Why I should get a scammer tag.

[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.