Nefario

[BadBear]

I'm disappointed. You're wrong on your judgment.
You cannot be liable for something you're forced to do.

I'm disappointed that you're taking assumptions/rumors as facts. I'm acting based on what he said and did. Anything else is speculation.  

[Aahz]

Nobody is morally required to honor an agreement to break the law.

Yeah!  The blacks should have stayed enslaved because IT WAS THE LAW!  The Jews should have danced onto those trains because IT WAS THE LAW!  George Washington should have paid his taxes to the crown because IT WAS THE LAW!

There is no morality, there is only THE LAW!

Your sarcasm is misdirected.  Slavery is always immoral, as is ripping people off with a stock market full of scammy products.  Both of these things are currently not legal.  You have no moral necessity to honor a slave contract regardless of the legal status.  What Bad Bear is arguing is upholding the slave contract is the paramount moral concern because an agreement is an agreement.  

Really?  You think the slaves signed contracts to become slaves?

No, nothing I have posted suggests I believe that.  I am stating the opposite to folks arguing that if such contracts existed under emancipation they should be honored.

[SebastianJu]

To await that someone goes to jail for some honor things sounds more like honour amongst thieves. Every normal person wouldnt do such stupid thing.
And setting this kind of "honour" in relation to slaves and holocaust... whats wrong with you? I hope you didnt think this through.

[Rarity]

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant.  

They aren't irrelevant to the mafia itself.  There have been numerous cases of mafiosos being sanctioned for violating the organizations "rules".

We're talking about the bitcoin community (the mafia in your example) sanctioning one of their own (by giving him a Scammer tag), so the "rules" or standards of this comunity are the only things that ARE relevant.

Were Bad Bear proposing to jail Nefario, THEN the law would be relevant.

No, the Bitcointalk forums are a separate entity from GLBSE.  At least nominally, the reality is that Theymos is neck deep in both organizations which has corrupted the process entirely.  Nefario has endeavored to stop scamming this community while Theymos has argued to continue to do so and attempted to sell worthless shares at the last moment.  

Nefario was wrong to be involved in this, but he acted as a whistleblower in this case and punishing him for it while letting Theymos off the hook for wanting to continue to scam sets a very poor precedent.  

-

Aahz, please try and comprehend this as it is tiring to repeat myself.  My argument is focused on a private agreement to hold slaves when slavery is illegal because that is the valid comparison to our current case. 

[Aahz]

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant. 

They aren't irrelevant to the mafia itself.  There have been numerous cases of mafiosos being sanctioned for violating the organizations "rules".

We're talking about the bitcoin community (the mafia in your example) sanctioning one of their own (by giving him a Scammer tag), so the "rules" or standards of this comunity are the only things that ARE relevant.

Were Bad Bear proposing to jail Nefario, THEN the law would be relevant.

No, the Bitcointalk forums are a separate entity from GLBSE.  At least nominally, the reality is that Theymos is neck deep in both organizations which has corrupted the process entirely.  Nefario has endeavored to stop scamming this community while Theymos has argued to continue to do so and attempted to sell worthless shares at the last moment.  

Nefario was wrong to be involved in this, but he acted as a whistleblower in this case and punishing him for it while letting Theymos off the hook for wanting to continue to scam sets a very poor precedent.  

The Scammer tag is a part of the Bitcointalk forums.  It is the community standards of this community that are relevant.  BadBear has (in some way I do not know) become the "judge" for this community.  In this situation with Nefario (a community member) BadBear's word essentially IS THE LAW.

I have seen ZERO evidence that anyone in this community felt that Nef was scamming them while GLBSE was operating as advertised.  Therfore, he couldn't stop scamming the community as he hadn't even been accused of it yet.

And I agree that Theymos trying to sell his (and other boardmember's) shares without disclosure of KEY information also merits a Scammer Tag Investigation.  But just because one person gets away with violating standards doesn't mean everyone should.

Oh, and which whistle did Nef blow? He sure as hell hasn't come to the community to shout from the virtual rooftops that GLBSE was ripping them off.

[sron]

So, the GLBSE is down.

I predicted this would happen.

Crypto stock exchanges like cryptostocks.com and GLBSE are owned privately by small centralized entities and business owners. They are vulnerable to attacks by hackers, government agencies or even lynch mobs if something goes wrong. If you ask me, GLBSE is likely to run into problems within a year.

Now, I don't have a shadow of doubt that the main problems with GLBSE were as listed below:

-It was centralized
-The shares could only be exchanged through the platform
-It was not open source
-It was vulnerable to attacks by governmental agencies

My solution is THE solution. We should ALL start working on this.

-My solution is decentralized
-The shares can be exchanged freely between everyone everywhere
-My solution is open source
-This system cannot be taken down by so called authorities due to the same reasons that the bitcoin platform cannot be taken down (p2p, can be made anonymous).

Let's set up a project on GitHub right now, today.

The purpose will be building software that can release software which in its turn can create new crypto currency/crypto share units (just like the bitcoin client)  with variable parameters.

Setting up a crypto stock exchange will then be super easy. Here's a very basic example:

A website owner writes on his website: I sell [name of his particular crypto share units] for x BTC, I buy [name of his particular crypto share units] for x BTC.

That is, in essence, a very basic crypto stock exchange.

The important thing is that we give everyone the possibility to create their own client similar to the bitcoin client. With millions of web site owners running their own clients and micro crypto share exchanges, there will be absolutely no possibility whatsoever for the so called authorities to take us down. It shall be the start of a new world order.

This thread can be found at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114336 and www.bitshares.tk

[Aahz]

Aahz, please try and comprehend this as it is tiring to repeat myself.  My argument is focused on a private agreement to hold slaves when slavery is illegal because that is the valid comparison to our current case. 

So then, you do agree that runaway slaves, when slavery was legal (the actual statement being discussed) should have been returned and those who sheltered them should have been imprisoned?

Afterall, that was the law.  And your claim is that the law reigns supreme.

My assertion is that morality trumps legality every time.

Nef had verbal agreements with shareholders (apparently there were no actual signed contracts).  He never had such with any regulatory agency which may or may not (and frankly, it looks more like not every day now) be involved with GLBSE's closure.

[SebastianJu]

sron... Maybe this thoughts can be used somehow. Or the projects merged in one? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62879.0  and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112222.0

[Rarity]

So then, you do agree that runaway slaves, when slavery was legal (the actual statement being discussed) should have been returned and those who sheltered them should have been imprisoned?

Of course not, I have made no argument that even remotely suggests that.

Afterall, that was the law.  And your claim is that the law reigns supreme.

My claim is that it is supreme over an illegal and immoral private agreement.

My assertion is that morality trumps legality every time.

I have never at any point disagreed.

Nef had verbal agreements with shareholders (apparently there were no actual signed contracts).  He never had such with any regulatory agency which may or may not (and frankly, it looks more like not every day now) be involved with GLBSE's closure.

His agreements were to run an illegal and immoral private business that profited off of knowingly listing dozens of scams.

Morality not only trumps the law, it trumps private agreements too. 

[Bogart]

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant.  

As a simple non-shareholder user who opened an account, deposited BTC, and then had it all disappear in a matter of hours, I saw no disclosure that anything about the place was in any way illegal.  There was no warning when signing up like "By using the platform you risk losing everything if regulators interfere."

Y'all seem to be saying that the supposed illegality of GLBSE was and is glaringly obvious.  Well it sure wasn't to me, if in fact it even is.

Just how deep should one have to dig to be considered to have met the obligation of Due Diligence?  Should I have been expected to consult an attorney before signing up?

[Bitinvestor]

Just how deep should one have to dig to be considered to have met the obligation of Due Diligence?  Should I have been expected to consulted an attorney before signing up?

That depends on how much you want to invest. For insignificant amounts you can neglect your due diligence. For large sums you should indeed consult a lawyer.

[mc_lovin]

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant.  

As a simple non-shareholder user who opened an account, deposited BTC, and then had it all disappear in a matter of hours, I saw no disclosure that anything about the place was in any way illegal.  There was no warning when signing up like "By using the platform you risk losing everything if regulators interfere."

Y'all seem to be saying that the supposed illegality of GLBSE was and is glaringly obvious.  Well it sure wasn't to me, if in fact it even is.

Just how deep should one have to dig to be considered to have met the obligation of Due Diligence?  Should I have been expected to consult an attorney before signing up?

My thoughts exactly.  He manually listed my ticker on the exchange only hours before closing up shop, and there was no "oh btw we are under investigation".. it was business as usual.  I deposited my bitcoin just like many other investors just to have it all taken away in a heartbeat, thousands of dollars worth vanish, and now they make it seem like it's our fault.

[Rarity]

You should consult a lawyer before starting any business, or listing any IPO. 

When you work with the mafia in the business world they may not disclose to you that what you are doing is illegal, but there is a minimum amount of effort and common sense you are expected to have as businessmen.  If you invest on an unregulated stock market, common sense dictates the risks. 

[memvola]

Nefario's obligation to the law overrides his obligation to bow to the wishes of Theymos to maintain an ongoing illegal activity.  

You are assuming that the obligation to the law wouldn't be reasonably averted if Nefario had consulted with the shareholders. How do you know this? Isn't it possible that Nefario did know what the shareholders would recommend as a solution and therefore avoided a confrontation? We don't know because the obligation wasn't met.

GLBSE itself was a criminal organization.  This is like arguing that a mafia don has an obligation to talk it over with his consigliare and his Lieutenants before going to the police to turn them in.   Nobody cares that you all signed a blood oath together, those private rules are entirely irrelevant. 

I thought you were saying that he's being forced against his will, so he's unable to uphold the contract.

Now, you are saying the contract is invalid because it was against the law.

These two arguments are unrelated in pretty much every aspect. Totally different things.

Let me get this clear... GLBSE did not commit any crimes with regards to my personal ethics. Therefore, from my perspective, your second argument is irrelevant. There is nothing to argue about here. By stating your claim that way, you converted Aahz's slavery example from sarcasm to a very valid analogy.

You need to prove the first point, that Nefario was being forced against his will and hence couldn't fulfill his contractual obligations.

[Rarity]

I have not been making the argument that he is being forced, no.  Other folks have.  I feel that we all have an obligation to report illegal activity and I believe Nefario decided to blow the whistle on the operation.  

I do not believe by any standards, legal or not, an agreement to continue to allow scamming of the users of this forum to occur is valid.  

[Bogart]

You should consult a lawyer before starting any business, or listing any IPO. 

I did neither.  I just opened an account and deposited 50 BTC.

When you work with the mafia in the business world they may not disclose to you that what you are doing is illegal, but there is a minimum amount of effort and common sense you are expected to have as businessmen.  If you invest on an unregulated stock market, common sense dictates the risks. 

If the exchange was in fact illegal, not disclosing this to all affected parties is by itself justification for a Scammer tag IMO.

[CIYAM]

If the exchange was in fact illegal, not disclosing this to all affected parties is by itself justification for a Scammer tag IMO.

Although not interested so much in the scammer tag discussion I am not quite sure how would such an exchange *know* it's being illegal without there being any actual legal precedent (AFAIA bitcoins are still legally undefined)?

[Rarity]

You should consult a lawyer before starting any business, or listing any IPO. 

I did neither.  I just opened an account and deposited 50 BTC.

When you work with the mafia in the business world they may not disclose to you that what you are doing is illegal, but there is a minimum amount of effort and common sense you are expected to have as businessmen.  If you invest on an unregulated stock market, common sense dictates the risks. 

If the exchange was in fact illegal, not disclosing this to all affected parties is by itself justification for a Scammer tag IMO.

In general I agree, however in this case that is punishing the whistleblower in regards to Nefario.  The tags should be focused on individuals like Theymos who intended to continue to run the scam before Nefario stopped it.  

[Bogart]

In general I agree, however in this case that is punishing the whistleblower in regards to Nefario.  The tags should be focused on individuals like Theymos who intended to continue to run the scam before Nefario stopped it.

So what, he gets to just say one day "Oops, I've been running illegal shizz this whole time.  I'mma shut it down and keep all the BTC?"

That's a helluva business model.

[fbastage]

So what, he gets to just say one day "Oops, I've been running illegal shizz this whole time.  I'mma shut it down and keep all the BTC?"

That's a helluva business model.

Agreed.  Although this isn't why he was given the scammer tag, this is the sticking point for me.  I hope the funds are returned; this will resolve most of my objection.  Of course the fact that they were frozen and not returned as indicated still remains.