He didn't have to. The offer didn't ask for people to reply to it. It was a statement that an action would be performed in the future conditional on others performing actions in the future. It's like, "If you bring us 100 pounds of corn, we'll give you $100 off on a car". You don't have to accept the offer, you just have to bring 100 pounds of corn to the place. Goat did what the offer required him to do -- he acquired shares of GLBSE. Nefario then reneged on his offer after Goat completed his part.

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

If so, that means Nefario intended Goat to rely on the offer.

I hope GLBSE will realize that their petty silliness is going to massively harm their reputation and that they will do the right thing and fix this mess. Yes, Goat's conduct is questionable. But that doesn't even begin to excuse GLBSE's and/or Nefario's conduct. If GLBSE doesn't make Goat and their investors whole (or explain some angle to this story that I'm not aware of), I will consider GLBSE itself a scam.

Nefario made a promise, with the apparent authority to bind GLBSE, that he could not keep. Nefario or GLBSE should cover any losses that resulted from Goat's reasonable reliance on that promise. (He is not entitled to profit from the debacle.)

As for the disabling of Goat's account and delisting of his assets, I hope GLBSE can explain some justification for that action. And GLBSE has to find some way to make their customers whole. Goat is entirely within reason refusing to cooperate with the coerced and broken claim process. People who buy assets through GLBSE have a contract with GLBSE and should be able to rely on them.

I dislike Goat and I like Nefario and GLBSE, and I still can't see this their way. Arbitrary account disabling, especially in retaliation for speaking out against getting shafted, is totally unacceptable in my book. People have gotten scammer tags for "if you sue me you won't get your money back". This is way worse.

You are saying the assets were worthless even after Nefario stated he would redeem them? Why? Should Goat have known not to trust Nefario?

Try swapping the cards PCIe slots. Move the monitor between the two until you find a screen that works. You'll probably have to uninstall and reinstall both drivers. Also, for some reason, you may lose your Internet connection through the process. But you should be able to get everything working.

You mean the information MtGox *claims* is AML/KYC information. I've asked MtGox a few times to provide any evidence that they actually require this information for AML/KYC purposes and have never gotten a reply. Bluntly, I don't believe it. I think it's much more likely that they want this information for anti-fraud purposes.

What "terms" are you talking about? There were never any terms for anyone to agree to. This wasn't, "If you do X, I'll do Y." this was "I'm going to do X, so you don't have to worry about Y."

The difference is that gox codes are both issued and redeemed by gox. Ask gox if they would be willing to accept "gox codes" issued by someone else pursuant to an arrangement that other person made without consulting them.

Of course. Nobody disputes that.

Bitinstant could refuse to accept any gox code they want and nobody would call them a scammer. They have no obligation to accept gox codes and they certainly don't have an obligation someone else imposed on them. They are, however, open to an issue where someone claims bitinstant redeemed a mt gox code and bitinstant claims the gox code was already redeemed. Because of this risk and others, they charge a fee for their service in exchange for which they have agreed to accept risk. They're certainly not required to accept gox codes at no charge.

Say someone posts a scam accusation saying his code wasn't accepted. The response is that someone else claimed that same code first. What happens? How do we sort out which of these four things happened:

1) The same code was given to two legitimate owners.

2) The person claiming to have been refused the redemption is scamming and gave the code to someone else.

3) He's just refusing to accept the code even though nobody else claimed it.

4) Someone intercepted the code and redeemed it first.

Or, to put it more simply, if he refuses to go along with this redemption scheme, is he scamming? Honestly, if I were in this position, I would refuse to honor the codes and tell the investors to take it up with GLBSE, the party they contracted with to acquire and manage the shares which has decided to renege on the agreement. I certainly wouldn't let myself be coerced into accepting a broken redemption scheme that bears no resemblance to anything I ever agreed to do.

The argument everyone else will be using is, "Why would he let someone use it at all?"

An unverifiable system is really not workable. What happens if two people present him with the same code at the same time?

Say one person presents him a claim code. Then a few days later, someone else presents the claim code and has a pile of other proof that he held the asset. How can he know if the same claim code was given to two people or the second person is a scammer who gave the claim code to the first?

He is being compelled to accept liability for a scheme whose reliability he has no way to assess.

I presume he's trying to recover losses, not replace lost profits. If that's not true, then it's a different story.

I'm afraid that's not true because in this case, there is detrimental reliance sufficient to create promissory estoppel.

"A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires." -- Second Restatement of Contracts

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel
"Certain elements must be established to invoke promissory estoppel. A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise.
A majority of courts apply the doctrine to any situation in which all of these elements are present."

It appears in this case, a promise was made. The promise was relied upon to the detriment of those who relied on it. This reliance was foreseeable and should have been reasonably expected to increase the value of the outstanding shares. However, what the consequences of this should be is a closer question. Enforcing the promise would mean that the promisor would be liable for damages for breach of the promise.

I think you don't understand what "caveat emptor" is. You may want to check out the wikipedia page. In particular, this portion: "The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud."

Do we actually know that the SEC is investigating? (Is this the letter from Philip Moustakis?)

That's more than enough. Consider:

1) Some guy on the Internet owes me 2 Bitcoins for a Steam game. I give him my address. He knows my forum identity which leads him to my real name and address.

2) I sell my house for 15,000 Bitcoins. I give the buyer my address.

3) The guy on the Internet now knows I control 15,000 Bitcoins and he knows I haven't yet spent them. He has two tough guys show up at my real address with a wrench. Once they compel me to transfer the Bitcoins, chances of recovery are near zero. And I can't even really link the tough guys to the guy who bought the Steam game.

Re-use addresses at your own risk.

If you change the wallet file, you need to use "-rescan" or the client won't credit your balance with coins from transactions it had already downloaded before you changed the wallet file. The coins are still safe, you just can't see or spend them.

If you had to tell two different people to send coins to you, you would not want to give them both the same address. If you did, each one could see every coin the other sent to you. So the address that you tell other people to send coins to changes constantly. This has no effect on your ability to receive coins.

From what you've publicly disclosed, it appears you were running a Ponzi and still are.

Previously, people were borrowing money from you to give to Pirate so that Pirate could give them other investor's money back to repay you. There was no evidence of any legitimate investment. Money was just moving from person to person with new investors paying off old investors. A profit was impossible, except at the expense of other investors who lost. So that was a Ponzi. Perhaps you didn't know it at the time, but it was.

Now, people who invest in Kraken are buying your own bad Pirate debt, allowing you to pay off old investors. Using new investment money to pay off old investors is a Ponzi, unless you believe there's a legitimate investment in the chance of a Pirate payback.

So essentially, you're back where you started, getting people to invest in the hopes Pirate will pay off and using money from new investors to pay back old investors.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Details on Kraken are sparse, so all I can do is speculate. It seems that before you were passing on a con (not realizing people were borrowing to invest in Pirate, not realizing Pirate was totally unreliable), but it now seems you are running the con (you know Pirate is totally unreliable and yet you are selling his debt to pay off past investors who you've already defaulted on).

Nobody expects people to be perfect.

This is a totally vacuous statement that doesn't address my criticism of your position.

The hostage taker did cause the hostage to get shot. Pulling the trigger also caused the hostage to get shot. The difference is that pulling the trigger was the best possible response.

If there's no liability or responsibility for publishing the cartoon, how can there be liability or responsibility for choosing to carry a weapon that's not suitable for safe defense?

With luck, you'll keep working on it.

You really don't like hypotheticals, do you? We're just using "explosive rounds" to mean something that can be used for self-defense but presents a greater risk of harm to innocent bystanders when used in that way. The idea is that you can defend yourself and minimize harm, but because of other bizarre previous choices you've made, you don't minimize the harm as much as you otherwise could have.

I would argue that unless you somehow have an obligation to minimize harm caused by your defense (as you would if you were hired to defend people or choose to carry nuclear weapons), you needn't structure your life to minimize the harm other people's choice to initiate force may cause. You are free to live your life as you please so long as you don't choose to initiate force, and if others choose to initiate force, your obligation is to do the best you can under those circumstances. If you cause harm by reasonably defending yourself given the circumstances under which you are threatened, the blame and liability goes to the one who chose to force you to defend yourself.