out some complicated, intrusive forms and submit copies of your ID to someone you barely know in some other country before waiting a few weeks to receive a refund? I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
That requirement was completely removed. You can log in to GLBSE and simply provide an email + BTC address. |
|
|
|
If I may, I suggest a table be built and maintained in OP something like:
Username \t BTC expected \t BTC received \t Transaction ID(s)
Noted and done. |
|
|
|
I still havent been paid out yet and I got that email this morning, any ideas as to why not?
Not sure. What payment address did you provide? Maybe your client is not yet synced with the newest blocks and as such doesn't show the transactions. I hadn't run my own client for a while when GLBSE closed out and had to sync up. I hadn't realized my firewall was blocking Bitcoin-QT and I didn't notice the client wasn't syncing. When I realized it, I changed the firewall setting and sure enough, I had already been paid. The address you gave might also have been wrong. Plenty of other reasons you might not see the payment. You might still have been paid. I am running the 0.7.0 version of QT bitcoin client and have the most recent block as of 8 minutes ago. I submitted 1Q6eEfU6KGAA2WncmyWYjJCXq7HXGunsis as my address which if you see here http://blockchain.info/address/1Q6eEfU6KGAA2WncmyWYjJCXq7HXGunsisworks perfectly fine. I disabled all firewalls and restarted the btc client and still nothing. If the problem was with my client the payment would show up in the blockchain but it hasn't yet. So do you have any other ideas of what I should try? Well, I'm puzzled. I heard many received the email hours after receiving their payments. Maybe it wasn't meant to be sent until everyone was paid out, but it accidentally got sent? I wouldn't be surprised by that either. |
|
|
|
I still havent been paid out yet and I got that email this morning, any ideas as to why not?
Not sure. What payment address did you provide? Maybe your client is not yet synced with the newest blocks and as such doesn't show the transactions. I hadn't run my own client for a while when GLBSE closed out and had to sync up. I hadn't realized my firewall was blocking Bitcoin-QT and I didn't notice the client wasn't syncing. When I realized it, I changed the firewall setting and sure enough, I had already been paid. The address you gave might also have been wrong. Plenty of other reasons you might not see the payment. You might still have been paid. |
|
|
|
Got this email:
Your GLBSE account has been partially processed. 90% of your funds have been returned to you with this payment. Once we recieve (yes, GLBSE doesn't even know how to spell receive) the remaining funds from our treasurer and secretary the final payment will be made and you will be informed. We will also inform you when we process your assets, allowing you to continue your relationship with your issuer.
Also @Namworld, what will happen to my share of BTC-MINING?
Well hopefully they keep working this through and get a list of asset holders sent out. GLBSE removed AML requirements so anyone can login and give their BTC address. Will be much safer than claim codes and holders will be able to sign with their BTC address when making requests (buy/selling back assets, getting them traded on another platform or anything else) |
|
|
|
What does that prove?
If I want to claim I've received some funds I can just lookup any transaction in the blockchain and post it here.
I don't know myself, but many insist on having it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
