This is false and has been refuted thoroughly in the forums.

For example, what happens if someone presents him a code that isn't on his list? Obviously, he must refuse to redeem it. But then, what happens if someone makes a scammer accusation? If your answer is, "we side with Goat", then you have totally abandoned the asset holders, since Goat can refuse to honor any of them. If your answer is, "we side with the claimer", then Goat is accepting massive liability by accepting these claim codes. He has absolutely no way to know that they were issued to actual asset holders.

What happens if he redeems a claim code and then later someone else presents that same claim code? How can Goat prove the first claim wasn't from someone conspiring with him?

It is absolutely absurd to argue that he has everything he needs to fulfill his obligations. There is huge liability associated with him accepting this scheme -- liability he never agreed to accept that Nefario imposed on him unilaterally. He would have to be an idiot to accept this arrangement at gunpoint. It is GLBSE that abandoned its customers, failed to protect their ownership interests, and left Goat to pick up the pieces at his own expenses and risk.

There is no need to believe in them. In fact, I really can't even understand what it would mean to believe in one's senses.


Then my senses would be accurately reporting the true fact that this big game in fact existed.

I kind of lost you here. But if in fact there was such a game, my senses would be giving me precisely the information I needed to figure that out. If the game caused me to sense X, then to figure this out, I need to sense X. If the game in fact exists, then X is what I will sense. So my senses accurately report on this game, which is exactly what I need them to do.

If there were some game that made my senses detect X when the truth was Y, then if I did sense Y regardless, I would be forever unable to detect the existence of this game. That I sense X when Y is the case when there is such a game is precisely what I need so that I am *not* fooled by this game.

I don't understand. How would copies of new communications tell you if Goat was lying about having sent the address? I can understand why Goat thought you wanted copies of previous communications -- how could copies of future communications tell you if he was lying or not?

There is a dispute over whether Goat sent Nefario an address or not. If you're investigating that dispute, you would naturally want copies of past emails. If you aren't investigating that incident, why would a ban threat for lying come up?

I'm very, very confused now.

Unless there's some strange technical problem, either Nefario or Goat is lying about having sent an address. Goat says he did. Nefario says he didn't. Are you investigating this past dispute to see who was lying?

Because you'd be giving your password to a withdrawal gateway to an unknown entity.

I could pick through all that, but it's pretty tedious. The basic points are:

A "hoarder" must either spend the money eventually or not. If not, then it really is the broken window fallacy. All that's happened is the hoarder has produced. If the hoarder does spend the money, all they've done is defer consumption because they preferred future consumption to present consumption.

You can't assume a fixed inflation rate and then look at how the market will respond to it. That's not how markets work. If the inflation rate is 8%, it's 8% for a reason. And when people react to that inflation rate, their reaction will affect that rate.

Also, you have to be very careful when you compare the type of inflation or deflation that most economics works are talking about to what happens in the Bitcoin economy. Inflation usually refers to governments printing and spending money, not new money being created in exchange for a service. And deflation usually refers to a reduction in the amount of money in existence, not an increase in demand for a fixed supply.

What you call "hoarding" is actually production. It's kind of strange that you see it as a threat because that is the broken window fallacy. If you imagine that Bitcoins are the primary currency, to "hoard them", what do you do? You produce something of value and .. that's it.

By this logic, the guy who works for a living, buys a plasma TV, and smashes it is better for the economy than the guy who works for a living and saves his money. But they are both contributing equal value to the economy. The former guy is just destroying more value than the latter. That you see this as better shows you have swallowed the broken window fallacy.

She's advocating *for* a scammer tag. How does her running a competing exchange give her a conflict of interest?

Think of it as the difference between an advocate and a judge. A judge has a conflict of interest if she has any personal stake in the outcome. A lawyer only has a conflict of interest if she gets a benefit if the outcome is adverse to the position she's representing.

I suppose you could argue that making GLBSE look bad there could be some industry spillover that makes her exchange look bad. It seems an odd thing to be concerned about though.

The question is whether any of those "poor decisions" amount to scamming. Delisting Goat's assets suddenly, with no need to do so, and betraying  the agreement with GLBSE customers to secure their ownership interests, crosses the line, IMO. Converting GLBSE's customers ownership interest into worthless claim codes, with no agreement that allowed that conversion and no attempt to minimize the collateral damage to GLBSE customers and no effort whatsoever to clean up the mess crosses the line for me.

And there is no evidence whatsoever the Nefario believes that he did anything wrong. It appears he maintains he has the right to render any such asset worthless and any ownership interest meaningless for any reason at any time and would actually do so if he felt like it.

Also, holding Goat's coins, even though there is no dispute over the ownership of those coins, for the apparent purpose of gaining leverage in the dispute over the ownership of Goat's issued assets is over the line.

If gold were to displace the dollar as the primary unit of exchange, almost all of its value would come from supply and demand for trade, just as it does for dollars. Most gold would be electronic, not physical bars or coins, just as dollars are. And there would be fractional reserve, just as for dollars. At that point, to argue that this "gold" has intrinsic value as a metal would be about as silly as arguing that money has intrinsic value as pieces of paper.

Does a 1 ounce note redeemable on demand for gold have intrinsic value? If so, then you can't argue that dollar bills are not a store of value because gold notes are also the same pieces of paper with different numbers printed on them. If not, then no modern currency or money will have intrinsic value because people will never bother lugging actual metals around -- under all realistic circumstances, they'll use electronics to move IOUs around. A 1 ounce gold check against the 54 ounces in my gold account works just the same as a $100 check against the $5,400 in my dollar account.

At this point, largely hearing only your side of the story, it sounds like you are trying to resolve the issue and they are holding undisputed amounts hostage while blaming you for their bad decisions. If I were in your shoes, I would not accept the GLBSE codes either without some plan for how to handle duplicate or invalid codes and some way to communicate a redemption timeframe to code holders. Or some comparable solution -- maybe GLBSE knows some clever way the codes are supposed to work that we can't think of, but they aren't telling.

I don't understand where GLBSE thinks they get the authority to issue these codes without negotiating a delisting procedure with you. And by failing to even try to do that, they've seriously betrayed their customers who now have a worthless code, with no known redemption scheme, instead of an ownership interest in an asset.

I meant to resolve the issue of people who hold your delisted assets and the harm Nefario's decision to immediately delist those assets has done to them. To get back amounts that are not in dispute, there's nothing more you should have to do. If Nefario/GLBSE is holding them hostage for a better negotiating position, that warrants a scammer tag.

I can't believe I missed replying to this. This is 100% completely and totally wrong. Bank runs are a 100% solved problem. Bank runs do not screw depositors.

It's not worth going into detail here, but the basic idea is this simple: Bank runs can only directly cause a liquidity crisis. They can only cause an equity crisis if a bank or lender is so poorly capitalized they should never have gone into business in the first place. Regardless of how much of a run you have, the total value of both the lender's capitalization and its loan equity will always be enough to ensure the depositors get back both their deposits and all earned interest. There may be a delay, but the money will get back to them. (And it's not hard to avoid even the delay, however, the lender will wind up broke with its capitalization  gone.)

That lenders don't structure to avoid this problem, despite how easy it is, just shows how inept they are and how indifferent they are to the interests of their depositors. (Or, more likely, how they are too poorly capitalized to operate properly or are outright scamming.)

Any time a bank or lender claims that depositors didn't get their money back (other than a delay where all principal and most interest is returned) because of a bank run, they are lying. The truth is most likely either that they were drastically undercapitalized to begin with , they made bad loans, they operated a Ponzi scheme, or they outright stole from their depositors.

Nefario claimed that at first, so Goat gave him an address so he would have no excuse. If you look in the other thread, you can see what Goat claims Nefario's response was -- let's just say he didn't return even the amounts that are not in dispute.

Are you saying it's not true that Nefario is holding onto funds that belong to Goat even though there is no dispute regarding those funds? If so, I'd like to know why you say that.

Also, do you have any response to the allegation that he orchestrated GLBSE's renege on its obligation to Goat's asset-holders, changing their ownership of listed assets into worthless claim codes? (Worthless because there is no known way anyone but GLBSE can redeem them, and GLBSE refuses to redeem them. So there is nothing anyone can do with them.)

What would be insane is if this winds up with Nefario getting a scammer tag and GLBSE losing the community's trust. Someone at GLBSE needs to take charge of this situation and fix it. (Assuming Goat will cooperate. If not, they have to at least try.)

That's what he said he was going to do all along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_Generation

The four issues that seem the most serious to me are:

1) Nefario seems to be holding coins that are indisputably Goat's, which he refuses to return.

2) Nefario seems to have decided for GLBSE that GLBSE has no responsibility to protect the ownership interests of GLBSE's customers. Essentially, Nefario has retroactively decided that when GLBSE delists a stock, there is no obligation whatsoever to protect the interests of asset holders. That is, Nefario decided GLBSE would fail to honor its obligations to its customers and leave them and Goat to pick up the pieces as best they can.

3) Nefario appears to have delisted Goat's assets on a whim, in response to an unrelated dispute, and without any sort of sensible decision-making process or calibrated level of response. (For example, the asset could have just been frozen.) While I don't dispute that an exchange has the right to delist assets for any reason, doing so for very bad reasons and doing so in a sudden manner that screwed over his customers is effectively scamming. Customers should have been able to rely on the exchange to continue to provide them a way to transfer their ownership interest and not to cut off this ability arbitrarily without any justification. When you buy a share on a stock exchange, part of the reason you value it is that the exchange allows you to trade it. No rational reason for this drastic action that caused harm to both Goat and his asset holders has been offered.

4) So far, there has been no explanation from Nefario for any of these actions.

If there is some justification for these actions, it has not been made public. Goat granted Nefario permission to make a public statement, so there's no privacy issue with Goat. (There might be other privacy issues though. I don't know.)

Nefario and GLBSE seem to have completely abandoned Goat's asset holders and their obligation to secure their ownership interests. If that's not what's really happened, they really need to say so.

Would any Goat asset holders who have sent complaints to GLBSE support (preferably recently) please share what they've been getting back?

To keep the accounts as short as possible to make it easier to communicate them.

Unless someone specifically thought to check, nobody would know.

The danger is some super quantum computer manages to find an ECDSA private key that corresponds to every Bitcoin address.

All that would have to happen is people would have to learn to recognize it. Then they could make it cost the manipulator as much as they want to manipulate the currency as little as they want. It would gradually cost more and more to destabilize the currency, and so long as the "attacker" continued to do it, everyone else would get richer and richer as he gets poorer and poorer. It would render Bitcoins temporarily less useful as a medium of exchange, but nobody would care. They would be too busy getting filthy rich speculating.

The only way to manipulate a currency  like Bitcoin is to buy it at a too-high price or sell it at a too-low price.

I think that gives us our answer. Your message was about as clear as it can be. If all he needed was an address to make payment, he now has it.

Nefario: If Goat didn't actually send that message, or didn't include a valid address, or you did pay him back and he's lying, or you didn't send the email Goat claims, or anything like that, *please* speak up. Because now it's really looking like your holding undisputed funds to obtain leverage in a legitimate dispute. Because we're only hearing one side of this story, and it is making you look very bad.