Should Giga be tagged as a scammer?

[Daily Anarchist]

Better than going to the state.

Maybe in theory but not in practice.

Name one person who has gotten bitcoins back from going to the state ?

Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic.

The point is neither will work. And the state prevents you from taking the only option that does.

The state exists to protect criminals and without it they would face real consequences. Its not there for your protection.

The state exists to guarantee your rights as a citizen until such time as they are taken from you by a court of law.

You've got some learnin' to do.

[1714818754]

1714818754

[1714818754]

1714818754

[1714818754]

1714818754

[1714818754]

1714818754

[Namworld]

A few days before Nefario decided to move and start releasing information, I was talking with Gigavps on IRC and he mentioned getting a lawyer and making attempts to retrieve the data. Had this data not be recovered at all, proof of ownership would be impossible for anyone. I am certain Gigavps's effort helped the situation progress.

Me and a few reputable members/asset issuers were not on some assets list although we should and for large amounts of shares. Which tells us we should be precautious about the received data. The identification and affidavit purpose is really in case if there are false claims that get paid, you know who to go after to get back the stolen funds, should further data be uncovered that others were actually owed the funds. No, there was no indication that any identification document would be collected when the contracts were bought. But the fact "official data" would get lost/dubious was not planned and Gigavps made no official promise as to how people could collect the produced Bitcoins other than he'd give a predetermined amount per contract. He is, technically, still willing to fulfill all his contractual promises which is to pay 5 mhash/s of Bitcoins generation per contract.

As far as I'm concerned, the willingness to execute the contract clauses is all that matter. If the "how" he attempts to execute it does not satisfy others, I do not hold him responsible for that as neither party agreed on how the Bitcoins would be collectable should GLBSE close down. If he insists on protecting himself legally, I see no reason to try and force him to do otherwise.

[SAC]

Better than going to the state.

Maybe in theory but not in practice.

Name one person who has gotten bitcoins back from going to the state ?

Name one person who has gotten their bitcoins back from a scammer otherwise. Anyway sorry for taking this off topic.

The point is neither will work. And the state prevents you from taking the only option that does.

The state exists to protect criminals and without it they would face real consequences. Its not there for your protection.

The state exists to guarantee your rights as a citizen until such time as they are taken from you by a court of law.

You've got some learnin' to do.

No learning to do that is the theory they teach, now what actually gets put into practice is another matter...

[Martin666]

@BadBear: I completely agree with your argumentation.

In my opininion the scammer tag identifies as well people that couldn't keep their agreements.

@Giga I think you are in a very nasty situation (of course it depends on the point of view) it leaves a lot of room for speculation...
I just don't like, that you change NOW the terms of operation, I doubt, if you would have asked all this information before, that anybody would have had invested into your bond ?!

Of course everybody can understand that you might feeel pushed by law, but in my opinion you had to think about this before you issued your bond. I am sure there is many other miners that didn't issue any shares/bonds etc. via GLBSE because exactly of this reason !

Probably there will be no "clean solution" that's gonna satisfy everybody...

[Namworld]

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

[SAC]

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts.

[Namworld]

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts.

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

[Deprived]

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts.

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

Consider what happens in those two cases if he is unable to mine for a week.  In the new version clearly the "outcome of this processing" is zero - and ANY portion of zero is still zero.  In the original contract the payment would be equivalent to X MH/s worth of mining.  That's obviously just the most extreme example - but same principle applies to any other rise or fall in his actual mining results.

It's an entirely different thing.  It's not just some rewording  - it's an attempt to cover his arse by pretending he offered data processing rather than a bond paying a calculated amount per week irrespective of what the outcome was of his actual operation.  And you're not dumb enough not to have already realised that.

[usagi]

I've decided that gigavps will not get a scammer tag for this. Nefario has proven himself to be untrustworthy, so it would be unreasonable for gigavps to pay out large sums of money based entirely on Nefario's list. Requiring affidavits and proofs of identity are reasonable precautions. It's impossible to strictly follow the contract in a safe way.

I usually follow the mod's decision without question but in this case, from what Gigavps has said, he issued a contract on GLBSE in full knowledge he would never keep it -- as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning.

This makes him a scammer, because he lied to his investors from the very beginning (ala Kraken fund) about what he was doing.

However I'm not the owner of these forums so this is of course just my opinion.

don't project false intent to scam back to everything he did.

To be clear this is not what I am doing. He actually did have a very real intent to scam, as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning, his contract on GLBSE was fraudulent.

[jamesg]

I usually follow the mod's decision without question but in this case, from what Gigavps has said, he issued a contract on GLBSE in full knowledge he would never keep it -- as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning.

Can you please quote me where I have ever said this.

[Bitcoin Oz]

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts.

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

Consider what happens in those two cases if he is unable to mine for a week.  In the new version clearly the "outcome of this processing" is zero - and ANY portion of zero is still zero.  In the original contract the payment would be equivalent to X MH/s worth of mining.  That's obviously just the most extreme example - but same principle applies to any other rise or fall in his actual mining results.

It's an entirely different thing.  It's not just some rewording  - it's an attempt to cover his arse by pretending he offered data processing rather than a bond paying a calculated amount per week irrespective of what the outcome was of his actual operation.  And you're not dumb enough not to have already realised that.

Thats because one is a financial instrument and one is an equipment lease.

If he offers the first and admits to it the SEC can have his balls in a sling.

[SAC]

The Gigamining contract does not specify how the Bitcoins can be collected. Technically the terms of the offer have not changed with this new claim procedure implemented instead of GLBSE's.

Technically it has changed it was bond paying fixed rate return it is now claimed to be for the purposes of this claims process an agreement to provide for operation of the machines taking the payments from that. Two totally different and opposing concepts.

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

Consider what happens in those two cases if he is unable to mine for a week.  In the new version clearly the "outcome of this processing" is zero - and ANY portion of zero is still zero.  In the original contract the payment would be equivalent to X MH/s worth of mining.  That's obviously just the most extreme example - but same principle applies to any other rise or fall in his actual mining results.

It's an entirely different thing.  It's not just some rewording  - it's an attempt to cover his arse by pretending he offered data processing rather than a bond paying a calculated amount per week irrespective of what the outcome was of his actual operation.  And you're not dumb enough not to have already realised that.

Thats because one is a financial instrument and one is an equipment lease.

If he offers the first and admits to it the SEC can have his balls in a sling.

They are already there he is all over this forum, in my very few minutes of searching, stating he is selling bonds in his own words. No getting by that and as I have already wrote his lawyer to remind him of his obligations under the law to not knowingly misrepresent material facts of a legal proceeding. The claims page that does just that may be about to change if not I will contact the proper legal authorities to report both of them.

[usagi]

I usually follow the mod's decision without question but in this case, from what Gigavps has said, he issued a contract on GLBSE in full knowledge he would never keep it -- as he had retained legal counsel from the beginning.

Can you please quote me where I have ever said this.

1. Your OP (which you apparently deleted -- nice job asking me to quote you, here it is):

I think that this is the ~original version of the OP.

Hello fellow bitcoiners,

Off the back of the glbse 2.0 release and with a soon to be influx of mining equipment, I am proud to release the first and ONLY 5Mh/s perpetual mining bond.

Introduction:
Mining assets are becoming extremely common on the GLBSE. We have companies that offer ownership of hardware, bonds that correlate to actual hash rate. But overall nothing too exciting, too large, or too profitable.

Until now.
Introducing Gigamining! http://gigamining.com/

The ONLY 5Mh/s perpetual mining bond.

The first bond to offer more than 2 Mh/s per bond, and run by a name you know has the hashes to back it up.

Summary:
There will be a total of 10,000 bonds issued, with each bond worth a massive 5 Mh/s.

During the initial offering of 1000 bonds the 500 bonds remaining will be sold on 4/10/2012, they will be sold for a cheap 1 BTC. All maintenance free.

Bulk pre-sales of 100 or more units can be made at the 1 BTC price BEFORE the IPO on 4/10. PM me to get started.

Each bond will pay 100% of PPS earnings every 7 days.

The bond will never expire.

I reserve the option to repurchase bonds at 105% of the highest traded price over the last 15 days.

About Me
Most of you know who I am, most of you know I have the ability to deliver this kind of power. I'm not going anywhere any time soon, so trust that your coin is safe, and doing its best work for you, here. If you have any questions, ask them in the thread.

Where is 50Gh going to come from?
- I currently run 33Gh in GPUs (undervolted and underclocked to 26.5Gh for the summer)
- I also run 11 Butterfly Labs singles @ 9.1Gh
- Soon 4 mini rig boxes will arrive with a total of 100Gh of mining capacity.

You can see the farm mining at anytime at http://gigamining.com/mgpumon/

Best,
gigavps

In your contract on GLBSE, you did not make reference to the following:

a)

Virtual Processing Solutions, LLC (hereinafter VPS) has entered into a number of assignable agreements (sometimes known as “gigamining”), whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of “bitcoins” to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

You led everyone to believe it was run by you and at no time until this point did you mention VPS. Now suddenly it isn't run by YOU, it's run by VPS. This is important. You are trying to legally separate yourself from this. You cannot on one hand use your personal guarantee and on the other separate yourself legally. Isn't this is what Patrickharnett, Hashking, and others did? They made personal guarantees and they did not follow through.

b)

It is the intention of VPS to comply with its obligations pursuant to these agreements to the extent consistent with U.S., international, and local law.  While VPS is not aware of any current regulatory action involving www.glbse.com or itself, it is clear that trade in “bitcoins” is attracting increased regulatory and taxation scrutiny.  Accordingly, VPS has retained the Law Offices of Carlos M. Fleites, to resolve such outstanding agreements in a lawful manner.

If you believe you are the beneficial assignee of such an agreement, you are requested to contact the Law Offices of Carlos M. Fleites in writing at the below listed e-mail or physical address to provide the following information:

You can't do this because you had a contract. If you do it, it means you are breaking your contract. The problem is that you led people to believe something, and without any legal pressure (quote:  "VPS is not aware of any current regulatory action involving www.glbse.com or itself,") you have decided to make things difficult for investors.

And, now is probably a good time to explain something as far and wide as one can:

• The bitcoin payment address associated with your glbse.com claim
• Name of the person or entity claiming beneficial assignment of the agreement,
• The physical address of the person or entity (no Post Office boxes or mail suites),
• The tax identification number of the person or entity claiming beneficial assignment,
• For real persons: a photocopy or scanned PDF of government issued photo identification, or, for corporations the document number and issuing jurisdiction of the incorporating charter and proof of current good standing.
• An affidavit attesting to the beneficial assignment of the agreement, which has been notarized (US residents/corporations) or local equivalent bearing the apostille of the competent jurisdiction.  Copies of an acceptable affidavit can be obtained upon request from the law offices.

All information provided will be held in confidence and used only for the purposes of lawfully fulfilling the obligations of the agreements and not shared with outside parties except as required by law.  If you have any questions or concerns, please address these to the law offices at the following e-mail or mailing address.

There is probably only one reason why they require your information. It is not to identify you for the purposes of payment. They will already have that information from the GLBSE. They do not require an external identification of that kind.

The only reason I can think why they are asking for your contact information "..for the purposes of lawfully fufilling the obligations" is because they would be planning to turn your information over to the Feds should doing so ever become a valuable plea-barganing chip. Do not kid yourselves. IMO GigaVPS is trying to fuck you up the ass for his own personal benefit. Just like Patrick Harnett with the Kraken fund.

In fact this information will almost certainly be turned over in any case merely to show intent to cooperate.

[Namworld]

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.

Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.

If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.

[Deprived]

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.

Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.

If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.

A portion of the outcome can never be larger than the outcome.  And the word outcome has a specific meaning -use of it precludes something like "fixed" as that isn't dependent on the outcome.

But yeah - the claims page isn't the agreement.  However, as it's inviting claims it's pretty important that it accurately reflects the contract otherwise someone who held bonds could look at it and think "Nah - that's not referring to what I have, as I bought fixed-rate bonds and that's talking about something else where I get a part of what is actually mined.".  Maybe when they amend it, they should put a copy of the contract up on a second page (and link to it) so it's clear what they're asking people to claim on?

[SAC]

whereby, among its other provisions, in exchange for financial consideration, VPS agreed to conduct electronic data processing services and provide some portion of the outcome of this processing in the form of .bitcoins. to the current beneficial assignees of these agreements.

That means the exact same thing as providing X mhash/s worth of bitcoins, simply reworded.

The financial consideration is the bitcoin payment made for the bonds (agreements).

The electronic data processing is the hashing for the block.

The portion of the outcome is what 5 mhash/s generate.

The claim process does not state the exact amount of data processing provided by the agreements to be given but the claim process is not a contract either. Nothing says the agreements are not still for the provision of 5 mhash/s of data processing. They just sum up the purpose of the agreements (known as gigamining bonds).

It doesn't mean the same thing.

The original agreement was for payment equivalent to X MH/s of mining - that's irrespective of whether than mining occurs or what the result of the mining is.

The new one attempts to make the payment dependent on the results of the actual processing (" some portion of the outcome of this processing").

It says they will do data processing and give a portion of the outcome. This does not mean it will be proportional in anyway. It could be proportional (%), fixed (X BTC each week), or an equivalent (5 mhash/s). It does not specify at all what is promised, just that it will be a portion of the activity from mining. If the portion is proportional, it would require actual mining to be executed. If not proportional, it would have to be provided regardless of mining, where he would have to replace machines to be able to provide the fixed portion. It remains a portion of the activity of mining.

Regardless, what's worded on the claims page is not a contract. It's just a vague definition of what you claim.

If upon claim of the "agreements" they pretend the contract (Equivalent of 5 mhash/s generation, fixed) is in any way different than before, you could always contest that.

This has now become a legal proceeding what is on that page matters. In order for any legally binding outcome to happen the claims page must truthfully describe the circumstances otherwise it is void. Nor should you even be asked to participate in an act which is a fraud upon the legal proceeding being sought. I do not what kind of lawyer he has got but I for one cannot see his coming out of a law office having been advised to put that page up as it is from a lawyer who knew all the facts. Has to have been him saying well I made this agreement with these guys on the internet now things are screwed where do we go now, no way that page comes up after saying I issued these bonds a lawyer cannot do that and lie about a legal proceeding and its purpose he's disbarred for certain most likely jailed as well.

[fcmatt]

do the bond holders have what should have been paid to them on a certain date? NO?
then give him the scammer tag now and let him prove via actions he should not have it.
pay the divs and buy back your crap bonds at issue price since there is no exchange to trade
them at and thus no fair way to value them. thus bond issue price times 1.05.

[MPOE-PR]

There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.

Just for the record, a decentralized exchange is nonsense.

[usagi]

There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.

Just for the record, a decentralized exchange is nonsense.

No, it's not, but it's not a trivial thing to implement. I could describe it for you if you hire me as a consultant.

BTW I know for a fact at least two parties are working on this, and I have consulted with both of them already. I've been told there are others as well.

[Deprived]

There's already been some positive that's come of this, like people working towards a decentralized exchange and such.

Just for the record, a decentralized exchange is nonsense.

Nah it's not.

Conceptually it isn't all that difficult in fact.  There are, however (for the model I have in mind - with a blockchain managing share ownership alongside the existing BTC chain) some pretty serious practical issues with it:

1. With no central authority ANYONE can issue an asset or more shares/units of an existing one (if they own it) at any time.  So it would get flooded with junk assets pretty quickly.  Don't think that's quite as bad as it at first seems.
2. There would be pretty extreme latency on trade completion.
3.  There's be no fast flipping of shares - they'd be locked for a not insignifcant amount of time (talking an hour or two, not days) post transaction.
4.  Every client would have to do a fair amount of data processing.
5.  All transactions and blocks of shares owned would be linked to a BTC address - if the public is processing transactions rather than a central authority then the public knows that information rather a central authority.

I imagine my concept is very similar to that of many other people's.  The key hurdles to ovecome are two:

1.  Removing the need for any central body holding/escrowing funds.
2.  Matching Bids/Asks.

The first is the biggest one (with that addressed the concept works for matching trades - with deal-makingh aving to be done elsewhere).  Easiest way (that I'd have thought of) to do that is to make transactions transferring share ownership conditional upon the existence of a transaction in the BTC block-chain.

So if I want to sell you X shares of company A for Y BTC then:

1.  I make a transaction in the share blockchain transferring X shares of company A to you.
2.  That transaction is made conditional upon the existence of a tagged transfer (various ways to do this - obvious ones being last few digits of amount, an/or the sending BTC address) in the BTC chain of Y BTC to a specified BTC address.
3.  That transaction is processed into the shares block-chain - but is treated as conditional by all clients until the condition is met (and flagged as deleted if the condition isn't met within whatever time-scale is defined).
4.  When you're satisfied the conditional transaction is irreversible (i.e. confirmed sufficient as not to worry about it being 51%ed) you send the BTC.
5.  When the BTC payment is confirmed, the transaction in the share block-chain becomes confirmed and only then does the client software of all users treat the shares as belonging to you and able to be transferred.

That's just the basic idea - but it's ONE way of removing the need for funds to ever be sent to a third-party.  If you master that (obviously all of the above would need to be automated in the client), then implementing Bids/Asks is relatively straightforward.

Can't say I've spent much time on it - but have given it a bit of thought.  It would even be possible to develop it with a built in fee for the developer/maintainer (for asset issuing to reduce spam junk assets and/or for actual transaction fees).  Haven't addressed incentive for mining the block-chain, but there's a few ways to provide that.