Bitcoin Forum
April 17, 2014, 09:24:44 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 150
441  Economy / Securities / Re: Idea- Paper Stock certificates. on: July 13, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
This is actually a really really neat idea.
442  Bitcoin / Meetups / Re: Bitcoin Conference 2012- London | ANNOUNCEMENT sponsorship on: July 13, 2012, 07:10:12 PM
So is this going ahead despite the Bitcoinica fiasco?

Yes, we'll be kicking things off fairly soon for this.
443  Economy / Securities / Re: Is GLBSE also slow for you ? on: July 13, 2012, 03:03:15 AM

I did my due diligence by asking about it first. You went back on your word. That is fine whatever you do what you gota do. The issue I do not like is that you said I did not do my due diligence and that I got scammed. That is just uncalled for Sad


What are you talking about, when did I go back on my word?

You claimed GLBSE stock would become valid. That is why I bought. I don't see why you locked it down 6 months later. But really I don't care. What I took offense was that you claimed I got scammed :/

It IS valid, it's not publicly traded, this means that shares should not be bought or sold on the exchange.

As I said before I don't keep track of peoples trading(we do have records of course) and so ASSUMED you bought when the asset was first released. Wrong assumption.
444  Economy / Securities / Re: Is GLBSE also slow for you ? on: July 12, 2012, 02:55:47 PM

I did my due diligence by asking about it first. You went back on your word. That is fine whatever you do what you gota do. The issue I do not like is that you said I did not do my due diligence and that I got scammed. That is just uncalled for Sad


What are you talking about, when did I go back on my word?
445  Economy / Securities / Re: Is GLBSE also slow for you ? on: July 11, 2012, 02:05:04 PM
Not a complaint, just reporting what happened. I also did not get scammed. I only bought the GLBSE stock after you said you would take it over. I placed an order and picked it up when Peter Lambert sold out in that crash. I did make money on it, bought low and sold high. I was not the one to bring up the GLBSE stock, just reporting what happened with the GLBSE that was listed cuz they clearly did not know.

Also you reporting I got scammed is a bit foolish. Go back and check my account records and you will see:)



I assumed you'd bought at the beginning, I don't look at peoples accounts unless they ask(usually if they have a problem), much more interesting and important things to do.
446  Economy / Securities / Re: Is GLBSE also slow for you ? on: July 11, 2012, 01:42:02 PM
On the plus side, this growth, which is slowing th site down is a good thing for everyone involved.

Nefario.
447  Economy / Securities / Re: Is GLBSE also slow for you ? on: July 11, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Regarding the GLBSE shares, they are not publicly traded, and this has always been our position(although we failed to prevent trading initially, we did eventually lock it down).

Goat bought shares which were fraudulent without checking if they were genuine or not, a lack of due diligence. As a gesture to the small number of users who were hit by this scam (of which Goat was one) we decided to honor them. As Goat has said he's profited off this quite a lot and I really don't see why he's complaining.
 
Regarding performance, there are two issues:

First is the exponential growth of new users and the number of users on GLBSE at any one time, this is obviously contributing to the slowness.

Second, GLBSE is being hammered by bots, I mean HAMMERED, which is slowing everything down for everyone.

There is a two pronged approach being taken to this, the first being to get the API onto a single application server, so when the bots get active it won't affect normal users. The second will be to add more application servers in general.

Both steps require coding and testing before being rolled out.

I'm working on it with a view to have the issue solved by Sunday at the latest.

Nefario.
448  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers. on: July 09, 2012, 04:35:44 PM

Assuming the contract is only in BTC I highly doubt you will find a court that will assist you anywhere. Also if someone did break a contract, like I am breaking my Bond-P by paying more, there is no way I would agree to go to judge.me. I am clearly over paying and thus would lose.


Overpaying is not breaking a contract, the contract is being met, when overpaying the contract is being exceeded. Nothing has been broken.

Also, with a single exception, contracts have been updated after the change in behavior (i.e. the amounts paid), but only to the advantage of the weaker party, the shareholder. And usually a little later the contract has been changed. Once again in these cases the contract terms have not been broken, they have been met, often exceeded.

Currently the method of changing a contract is sending the new version to support@glbse.com and a link to the motion approving it if needed.



That is productive new. The last time I tried to update a contract you demanded the bond holder pick it. And then when I refused you demanded that I have a vote of 100% approval.

Still, where can we finds these rules in print? You keep making up rules as we go and reporting them in random threads on this forum will not help much.

Thanks.

You know ways of doing things tend to evolve, from first ideas which may or may not have been good, to whatever the current system in place is.

I'm not a prophet who gets everything right first time, I'm just a guy trying my best.
449  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers. on: July 08, 2012, 02:13:45 PM

Assuming the contract is only in BTC I highly doubt you will find a court that will assist you anywhere. Also if someone did break a contract, like I am breaking my Bond-P by paying more, there is no way I would agree to go to judge.me. I am clearly over paying and thus would lose.


Overpaying is not breaking a contract, the contract is being met, when overpaying the contract is being exceeded. Nothing has been broken.

Also, with a single exception, contracts have been updated after the change in behavior (i.e. the amounts paid), but only to the advantage of the weaker party, the shareholder. And usually a little later the contract has been changed. Once again in these cases the contract terms have not been broken, they have been met, often exceeded.

Currently the method of changing a contract is sending the new version to support@glbse.com and a link to the motion approving it if needed.

450  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Bitcorp Mining Company - BTCMC 50+ GH/s, clear ASIC upgrade path. on: July 08, 2012, 01:14:38 PM
I have gotten only a single email regarding this, which was 3 days ago, Edit: On checking my forum PM's I've got one from the 28th asking about updating, and then 3 days ago got an email to the GLBSE support address for this. I've just replied as I'm backed up on most support emails by about 4 days since traveling.

Usually when someone wants to update a contract they send the new version and a link to a motion that approves the change (if required). All I've gotten is an email asking to have the contract updated.

Often, while waiting for the contract to be approved the issuer will go ahead and act as though it's been approved. This so far has only been the case when the change was to the advantage of the shareholders, as it's hard to argue for breach of contract when the terms of the contract have not just been met but exceeded.

This would be the first case of it happening to the detriment of the shareholder, and unless it's actually covered in the contract itself(and on inspecting the contract it seems thats not the case), would probably constitute a breach of contract.

Also since these shares were bought when last month? The date I was contacted about updating the contract was 3 days ago. When did the stock split take place?

Statements on the forum outside of GLBSE don't constitute contract of what is being traded on GLBSE. Thats why the contract is up there itself for all to inspect.

I would say that the easiest and cheapest method to settle this is to pay dividends at the stated rate.

I am unsure as to the best method of resolving this. Buyer acted on the terms in the contract, asset issuer was not being malicious.

On a related note, in the upcoming changes for GLBSE 3.0 will be unlimited contract changes, but showing full contract history.

Nefario.
451  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers. on: July 08, 2012, 12:35:42 PM
For a large part the legal system(as it currently stands) is complex and cumbersome because it has evolved to deal with and cover near enough every possibility. All our modern legal systems (U.S., U.K. and French based) seem to be partly based on a lot of Roman law, hows that for historical baggage.

I would favor something simple and cheap to implement that doesn't take an army of people with 10 year degrees to interpret it.

Really we're asking because this is pretty much new to us, having to deal with this. We could go the traditional, standing legal route but as you all know this simply doesn't suit bitcoin related business. We're noobs at this to an extent, but at the same time we're in an advantageous position to be able to look back at all of history and instead of adding patch after patch, we can design a simple, efficient and just system.

Btc4Domains, regarding contract updates on GLBSE, if you need votes to get approval then run a motion(if not, skip to step 2), just send me the updated contract and Ill update it(support@glbse.com).

Regarding GLBSE shares, they are valid as shares but it's not a publicly traded asset, at least not yet.

Thanks for the input so far, it's been really helpful.

Nefario.
452  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Public question for Nefario on: June 25, 2012, 11:36:16 PM
Asset has been launched.
453  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Public question for Nefario on: June 25, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
You know, you could have just asked for that in an email, there wasn't any need to start a thread over it.
454  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Public question for Nefario on: June 25, 2012, 11:22:06 PM
Nefario, with all due respect you are not answering the question. The form on your GLBSE website doesn't allow listings earlier than 3 days after. How was it possible for Inaba, without manually overriding the website settings?

Simple, his IPO was submitted over 3 days prior to the IPO date.
455  Economy / Securities / Re: [GLBSE] Public question for Nefario on: June 25, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
There are a couple of issues to this.

Firstly, I do tend to approve new assets from existing asset issuers who write clear, easy to understand contracts. Frequently someone who is just starting out submits an asset and I have to ask them to revise the contract because it's either unclear or lacking, sometimes this happens numerous times with going back and forth and so on. There are a number of issuers (Inaba is one) who tend to write very clear contracts.

The best thing to do when creating a new asset is to make sure that the contract is as simple and clear as possible.

Secondly, all assets must wait the minimum time period of at least 3 days before their asset can IPO. Usually this is 3 days from submission, but if enough time has passed then I add more. Not to delay the IPO for the sake of delaying but to allow enough time for them to be on the IPO page for people to see.

Usually an asset that IPO's almost right away doesn't do well, and it's in my AND GLBSE's best interest for as many IPO's to be successful as possible.

Third I don't favor any assets on GLBSE, as a policy I don't trade ANY assets on GLBSE, I don't buy or sell shares (unless testing the system, like earlier today, and then it's only one or two cheap ones). There are a large number of competing assets on GLBSE, I and GLBSE has no stake in any of them either personally or professionally. Our interest is in all assets succeeding as we make money from fees.

Fourth, sometimes I don't get around to approving assets in the best time. I like to try and have them out on the IPO page ASAP but sometimes I'm just tied up.

Finally, I/GLBSE was not contacted by Inaba about this asset prior to it being created, we were not warned nor were any special favors asked. Apart from his use of GLBSE as an asset issuer I don't have any relationship with Inaba.

Besides, the bitcoin economy is growing so quickly there is plenty of room for competing operations in certain areas. A rising tide floats all boats.

Nefario
456  Economy / Securities / Re: [ANN] GLBSE hot wallet empty, withdrawals delayed on: June 23, 2012, 12:15:17 PM
Update, wallets empty again.
457  Economy / Securities / Re: [ANN] GLBSE hot wallet empty, withdrawals delayed on: June 21, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Yeah I'd already downloaded the blockchain from sourceforge but it only goes up to March.

While doing this I did look at electrum but just got errors when I tried to send any coins, so that was a no go.

Personally I think the electrum model is the best but the client is not really usable at the moment.
458  Economy / Securities / [ANN] GLBSE hot wallet empty, withdrawals delayed on: June 21, 2012, 03:19:15 PM
Our hot wallet has run dry,

the timing of this has coincided with the messing up of the bitcoin client that normally handles our cold storage.

We have to wait for the blockchain to download before we're able to top up our hotwallet.

This means that all withdrawals are going to be delayed for 4 more hours at least (it's already been a little over 12 hours since this problem started).

All bitcoin that we've kept in coldstorage is perfectly safe, and this is nothing more than a delay.

Sorry for any trouble this may cause.

Nefario.

459  Economy / Securities / Re: IMPACT on: June 19, 2012, 02:37:16 PM
How are they getting the usernames in order to transfer the assets?  I did not think usernames were public anywhere.

If you have created an asset it lists your username on the asset page, but all the username can be used for is to transfer assets to their account.
460  Economy / Securities / Re: IMPACT on: June 19, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
These ARE from the issuers account, I'm not sure why they've been transfered, they were sent to a number accounts that were asset issuers.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ... 150
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!