Bitcoin Forum
April 26, 2024, 10:35:43 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [CLOSED] GLBSE drama  (Read 17799 times)
oldschool
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 09, 2012, 07:06:27 PM
 #121

Must not have been these funds.

May we have the public address of said paper wallet please, so that we may keep an eye on them?

I don't see any reason why this cannot be released. 18bEUAuzWg97swzHXzK4prGGYSBAMCUgz

The funds tied to that address are now in control of BG's secretary.

Which is bullshit, why send ~800btc more to be controlled by Nefario when he already has ~8000btc of illegally obtained funds?

What will giving Nefario ~800btc more do that he couldn't have done with the ~8000btc?

As I said, the funds were sent to the secretary, not Nefario. He only accepted them reluctantly (rather than have Theymos keep them) so that Nefario would have no reason to not begin dispersing customer funds.

Who exactly is BG's secretary?  Do they have a name on the forum, do they have a real name and public identity?  At this point I believe this should all be transparent given the circumstances.


Who exactly is BG's secretary?  Do they have a name on the forum, do they have a real name and public identity?  At this point I believe this should all be transparent given the circumstances.

I'm not comfortable revealing information about BitcoinGlobal shareholders which have not self identified, sorry.

See, the problem with this is you guys are knowingly transferring stolen funds to people who you are not willing to disclose, you should all get scammer tags, this forum is full of crooks and it appears to be run by a crook also.


I believe we have another name to add to the list of people who should get scammer tags "chrisrico".  I was not 100% in agreement with Theymos getting a scammer tag and being completly crooked until this bullshit...  These people are knowningly transferring stolen funds and then refusing to tell people who they were transferred to.

This forum is a fucking joke, Theymos you've destroyed your forum with this curroption.
1714127743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714127743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714127743
Reply with quote  #2

1714127743
Report to moderator
1714127743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714127743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714127743
Reply with quote  #2

1714127743
Report to moderator
The forum was founded in 2009 by Satoshi and Sirius. It replaced a SourceForge forum.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714127743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714127743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714127743
Reply with quote  #2

1714127743
Report to moderator
1714127743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714127743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714127743
Reply with quote  #2

1714127743
Report to moderator
1714127743
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714127743

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714127743
Reply with quote  #2

1714127743
Report to moderator
Raize
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
 #122

This is a credit rating and bail bond system. Also, you're posting something that was clearly public knowledge, not really good "evidence" for malfeasance, there. I still don't get where the "lied" and "falsely" part comes in.

Quote
In any event theymos no longer holds the claim to personal integrity required for being the administrator of this forum, or a principal in any other respectable bitcoin venture.

This I'd maybe be more inclined to agree with, but it took you 5 or 6 accusations to get there.
MPOE-PR (OP)
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 522



View Profile
October 09, 2012, 09:00:12 PM
 #123

This I'd maybe be more inclined to agree with, but it took you 5 or 6 accusations to get there.

Nope, it's exactly in the first post.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 11:49:04 PM
 #124

This is a credit rating and bail bond system. Also, you're posting something that was clearly public knowledge, not really good "evidence" for malfeasance, there. I still don't get where the "lied" and "falsely" part comes in.

The thread may be titled such, but in Nef's post it's pretty clear he's talking about the launch of GLBSE.

...we are launching the development of the Bticoin Stock Market...

I'm not trying to point out evidence for malfeasance or whatever.  Just showing that it has long been known (or knowable by reading that thread) who the Officers of GLBSE are (were?)

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
LoupGaroux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 12:24:24 AM
 #125

Maged- what say you? Does he get a scammer tag for his involvement in this? Do the other owners of GBLSE get the scammer tag for the exact same reasons as nefario?

You seem to be mistaken about why Nefario got the scammer tag, it's not at all comparable.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115669.msg1258773#msg1258773

Okay, your Honor, I stipulate that there is a difference in the precedent that obviates my original query. So, let's try this:

BadBear- what say you? Does material ownership of a now-locked up asset full of other people's bitcoins, a lack of control over the lunatic who is consistently not being accurate about what is happening with their jointly owned company, the allegations about ownership and attempted dumping of an asset, and the horrible communications surrounding theymos' involvement in GLBSE, along with that of the other owners of GLBSE warrant a scammer tag?
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 12:56:56 AM
 #126

Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 01:00:11 AM
 #127

Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.  The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
imsaguy
General failure and former
VIP
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500

Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 01:04:25 AM
 #128

The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless

Selling something that you adjudge to be worthless isn't a scam.  They're called garage sales.  "One man's junk is another man's treasure."  Misrepresentation, if it occurred, is a whole different ballgame.

Coming Soon!™ © imsaguy 2011-2013, All rights reserved.

EIEIO:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60117.0

Shades Minoco Collection Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65989
Payment Address: http://btc.to/5r6
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 01:07:44 AM
 #129

Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.  The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  


How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 01:24:38 AM
 #130

Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 01:47:26 AM
 #131

Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

There was no legal action besides nefario supposedly speaking to a lawyer.

There is still no proof at all that any authorities have even spoken to Nefario and none of the shareholders have been contacted either.

Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 01:53:29 AM
 #132

Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

There was no legal action besides nefario supposedly speaking to a lawyer.

There is still no proof at all that any authorities have even spoken to Nefario and none of the shareholders have been contacted either.

Of course there is proof.  We have Nefario's testimony and the extreme reaction of his partners in crime who have tried to extort and scam their way out of holding the bag at the last moment.  The SEC will not act in haste or scream about what they are doing.  They handle these matters patiently. 

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 01:57:47 AM
 #133

Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

There was no legal action besides nefario supposedly speaking to a lawyer.

There is still no proof at all that any authorities have even spoken to Nefario and none of the shareholders have been contacted either.

Of course there is proof.  We have Nefario's testimony and the extreme reaction of his partners in crime who have tried to extort and scam their way out of holding the bag at the last moment.  The SEC will not act in haste or scream about what they are doing.  They handle these matters patiently. 

My official statement to the SEC

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 01:58:26 AM
 #134

Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.  The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  

That's conjecture, not fact as stated.  In fairness though it is not completely outside the range of reason.

I would expect someone who was a party to the sale to come forward with information about how disingenuous and deceptive ~theymos was if that were the case.  Still waiting so it well could be the case that potential serious buyers (if any) were completely comfortable with the legal status of the asset and any negotiations were considered straight by the effected parties.  Even if not, I've tended to consider the scammer tag to apply to people who invent schemes with pre-formed intentions of ripping people of, this event probably would not qualify as such.  For that matter it's debatable whether ~nefario's various exploits do either.

I still think there should be a tag for general plonkers who clearly cost people money even if it is not totally clear whether they are full-on scammers or just incompetent boobs.  Bitcoin Consultancy, fr'instance.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 02:06:59 AM
 #135

Quote
I would expect someone who was a party to the sale to come forward with information about how disingenuous and deceptive ~theymos was if that were the case.

This will not occur, as Nefario's brave whistleblowing actions made the sale moot. 

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 03:12:17 AM
 #136

Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.
Then ignore my bias. It doesn't matter what I, individually, think. Your goal should be to convince everyone else. Of course, that doesn't make my questions any less valid.

Also, those reasons came from a quick skim of the thread, so I am legitimately curious to see if I missed anything.
The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  
This is not a matter of whether or not the shares were worthless. Potential buyers can decide the shares' value themselves. The question is, did Theymos misrepresent any information that could have prevented someone from assigning a fair value to those shares?

stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 03:21:12 AM
 #137

Maged,

I believe if I don't get claim codes (or whatever they are) for the assets I hold, then shareholders of BitcoinGlobal should all get scammer tags.  What do you think?

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
Rarity
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 03:22:57 AM
 #138

Quote
This is not a matter of whether or not the shares were worthless. Potential buyers can decide the shares' value themselves. The question is, did Theymos misrepresent any information that could have prevented someone from assigning a fair value to those shares?

Yes, he misrepresented the shares as having worth.  

"Money is like manure: Spread around, it helps things grow. Piled up in one place, it just stinks."
Maged
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 03:40:27 AM
 #139

Maged,

I believe if I don't get claim codes (or whatever they are) for the assets I hold, then shareholders of BitcoinGlobal should all get scammer tags.  What do you think?
I disagree. However, I would agree that the ones that are preventing BitcoinGlobal from relieving Nefario of the database would deserve the tag, assuming they have accounts here. Of course, that would be after giving Nefario a reasonable amount of time to send claim codes, himself.

stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2012, 03:56:19 AM
 #140

Maged,

I believe if I don't get claim codes (or whatever they are) for the assets I hold, then shareholders of BitcoinGlobal should all get scammer tags.  What do you think?
I disagree. However, I would agree that the ones that are preventing BitcoinGlobal from relieving Nefario of the database would deserve the tag, assuming they have accounts here. Of course, that would be after giving Nefario a reasonable amount of time to send claim codes, himself.

Nefario is requesting personal information from former GLBSE users to close their accounts and get any bitcoins/assets back.  Are you suggesting I send personal information to someone listed as a scammer by bitcointalk moderators?

Theymos stated that the bylaws of BitcoinGlobal are enforceable on bitcointalk forums, but they can't be enforced unless the shareholders of BitcoinGlobal are released.  Also, the shareholders will not oust Nefario from CEO of BitcoinGlobal unless they are pressured to do so with the threat of ostracization from the bitcoin community.  If the BitcoinGlobal shareholders deserve a scammer tag for not voting to get him to give up the database, by extension Theymos deserves a scammer tag for not releasing the shareholders names as he is aiding their scamming.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!