Both scenarios would be considered fraud.

I don't see what this has to do with your identity.  If Cryptostocks collapses the same way GLBSE did, then you might still lose your funds whether they have your true name or not.  You need to make clear to the investors if should be held liable in the event that your fund is able to trade on cryptostocks or not.  Giving your identity to someone is allowing people an ability to find you in the event that you are pulling a scam.  You need to allow the possibility that if you screw up and are liable for the funds that your identity could be exposed.

Show me the legal documents that gives them limited liability, otherwise anyone in the partnership has unlimited liability.  This ridiculous concept about limited liability in make believe companies needs to stop.  If one partner cannot complete their duties it is the responsibilities of the remaining partners to fulfill the contract they signed with other people.  Lets say a person purchased a house with their spouse using a mortgage that they both signed for and then later got divorce.  If the person that got the deed to the house stops paying the mortgage then both parties that signed the contract will be declared in default.  The bank is not going to ask for only half the mortgage from one of the spouses.  They are going to expect 100% payment.

He should cite Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club.

Like in most other sciences, most people don't understand evolutionary theory.  People feel these concepts are easy to understand, but scientists devote a significant amount of their lives to understand these things, and most of the time they are wrong.  If you ask people's opinion of theoretical quantum physics and most people will say "oh I don't understand that stuff."  If you ask them their opinion about climate change or evolution, then they have the answer.

It pisses me off these ignorant people that claim they can understand these complex topics and yet have no idea how to run a statistical test.  They post links to articles that they them self could never reproduce.  "Hey this paper is peer-reviewed, and it says that XXX is not true."  Wow, now can you explain each statistical test of their data that they did?  Did they remove any data points, if so why?

I once met a guy that asked what I do.  I told him I was an evolutionary biologist.  This guy had the nerve to tell me, "Oh I read this book by this scientist, Dr. Bebe, that said evolution was not real."

My reply was, "Wow, that is interesting, what do you do for a living?"

He said, "I am a musician."

"You know music doesn't exist, right, it is just noise in the air?"



While I sympathize with the person that said this, nevertheless, it is a very incorrect statement.  Darwin didn't prove anything.  He laid out a hypothesis with evidence based on morphological data.  He had no idea what hereditary factors that was required.  A few decades later biologists and statisticians combined Mendel and Darwin's theories which now allowed for a genetic ability for change.

This is what is wrong with trying to educate non-scientists.  They have a preconceived bias and they read other reports that fulfill this bias.  There is a deeper reason why people take beliefs and it has nothing to do with the scientific method.  It is based on emotion.

Darwin's theory was not enough though because biologists did not understand the concept of mutation.  The true hero of evolution is Motoo Kimura who developed the neutral theory of evolution that proved mathematically that most changes at the DNA level is have neutral effects.  Unlike Darwin that said that these characteristics of living systems arise due to their beneficial nature.  Kimura, on the other hand, explained that these characteristics arose because of neutral mutations and genetic drift.  Genetic drift is the change in gene frequencies overtime due to random sampling.

What is important about Kimura's theory is that it allows for the possibility of Darwin's theory to be tested.  Before, Darwin's theory was just a proof-in-concept.  It was just an idea that had never been tested.  It would be like if the bitcoin white paper was published 100 years ago.  Sure the concept could work, but no one could make it work because we didn't have the necessary tools to make it work.  Kimura's theory now allowed evolutionary adaptation to be a testable hypothesis.  For example of some tests that allow for this see the the McDonald-Kreitman test and the Ka/Ks ratio.

Exactly what I was thinking and if this person claims they are not technical with a computer then they would likely not be using a VPN or Tor.

As for tracking an IP address through Skype, the most you are likely going to get is the last Skype server that connects to you.  It will not give you some kind of trace route.  Instead when you talk to these people in the future, send them a link to a website with a picture of Trendon.  Say something like, "can you confirm the person at this link is Trendon Shavers."  Then have the server record their external IP address.

They should publish the reviewers' comments to the manuscript.

How about starting with the people that run Cryptostocks?  You trust them enough to set up shop there.

Wow, this is the worse journal club meeting I have ever attended.

Most likely it was Trendon himself spreading disinformation.  Where you able to obtain the ip addresses of the people you were corresponding with?

What is going on with this?  I have not used BitFunder yet so I don't know.  Often I will purchase a lot of shares and just put my max price.  Will BitFunder just purchase all the shares at the max price I set and the exchange keep the difference from the sell offer?

You will never get that in this forum.

To instill confidence to potential investors, you should give your personal information to an escrow agent and allow them to verify your identity and act as an auditor of your actual accounts on the brokerage.  Then if you run with your client's money, the escrow agent can release your personal identification to the world.

Gross dude.  I created the asset.  You really confused me with Atlas?

Anyway, I could feel the impending doom of GLBSE with Nefario's erratic behavior.  For my personal funds I sold off most of my shares that I had in other securities.  For my USD asset I closed up shop as per the instructions in the contract and gave a week notice in the forums.  There was no objection to closing it down.  I only received one comment of praise.  It was either October 1 or 2 that I purchased back all shares at the MtGox spot exchange rate at on GLBSE.  I then closed the USD security and closed the threads.  Unfortunately, Nefario closed GLBSE on October 4, 2012 so the funds from the buyback was only there for a short period of time for former USD holders to extract their funds from GLBSE.

Check with Nefario to make sure you got all your bitcoins back from the buyback of USD.  I received an asset list from Nefario showing there were no outstanding holders of USD funds when GLBSE closed.

---

All shares were repurchased back (Oct. 1, 2012) prior to the shutdown of GLBSE as per instructions of the contract.  Check with Nefario to see that you get all your bitcoins back.

As per the USD contract:


I received a list of all asset holders from Nefario that states that there were no outstanding shares held prior to the collapse of GLBSE.

Below is the email I received from Nefario on October 1, 2012:


Later I informed Nefario:


[Edited for privacy]  If you were one of the lucky ones to receive bitcoins back from Nefario, I would check your accounting books.  Otherwise, you should contact Nefario to see where your bitcoins are.

What state is bitcointalk.org incorporated under to get non-profit status?

True Names?

Truthfully, I don't believe a scammer tag should be issued until some acceptable standards are created.  Traditionally, a scammer tag has only been issued to those that are clearly purported a fraudulent activity for economic gain.  I am all for giving scammer tags to people that mismanage their bitcoin businesses and refuse to take personal responsibilities for the liabilities due to their incompetence, but this standard needs to be clearly established by the bitcointalk moderators and not handed in an unjust and schizophrenic manner.

While I can't defend usagi's management of CPA, NYAN, or his other business, I can vouch that he keeps his word.  I had a middleman dealings with usagi about a logo project and he fulfilled his end of the contract just fine.  As payment for the services usagi offered me shares in CPA but I declined because of his overly defensive attitude when confronted by questionable business practices.  I feel that usagi's response should have been more professional and from this attitude he will get unprofessional attacks.  I know in the bitcoinland climate that scams happen very often and many people ferociously attack any potential scammer, but I think some of the accusations toward usagi were overly aggressive.  I think a better response to mismanagement is to be a teacher rather than an accuser.  Teach someone how to correctly calculate the value of a fund.  I would agree with people that some people should not run funds or business, but this whole thing is a big experiment.

I do not think mismanagement should be deemed a scammer in this situation as it has not been done in the past.  Zhoutong and many others have not been given a scammer tag for mismanagement.  I do think mismangement is a potential liability, but that should be worked out with the parties that lost value due to mismanagement. 

One problem that I feel is wrong with the scammer forum is that administrators of this forum have already made it clear that a scammer tag will not be given to people that deny liability after the fact when something goes wrong.  Also, I also don't think there should be a single decider of who is or is not a scammer.  Mediation between the accuser and the accused is fine with one person, but that person needs to be unbiased and have not potential gain from the outcomes of mediation.

Furthermore, the reason why there is so many post about if usagi should get a scammer tag or not is because there is no clear rules on who should or who shouldn't be given a scammer tag.  There is also no consistency on who gets one and who does not.  If the scammer tag is not just applied to obvious scammers like pirateat40 but to anyone, even if they make a mistake but won't accept liability, then I think the scammer tag will be more beneficial to the bitcoin ecosystem.  A scammer tag can always be removed once the liability is cleared by the tagged scammer.  This means that a scammer tag would be applied to anyone that commits obvious fraud, mismanages a company, violates their own terms of service, or anyone that might behave in an unacceptable manner.  The important thing is that the decision to tag a scammer is done in a way that is just and follows acceptable procedures.  Since there are no acceptable procedures now, you get the cluster fuck that we see today.

A better way a scam accusation procedure could be done is that a group of people volunteer to be a pool to randomly select a mediator and/or deciders of a scamming judgement.  The accuser would contact the scamming moderators and make their accusation.  The scamming administrators would then select a mediator who would then randomly select the volunteers from the pool to decide if the accused gets a scammer tag and what would can be done to avoid or remove the tag.  The mediator would allow for public posting of the accusation and would decide if information by the accuser or the accused should be included in the discussion.  The deciders then get to discuss the scam accusation privately and come to a decision.  While the pool of volunteers is known, the ones that are randomly selected should be kept confidential.

So the moral of the story is that there needs to be 3rd party auditors.