I think you are confusing asset risk with exchange risk.  If the asset is legit and the issuer still making payments delisting simply means the asset is removed from the exchange.  Shareholders will buy or sell depending on if they consider holding the asset to be worth the complexity of manual (off exchange) reconciliation.

If the asset is worthless scammer garbage and the asset issuer has no intention on repaying then it doesn't really matter if it remains listed or not.  It seems either you didn't think this through or your objection can be boiled down to "if it is delisted I won't be able to pawn this worthless asset on some sucker".  I don't think it is the job of the exchange to ensure you can sell something you own that is worthless for something.

That being said the way in which GLBSE handled the delisting was completely unprofessional.  No clear reason was given.  No timeline.  No notification to stakeholders.  Just "BLAM" we/I decided so it is gone.  Buisiness is all about taking calculated risks and Nefario actions over the last couple weeks have shown there is significant exchange risk, probably higher than many suspected.

For alternate players in the space NOW would be a good time to put policies in writing.  Black and white.  When/why/how are assets suspended.  when/why/how are assets delisted.  If you are a competitor to GLBSE and offer less exchange risk then you have a competitive advantage.  However simply being "not GLBSE" and not having yet suspended/delisted an asset isn't an advantage, it is simply another unknown.

You really think BFL can deliver 25TH/s on "day 0".  Given their track record?  Hardly.  Try doing the same thing but make the 25TH/s spaced out over the course of a month. 

I see you are unwilling to state how many shares you owned.  You believing 1 fake or real share of GLBSE is worth 21,000,001 BTC doesn't make it so.  Your belief on what is is worth is irrelevant.

Wait WTF is going on?  The rules say 1 SLOT MAX period.  Why are the last 2 posts both bidding on 2+ slots.

I don't think he called you a scammer.  You are a liability (but then again so is Nefario).  You let tantrums, and games get in the way of profits and business.  You have no common sense, no ability to reach equitable solutions in a dispute, and no real ethics.  Anyone doing business with you WILL LOSE eventually.  That doesn't make you a scammer, it just makes you a liability to be avoided at all cost.

Be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

"I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC."
Your subjective value is irreverent.  No court of law would consider that.  If you had 100 shares and they were legit then they would only be 0.13% "part owner".  The idea that you had some massive loss of equity (believed or otherwise) is laughable.

The facts:
you owned X shares.
if real those shares are worth ~0.3 BTC.
you were offered 0.1 BTC per share.
you have already profited ~30 BTC.
At best your "loss" is negligible and most likely you profited from the entire experience.

So be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

The value of real shares is ~0.3 BTC ea.  You could buy some right now.  It would require approval from other shareholders.  Approval you likely will never get because you are a giant liability to any business you have contact with.   The fake shares can't have value higher than real shares.

So how many fake shares do you own?  My guess is you won't answer because you know you have suffered no loss.  You could be a shareholder of GLBSE right now but YOUR own actions, not Nefario's have closed that door (likely forever).  Any owner would have to be brain dead to bring your tantrums and drama into a business.

Goat had no losses (only profit) from the "fake GLBSE" debacle.  You keep talking about losses (multiple times in multiple threads).  Where do you get this silly idea that Goat "lost" anything?  He bought a handful of share he knew were fake for 0.05 BTC ea and sold at least 3 for 31 BTC and was given the option to redeem the rest for 0.1 BTC.  What loss did he incur? 

However I do agree that this has damaged GLBSE.  I will never offer a security on that site under any conditions.  The "we do what we want when we want" is too much of a counterparty risk.    If GLBSE wanted the ability to delist it should have been setup that way from the start.  If they wanted to add it they should have done so in a manner which didn't harm issuers and shareholders.

Exactly.  While it isn't absolute proof the lack of photos, benchmarks, pool hashrate at this point makes the deadline seem implausible.  When you look at BFL history and inability to meet deadlines I think January is possible but on the optimistic side.  To be cautious I would leave it at "Q1 2013".

.37500001

What losses?

He has profited.

USB is 5V and max current is 0.5A = 2.5W per port.
Dual USB ports = 5 watts.  
Laptop CD ROM drives have been doing that trick for years.

It would be unfair because it is changing the rules after the fact.  Essentially the first "post ex facto" rule for Bitcoin.

It also creates a horrible precedent.  Once you show that you can get away with changing the rules to 99 years their will always be pressure from others to change them further.  Why 99 years?  In some years when after a decade or so there are x million unmoved coins there will be pressure to change it to 50 years or 20 years or even 1 year.  There will be pressure to raise the cap, to change the distribution amount ("isn't it also unfair that 75% of all coins were mined in the first 8 years). 

The end result would be a banking elite who can change the minting or deminting rate so that growth and contraction of the money can optimally match the estimated growth or contraction of the Bitcoin economy.  Sound familiar?

Some of us feel it is immoral to take what isn't yours when the social contract between members is that tx are irreversible and that includes if I want to move my coins to an offline wallet for 100 years I can.  Any change violates that social contract and it is a slipperly slope.  Still to change it when it doesn't even need changing makes it even worse.  It shows future generations that the social contract means nothing and Bitcoin can be changed for small or trivial reasons.

If your random "source" comes from nodes it will be manipulated.  One could simply design a node which never loses.  There is no such thing as "the network" it is a network of individual nodes.

tx can't be modified because the exact tx is signed by the sender and that signature is only valid for the exact tx sent.  Even if you could modify the message your method would be trivial to defeat.  The attacker would simply only relay the tx to nodes under his control and thus control the number of binary "flips".

When building any system using the bitcoin network you should assume everything you receive is from malicious nodes and thus is untrusted until verified.

Your fraud is going to be much more than 3%.  I would plan for 15% (and probably 20%+ is more likely).  Also your discount rate isn't going to be 6%.  Once your chargeback rate exceeds a few % they will either drop you or jack the rate to 10% plus.  Chargebacks are going to be $35 on top of the complete loss.  So if your average loss is 10 BTC ~$120 you can count on chargebacks adding another 15%*($35/$120) = 4%.

So planning on 10% markup is a good way to get raped.  15% + 10% + 4% +5% (profit) =  ~35% markup.  Honestly you will still crash and burn and end up owing your processor a small fortune but 35% is more realistic than 10%.  The problem is a single organized attack could easily be hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent orders.  You won't even notice until the next month (when they all reverse leaving you tens of thousands of dollars short).

0.37

Why?  You think he was just going to pay everyone in full tomorrow except oops he is going to jail so he can't.

He wasn't ever going to pay anything.  Either he can't be (because he stupidly lost it) or he wasn't because he figured he got away with your cash.

He is scammer, thief garbage.  We aren't talking a couple GPUs here but millions of dollars.

stochastic,

Please read the instructions for the public report filing in TX.  

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxforms/05-396.pdf

Page 11

Not sure what your rebutal was.  

You do understand that LLC are broken into two structure types.
* Manager managed (where members elect a manager much like shareholders elect officers in a corporation)
* Member managed (where all members have executive authority much like a partnership).

I clearly said that only member-managed LLC require reporting the members, which is a correct statement. What exactly were you trying to rebut?

Even in TX (your "it is public records" example state):
In a manager managed LLC no members information is reported.  
In a coproration no shareholder information is reported.  

So how exactly do you get the owner info with a quick phonecall or email?
How do you get what the state doesn't even have?

As for "legal code 13.1-1028 Section A" once again you only have part of the answer (which seems to be your continually problem):

The company (not the state) needs to keep those records.   So how do you get confidential company information "easily" from "public records" (your two false claims) when the state doesn't even have the info to give you.


When did I say it was IMPOSSIBLE under any possible circumstances to ever obtain information on company owners?  Way to move the goal post.  Your claims were 1) that it is public information and 2) that it is easy to obtain.  A subpoena isn't "easy" and there is no legal authority to demand that information without cause.   Go ahead subpoena that information and watch it get quashed.  A judge "could" compel a company to divulge that information.   However no judge is going to grant a court order simply because someone on the internets wants to know.   There has to be a compelling reason (like piercing the corporate veil, instances of securities fraud, embezzlement, etc).  

So once again not sure what your point was?  I feel we have gone round in circles and your new position is my original position.

I said (paraphrased):
* owner information isn't publicly available
* it will require a court order
* you will need to show the court why you should have that private information

You said (paraphrased)
* owner info is publicly available -
* you just need to ask the state.
* it is easy to get

 So once again what was your point?

They are no longer listed or tradeable on the exchange.  They can be "traded" off the exchange by using the transfer function (transfer assets from one account to another account).