Done with GLBSE

[guruvan]

This has gone too far.

I am selling everything I have there, moving out all of my BTC, and never trading there again.


The owner of the platform acts vindictively and hot-headed, freezes accounts/issues of anyone he doesn't agree with, and has basically placed hundreds if not thousands of his customer's BTC in limbo.

Death-knell. I predict crickets over there.

You know that your BTC are held by the asset issuer if you bought shares , right?

If the asset issuer had his account shut down by Nefario no, the asset issuer does not hold the BTC. Nefario has the BTC.

You are saying there are people who leave BTC on GLBSE lying around instead of investing or saving according to their contracts?  For other reasons than investing,paying dividends or buybacks there is no need to hold BTC there. Goat , does Nefario hold some of your Assets BTC ? Is he clearly (mind you) intending to not give them back?

at this time it seems that I can not get them back unless I agree to my account being shut down and my assets delisted. I do not consent to that so I do not know how I can get my coins back

You've been given all the details you need to continue operating without GLBSE.

I've also asked you for a BTC address to send the remaining balance in your accounts to you.

And, Nefario, you've been given the details you need to continue operating GLBSE with some customers. You're unfortunately ignoring that, much like you say Goat is ignoring your details.

I continue to liquidate the final assets (minus of course the PPT bonds that Nefario has fucked me on) and withdraw any remaining BTC after the sales. I will not purchase any more securities on GLBSE until nefario is replaced, and GLBSE becomes a public company, with shareholders electing a board. It's clearly incapable of directing itself in a professional manner with nefario at the helm.

Yes. Done.

[smoothie]

So....when is everyone going to stop acting like children and start working together?

Oh right...i've got more popcorn to eat, that's why it isn't over.

[starsoccer9]

"The Exchange reserves the right to suspend transfers of any asset, or suspend access to an asset creator's account, for failure of an asset creator to provide requested information, or in the event of suspected fraud. "
Acording to there terms of service they can not delist an asset. Im no lawyer but they broke there TOS by doing such.The only thing they can do is suspend trading which doesnt mean to stop
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspend for those of you who need to know what suspend means

[vmg3]

GLBSE 1 was a BETA end of story!

[starsoccer9]

exactly there for him terminating is a breach. First of all he cant even delist items

"The Exchange reserves the right to suspend transfers of any asset, or suspend access to an asset creator's account, for failure of an asset creator to provide requested information, or in the event of suspected fraud. "
Acording to there terms of service they can not delist an asset. Im no lawyer but they broke there TOS by doing such.The only thing they can do is suspend trading which doesnt mean to stop
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suspend for those of you who need to know what suspend means

I have not even been accused of fraud.

[SysRun]

Does anyone have a reliable alternative for GLBSE?

[markm]

Does anyone have a reliable alternative for GLBSE?

It looks that is going to vary according to exact goals/requirements.

It might work out better in many cases for issuers to be each on their own separate/distinct server/platform that only offers assets issued by that one issuer. That would keep all the liability issues much clearer by making it very clear exactly who the one entity is that is fully liable for all assets offered on that server...

-MarkM-

[markm]

The one thing that I am hesitant about in offering Open Transactions services to people is maybe solvable simply with a terms of service clause, which would be they must not issue anyone else's assets, only their own assets.

Basically I like the idea of setting up a server specifically for one issuer, but not as a way of creating a competing service. Does that make sense? If someone else also wants to issue assets Open Transactions style I want to deal with them separately, not have them squeezed onto a server I already run for an existing customer; I also do not want customers hosting scams for third parties; any scams on the server I set up for their assets to run on should have only their scams on it, no-one else's.

Well, except maybe for mine? What would they be doing about coinage? Would they want to set up their own tokens for each type of cryptocurrency and so on or would they find it convenient for me to issue my standard tokens so there are common currencies across the servers? Details...

-MarkM-

[markm]

Have a strong EULA that removes any type of liability from you for providing the software, and then let them do what they do on their servers, what do you care?

What you propose would be like some forum script telling me what I could or could not talk about on my site, wtf?!
If they are hosted with you tho, yeah, run a tight ship

I am not talking about their servers but my servers. The software is already free to all, they can run it on their own servers as and when they please.

-MarkM-

[markm]

Anyhow, In the future I would love a way to just setup my own server and deal with my own clients and remove the third party risk of an exchange.
How that is going to happen, who knows...

I think the distinction here is on whether you really propose to only run your own assets or actually propose to become in effect yourself an exchange, offering various third parties' assets on your server instead of them being off on their own servers just like you are on your own server.

That is, why have the actual offers and bids matching for many different entity's assets all on one system, especially on yet another entity's system?

Might it not suffice for traffic gathering to simply have some community bulletin boards where people interested in assets can search out the kinds they are interested in then visit the sites of the issuers themselves to actually make a bid, offer, purchase or sale or visit the sites of various critics advisers statisticians and so on to gain some perspective on which issues and issuers are widely regarded as worth taking a look at?

-MarkM-

[markm]

Maybe brokers is the way to go, and regard GLBSE not as an exchange but, rather, as a broker.

Issue your shares to brokers, let them worry about all the individuals on whose behalf they hold your shares.

Seems like GLBSE pretty much serves in that role, but maybe other brokers need not limit themselves to only offering your shares for you on GLBSE but also place them in other places where people are open to trade.

-MarkM-

[markm]

Maybe then all you need is a free open source bitcoin-exchange with your shares plugged into it instead of fiat, so all the normal stuff would be there that a site for buying and selling bitcoin for fiat would have but no fiat, instead it'd be for buying and selling your shares.

Basically search and replace "USD" with your shares code and disable the scripts that deal with the fiat banks...

-MarkM-

[ShireSilver]

I really don't like the idea of replacing GLBSE with another "site" or brokers.

What we need, IMHO, is an alt-chain for shares. The smart property proposal being discussed on some threads here is a good start. Sites like GLBSE could then be middlemen that can help people manage their shares, help with buying and selling as well as research. But you should be able to move from one such site to another by merely exporting a hash (or whatever) and importing it into the new site. Those who want to manage things themselves can have their own wallet for their shares.

The smart property idea can be used for shares of stocks and bonds, car titles (using VIN numbers for part of the data), and land titles (maybe starting with title insurance). You could also use it for anything with a serial number - use an alt-chain for keeping track of your valuables.

[markm]

A blockchain seems like overkill since shares only have value if the issuer acknowledges them / honours them. Thus in the absence of the issuer they are worthless or at best represent speculation that at some future date/time the issuer might show up again.

Thus it seems to me to make a lot of sense to have the issuer do the accounting / exchanging. If you try to sell me a share of Company X and their site is down, aren't I wiser to wait until they are online again before buying, in case they have in fact already "flown by night"?

Since I want to check they are actually still in business anyway, I might as well conduct the exchange through them directly while I am at it...

-MarkM-

[ShireSilver]

The problem with having the company/issuer manage the shares is that its not something most of them are going to be competent at. I imagine the vast majority of them would just outsource that, so we'd all end up in third party hell again.

Using a blockchain/bitcoin-like system would mean it should be extremely simple to manage, for both the issuers and the shareholders. There's no need for the issuer to know who the shareholders are - the only communications needed between them are dividends and votes, as far as I can figure. If anyone wants to get fancy with shorting or margin trading, they could work through one of the agent sites (like I'd expect GLBSE to become).

There's also the anonymity aspect. Having the issuer manage it means the data on who owns shares needs to be maintained, and if it is maintained it will be recorded and capable of being stolen or seized. I don't want any government ever knowing anything about any of my economic data. None. At all. Ever. Period. End of story. So if there's any way they can get that info I'm less likely to use the system, and won't put as much into it as I would with a system that respects my control over my data.

[pyrkne]

I've been hearing a lot about "Open Transactions" the last few days. I don't know too many details about the project but would that be a system similar to what we're talking about?

By the way I'm glad you all managed to turn this thread into an interesting discussion.

~pyrkne

[jasinlee]

"Necessity is the mother of ingenuity."

[markm]

People who want to be anonymous can connect through Tor or an anonymity proxy or whatever.

All the seller needs is a bitcoin address or an Open Transactions nym or a PGP/GPG public key type of thing by which to know each customer. Probably preferably all three, maybe with the customer specifying a sequence of priority of their use, like which one to accept for normal operations, which one to require for any change of that first one, and which one to require for any change of that second one.

So anonymity does not require a blockchain.

Also if the issuer's system is online 24/7, then the shares could even be issued as Chaumian blinded cash tokens. When you give me such a token I turn it in untraceably at the site for a new one. The site must be online at the time of the trade for this to work, and it is more untraceable than a transaction permanently recorded on a blockchain for all to see.

Obviously most people use third parties for hosting their public-facing servers, so your objection about third party hell might as well apply to anyone who does not host their website on their own machine on their own premises. If they have their website off-premises they will probably also have their shares-trading site also off-premises, though not necessarily at the same datacentre as their website since possibly their webhosting provider specialises in providing web hosting and their transaction server provider specialises in providing transaction servers.

Open Transactions is intended for this kind of use, that is why it is designed not to require that the issuer trust the operator of the transaction server.

The issuer has to be trusted though else what they issue is pretty much worthless.

-MarkM-

[jasinlee]

Venturing a few names, stockcoin, bondcoin, securitycoin, sharecoin?

[markm]

Coloured bitcoins.

-MarkM-