Nefario

[theymos]

I didn't release the IPs because I can't trust evidence like, "This person stole from my site. Look at these records that my (hacked) site collected. Give me their IPs." If I accepted that kind of evidence, anyone could fabricate "records" and get forum user IPs from me.

theymos... you didnt reveal the data about a thieve that stole nearly 25,000BTC? Why is that?

2500 BTC. The shareholders wanted this info to be private. The money was eventually recovered.

And does nefario speak about you that is holding the last user-money that nef cant pay back until he got it?

I am no longer holding any user funds. The GLBSE accountant now has what I was previously holding (~900 BTC).

[SaintFlow]

while the dude gives interviews i have not revieved a single satoshi. Anyone else still waiting?

[dishwara]

And does nefario speak about you that is holding the last user-money that nef cant pay back until he got it?

I am no longer holding any user funds. The GLBSE accountant now has what I was previously holding (~900 BTC).

I saw many times, you saying about funds you hold.
You never so far told exactly how much you hold or how much you sent.
Always ~~~ approximate only, never exact.
It was you, who exposed in this forum, about the GLBSE bitcoin you hold.

[Transisto]

I didn't release the IPs because I can't trust evidence like, "This person stole from my site. Look at these records that my (hacked) site collected. Give me their IPs." If I accepted that kind of evidence, anyone could fabricate "records" and get forum user IPs from me.
...

GLBSE could also be defined as your site.
The chances that the hacker had modified the logs to accuse someone else visiting the forum instead of deleteing the log are extremely slim and anyway what is the worst case scenario to someone on the forum being falsely accused  ?

Look at what hapenned to Zhou Thong, with ~5 information linking him to the 5000btc hack.  ,,, Got away with it ! (didn't return a good part of it)

[Mushoz]

while the dude gives interviews i have not revieved a single satoshi. Anyone else still waiting?

I haven't received anything yet either. GLBSE owes me about 10 BTC if I remember correctly, plus I'd like to start receiving dividends from the shares in companies I own. What a mess...

[EuroTrash]

Got email:

Your GLBSE account has been partially processed. 90% of your funds have been returned to you with this payment. Once we recieve the remaining funds from our treasurer and secretary the final payment will be made and you will be informed. We will also inform you when we process your assets, allowing you to continue your relationship with your issuer.

That was one hour and 20 minutes ago.
But I haven't seen the (very little) sum showing up in the wallet address I provided.
Not that it matters much to me, if not for the principle.
But I had a fair amount of now-worthless shares.

Btw.
some stocks started to plummet about 1-2 weeks before GLBSE closure.
"as if" some of the asset holders were in a big hurry to sell?
"as if" some of the asset holders had seen this coming?
It's mere speculation, I know. Couldn't help keeping my mouth shut 'tho.

Quote from interview:

Vitalik: OK, you have a form up now, asking for email and BTC address. So, if you’re fine with giving your contact details to the issuers, the issuers can contact you by email from there. What happens if you don’t want that?

James: Then you’re choosing not to continue your relationship with your issuer. I’m sure your shares will still exist, but your issuer won’t know who you are, so you won’t be able to collect them.

... and on top of going away with it, he is also taking the piss of us all.

EDIT: I got my tiny bitcoin deposit back.

[LoupGaroux]

Nope, still nothing.

Fascinating to see you how duplicitous and dishonest the entire cabal behind GLBSE really is... what a den of thieves!

[stochastic]

BTC magazine interviews Nefario concerning GLBSE closing
 http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

The one exploit that accepted negative share values to be traded was interesting.

[SebastianJu]

JoelKatz... in case of the house of course it can be valued another way. But, like you stated, that is the owners decision. Its worth less for him. That doesnt say a word about how is it worth to others.

Of course you as the owner can decide that its safer to have the money instead the house. But i think most persons buy a house to live in it or save the money for renting a flat.

And these persons wont sell the house for less. So in the same time, when you have a share of glbse whose issuer is still paying dividends its not needed to sell it fast. If you sell it fast for less then its your decision. But the value isnt automatically less only because the exchange closed.

For example i have 1255 (i believe) shares of asicminer. I bought them with luck for 0.1 BTC. I never would sell them for under 0.1BTC. And i only would sell them for more when im sure i could buy them from another one for less back.

So what i want to say is that when you say its safer for you to drop your shares and you get less because of that then this is because you want it so. Not because the value dropped automatically.

You have no good way to establish how much value it adds to the house. It takes a healthy, functioning market to reliably establish value in a way you can expect others to be willing to rely on. There is no substitute.

You imply that you always need an exchange for selling a house. Otherwise you cant get an exact number of what the house is valued. In fact you only need 2 persons. You and a buyer. To be sure you should ask more than that, maybe 10 or 100 persons. Then you have an average of what others would pay for it. But that doesnt mean that you cant sell it without asking 100 persons. You simply ask for the price you think the house is worth. Maybe a bit more if you have time and can wait. And judging from the reaction of possible buyers you know how far away youre from their price. Nothing others happens on flea market.

[theymos]

GLBSE could also be defined as your site.

Not really. I own only 3.3% of BitcoinGlobal and I never dealt with the GLBSE code/server/etc.

The chances that the hacker had modified the logs to accuse someone else visiting the forum instead of deleteing the log are extremely slim and anyway what is the worst case scenario to someone on the forum being falsely accused  ?

I'll keep that in mind if someone asks me for your IP addresses based on inconclusive evidence...

I saw many times, you saying about funds you hold.
You never so far told exactly how much you hold or how much you sent.
Always ~~~ approximate only, never exact.
It was you, who exposed in this forum, about the GLBSE bitcoin you hold.

As far as I can tell, I held 956.49814586 user BTC. This is the amount I sent to the accountant. I now hold 455.99669284 BTC in operating funds for BitcoinGlobal.

[SebastianJu]

theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

Edit: Youre the accountant nef speaks of right. Or CHM? So what is the thing regarding his ceo-money? I mean last month glbse was still live which means he did his work isnt it?

[johnlu]

I did not receive any email yet.

[theymos]

theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

[paraipan]

theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

Nice to hear over your ip release policy, now can you come back to Earth?
People are scamming here right and left. Life is bad and the inflation isn't helping, they scam harder.

[Nolo]

theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

I'd be careful about releasing IPs without a search warrant or court order, which would obviously provide you immunity if you complied.  But if someone were to take the type of action you describe in your post, you couldn't be criminally prosecuted, but you could be made a party to a wrongful death/personal injury type of civil suit.  A plaintiff (or even a defendant through comparative fault) could try to place a percentage of the liability at your feet for negligence or maybe even an intentional tort, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

[SebastianJu]

theymos... but what would you take as an evidence? I mean what do you think the police wold take as evidence when the police would care about bitcoins. They would use the exact same info. So i dont fully get why you did this.

Would you give out the details when #bitcoin-police checked the traces in database and ask you for evidence? Otherwise bitcoinuser would be in disadvantage to real world user again. Because btc isnt real money for the real police yet.

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

Then scammer will be fine here in the forum because what police or court is taking bitcoin serious? That means you give away free "go out of jail" cards here.

And i dont see why the data nef presented should be wrong. I mean he clearly has to see what user did what action. Even when the person is another one for some reason i dont see... at the end speaking with him could clear this. But simply staying in front of scammers and protecting them this way... i dont know. Doesnt sound right.

I think in bitcoinworld, where police and court doesnt care, you should respect bitcoin-police or some similar persons because the way you describe it no one had a chance otherwise.

[firefop]

My current policy is to release IPs only in these cases:
- Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)
- A court with jurisdiction over the forum sends me a subpoena that isn't obviously unjust. (This has not happened.)
- A scammer is absolutely proven to be guilty and stops reasonably negotiating with his victims.
- Someone is repeatedly evading bans.

The accused person in the GLBSE case wasn't absolutely proven to be guilty, and wasn't even given a chance to respond to the allegations. Nefario never went to the police as far as I know.

I'm not sure whether I should release IPs at all, really. I'd like to see a discussion about the morality of this. Releasing IPs enables people to act violently toward the accused person, either in person or through police. Is it really right to commit violence against someone just because he did something non-violently over the Internet? I'm not sure. Services should ideally be set up so that scamming is impossible and as a result no one is ever tempted toward violence.

I would encourage you to keep that sort of information to yourself... unless you've been served a lawful request for it by authorities. No point opening yourself to the liability if somebody goes and shoots someone.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Police send me convincing evidence that someone is guilty. I then release IPs to the police only. (This has happened.)

Theymos, I'm not sure if you truly meant to state it that way. (innocent till proven guilty by a court of law, not by a police officer, otherwise we're all in a heap of hurt)

~Bruno K~

[repentance]

I'd be careful about releasing IPs without a search warrant or court order, which would obviously provide you immunity if you complied.  But if someone were to take the type of action you describe in your post, you couldn't be criminally prosecuted, but you could be made a party to a wrongful death/personal injury type of civil suit.  A plaintiff (or even a defendant through comparative fault) could try to place a percentage of the liability at your feet for negligence or maybe even an intentional tort, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

They could try but those causes of action seem to be much more difficult to pursue in the US than is commonly believed.  Not to mention the fact that there's little point in seeking damages from someone with no capacity to pay.

[Nolo]

I'd be careful about releasing IPs without a search warrant or court order, which would obviously provide you immunity if you complied.  But if someone were to take the type of action you describe in your post, you couldn't be criminally prosecuted, but you could be made a party to a wrongful death/personal injury type of civil suit.  A plaintiff (or even a defendant through comparative fault) could try to place a percentage of the liability at your feet for negligence or maybe even an intentional tort, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.  

They could try but those causes of action seem to be much more difficult to pursue in the US than is commonly believed.  Not to mention the fact that there's little point in seeking damages from someone with no capacity to pay.

As one who knows a little bit about personal injury law   , I would say it would be better to avoid the issue altogether.  He could be made a party.  Would he get a judgment entered against him?  Who knows.  Depends on the facts of each case.  But either way that's a major headache he could avoid just by not releasing the IP addresses, unless required to by law.  

Edit:  100th post.  Sweet - Full Member now