Trying not to enjoy the lulz...and having some trouble...

But certainly the defunct GLBSE will have retained top talent to design a secure repository for this data.  Like Bitcoin Consultancy or something.  So what could go wrong?

Ultimately I would like to see a situation where each 'self sufficient community', and other bodies who have something of potential value, issue their own crypto-currency.  If the organization is managed well (including how it's currency solution is implemented and maintained) then it's monetary system prospers and the members who make up the organization benefit.

I hope that Bitcoin offers something of a proof of concept to inspire movement toward the aforementioned scenario, but have to admit that things could be somewhat prettier than what we are seeing in Bitcoin-land these days.  Oh well.

That's conjecture, not fact as stated.  In fairness though it is not completely outside the range of reason.

I would expect someone who was a party to the sale to come forward with information about how disingenuous and deceptive ~theymos was if that were the case.  Still waiting so it well could be the case that potential serious buyers (if any) were completely comfortable with the legal status of the asset and any negotiations were considered straight by the effected parties.  Even if not, I've tended to consider the scammer tag to apply to people who invent schemes with pre-formed intentions of ripping people of, this event probably would not qualify as such.  For that matter it's debatable whether ~nefario's various exploits do either.

I still think there should be a tag for general plonkers who clearly cost people money even if it is not totally clear whether they are full-on scammers or just incompetent boobs.  Bitcoin Consultancy, fr'instance.

All of these issues have been dealt with effectively in the past so I don't see them as show-stoppers in the future.

I must say that I think it more probable that the future looks a bit more controlled than some sort of Mad Max world, so much of the (legitimate) concerns about physical security and such are not so significant.  But if we did happen to fall into the abyss I would rather take my chances with PM's than any other vehicle, and that includes Bitcoin.  With either Bitcoin or PM's one will have to ratchet up the amount of technical skill and effort required to protect their position to meet whatever threat level develops.  Difficult maybe, but not impossible.  At least not for everyone.  My guess is that far more people would have the native ability required to deal with PM's than they would with Bitcoin (in fringe scenarios that is.)

Firstly, in terms of a current crisis, I don't really think so.  The world works more or less the same way it has during the current cycle.  There are a mass of structures holding things together (e.g., derivitives) and the situation is tenuous, but things are much more like pre-crisis than they will be like post-crisis I suspect.  That said, I don't rule out the can being kicked down the road for decades.  Nor do I rule out things imploding tomorrow.  I agree that things will probably play out differently than most people suspect...including both you and I.

I continue to strongly believe that it is prudent to diversify, and prudent to prefer vehicles with limited counter-party risk.  I still cannot fathom anyone ruling out the likelyhood that PM's will remain a key bedrock store of value and that they will almost certainly have utility as an exchange vehicle in almost any plausible scenerio.  It may be risky to life and limb to own and use them, but that is not an argument I've heard you, or almost anyone else, make.

Of this I have not doubt.  I hope to recognize it and intend to bail prior if I can.  At this point I see nothing changing in the fundamentals which have launched PM's to multi-fold increases in values...at least values against other alternatives.  On top of that a good deal of my interest in having a PM position is associated with concerns about a monetary crisis in the fiat landscape of my locale, and these concerns are as strong as ever.

I don't think you, or almost anyone else for that matter, has the anything near the power it would take to shake PM's out of my tree.  (Jim Sinclair is about the only individual who would cause me to break stride and he has stated fairly recently that it is his mission to make such a call if/when the time comes.)  But if you have fun trying than by all means carry on.  Fun for everyone.

I've stated this theorem before but...

I feel that the general solution that Bitcoin provides is of high enough universal value so that each BTC could command a rarely dreamed of value.  Thus, a few bucks worth of BTC could be plenty to capitalize (a 'foot in the door' if you will.)  BUT there are a lot of things that could stand in the way of Bitcoin 'taking off'.

I've always considered my speculation in Bitcoin to be one of likely total loss, but with an outside possiblity of incredible gain.  Probably anyone interested enough to be on the forum at all would do well to get a bit of Bitcoin before losing interest and wandering off just in case.  Just don't lose the secret key...

I personally have a non-trivial amount of USD converted to BTC, but this fairly strong position has as much to do with political factors as it does speculation.  It'll be mostly an 'accident of fate', if Bitcoin 'goes a little' and I do OK by virtue of my overly strong position.

I looked at some a few weeks ago to see if I could confirm or deny the assertion that he was some sort of hard-core Libertarian.  As best I could determine he was mostly focused on technical matters, at least in the text that is captured on the current forum.  The most interesting thing I found was a fairly strong desire to avoid Wikileaks, though it was stated as a concern for the health of the nascent crypto-currency solution rather than any particular political bent.

I didn't recognize a particular match with any current member, though my pattern matching skills in this area are probably sub-average.  I do feel it more than likely that the primary person behind the initial Bitcoin development would continue to have enough of an interest to remain at least occasionally involved.  Whether he would waste his time on this forum is less of a certainty.

I'm still holding out for a chance to get my next purchase in in the mid $1.xx's.  Although entirely possible, it does not seem imminent enough to me at this point to risk any funds sitting at an exchange.

It is also quite possible that we get on a ramp up that never really turns around and anyone waiting for a bargain will be left out.  It would suck big-time to have known of Bitcoin but have failed to get a foot in the door anyway.  If Bitcoin takes off, that is.

You are in good company.  Lotsa people do.  Of course lots of people also saw one in 2003, 2006, 2008, etc, etc.  I remember...I was there.  Remember vaguely that is.  There have been so many tops called that they sort of run together for me and I never paid much attention to any of them...happily.

I think we have a classic case of 'not seeing the forest for the trees' here.  I suggest you zoom out some.

Checking back today, I don't yet see anyone who felt victimized by Theymos's sale/brokering of the highly damaged assets.

I also note that the price projected was high enough to suggest that a buyer would be doing due dilligence and taking some time understanding the nature, structure, and personalities involved in the endeavor, and this would take some time.  (...though it's hardly a certainty given that this is Bitcoin related... )  Point is, the sale was unlikely to be successful if GLBSE collapsed as it did suggesting that Theymos didn't see it coming in the rapid form that it took.

Scam?  I still don't know.  Would I be extra cautious buying something from or doing business with Theymos?  Damn straight!

You've stated several of the elements of the solution I'm thinking about.

I don't think that a solution which tries to achieve perfection in making a wrong'd party whole will be very tenable.  I do, however, see a great value in making it likely that a scammer will lose, and that is a much easier problem to solve.  Simply removing much of the potential to make money from scamming would go a long ways toward cleaning things up and making it a safer place for normal users to participate in.  I would dearly love to be able to buy things with Bitcoin with something vaguely approaching the assurance I have with e-bay/pay-pal.

I just registered 'daprae.[org|com]' to incentivize myself to put some effort into documenting and perhaps coding some proof of concept stuff now that the weather in my locale is getting shitty.  Stands for: 'Distributed Anonymous Peer Rating, Adjudication, and Escrow.'

I don't think that would be to big a deal really.  A fair amount of money may change hands, but it seems to me like the losers would be relatively few in number and somewhat un-loved to boot.  That is to say, a lot of people (including myself) would feel perhaps some amount of sympathy but also very much that the losers had it coming.

The biggie would be if Mt. Gox packed it in.  Fortunately Mark gives every indication of seeming resistant to such a temptation.  OTOH, it is hard to predict the type of pressure that may come up.

A good selling point for an exchange (and any business which held customer's value) would be a functional 'SCRAM' system whereby with the tap of one big red button, all value would be immediately returned to customer's addys and cleanup could proceed from that state.

Gotta call it as I see it:

1) I've always appreciated how both Theymos and Mt. Gox have managed this forum.  I've had my complaints, but they could do much much worse and their performance speaks well of them (imo.)

2)  Theymos's attempted sale of the shares (in my limited observation of it) seemed pretty unsightly and even more so as the organization disintegrated not long after.  Scammy?  Very possibly, again in my limited observation.  There was not a snowball's chance in hell that I would have had anything to do with the shares, but if I had bought them I certainly would have felt highly scammed.

Real integrity on the part of any stake-holders would have been to take their lumps and losses on the GLBSE thing.  After all everyone knows that nobody should do anything with Bitcoin that they cannot afford to walk away from, and further, the initial outlay (in money terms) was probably much less then the hoped for sale value.  Also, it should have been clear to any participant that GLBSE (and many Bitcoin related enterprises) are very similar to walking out as far onto the thin ice as possible and probably in part for the sheer thrill of it...which is even more of a reason to take the fall rather than to try to get someone else to do it.

Seems that at least one person entertained some thought of buying the theymos+ stake.  I do believe that consideration of the scammer tag should be taken seriously and discussed seriously, and any participants in the (aborted?) sale should provide their valuable input.  I do hope that consensus (of those honestly weighing things) comes out negative.

It is a bit of a conundrum that certain of what 'the law' does is fairly valuable.  That is, when they give people who are exploiting others (e.g., 'scamming') a hard time, it is difficult to feel to bad about things.  That said, 'the law' is already failing miserably to deal with real criminals such as our untouchable wall street folks and is on a very negative trajectory so it cannot be counted on even if it were tempting to try.

I think that there is significant value in solutions which facilitate self-policing.  Even in our rather questionable community as it stands today, a notably majority of interested persons probably do have the posture of 'good participants' and that this reality might be leverages for the benefit of distributed crypto-accounting solutions generally.  I've been putting a lot of thought into how such a thing might be achieved lately and hopefully will have something to present in a few weeks.

I suspect that up until recently anyone who communicated a hypothesis that GLBSE could be pressured into submission would have been roundly attacked as a paranoid retard who didn't understand the power of the Internet.  In fact I would not be surprised if I could find some good examples vis-a-vis GLBSE itself if I were not to lazy to try.

The thing which bothers me is that the robustness of a lot of Bitcoin related systems, and indeed Bitcoin itself to some extent, is argued on the same general basis.  I have some concern that much of the infrastructure built around Bitcoin could be as weak as GLBSE in the face of various kinds of attacks.  Observations of this shuttering will certainly factor into any system design I might be involved in, and I hope it will for others as well.

Significantly less well now for BTC, though this is completely unsurprising.  I think more rational people consider BTC to be hugely volatile and are less perturbed than they would be were PM's to suffer the same kind of action.  Hopefully also most people adjust the ratio of their various positions accordingly and can afford any Bitcoin loss which may be realized.  Up to 100%.

Beyond that, I personally assume that my activity associated with Bitcoin will both be detected somehow and act as a flag which could induce closer scrutiny of my general economic and general on-line activity.  It is, or course, possible that such a thing is NOT happening and will not happen in the future, but when I have limited info I normally assume the worst for the purposes of planning.  I've also assumed a similar thing about PM's of course.  My PM dealer assures me that my 'fears' are largely unfounded, or at least have been historically, but in a similar way I assume that I cannot take my dealer's word 100%.

It's as likely that the authorities will prop it up as it is that they would shut it down as long as it remains an exceptional honey-pot for attracting users with potentially interesting attributes.  At least until it starts to gain more traction, value, legitimacy, etc.  I would anticipate a more active and negative response from the official authorities if Bitcoin gets on a trajectory where real success looks like a potential outcome.

Though I highly doubt that it has been the intent, I sense the Bitcoin has evolved into a highly efficient (relatively speaking) honeypot for 'marking up' individuals with interesting things going on...both in the past and probably more importantly, in the future.

AML-grade data for as many participants in the economy as possible is probably a pretty high-value item.  I suspect it could act as a 'get out of jail' card in the case of the OP, and likely that it acts as a 'stay in business' card for other entities (e.g., Mt. Gox.)  As others have pointed out, having the data does not mean that it is being given up to the authorities in quantity, but there is simply no way to know.  It is a certainty, however, that it is being stored somewhere and Bitcoin related enterprises as a group have an abysmal security record.