TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted.

[Maged]

I think he did and that is why Maged came down on me so hard

You should have seen what I sent to Nefario...

[reeses]

This email is a service from GLBSE. Delivered by Zendesk.

Zendesk is well known for børking formatting of long strings, rich text, etc.

It's very likely Nefario's issue, not yours.

[JoelKatz]

I only asked that it be sent to theymos as a reference. Theymos is not in charge of this investigation. Additionally, I did not ask for the previous communications. I only asked that a NEW email be sent to Nefario that included the address that would be CC'd to us. I needed proof that Goat wasn't just lying about having sent the address, since Nefario told me that the address he was sent wasn't validating.

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?

[smoothie]

We've provided goat everything he needs to continue his relationship with his asset holders.

We can't be forced to do business with someone who is a liability.

If he believes that we've breached contract, he can take legal action against us.

Yesterday was a sink of shares (not associated to the pirate), at a low price. Goats under contract, he can give me back my value of these shares, but at a low price. he will be right. and who provoked the situation when I lost money, I think is clear. you had to solve the problem together and find a way out.

There is no way I can do this with out GLBSE or a new stock exchange. There is no way for me to see the value of the bids. How can I give anyone a fair price?

Nefario more or less made all of the assets worthless and not trade able. What is the market price for some of the bonds? No way to know...

Goat if I were you I would use the LAST traded price of the asset to liquidate at. That makes the most sense and is the most fair to your asset holders. Now that you have your question answered you have everything you need to fulfill your obligations to your asset holders.

From what I can tell is you are continually making excuses as to how you CAN'T make things right with your asset holders. Please stop trying to wiggle and just be straight.

[Akka]

Nefario,

do you really want to go with this to the bitter end?
This has already caused more damage than the original dispute between you and Goat was about.

Are you really willing to risk your entire reputation and all the work you have already put into GLBSE upon this?

Despite that, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you have reacted without thinking this through. Its more shameful to stay on you point despite all resistance and that a majority disagrees with your course.

Also, there is a lesson to be learned here:

GLBSE needs to but a rule in place, when and why assets can be delisted, as well as an sound delisting process, if it doesn't want this to happen again.

This whole thing lets your entire business look very unprofessional.

[memvola]

The claim system is good enough. If someone gives you a claim code you don't have, tell them to bring it up with Nefario. If more than one person claims a code, just give it to the first person. It's not your responsibility to figure it out. If there is a problem with how the claim system was done, it is Nefario's responsibility to reimburse anyone that has a problem that a better system would have solved. Period. If he didn't want this liability on his hands, he would have just done it right in the first place.

That would be satisfactory. It seems Goat needs to publish every code upon receipt, otherwise he won't be able to prove he has redeemed it when he receives the code twice.

[JoelKatz]

Goat if I were you I would use the LAST traded price of the asset to liquidate at. That makes the most sense and is the most fair to your asset holders. Now that you have your question answered you have everything you need to fulfill your obligations to your asset holders.

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.

[JoelKatz]

The claim system is good enough. If someone gives you a claim code you don't have, tell them to bring it up with Nefario.

How would that work? If Nefario says "I gave that code to Goat". Then what?

If more than one person claims a code, just give it to the first person. It's not your responsibility to figure it out.

And if the person making the second claim says they don't believe that Goat got any other claim, then what? If Nefario gave the same claim code to two people, how can Goat prove that?

If there is a problem with how the claim system was done, it is Nefario's responsibility to reimburse anyone that has a problem that a better system would have solved. Period. If he didn't want this liability on his hands, he would have just done it right in the first place.

Exactly. So as soon as Nefario accepts that liability and agrees to a resolution system, *then* Goat could accept claim codes. But until then, it can't work. (But he won't do that because the liability is massive. See below.)

The ONLY thing you need to check is that the amount of claim codes match the number of shares issued.

That would be the only thing he needed to check if he had an agreement in place with Nefario to resolve disputes. But right now, he'd have to be an idiot to start accepting those claim codes. Consider:

1) Person comes to Goat with a code.

2) Goat redeems the code, it's on the list.

3) Another person comes to Goat with the same code.

4) Goat says, "Sorry. That code was redeemed."

5) Person says, "I didn't redeem it. It was issued to me. Maybe you're lying. Maybe Nefario gave two people the same code. I don't know."

Now what? Nefario has not accepted any liability for this situation and Goat would be a fool to do so since he doesn't trust Nefario. Of course Nefario will say the code was only given to one person and that's likely true. But how can Goat prove he's not scamming? And if you say "in this case, we'll trust Goat", then Goat can cheat anyone he wants to.

In other words, for Goat to accept these codes opens himself up to massive liability if his asset holders try to scam him. And nothing Nefario can do can fix this after the fact. The second Goat starts accepting these codes, this window opens up. Goat would have to be an idiot to start redeeming these codes.

And how can Nefario accept liability for this? He doesn't know if the guy is scamming (redeeming the same code twice) or Goat is scamming (redeeming other people's codes himself through an accomplice). And if Nefario says to the guy, "sorry, I only gave your code to one person", (which is probably true) then the guy can argue that Goat is a scammer. So Goat can only accept codes if Nefario makes good for anyone in this situation, even if they are scamming him.

This code system is so fundamentally broken and so at odds with everything we know about security that it looks like it was thought up in two minutes by a below-average third grader. And, in any event, for Nefario to impose it on Goat and his asset holders without even trying to reach an agreement on a scheme that's at least not so obviously broken is an inexcusable breach of GLBSE's obligation to protect its customers' ownership interests in their assets.

[smoothie]

I would like to point out that Nefario has not sent me any BTC despite 3 e-mails over several days with the BTC address.

I also noticed he hasnt really posted much on the forum in the past few days. He has been very quiet.

[guruvan]

Well.

This thread has clearly shown me that I shouldn't trust:

GLBSE
Nefario
Bitcointalk.org staff
Maged in particular (but I didn't trust Maged already)

Nefario, wow. You' fucked up with this one. What was the percentage of fundss withdrawn from GLBSE this week? Have any traders that aren't bailing out? Any assets that aren't collapsing? Nice work. How much investor money are you now responsible for losing?

Maged, no the claim code "system" devised at GLBSE is a complete disaster. You're obviously not qualified to determine the quality of that system. You clearly don't understand how easily it can be compromised.

Theymos, how can you have Maged "judging" things here. He's clearly biased against certain members of the community,. and cannot be expected to "judge" fairly.

I have no question that Goat will make good on his obligations to his investors, but I can't understand why Nefario, and GLBSE, and apparently forum staff would like to make this difficult for Goat. Interesting that one staff member is a major GLBSE shareholder. Bad form. Looks pretty scammy from here.

Nefario where is Goat's money?!!!

[memvola]

The claim system is good enough. If someone gives you a claim code you don't have, tell them to bring it up with Nefario. If more than one person claims a code, just give it to the first person. It's not your responsibility to figure it out. If there is a problem with how the claim system was done, it is Nefario's responsibility to reimburse anyone that has a problem that a better system would have solved. Period. If he didn't want this liability on his hands, he would have just done it right in the first place.

That would be satisfactory. It seems Goat needs to publish every code upon receipt, otherwise he won't be able to prove he has redeemed it when he receives the code twice.

Making the code public is only asking for others to try to use it...  Even if i were to find a way to accept the codes it does not solve all of the problems. Crossing a code off the list does not make the code turn back into an asset.

The claim system dictates that it is so. You can't afford to not disclose the codes you receive, otherwise you won't be able to prove you did indeed receive those codes.

According to what Maged said, it isn't even your burden. Nefario will reimburse anyone that has a problem that a better system would have solved. Interestingly enough, a better system (i.e. merely not rushing the delisting out of spite for a single person) would have solved the precise problem we're having now. For this reason, I think this time Nefario should publicly confirm what Maged said.

One more point though. It should be clear that GLBSE still has obligations to the owners of those shares, as Maged stated. And that is not surprising because it's very hard to devise a system for transferring control of anonymous assets without cooperating authorities. If we had an easy way to do it, we wouldn't need Satoshi to create Bitcoin.

[JoelKatz]

One more point though. It should be clear that GLBSE still has obligations to the owners of those shares, as Maged stated.

These are obligations that Nefario, it appears, has currently directed GLBSE to default on and continues to default on. Assuming there isn't some dramatic "other side to the story" that we haven't heard, that alone seems to merit a scammer tag until that obligation is honored. Combine that with the apparent failure to return even undisputed amounts of Goat's money that Nefario directed to be frozen and the case is a slam dunk. I think that if it were anyone else, it would resolved already.

I'm not on a witch hunt. By far my preferred resolution to this problem would be GLBSE accepting responsibility for the mess Nefario made, finding a way to make things right with their customers, and pledging to work out a freezing and delisting policy that will avoid a repeat of this fiasco.

[guruvan]

You know, I'm reminded of nefario once asking pirate to lock Goat's account at BTCS&T.

This is yet another attempt by nefario to harm goat financially.

With no word, nor action from nefario, I find it hard to imagine what other conclusion could be drawn here.

[deeplink]

This code system is so fundamentally broken and so at odds with everything we know about security that it looks like it was thought up in two minutes by a below-average third grader. And, in any event, for Nefario to impose it on Goat and his asset holders without even trying to reach an agreement on a scheme that's at least not so obviously broken is an inexcusable breach of GLBSE's obligation to protect its customers' ownership interests in their assets.

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange is proposing this obviously flawed code system. No question security issues should be your main specialism when running a stock exchange.

Adding more concern is the fact that the website is not up to standards (and has not been improving for months) indicating that the programmer(s) are not very serious or skilled.

Adding even more concerns are the more than questionable action of de-listing and the complete ignoration of valid objections by the community.

The way this is handled by GLBSE/Nefario is not unacceptable.

Big big fail for GLBSE.

[Bugpowder]

[/quote]

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange

[/quote]

GLBSE is not the largest bitcoin stock exchange.

[bitcoinbear]

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange

GLBSE is not the largest bitcoin stock exchange.

It depends on how you measure it. What would you call the biggest stock exchange? I think GLBSE has the largest number of assets listed.

[ciuciu]

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange



GLBSE is not the largest bitcoin stock exchange.

You are a dreamer. "The bitcoin exchange" is running more than 80% on margin. A few weeks ago Smickles@Co were worried because the main Bitcoin address of that exchange received only 4000BTC. And all of them sent bitcoins to that address. The explanation of the pornographer: all other are "private deals".
Try selling in that fake bids and you will see. But that is not a problem yet, because nobody is using that exchange.

[ShireSilver]

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first. If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there. At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

[reeses]

This thread has clearly shown me that I shouldn't trust:

GLBSE
Nefario
Bitcointalk.org staff
Maged in particular (but I didn't trust Maged already)

You shouldn't trust anyone.  However, you should distrust this list.  Put a "scammer" tag on in your head, or inject custom CSS with their posts.

This is a clusterfuck from all angles.  Goat screwed up to a certain degree, and his attitude¹ encouraged all of the above into believing that a) he was wrong and b) he would be easily pushed into some sort of settlement that was not in his best interest.

Nefario is inept and incompetent.  He is in way over his head and if GLBSE continues to do business, it will merely continue its trend to being the Silk Road of BTC "security exchanges"² or blow up completely.  It should not continue to exist.

The staff should not be dictating policy of BTC businesses.  This ticket system is moronic.  How do you value an asset that can no longer be exchanged?

As I read it, and I am ready to be corrected, Nefario and the forum staff have colluded to put goat out of business.


1. Yes, he is a prick.  But if we don't defend pricks, then, well, you run the risk of monster pricks being really, really big pricks.
2. Quotes for irony.

[MPOE-PR]

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first. If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there. At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

This is a horrible idea.

Actually, this sort of "doing without knowing what" is exactly how Nefario drove GLBSE into the wall.