TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted.

[Maged]

This may be a dumb idea, but why not have nefario provide goat with a list of BTC addresses linked as a deposit address to the user's GLBSE account and a share count.

Then there's no liability for goat - as if they lose control of their GLBSE account then they're in exactly the same position as if they'd lost control of it BEFORE goat was delisted (the unauthorised user can sell shares/withdraw BTC).  All liability after goat sends the funds then rests with GLBSE -as it would have done had he been paying by their dividend mechanism.  And the block-chain allows verification of whether funds were actually sent.

On the surface, it's a good idea. However, it has the following problems:
1) Deposits may not have all come from a non-shared wallet. This opens the potential for MtGox, etc., to fraudulently claim shares as their own. This is besides the fact that some people will NEVER be able to claim their shares. The same goes for withdrawal addresses.
2) This breaks the privacy that users expected that they had with GLBSE.
3) Nefario could just make up the list. You know, since apparently he can't be trusted to do anything right.

These exact issues also exist with email addresses, except replace 1 with "Users may not have signed up with a secure email address, since it wasn't ever supposed to single-handedly protect the account." Same with any other personal information GLBSE has.

Ask yourself, what does it take to liquidate all of a person's assets and empty their account at GLBSE? The answer is access to their account. Thus, access to someone's account should be all the protects this transfer of assets.

I wasn't clear enough what I meant.

I didn't mean nefario gives goat the addresses the user deposited to GLBSE with (which is how it appears you read it).

What I meant was that nefario generates a new GLBSE-owned deposit address for each user - linked to their user-account (so BTC sent to that address arrive in their GLBSE account).  Then gives goat THAT list.

your point 1) is then not relevant.
point 2) also isn't relevant - as the user never provided the address, nor is there any way for someone to link it to their GLBSE account.
point 3) is also a non-issue - GLBSE has no responsibility for how many funds are sent to that address or why those funds are sent (that's down to goat to sort out with his users himself).  Nefario explicitly CAN make up the list - but GLBSE takes on responsibility to provide users with the funds associated with THEIR deposit address (just like they do for deposits to any other deposit address).  So there'd be no benefit in nefario giving goat a list of addresses (and each user the ID of their own goat-related address) that was fake - as he'd then be accepting responsibility for delivering funds that he'd not got control over.

What it doesn't do is give goat any way of identifying individual investors - or investors a way of proving that they're the person receiving funds on the address.  Which would basically limit goat to only being able to pay dividends or do a buy-back.  But he already has the codes which allow that - so long as he's not dumb enough to send funds other than to the BTC address provided by nefario, he could also then buy back shares from individual users (a scammer with the code could only trick goat into buying back the share by sending BTC to the true owner).  Transfers to third-parties (which would take the shares away from GLBSE totally) could be achieved by goat buying the share from the original owner (confirming code then paying to the nefario-provided GLBSE account) then selling it to the third-party.  Provided the amount transferred in both transactions is the market value then the worst a scammer (who somehow got the code) can do is BUY a share from goat at market rate - a share which isn't registered on GLBSE and which goat could just take away from them if he decided they were scamming.  Not much of a reward really.

I see, so a different twist to option 2. That would also be acceptable, in my eyes, but only if Goat accepts it, since I don't want Nefario to be able to just force such a convoluted system on Goat.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I'm just shocked that Maged thinks GLBSE is illegal and is so involved in enforcement for them. I personally do not think GLBSE is illegal and that is why I am willing to work with GLBSE. The FSA is not the SEC.

England is not the USA.

I thought bitcoin was play money.  My wife calls 'em "magic beans".

Is it illegal to swap magic beans internationally?

And if I make an online game that uses magic beans, where you're running a business that deals in magic beans, is it illegal to play my game internationally?

We'll call it "Mr. Magic Beans - Sims Business Edition".

(is mmbex.com taken?  mr magic beans exchange?)

It sounds like a fun game to play.

Theres a difference between http://www.hsx.com/ and  http://empireavenue.com/  and the NYSE.

As part of the Services, HSX provides users with the ability to participate in the Hollywood Stock Exchange, a virtual game which allows users ("Participants") to buy and sell fictitious novelty interests in certain entertainment related properties (e.g., actors, actresses, movies, etc.). The interests in the particular properties and the Hollywood Stock Exchange in general are in no way related to the actual properties themselves and such fictitious interests are not, and should not be considered to be, stocks, bonds, or any other form of equity or debt security of HSX or any other person or entity. Accordingly, HSX has not, and is not obligated to, register such interests under any state or federal securities laws. The Hollywood Stock Exchange is intended for entertainment purposes only and any actual betting, wagering or gambling based on the information provided on the Web site or through the Hollywood Stock Exchange is strictly prohibited. Participants understand and agree that all interests are based on virtual "Hollywood" dollars, also known as "H$," which are entirely fictitious and have no actual corresponding dollar amount. Certain contests conducted on the Web site may offer prizes that only apply to H$ and not real currency -- you must read all Official Rules for such contests carefully. Any accumulation of H$ relates solely to a Participant's HSX account and participants are not entitled to receive any real currency, unless otherwise determined by HSX, in its sole discretion.

okay = a virtual game
not okay = actual bonds and stocks sold without a registered stock broker




The grey area comes because bitcoin isnt classified as a currency anywhere.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Crap.  If I can't play magic beans here.  I might have to move to Canada.

Well on your site you do call it a game or something. You make it clear they are not real assets and it is only for entertainment.

Yep. But then that defeats the entire purpose.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Crap.  If I can't play magic beans here.  I might have to move to Canada.

Well on your site you do call it a game or something. You make it clear they are not real assets and it is only for entertainment.

Yep. But then that defeats the entire purpose.

That is my point, if I move them to a game site I will get called a scammer :/

You wont get anything if Nefario is in jail for securities fraud. If he is following legal advice they have probably advised him  to stfu and say absolutely nothing no matter how much the glbse brand gets damaged.

[burnside]

The grey area comes because bitcoin isnt classified as a currency anywhere.

Hah!  See.  Magic beans.

Well on your site you do call it a game or something. You make it clear they are not real assets and it is only for entertainment.

Yep. But then that defeats the entire purpose.

All of those games have rules.  If you don't play by the rules, you get kicked out of the game.  Nothing has ever been in place legally to suggest that GLBSE has any more bite than that.  Nor bitcointalk, nor anyone else.  Pirate made off with millions.  He got kicked out of the game.  That's it.

I know my game will be more successful than Nefario's game, because my game is designed better.  My game is faster, more responsive, and easier to use.  Players in my game can take their data out of the game and play the game elsewhere.  I value the players in my game and will be fair with them.

[Bitcoin Oz]

The grey area comes because bitcoin isnt classified as a currency anywhere.

Hah!  See.  Magic beans.

Well on your site you do call it a game or something. You make it clear they are not real assets and it is only for entertainment.

Yep. But then that defeats the entire purpose.

All of those games have rules.  If you don't play by the rules, you get kicked out of the game.  Nothing has ever been in place legally to suggest that GLBSE has any more bite than that.  Nor bitcointalk, nor anyone else.  Pirate made off with millions.  He got kicked out of the game.  That's it.

I know my game will be more successful than Nefario's game, because my game is designed better.  My game is faster, more responsive, and easier to use.  Players in my game can take their data out of the game and play the game elsewhere.  I value the players in my game and will be fair with them.

Now would be a good time to launch a bitcoin game 

[Cryptostocks]

So in order legalize our exchanges we all rebrand them to games with terms like HSX has (such as mentioned earlier in the thread)?

[Bitcoin Oz]

So in order legalize our exchanges we all rebrand them to games with terms like HSX has (such as mentioned earlier in the thread)?

are entirely fictitious and have no actual corresponding dollar amount.

is this true of bitcoin ?

[burnside]

So in order legalize our exchanges we all rebrand them to games with terms like HSX has (such as mentioned earlier in the thread)?

Depends on your locality I suspect.

[burnside]

So in order legalize our exchanges we all rebrand them to games with terms like HSX has (such as mentioned earlier in the thread)?

are entirely fictitious and have no actual corresponding dollar amount.

is this true of bitcoin ?

Not sure.  I am certain though that no matter how much they claim that, it is not true in their game.  Nor Blizzard's games, nor Sony's, etc... Head on over to Ebay if you need proof.

[isis]

So in order legalize our exchanges we all rebrand them to games with terms like HSX has (such as mentioned earlier in the thread)?

are entirely fictitious and have no actual corresponding dollar amount.

is this true of bitcoin ?

Not sure.  I am certain though that no matter how much they claim that, it is not true in their game.  Nor Blizzard's games, nor Sony's, etc... Head on over to Ebay if you need proof.

Branding it as a game won't solve the issue.  If money is changing hands it always runs afoul of AML & PATRIOT act type laws, game or no game.  We gotta keep them thar terrists in their place and if it means we get to give every citizen of the world a financial rectal exam all the better!

Anyone who thinks they are able to skirt the law in this regard, simply by attempting to reclassify their business as a "game" is sorely mistaken and will end up being spanked by the law at some point. 

Point of fact, a contract requires 3 things; offer, acceptance and consideration.  Consideration is usually money, but can literally be anything.  Courts tend to treat non-money consideration in terms of it's monetary value in a fair and open market.  Thus if you're swapping bonds for BTCs, the open market value of those bonds is the market value of the BTCs.  Trading them requires the exact same (if not more), limitations and verifications as trading against those bonds in local fiat.

I promise you a judge will look at bitcoin and BTC denominated transactions, the exact same way as ANY foreign currency contract.

Your best bet is to incorporate in some foreign country with lax securities laws (idontgiveadamastan), and then set your self up as a proper exchange in THAT country.  Not every country requires compliance with US laws and US law can't really touch you in those countries, they're just damned glad to see some money moving through their country.

banking4bankers.com has some good resources to point you in the right direction.  My current fav if you're a USAian is to start looking at Belize for this sort of thing.

[burnside]

So in order legalize our exchanges we all rebrand them to games with terms like HSX has (such as mentioned earlier in the thread)?

are entirely fictitious and have no actual corresponding dollar amount.

is this true of bitcoin ?

Not sure.  I am certain though that no matter how much they claim that, it is not true in their game.  Nor Blizzard's games, nor Sony's, etc... Head on over to Ebay if you need proof.

Branding it as a game won't solve the issue.  If money is changing hands it always runs afoul of AML & PATRIOT act type laws, game or no game.  We gotta keep them thar terrists in their place and if it means we get to give every citizen of the world a financial rectal exam all the better!

Anyone who thinks they are able to skirt the law in this regard, simply by attempting to reclassify their business as a "game" is sorely mistaken and will end up being spanked by the law at some point. 

Point of fact, a contract requires 3 things; offer, acceptance and consideration.  Consideration is usually money, but can literally be anything.  Courts tend to treat non-money consideration in terms of it's monetary value in a fair and open market.  Thus if you're swapping bonds for BTCs, the open market value of those bonds is the market value of the BTCs.  Trading them requires the exact same (if not more), limitations and verifications as trading against those bonds in local fiat.

I promise you a judge will look at bitcoin and BTC denominated transactions, the exact same way as ANY foreign currency contract.

Your best bet is to incorporate in some foreign country with lax securities laws (idontgiveadamastan), and then set your self up as a proper exchange in THAT country.  Not every country requires compliance with US laws and US law can't really touch you in those countries, they're just damned glad to see some money moving through their country.

banking4bankers.com has some good resources to point you in the right direction.  My current fav if you're a USAian is to start looking at Belize for this sort of thing.

Appreciate the input.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

If they want to get you, they will, no matter what you do.  The game is rigged so we're all felons.

[The00Dustin]

I bet if someone comes up with an option where Nefario isn't an ongoing accomplice for drug trafficking/money laundering/whatever pirate was doing and securities fraud he would be interested.

ONE of TyGrr's assets was a PPT, the rest were not.  I'm guessing other asset creators with multiple accounts ONLY had their PPT assets de-listed.  You are suggesting that GLBSE would probably re-list if they could re-list without TyGrr.Bond-P (if that is the PPT asset), but I am guessing you are wrong.  I doubt they will re-list at all, but even if they would, I doubt they would give Goat the GLBSE shares, which should have been treated the same as the PPT shares and de-listed (hence leaving them in the accounts for novelty purposes [and apparently transfers, but not automatic trading] unless people wanted to transfer them out / get rid of them) instead of being forcibly purchased.  If they did this and only de-listed TyGrr.Bond-P, a lot less people would believe Goat had a leg to stand on.  Moreover, if Goat is correct about them wanting to take GLBSE so they can use it (as opposed to taking it to protect themselves from liability), then doing these things now would probably count as compromise if both parties would agree, because I don't think either party would like it.  I suppose Deprived's suggestion could also be considered compromise.  That having been said, I'm not convinced either party understands compromise.  If they do, they don't really seem willing to give it a go.  Nonetheless, it seems I am a bit late to be commenting on this post, as it appears to have recently turned into the digging of a deeper hole.

ETA: '/]' where necessary to remove my comments from dentldir's quote.

[makomk]

2) The problem with this solution is that that's just another unilateral imposition of a broken redemption scheme on Goat, just a slightly less broken one. It still causes substantially the same problems. Two people can still come to Goat with possession of the same private key. Goat still has to decide whether to redeem twice or once. If twice, he's still getting massive liability crammed down his throat that he never agreed to accept. If once, then he's still taking the risk of being branded a scammer if Nefario issues the same code to two people, and he'll never even know whether it was Nefario or the claimant is lying. (Consider the same scenario as in 1 above.)

Actually it solves nearly all of the fraud problems from Goat's perspective, I think, so long as the list of addresses and amounts is made public by Nefario. If Goat checks the signature on and keeps all the signed messages transferring ownership, he can easily prove that someone with the appropriate private key did redeem the shares and there's no way for him to fake this himself. It doesn't really matter to him whether Nefario or the claimant is trying to scam him, especially since Nefario could do the exact same thing with normal shares listed on GLBSE.

(Really this needs full-blown distributed timestamping and a public record of transfers in order to prevent certain kinds of fraud between stockholders when transferring shares, but that's a lot more complicated to achieve.)

[MPOE-PR]

Message sent to Nefario:

Ok, one last thing. If you don't want a scammer tag, you need to agree to do/implement one of the following:

1) Publicly agree to accept ALL liability for double-spent codes and codes that Goat may not have, but were issued anyway.
2) Recall all of the codes and reissue some kind of private keys, giving the public key list (with their corresponding claim codes from before) to Goat. Personally, I suggest using Bitcoin private keys:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112551.msg1240911#msg1240911
3) Come to an agreement with Goat to relist his assets.

You have one week to announce one of these options or similar, and one month to implement it. If you need more time than that, let me know along with the reason why.

1) The problem with this solution is that accepting liability may not mean he actually makes good on that liability. Goat would actually have to pay out funds relying on Nefario to make good on his acceptance of liability. It's not clear that this acceptance would be binding on the asset holders either, so if Nefario reneges, Goat could still be left with liability. So Goat can only redeem based on this acceptance of liability if he believes Nefario will make good on it. (And how would this even work? Someone goes to Goat with a code, Goat sends them to Nefario saying the code is not on his list. Nefario says "that's a made up code that I never issued". They now go back to Goat and complain that Nefario lied and they were in fact issued that code. Does Nefario have to make good on this? If not, how does Goat know Nefario didn't steal the asset? If so, an unlimited number of people can scam Nefario and he'd have no choice but to renege on his acceptance.)

2) The problem with this solution is that that's just another unilateral imposition of a broken redemption scheme on Goat, just a slightly less broken one. It still causes substantially the same problems. Two people can still come to Goat with possession of the same private key. Goat still has to decide whether to redeem twice or once. If twice, he's still getting massive liability crammed down his throat that he never agreed to accept. If once, then he's still taking the risk of being branded a scammer if Nefario issues the same code to two people, and he'll never even know whether it was Nefario or the claimant is lying. (Consider the same scenario as in 1 above.)

So two of your proposed solutions can't work. I don't think anyone has any business trying to coerce either side into accepting specific solutions and there's no sense in pressuring one side to agree to a solution the other side won't agree to -- how does that help? If they can't *agree* on a solution, we need to evaluate whether that's because either of them is scamming. (Unless Goat agreed to 1 and 2 above, in which case, he's a fool, but congrats on brilliant mediating. But if he didn't, what good is getting Nefario to agree to things Goat will, and should, never agree to?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was just a bad decision on your part. But several people have already told me privately that they believe you are conspiring with Nefario to appear to pressure him into an agreement that we all know Goat won't accept to shift the blame to Goat. I hope that's not true and that this was just an honest lapse in judgment.

Honestly I just think he got carried away by perceived "technical brilliance" in his solution. Because he's a geek. For some reason people have a lot of difficulty with the simple notion that finance is not for geeks, it's for finance people. Even in a new, technologically brilliant, geeky new currency.

And guess what, if tomorrow we colonize Venus the law of the land up on Venus will still be some derivation of Roman law. Even if the Romans never marched to Venus.

[Cryptostocks]

Just realist on one of the other exchanges:

Step 1: GLBSE creates a list:  eMail address / Number of shares
Step 2: GLBSE published a hash (MD5, SHA2) of that file on the forum
Sept 3: GLBSE sends the list to the new exchange, the new exchange confirms receipt and matching hash
Step 4: The new exchange creates accounts for all emails that are not yet registered
Step 5: Load the share balances into the new exchange

Here the what-ifs:
1. What if a user disputes his share numbers
     a) The number on the new exchange is not identical to the list provided, the new exchange fixes the issue
     b) The number on the new exchange is identical to the list provided, GLBSE to resolve the issue
     c) Anyone disputes the list?  Thats why the hash was posted. No disputes possible. Probably need a 3rd party to validate the contents of the list and its hash-value. But either exchange would be crazy to dispute the list, as the hash will point the correctness.
2. Users not registered yet, how do they know the new password of the auto created account?
    a) Web pages usually have a "resend me my password" features
3. How do the users know about the new exchange?
    a) New exchange sends an email to the user list provided informing them about the new exchange
4. Why not give the email addresses to the security issuer?
    The shareholders didn't consent the disclosure of their share ownership. They probably want to remain anonymous

All that is now necessary is:
a) a decision to move to a new exchange. In the absence of a voting feature for delisted companies, the security issuer will need to make a decision in the best interest of the share holders
b) Decide on a new exchange

[memvola]

Step 1: GLBSE creates a list:  eMail address / Number of shares
Step 2: GLBSE published a hash (MD5, SHA2) of that file on the forum
Sept 3: GLBSE sends the list to the new exchange, the new exchange confirms receipt and matching hash
Step 4: The new exchange creates accounts for all emails that are not yet registered
Step 5: Load the share balances into the new exchange

But the shareholders didn't consent to the disclosure of their ownership, as you said, so Step 3 is out of question. Also, you can't expect them to give GLBSE their CryptoStocks account name either (assuming this is the alternative).

I still think whoever takes over the authority over the shares should have a communication channel to the shareholder. Since GLBSE is the only entity who has given communication access, they have a duty to create this channel (i.e. continue being the broker until the shares are transferred). This will allow the new stock exchange to verify the claims.

Step 1: Shareholder gets the claim code from GLBSE
Step 2: Shareholder submits this claim code to Exchange2
Step 3: Exchange2 sends a verification number to GLBSE to be communicated to the shareholder corresponding to given code (automated)
Step 4: GLBSE sends the verification number to the corresponding e-mail address (automated)
Step 5: Shareholder submits the verification number to Exchange2

When this is over, the transfer is complete. Optionally, Exchange2 can inform GLBSE that it is.

ETA: The claim code itself could encode the asset name and number of shares, this way GLBSE doesn't need to share the initial list as a "Step 0". However, there at least needs to be some agreement as to which asset names on GLBSE maps to which ones on Exchange2.

[The00Dustin]

I still recognize and honor my entire obligation however I would request you all to contact me via e-mail (as Nefario asked you to do). I will ignore all PMs sent on the forum as I think there is a real risk that my account on the forum will also be delisted.

Nefario, Theymos and Maged if you would like to contact me about this issue please also contact me via e-mail.

Thank you for your support and I hope we can resolve this issue soon.


p.s. If you previously sent me an e-mail send it again as I had incorrectly assumed before this would be civilly resolved. We will have to find a new path.

This is a TERRIBLE move on your part.  I don't know why it didn't occur to me before my last post, but YOU are now the one exposing your shareholders to potential scammers and that is not the right way to prove whatever point you are trying to prove.  I'm going to break this up into points that should make it clear why I have come to this conclusion:

1) If you are going to honor your obligation and deal with your shareholders as Nefario asked, then you have caved, which is fine, albeit unfair.  In that scenario, there is no reason you would be kicked from the forums.  I, for one, have withdrawn all of my BTC from GLBSE and won't be depositing again if GLBSE doesn't offer any sort of compromise (and GLBSE getting what it wants while you deal with the fallout is not compromise).

2) At least one of your contracts has someone@example.com as your e-mail address because it was transferred from GLBSEv1.  That means some shareholders don't have your e-mail address.  It also isn't public in your forum profile, meaning they can't get it that way either.  I could ask what it is here, but any number of people could scam me by claiming to tell me your address, but using a fake one, and then acting as if they are you to get my code if I e-mail it.  Given (1) above, there is no reason (that using e-mail would solve) not to use PM for this, and as such, insisting on resorting to e-mail only serves to put your shareholders at additional risk and/or make you look like a manipulator/scammer.  Putting your shareholders at risk yourself does NOT prove that Nefario put them at risk, and could theoretically absolve him of responsibility for doing so.

[EskimoBob]

I was reading IRC log for lulz and guess what, there was one interesting conversation - Goat and Smoov going at it. Smoovius was asking questions and Goat was answering. 

After reading this, it looks like goat never ever invested the coins from his "mining" bonds to any mining equipment nor did he bother buying  any shares in any other mining bond or from gpumax?
It sounds like he took out a perpetual "loan" for what ever and he can pay it back when ever via perpetually diminishing dividends (unless the difficulty falls) 
I personally call this bull shit. If you sell mining bond, you mine. Period.
If this is what Nefario closed down, so Goat can not run away with the bond buyers money, then Nefario acted in the interest of all the TYGRR.BOND-A (B?) holders. 

Now TYGRR.BOND-A (B?) investors have a chance to get the coin back and ONLY because Nefario blocked Goat accounts.

Edit: Right now 2G are up for sale and no more than 5G will be sold unless I update this thread.

I will watch market conditions to see if/when I want to sell more.  (end edit)

TyGrr Mining Bond A (TyGrrMBA) 1MHS PPS perpetual bonds.

TyGrr will be listing 1 MH/S mining bonds and I am now taking pre IPO sales.
First round of sales will be limited to 17,000 MH/S
IPO sale will be around .30 BTC per share,
Pre IPO price will be .285
You must buy at least 200 shares to get the pre IPO price.
Dividends will start at the next difficulty change and will be paid at each difficulty change.

This bond will never expire.

Contract

The holder of this bond will receive as coupons a number of bitcoins equivalent to 100% PPS output of 1 MH/s, for as long as they hold the bond. Coupon payments are to be made within 48 hours of difficulty change for the previous days mining activity. The issuer can buy back the bond at any time at a price equal to 1.05 times the highest price the asset was traded over the prior 168 hours.

Same applies to TYGRR.BOND-B?

[Smoovious]

After reading this, it looks like goat never ever invested the coins from his "mining" bonds to any mining equipment nor did he bother buying  any shares in any other mining bond or from gpumax?

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