Why I should get a scammer tag.

[Bitcoin Oz]

As one of the GLBSE shareholders I apologize on my own behalf for any loss people have suffered as a result of the actions of the CEO Nefario who all the shareholders placed in charge of GLBSE.

As with everything else on glbse we have lost a large percentage of the investment we made and if Nefario never pays people back I am unable to cover anyone's losses. The only thing of value I have are a couple of bitcoin domains which should go to a victim restitution fund if they can be sold at all-bitcoin.me and bitcoin.com.au together should be worth considerable amounts. I am pretty much broke otherwise and have no coins as I am unable to go through the AMl process Nefario is requesting. Selling my glbse shares through theymos was a bad decision also and would have likely led to a loss for the buyer. We were as much in  the dark as everyone else. 

 Maged can contact me for a list of the other GLBSE shareholders and if Nefario fails to come through with the bitcoins he owes to customers I think they should be tagged as well untill bitcoinglobal has paid back the coins it has in trust. If there are coins left over I believe they should be given to all the users of glbse as compensation and I release my share at least for such purposes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112298.0 I hereby retract the scammer allegation I made against Goat and believe GLBSE owes him the shares Nefario promised were legitimate. I  give an undertaking to transfer him 5% of the legitimate  shares I own in GLBSE as restitution for the fake shares if bitcoinglobal ever comes back in future. This being the percentage of GLBSE that I own. These are for the fake shares he owned at the time glbse shutdown.

Believe me when I say there are a lot of good people involved in GLBSE who had the best intentions while it was running. In conclusion I ask the community to forgive my poor decision making and urge Nefario to do the right thing. Hopefully he comes good and everyone gets their coins back.

[BitcoinINV]

Commendable

[Mushoz]

Commendable

Agreed. Let's hope this shitstorm gets solved in the best possible way by Nefario, so that the tags won't be necessary and so that the users are ultimately happy. It sounds like the OP made some bad decisions, but I don't believe it was his intend to defraud or harm anyone.

[repentance]

Kudos.   Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?

[Rarity]

Why I should get a scammer tag.

I agree, bitcoin.me deserves the scammer tag.

[Francesco]

That's a commendable post, but... it turns out buying assets without realizing how unreliable the issuer is wasn't only common in the exchange: it was also common about the exchange. How ironic.

Well, it seems a bit of sanity ha come back. Let's hope the reason for those tags (otherwise earned) is removed quickly!

[Bitcoin Oz]

Kudos.   Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?

I don't know and I dont speak for anyone else or on behalf of the partnership. In fact its probably breaking some of the partnership bylaws to even post this thread and I think at this point it should be dissolved anyway. For a number of reasons including that the existing structure is clearly insufficient to deal with the situation.

I dont intend to hide from responsibility because I clearly would benefit if Nefario pulled off a miracle and somehow made glbse a regulated company. With that responsibility comes fiduciary duties you need to uphold.

[Bitcoin Oz]

That's a commendable post, but... it turns out buying assets without realizing how unreliable the issuer is wasn't only common in the exchange: it was also common about the exchange. How ironic.

Well, it seems a bit of sanity ha come back. Let's hope the reason for those tags (otherwise earned) is removed quickly!

The irony is noted.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

[stochastic]

Kudos.   Are any of the other partners willing to offer the same?

I don't know and I dont speak for anyone else or on behalf of the partnership. In fact its probably breaking some of the partnership bylaws to even post this thread and I think at this point it should be dissolved anyway. For a number of reasons including that the existing structure is clearly insufficient to deal with the situation.

I dont intend to hide from responsibility because I clearly would benefit if Nefario pulled off a miracle and somehow made glbse a regulated company. With that responsibility comes fiduciary duties you need to uphold.

You seem fine by the bylaws.

[Rarity]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

Shareholders, no, but what about partners and officers like Theymos?

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a general partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  If it was a limited partnership then the non-active (passive) partners would have limited liability while the general partner (Nefaro?) would have unlimited liability. Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken-company (and yes I use that term loosely).  

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  Everyone getting involved knows exactly what they are getting involved in.  I mean how many of these "partner-shareholders" made up nonsense realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets)?  All the limitations of a shareholder with all the liability of a general partner.  Yeah that is a match made in heaven.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

What partnership has shareholders?
Answer - none. 

See the bigger answer above.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

This is correct as I recently discovered. One of the reasons to start a new registered company is this.

I started this thread because I dont have the resources to cover that liability and Im coming forward now to admit it.

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. 

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets).   

I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion.  Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan.

I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied.  This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws.  If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has.  If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers.

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company or its agents.  I mean should the shareholders of GM (who already lost the capital they invested) be considered "scammers" because the company was so poorly run it was run into the ground.  By that logic any shareholder of any Pirate bond should also get a scammer tag.

I think it sets a bad precedent and basically makes the tag useless.  Now if you had active role in the day to day management that might be different but even then I don't think anyone has ever gotten a scammer tag without intent of malfeasance (i.e. just being foolish or naive isn't grounds for the tag).

That is for legally registered companies such as limited liability companies or corporations.  It has nothing to do with general partnerships where all the partners are liable for all legal actions or debt that the partnership faces.

What partnership has shareholders?
Answer - none. 

See the bigger answer above.

Corporations or companies with limited liability for their members, partners, or shareholders has not nothing to do with BitcoinGlobal.  There is no limited liability for any owner, partner, or member of BitcoinGlobal.  So I don't understand your argument that members of BitcoinGlobal are not liable for its debt.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. 

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets).   

I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion.  Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan.

I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied.  This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws.  If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has.  If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers.

I think Nefario getting the tag was used as a "lever" for certain people to get what they want, more than anything else. The funny thing is I actually have a pty ltd  business setup in Australia called "noagendamarket" which is the name I used as the partner for bitcoinglobal. In effect "noagendamarket" is a company not my actual name.

https://www.trisearch.com.au/trisearchASICcc.nsf/ASICOrder?OpenForm&acn=147919239&hdr=ACN&type=APTY&class=LMSH&stat=REGD&namec=NOAGENDAMARKET+PTY+LTD

My real name has no ties to bitcoinglobal and Ive never sent fiat money to anyone else involved in it.

[Rarity]

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.

Right, I wonder why they didn't do that?

(Their business is illegal)

[Bitcoin Oz]

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.

Right, I wonder why they didn't do that?

(Their business maybe illegal)

ftfy

[stochastic]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company. 

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets).   

I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion.  Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan.

I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied.  This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws.  If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has.  If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers.

I think Nefario getting the tag was used as a "lever" for certain people to get what they want, more than anything else. The funny thing is I actually have a pty ltd  business setup in Australia called "noagendamarket" which is the name I used as the partner for bitcoinglobal. In effect "noagendamarket" is a company not my actual name.

https://www.trisearch.com.au/trisearchASICcc.nsf/ASICOrder?OpenForm&acn=147919239&hdr=ACN&type=APTY&class=LMSH&stat=REGD&namec=NOAGENDAMARKET+PTY+LTD

My real name has no ties to bitcoinglobal and Ive never sent fiat money to anyone else involved in it.

Nefario got the scammer tag because he broke the bylaws of BitcoinGlobal, this is why theymos requested a scammer tag.



Watch out PG will come after you...

Is David Hollis the same guy as noagendamarket?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Generally equity owners (not be confused with directors, executives, employees, officers) are not held liable for the actions of the company

But what about partners?

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken company.  

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real discrete (i.e. seperate from the owners) legal entity is trivial these days and cost a norminal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  I mean how many "shareholders" realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets).    

I assumed that those that form these amateurish general partnerships were doing so in the libertarian/anarchistic ethos of looking at limited liability with suspicion.  Of course they want limited liability when shit hits the fan.

I already requested scammer tags for all partners of BitcoinGlobal if all the funds and coins were not returned to GLBSE users but I was denied.  This is even though theymos said that the BitcoinGlobal bylaws are enforceable on these forums, hence nefario receiving a scammer tag for breaking the bylaws.  If BitcoinGlobal is a partnership, then they are liable for any and all debts that BitcoinGlobal has.  If they can't pay those debts then they are scammers.

I think Nefario getting the tag was used as a "lever" for certain people to get what they want, more than anything else. The funny thing is I actually have a pty ltd  business setup in Australia called "noagendamarket" which is the name I used as the partner for bitcoinglobal. In effect "noagendamarket" is a company not my actual name.

https://www.trisearch.com.au/trisearchASICcc.nsf/ASICOrder?OpenForm&acn=147919239&hdr=ACN&type=APTY&class=LMSH&stat=REGD&namec=NOAGENDAMARKET+PTY+LTD

My real name has no ties to bitcoinglobal and Ive never sent fiat money to anyone else involved in it.

Nefario got the scammer tag because he broke the bylaws of BitcoinGlobal, this is why theymos requested a scammer tag.



Watch out PG will come after you...

Is David Hollis the same guy as noagendamarket?

Sure he already has once before and thats because my identity is easy to find

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q8zUxTXNiI  here I am with a group of people at OM last year lol

While I could hide behind the company I dont think thats fair and trying to make good is the right thing to do

[Rarity]

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.

Right, I wonder why they didn't do that?

(Their business maybe illegal)

ftfy

Nope, there is no may about it.  Unregulated security trading is not illegal, it doesn't matter what you are trading them for. 

[theymos]

Government laws are irrelevant when it comes to scammer tags. Show me the contract where I agreed to take on any liability related to GLBSE or BitcoinGlobal. The bylaws don't mention it.

Without a contract transferring liability, each shareholder is only liable (morally, perhaps not legally) for what he personally did. If a corporation consists of one person and that corporation scams someone, that person is liable, regardless of whether the law limits his liability. If a corporation is run purely by majority vote and the shareholders vote to scam someone, only those people who voted to scam and the people who carried out the scam are liable; the other people have not agreed to take on any liability just by being members of the corporation (unless this actually was explicitly agreed to in a contract).

Well that is why making up these "quasi pretendo companies" is not a good idea.  If it was actually a general partnership then yes all partners are equally and fully liable.  If it was a limited partnership then the non-active (passive) partners would have limited liability while the general partner (Nefaro?) would have unlimited liability. Of course that would require a partnership agreement and partnerships don't have shares, stock, or shareholders.   It is almost like Nefaro took the worst aspects of a partnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability company, and corporation and turned it into some franken-company (and yes I use that term loosely). 

Maybe that is the lesson in all this.  Forming a real legal entity is trivial these days and cost a nominal amount of money.  It then lets us answer questions like the above and prevents any ambiguity.  Everyone getting involved knows exactly what they are getting involved in.  I mean how many of these "partner-shareholders" made up nonsense realized that under a partnership they have unlimited personal liability (i.e. you can lose everything you own, your house, your car, all your assets, the money from your bank account, and even the clothes from your closets)?  All the limitations of a shareholder with all the liability of a general partner.  Yeah that is a match made in heaven.

I prefer not to deal with governments if at all possible. The bylaws are ambiguous and deficient in many areas, but that could be fixed without registering with a government.

Things should have been set up like they are on this forum, where even several powerful people gone mad can't take down the whole service. But I didn't put much thought into GLBSE. I only have a 3.3% share in BitcoinGlobal, the treasury work itself took only an hour or two per month, and it was not my job to deal with any day-to-day operations, so I didn't have any reason to think deeply about GLBSE security/stability.

[stochastic]

Without a contract transferring liability, each shareholder is only liable (morally, perhaps not legally) for what he personally did. If a corporation consists of one person and that corporation scams someone, that person is liable, regardless of whether the law limits his liability. If a corporation is run purely by majority vote and the shareholders vote to scam someone, only those people who voted to scam and the people who carried out the scam are liable; the other people have not agreed to take on any liability just by being members of the corporation (unless this actually was explicitly agreed to in a contract).

No you are wrong

[Corporations] are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk.

Your liability contract is not with the other partners/members of BitcoinGlobal, your liability contract was with the users of GLBSE.  Since you made no contract saying you have limited liability you have unlimited liability, full liability for the debt.  You might have a ~2.5% stake, then you can be held liable for 2.5% of the debt BitcoinGlobal owes to its users if Nefario's payback plan fails.

[theymos]

No you are wrong

[Corporations] are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk.

Your liability contract is not with the other partners/members of BitcoinGlobal, your liability contract was with the users of GLBSE.  Since you made no contract saying you have limited liability you have unlimited liability, full liability for the debt.  You might have a ~2.5% stake, then you can be held liable for 2.5% of the debt BitcoinGlobal owes to its users if Nefario's payback plan fails.

I guess I disagree with Rothbard. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to be liable for something he didn't personally do unless this state of affairs is changed through contracts. Why should one certain type of contract have the implicit meaning that one side of the contract takes some liability from the other side?

[stochastic]

No you are wrong

[Corporations] are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk.

Your liability contract is not with the other partners/members of BitcoinGlobal, your liability contract was with the users of GLBSE.  Since you made no contract saying you have limited liability you have unlimited liability, full liability for the debt.  You might have a ~2.5% stake, then you can be held liable for 2.5% of the debt BitcoinGlobal owes to its users if Nefario's payback plan fails.

I guess I disagree with Rothbard. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to be liable for something he didn't personally do unless this state of affairs is changed through contracts. Why should one certain type of contract have the implicit meaning that one side of the contract takes some liability from the other side?

Of course you will disagree with Rothbard when your head is on the chopping block.  You may agree with him when you are shouting for another person's head.

You started a company, took users funds, kept records in a database.  You and the rest of the partners appointed a CEO, Treasurer, and Accountant to oversee those funds and database.  Their actions are an extension of your decision.

You are a free person that individually decided to join into this partnership.  You freely decided who would do what in your company.  It doesn't matter who voted for what.  You already agreed that your partnership would follow the decisions of a vote.  No one forced you to join this association.

People knew that GLBSE is controlled by BitcoinGlobal, thus BitcoinGlobal is responsible for all debt of GLBSE.  Since there is no written agreement between BitcoinGlobal/GLBSE and its users about limited liability, that means BitcoinGlobal partners have unlimited liability.

You can say how unfair it is, but you got yourself into this situation by creating/joining BitcoinGlobal.

[Bitcoin Oz]

No you are wrong

[Corporations] are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk.

Your liability contract is not with the other partners/members of BitcoinGlobal, your liability contract was with the users of GLBSE.  Since you made no contract saying you have limited liability you have unlimited liability, full liability for the debt.  You might have a ~2.5% stake, then you can be held liable for 2.5% of the debt BitcoinGlobal owes to its users if Nefario's payback plan fails.

I guess I disagree with Rothbard. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to be liable for something he didn't personally do unless this state of affairs is changed through contracts. Why should one certain type of contract have the implicit meaning that one side of the contract takes some liability from the other side?

Of course you will disagree with Rothbard when your head is on the chopping block.  You may agree with him when you are shouting for another person's head.

You started a company, took users funds, kept records in a database.  You and the rest of the partners appointed a CEO, Treasurer, and Accountant to oversee those funds and database.  Their actions are an extension of your decision.

You are a free person that individually decided to join into this partnership.  You freely decided who would do what in your company.  It doesn't matter who voted for what.  You already agreed that your partnership would follow the decisions of a vote.  No one forced you to join this association.

People knew that GLBSE is controlled by BitcoinGlobal, thus BitcoinGlobal is responsible for all debt of GLBSE.  Since there is no written agreement between BitcoinGlobal/GLBSE and its users about limited liability, that means BitcoinGlobal partners have unlimited liability.

You can say how unfair it is, but you got yourself into this situation by creating/joining BitcoinGlobal.

This is my understanding of the situation now. Which is why I hope Nefario pays back the coins. Because it will take me a  long time to pay back 500 coins.

[theymos]

You are a free person that individually decided to join into this partnership.  You freely decided who would do what in your company.  It doesn't matter who voted for what.  You already agreed that your partnership would follow the decisions of a vote.  No one forced you to join this association.

The bylaws don't say that the company represents its shareholders. It only states certain responsibilities and rights of its members. Why should it be implicit in this contract that the company will be able to personally represent its shareholders and put them in debt?

The company did not vote to close GLBSE, by the way.

[stochastic]

This is my understanding of the situation now. Which is why I hope Nefario pays back the coins. Because it will take me a  long time to pay back 500 coins.

At least you have integrity.

[repentance]

I guess I disagree with Rothbard. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to be liable for something he didn't personally do unless this state of affairs is changed through contracts. Why should one certain type of contract have the implicit meaning that one side of the contract takes some liability from the other side?

You can disagree with Rothbard or existing laws as much as you like, but the real world exists and you're bound by its laws.  Even if mere "shareholders" in your Franken-company had no liability for the entity's actions (and if they voted in favour of the company pursuing illegal activity they would likely lose any protection from liability), office-holders have specific and well-defined liability in respect of the organisations in which they accept those roles, as do people who participate in management activity whether or not they are formally designated as office-holders.

You obviously realise all this because you didn't want your name legally connected with a "legitimate" GLBSE.  You were mistaken, however, in assuming that just because GLBSE is a "pretend" company, it's partners don't have any personal liability for its actions.  This is a mistake I've seen many times in the Bitcoin community.  Instead of getting proper legal advice before launching Bitcoin enterprises, people just go ahead and operate them according to how they wished the law to be.

Whether or not you think you should be responsible for the actions of GLBSE in no way changes of whether you're actually responsible for them at law.  You don't get to cry "that's not fair" just because you exposed yourself to that liability either willingly or out of ignorance.  "But why" is what little children ask when they don't like an answer.  "How am I going to deal with this" is the adult question you should be trying to answer.

"The company" is a myth.  No company exists.  At best, you have a generic partnership and that means that the partners are personally jointly and severally liable for the actions of the company.  "Jointly and severally" means that every single one of you can be held 100% liable - your liability isn't even limited to the percentage of your ownership interest.  Even if you'd had a limited partnership, the limited partners (whose role is effectively that of shareholders) would only be protected from liability if they confined themselves to specific "safe harbour" activities in respect of the partnership.

[Bitcoin Oz]

You are a free person that individually decided to join into this partnership.  You freely decided who would do what in your company.  It doesn't matter who voted for what.  You already agreed that your partnership would follow the decisions of a vote.  No one forced you to join this association.

The bylaws don't say that the company represents its shareholders. It only states certain responsibilities and rights of its members. Why should it be implicit in this contract that the company will be able to personally represent its shareholders and put them in debt?

The company did not vote to close GLBSE, by the way.

 Lets hope Nefario does the right thing as he should. We joined this association voluntarily so we live with the consequences and if you try to get out of a contract you signed voluntarily people should wonder if you will do so in future.

We chose to avoid government so all we have left is our word to do business with each other.

Next time be careful what you agree too and understand it  

This is why we will get a scammer tag because we cant possibly make the victims whole. Unless you have a million bitcoins stashed somewhere I dont know about lol.

[repentance]

This is why we will get a scammer tag because we cant possibly make the victims whole. 

You'll be just fine then - Donald, Patrick and Amir are still scammer tag-free despite their victims not being made whole.

[Bitcoin Oz]

This is why we will get a scammer tag because we cant possibly make the victims whole. 

You'll be just fine then - Donald, Patrick and Amir are still scammer tag-free despite their victims not being made whole.

No comment 

[bitlover]

I don't know much about the politics in this forum (as I usually just lurk the few threads that interest me) but it seems to me that, if someone asks for a scammer tag for her/himself, then s/he should get it immediately. Otherwise, people may think that it was just a ploy to gather the sympathy of other forum members (Even if this is not true in this particular case).

So, if bitcoin.me wants the tag, he should get it. At least until this whole mess is fixed and we figure out who are the real scammers, if any.

[Transisto]

This is why we will get a scammer tag because we cant possibly make the victims whole.  

You'll be just fine then - Donald, Patrick and Amir are still scammer tag-free despite their victims not being made whole.

And it's not because is hasn't been asked numerous times.

I will not scammer-tag great people over something like this. Genjix et al. may have acquired legal responsibility for Bitcoinica's security, but they didn't purposefully lose the BTC, and I only blame them for not being more careful legally.

(Sorry for posting PM.)

Wishful thinking seems rampant.

[stochastic]

This is why we will get a scammer tag because we cant possibly make the victims whole.  

You'll be just fine then - Donald, Patrick and Amir are still scammer tag-free despite their victims not being made whole.

And it's not because is hasn't been asked numerous times.

I will not scammer-tag great people over something like this. Genjix et al. may have acquired legal responsibility for Bitcoinica's security, but they didn't purposefully lose the BTC, and I only blame them for not being more careful legally.

(Sorry for posting PM.)

Wishful thinking seems rampant.

Thick as thieves... amateurs.

Now we can see why they did not get scammer tags.  A precedent didn't want to be set.  A precedent of taking responsibility.

To me a scammer is someone that does not live up to their word or their integrity.  They will find any excuse to get out of responsibility and always casts blame on someone else.  A scammer won't accept culpability.  A scammer does not need to willfully defraud someone.  They may do so unintentionally, but what defines them as a scammer is their inability to right the wrong.

[repentance]

And it's not because is hasn't been asked numerous times.

I will not scammer-tag great people over something like this. Genjix et al. may have acquired legal responsibility for Bitcoinica's security, but they didn't purposefully lose the BTC, and I only blame them for not being more careful legally.

(Sorry for posting PM.)

Wishful thinking seems rampant.

So it's OK not to make the community whole as long as you're "great people"?  It's just fine to walk away from your responsibility if you didn't lose people's funds on purpose, even if they got lost as a result of you failing to do something and you could actually do something to assist people to recover their funds but you refuse to do so because you're too busy covering your own ass to give a shit about the people who lost funds.

If that's the kind of "ethics" which are going to be applied to scammer tags around here, then they're absolutely meaningless because they're not going to be applied to people based on their actions but on the basis of shared ideologies and personal friendships.  Clearly, Nefario only got the tag because those who issued it feel personally betrayed and pissed off, not because of the impact its closure is having on users and asset issuers.

[Bitcoin Oz]

And it's not because is hasn't been asked numerous times.

I will not scammer-tag great people over something like this. Genjix et al. may have acquired legal responsibility for Bitcoinica's security, but they didn't purposefully lose the BTC, and I only blame them for not being more careful legally.

(Sorry for posting PM.)

Wishful thinking seems rampant.

So it's OK not to make the community whole as long as you're "great people"?  It's just fine to walk away from your responsibility if you didn't lose people's funds on purpose, even if they got lost as a result of you failing to do something and you could actually do something to assist people to recover their funds but you refuse to do so because you're too busy covering your own ass to give a shit about the people who lost funds.

If that's the kind of "ethics" which are going to be applied to scammer tags around here, then they're absolutely meaningless because they're not going to be applied to people based on their actions but on the basis of shared ideologies and personal friendships.  Clearly, Nefario only got the tag because those who issued it feel personally betrayed and pissed off, not because of the impact its closure is having on users and asset issuers.

So you wont get a scammer tag if you use the government protection a corporation affords and it proceeds to lose everyones coins?

One wonders if bitcoinica would have the tag only if theymos was personally affected 

[repentance]

So you wont get a scammer tag if you use the government protection a corporation affords and it proceeds to lose everyones coins?

One wonders if bitcoinica would have the tag only if theymos was personally affected 

And by the logic expressed by theymos earlier, only Amir should be responsible for the actions of Intersango because he's a director and Donald and Patrick are "only" shareholders.

[repentance]

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Bitcoin. LOL

There's no drama like Bitcoin drama.  The "will pirate make contact" storyline returns tomorrow and the new season of "will BFL deliver" starts in a couple of weeks.  It's like reality TV without the ads.  Which well-known Bitcoin business will suddenly fail next?  Who should be voted off the libertarian island?

[Bitcoin Oz]

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Bitcoin. LOL

There's no drama like Bitcoin drama.  The "will pirate make contact" storyline returns tomorrow and the new season of "will BFL deliver" starts in a couple of weeks.  It's like reality TV without the ads.  Which well-known Bitcoin business will suddenly fail next?  Who should be voted of the libertarian island?

I’m just glad someone here is old enough to get the reference.

Bitcoin drama goes a lot faster. It doesnt take 2 years to complete a storyline.

[LoupGaroux]

As an investor who trusted GLBSE as an exchange, I am appalled that anyone who was an "owner" of the holding company whose entire stock in trade was GLBSE would be so utterly arrogant as to make a statement that they have no responsibility because "it wasn't in the bylaws".

I think I would have liked to have known that was the mindset behind the owners of the market BEFORE I sent my funds there for investment. Because that kind of thinking is wrong. Evil wrong. No wonder Goat, Amir, Patrick, Donald, Zhou Tong, Mr. Bitcoin and all the other scammers who are so richly deserving of the tag do not have it to this day. The standard of evidence is whether or not they were able to find some semantic loophole!! How dare you give the tag to Matthew when the standard you claim is exactly as empty as the one he used? Bill Clinton would be proud of how you have turned words into your shield to save you from having to use any integrity.

Having read your bylaws during the brief time that I believed I was an owner of shares (they were GLBSE Fake, which in the long run was probably a better investment than GLBSE Actual) I noted that there were no specific proscriptions in the bylaws against murder, rape, pedophilia, consuming human flesh, pissing in your friend's beer, or having sex with goats. So by the theymos' standard of logic and integrity these practices are all fully acceptable behavior for owners of GLBSE? There is no mention in the bylaws after all, and that is the only moral compass you need, right? Rarity's point about wanting to maintain an illegal operation seems to make a lot more sense now that we see that the treasurer for the organization (and would-be impresario selling out shares under a cloud of scandal) is only responsible for those rules specifically laid out in the bylaws.

Another day in bitcoin land, and another amazing new low for just how far down the standards have fallen. Color me stunned. Just freaking stunned. I throw props to bitcoin.me for at least having the moral fortitude to say what is going on is wrong and for taking ownership of his piece of it. Theymos is pure coward and liar, hiding behind the skirts of playing games with words. Disgusting.

[stochastic]

As an investor who trusted GLBSE as an exchange, I am appalled that anyone who was an "owner" of the holding company whose entire stock in trade was GLBSE would be so utterly arrogant as to make a statement that they have no responsibility because "it wasn't in the bylaws".

I think I would have liked to have known that was the mindset behind the owners of the market BEFORE I sent my funds there for investment. Because that kind of thinking is wrong. Evil wrong. No wonder Goat, Amir, Patrick, Donald, Zhou Tong, Mr. Bitcoin and all the other scammers who are so richly deserving of the tag do not have it to this day. The standard of evidence is whether or not they were able to find some semantic loophole!! How dare you give the tag to Matthew when the standard you claim is exactly as empty as the one he used? Bill Clinton would be proud of how you have turned words into your shield to save you from having to use any integrity.

Having read your bylaws during the brief time that I believed I was an owner of shares (they were GLBSE Fake, which in the long run was probably a better investment than GLBSE Actual) I noted that there were no specific proscriptions in the bylaws against murder, rape, pedophilia, consuming human flesh, pissing in your friend's beer, or having sex with goats. So by the theymos' standard of logic and integrity these practices are all fully acceptable behavior for owners of GLBSE? There is no mention in the bylaws after all, and that is the only moral compass you need, right? Rarity's point about wanting to maintain an illegal operation seems to make a lot more sense now that we see that the treasurer for the organization (and would-be impresario selling out shares under a cloud of scandal) is only responsible for those rules specifically laid out in the bylaws.

Another day in bitcoin land, and another amazing new low for just how far down the standards have fallen. Color me stunned. Just freaking stunned. I throw props to bitcoin.me for at least having the moral fortitude to say what is going on is wrong and for taking ownership of his piece of it. Theymos is pure coward and liar, hiding behind the skirts of playing games with words. Disgusting.

[repentance]

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Bitcoin. LOL

There's no drama like Bitcoin drama.  The "will pirate make contact" storyline returns tomorrow and the new season of "will BFL deliver" starts in a couple of weeks.  It's like reality TV without the ads.  Which well-known Bitcoin business will suddenly fail next?  Who should be voted of the libertarian island?

I’m just glad someone here is old enough to get the reference.

I don't know what's worse - that I still remember some 40 year old storylines or that the show is still on air.  As in DOOL, I suspect we'll see lots of Bitcoin characters return from the dead.

[stochastic]

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Bitcoin. LOL

There's no drama like Bitcoin drama.  The "will pirate make contact" storyline returns tomorrow and the new season of "will BFL deliver" starts in a couple of weeks.  It's like reality TV without the ads.  Which well-known Bitcoin business will suddenly fail next?  Who should be voted of the libertarian island?

I’m just glad someone here is old enough to get the reference.

I don't know what's worse - that I still remember some 40 year old storylines or that the show is still on air.  As in DOOL, I suspect we'll see lots of Bitcoin characters return from the dead.

If these scams keeps up though, bitcoin will end up like All My Children.

[JoelKatz]

The bylaws don't say that the company represents its shareholders. It only states certain responsibilities and rights of its members. Why should it be implicit in this contract that the company will be able to personally represent its shareholders and put them in debt?

Because that's the primary purpose of the contract. The purpose of the contract is to create an entity owned and managed by the shareholders that other people will extend financial trust to. Nobody could have entered into that contract and not understood that they were taking partial ownership and control over an entity that would hold other people's money and be responsible for that money. Limited liability, where an artificial person is created that is itself responsible for its own liabilities, is a special legal exception, not the default rule -- the default rule is that a principal is fully liable for damages done by the actions of its agent when acting within the scope of its agency.

(I am not saying, by the way, that scammer tags should work this way. The forum is totally free to disregard general principles of law in favor of fairness. But the general principle of law is that if you empower someone to act on your behalf and for your benefit, you are fully liable for any harms they do within the scope of that empowerment -- just as if you performed those actions yourself. And, by the way, your liability is *not* limited by your share. A 1% stockholder can be held 100% liable because "the defendants are in the best position to apportion damages amongst themselves. Once liability has been established and damages awarded, the defendants are free to litigate amongst themselves to better divide liability. The plaintiff no longer needs to be involved in the litigation and can avoid the cost of continuing litigation." Those harmed don't care who pays them back and there's no reason they should have to litigate that issue.)

[Bitcoin Oz]

The bylaws don't say that the company represents its shareholders. It only states certain responsibilities and rights of its members. Why should it be implicit in this contract that the company will be able to personally represent its shareholders and put them in debt?

Because that's the primary purpose of the contract. The purpose of the contract is to create an entity owned and managed by the shareholders that other people will extend financial trust to. Nobody could have entered into that contract and not understood that they were taking partial ownership and control over an entity that would hold other people's money and be responsible for that money. Limited liability, where an artificial person is created that is itself responsible for its own liabilities, is a special legal exception, not the default rule -- the default rule is that a principal is fully liable for damages done by the actions of its agent when acting within the scope of its agency.

(I am not saying, by the way, that scammer tags should work this way. The forum is totally free to disregard general principles of law in favor of fairness. But the general principle of law is that if you empower someone to act on your behalf and for your benefit, you are fully liable for any harms they do within the scope of that empowerment -- just as if you performed those actions yourself. And, by the way, your liability is *not* limited by your share. A 1% stockholder can be held 100% liable because "the defendants are in the best position to apportion damages amongst themselves. Once liability has been established and damages awarded, the defendants are free to litigate amongst themselves to better divide liability. The plaintiff no longer needs to be involved in the litigation and can avoid the cost of continuing litigation." Those harmed don't care who pays them back and there's no reason they should have to litigate that issue.)

Nefario is the agent of glbse and needs to take responsibility for his actions that cause a loss to other partners.  Theymos rushed here to make a thread about things even before the shareholder meeting had ended, not realising that in asking for a tag for Nefario he was also liable for one because abusing your position as administrator to get a tag applied to someone else in an effort to avoid responsibility for the actions of a private business  partnership is not cool. Let alone making a statement on behalf of glbse you had no right to do during a fucking shareholder meeting.

Adults dont try to save their own asses they stand up and say "We fucked up now how can we deal with it?"

[BitcoinINV]

I think the scammer tag needs a remake, if you get the tag you should be restricted from posting in the Marketplace. It would be great if this community was not so childish you could post poles to see if they really deserve it, but we know most of these people on here have sockpuppets that have sockpuppets.

[deeplink]

The partnership of GLBSE has the moral responsibility to stand behind and fix their mistakes. Clients of GLBSE do not even have to know who was responsible for what behind the scenes. The profits would have been shared between partners if things would have turned out okay. Logically the same goes for debt, unless this exception was clear to their clients.

I respect honest people who admit their mistakes. But I am appalled by people with double standards and lack of integrity.

Theymos, you must admit your responsibility and act according to it or resign from your position on this forum until this situation is solved. If you choose to further deny any responsibility or choose not to act in this matter I have misjudged your integrity and I openly ask you to remove my Donator tag, because in that case I do not want to be associated as a supporter of this board.

[LoupGaroux]

As an investor who trusted GLBSE as an exchange, I am appalled that anyone who was an "owner" of the holding company whose entire stock in trade was GLBSE would be so utterly arrogant as to make a statement that they have no responsibility because "it wasn't in the bylaws".

I think I would have liked to have known that was the mindset behind the owners of the market BEFORE I sent my funds there for investment. Because that kind of thinking is wrong. Evil wrong. No wonder Goat, Amir, Patrick, Donald, Zhou Tong, Mr. Bitcoin and all the other scammers who are so richly deserving of the tag do not have it to this day. The standard of evidence is whether or not they were able to find some semantic loophole!! How dare you give the tag to Matthew when the standard you claim is exactly as empty as the one he used? Bill Clinton would be proud of how you have turned words into your shield to save you from having to use any integrity.

Having read your bylaws during the brief time that I believed I was an owner of shares (they were GLBSE Fake, which in the long run was probably a better investment than GLBSE Actual) I noted that there were no specific proscriptions in the bylaws against murder, rape, pedophilia, consuming human flesh, pissing in your friend's beer, or having sex with goats. So by the theymos' standard of logic and integrity these practices are all fully acceptable behavior for owners of GLBSE? There is no mention in the bylaws after all, and that is the only moral compass you need, right? Rarity's point about wanting to maintain an illegal operation seems to make a lot more sense now that we see that the treasurer for the organization (and would-be impresario selling out shares under a cloud of scandal) is only responsible for those rules specifically laid out in the bylaws.

Another day in bitcoin land, and another amazing new low for just how far down the standards have fallen. Color me stunned. Just freaking stunned. I throw props to bitcoin.me for at least having the moral fortitude to say what is going on is wrong and for taking ownership of his piece of it. Theymos is pure coward and liar, hiding behind the skirts of playing games with words. Disgusting.

You think I'm a scammer? You are just bitter I caught you in a lie you told for Vlad. What a sad boy you are. Go make a scammers thread if you really have 1/2 a claim...

Back OT: The scammers tag has clearly been abused and it no longer has meaning. If there were some rules for how to get the tag then fine, but it just seems like only rule is, don't rip off Theymos...

My standard of evidence is a little different that the going version, Goat. I don't "think" you are a scammer, I know you are a scammer. You operated a pirate pass-through operation. That was servicing the scam, ergo you are a scammer. You have not been honest about how you have offered assets for investment on the now-defunct GLBSE1.0 nd 2.0 and have taken the assets that your investors purchased for the operations and sold them off for your personal gain, that's a scammer. You constantly seek to deflect, dodge and dance around any subject to try and create a smokescreen and refuse to address issues at discussion (your responses here are a delightful example of this once again!) again, the actions of a scammer to keep the light off himself. You act stupid and beg for help, and then create mechanisms to have people send you investments into ventures which you consistently fail, losing that value- this is a scammer.

I don't need to create a separate thread for you, I'm not your personal integrity cop, I'm just yet another user that is sick of seeing lying, dishonest scammers permitted to continue to prey on this community. Our scammer tag is a joke, but a joke richly deserved by you and every other thieving clown in my list.

[LoupGaroux]

As an investor who trusted GLBSE as an exchange, I am appalled that anyone who was an "owner" of the holding company whose entire stock in trade was GLBSE would be so utterly arrogant as to make a statement that they have no responsibility because "it wasn't in the bylaws".

I think I would have liked to have known that was the mindset behind the owners of the market BEFORE I sent my funds there for investment. Because that kind of thinking is wrong. Evil wrong. No wonder Goat, Amir, Patrick, Donald, Zhou Tong, Mr. Bitcoin and all the other scammers who are so richly deserving of the tag do not have it to this day. The standard of evidence is whether or not they were able to find some semantic loophole!! How dare you give the tag to Matthew when the standard you claim is exactly as empty as the one he used? Bill Clinton would be proud of how you have turned words into your shield to save you from having to use any integrity.

Having read your bylaws during the brief time that I believed I was an owner of shares (they were GLBSE Fake, which in the long run was probably a better investment than GLBSE Actual) I noted that there were no specific proscriptions in the bylaws against murder, rape, pedophilia, consuming human flesh, pissing in your friend's beer, or having sex with goats. So by the theymos' standard of logic and integrity these practices are all fully acceptable behavior for owners of GLBSE? There is no mention in the bylaws after all, and that is the only moral compass you need, right? Rarity's point about wanting to maintain an illegal operation seems to make a lot more sense now that we see that the treasurer for the organization (and would-be impresario selling out shares under a cloud of scandal) is only responsible for those rules specifically laid out in the bylaws.

Another day in bitcoin land, and another amazing new low for just how far down the standards have fallen. Color me stunned. Just freaking stunned. I throw props to bitcoin.me for at least having the moral fortitude to say what is going on is wrong and for taking ownership of his piece of it. Theymos is pure coward and liar, hiding behind the skirts of playing games with words. Disgusting.

You think I'm a scammer? You are just bitter I caught you in a lie you told for Vlad. What a sad boy you are. Go make a scammers thread if you really have 1/2 a claim...

Back OT: The scammers tag has clearly been abused and it no longer has meaning. If there were some rules for how to get the tag then fine, but it just seems like only rule is, don't rip off Theymos...

My standard of evidence is a little different that the going version, Goat. I don't "think" you are a scammer, I know you are a scammer. You operated a pirate pass-through operation. That was servicing the scam, ergo you are a scammer. You have not been honest about how you have offered assets for investment on the now-defunct GLBSE1.0 nd 2.0 and have taken the assets that your investors purchased for the operations and sold them off for your personal gain, that's a scammer. You constantly seek to deflect, dodge and dance around any subject to try and create a smokescreen and refuse to address issues at discussion (your responses here are a delightful example of this once again!) again, the actions of a scammer to keep the light off himself. You act stupid and beg for help, and then create mechanisms to have people send you investments into ventures which you consistently fail, losing that value- this is a scammer.

I don't need to create a separate thread for you, I'm not your personal integrity cop, I'm just yet another user that is sick of seeing lying, dishonest scammers permitted to continue to prey on this community. Our scammer tag is a joke, but a joke richly deserved by you and every other thieving clown in my list.

I made you look silly when I caught you in a lie and now you are after revenge. If you do not make a thread about me scamming I will like everyone else assume you are trolling and ignore you.

I applaud you offering to turn in your VIP badge, that was the first ethical thing you have said so far this year. Well done.

As to ignoring me... your call Binky, but you will take a huge hit in post count if you ignore me, and you can't make my ignore button any more blood orange than it already is.

[Raize]

The scammer tag might be better applied by a tribunal or something resembling a "judicial court" of individuals who willingly disclose all their Bitcoin-related holdings on a monthly basis. The problem is, of course, the more people involved, the slower the results and an admin/mod is still involved. I like the idea that if I do research on someone and find overwhelming evidence of them beng a scammer I only have to send it to a handful of people.

[stochastic]

The scammer tag might be better applied by a tribunal or something resembling a "judicial court" of individuals who willingly disclose all their Bitcoin-related holdings on a monthly basis. The problem is, of course, the more people involved, the slower the results and an admin/mod is still involved. I like the idea that if I do research on someone and find overwhelming evidence of them beng a scammer I only have to send it to a handful of people.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68343.msg797850#msg797850

[guruvan]

Hmm. bitcoin.me if you had sufficient management responsibility, and especially if you shared in making the decisions that have caused the separation of funds & assets from investors, then I think you may have a scammer tag.

But, AFAICT, you had nothing to do with day-to-day operations of GLBSE, and had no part in the decisions that closed GLBSE & locked up our money & securities. So, you probably may not have a tag.

Nice try though. Thanks. I do appreciate that there's at least one person who's willing to stand up for their own actions.

[stochastic]

...
Theymos, you must admit your responsibility and act according to it or resign from your position on this forum until this situation is solved.
...

+1

[repentance]

The scammer tag might be better applied by a tribunal or something resembling a "judicial court" of individuals who willingly disclose all their Bitcoin-related holdings on a monthly basis. The problem is, of course, the more people involved, the slower the results and an admin/mod is still involved. I like the idea that if I do research on someone and find overwhelming evidence of them beng a scammer I only have to send it to a handful of people.

I think that first the whole scammer tag concept needs an overhaul.  It doesn't really act as much of a warning to avoid dealing with the large-scale scammers because they tend to leave this community when their scams collapse.  It's useless if people's real world identity isn't known because they can just resurface under a new user-name.  And it's currently applied on a very selective basis. You can owe people hundreds of thousands of dollars and make no effort to help users recover their funds and still not get the scammer tag. 

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Nefario just needs to pay me by BTC back, including 1 BTC for my one share that I own.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Hmm. bitcoin.me if you had sufficient management responsibility, and especially if you shared in making the decisions that have caused the separation of funds & assets from investors, then I think you may have a scammer tag.

But, AFAICT, you had nothing to do with day-to-day operations of GLBSE, and had no part in the decisions that closed GLBSE & locked up our money & securities. So, you probably may not have a tag.

Nice try though. Thanks. I do appreciate that there's at least one person who's willing to stand up for their own actions.

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. Bitcoinglobal has lost any control or means to influence the coins it contained, the server its hosted on and the domain. I hope people understand thats the situation.

[stochastic]

Hmm. bitcoin.me if you had sufficient management responsibility, and especially if you shared in making the decisions that have caused the separation of funds & assets from investors, then I think you may have a scammer tag.

But, AFAICT, you had nothing to do with day-to-day operations of GLBSE, and had no part in the decisions that closed GLBSE & locked up our money & securities. So, you probably may not have a tag.

Nice try though. Thanks. I do appreciate that there's at least one person who's willing to stand up for their own actions.

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. Bitcoinglobal has lost any control or means to influence the coins it contained, the server its hosted on and the domain. I hope people understand thats the situation.

Sorry, but I think if nefario really did steal GLBSE then you guys would have voted to remove him as CEO and posted the transcripts of doing so.  If he is still CEO, then he the BitcoinGlobal partners are still allowing him to make the operational decisions, which includes shutting it down and accepting this claims process.

[Twilight Sparkle]

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. [/quote]

in the wild west people stole horses.  one time a horse was stolen from the gang who stole them in turn from a train,

when the gang went to deliver the horses they had no horses to sell to the townspeople

to whom did the townspeople turn?

[stochastic]

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. Bitcoinglobal has lost any control or means to influence the coins it contained, the server its hosted on and the domain. I hope people understand thats the situation.

Sorry, but I think if nefario really did steal GLBSE then you guys would have voted to remove him as CEO and posted the transcripts of doing so.  If he is still CEO, then he the BitcoinGlobal partners are still allowing him to make the operational decisions, which includes shutting it down and accepting this claims process.

I agree, It seems Theymos was outvoted and thus called being outvoted a scam (so much for democracy and by-laws). Seems he lost the election and to get revenge gave Nefario the tag.

Theymos now claims he has no responsibility for this (in his mind, but might have admitted to legal responsibility in the real world).

Since Nefario is supported by the by-laws and the other stock holders how again did he scam again? Seems so silly and this whole thing was rushed...

Anyway I hope this gets resolved and the scammer tag process becomes clear or is just abandoned. Seems like right now its a tool for abuse (to protect Theymos' interests. I know this personally cuz Maged made threats claiming I would get a scammers tag if I did not do something he wanted me to do (related to GLBSE).. such corruption...

It is time for a radical correction one way or the other.

The Bitcoin Forum is a website meant to host free discussion of Bitcoin and related topics. It is operated as a service to the community, and all profit is reinvested into the forum. It was started in 2009 by Satoshi Nakamoto, the original creator of Bitcoin. It is now managed by Malmi Martti (Sirius), Stefan Thomas (justmoon), and Michael Marquardt (theymos). Donated funds are managed by theymos.

I think people should think twice about donating funds to be managed by someone that refuses to take responsibility.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Hmm. bitcoin.me if you had sufficient management responsibility, and especially if you shared in making the decisions that have caused the separation of funds & assets from investors, then I think you may have a scammer tag.

But, AFAICT, you had nothing to do with day-to-day operations of GLBSE, and had no part in the decisions that closed GLBSE & locked up our money & securities. So, you probably may not have a tag.

Nice try though. Thanks. I do appreciate that there's at least one person who's willing to stand up for their own actions.

One could argue that Nefario has stolen glbse. Bitcoinglobal has lost any control or means to influence the coins it contained, the server its hosted on and the domain. I hope people understand thats the situation.

Sorry, but I think if nefario really did steal GLBSE then you guys would have voted to remove him as CEO and posted the transcripts of doing so.  If he is still CEO, then he the BitcoinGlobal partners are still allowing him to make the operational decisions, which includes shutting it down and accepting this claims process.

I voted to remove him and the transcripts haven't been released yet.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

If, as I understood, Nefario disrespected the company rules, and therefore its owners, when he closed down GLBSE, it doesn't make sense to attribute such closure to GLBSE (= its owners), since, for all the matters, Nefario was no longer acting within his role of CEO. He was "attacking" GLBSE.

So, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to give the other owners a scammer tag. Actually, I still don't think Nefario should have gotten it, since he was likely the victim of a threat, but that's yet another topic.

[JoelKatz]

If, as I understood, Nefario disrespected the company rules, and therefore its owners, when he closed down GLBSE, it doesn't make sense to attribute such closure to GLBSE (= its owners), since, for all the matters, Nefario was no longer acting within his role of CEO. He was "attacking" GLBSE.

Until and unless someone authorize to represent GLBSE actually makes this argument on behalf of GLBSE, I wouldn't credit it.

So, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to give the other owners a scammer tag. Actually, I still don't think Nefario should have gotten it, since he was likely the victim of a threat, but that's yet another topic.

If so, he has to say so.

You can't prospectively refute every argument that might be made. You just have to make a case and then the other side has to choose what defense it's going to take. Otherwise, you wind up with an infinite burden of proof. Even if there's a good explanation, the people who are presently losing money deserve to hear that explanation from the people they trusted.

Scammer tags are provisional. They can be removed if new evidence appears. If someone doesn't pay you money they owe you and posts no explanation, we can give them a scammer tag even though they might have gotten hit by a bus. If we find out two weeks later they got hit by a bus and they make payments as soon as they can, we can remove the scammer tag and apologize. Scammer tags are more like warnings than findings of guilt.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

If, as I understood, Nefario disrespected the company rules, and therefore its owners, when he closed down GLBSE, it doesn't make sense to attribute such closure to GLBSE (= its owners), since, for all the matters, Nefario was no longer acting within his role of CEO. He was "attacking" GLBSE.

Until and unless someone authorize to represent GLBSE actually makes this argument on behalf of GLBSE, I wouldn't credit it.

Didn't theymos made this argument in the OP of his topic asking for the tag to be applied to Nefario? Wasn't such disrespect of GLBSE rules the reason for BadBear to tag him?
IIRC that's what happened.
EDIT, here it is:

Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- The BitcoinGlobal bylaws state that BitcoinGlobal's purpose is to operate GLBSE. By shutting down GLBSE without amending the bylaws, Nefario has violated the bylaws.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.

Scammer tags are more like warnings than findings of guilt.

Okay, whatever. I'd just give the guy a little more time.

[stochastic]

bitcoin.me aka noagendamarket or theymos don't seem to be in control of the funds of GLBSE users - those guys do NOT deserve a scammer tag.

It's nefarios responsibility to return the funds  and the shares to the users of GLBSE. He clearly controls the domain name glbse.com.

Innocent until proven guilty!

Scammer tags are more like warnings than findings of guilt.

If that's the case those "scammer tags" should be renamed.

A person can now open a 'company' and name a sockpuppet as CEO.  Then when user funds get large blame the CEO for running off with the money.  In the bitcoin world, when times get tough no one needs to blame Chinese relic dealers for stealing the funds.  Just claim he is the CEO now.

[stochastic]

A person can now open a 'company' and name a sockpuppet as CEO.  

Nefario is not a sockpuppet, he's real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmPD_YSQ--k

Then when user funds get large blame the CEO for running off with the money.  In the bitcoin world, when times get tough no one needs to blame Chinese relic dealers for stealing the funds.  Just claim he is the CEO now.

As a CEO YOU ARE 100% responsible for your company - not your shareholders, employees or customers. Do you also want to give everyone a scammer tag who invested in pirateat40, Bitcoinica, Matthew's bet,....?

If one of Nefarios shareholders is responsible for all this, Nefario has to sort it out - not the community, because we don't have the details!

pirateat40, Bitcoinica, and Matthew's bet were not general partnerships.  BitcoinGlobal is a partnership and partnerships do not have limited liability.  It is not a difficult concept for people to grasp.  This is why governments have created business structures like limited liability companies and corporations so that these businesses can get lots of partners but the partners don't have to be vigilant about the management of the company.

Go into the real world and start a partnership with someone.  It could be anything: a car wash, a grocery store, or home building.  Then watch someone get hurt in your business because one of your employees forgot to put up a "Caution: Wet Floor Sign".  Tell me then if none of the partners of that business will not be held personally liable for the pain and suffering of that customer.

This is why I always advise people not to form partnerships.  If someone asks if they want me to invest/work in a company but is unwilling to only give me profit sharing instead of ownership, I say no.  This is because if that partner screws up in any way, then I will be liable for their actions because I formed a partnership with them.

If people want to have no government registration of their business, that is fine, but that person cannot cry if they don't get limited liability because that is only available if they registered a limited liability company or corporation to get government protection.  Otherwise, they have unlimited liability and someone may be able to take your house, your car, or your special collection Night of the Living Dead book.

I see no contract between nefario and the rest of the BitcoinGlobal partners that Nefario will be responsible for all debts and obligations of BitcoinGlobal and its subsidiaries.  Thus, without any proof, each BitcoinGlobal member has unlimited liability for GLBSE debts and obligations.

The ignorance on these forums is amazing.  It is like arguing with Creationists.

[LoupGaroux]

^^ That's a basic set of truths right there. Partnerships exist so that all of the partnered parties can enjoy the benefits of ownership of the venture. With this comes joint and several responsibility for all of the liabilities of the partnership as well. If I start a partnership with stochastic and we rent a building to conduct our business out of, I do not have the ability to say "this month I'm not liable for the rent because sto is in charge", we are both liable for the rent because it is the partnership itself that has created the obligation.

Same is true if parties in a partnership obligate themselves in the name of the partnership- if my business with stochastic involves negotiating a contract or deal with somebody else, he is just as tied to my decisions as I am to his. If I make a bad choice and promise to pay $500 for a load of supplies, our supplier will be right to demand payment from both of us until that $500 obligation is paid in full.

There are forms where investors/partners/beneficial parties can participate in a venture and not be exposed to full liability. GLBSE was not formed as one of those, and to best of the limited knowledge, has at no time reorganized to become such. There is no acceptable argument that theymos et al are as fully responsible for ALL obligations and liabilities of GLBSE and BitcoinGlobal as nefario and his "supporters" are. And for the record those liabilities include inept management which has hurt investor value, and losses through gross mismanagement of the venture. Jut because they want to point a finger and tell us the other guy messed up the situation, they are all responsible to the investors they are continuing to damage with this situation, and they will lose when this matter comes before judgement.

[JoelKatz]

As a CEO YOU ARE 100% responsible for your company - not your shareholders, employees or customers.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a moral argument or a legal argument. As a moral argument, it clearly fails. If shareholders, employees or customers did bad things that contributed to the failure, they are responsible for those actions. As a legal argument, it also fails. If the company is a legal person with limited liability, the company itself is responsible. If the company is not a legal person with limited liability, then all of its principals are fully responsible for the actions of their agents when their agents are acting within the scope of their agency.

Do you also want to give everyone a scammer tag who invested in pirateat40, Bitcoinica, Matthew's bet,....?

The scammer tag is based on moral responsibility. So it would hinge on what actions they took that harmed others. Those who invested in Matthew's bet didn't hurt others and couldn't have done anything to prevent it, so no. As far as those who invested in Bitcoinica and pirateat40, it would depend on their culpability. There aren't simple and obvious answers everyone will agree on. Moral culpability is a slippery question.

If one of Nefarios shareholders is responsible for all this, Nefario has to sort it out - not the community, because we don't have the details!

The community can act without details if it has no choice. Scammer tags are always provisional and if people don't cooperate, we have no choice but to do the best we can. If someone makes a scam accusation against someone other than Nefario in connection with the GLBSE shutdown, that case should be evaluated based on the strength of the evidence it can present. There is no "GLSE's all Nefario's fault" get out of jail free card for everyone else. They are responsible, legally and morally, for their own actions.

[CharlesPonzi]

As a CEO YOU ARE 100% responsible for your company - not your shareholders, employees or customers.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a moral argument or a legal argument. As a moral argument, it clearly fails. If shareholders, employees or customers did bad things that contributed to the failure, they are responsible for those actions. As a legal argument, it also fails. If the company is a legal person with limited liability, the company itself is responsible. If the company is not a legal person with limited liability, then all of its principals are fully responsible for the actions of their agents when their agents are acting within the scope of their agency.

Do you also want to give everyone a scammer tag who invested in pirateat40, Bitcoinica, Matthew's bet,....?

The scammer tag is based on moral responsibility. So it would hinge on what actions they took that harmed others. Those who invested in Matthew's bet didn't hurt others and couldn't have done anything to prevent it, so no. As far as those who invested in Bitcoinica and pirateat40, it would depend on their culpability. There aren't simple and obvious answers everyone will agree on. Moral culpability is a slippery question.

If one of Nefarios shareholders is responsible for all this, Nefario has to sort it out - not the community, because we don't have the details!

The community can act without details if it has no choice. Scammer tags are always provisional and if people don't cooperate, we have no choice but to do the best we can. If someone makes a scam accusation against someone other than Nefario in connection with the GLBSE shutdown, that case should be evaluated based on the strength of the evidence it can present. There is no "GLSE's all Nefario's fault" get out of jail free card for everyone else. They are responsible, legally and morally, for their own actions.

How do the other shareholders exit the situation ? If nefario ends up failing to return the coins shouldnt the people who failed to vote to remove him hold a higher culpability ?

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

[JoelKatz]

How do the other shareholders exit the situation?

Legally, they probably can't. Morally, publicly stating their desire to do so and making all future actions as shareholders consistent with that promise is sufficient in my view.

If nefario ends up failing to return the coins shouldnt the people who failed to vote to remove him hold a higher culpability ?

Morally, probably so. Legally, there is no higher culpability level than joint and several liability for all harms. (Other than criminal culpability, and I don't think it's likely that could hinge on how you voted.)

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

Legally, nothing. You can't sell an obligation even if you have a willing buyer. If you could, I'd trade all my credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer.

Morally, again, I think publicly stating a desire to sever all ties and making all future actions consistent with an attempt to undo the harm to the extent one is able to do so is sufficient in my view. All you can ask is that people do all they reasonably can.

[repentance]

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

They had the option of filing an emergency legal action to have all user funds placed in trust until an orderly repayment process is in place.  It's pretty obvious that the partnership itself is now irreparable, and in fact Nefario appears to have stated an intention to dissolve it.  Under those circumstances, the partners are entitled to a distribution of whatever funds are left over once everything has been paid.

Partnerships dissolve all the time.  The onus is on those wanting to dissolve the partnership as soon as possible to seek legal advice regarding the best way to go about it in this situation.

[Twilight Sparkle]

in the wild west people stole horses.  one time a horse was stolen from the gang who stole them in turn from a train,

when the gang went to deliver the horses they had no horses to sell to the townspeople

to whom did the townspeople turn?

[deeplink]

How do the other shareholders exit the situation?

Legally, they probably can't. Morally, publicly stating their desire to do so and making all future actions as shareholders consistent with that promise is sufficient in my view.

Morally, again, I think publicly stating a desire to sever all ties and making all future actions consistent with an attempt to undo the harm to the extent one is able to do so is sufficient in my view. All you can ask is that people do all they reasonably can.

This is what I tried to say in my post in this thread earlier.

We need to hear from Theymos and see by his actions that he accepts his responsibility.

If not, I do not want to bear a Donator tag on this forum any longer, like I also said before, and ask Theymos to remove it.

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

Legally, nothing. You can't sell an obligation even if you have a willing buyer. If you could, I'd trade all my credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer.

Joel, you of all people have credit card debt? I just didn't take you for that kind of person ;-)

[stochastic]

How do the other shareholders exit the situation?

Legally, they probably can't. Morally, publicly stating their desire to do so and making all future actions as shareholders consistent with that promise is sufficient in my view.

Morally, again, I think publicly stating a desire to sever all ties and making all future actions consistent with an attempt to undo the harm to the extent one is able to do so is sufficient in my view. All you can ask is that people do all they reasonably can.

This is what I tried to say in my post in this thread earlier.

We need to hear from Theymos and see by his actions that he accepts his responsibility.

If not, I do not want to bear a Donator tag on this forum any longer, like I also said before, and ask Theymos to remove it.

What actions can the dissenting shareholders take to sever all ties since it is basically impossible now to offload any shares of glbse ?

Legally, nothing. You can't sell an obligation even if you have a willing buyer. If you could, I'd trade all my credit card debt to some homeless guy for a beer.

Joel, you of all people have credit card debt? I just didn't take you for that kind of person ;-)

I am surprised more people don't ask for his resignation.  Even if Nefario pays out 100% of the claims it is still distressing that the site administrator does not know these basic concepts about business partnerships and responsibility.  It perpetrates others in this community to also not take responsibility for their actions or investments.  I would like to see a statement by theymos and other BitcoinGlobal partners accepting responsibility for GLBSE claims in the event that Nefario does not complete the claims process in a timely manner.  A statement after Nefario completes the claim process will be too late.

[LoupGaroux]

Apparently there is a set of owners who support nefario enough to block his removal, indicating he has the support of at least 51% of the partnership shares. It is more than distressing, it is downright disturbing that those who sit in positions of authority in this community, and who pass judgement on the business activities of others (viz who is a scammer, who is to be banned for dishonest business practices etc.) do not exhibit the tiniest bit of understanding of a very significant responsibility they attached themselves to in their partnership.

Given the prevailing "I started a club, now let's go be millionaires" mentality of this community, frankly I am not surprised that they don't know the first thing about how to run a business, other than to use what authority they have to promote themselves and punish their enemies, but it is chilling that there is so much authority vested in persons who have not the slightest clue what they are doing. Or, perhaps, are so involved with defending their ranking positions in the scams offered up as businesses, they don't dare let on for a moment that they know what they are doing.