Would actually like to see The Drifter remain. I like the idea of having a tournament that rotates around instead of at a fixed schedule.

Maybe it doesn't have to be the same buy-in or guarantee, but it is a good name for a tournament, and a good concept. Would be a shame to end it.

-- Smoov

I, for one, am very interested to find out, just where they plan on returning the bitcoin to, and how they are determining which address they plan to use to return them to...

-- Smoov

Just who sent in money to GLBSE anyways?

I didn't... I only sent in bitcoin.

(using those terms interchangeably, isn't helping us)

-- Smoov

that they may not have come from a wallet/address controllable by the account holder...

like the BTC I sent in from MtGox, Vircurex, Cryptostocks, etc... if GLBSE did what you suggest, all of my coin would  be sent back to those sites' sending addresses, which wouldn't get credited to my accounts.

-- Smoov

Unfortunately, intelligence doesn't usually equate to integrity...

-- Smoov

Although he did confirm that he invested it in hookers and opium. He anticipates a dividend from that soon...

I'd post the log, but when asked for his permission, Goat said no, and I'm honoring that refusal.

-- Smoov

By audit.

You take an audit of the 'company' involved to determine its value. Then, divide that value by the # of shares, and that is how you value a share for a private company.

Its not rocket science...

Then, the people who hold those shares can, and do, make private trades here and there, sometimes above value, sometimes below value, depending on what they agree to between themselves. All they would need to do is inform the CEO/CFO that the shares have exchanged hands and have new owners.

-- Smoov

I have one that plugs into the back of itself (pass-thru style) so I can use it with 1 or 2 ports as needed without leaving part of it dangling around.

-- Smoov

...if you don't honor the agreement/contract between you and your shareholders.

The interpretation that you included afterwards seems to ignore that caveat.

Taken in its entirety, it is reasonable advice to give.

-- Smoov

Please post a copy of this agreement that you keep referring to?

-- Smoov

I don't recall ever seeing a message telling people to report you to the police. Link plz?

-- Smoov

No, we didn't.The owners were given contact information of the issuer. That is the minimum needed. If GLBSE wasn't an anonymous-owner site, this wouldn't be an issue, but since it is, GLBSE is still obligated to protect the identity of its userbase. Ties between GLBSE and TYGRR have been terminated. It isn't GLBSE's responsibility to facilitate communication between issuer and shareholder, beyond giving the issuer's contact information.

If it doesn't match the list, it isn't a valid claim. Simple.

I said it could have been done better, sure, but just because it could have been done better, doesn't mean they are obligated to.

I still hold the same position I did before.

We're dealing with different questions.

Could a better system have been implemented? Perhaps a condition to the TOS where if an asset is delisted, then the asset-holder's contact information would be disclosed to the issuer? Sure. There can always be improvement.

Is GLBSE obligated to do more than it has, and continue to facilitate getting shares sold off or traded, or handle any of the delisted company's accounting? No, I don't believe it is.

We all can certainly agree that Goat doesn't like the claim codes and all the work that he is going to have to do to get his shareholder list built up, and to deal with all of the trades and dividends himself, that he would have preferred some kind of encrypted list or other authentication, perhaps even a simple checksum instead of nothing.

That doesn't mean GLBSE was obligated to provide those things. GLBSE supplied the list of codes for when asset-holders contact Goat about their shares and dividends, etc.

I have heard of no reason to believe that list is fraudulent.

I have heard of no complaints that two people ended up having the same code.

As far as I'm concerned, while not ideal, it is definitely workable, and I know the more I antagonize Nefario, the less likely I would be able to expect him to answer queries about a discrepancy that might come up, but yet hasn't, in a timely manner.

I am curious to find out how much of Goat's shareholder list he has assembled so far. Even with his objections, he should still be working on that in the meantime.

-- Smoov

and once again, you try and bring that topic back up to draw me into again, and my response hasn't changed since the last couple of times.

In my opinion, GLBSE has no such obligation to manage your assets for a listing that is no longer on the exchange.

GLBSE's obligation is to supply the 'company' a complete list of who has what shares, and since GLBSE was anonymous to begin with, claim ID's were used to avoid giving out account information that the users had been accustomed to be kept private.

The share-holders have enough information to link themselves up with the shares on the list, and can do so at any time.

In my opinion, users who are expecting GLBSE to continue handling their shares, including but not limited to, assisting them in getting them sold off so they can cash out, are expecting more than they have a right to expect from GLBSE at this point, since those shares are no longer listed on GLBSE.

My opinion on this isn't going to change, so lets retire that topic, ok?

-- Smoov

Very possible. I'm not in a position to know the conversations or actions that have occurred outside the view of this forum or IRC. The actions taking place in private could be very very different, than has been presented here in public for all to see.

What I do see, is grandstanding.

I'm giving my impressions and thoughts based on what has been thrown out in public. Beginning with a dispute, which should never have been made a public spectacle of in the first place, which seems to be the event that brought about the eviction the next wave of grandstanding is about now.

How are parties supposed to work together when pretty much any chance taken is an opportunity to insult and threaten, diminishing whatever position either party has in the first place?

It is the grandstanding that seems to be the show the participants want us focused on and fighting over, not the actual events.

I get enough of this kind of crap in the political forums I participate on, and the same tactics are being employed right now, here.

Until new information comes out from either of the involved parties (and there hasn't been for about a week now), then we'll have more to talk about.

At this point it is all based on assumptions and conjecture. So many "facts" being thrown around that I have yet to see substantiation for, and a whole lot of inaction.

The way it looks to me, Goat gets the blame because he seems to be doing the most to incite a riot rather than actually work the problem. At least, in public, anyways.

-- Smoov

I never made the claim that there was any excuse for not returning the coin, or that there even was a dispute, save for the claim that Goat hadn't sent an address to send them to.

Nefario did post a message on the forums at one point, that that was all he needed.

-- Smoov

See, now this is exactly the kind of thing that has been going on that is making it so damned hard for me to see Goat as credible through this.

He is claiming that he wasn't preventing the return of his BTC, and finally supplies a BTC address (unless he actually sent XXXXXXXXXXXX)... claiming that they were being held hostage, when without an address to send them to, Nefario had no choice but to hold onto them. Saying they were being held hostage implies that Nefario actually had a choice to still have them. Without a withdrawl address (until now), what other choice did he have with them? So, who was the one actually holding them hostage, Nefario without an address to send them to, or Goat, who up until now, refused to supply a withdrawl address in the first place?

Goat, you may actually have a valid argument somewhere in everything you're spouting, but you're constantly exaggerating and escalating, burying whatever argument you're trying to put forth. It is making you less than credible.

-- Smoov

Are you set up for any of the public nodes for failover?

-- Smoov

If Nefario can't be relied upon to resolve the discrepancy, or GLBSE, then that's that, isn't it?

No, my position was that GLBSE no longer has any obligation to manage people's shares. Confirming if a claim code is valid, is a reasonable thing to expect GLBSE to do, should a discrepancy come up, but anything beyond that, I don't see any further obligation here.

"Yes, this claim code indeed associated with my.username for # shares"
"No, this claim code wasn't associated with my.username for # shares"

-- Smoov

Until someone can actually demonstrate that a code has been used twice, this is all trolling.

Many people are assuming that Nefario isn't already taking steps to make sure that the codes are unique. I'm not making that assumption.

-- Smoov

Not publicly, anyways...

I'd go along with this, but only if Goat ceased all of his attempts to further damage GLBSE's business, immediately, with that agreement being immediately void, the very next time Goat uttered a word to further fan the flames.

Agreed. Very important to get a much more fleshed out TOS, specifically spelled out procedures in place, separation clauses, statements of liability, etc. The lack of specifics does tend to create more problems.

It seemed to me that the current system was put into place quite quickly. As for nobody being able to figure it out? Well, this is what happens when reasoning and critical thinking is no longer a priority in our school systems anymore. It seems pretty obvious how to handle it in that situation. Granted, there isn't an automated way to do it, you'd have to contact Nefario to help confirm which one was valid, but a system in place where a CEO could get on GLBSE, put in the issue name, the claim code, the claimant's username, and the email address that the claimant is using with their communication with the CEO, and have GLBSE either confirm or deny that the information matches their record.

In the case of 2 people claming they have the same claim code, both using the same address, both supplying the same username, and both supplying the same email address that the code is linked to, then you send an email to that email address, ask them to send you an email from that email address, and whichever one of them, can, is the proper owner.

Or you can try something else. In any event, if more than one person submits the same claim code, then you don't allocate it to either one of them until it gets resolved.

"Nefario... someone is giving me a code that I don't find on my list... can you confirm this code is in use or not?", and if it turns out there is a discrepancy, then it is dealt with, and a revised list gets sent out with the correction, and if it turns out there isn't a discrepancy and the code isn't valid, you tell the scammer to take a hike. This isn't brain surgery.

Yeah... according to an older post by Goat, which I don't have handy at the moment, that's how it is going down.

-- Smoov