GLBSE owners lied to us. How to move forward and fix this? Move to Exchange X?

[EskimoBob]

BTC community got fucked once more. This time it was GLBSE, run by Nefario, Theymos and others.

There is a good opportunity to move all the portfolios and securities to another exchange and keep going. By "keep going" I mean finance projects and earn some coin from that.

Ideas are welcome.
If you want to scream at those assholes, who fucked you over AGAIN! Use different threads here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0

Are we a community or just a punch of lazy fuctards, who can not get over this and build something better so that current GLBSE securities and investors do not get burned. Can we do this?

Thank you for keeping it civilized.

PS! Ideas how to drop this forum with everyone involved (scammers mostly), needs another thread.

[1715089423]

1715089423

[1715089423]

1715089423

[1715089423]

1715089423

[1715089423]

1715089423

[memvola]

We should basically create a mechanism for issuers to continue doing business and shareholders to prove their ownership securely and without exposing themselves to more parties than they already are. Issuers may decide whether to list somewhere else and exchanges may implement their own automated process to help with this.

Idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1249491#msg1249491

Speculation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1249521#msg1249521

Older version: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112551.msg1241728#msg1241728

[EskimoBob]

We should basically create a mechanism for issuers to continue doing business and shareholders to prove their ownership securely and without exposing themselves to more parties than they already are. Issuers may decide whether to list somewhere else and exchanges may implement their own automated process to help with this.

Idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1249491#msg1249491

Speculation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1249521#msg1249521

Older version: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112551.msg1241728#msg1241728

GLBSE must be opened up (no trading) so investors and issuers can sort this shit out and move to new exchange or migrate to Open Transactions environment.

[markm]

It might not be a good idea to put all the eggs in one basket... all the "securities" on the same server.

A separate server per issuer of assets/securities might be much better, so that any one of them turning out to be a scam or illegal or unregistered or whatever need not shut down everyone else when they get shut down.

By the way, anyone who is looking just to let people hold and transfer assets could look at the loom system, anyone can issue any assets on loom, so you can just go there and issue your assets, no approval by some snoopy admins needed set up scams or game-money or anything you want.

The same can be done with Truledger but that, like Open Transactions, has signing so needs users to use a client that will sign everything with their private keys for them.

The reason I took the long hard road of going with Open Transactions instead of either of those is because I wanted markets: matching of offers.

-MarkM-

[matthewh3]

Yeah I want to use Open-Transactions for my asset (RSM) if I can figure out how to and its not too difficult for shareholders.

[TheBible]

Yeah, move to Exchange X.  After they rob you, move again.

How many times do you have to get scammed before you wise up?

[markm]

Yeah I want to use Open-Transactions for my asset (RSM) if I can figure out how to and its not too difficult for shareholders.

Things can be made as easy for shareholders as their friendly neighborhood broker cares to make it.

Really the only way to make it easy for them is to make it even easier for hackers/thieves, since you know any security is going to be considered inconvenient and "too hard" and so on. Heck a lot of people complain at simple use of PGP signed messages "too hard" yet it is pretty much the bare minimum needed to prove their identity in a portable manner.

-MarkM-

[markm]

Yeah, move to Exchange X.  After they rob you, move again.

How many times do you have to get scammed before you wise up?

Open Transactions is designed to eliminate the need to trust the operator of the server.

You always have to trust asset issuers of course, but the "exchange", the "notary server" that notarises the transactions, does not need to be trusted because all transactions are signed by the actual parties to the transactions, the server merely "notarises" their signings, basically.

That is why it is crucial that the users actually do use their own private keys at their end that servers etc never ever see.

-MarkM-

[memvola]

We should basically create a mechanism for issuers to continue doing business and shareholders to prove their ownership securely and without exposing themselves to more parties than they already are. Issuers may decide whether to list somewhere else and exchanges may implement their own automated process to help with this.

Idea: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1249491#msg1249491

Speculation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1249521#msg1249521

Older version: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112551.msg1241728#msg1241728

GLBSE must be opened up (no trading) so investors and issuers can sort this shit out and move to new exchange or migrate to Open Transactions environment.

Migration to a different environment is I think secondary. The companies are live now, and we need to access our shares as soon as possible. Otherwise Open Transactions is a good idea, or even one of the proposed blockchain based solutions, but even if the servers were ready it will take a long time for even issuers to adopt. EDIT: And we need to be able to prove ownership anyway. So let's focus on it first.

Also, I suspect that continued involvement with GLBSE will be problematic. If they open the exchange if only for serving as a communication channel, then great. If they continue to list the assets, I will communicate with the issuers, send them my shares in return for a digitally signed contract and be done. But let's assume that they won't do that.

The best course to resolve this, at least for willing issuers, is to create the mechanism to prove ownership and then move from there. We don't need complicated solutions that may break. When we have this, some may list on a different exchange, some may move to a different environment/tool and some may want to manage it themselves. I think the latter is most likely, at least until the dust settles.

[EskimoBob]

Or maybe something like #assets-otc - Contract Management System https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105437.0

[Puppet]

How about getting some legal advice first? The problem isnt one of technology, the problem is that people seem to think  because its related to bitcoin, laws somehow dont apply. Thats horseshit.  If you want a credible and lasting alternative to GLBSE, you will need to operate within the confines of the law, like MtGox does, like Tangible Cryptography does, like Butterfly Labs does.

Operating legally may or may not be feasible for a security exchange, but its the first thing you should focus on. If you want to do a truly anonymous underground and illegal site like Silk Road, its doomed from the start. If you thought GLBSE was a scammer heaven, imagine a silk road like alternative.

[markm]

From the sound of it the only "proof" of ownership is the crypto-signed receipts GLBSE issued to users when they bought things, or if, as seems possible, no such receipts were issued, a crypto-signed statement sent out by Nefario to each user detailing what they owned, which would require co-operation of Nefario.

(See yet why crypto-signed receipts are so important?)

-MarkM-

[Bitcoin Oz]

glbse should be closed to deposits and withdrawals except if you AMl to allow graceful exit.

[HorseRider]

From the sound of it the only "proof" of ownership is the crypto-signed receipts GLBSE issued to users when they bought things, or if, as seems possible, no such receipts were issued, a crypto-signed statement sent out by Nefario to each user detailing what they owned, which would require co-operation of Nefario.

(See yet why crypto-signed receipts are so important?)

-MarkM-

What does a user need to start using open transaction?

[Icoin]

markm is there a way to program OTS in a way that the "notary" part would be commonly shared similar to a blockchain. Basicaly i wanna know if OTS is capable to run decentralized.

[markm]

What does a user need to start using open transaction?

A user just needs either a client or to be accustomed to using command-lines and scripts.

An issuer would in addition need the ability to actually issue an asset on a server, which might require them to run their own server depending on what kinds of liability a "software as a service" vendor could be open to by allowing someone else to issue an asset on a server that they host.

I have been thinking of setting up a "test server" or "demo server" on which anyone can issue assets just so people can try out the system and get used to it and so on, but as no one has put up money to pay for a lawyer to check with about "safe harbour" laws relating to "being just a common carrier who does not examine the details of what data people use the software to process" I do not know yet if that would be free of liability.

(I am hoping it might be like the copyright acts: if we get informed one of the demo/pretend/game/test items on the server is some kind of illegal unregistered security we de-list it on receipt of a court order to do so kind of thing.)

But for a mere user, all you need is the client (if you insist on a GUI) or just the basic Open Transactions system (so you can interact through scripts / command-line).

-MarkM-

[markm]

markm is there a way to program OTS in a way that the "notary" part would be commonly shared similar to a blockchain. Basicaly i wanna know if OTS is capable to run decentralized.

Securities are inherently centralised.

However an issuer can issue on as many servers as will let them do so.

Blockchains are insanely expensive, the coloured bitcoins type idea sound like a lot of fun but I am not really looking forward to having the bitcoin blockchain swarmed with billions upon billions of scams, there will be more scams than there are bitcoins and thus massively increased reason for regulators to want to outlaw the blockchain. They might even have good grounds for asserting that anyone hosting a copy of the blockchain is aiding and abetting securities fraud. (That might bring us back to the safe harbour / common carrier arguments though...)

-MarkM-

[Icoin]

Blockchains are insanely expensive, the coloured bitcoins type idea sound like a lot of fun but I am not really looking forward to having the bitcoin blockchain swarmed with billions upon billions of scams, there will be more scams than there are bitcoins and thus massively increased reason for regulators to want to outlaw the blockchain. They might even have good grounds for asserting that anyone hosting a copy of the blockchain is aiding and abetting securities fraud.

Ok when it is possible to issue on several servers is there a way to synchronize this ?

[Francesco]

Yeah I want to use Open-Transactions for my asset (RSM) if I can figure out how to and its not too difficult for shareholders.

I don't know exactly Open Transactions, but if it requires something like signing documents with PGP, then it is both
1) quite scary the first time you see it
2) easy, after you spend 5 minutes figuring it out with a good howto.

Maybe, having money to recover is just what it takes to push people to make that little mental effort, and move in the realm of serious security at once; so, a great opportunity 

[markm]

Ok when it is possible to issue on several servers is there a way to synchronize this ?

Not sure what you mean.

If you want to issue 100 shares on one server and 200 on another and 300 on yet another that is purely up to you as issuer.

The current GUI client would let you see all three issuer accounts on your list of accounts, and on clicking on any of them you'd see which server that account is on and which nym you used to create that account. So in that sense your client provides some "synchronisation" for you.

It is merely a "test GUI" client for your programmers to look at to see how each function is coded, they can surely make much more specialised functionality for you once they see how the code works and you explain what exactly more you would like them to code into it.

A specially for issuers client might well have very different setup than one for grandmothers to use...

-MarkM-

[markm]

I don't know exactly Open Transactions, but if it requires something like signing documents with PGP, then it is both
1) quite scary the first time you see it
2) easy, after you spend 5 minutes figuring it out with a good howto.

Maybe, having money to recover is just what it takes to push people to make that little mental effort, and move in the realm of serious security at once; so, a great opportunity 

It requires running Open Transactions, optionally with a GUI client to provide a GUI interface for you.

It signs similar in concept to PGP / GPG but actually it uses OpenSSL libraries to do it, and it does it itself instead of making you go to an external application outside of OT itself to do your signing.

Basically it communicates via a similar to PGP type of encrypted-to-a-specific-recipient system so it also provides its own secure communication line to and from the server.

-MarkM-

[matthewh3]

Yeah I want to use Open-Transactions for my asset (RSM) if I can figure out how to and its not too difficult for shareholders.

Things can be made as easy for shareholders as their friendly neighborhood broker cares to make it.

Really the only way to make it easy for them is to make it even easier for hackers/thieves, since you know any security is going to be considered inconvenient and "too hard" and so on. Heck a lot of people complain at simple use of PGP signed messages "too hard" yet it is pretty much the bare minimum needed to prove their identity in a portable manner.

-MarkM-

I don't mind getting the elbow grease out to learn something new.  My only concern is the difficulty would minimize new investment.

What does a user need to start using open transaction?

A user just needs either a client or to be accustomed to using command-lines and scripts.

An issuer would in addition need the ability to actually issue an asset on a server, which might require them to run their own server depending on what kinds of liability a "software as a service" vendor could be open to by allowing someone else to issue an asset on a server that they host.

I have been thinking of setting up a "test server" or "demo server" on which anyone can issue assets just so people can try out the system and get used to it and so on, but as no one has put up money to pay for a lawyer to check with about "safe harbour" laws relating to "being just a common carrier who does not examine the details of what data people use the software to process" I do not know yet if that would be free of liability.

(I am hoping it might be like the copyright acts: if we get informed one of the demo/pretend/game/test items on the server is some kind of illegal unregistered security we de-list it on receipt of a court order to do so kind of thing.)

But for a mere user, all you need is the client (if you insist on a GUI) or just the basic Open Transactions system (so you can interact through scripts / command-line).

-MarkM-

Please do I'm very interested in OT and if a I2p and/or Tor clone of the GLBSE doesn't pop up then it's my only option for RSM long term.

I don't know exactly Open Transactions, but if it requires something like signing documents with PGP, then it is both
1) quite scary the first time you see it
2) easy, after you spend 5 minutes figuring it out with a good howto.

Maybe, having money to recover is just what it takes to push people to make that little mental effort, and move in the realm of serious security at once; so, a great opportunity 

It requires running Open Transactions, optionally with a GUI client to provide a GUI interface for you.

It signs similar in concept to PGP / GPG but actually it uses OpenSSL libraries to do it, and it does it itself instead of making you go to an external application outside of OT itself to do your signing.

Basically it communicates via a similar to PGP type of encrypted-to-a-specific-recipient system so it also provides its own secure communication line to and from the server.

-MarkM-

If you could right an idiots guide for your demo server that'd be great.

[matthewh3]

I'd be willing if other (asset issuers) users were interested in using OT with chipping into a fund to pay for a VPS to host the server.

[markm]

I'd be willing if other (asset issuers) users were interested in using OT with chipping into a fund to pay for a VPS to host the server.

How would you choose what assets to allow and which would simply attract too much destructive attention and so on?

You might be best off running a server purely for your own assets and no one else's, otherwise you are likely to be taking on all their legal problems in addition to any your own offering might turn out to be subject to.

You should first get yourself set up with an Open Transactions client and get familiar with how it all works from a normal user's point of view. That will give you a better idea of how it all works.

-MarkM-

[tpantlik]

Hey, the smart ones of us (not me, I am only small dumb investor) are actually getting rid of the "middle man" in sending the money business and developing the true revolutionary system called Bitcoin. Why the hell we are stucked on the old flawed mechanisms when we want make stock exchange? Centralisation is flawed in our current world, everyone of you know it, it is one of the reason why Bitcoin has value (at least for me).

I have seen many threads talking about decentralised bonds. Why don't move skills to developing and implementing it? What about decentralised system in the fashion of Bitcoin which will be the underlying mechanism of issuing, trading and owning bonds? Then there could be some frontends for managing it (like in Bitcoin are wallets - local  apps or hosted/hybrid apps).

[markm]

Bonds sticks etc are worthless without the issuer so all the decentralisation they need is for each issuer to have their own server or site or email address or whatever by means of which their thing is traded.

There is no need to rope into it every frikkin bitcoin blockchain in the damn world since if the issuer vanishes the stuff is worthless anyway so cluttering up everyone's blockchain with each-and-every fly by night asset is just nasty. Let the issuer run something themself on their own VPS or server or PC or whatever to handle their own scam themselves, don't make every hoster of the blockchain an accessory to securities fraud.

Basically with a blockchain you are implicating hundreds or thousands or more "middle men", instead you should eliminate the "middle men" by dealing directly with the issuer not some intermediary such as an exchange site controlled by someone other than the issuer or a blockchain hosted by thousands of accessories/co-conspirators.

-MarkM-

[MPOE-PR]

like Butterfly Labs does.

Sweet.

Yeah I want to use Open-Transactions for my asset (RSM) if I can figure out how to and its not too difficult for shareholders.

I don't know exactly Open Transactions, but if it requires something like signing documents with PGP, then it is both
1) quite scary the first time you see it
2) easy, after you spend 5 minutes figuring it out with a good howto.

Maybe, having money to recover is just what it takes to push people to make that little mental effort, and move in the realm of serious security at once; so, a great opportunity 

This.

[Rassah]

<shameless plug>
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115742.0;topicseen
</shameless plug>

I think that, with maybe Open Transactions over it, would be the best option.

[pwnrman]

https://cryptostocks.com/securities/21

Nuff Nuff

[thebaron]

Ya'll are just setting yourselves up for more future drama.

[osoverflow]

I like the idea of an Open Exchange. Does that software exists already? If yes, where I can look for more info and downloads?

[Bogart]

Yeah I want to use Open-Transactions for my asset (RSM) if I can figure out how to and its not too difficult for shareholders.

I don't know exactly Open Transactions, but if it requires something like signing documents with PGP, then it is both
1) quite scary the first time you see it
2) easy, after you spend 5 minutes figuring it out with a good howto.

Maybe, having money to recover is just what it takes to push people to make that little mental effort, and move in the realm of serious security at once; so, a great opportunity 

We figured out bitcoin, didn't we?  Why should this be any harder?

[burnside]

Hi! May I ask you if there is a way to obtain the list of my shareholders with an API call?

I want to have a hourly backup of that list, with an identifier like the email, the amount of shares and at what price (maybe weigthed average price)

Thanks.

See the "Account" page when logged into your asset issuer account.  You'll find a link in there to an API output formatted in JSON like so:

{"owners":{"burnside@kattare.com":"1","example@example.com":"260","test@test.com":"80", ... },"ticker":"LTC-MINING.LTC","_comment":"cached up to 10 minutes","generated":"2012-10-06T23:32:59+01:00"}

DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SHARE THAT URL.  It has a very long API key, but if you let that get compromised, people will be able to see who holds your security.

This was the last piece to the "What do I do if LTC-GLOBAL ceases operation?" puzzle.  From here on out, all asset issuers can download their list of asset holders in an automated fashion at regular intervals.

I have also added the time to the top of the pages.  The time displayed takes into account your Account Timezone setting.

Cheers.

Continuing beyond the death of the exchange should not be rocket science. 

Ok when it is possible to issue on several servers is there a way to synchronize this ?

Not sure what you mean.

If you want to issue 100 shares on one server and 200 on another and 300 on yet another that is purely up to you as issuer.

The current GUI client would let you see all three issuer accounts on your list of accounts, and on clicking on any of them you'd see which server that account is on and which nym you used to create that account. So in that sense your client provides some "synchronisation" for you.

It is merely a "test GUI" client for your programmers to look at to see how each function is coded, they can surely make much more specialised functionality for you once they see how the code works and you explain what exactly more you would like them to code into it.

A specially for issuers client might well have very different setup than one for grandmothers to use...

-MarkM-

If an asset issuer can issue assets on unlimited servers, is there a way to track and consolidate that information?  Eg, I want to find out what all this asset issuer has issued, is there an easy way to do that?
Is there anything preventing an asset issuer from making thousands of issues under different credentials?
Does the tracking of the assets issued in the system give me the tools necessary to do research on the financial history of those assets?  (Eg: dividends, additional issues, company records, buybacks, etc)
Can I track assets traded by IP address or is there some other way of determining a unique origin?
As an asset issuer is there some tool to contact all of the holders of my assets?  (legit assets will require this legally)
Once an asset is issued on one server, can it then travel unfettered from server to server?  If it can hop from server to server, is there any way to locate it?

I'm asking seriously, as those are all issues I'd need to address if I were to try to setup a legitimate exchange backed by OT.

Cheers.

[markm]

If an asset issuer can issue assets on unlimited servers, is there a way to track and consolidate that information?  Eg, I want to find out what all this asset issuer has issued, is there an easy way to do that?

Obviously not. If a text author can publish text on unlimited webservers, is there a way to track and consolidate that information?

Well I suppose there is Google, if they made sure their pages are legible (e.g. not hiding their text as an image and fuzzing it to make it hard for optical character recognition to read it etc).

So maybe if google could find you every Open Transactions server, including those on i2p and Tor (oops, tricky that), and then you bought usage tokens on all of them so you could go and interrogate their assets, even then if a person issued assets using different nyms (and thus, different asset-contracts) you could not tell they were issued by the same entity.

It is kind of a silly question really. Laundering / concealing has been going on a long time, you are not magically going to be better at tracking it than the FBI and Interpol and similar agencies.

YOU HAVE TO TRUST THE ISSUER. If you do not, do not buy what they issue.

Is there anything preventing an asset issuer from making thousands of issues under different credentials?

Same thing, different wording.

The server operator can disable creation of assets. That would prevent anyone issuing any assets at all, except for one nym the config file says can over-ride such restrictions. So unlimited issues/assets can be restricted to/by the server operator.

For example on my server, issuing of assets is turned off.

Does the tracking of the assets issued in the system give me the tools necessary to do research on the financial history of those assets?  (Eg: dividends, additional issues, company records, buybacks, etc)

Open Transactions is not based on history. The last receipt IS the balance, so no history is needed.

When the auditing stuff is added though, maybe anyone who wished to do so could archive all the audit data.

Also, come to think of it, the markets do have a "recernt trades" readout, I am not sure what they mean by recent, its possible they mean forever as in for all I know there might not be any code in place that removes old entries. Or maybe it has only so many entries. I don't know exactly how that is implemented.

Can I track assets traded by IP address or is there some other way of determining a unique origin?

Origin sounds like 'nym: the pseudonym that issued or transfered something. Like bitcoin addresses, they are unique but there is no need for any individual or entity to limit themself to only using one of them.

If you are running the hardware the software runs on you could log IP addresses that connect to the port the software listens to I suppose.

As an asset issuer is there some tool to contact all of the holders of my assets?  (legit assets will require this legally)

There is a message facility whereby one nym can send a message (in plaintext; it is not stored in encrypted form currently) to another.

So if you had access to the audit data the proposed audit system is expected to publish, you could send messages to those nyms that are shown to have traded your asset.

(Nyms are portable identities, so if the same nym was also present on another server you are also on you could message them there instead or also.)

Once an asset is issued on one server, can it then travel unfettered from server to server?  If it can hop from server to server, is there any way to locate it?

The asset contract can be imported to any server that lets you issue an asset there. Accounting for between-server transfers would currently be up to anyone who has accounts on both servers; they could agree "send me one AssetX on this server and I will send you one AssetX on that other server" for example. This is something the third parties who help people into and out of the markets will likely do in addition to selling people tokens for fiat and fiat for tokens.

As for "locating" assets, the GUI client has a list of your accounts, each account has an associated nym and server, so you can see what balances you have regardless of which servers your accounts are on.

I'm asking seriously, as those are all issues I'd need to address if I were to try to setup a legitimate exchange backed by OT.

Most of this is regulatory crud that is way beyond the actual lets keep track of balances and implement blinded anonymous cash tokens stuff that Open Transactions implements. It probably belongs in the audit processes stuff, which will be coming once we have the actual ability to reliably do something worth auditing down pat.

You could however set a loglevel on your server that details blow by blow everything the server does down to a level of detail you want, and use log-parsing and log-grepping etc type of tools to extract any information you want from the log.

Really the initial stages of development have been more about making reliable anonymous transacting without trust possible.

If you want KYC and AML etc why not just go with one of the existing banking systems (cyclos etc) and/or trading systems (cetera etc)?

-MarkM-

[burnside]

Thank you for the detailed responses.  Really appreciate it.

As an asset issuer is there some tool to contact all of the holders of my assets?  (legit assets will require this legally)

There is a message facility whereby one nym can send a message (in plaintext; it is not stored in encrypted form currently) to another.

So if you had access to the audit data the proposed audit system is expected to publish, you could send messages to those nyms that are shown to have traded your asset.

(Nyms are portable identities, so if the same nym was also present on another server you are also on you could message them there instead or also.)

Would that require having an account on all of the servers your assets have been traded to?  Or does the message automatically follow along the same path from server to server that your asset followed as it was traded?

Once an asset is issued on one server, can it then travel unfettered from server to server?  If it can hop from server to server, is there any way to locate it?

The asset contract can be imported to any server that lets you issue an asset there. Accounting for between-server transfers would currently be up to anyone who has accounts on both servers; they could agree "send me one AssetX on this server and I will send you one AssetX on that other server" for example. This is something the third parties who help people into and out of the markets will likely do in addition to selling people tokens for fiat and fiat for tokens.

As for "locating" assets, the GUI client has a list of your accounts, each account has an associated nym and server, so you can see what balances you have regardless of which servers your accounts are on.

I was referring to locating holders of assets you have issued.  There's lots of situations where that might be necessary, eg: if you issued assets requiring a forced buy back option.

Most of this is regulatory crud that is way beyond the actual lets keep track of balances and implement blinded anonymous cash tokens stuff that Open Transactions implements. It probably belongs in the audit processes stuff, which will be coming once we have the actual ability to reliably do something worth auditing down pat.

If you want KYC and AML etc why not just go with one of the existing banking systems (cyclos etc) and/or trading systems (cetera etc)?

Yes.  I want to (ultimately) legitimize asset trading using BTC.  Trying to figure out if that's possible with OT.  Without the ability to do the "regulatory crud" your audience becomes somewhat limited to just people that want to trade anonymously?  That makes it a little harder to establish trust in your Asset Issuer, which is imperative, as you mentioned before.

Cheers.

[markm]

Open Transactions is not about establishing trustworthiness of asset issuers, it is about not having to trust the server / server-operator.

Your assets only trade where you issue them. Of course people could create assets elsewhere claiming to be pass-through or proxy or whatever of your assets but only the nym that signed the asset contract can issue the asset so your asset, as identified by the hash of its contract that you signed, cannot be issued on any server by anyone other than you (or whoever you gave a copy of your nym's private key to, which is functionally you since by you I merely mean the nym).

So if you don't want to have your asset traded on server X, simply do not issue it on server X.

If you want to know who holds your asset I suppose you could simply retain records of who you sell them to and refuse to aknowledge any purported change of ownership that you did not specifically approve. For example you could insist people sell them directly back to you and have you sell them on to the new owner so that your records will correctly reflect the new owner.

The proposed audit system though proposes to make all receipts available as they happen to the asset issuer, as for example via a distributed hash table or somesuch publicly available but crypted so only certain people can actually decrypt certain items in it (like, eash issuer the things they issue but not what others issue) so if you would like to start a bounty for getting the audit system expedited maybe it could be expedited maybe depending on the magnitude of the bounty. The purpose originally was so you can see that no more of your asset are in circulation than the number you issued. However as its receipts that will be stashed in the hash table presumably you will also be able to harvest the nyms of the recipients.

It seems to be part of the point of the "markets" that you do not know who the counterparty was in any trades on the markets.

A lot of my players objected that that too, as they wanted to pick and choose which offers to accept, not buying from enemies even at lower prices than offered by friends and stuff like that. (Consider for example that your enemy's armies might have pillaged your friend's nation to obtain the stuff they are selling off cheap.)

But no, apparently that is not how markets are meant to work. You do not get to know who bought what you sold.

Like bitcoin, the fact that nyms are pseudoynmous is purposeful, however the server provides no built in way to buy "usage tokens" so you could simply turn on "usage tokens" on your server and only give "usage tokens" to nyms whose fingerprints and DNA patterns you have on file...

That way you would know who each nym "really is", or at least whose fingerprints and DNA they sent in as "proof"; and as server operator you could scan the disk files directly to find out who owns how much of what.

-MarkM-

[burnside]

But no, apparently that is not how markets are meant to work. You do not get to know who bought what you sold.

This is not correct.

Yes, people using the NYSE can exchange stocks with other users on the NYSE without restriction.

NO, A company CANNOT operate without knowing exactly who their stockholders are.  The NYSE knows at all times exactly who holds what stocks, and provides that information to the companies listed on the NYSE.

I think I have what I needed.  OT as it is currently designed is flawed in ways that make it impossible for legit (legal) asset issuers to utilize it in any meaningful way.  I have high hopes though for future iterations!

Cheers.

[markm]

Huh? I just told you that you can simply grab directly from your server's disk files who owns how much of what.

That also means it is very likely just a matter of a little bit of script writing to write an OT-script to go get that information for you.

Also that a server operator other than yourself could offer to provide that information to you from their own server.

Etc.

The information is there. If you want to print it or email it or add it or subtract it or whatever go ahead and do so, its not rocket science.

Its like, for nym in nyms do blah blah blah kind of simplicity.

-MarkM-

[burnside]

Huh? I just told you that you can simply grab directly from your server's disk files who owns how much of what.

That also means it is very likely just a matter of a little bit of script writing to write an OT-script to go get that information for you.

ALso that a server operator other thatn yourself could offer to provide that information to you from their own server.

Etc.

The information is there. If you want to print it or email ot or add it or subtract it or whatever go ahead and do so, its not rocket science.

Its like, for nym in nyms do blah blah blah kind of simplicity.

-MarkM-

I apologize.  I was under the impression that your assets could be traded off of your server, to another server, to another server, to another server, etc?  With little to no audit trail?

Example 1: Asset trades from server A to server B to server C.  Server B goes permanently offline.
Example 2: Asset trades from server A to server B to server C.  Server C goes permanently offline.

In those situations, where does an issuer (who issued from server A) get the report of where all their shares are being held?

If I'm mistaken I should probably read through the docs before I make too much of an ass of myself.  I couldn't find anything about the audit trail doing a cursory google search.

[markm]

First, your nym would have to be used to issue some number of your asset on each of the three servers A, B and C.

Those issued on A remain on A, those issued on B remain on B, those issued on C remain on C.

Someone wanting to buy one from someone on A needs to either trade something on A for it, or convince the seller to open an account also on B or C so they can give them something on B or C in exchange for the asset on A.

No assets move from server to server, you don't ship grams of gold for example from server to server, you only create that illusion by accepting back from someone a gram on A in return for giving them possession of a gram on C.

GIven fungible assets, the illusion holds that they "moved" their balance of one gram of gold from one server to another. It never moved, they simply traded their gram on one server for a different, but by fungibility "equivalent" gram elsewhere.

If you refuse to issue on B and C then tough, they are stuck on A.

If A goes down, you go issue somewhere else, and since everyone has notarised receipts from A asserting their balance is such and such, they have proof. Though I suppose they could try to cheat by not turning in their latest receipt that reflects the fact they sold some lowering their balance, and instead turn in some out of date receipt from back when they had a large balance.

That is where the audit stuff is intended to come in. You will have complete receipts, posted live to a distributed storage such as a hash table or a p2p file sharing network or whatever, of every receipt they were ever sent relating to your asset.

It does sound like this audit thing will be useful to you when a server crumbles/vanishes so you might well find it useful to issue a bounty to expedite it.

Then again maybe if you make sure you put your server on a machine you physically have custody of you won't need to worry for a while about it flying by night under you.

-MarkM-

[burnside]

That all makes much more sense.

Sounds like OT is the rough equivalent of what would happen if I open sourced LTC-GLOBAL and built in a cross-site trading module?

[markm]

I don't understand what cross-site has to do with anything?

You trade on one site. Anything cross-site is over the counter, a gentleperson's agreement that if you give me some of X on server Y then I will give you some of A on server B.

What you need to be at all similar to Open Transactions is what would also make you similar to MPEX: cryptographically proven notarised balances, transactions, identities.

-MarkM-

[burnside]

By cross-site I meant server to server.  Eg: webserver to webserver instead of OT server to OT server.  And yes, such a cross-site functionality would require the cryptographic layers necessary to be able to trust one another.

Not saying it's simple or trying to downplay OT.  I'm trying to understand OT.  My initial impression was incorrect -- initially I thought it was like bitcoind, where it was distributed and any asset (coins on bitcoind) can be traded about the network without limitation.

Cheers.

[markm]

No it is not disitributed, though it is possible the audit system could end up using a distributed hash table.

It is decentralised, in the sense that there can be millions of servers and anyone can choose which servers to issue assets on (among servers willing to accept the possibly huge liabilities involved in allowing third parties to issue assets) or can run a server of their own.

Also FellowTraveler has always planned that once good reliable code for doing multi-signature transactions on the blockchain he will implement some system whereby a whole bunch of servers could all co-operate to control bitcoins so that bitcoins can only be moved if a majority of the involved servers agree how many to move and where to move them to.

Since you don't have to trust the server, you can always just move to another one at any time, and which server you use should not be very important, if one gets killed just fire up another.

-MarkM-

[Rassah]

I think I'm finally starting to understand what the heck OT is, though it still seems a bit cumbersome. I guess with OT, an issuing company would be able to set up its own OT server, and issue shares through that, thus maintaining control of those shares, knowing who has them, and where they were traded to? Or would the shares be freely traded among all OT servers, with the issuer loosing track as soon as the shares get traded on another OT server?

Also, is there anything to prevent someone from issuing identical fake shares on another OT server?

[markm]

I think I'm finally starting to understand what the heck OT is, though it still seems a bit cumbersome. I guess with OT, an issuing company would be able to set up its own OT server, and issue shares through that, thus maintaining control of those shares, knowing who has them, and where they were traded to? Or would the shares be freely traded among all OT servers, with the issuer loosing track as soon as the shares get traded on another OT server?

Also, is there anything to prevent someone from issuing identical fake shares on another OT server?

Try reading, you are repeating questions already asked and answered.

As for identical, that implies identical hash, which implies identical signature, implying they are not fake in fact at all (or the issuer gave someone else their identity.)

-MarkM-

[Rassah]

I think I'm finally starting to understand what the heck OT is, though it still seems a bit cumbersome. I guess with OT, an issuing company would be able to set up its own OT server, and issue shares through that, thus maintaining control of those shares, knowing who has them, and where they were traded to? Or would the shares be freely traded among all OT servers, with the issuer loosing track as soon as the shares get traded on another OT server?

Also, is there anything to prevent someone from issuing identical fake shares on another OT server?

Try reading, you are repeating questions already asked and answered.

Sorry, I have been, but it's been a combination of both, the OT descriptions being rather vague/high-level, and my just having a hard time wrapping my head around them (my own limits). I'm still stuck in the simple idea of "I have a coin/dollar, I send it to you, now you have it, done," and OT seems to offer WAY more complex options (though, in part, I'm also still having trouble figuring out WHY we need those options)

[markm]

In some ways it is like MPEX. Every communication between client and server is encrypted from one identity to another identity, just it uses openssl instead of PGP to do that. It is still public key private key style encryption.

This means you always have signed proof of your balance and it also means that the only way your balance can change is if you sign acceptance of the change.

Unlike MPEX all that signing is somewhat hidden, since you don't use a web browser you use a client that knows to do all this signing and the decrypting of the replies and so on.

Sure you could just chat with someone on IRC and agree they will give you a share if you send them bitcoins, but when you do that where are the crypto-signed receipts and agreements showing exactly what you agreed to and that you both agreed?

-MarkM-

[EskimoBob]

I spent some time with OT and the Moneychanger client.
Good news is, that someone (in IRC) is seriously considering to set up multiple servers for serious use.

It has potential to become a good alternative but at the moment it takes some serious effort to get it up and running. Documentation how to actually use it is nonexisting.

Getting the client (and server) running needs a good step-by-step How To.
In IRC, we actually walked trough the whole process of getting the client up and running - setting up the first user, "opening" currency and securities trading accounts and even transferring few devcoins between users (nyms?).

I personally thing that OT/Moneychanger is getting ready to be tested not only by programmers/hackers/nerds, but people with real world trading and business experience. If they can not use it for actual business, then what's the point?   the whole project will be just another fun waste of time experiment and that's it.

Do we have any other alternatives you like to recommend?

[matauc12]

How about getting some legal advice first? The problem isnt one of technology, the problem is that people seem to think  because its related to bitcoin, laws somehow dont apply. Thats horseshit.  If you want a credible and lasting alternative to GLBSE, you will need to operate within the confines of the law, like MtGox does, like Tangible Cryptography does, like Butterfly Labs does.

Operating legally may or may not be feasible for a security exchange, but its the first thing you should focus on. If you want to do a truly anonymous underground and illegal site like Silk Road, its doomed from the start. If you thought GLBSE was a scammer heaven, imagine a silk road like alternative.

BFL does not abide to law, its illegal to take order for a product that will knowingly not be delivered within 30days (even if they state so) AND its illegal to accept pre-orders for a non-ready-to-sell product (ie fund development/manufacturing with pre-order money)

[Puppet]

BFL does not abide to law, its illegal to take order for a product that will knowingly not be delivered within 30days (even if they state so) AND its illegal to accept pre-orders for a non-ready-to-sell product (ie fund development/manufacturing with pre-order money)

Link please?
It seems to violate Paypal TOS, but that doesnt make it illegal, nor does it expose customers to extra risk, quite the contrary.

[EskimoBob]

I was talking to someone who know about the laws around here (not US) and guess what: Setting up a bazaar (market) to trade some virtual  tokens (BTC is not a currency) is completely OK until legal currency is kept out of the equation.
You say BTC has value in fiat? So do all the stupid game cards that kids collect and trade in some countries. They do not call their collections Co's and themselves CEO and are not selling you a "share of ownership or debt (big bad words) in a INC, LLE, LTD etc". 
American based SEC has NOTHING to do with BTC. BTC is not a security. Only reason they can get upset is if  you keep calling your imaginary "what ever" a real company an keep telling to people,  how you are running a business blaa blaa blaa, dividends, IPO etc.  Then it can be considered as a scam and they (SEC, IRS, FSA, police etc) will get curious.
If you sell tokens for a imaginary team that operates under guidelines X and rewards it's members in those same game tokens (btc) no one cares wtf you do. Start using big words and you are in deep shit. As simple as that.

So. Nefario. Use some SQL magic, rename those moronic contracts to what they really are and open up your token bazaar.
You are running a online shop for trading game tokens to "teams" of imaginary teams of miners and cosmonauts.
 

[matauc12]

BFL does not abide to law, its illegal to take order for a product that will knowingly not be delivered within 30days (even if they state so) AND its illegal to accept pre-orders for a non-ready-to-sell product (ie fund development/manufacturing with pre-order money)

Link please?
It seems to violate Paypal TOS, but that doesnt make it illegal, nor does it expose customers to extra risk, quite the contrary.

Those are from the consumer us laws. I don't care about individulal payment method Toer, those are merely contracts that have to abide to your country of origins law.

BFL knows about it too. I emailed them requesting a refund on the basis that if they refuse it would open the door to legal actions, it took less than 24hours to get a refund (although they state it is non-refundable until 2013).

How legit is that?

And no link, I really don't feel the need to prove something I know, makes me less credible sure, but not any less right. There is actually a thread on these forums linking most of them anyways.

[matauc12]

I was talking to someone who know about the laws around here (not US) and guess what: Setting up a bazaar (market) to trade some virtual  tokens (BTC is not a currency) is completely OK until legal currency is kept out of the equation.
You say BTC has value in fiat? So do all the stupid game cards that kids collect and trade in some countries. They do not call their collections Co's and themselves CEO and are not selling you a "share of ownership or debt (big bad words) in a INC, LLE, LTD etc". 
American based SEC has NOTHING to do with BTC. BTC is not a security. Only reason they can get upset is if  you keep calling your imaginary "what ever" a real company an keep telling to people,  how you are running a business blaa blaa blaa, dividends, IPO etc.  Then it can be considered as a scam and they (SEC, IRS, FSA, police etc) will get curious.
If you sell tokens for a imaginary team that operates under guidelines X and rewards it's members in those same game tokens (btc) no one cares wtf you do. Start using big words and you are in deep shit. As simple as that.

So. Nefario. Use some SQL magic, rename those moronic contracts to what they really are and open up your token bazaar.
You are running a online shop for trading game tokens to "teams" of imaginary teams of miners and cosmonauts.
 

and that is called a commodity....

[fellowtraveler]

I don't know exactly Open Transactions, but if it requires something like signing documents with PGP, then it is both
1) quite scary the first time you see it
2) easy, after you spend 5 minutes figuring it out with a good howto.

Maybe, having money to recover is just what it takes to push people to make that little mental effort, and move in the realm of serious security at once; so, a great opportunity  

The user does not directly do any PGP-signing.

If you are using the OT wallet, then it will be signing things behind the scenes, but you will not see this.

The most you will see is, it will occasionally ask for your passphrase so that it can sign something.

is there a way to program OT in a way that the "notary" part would be commonly shared similar to a blockchain. Basicaly i wanna know if OT is capable to run decentralized.

You can issue the same currency onto multiple OT servers.

But each instrument must be redeemed on the same server where it was issued.

You can also move funds between servers (by going through any entity who has accounts on both servers, such as the issuer.)

There is also a plan to use multisig for placing BTC in voting pools (on the blockchain itself) so that individual servers cannot steal the coins that have been bailed onto them. (Nor could hackers...)

Yeah, move to Exchange X.  After they rob you, move again.

How many times do you have to get scammed before you wise up?

It is not possible for an OT server to rob you.

After every transaction, the most recent receipt is left on your machine.

This receipt proves your current balance, as well as which instruments are valid, and which transactions are closed. It proves everything.

The server cannot change anything on this receipt (or the next...), because the server cannot forge your signature on the original request. (A copy of your original signed request appears on the server-signed receipt.)

This means that "your account" is on your machine. So even if the server later disappears, you can still prove the balance on your account, and prove which instruments are still valid.

I like the idea of an Open Exchange. Does that software exists already? If yes, where I can look for more info and downloads?

Open-Transactions is able to act as a market exchange (similar to MtGox or GLBSE.)

However OT does a lot more than that. You can make your own custom-scripted smart contracts, and it will execute the terms of your scripted agreements, dropping receipts periodically into your inbox.

OT also does untraceable cash.

OT also does client-side scripting, with the full OT API available inside the scripts.

OT is also able to prove everything it needs to prove, without storing any account history (as long as you store the last signed receipt...)

OT also supports a wide range of financial instruments. Not only can you issue currencies/shares and trade them, but you can also open accounts, write cheques, withdraw cash, use cashier's cheques (aka banker's cheques), send account transfers, etc.

Sounds like OT is the rough equivalent of what would happen if I open sourced LTC-GLOBAL and built in a cross-site trading module?

Probably. OT is able to act as a market exchange, if that's what you mean. But it is only the core: the library, the receipts, the instruments, the keys, etc.

Meaning if you have a website in mind, you still have to build the website part. OT just processes all the finance and legal.

It has potential to become a good alternative but at the moment it takes some serious effort to get it up and running. Documentation how to actually use it is nonexisting.

Getting the client (and server) running needs a good step-by-step How To.

===> The actual compiling / linking of the project is not something that actual users will have to deal with (only developers.)

===> Installing the software (and various libraries) on your machine is also not something that actual users will have to deal with (there will be an install script that will automate this for users.)

===> There is not an actual GUI client yet. We do have a test GUI, as well as a command-line utility (opentxs) but I assume that some real client will be written before there are real users. In fact my company Monetas has already started raising our seed round, and we intend to produce a real client over the next year or so.

===> If you copy over the sample data when you first install OT, then you will see that you are able to run the OT server and the test GUI without having to set up any contracts or Nyms at all. You can just start playing with it.

===> If you start up the OT server with no data, it will walk you through the process of creating the necessary Nyms and contracts to get it up and running from scratch.

===> If you start up the OT client with no data (such as the test GUI) then it will automatically create its own blank data folder. From there you can create your first Nym yourself (on the Nyms tab) and import any server contracts or asset contracts that you wish to use, into your wallet. (On the contracts tab.) From there you can go to the Main tab and create accounts (in those asset types, on those servers.)

===> A real GUI would lead you through that initial setup process (including the password image) using a Wizard. The test GUI, obviously, does not.

[Bitinvestor]

How about getting some legal advice first? The problem isnt one of technology, the problem is that people seem to think  because its related to bitcoin, laws somehow dont apply. Thats horseshit.  If you want a credible and lasting alternative to GLBSE, you will need to operate within the confines of the law, like MtGox does, like Tangible Cryptography does, like Butterfly Labs does.

Operating legally may or may not be feasible for a security exchange, but its the first thing you should focus on. If you want to do a truly anonymous underground and illegal site like Silk Road, its doomed from the start. If you thought GLBSE was a scammer heaven, imagine a silk road like alternative.

After reading this thread I now understand Open Transactions better than before but I have to agree with Puppet. It seems to be illegal to issue securities the way GLBSE did and it also seems to be illegal to issue securities through OT and therefore only a madman would do that. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[markm]

I do not know of any law preventing anyone legally authorised / registered / licensed to issue securities from doing so using Open Transactions, albeit if they prefer to wait until their auditor's firm adds it to their list of platforms they feel qualified to audit and which they consider robust enough to recommend to their customers it could be a while yet before we see mass adoption of the platform among registered broker/dealers.

Plus, most large established stock-exchanges have legacy custom software in place so adoption there might take a while too. Maybe more likely would be adopting of code snippets, ideas, functions and such into their custom code.

You seem to be confusing the use of a tool with legality of doing the job the tool is used to do. Given that doing the job is legal for you, what laws restrict you from using this tool to do it?

There are already procedures in place for getting licensed, it remains only for people/companies to use them or for those who already have to add bitcoin to their portfolios / repertoires.

Incumbent's advantage strikes again.

(Sorry young pups, I know back in our day we all got grandfathered in with less educational and examination passing requirements but young pups are spawning too fast we'll have to add more regulations to keep you down?)

-MarkM-

[Bitinvestor]

Right, I was under the impression that OT was meant to enable anybody to issue securities. Why would somebody who can already issue securities legally want to use OT?

[Rassah]

Right, I was under the impression that OT was meant to enable anybody to issue securities. Why would somebody who can already issue securities legally want to use OT?

It's not so much legally vs illegally, as within regulations vs outside regulations. Doing it within regulations gives you legal protections, such as limited liabilities. Doing it yourself is no different from distributing a bunch of papers with IOU written on this, which is legal, but won't protect you from issues the way going through regulated means will.
As for why? Cheaper, and much easier.

[fellowtraveler]

FYI, for "shares" based asset types, OT actually keeps a list of all the accounts of that asset type. (That's how it is later able to loop through all those accounts and send a dividend cheque to the Nym based on how many shares he owns.)

So it actually wouldn't be hard to provide the account IDs, balances, and owner NymIDs for those shares, to the issuer. We could add a message that requests this data, if the issuers of shares need access to it. Alternately, we could also make it an option inside the shares contract.

[punningclan]

Wouldn't a p2p stock market solve this problem, the issue with GLBSE is excessive counterparty risk? With p2p the relationship could be handled entirely through Bitcoin and/or Namecoin (or an equivalent e.g. Stockcoin) addresses to maintain investor anonymity. Funds themselves coud be made anonymous by storing only address in the name value store.

[EskimoBob]

Wouldn't a p2p stock market solve this problem, the issue with GLBSE is excessive counterparty risk? With p2p the relationship could be handled entirely through Bitcoin and/or Namecoin (or an equivalent e.g. Stockcoin) addresses to maintain investor anonymity. Funds themselves coud be made anonymous by storing only address in the name value store.

Why do you chose a fake sec. in fake Co? What about crowd funding?

[usagi]

I was talking to someone who know about the laws around here (not US) and guess what: Setting up a bazaar (market) to trade some virtual  tokens (BTC is not a currency) is completely OK until legal currency is kept out of the equation.
You say BTC has value in fiat? So do all the stupid game cards that kids collect and trade in some countries. They do not call their collections Co's and themselves CEO and are not selling you a "share of ownership or debt (big bad words) in a INC, LLE, LTD etc". 
American based SEC has NOTHING to do with BTC. BTC is not a security. Only reason they can get upset is if  you keep calling your imaginary "what ever" a real company an keep telling to people,  how you are running a business blaa blaa blaa, dividends, IPO etc.  Then it can be considered as a scam and they (SEC, IRS, FSA, police etc) will get curious.
If you sell tokens for a imaginary team that operates under guidelines X and rewards it's members in those same game tokens (btc) no one cares wtf you do. Start using big words and you are in deep shit. As simple as that.

So. Nefario. Use some SQL magic, rename those moronic contracts to what they really are and open up your token bazaar.
You are running a online shop for trading game tokens to "teams" of imaginary teams of miners and cosmonauts.
 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115825.msg1258823#msg1258823
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115553.msg1258825#msg1258825
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115430.msg1258828#msg1258828

Why are you spamming the forums, EskimoBob?

[matauc12]

I was talking to someone who know about the laws around here (not US) and guess what: Setting up a bazaar (market) to trade some virtual  tokens (BTC is not a currency) is completely OK until legal currency is kept out of the equation.
You say BTC has value in fiat? So do all the stupid game cards that kids collect and trade in some countries. They do not call their collections Co's and themselves CEO and are not selling you a "share of ownership or debt (big bad words) in a INC, LLE, LTD etc". 
American based SEC has NOTHING to do with BTC. BTC is not a security. Only reason they can get upset is if  you keep calling your imaginary "what ever" a real company an keep telling to people,  how you are running a business blaa blaa blaa, dividends, IPO etc.  Then it can be considered as a scam and they (SEC, IRS, FSA, police etc) will get curious.
If you sell tokens for a imaginary team that operates under guidelines X and rewards it's members in those same game tokens (btc) no one cares wtf you do. Start using big words and you are in deep shit. As simple as that.

So. Nefario. Use some SQL magic, rename those moronic contracts to what they really are and open up your token bazaar.
You are running a online shop for trading game tokens to "teams" of imaginary teams of miners and cosmonauts.
 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115825.msg1258823#msg1258823
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115553.msg1258825#msg1258825
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115430.msg1258828#msg1258828

Why are you spamming the forums, EskimoBob?

who's posting totally pointless post strictly aiming the poster and not the content?....

[EskimoBob]

I think the last comment is something that should really make you take a step back, look at the big picture and think.
 

Janek Richter

This is total nonsense. There are no AML and KYC requirements with Bitcoin in the UK because it is not money, the FSA have said that Bitcoin is not money and is not their concern in writing. The only thing that matters with regard to the law is what the authorities say in writing, and case law. In absentia of that, everything else, no matter who says it, is opinion without legal force.

If McCarthy has something to back up his claims in writing, he should present it, and then everyone can measure its worth accordingly. What a single lawyer says does not make law or a regulation for that matter. It is an opinion only. Even so, if his lawyer has given such an opinion, it would be interesting to see it, as it should have been given in writing and not casually over the phone. He does not even name who his firm is, and frankly, if you have some eighth rate firm of solicitors operating out of a shoe box above a chip shop, I would not take their advice on something as serious as this. Only a firm with the proper competence should be trusted to make an assessment of Bitcoin, and until we see that such a firm has given its opinion on this, in writing, then its all worthless hearsay and gossip.

There is a huge amount of delusion, hysteria and cult mentality in the Bitcoin forum. They talk to themselves and whip themselves up into a frenzy about things that no one outside of their ‘community’ cares about. Whats worse, they design services and implement tools to comply with non existing legislation based only on this frenzied, navel gazing, nonsense. This interview is a perfect example of this mindset; the nauseating air of delusional self importance drips off of the screen.

 Source http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

[EskimoBob]

Look like GLBSE gand has started to move some coin around.
This is good but the show is not even close to the happy ending.
I am sure that the portfolio values are multiple times grater than coin held in GLBSE accounts.

1) Existing trading platform leads/owners have to step up and talk to issuers
2) Every issuers has to choose one they like (set up a poll, if you can not decide
3) GLBSE and the chosen platform owner has to work together to figure out, how to transfer the data and make sure it's correct too (md5 is helpful, third party to confirm that hashes match)
4) create accounts for shareholders in chosen platform
5) inform the shareholders via same e-mail that was used to start/confirm the coin transfers in GLBSE
6) GLBSE account holders receive a complete transaction history and holdings report. Last one must be signed by GLBSE 

I prefer platform that can exist independently and is not controlled by one person. Power corrupts and money makes people stupid. We have seen that way too many times in BTC community.

Cheers.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I think the last comment is something that should really make you take a step back, look at the big picture and think.
 

Janek Richter

This is total nonsense. There are no AML and KYC requirements with Bitcoin in the UK because it is not money, the FSA have said that Bitcoin is not money and is not their concern in writing. The only thing that matters with regard to the law is what the authorities say in writing, and case law. In absentia of that, everything else, no matter who says it, is opinion without legal force.

If McCarthy has something to back up his claims in writing, he should present it, and then everyone can measure its worth accordingly. What a single lawyer says does not make law or a regulation for that matter. It is an opinion only. Even so, if his lawyer has given such an opinion, it would be interesting to see it, as it should have been given in writing and not casually over the phone. He does not even name who his firm is, and frankly, if you have some eighth rate firm of solicitors operating out of a shoe box above a chip shop, I would not take their advice on something as serious as this. Only a firm with the proper competence should be trusted to make an assessment of Bitcoin, and until we see that such a firm has given its opinion on this, in writing, then its all worthless hearsay and gossip.

There is a huge amount of delusion, hysteria and cult mentality in the Bitcoin forum. They talk to themselves and whip themselves up into a frenzy about things that no one outside of their ‘community’ cares about. Whats worse, they design services and implement tools to comply with non existing legislation based only on this frenzied, navel gazing, nonsense. This interview is a perfect example of this mindset; the nauseating air of delusional self importance drips off of the screen.

 Source http://bitcoinmagazine.net/interview-with-glbses-nefario/

Nefario wont even tell the bitcoinglobal shareholders who the lawyer is or provide written proof and we are paying for the lawyer.

[EskimoBob]

I called to James today and we had a short chat about what is going on and what is the schedule for resolving this unpleasant happening for good.
In few words, he his clearing up the mess with double payments that happened. When this is sorted out, he will pay the rest of the BTC out and if this is done, he starts to work with issuers and account owners. He also told me he is going to stay as far away as possible from this forum. Not surprised at all.
He also promised to post a official statement in his GLBSE blog and list the his plan. 
 
Memvola ideas are on the right track (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115825.msg1249735#msg1249735). Third party is needed to hash and verify the hashes of account-security-amount combinations so nobody is going to scream later, that he got less shares than he had.
This is not complicated stuff at all. Getting over the egos, emotions and absurd interpretations of made up laws by arm chair lawyers in tinfoil hats, is.

So, what is the exchange you can trust at the moment and if there is none, are you willing to take the step to the right direction and go for the OT? (install is not hard at all)

[MPOE-PR]

Right.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I called to James today and we had a short chat about what is going on and what is the schedule for resolving this unpleasant happening for good.
In few words, he his clearing up the mess with double payments that happened. When this is sorted out, he will pay the rest of the BTC out and if this is done, he starts to work with issuers and account owners. He also told me he is going to stay as far away as possible from this forum. Not surprised at all.
He also promised to post a official statement in his GLBSE blog and list the his plan. 
 
Memvola ideas are on the right track (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115825.msg1249735#msg1249735). Third party is needed to hash and verify the hashes of account-security-amount combinations so nobody is going to scream later, that he got less shares than he had.
This is not complicated stuff at all. Getting over the egos, emotions and absurd interpretations of made up laws by arm chair lawyers in tinfoil hats, is.

So, what is the exchange you can trust at the moment and if there is none, are you willing to take the step to the right direction and go for the OT? (install is not hard at all)

You cant trust any exchange, thats the whole point. OT would be good when its easier to setup since you cn run it on your own server. It might be a good idea for someone to offer OT hosting services.

[markm]

You cant trust any exchange, thats the whole point. OT would be good when its easier to setup since you cn run it on your own server. It might be a good idea for someone to offer OT hosting services.

You almost seem to be contradicting yourself here.

If I host an OT server it is really my OT server not yours, if I let you know its private key then that is a security hole, because it is I not you who has actual access to the hardware thus you cannot stop me from looking at the private key whereas I can, and thus probably should, prevent you from seeing it.

I am providing OT hosting services: so far the OTdemo server. There is no need to deploy more until people have demonstrated on the OTdemo server that there is sufficient traffic to justify deploying more servers. If there is not even enough traffic for the demo server to pay for itself then obviously deploying more servers would not make any business-sense.

The OTdemo server permits any user to issue their own made-up assets, thus to demostrate that their assets attract traffic enough to justify the resources required to serve their assets.

If you simply get a machine at some third party location and put an OT server on it then there is diffusion of responsibility aka increased numbers of suspects in case of anything "going wrong" since you could find out the server's private key and the people who have physical custody of the machine also could discover the server's private key. So if you are a scammer looking to divert responsibility away from yourself I suppose you would love to make sure you have a whole hosting company's employees to point fingers at while actually having access also yourself thus being able to do something nefarious despite pretending to be using a "secure" server.

Basically a host cannot provide a "secure" server while allowing some third party, especially an asset issuer, access to the server's private key...

...What they would really be doing is providing an inherently insecure server, a server to which they have given some asset-issuer the key to the server.

The separation of responsibility in Open Transactions is an important part of how it all works. The fact that only the custodian of the physical machine running the server software has access to the private key of the server software is a key part of its security. It means everyone knows exactly who to blame. Scammers of course would love to be able to blame them, but it would be stupid of them to enable scammers by permitting scammers to know the private keys of the servers they host. Unless maybe they are scammers, and want to be able to blame you for their nefarious actions...

-MarkM-