TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted.

[EskimoBob]

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

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

[1714820383]

1714820383

[1714820383]

1714820383

[1714820383]

1714820383

[1714820383]

1714820383

[OneEyed]

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.

I don't get the logic here. Who cares if he mines or not, as long as he gives the bond holders a dividend corresponding to the PPS output of 1 MH/s? What difference does that make for the bond holder whether he mines, he invests in mining or he does anything else with the investment? Would they get more dividends if Goat mined by himself? Would they have any claim to the mining hardware Goat would buy (those are not shares)?

From the contract, one can assume that the bond will never be bought back unless Goat doesn't need the money anymore. As long as he gives holders dividends corresponding to the contract, what's wrong with a bond whose returns are indexed on fixed mining?

Now, if the question is "are people wrong in investing in such bonds?", well, anyone can see the answer in this case. And if you agree that it would make no difference if Goat mined by himself, you will also see that investing in perpetual fixed mining bonds (the problem here is more "perpetual" than anything else) does hardly make sense.

[Bugpowder]

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

It was in a public channel, and in my and many others irc history too.  Why do you need permission?

[Bitcoin Oz]

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?

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

 

They do not understand how a fixed mining bond works...  And really if Nefario does not either lulz...

BBL Need to "invest" in some hookers and opium...

There is literally no reason a perpetual mining bond needs mining equipment at all. I knew this a year ago when I thought about how to get a cheap loan in bitcoinland. The answer is to issue mining bonds based on difficulty which is basically a loan with reducing interest rates.

Its not ethical but theres nothing you can do about it unless mining equipment is specified in the contract. I guess goat doesnt have the same ethical boundaries as most of us. Or he just wanted a really cheap loan. Actually you may never get paid back what you lent him  if difficulty ramps up dramatically 

[reeses]

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

FUUUUUUUCK indeed.  Smart one, Maged.  And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.

[burnside]

There is literally no reason a perpetual mining bond needs mining equipment at all. I knew this a year ago when I thought about how to get a cheap loan in bitcoinland. The answer is to issue mining bonds based on difficulty which is basically a loan with reducing interest rates.

Its not ethical but theres nothing you can do about it unless mining equipment is specified in the contract. I guess goat doesnt have the same ethical boundaries as most of us. Or he just wanted a really cheap loan. Actually you may never get paid back what you lent him  if difficulty ramps up dramatically 

This is mostly true, but as a cheap loan it is not without significant risk.  If difficulty stays even or goes down it becomes not so cheap a loan.

[JoelKatz]

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.

No, you're wrong: All THREE don't work. What's stopping Nefario from relisting and giving himself ALL of each asset? How could you POSSIBLY prove that to be wrong? By this reasoning, MtGox is also a scam. Sorry, but at some point, you're just going to have to trust Nefario.

No. This is seriously incorrect and I think your approach is fundamentally misguided because of this confusion. The third solution does not require Goat to assume any risk he has not already agreed to accept.

If the assets are relisted, there is no way anyone can go to Goat and accuse him of scamming and there is no way Nefario can make Goat look like a scammer. Sure, Nefario can screw over Goat's asset holders, but they agreed to accept GLBSE to protect their ownership interest and it would be absolutely clear to them that it was GLBSE that had defaulted.

You are correct that with option three the asset owners and Goat have to trust Nefario, but only to the extent they have already agreed to trust him by listing their asset with him and purchasing them on his exchange. No new trust is required.

The other two options both require Goat to assume the risk that someone will claim that he is refusing to redeem a valid claim code and he won't know whether it's because of Nefario or the asset owner. This is a risk he never agreed to assume, significantly different in type from other risks he has agreed to assume, and frankly one I don't think he should assume. This risk does not arise in option 3.

In the absence of any redemption agreement, it was Nefario's decision to delist Goat's assets that directly harmed the asset owners.

Goat has never agreed to accept any arrangement where Nefario can make it look to his asset holders like he is scamming. Unless Goat agrees to accept this risk, there is absolutely no sense in trying to get Nefario to agree to impose it on him. It was Nefario's decision that harmed the asset holders and that decision appears to have been made without adequate justification to obtain leverage in another dispute with no consideration for the harm done to GLBSE's customers. You've been asked to investigate that. If you're trying to minimize that harm by moderating, you need to obtain permission from Goat and Nefario first. You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.

[makomk]

This is mostly true, but as a cheap loan it is not without significant risk.  If difficulty stays even or goes down it becomes not so cheap a loan.

That's only really likely to happen if the value of Bitcoins also plummets, in which case it's still a pretty cheap loan.

[Maged]

My still being able to post is proof that you are neutral?

Yes, it is. Most other forums not only ban scammers, but they require much less proof. By our own policy, we decided not to do things that way. Scammer tags are only handed out to people who are pretty clearly scamming after potentially HOURS of paperwork. Bans are also just as hard.

I'm starting to think this is not going to end up well no matter how hard I try to resolve this. I thought you just made a mistake when you said you would ban me unless I did something you wanted. I did not know that was policy.

No, I didn't make a mistake, but you misunderstand your current situation. PREVIOUSLY, when you claimed to send the address and Nefario said it wasn't valid, there was the potential for you to be banned for trolling and libel. However, we resolved that. Even if you never did respond, it would be up to Nefario to have pursued that. To be clear, though, you are NO LONGER in a position to be banned. In fact, at the moment, you aren't even at risk of the scammer tag. That may change depending on Nefario's response, however.

Again you admit that I must do something that you think is illegal or I get the scammers tag

Again, there is a difference between laws we care about for the scammer tag, and those that we don't. Since I strongly believe in personal responsibility, I don't feel that the securities laws should apply when it comes to the tag. If you find another exchange to take over your assets, you are no worse off legally than you were before.

I would like to understand why you think it is my burden to find someone to accept the GLBSE codes

Because you are the issuer and GLBSE doesn't want to list you anymore. If you weren't concerned with legal issues, you could even do it yourself.

when most people here think it is the burden of GLBSE?

Why?

You know I never agreed to these terms nor did the GLBSE customers.

That doesn't matter. If you wanted GLBSE to do that or otherwise compensate you if you were to get delisted, you should have written up a contract that says that and required GLBSE to agree to it before you started listing. If they wouldn't have agreed to that, I guarantee that you could have found an exchange that would.

Why do you keep coming here and attacking me while Nefario gets to sit silent?

Because you keep posting in public.

Can I be silent too or will I get banned?

Absolutely! While we already discussed the "ban" issue (you won't be banned), I'll also answer that question as if you said "marked as a scammer".
For the scammer tag, you can be publicly silent if you wish. All you have to do is answer any questions I send you (or explain why you can't answer them) and consider any offers from Nefario in good faith. If you don't answer, I will always try to assume the best unless the other side has enough evidence to counter anything I can think of.

It sounds like you are threatening me just like Nefario did.  Honestly if this is how you, Theymos and the forum staff think maybe I should no longer be here...

That's because we've had it with your games. Nefario isn't thought of that highly either.

You can kick me out for anything you want I guess... but you know this will look even more like a cover up for the GLBSE owners...

Again, I was just explaining what we can LEGALLY do. It is unlikely that we will do it.

will you delete the posts like you said you would in the PM? You know that would not be seen as neutral...

No, of course not. That was already handled.

I mean really this is silly. I am having to fight you so I don't get banned

You do not have to fight me. In fact, it is far more likely that you'll walk away from this just fine if you don't. I'm here to help you, but I must consider the interests of both sides.

while Nefario gets to lie to your face and get away with it... What a shame... 

No, he cannot get away with lying.

I'm not even sure if I will be on this forum in a few days. I have decided that I will no longer respond to the demands of Maged under the threat of if I do not comply I will be banned. I will just let him ban me as he thinks it is his right and that it is best for GLBSE...

Again, you'll be just fine. These also aren't threat. Instead they are statements of fact about what will most likely happen if you don't comply with something or give an explanation of why you can't. If you prefer, I can leave that information out and just let you infer it.

I personally believe that Nefario delisted my account because he wanted to seize my personal GLBSE stock that I held. I brought up a scamming thread about this but Maged choose to not respond to the real issue. Maged never said if the seizing of an asset (paid for or not) was scamming or not. Either way I do not have the asset or the BTC.

Because that's really hard to figure out, especially since the fake GLBSE has no value.

I was trying to resolve this issue with GLBSE but it seems that Maged (speaking for GLBSE?) has ruled out the best option, being relisted on GLBSE, as something that is not an option.

That wasn't me, that was Nefario. In fact, I still presented it as one of the three options of settling this to Nefario. However, I told you that it's off the table when coming up with ideas because we already know that Nefario will most likely not agree to any such thing and that it's his right to be in business with only those people/organizations that he want to. Under no circumstance will Nefario get a scammer tag simply for not allowing you to continue using his exchange.

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).

Glad to hear it!

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.

That's also wise, just because this forum really sucks as far as communication goes. You're not going to be banned at this point, though.

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

Ok.


Once I have caught up more to the thread I'll make another post.

[Maged]

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

FUUUUUUUCK indeed.  Smart one, Maged.  And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.

To clarify, that just means that we won't give you a scammer tag in that situation. You're still an asshole if you do that, though. Even then, the evidence that you're posting needs to be pretty significant.

By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.

[MPOE-PR]

If they wouldn't have agreed to that, I guarantee that you could have found an exchange that would.

How can you guarantee this?!

I will always try to assume the best unless the other side has enough evidence to counter anything I can think of.

This may be in your mind the high road, but in practice it's actually quite broken, as someone else has explained above. The legal system works as it works (arbitration of claims actually made, not arbitration of potential claims) for very good practical reasons, it's not just idiosyncratic peculiarity.

[Maged]

You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.

You're right.

I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.

[reeses]

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

FUUUUUUUCK indeed.  Smart one, Maged.  And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.

To clarify, that just means that we won't give you a scammer tag in that situation. You're still an asshole if you do that, though. Even then, the evidence that you're posting needs to be pretty significant.

By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.

Mayhap I didn't clarify the cause of my reaction.

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

And the comment about bonds?  You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?

[JoelKatz]

You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.

You're right.

I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.

For what it's worth, I think declaring this situation to just not be resolvable by the forums "scammer tag" mechanism is a reasonable resolution as far as the forums goes.

Hopefully GLBSE's future customers will take into account the fact that GLBSE reserves the right to totally abandon its obligation to preserve their ownership interest by making a decision to delist the asset and will exercise this right if it feels like it with no obligation to explain or defend that decision.

[Maged]

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.

And the comment about bonds?  You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?

No, of course not. I just saying that I wouldn't consider it a scam if actual mining didn't back a bond as long as it never explicitly claims that it does. Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.

[MPOE-PR]

You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.

You're right.

I am officially dropping this investigation and am releasing all parties of any obligations. BadBear will now decide this, if he wants.

For what it's worth, I think declaring this situation to just not be resolvable by the forums "scammer tag" mechanism is a reasonable resolution as far as the forums goes.

Hopefully GLBSE's future customers will take into account the fact that GLBSE reserves the right to totally abandon its obligation to preserve their ownership interest by making a decision to delist the asset and will exercise this right if it feels like it with no obligation to explain or defend that decision.

Future customers?!

[Bitcoin Oz]

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

.....It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam. Interestingly enough, this seems like it might be the case.

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

FUUUUUUUCK indeed.  Smart one, Maged.  And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.

To clarify, that just means that we won't give you a scammer tag in that situation. You're still an asshole if you do that, though. Even then, the evidence that you're posting needs to be pretty significant.

By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.

Mayhap I didn't clarify the cause of my reaction.

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

And the comment about bonds?  You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?

No, there is literally no need to back fixed mh/s bonds with mining equipment if its not written into the contract. They only need to pay the equivalent rewards for a certain amount of mh/s.

People have pointed this loophole out on numerous occasions.

[reeses]

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.

So you disavow this statement?

It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.

And the comment about bonds?  You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?

No, of course not. I just saying that I wouldn't consider it a scam if actual mining didn't back a bond as long as it never explicitly claims that it does. Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.

Such as not sending you a bitcoin address?

[JoelKatz]

Future customers?!

If there was evidence Goat was making a significant effort to work out a redemption scheme with GLBSE, I'd agree with you. But without that, I think a lot of people will give GLBSE the benefit of the doubt. But it's certainly a warning bell, especially since GLBSE doesn't seem to be making any effort to improve the redemption scheme. No matter what happens, the decision to delist caused significant harm to GLBSE's customers, and there's no evidence NEFARIO even considered that. However, if they respond to this by announcing delisting criteria, escalation rules, and a procedure for a sensible redemption after delisting, that would go a long way to recovering.

[JoelKatz]

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.

So you disavow this statement?

It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.

These statements seem consistent to me. The latter was a bit confusing, but the former restates the most natural way to understand it. It doesn't say you must break an NDA to reveal a scam nor does it say anything will happen if you refuse to break an NDA to reveal a scam. It just says what happens if you break an NDA to reveal a scam -- the NDA won't be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag.