GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday.

[Ocean6]

Glad I got most of mine out when Nefarious decided to black list that goat fella.

[repentance]

So when this market tanks what's his liability on a lawsuit under UK law I wonder.

If it tanks due to regulatory compliance measures, then none.  A contract based on him not complying with the law wouldn't be enforceable.

[Ilikeham]

So when this market tanks what's his liability on a lawsuit under UK law I wonder.

If it tanks due to regulatory compliance measures, then none.  A contract based on him not complying with the law wouldn't be enforceable.

That's interesting .. because compliance ordered by a foreign government.. would that stand up.

[segabtc]

Has Nefario even made a statement at all???

[Bitcoin Oz]

Alright, where's the successor of GLBSE?

I've been contemplating taking the LTC-GLOBAL code and putting up a bitcoin version.  I have a few major features I'd like to finish first.  (1 week of dev work?)  Swapping out some text, the css, the litecoind for a bitcoind, and the header/footer would be easy.

Another option I've been thinking about is finishing up the major features, then putting up the code for sale along with a single-use (restricted to bitcoin) license. 

I suspect the shareholders of LTC-GLOBAL would be happy with either option.  Both would be a nice payday for shareholders.

You will have the same issues as glbse eventually. a wise man once said doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is silly

[smoothie]

Please stop using ponzi word if you dont know what it means. And really, people are just staring to convinced that nefiro is a scam after all, what if one day it locks out all our fund.

After all, stop panic (for a moment). but he should have told us this like 1 or 2 weeks ago with those fancy popups alert. (What i am worried of is it being hacked now)

^^ This.  We should probably not speculate to much on what is going on because it will only hurt the image of investing in the btc IMHO.  There could be a perfectly reasonable answer for this such as being hacked (not that being hacked is good but at least that isn't as bad as the operator running away with our btc).  So I suggest we restrain ourselves for right now.

Oh right I would rather have them be hacked and let us know than to just run off. What's the difference?

Here send me some bitcoins and I'll do the second option to you since it is less painful.

[smoothie]

Please stop using ponzi word if you dont know what it means. And really, people are just staring to convinced that nefiro is a scam after all, what if one day it locks out all our fund.

After all, stop panic (for a moment). but he should have told us this like 1 or 2 weeks ago with those fancy popups alert. (What i am worried of is it being hacked now)

^^ This.  We should probably not speculate to much on what is going on because it will only hurt the image of investing in the btc IMHO.  There could be a perfectly reasonable answer for this such as being hacked (not that being hacked is good but at least that isn't as bad as the operator running away with our btc).  So I suggest we restrain ourselves for right now.

Yes, of course. I don't panic and IMO nobody should.

What already pisses me of is that they are going offline with no statement.

2 days. Well, lets start the FUD.

The way I see it is that if they can't tell you why they went offline now, what makes you think they will tell you on Saturday.

[smoothie]

I don't know anything about this. I am extremely irritated with Nefario.

Why? Is it because you hold a large share in GLBSE? Or just generally irritated?

[repentance]

That's interesting .. because compliance ordered by a foreign government.. would that stand up.

Even if GLBSE got closed down as a result of investigations initiated by US authorities, it doesn't mean they weren't breaking UK law in respect of unregistered securities.  It's highly possible that the existence of GLBSE could be brought to the attention of the UK's FSA and that the FSA would take it from there without US law being involved at all.

I have no idea whether US law prevents unregistered securities being offered to US residents by foreign operators.  Maybe there is some technicality which allows them to go after off-shore, unregulated exchanges even if those exchanges are legal in their local jurisdiction in the same way that they were able to go after the online poker services which were allowing US players on the technicality of transferring funds through US financial services for the purpose of online poker playing.

There are so many things affecting the value of Bitcoin "investments" at the moment that it would not be easy to establish Nefario's role in any decline in value of assets listed on GLBSE.  You'd be looking at an expensive legal case, assuming that it wasn't dismissed out of hand (unlike the US, you can't "sue anyone for anything" in Commonwealth countries and lawyers themselves get sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases before the courts).

[Bitcoin Oz]

I don't know anything about this. I am extremely irritated with Nefario.

Why? Is it because you hold a large share in GLBSE? Or just generally irritated?

Owning a large part of glbse and being kept in the dark could have something to do with it 

[burnside]

Alright, where's the successor of GLBSE?

I've been contemplating taking the LTC-GLOBAL code and putting up a bitcoin version.  I have a few major features I'd like to finish first.  (1 week of dev work?)  Swapping out some text, the css, the litecoind for a bitcoind, and the header/footer would be easy.

Another option I've been thinking about is finishing up the major features, then putting up the code for sale along with a single-use (restricted to bitcoin) license. 

I suspect the shareholders of LTC-GLOBAL would be happy with either option.  Both would be a nice payday for shareholders.

You will have the same issues as glbse eventually. a wise man once said doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is silly

I'm not convinced of that.  There are a lot of differences in approach.  And ultimately even if we fail, by design we're not leaving our users hanging.  Asset issuers will have everything they need to transition to whatever's next.

[stochastic]

Alright, where's the successor of GLBSE?

I've been contemplating taking the LTC-GLOBAL code and putting up a bitcoin version.  I have a few major features I'd like to finish first.  (1 week of dev work?)  Swapping out some text, the css, the litecoind for a bitcoind, and the header/footer would be easy.

Another option I've been thinking about is finishing up the major features, then putting up the code for sale along with a single-use (restricted to bitcoin) license. 

I suspect the shareholders of LTC-GLOBAL would be happy with either option.  Both would be a nice payday for shareholders.

You will have the same issues as glbse eventually. a wise man once said doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is silly

I'm not convinced of that.  There are a lot of differences in approach.  And ultimately even if we fail, by design we're not leaving our users hanging.  Asset issuers will have everything they need to transition to whatever's next.

A general standard across cryptocurrency denominated exchanges should be implemented so that in case one exchange falls, securities can migrate to other exchanges.

[keystroke]

Centralised. Here we are with the worlds most powerful distributed system with countless possibilities for expansion and yet we keep building an infrastructure with centralised components like we're still living in the dot com boom and practically every damn attack has been against centralised components. Anyone who didn't realise GLBSE would face legal issues at some stage is living in a fantasy world, the assets aren't the exchange though so if GLBSE is in trouble genuine ones can simply list on another exchange, go solo etc. Maybe every client should have a popup every few hours in big flashing neon letters to hammer in the simple message, 'don't invest more than you can afford to lose'.

+1024

[repentance]

A general standard across cryptocurrency denominated exchanges should be implemented so that in case one exchange falls, securities can migrate to other exchanges.

The problem is when you have a situation like this one where an exchange lists so many toxic assets that no-one in their right mind would want them migrated to their own exchange.

[tvbcof]

A general standard across cryptocurrency denominated exchanges should be implemented so that in case one exchange falls, securities can migrate to other exchanges.

The problem is when you have a situation like this one where an exchange lists so many toxic assets that no-one in their right mind would want them migrated to their own exchange.

Ha!  I know!  Bitcoin needs a 'fed' to unload the toxic assets of favored buddy's failing businesses onto.

[smoothie]

Lets all move to litecoinglobal
The service is in beta but it looks already pretty good and admin is committed to his site.

Pfffffffffftch. How about no.

+1  

(we don't want the crazies)

+1 amen to that. lol 

[stochastic]

A general standard across cryptocurrency denominated exchanges should be implemented so that in case one exchange falls, securities can migrate to other exchanges.

The problem is when you have a situation like this one where an exchange lists so many toxic assets that no-one in their right mind would want them migrated to their own exchange.

There should be contractual standards as well, and of course an exchange operator has the right of refusal.  For example, an OBSI security may not be transferable but a GIGAMINING or COGNITIVE might be.  This might even increase the trading of more reputable securities.

[repentance]

Ha!  I know!  Bitcoin needs a 'fed' to unload the toxic assets of favored buddy's failing businesses onto.

I find the "How am I ever going to offload my toxic securities onto someone else now that GLBSE is down" laments somewhat amusing.

There should be contractual standards as well, and of course an exchange operator has the right of refusal.

I think it's vital that operators actually do this instead of accepting just about anything because it brings in money.  They also need to be willing to suspend trading in particular securities far more than they have in the past.

Don't get me wrong, there's a market for toxic assets, but they have the ability to compromise the integrity of an exchange as a whole and they should be avoided by exchanges which want to build a reputation for high quality, well vetted offerings.  It's not enough to simply exclude illegal stuff if you're going to continue allowing things like usagi's house of cards to trade after new information reveals its recursive nature.

[Bogart]

People need to calm down geeze lol

"Hey, relax guy.  Trust me."

[VeeMiner]

WTF. No statement, just going offline.

And another time they show their lack of professionalism.

my thoughts exactly