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.

[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-