Nefario

[Severian]

And they often enforce it too with physical force

That's the really annoying part.

[repentance]

I am, however, still curious what good proving ones identity is going to do.  There are no identities connected to these accounts to begin with, so no way to prove that John Doe's coins are his even after he proves he truly is named John Doe.

It has nothing to do with ensuring that funds are returned to whoever deposited them.  It has everything to do with knowing who receives those funds.  In taking those funds without at least minimal KYC information from users, GBLSE was allowing and encouraging people to bypass AML/CTF requirements.  Returning those funds to users without gathering at least a minimum amount of information to show where those funds have been disbursed to would only compound any offences GBLSE has already committed.

If that's the case, then wouldn't all of those who sent money in to GLBSE be facing the same charges?  Afterall, how many of us have any idea who Nefario is? Not to mention who is on the other side of the securities we purchased.

The obligation is on the providers of financial services/products.  Yes, you can be charged if you're using GBLSE to launder money, evade tax or finance terrorism but in general the user/purchaser of a financial service/product doesn't have AML/CTF/KYC requirements.  Of course if the operators have publicly made statements making clear that they're in some way operating illegally and you choose to deal with them with that knowledge, you may be leaving yourself open to charges.

[Inaba]

And they often enforce it too with physical force

That's the really annoying part.

If they win, doesn't that de facto imply that they actually have jurisdiction over the entire planet?  If you are able to project force into a domain and maintain it, you by definition have jurisdiction over it.

[k3t3r]

]The AML /Terrorism issue is to stop funds being paid back to a laundery or terrorist. You dont have to compare it to where the funds came from the exchange just has to have proof of who they are passing that money back too. Ideally in order to comply with AML they should have had those details before they accepted deposits, they didnt do that and it seems they are trying to cover there backs by taking these steps. IF that is what is actually happening not much has been reliably confirmed yet. Much of the converstation in these threads is conjecture, speculation and FUD.

If that's the case, then wouldn't all of those who sent money in to GLBSE be facing the same charges?  Afterall, how many of us have any idea who Nefario is? Not to mention who is on the other side of the securities we purchased.

Yes, If it turned that Nefario is a terrorist or laundering money then we could probably be investigated too. We have no indication of this happening though.

[wachtwoord]

And they often enforce it too with physical force

That's the really annoying part.

If they win, doesn't that de facto imply that they actually have jurisdiction over the entire planet?  If you are able to project force into a domain and maintain it, you by definition have jurisdiction over it.

Well luckily their power is far from absolute outside of the the US of A

[SebastianJu]

*argh* All this hours moving by only getting guesses and rumours... i want to hear the securityowner saying to me that i have the shares with him and everything is ready. Its not that hard to get to that point.
And not wanting to give the database to theymos doesnt sound good. Is it only to be the important man or does he want to roll it up clean with a script?

Anyway... at least communicate whats the status and when will the next step be done.

And next time glbse is operated from some random phillipino girl living in a slum. "Cant find the girl? Im sorry..." Its possible to run such thing anonymous and staying undetected. On the other hand... who will send btc to someone that is that anonymous that he can go without a trace with your btc?

[Bogart]

]The AML /Terrorism issue is to stop funds being paid back to a laundery or terrorist. You dont have to compare it to where the funds came from the exchange just has to have proof of who they are passing that money back too. Ideally in order to comply with AML they should have had those details before they accepted deposits, they didnt do that and it seems they are trying to cover there backs by taking these steps. IF that is what is actually happening not much has been reliably confirmed yet. Much of the converstation in these threads is conjecture, speculation and FUD.

If that's the case, then wouldn't all of those who sent money in to GLBSE be facing the same charges?  Afterall, how many of us have any idea who Nefario is? Not to mention who is on the other side of the securities we purchased.

Yes I think you missed the point.  Everyone who wants to withdraw coins or take ownership of shares will have to now comply with AML regulations.

Do you really believe these govt thugs are going to leave the truly innocent parties (such as myself) alone once they have their data?  I don't.

[niko]

You're exactly right only the big fish need worry. Hope he keeps to him self and they don't have record of them. All the small fish need not worry but don't expect Nefario to go out of his way to take care of you if it steps on any government toes right now he wont do it. For all one knows he bites the bullet gets the law off his back and does everyone right in time. Someone of that caliber is rare and should not be expected. You do dirt you get dirt sometimes. That's how the game works.

I did nothing wrong.  All I did was open an account (on Oct 4th), and deposit 50 BTC.  Then boom, it's all gone.  I wanted to buy some shares of ASICMINER, but did not get the chance to.

How is any of this "dirt"?

You became involved with an illegal activity as soon as you deposited. You got in the dirt. Not your fault for what has occurred but it's the law intervening that is at fault. Not being diligent enough to know the risk involved was yours however.

I'm not here to cast blame on anyone other than the law. Just pointing out where one's responsibility ends and where another's begins.

Where are these laws? Bitcoins has no laws, and no fiat currency was used in GLBSE.

You trade potatoes for eggs, and chances are some laws apply. Some of them may even be quite reasonable, and in your interest. Bitcoin is something of value. We were investing in real-world operations, such as ASICMINER. Most of us failed to educate ourselves about legal implications. Whining about government and law is of no help, and is no excuse for ignorance. Do not get me wrong here, I am not suggesting that assets on GLBSE should have been government insured - in fact, I know that in the US certain SEC rules (504-506) might apply and smaller operations exempt from many reporting and insurance requirements. Yet, almost nobody here cared to check beforehand.

[Severian]

If they win, doesn't that de facto imply that they actually have jurisdiction over the entire planet?  If you are able to project force into a domain and maintain it, you by definition have jurisdiction over it.

That depends on whether or not one subscribes to the always popular fiction that force and law are the same thing.

[Arto]

And they often enforce it too with physical force

That's the really annoying part.

If they win, doesn't that de facto imply that they actually have jurisdiction over the entire planet?  If you are able to project force into a domain and maintain it, you by definition have jurisdiction over it.

Jurisdiction implies a considerable degree of legitimacy. The more appropriate words here might be control and domination.

Just because a criminal can compel you to do something under threat of injury or death doesn't give him 'jurisdiction' over you.

[Aahz]

The law you cited has nothing to do with what the value of the security is denominated in.  Notice the lack of the word "dollar" in the definition of "security"?  Are you going to say that means the law doesn't apply to Wall Street either?

So what "value" does a bitcoin have in the eyes of the law?

The "law" doesn't place value on things.  The market does.  Do you think there's a big list in a lawbook somewhere detailing the value of everything?

People define the "value" of bitcoin every time they exchange it for goods, services, or other currencies.

But none of that is the point anyway.

It's called "Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange", and was a trading platform for stocks and bonds.  Suddenly y'all want to claim these weren't securities?  Ridiculous!  if it quacks like a duck...

[Severian]

It's called "Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange", and was a trading platform for stocks and bonds.  Suddenly y'all want to claim these weren't securities?  Ridiculous!  if it quacks like a duck...

I wouldn't call them that. Securities are recognized by law. Bitcoins aren't. Bitcoin based investments denoted in bitcoin have no legal definition.

Bringing fiat in and out of one's exchange is what leaves operators vulnerable to claims of jurisdiction by the issuers and enforcers of the fiat notes.

[Bogart]

It sounds like some of you are saying that all trade is (and/or should be) illegal if it does include govt involvement.

What a load...

[Puppet]

So what "value" does a bitcoin have in the eyes of the law?

About the same it has to you: market value. But that is not even relevant here. A court might have to decide how much value a bitcoin has, but you stand no chance arguing bitcoins have no value.  If it was that simple, it would long have been abused by trading securities against some other exchange unit thats not fiat. To the law it doesnt matter if you sell securities for dollar, yen, gold, bitcoin, oil, paintings or chicken feed. All that matters is that you do sell them.

[Puppet]

It sounds like some of you are saying that all trade is (and/or should be) illegal if it does include govt involvement.

No one said that. All trade of securities however, is indeed regulated, whether you like it or not.

[k3t3r]

Do you really believe these govt thugs are going to leave the truly innocent parties (such as myself) alone once they have their data?  I don't.

If you are innocent then there is no crime to investigate. What do you believe they are going to come after you for?

[Aahz]

It's called "Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange", and was a trading platform for stocks and bonds.  Suddenly y'all want to claim these weren't securities?  Ridiculous!  if it quacks like a duck...

I wouldn't call them that.

Unfortunately, what you call them or don't call them is irrelevant.  The government calls them securities, and they're the ones with the guns and the backing of millions of "citizens".

It sounds like some of you are saying that all trade is (and/or should be) illegal if it does include govt involvement.

No one said that. All trade of securities however, is indeed regulated, whether you like it or not.

Actually the government does say exactly that on a daily basis.  Business licenses, sales tax, regulations, etc.  The US government (and it's state and local subsidiaries) does, indeed, believe that all trade is illegal if it doesn't involve them.  Hell, they arrest 10 year olds for selling lemonade on a regular basis!

Now, I don't agree with them one bit.  But, as stated above to Severian, what I believe doesn't really mater here.  They've got the power.

[Severian]

To the law it doesn't matter...

"The law" - whatever that means these days - doesn't even comprehend Bitcoin. It took "the law" years to comprehend http and it still can't figure it out.

"The law" won't have a lot of effect on Bitcoin in the long run.

[Severian]

 They've got the power.

Not when it comes to this particular protocol. They can go after the random trader, but it won't make much difference.

[Puppet]

To the law it doesn't matter...

"The law" - whatever that means these days - doesn't even comprehend Bitcoin. It took "the law" years to comprehend http and it still can't figure it out.

They dont have to understand it. All they need to know is that it has value.

"The law" won't have a lot of effect on Bitcoin in the long run.

Its not bitcoin thats on trial here. Its unregistered securities. And trading those for bitcoin will have about as much chance in court as trading guns or heroin for bitcoin. Good luck with your "the law doesnt understand bitcoin" defense.