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.  Now I am not saying a contract on GLBSE needs to be 18 pages.  It might not even need to be more than a page but it should cover all major aspects of the operation. 

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. While that is fine but GLBSE is never going to grow beyond its current state unless people can trust larger sums will be handled in an equitable manner.  To do that requires putting more details explicitly in the contract and not left up to assumption.

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. 

Let me simplify it for you.

Buying lottery ticket =/= investment.
Buying lottery ticket = gambling.
gambling =/= investment.

If you think of a lottery ticket as an investment well that explains a lot...

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.

I do agree in general that if Nefario wants to tighten up standards it will need to be done forward looking.  Simply forcing changes on existing contracts shows a lack of respect for the property rights of others (both asset issuer and shareholders).

People have "made money" buying lottery tickets too but nobody would be foolish enough to think an investment system based on buying lots of lottery tickets each week is +EV.

Well APMEX shipped me $20,000 in silver by ..... insured Registered mail. <GASP>. Seeing as they are the world's largest precious metals dealer I think they AND the USPS regs hold more weight then your claim backed my nothing.  No cite, no reference, no expert opinion. 

If shipping by anything other than Registered Mail you would be correct.  That is why registered mail exists.

You got to read the RIGHT print.  That is for express mail.  USPS doesn't insure gold, jewelry, cash, or other negotiable assets (even giftcards) unless shipped by REGISTERED MAIL.

Quoting the regs for Express mail to "debunk" a statement about Registered mail is well silly.

Per the same link:

AHEM. 

http://faq.usps.com/eCustomer/iq/usps/request.do?create=kb:USPSFAQ&view()=c%5Bc_usps04233%5D&varset(source)=sourceType:embedded#Can


You can repeat false statements as much as you want but it doesn't magically make it true.

USPS will insure bullion, $100,000 bearer bonds, even bags of cash (yes literally USPS will insure a bag of cash being shipped) but ..... IT MUST BE SHIPPED REGISTERED MAIL.  This requires taking the item to the post office with package unsealed, and declaring contents, and USPS worker will seal it in your sight.  There will exist an unbroken chain of custody from every employee who has transfers ownership of the package (i.e. USPS knows exactly who to arrest when the item goes missing).

1) All the coins will not be mined until 2130.  If Bitcoin gained even 1% of the marketshare of gold the nominal value of even a 0.1 BTC block reward would be significant. 

2) Even if Bitcoin is primarily used for a store of wealth there will always be those looking to trade in and out, swap stored wealth for highly liquid fiat and the reverse.  Look at gold as an example.  Almost nobody uses gold for trade but gold is traded quite heavily around the world.

3) Merged mining still remains possible and an effective method to secure alt-chains.  Transaction revenue from alt-chains is currently negligible but over a long enough timeline it is in theory possible for an alt-chain to generate more revenue than the primary chain (Bitcoin).

It really depends on how much you want to lock it down.  One option would be to make the withdraw screen only allow withdraws from a predesignated set of addresses.  Adding an address require a 2factor check and a time delay.  User could also be notified and sent an SMS with the address being added.  That way an attacker would be unable to substitute the withdraw address as the user at time of withdraw is limited to a pre-validated list of addresses.

Another simpler option would be to delay withdraws by say 15 minutes and send the user an SMS message with the address.  If user notices the address is invalid they could cancel the withdraw within the 15 minutes period.


BTW: I have no idea what firepop is saying.  He miss to miss the entire point.  The method of 2 factor isn't what matters.  A voice 2factor service is no more secure than a TOTP.  It is HOW it it used.

Same way you increment anything.

coinbase = coinbase +1

bounty?

I agree a plan in writing would be a good idea at this point. 
Still keeping the balance up and keeping it locked is a good sign IMHO.

I hope Roman includes an option to transfer the debt balance between accounts.  Those who are willing to get paid over time you buy the debts of those who want "something" right now.  Essentially a market (even if just in forum) could form based on based on the repayment likelihood & rate.

Not sure how it is a problem.  Mother sends $10.01 (BTC equivelent) to her son and he receives $10.00.  What exactly is the problem?

Still even if you think it is a problem it already is solved: don't pay a transaction fee.

Of course miners may not include it in the next block.  Every miner has the right to choose which tx to include in the next block.  If a single miner on the planet is willing to process your tx for charity well it eventually will be included in a block.

The network has a real cost though something has to pay for it.   You could "hide" the fee by simply never reducing the block reward but that is merely a transfer of wealth via inflation.   While you don't pay a fee your 1 BTC buys less and a miner gets to produce more BTC.

I would point out cash isn't free.  Not for any business.  We pay $0.30 per $100 to process cash.  Businesses which need an armored car service roughly 5x as much.  It is simply a hidden fee.  So while you handing a merchant $1,000 might not result in a $3.00 added to the bill it is included in the cost of doing business and thus prices are ~0.3% higher.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be free (as in free beer not free speech).  It was intended to be free.  It simply needs to be competitive with other options.

As others have pointed out BFL used BitPay but lets pretend for a second they didn't.  What makes you think they wouldn't have just sold the $1.2M in BTC as the preorders came in.  Why would they hoard them up for 6-8 months risking massive price swings and then dump them all on the market all at once to crash the market (and reduce the value of the orders they collected)?

How about we call it TradeFortress retirement fund?

The issue with these types of setups is they really only have value if they are massive.  If 99% of users aren't using the system those advantages don't do a whole lot for the 1% of the time both sender and receiver are on the network.  If the system becomes massive usually there is some "hack" and the operator ends up a couple million richer.

The fee IS part of the generation tx.  The difference of the sum of inputs and sum of outputs of all tx in the block is added to the current block subsidy to form the block reward.  


As for "coin-melting" being silly.  If there was enough demand I am sure some botnets or some large hashing farms would be happy to "coin-melt" your blacklisted coins for a cut of the profits.  I mean blacklisting is going nowhere (just like it didn't the 99 times in the past it was proposed) and the OP is delusional but for the sake of the argument lets pretend it existed and was ironclad.   So as a thief if you could have 24,000 BTC which were completely unspendable and worthless or 12,000 BTC in brand new generated coins which would you pick?  Where would the other 50% go?   How about send 10% to random addresses to taint their existing coins (and add a hell of a lot of noise to any blacklist system), send another 15% as fees in random txs to be picked up by legit miners (every pool on the planet would be "polluted" with coinbase tx which include blacklisted fees, the last 25% goes as a fee/bonus (no top of normal block rewards) for the coin-melting private farm and/or botnet.  

Your only mistake was in thinking you had enough IQ to pull off a scam.  I can't recall anyone ever (in any scenario) accidentally sending someone another person's ID.  Just like a bank robber who trips getting out of his car and manages to knock himself unconscious in the parking lot will likely avoid a conviction for bank robbery, you are such a pathetically bad scammer that you may avoid a scammer tag.  Still please don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming it a mistake that anyone would do.  

Almost nobody except a mentally challenged scammer would do that.

Yes difficulty and hashrate are directly linear.  Also technically the current exact hashrate is never known.  It is simply estimated from difficulty and the average rate of block generation.