If Patrick had only classified his investment thing as a managed hedge/mutual fund, with returns based on his investment skills as opposed to fixed interest "savings account" style returns, none of this would have been a problem. Losses would have had to be taken by the customers instead of Patrick, and his returns would have been consistent with the average hedge fund (lesson: don't invest in hedge funds, people. You'll save time by just flushing your money down the toilet).

Markets encourage some behaviors and discourage others, which may be not always in the best interest for themselves and everybody else in the long-term, because individuals often think and act too short-sightedly. That's all I meant.

Maybe the root of our divergent assessments is that you believe it is a choice like many others. I rather feel that childbearing is a permanent and important aspect of a society. Statistically, every woman needs to give birth to slightly more than 2.0 children in order for a population to remain constant.

I think OP should think twice before impersonating a governmnet official... (even if its not worded right you know what i mean)

It is an offense in more or less all countries.

So <OP> stay away from this forum and you will reduce the illegalness of this forum.

Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech,including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.

Absent from these few categories is any general exception for false statements. The Government argues that cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 52, support its claim that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment pro-tection. But all the Government’s quotations derive from cases discussing defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement. In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to the Court’s analysis, but neither was it determinative. These prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more.

Even when considering some instances of defamation or fraud, the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment;the statement must be a know-ing and reckless falsehood. See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280. Here, the Government seeks to convert a rule that limits liability even in defamation cases where the law permits recovery for tortious wrongs into a rule that expands liability in a dif-ferent, far greater realm of discourse and expression. The Government’s three examples of false-speech regulation that courts generally have found permissible do not establish a principle that all proscriptions offalse statements are exempt from rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. The criminal prohibition of a false statement made to Government officials in communications concern-ing official matters, 18 U. S. C. §1001, does not lead to the broader proposition that false statements are unprotected when made to any person, at any time, in any context. As for perjury statutes, perjured statements lack First Amendment protection not simply because they are false, but because perjury undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments. Finally, there are statutes that prohibitfalsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or prohibit impersonating a Government officer. These examples, to the extent that they implicate fraud or speech integral to criminal conduct, are inapplicable here.

Not to worry, Santa Claus just initiated the transfer to the Easter Bunny's account for full release sometime after Tuesday 2015.

Another thing maybe it is for products that arent backed. But miningprojects or any other serious thing is backed. And you bought the shares because the dividends.

The dividends arent lost too. At least when the issuers are honest. So there wouldnt be a price loss too only because of the closure of glbse.

ok, so i guess i will be downloading the blockchain and using a local wallet then. 

This again, huh?  pirate started like this.  Super helpful, big apologies and promises, the forum heaping praise on him and scorn on doubters.  Then he split with all the money. A month later, he'll get a scammer tag.

You are all going to let it happen again, and you'll be absolutely blown away for the umpteenth time this has happened.  It's as if you have no pattern recognition at all.

We might be getting a bit off topic.

"the atrocities he witnessed have affected him most deeply."

However, isn't that a substantial under-current in this thread.

We will see once they migrate to new platforms I guess.

Might even have no affect.

Except for those assets which have an intrinsic value. Which, until they pay off, is in the eye/judgement of the (be)holder. (And dependent on the integrity of the issuer.)

Not everyone buys to flip. Some of us have bought stuff to own.

As long as those assets remain delisted, I suspect that Goat is stuck having to manually work out the claim codes.

The bylaws don't say that the company represents its shareholders. It only states certain responsibilities and rights of its members. Why should it be implicit in this contract that the company will be able to personally represent its shareholders and put them in debt?

GLBSE offered a service to those issuing bonds/stocks listed on their exchange, for as long as they were listed on the exchange, and when they are no longer listed on the exchange, they are under no obligation to continue offering said service.

Now, if the new exchange is willing to put in code, where the issuer lists their asset, where they can input the ownership list, using the codes themselves, and then the trader, has a method where they can go into a menu for that asset where they can claim ownership of their shares/bonds using the code, preserving the anonymity from the asset issuer, that is up to the new exchange.

You can't redeem the codes with GLBSE, because there is simply nothing to redeem those codes for, that GLBSE has, to give you. If you still believe you have to redeem them with GLBSE to get your shares/bonds, just what is it do you think they are able to give you?

Where this comparison falls apart, is that with an MtGox code, MtGox has something of value that needs to trade hands with the person who redeems the code. In this case, Bitcoin (or is it paper, I haven't needed to use one).

When you give someone the code, you are doing so as payment for something, and the recipient expects to be able to take that code to MtGox, and turn it in, to get the funds that code represented. This is something that MtGox actually does have in its possession.

The codes from GLBSE, do not represent funds, or a transaction, or even shares/bonds.

The GLBSE codes represent identity. Nothing more.

Not involves greater risk than any other code reimbursable, the codes have always been to bearer and no protection against theft.

If I generate a MTGOX code today and tomorrow to reimburse they tell me that is already paid, I'm screwed, go mtgox reclaim something, you are responsible for that nobody steals it and assume the risk involved in using them.

It's a matter of trust, and we already trust our money to goat, so is not time to distrust.

If someone complains that your code is not on the list of goat, in this special case will be necessary to talk with nefario.

If someone complains that goat says it was cashed, goat could prove it with information from the communication of the first payment (email sources, user forum, payment address, etc.)

Redeem them for what, exactly?

GLBSE doesn't possess the shares/bonds. Never did.

Your thinking is too black and white here. The choice is not an easy choice, like going to the cinema tonight or not. But the biological clock women feel ticking does not mean they're enslaved to their instincts either. They of course mostly make a conscious choice. I merely state they may prefer to live in a society where they feel more secure and more rewarded for taking on this endeavor.

In western countries, birth rates have long been stagnating at best. States seem to see the need to incentivize with tax reliefs, family allowances etc. Overpopulation occurs in poorer countries, which mostly are also more patriarchal.

Joel, don't go strawman and false dilemma. *I* don't want to force anyone to do anything. I'm merely an observer and wondering (or not) why all those libertarian conventions and festivals are essentially sausage fests.

Really TYGRR holders, we must identify? nefarious reneged on your assets and provided the codes. If pirate pay someday, you have everything you need to pay us. Not so?

So there'd be insurances to compensate her temporary inability to carry out a job in the marketplace, insurances that a man would not have to contract.

Then what are the (material) benefits anyway? The child owns itself. The emotional factor doesn't mean powerlessness "to make sensible choices", that's exaggerated. The bottom line still is that the market does not incentivize procreation in any form.

In my oppinion if you get scammed, its completely your own fault. i mean I'm very new to bitcoins, but isnt the first rule for trading with bitcoins to only interact with people you trust? So this forum should build a web of trust, or rate offers, so that new users can tell if someone is trustworthy or not.