Nefario

[stochastic]

So why do people want to hide their identities?

Because if 'the feds' are targeting an exchange, the next step is to go after the users of the exchange, I'd encourage everyone to just take the loss and move on... as that's the only sane thing to do.

What's wrong with using an exchange?

Well according to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 you can go to fucking jail for trading on an unlicensed securities exchange. Even small exchanges that are granted an exemption from licensure must apply for a license and then seek exemption or they are breaking the law. Its crazy how many Forex traders boast about their vast knowledge of trading skills and don’t even understand the most basic laws surrounding trading. In a recent New York ruling you are fucked by mere association with someone that has committed securities fraud!


Court Expands Scope of Third-Party Liability for Securities Fraud
“The New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that aider and abettor liability is not just limited to those who directly cause a securities fraud, but extends to any individual who so much as associates with the wrongdoing. The decision effectively clarifies the question of what conduct satisfies “substantial assistance” under Section 20(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, which allows the SEC—but not private litigants—to bring civil actions against aiders and abettors of securities fraud.”

theymos if I were you I would get an attorney of my own.

WHAT?  I thought it was regulated?

[1715245840]

1715245840

[1715245840]

1715245840

[1715245840]

1715245840

[1715245840]

1715245840

[1715245840]

1715245840

[Bitcoin Oz]

So why do people want to hide their identities?

Because if 'the feds' are targeting an exchange, the next step is to go after the users of the exchange, I'd encourage everyone to just take the loss and move on... as that's the only sane thing to do.

What's wrong with using an exchange?

Well according to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 you can go to fucking jail for trading on an unlicensed securities exchange. Even small exchanges that are granted an exemption from licensure must apply for a license and then seek exemption or they are breaking the law. Its crazy how many Forex traders boast about their vast knowledge of trading skills and don’t even understand the most basic laws surrounding trading. In a recent New York ruling you are fucked by mere association with someone that has committed securities fraud!


Court Expands Scope of Third-Party Liability for Securities Fraud
“The New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that aider and abettor liability is not just limited to those who directly cause a securities fraud, but extends to any individual who so much as associates with the wrongdoing. The decision effectively clarifies the question of what conduct satisfies “substantial assistance” under Section 20(e) of the Securities Exchange Act, which allows the SEC—but not private litigants—to bring civil actions against aiders and abettors of securities fraud.”

theymos if I were you I would get an attorney of my own.

WHAT?  I thought it was regulated?

It could apply to the whole forum since theres a securities section.

[memvola]

Are the backup databases fully synced?

Regardless of the coins, those holding the copies, after cross-checking its integrity, can create independent reclaim codes and communicate them to shareholders. This can be done regardless of the BTC flow, and hopefully ASAP.

As I had proposed in another thread, the claim codes should encode the asset id and number of shares, so that a list doesn't need to be given to issuers. This way, it will be up to the shareholders to disclose their ownership to the issuer.

After the shareholder submits the code to the issuer, issuer sends a verification code to one of the database maintainers, which passes the verification code to the shareholder. Shareholder submits this verification code to the issuer, thereby successfully proving ownership anonymously.

Any better ideas? This may sound like too much fuss, especially if different encoding schemes are used by database maintainers or the database isn't synced, but I think it would definitively fix this portion of the wreckage.

Also, if the issuer wants to list on a different exchange, which will cooperate with the process, the maintainer might give the shareholders a redeeming URL at the new exchange to automate the process.

[kaerf]

Nefario has always held onto most of the user funds so he could top up the hot wallet when necessary. Exactly what funds I should hold was never clearly-defined. I ended up holding all BitcoinGlobal cash on hand plus some of the user funds for when Nefario was away and the hot wallet needed to be refilled.

I assume he's spending user deposits. Maybe he's using his own money, but I don't think he has enough to cover lawyer fees. He said in the meeting that he wants BitcoinGlobal to pay for the lawyer.

Is 1FX22c76vybHJSJdCCjKHDHhcMDhDX87nw the user deposit address under Nefario's control? My coins are literally in the last fucking transaction to that address...I'm such a fucking sheep

[Bitcoin Oz]

Are the backup databases fully synced?

Regardless of the coins, those holding the copies, after cross-checking its integrity, can create independent reclaim codes and communicate them to shareholders. This can be done regardless of the BTC flow, and hopefully ASAP.

As I had proposed in another thread, the claim codes should encode the asset id and number of shares, so that a list doesn't need to be given to issuers. This way, it will be up to the shareholders to disclose their ownership to the issuer.

After the shareholder submits the code to the issuer, issuer sends a verification code to one of the database maintainers, which passes the verification code to the shareholder. Shareholder submits this verification code to the issuer, thereby successfully proving ownership anonymously.

Any better ideas? This may sound like too much fuss, especially if different encoding schemes are used by database maintainers or the database isn't synced, but I think it would definitively fix this portion of the wreckage.

Also, if the issuer wants to list on a different exchange, which will cooperate with the process, the maintainer might give the shareholders a redeeming URL at the new exchange to automate the process.

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

[memvola]

Are the backup databases fully synced?

Regardless of the coins, those holding the copies, after cross-checking its integrity, can create independent reclaim codes and communicate them to shareholders. This can be done regardless of the BTC flow, and hopefully ASAP.

As I had proposed in another thread, the claim codes should encode the asset id and number of shares, so that a list doesn't need to be given to issuers. This way, it will be up to the shareholders to disclose their ownership to the issuer.

After the shareholder submits the code to the issuer, issuer sends a verification code to one of the database maintainers, which passes the verification code to the shareholder. Shareholder submits this verification code to the issuer, thereby successfully proving ownership anonymously.

Any better ideas? This may sound like too much fuss, especially if different encoding schemes are used by database maintainers or the database isn't synced, but I think it would definitively fix this portion of the wreckage.

Also, if the issuer wants to list on a different exchange, which will cooperate with the process, the maintainer might give the shareholders a redeeming URL at the new exchange to automate the process.

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

I don't get what you're saying. I'm assuming the only people we can trust is the db maintainers, for no other reason than the fact that we already have to trust them. Are you talking about the shareholder side?

On the other hand, "they" probably already have the database and it's almost worse than it being public. Just sending it to all issuers might have become a valid option. I'd like to hear what theymos thinks about this.

Another option is to launch the same exchange under tor by one of the maintainers, but there would be massive problems with this.

EDIT: Oh, okay, I get what you are proposing now.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Are the backup databases fully synced?

Regardless of the coins, those holding the copies, after cross-checking its integrity, can create independent reclaim codes and communicate them to shareholders. This can be done regardless of the BTC flow, and hopefully ASAP.

As I had proposed in another thread, the claim codes should encode the asset id and number of shares, so that a list doesn't need to be given to issuers. This way, it will be up to the shareholders to disclose their ownership to the issuer.

After the shareholder submits the code to the issuer, issuer sends a verification code to one of the database maintainers, which passes the verification code to the shareholder. Shareholder submits this verification code to the issuer, thereby successfully proving ownership anonymously.

Any better ideas? This may sound like too much fuss, especially if different encoding schemes are used by database maintainers or the database isn't synced, but I think it would definitively fix this portion of the wreckage.

Also, if the issuer wants to list on a different exchange, which will cooperate with the process, the maintainer might give the shareholders a redeeming URL at the new exchange to automate the process.

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

I don't get what you're saying. I'm assuming the only people we can trust is the db maintainers, for no other reason than the fact that we already have to trust them. Are you talking about the shareholder side?

On the other hand, "they" probably already have the database and it's almost worse than it being public. Just sending it to all issuers might have become a valid option. I'd like to hear what theymos thinks about this.

Another option is to launch the same exchange under tor by one of the maintainers, but there would be massive problems with this.

I was thinking for people who didnt want to go through AML they might pay a fee to someone who doesnt mind doing it who can then claim their account on their behalf.

[repentance]

It will only be illegal if its not shut down. It currently isnt illegal.

If nefario has been told to shut it down and complies there is no issue.

Rubbish.  He can still be charged over the period he was operating the exchange illegally, although the penalties would most likely be administrative.  Whether the FSA/SEC or whomever would actually pursue charges is a different issue but we're not talking about a restraining order/injunction here where the obligation to refrain from a behaviour doesn't start until a legal request to desist is issued and non-compliance with that request creates the illegality.  

[memvola]

I was thinking for people who didnt want to go through AML they might pay a fee to someone who doesnt mind doing it who can then claim their account on their behalf.

True. What I meant was, no matter how doable it is, going through Nefario will be a painful and time consuming process with unpredictable outcomes. And he wouldn't assume the responsibility of the verification process.

[repentance]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum. 

[psilan]

It will only be illegal if its not shut down. It currently isnt illegal.

If nefario has been told to shut it down and complies there is no issue.

Rubbish.  He can still be charged over the period he was operating the exchange illegally, although the penalties would most likely be administrative.  Whether the FSA/SEC or whomever would actually pursue charges is a different issue but we're not talking about a restraining order/injunction here where the obligation to refrain from a behaviour doesn't start until a legal request to desist is issued and non-compliance with that request creates the illegality.  

No bitcoin.me is correct.

I rob banks all the time and when they say stop I stop. Then they can't put me in jail.

[stochastic]

time to give the forum a good wash

[Bogart]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum. 

Y'all sure throw the "illegal" word around a lot here.

What's illegal about someone not wanting to deal with the claim process (and the risk therein) selling their claim to someone who is willing to deal with the process and assume the risk?

[Kluge]

It will only be illegal if its not shut down. It currently isnt illegal.

If nefario has been told to shut it down and complies there is no issue.

Rubbish.  He can still be charged over the period he was operating the exchange illegally, although the penalties would most likely be administrative.  Whether the FSA/SEC or whomever would actually pursue charges is a different issue but we're not talking about a restraining order/injunction here where the obligation to refrain from a behaviour doesn't start until a legal request to desist is issued and non-compliance with that request creates the illegality.  

No bitcoin.me is correct.

I rob banks all the time and when they say stop I stop. Then they can't put me in jail.

Saving this for my legal defense. Thanks.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It will only be illegal if its not shut down. It currently isnt illegal.

If nefario has been told to shut it down and complies there is no issue.

Rubbish.  He can still be charged over the period he was operating the exchange illegally, although the penalties would most likely be administrative.  Whether the FSA/SEC or whomever would actually pursue charges is a different issue but we're not talking about a restraining order/injunction here where the obligation to refrain from a behaviour doesn't start until a legal request to desist is issued and non-compliance with that request creates the illegality.  

No bitcoin.me is correct.

I rob banks all the time and when they say stop I stop. Then they can't put me in jail.

lol.

Robbing banks is illegal in the first place. Bitcoin is unregulated and there are no laws in existence to deal with it and glbse never took in fiat. Its  a massive grey area and you cant retroactively change laws and make them apply in the past. Its not clear the same laws apply to bitcoin at all.

[Atlas]

It will only be illegal if its not shut down. It currently isnt illegal.

If nefario has been told to shut it down and complies there is no issue.

Rubbish.  He can still be charged over the period he was operating the exchange illegally, although the penalties would most likely be administrative.  Whether the FSA/SEC or whomever would actually pursue charges is a different issue but we're not talking about a restraining order/injunction here where the obligation to refrain from a behaviour doesn't start until a legal request to desist is issued and non-compliance with that request creates the illegality.  

No bitcoin.me is correct.

I rob banks all the time and when they say stop I stop. Then they can't put me in jail.

You need to be a prosecutor. lol

[stochastic]

Why doesn't nefario's account have a scammer tag on it?  I want to see it before he or someone else deletes all his posts.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum. 

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

[psilan]

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

Laws are open to interpretation. They don't have to specifically label bitcoin.

[Atlas]

Get one person to AML for lots of different accounts for a cut.

Because breaking even more laws in relation to an organisation which is already under scrutiny is a great idea.

Right now, everyone has to work on the assumption that everything sketchy to do with GBLSE is going to come out in the wash, including any illegal proposals put forward on this forum.  

We havent broken ANY laws. Show me one fucking law that mentions bitcoin specifically.

When the state executes its laws, it can interpret existing ones to cover new cases and situations. All it takes is a new court ruling to set precedent for a law to expand to new territory.

I don't agree with this but that's how our current powers work.