Nefario

[smoothie]

Wow...I don't log in for a few days and then I come back and see everything has gone to Hell.  Fun times it appears.  

This happens every other week. You must be new here. 

You would know being you have been successfully fooled at LEAST 3 different times out of a considerable amount of bitcoin.

Good job to ya! This is what fuels that bitcoin economy......more suckers! lol

 

[1713529756]

1713529756

[1713529756]

1713529756

[1713529756]

1713529756

[conspirosphere.tk]

Good job to ya! This is what fuels that bitcoin economy......more suckers! lol

Finally we found what Bitcoins are backed by.
I propose a contest for old timers on how many scams they fell into. The winner may win a special forum tag. I am now at 2 points: a PPT and GLBSE.

[capn noe]

If you guys are going to start taking tally of how many times you've been robbed, you should put it on a wiki somewhere.

[mc_lovin]

If you guys are going to start taking tally of how many times you've been robbed, you should put it on a wiki somewhere.

i have a bitcoin wiki you guys can eff around with: bitcoinipedia.com

(its got like no pages lol)

[repentance]

Good job to ya! This is what fuels that bitcoin economy......more suckers! lol

Finally we found what Bitcoins are backed by.
I propose a contest for old timers on how many scams they fell into. The winner may win a special forum tag. I am now at 2 points: a PPT and GLBSE.

I think usagi's got you all beaten when it comes to everything s/he touches going to hell in a handbasket.

[senor_coconut]

Nefario is still in contact with everyone and untill he refuses to communicate via secure channels things are still in motion, albeit slowly.

Is this a joke or are my telepathic powers failing?

[capn noe]

None of my companies lost any more than what we lost form investing in mining bonds. Stop whining that I lost money when most mining bonds we invested in lost more money than we did. Want me to name ten? Go bother those people. I paid out of my pocket on numerous occasions and a comment like the one you made above really shows how little you know about what happened and how little respect you have for people who were trying to do a good thing. CPA lost more because hashking and imsaguy defaulted. Go bother them. For once, stop lying about other people and spreading rumors why dont'cha? Simple test; if you don't know what happened, don't talk about it.

This is why you are stupid, usagi. YOU go bother them. CPA was an insurer ffs go get your assets!

Retard.

[greyhawk]

Nefario is still in contact with everyone and untill he refuses to communicate via secure channels things are still in motion, albeit slowly.

Is this a joke or are my telepathic powers failing?

He meant co-conspirators.

[memvola]

The landing page now has:

"Update:we will begin processing account closures and returning bitcoin later today."

Given we can not submit details, it is very unclear what is being "processed".

And obviously it is always "today".

[senor_coconut]

Nefario is still in contact with everyone and untill he refuses to communicate via secure channels things are still in motion, albeit slowly.

Is this a joke or are my telepathic powers failing?

He meant co-conspirators.

Ahh... you know, it's still early and my mind keeps playing tricks on me.
I keep reading these posts with information avidly, as if they were true, silly me!
The brain is probably tired of all the other posts with drama and legal mumbo jumbo...

It seems these well-informed fellas are like the ones that come and help you after you're robbed, in the good old bag snatching tag team scam.

[Deprived]

Nefario has most of the funds. There is literally nothing preventing him from starting to pay back straight away, except the AML stuff.

The "AML stuff" seem to be a delaying tactic rather than some reasonable issue.

Let's be clear aboiut a few things, starting with what AML actually is (I'm talking here only about its use in the UK - where GLBSE is run - it may be different in the US).

Regulated Financial Service Providers in the UK are required to attempt to identify suspicious transactions (which could be money laundering) and report them.  There is NO definition of what information they need to hold to do this - but holding information for this purpose IS a valid reason to hold personal information under the DPA (Data Protection Act).

This is a total red herring now - unless Nefario has some intention that hasn't yet been mentioned:

1.  He is not a Regulated Financial Service Provider.
2.  Unless I'm missing something, the ONLY transactions he now intends to conduct is refunding the BTC in people's accounts.  There is ZERO way identification documents could allow him to identify any of those transactions as being suspicious. 

If, instead, he's claiming he intends to go over past transactions to see if any were suspicious and then report them then that's a different case - however he'd then need far more information than just ID.  Information held for AML purposes would for legitimate companies be far wider than just ID details - things such as credit ratings, employment details etc.

It seems to me that at some stage AML has become conflated with KYC - partly through laziness (I've referred to the two together myself on occasion) nad partly through total ignorance.

Regulated Financial Service Providers DO have a requirement to know the identities of their customers.  Do note that this is NOT the case for all businesses - you can go in a shop and buy something, or employ a tradesman's service without ever giving your name let alone proving your ID.  There are a specific subset of cases where ID MUST be verified.  GLBSE is not registered or regulated in any of these categories as far as I am aware.

My concern is with adherence to the Data Protection Act.  Both the content of that Act and the guidelines for implementing it lay out the following three key points (along with others, such as ensuring that the data is accurate, giving customers access to data held on them etc):

1.  There must be a clear NEED for the data to be held.
2.  The customer must be aware what that need is (i.e. how the data will be used).
3.  The data must be destroyed once it is no longer needed.

Now IF GLBSE is claiming there is some statutory or regulatory force compelling them to hold this data, then what is it?  If, on the other hand GLBSE is NOT under any current obligation to hold that data then what precisely is the reason it is needed - and how will it be used?  If it won't be used at all then there is no reason to be asking for it.  I think what some may be missing is that just askjing for ID is no use unless GLBSE is in some way going to determine that the ID is actually the ID of the person whose account it was submitted for.  And how can they possibly do that?

I do NOT personally actually have a problem with providing my identity to GLBSE.  What I DO have a HUGE problem with is providing copies of identification documents which could then be used to impersonate me elsewhere.  I doubly have a problem with doing that to a company which appears to be closing down and doesn't have anything os any legitimate use they could conceivably actually DO with that information.

SO here's my questions to GLBSE if they want copies of personal documents:

1.  What is that information going to allow (or prevent) you from doing that you couldn't do without it?
2.  How long will that information be held for?
3.  If your claim is that you are requesting that information as though you were regulated by the FSA then who is your officer responsible for the protection of that data and where can I see a copy of your (required) policy on data protection?
4.  Could please confirm (with insurers details) that you have insurance covering claims against you caused if that data were to be accessed or used other than in accordance with the DPA?  i.e. professional indemnity insurance.  To put it simply, if you leave my documents lieing around, someone steals them and then impersonates me, then do you have cover against any claim I make for losses?  Copies of identity documents would clearly fall under "client's data" - which you should have professional indemnity insurance against losing.

If you want to play it "by the book" then do so properly.  I don't, as a habit, send personal documents to ANY company unless they jave a reasonable need for it, I am SURE they will protect it properly and KNOW I have recourse if they don't.  I'm fine with giving a name+address to send a GBP cheque to (if you think you're entitled to convery BTC to fiat on my behalf) or even with providing details of a bank account you can transfer to.  But I'm NOT fine with sending copies of ID documents.

[senor_coconut]

Nefario has most of the funds. There is literally nothing preventing him from starting to pay back straight away, except the AML stuff.

The "AML stuff" seem to be a delaying tactic rather than some reasonable issue.

Let's be clear aboiut a few things, starting with what AML actually is (I'm talking here only about its use in the UK - where GLBSE is run - it may be different in the US).

Regulated Financial Service Providers in the UK are required to attempt to identify suspicious transactions (which could be money laundering) and report them.  There is NO definition of what information they need to hold to do this - but holding information for this purpose IS a valid reason to hold personal information under the DPA (Data Protection Act).

This is a total red herring now - unless Nefario has some intention that hasn't yet been mentioned:

1.  He is not a Regulated Financial Service Provider.
2.  Unless I'm missing something, the ONLY transactions he now intends to conduct is refunding the BTC in people's accounts.  There is ZERO way identification documents could allow him to identify any of those transactions as being suspicious. 

If, instead, he's claiming he intends to go over past transactions to see if any were suspicious and then report them then that's a different case - however he'd then need far more information than just ID.  Information held for AML purposes would for legitimate companies be far wider than just ID details - things such as credit ratings, employment details etc.

It seems to me that at some stage AML has become conflated with KYC - partly through laziness (I've referred to the two together myself on occasion) nad partly through total ignorance.

Regulated Financial Service Providers DO have a requirement to know the identities of their customers.  Do note that this is NOT the case for all businesses - you can go in a shop and buy something, or employ a tradesman's service without ever giving your name let alone proving your ID.  There are a specific subset of cases where ID MUST be verified.  GLBSE is not registered or regulated in any of these categories as far as I am aware.

My concern is with adherence to the Data Protection Act.  Both the content of that Act and the guidelines for implementing it lay out the following three key points (along with others, such as ensuring that the data is accurate, giving customers access to data held on them etc):

1.  There must be a clear NEED for the data to be held.
2.  The customer must be aware what that need is (i.e. how the data will be used).
3.  The data must be destroyed once it is no longer needed.

Now IF GLBSE is claiming there is some statutory or regulatory force compelling them to hold this data, then what is it?  If, on the other hand GLBSE is NOT under any current obligation to hold that data then what precisely is the reason it is needed - and how will it be used?  If it won't be used at all then there is no reason to be asking for it.  I think what some may be missing is that just askjing for ID is no use unless GLBSE is in some way going to determine that the ID is actually the ID of the person whose account it was submitted for.  And how can they possibly do that?

I do NOT personally actually have a problem with providing my identity to GLBSE.  What I DO have a HUGE problem with is providing copies of identification documents which could then be used to impersonate me elsewhere.  I doubly have a problem with doing that to a company which appears to be closing down and doesn't have anything os any legitimate use they could conceivably actually DO with that information.

SO here's my questions to GLBSE if they want copies of personal documents:

1.  What is that information going to allow (or prevent) you from doing that you couldn't do without it?
2.  How long will that information be held for?
3.  If your claim is that you are requesting that information as though you were regulated by the FSA then who is your officer responsible for the protection of that data and where can I see a copy of your (required) policy on data protection?
4.  Could please confirm (with insurers details) that you have insurance covering claims against you caused if that data were to be accessed or used other than in accordance with the DPA?  i.e. professional indemnity insurance.  To put it simply, if you leave my documents lieing around, someone steals them and then impersonates me, then do you have cover against any claim I make for losses?  Copies of identity documents would clearly fall under "client's data" - which you should have professional indemnity insurance against losing.

If you want to play it "by the book" then do so properly.  I don't, as a habit, send personal documents to ANY company unless they jave a reasonable need for it, I am SURE they will protect it properly and KNOW I have recourse if they don't.  I'm fine with giving a name+address to send a GBP cheque to (if you think you're entitled to convery BTC to fiat on my behalf) or even with providing details of a bank account you can transfer to.  But I'm NOT fine with sending copies of ID documents.

+1, Very well put Deprived.

These guys, nefario at the top, will get into even more trouble by requesting IDs from the users.

[BadBear]

Okay I'd like to correct some misinformation some people are spreading about the scammer tag.

I did not give Nefario a scammer tag because he shut down the service and hasn't returned the bitcoins yet, it's only been a few days. I don't think he's going to cut and run, I do expect he'll pay everything back. That doesn't have anything to do with it.
I did not give him the tag because of the way he's handling the assets, we don't even know how he's handling it yet. Keep in mind I did not give him a scammer tag for the way he handled Goats assets, so it's highly unlikely I would have given him one for his handling of other assets.

I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.

If he's being forced by other parties to shut down the service because it's illegal, he's still the one who decided to open the service and he's still ultimately responsible for that. He caused financial loss to his investors by not doing his due diligence beforehand to make sure he would be able to keep his agreement.

Investors should have done their due diligence as well, but the buck doesn't stop there, and that doesn't let Nefario off the hook.

He made an agreement, he didn't/couldn't keep it (entirely due to his own action/inaction), he got the tag.

[coinft]

Nefario has most of the funds. There is literally nothing preventing him from starting to pay back straight away, except the AML stuff.

The "AML stuff" seem to be a delaying tactic rather than some reasonable issue.

Let's be clear aboiut a few things, starting with what AML actually is (I'm talking here only about its use in the UK - where GLBSE is run - it may be different in the US).

Regulated Financial Service Providers in the UK are required to attempt to identify suspicious transactions (which could be money laundering) and report them.  There is NO definition of what information they need to hold to do this - but holding information for this purpose IS a valid reason to hold personal information under the DPA (Data Protection Act).

This is a total red herring now - unless Nefario has some intention that hasn't yet been mentioned:

1.  He is not a Regulated Financial Service Provider.
2.  Unless I'm missing something, the ONLY transactions he now intends to conduct is refunding the BTC in people's accounts.  There is ZERO way identification documents could allow him to identify any of those transactions as being suspicious. 

If, instead, he's claiming he intends to go over past transactions to see if any were suspicious and then report them then that's a different case - however he'd then need far more information than just ID.  Information held for AML purposes would for legitimate companies be far wider than just ID details - things such as credit ratings, employment details etc.

It seems to me that at some stage AML has become conflated with KYC - partly through laziness (I've referred to the two together myself on occasion) nad partly through total ignorance.

Regulated Financial Service Providers DO have a requirement to know the identities of their customers.  Do note that this is NOT the case for all businesses - you can go in a shop and buy something, or employ a tradesman's service without ever giving your name let alone proving your ID.  There are a specific subset of cases where ID MUST be verified.  GLBSE is not registered or regulated in any of these categories as far as I am aware.

My concern is with adherence to the Data Protection Act.  Both the content of that Act and the guidelines for implementing it lay out the following three key points (along with others, such as ensuring that the data is accurate, giving customers access to data held on them etc):

1.  There must be a clear NEED for the data to be held.
2.  The customer must be aware what that need is (i.e. how the data will be used).
3.  The data must be destroyed once it is no longer needed.

Now IF GLBSE is claiming there is some statutory or regulatory force compelling them to hold this data, then what is it?  If, on the other hand GLBSE is NOT under any current obligation to hold that data then what precisely is the reason it is needed - and how will it be used?  If it won't be used at all then there is no reason to be asking for it.  I think what some may be missing is that just askjing for ID is no use unless GLBSE is in some way going to determine that the ID is actually the ID of the person whose account it was submitted for.  And how can they possibly do that?

I do NOT personally actually have a problem with providing my identity to GLBSE.  What I DO have a HUGE problem with is providing copies of identification documents which could then be used to impersonate me elsewhere.  I doubly have a problem with doing that to a company which appears to be closing down and doesn't have anything os any legitimate use they could conceivably actually DO with that information.

SO here's my questions to GLBSE if they want copies of personal documents:

1.  What is that information going to allow (or prevent) you from doing that you couldn't do without it?
2.  How long will that information be held for?
3.  If your claim is that you are requesting that information as though you were regulated by the FSA then who is your officer responsible for the protection of that data and where can I see a copy of your (required) policy on data protection?
4.  Could please confirm (with insurers details) that you have insurance covering claims against you caused if that data were to be accessed or used other than in accordance with the DPA?  i.e. professional indemnity insurance.  To put it simply, if you leave my documents lieing around, someone steals them and then impersonates me, then do you have cover against any claim I make for losses?  Copies of identity documents would clearly fall under "client's data" - which you should have professional indemnity insurance against losing.

If you want to play it "by the book" then do so properly.  I don't, as a habit, send personal documents to ANY company unless they jave a reasonable need for it, I am SURE they will protect it properly and KNOW I have recourse if they don't.  I'm fine with giving a name+address to send a GBP cheque to (if you think you're entitled to convery BTC to fiat on my behalf) or even with providing details of a bank account you can transfer to.  But I'm NOT fine with sending copies of ID documents.

+1, Very well put Deprived.

These guys, nefario at the top, will get into even more trouble by requesting IDs from the users.

I agree with the +1, good analysis of the theory.

I somehow doubt the second, very rarely do companies get into trouble over data protection laws, and then it's a slap on the fingers. If agencies are somehow "interested" in the illegally harvested data, not even that.

I think Nefario has far worse worries.

[Puppet]

I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.

Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?

Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.

[coinft]

Okay I'd like to correct some misinformation some people are spreading about the scammer tag.

I did not give Nefario a scammer tag because he shut down the service and hasn't returned the bitcoins yet, it's only been a few days. I don't think he's going to cut and run, I do expect he'll pay everything back. That doesn't have anything to do with it.
I did not give him the tag because of the way he's handling the assets, we don't even know how he's handling it yet. Keep in mind I did not give him a scammer tag for the way he handled Goats assets, so it's highly unlikely I would have given him one for his handling of other assets.

I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.

If he's being forced by other parties to shut down the service because it's illegal, he's still the one who decided to open the service and he's still ultimately responsible for that. He caused financial loss to his investors by not doing his due diligence beforehand to make sure he would be able to keep his agreement.

Investors should have done their due diligence as well, but the buck doesn't stop there, and that doesn't let Nefario off the hook.

He made an agreement, he didn't/couldn't keep it (entirely due to his own action/inaction), he got the tag.

OK. But I would say as a GLBSE customer the same applies. If there is no way to provide this market legally, that still is Nefario's problem as the one person starting and running GLBSE, and I see customers defrauded as well by first taking their money, then closing down.

Or do you really expect that my shares, once (if ever) returned, hold anywhere the original value, and that Nefario didn't know that? If you have to answer No here that should be enough reason for the scammer tag.

[BadBear]

I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.

Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?

Of course.

Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership and made promises he couldn't or wouldn't keep. Investors being aware or not doesn't let him off the hook, he's still ultimately responsible. If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

[galambo]

...

Yeah, well, if you're so smart why did you have your money on GLBSE?

No, really. If you know this much about banking what the hell were you thinking?

[Bitcoin Oz]

I gave him the scammer tag because he sold ownership of the company to various investors, after getting their money he then said "Sorry I'm worried about laws!" and shut the service down without the consent of the other owners, has not returned their investment, and caused significant financial loss. Pretty clear case of fraud. Even if it's the result of incompetence/ignorance it's still fraud. Reread the OP if you've forgotten what the thread is about.

Based on that, wouldnt you have to hand out scammer tags to all asset issuers that dont reimburse their investors in full? If Nefario had to do his due diligence before accepting investor money, then why not asset issuers?

Also, I think a point can be made that GLBSE closing down due to legal pressure was a business risk that investors should have been aware off. It might have been different if Nefario knew it was illegal and his investors were somehow misled to believe the opposite, but if anything, it seems the opposite, and Nefario thought it was legal, whereas Theymos wanted and still wants it to be an illegal black market. Before passing judgment, I would like to see what the shareholder agreement said about that.

The first version of glbse was called "black market".  

[Puppet]

It's also a business risk Nefario should have been aware of, one that he should have taken into account before he sold shares of ownership

Yes, but taking risks isnt illegal or scamming, nor is selling shares in a business that operates with significant legal risks, as mostly every business does. An investor prices that risk in his valuation. For instance, SatoshiDice is most likely a huge legal liability, but if it gets closed down by some government, Im not sure Id call a Erik a scammer for selling shares in SD, unless he knowingly withheld information about that to his shareholders.

If he truly thought it was legal, then it's just incompetence, but that doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

I have to disagree here. Incompetence!=fraud