Bitcoin Forum
July 14, 2024, 05:07:41 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading  (Read 129232 times)
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1040


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 02:06:34 PM
 #901

well  the usgov don't have jurisdiction to do whatever they like wherever they like in the world

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, or illegal drugs for that matter, you cant sell securities in the US market that dont comply with SEC regulation. That the purchase happens over the internet doesnt change a thing.  If you dont like SEC requirements (which frankly are for the most part quite sane disclosure requirements that apply to almost any civilized country), sell your securities elsewhere, which is what bitfunder is doing by blocking US investors.

BTW, while SEC regulations might not be perfectly suited for the kind of securities we see on bitcoin exchanges, personally I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities, giving us at the very least basic disclosure of the people, company and business plans behind  them. It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams, make it much more easy to invest wisely, while costing next to nothing.

Now legally operating an exchange under current laws would be another matter, and probably out of reach of bitfunder & Co, but even there I will not shed a tear to see them go and get replaced with much more trustworthy companies that do have the resources to operate legally, like Second Market. Its not like we were hurt to see the early bitcoin currency exchanges get replaced or regulated, I would love to see a similar move to more professionalism for security exchanges so we dont depend on amateurs (/scammers) running toy exchanges like GLBSE, Bitcoinica, Mpex, picostocks, and yeah, bitfunder. As it is, there is no snow balls chance in hell we could ever attract serious investment money and we are left gambling with our own playmoney on 50% scam securities on exchanges that disappear every 6 months, usually along with their anonymous operator.
thy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 685
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 02:40:38 PM
 #902

...
What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?
...
Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 04:00:28 PM
 #903

...
What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?
...
Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

See here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308026.msg3307956#msg3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were."
thy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 685
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 04:39:09 PM
 #904

...
What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?
...
Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

See here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308026.msg3307956#msg3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were.
"
Not at all, i have not bet on it and i weren't fooled and whether the SEC or something else is behind this is still to be seen. Whatever the cause for this is in any case, won't matter that much for us non US citizens. Most of us should already be or be able to come out as a winner on this situation, i feel sad for the US based people thou that will end up loosing a lot on this, there the one that really got screwed...

 

gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 04:43:21 PM
 #905

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities … It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
LiteBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1133
Merit: 1050


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 04:49:35 PM
 #906

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities … It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.


Don't underestimate THE MAN. This is old news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/asia/20beijing.html?_r=0
gotpetum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 04:56:43 PM
 #907

Don't underestimate THE MAN. This is old news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/asia/20beijing.html?_r=0

Lol :-) Damnit.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." ― David M. Friedman
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
 #908

...
See here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308026.msg3307956#msg3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were.
"
Not at all, i have not bet on it and i weren't fooled and whether the SEC or something else is behind this is still to be seen. Whatever the cause for this is in any case, won't matter that much for us non US citizens. Most of us should already be or be able to come out as a winner on this situation, i feel sad for the US based people thou that will end up loosing a lot on this, there the one that really got screwed...

Please send us Americans money (USD, if it's all the same 2U), cookies (i like chocolate chip/almond, but not if they're dry and crumbly), pictures of cute kittens (my compats go crazy for kittens!), or just words of commiseration (along the lines of "It's OK, Tiger, there's always next time").  One or all of the above should dispel your sadness, spread the wealth, and end this mess on a happy note Smiley
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 05:04:38 PM
 #909

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.
knybe
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


decentralize EVERYTHING...


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 05:10:09 PM
 #910

info on Colored Coins and a long explanation/discussion about them on reddit:


Trades can be made in clients, but there needs to be a master list somewhere that says "this coin represents a share in this company".  

That can either be on the company's site or on an exchange site (or both).

This thread on reddit has a decent discussion of how it would work

Colored coins (decentralized exchange): we need developers to complete client implementation faster


moribana
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 167
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 07:14:14 PM
 #911

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.


I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1040


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 07:30:01 PM
 #912

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

A chinese restaurant operating in china, no one sane would call that the US market. Its the chinese market and chinese laws will apply.

But a chinese company doing online sales of hamburgers, drugs, bitcoins or securities to US residents in the US, yes that is the US market and it doesnt matter one yota if its a chinese company doing it,  or if its from any other country.

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Allowing illegal exchanges requiring no disclosures, no financial reserves, no safety guarantees, no nothing to compete with legal and compliant one's isnt exactly my idea of fair competition or even of a free market.
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 07:33:29 PM
 #913

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.


I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

What will that do?  The owners of BTCT & Bitfunder are both American.  Bitfunder domain resolves to eNom's whois blocker -- a US addy.
Everything's strictly in-house  Smiley
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 07:39:55 PM
 #914

so... what did I learn from GLBSE desaster? Shit, apparently I'm immune to learning.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
moribana
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 167
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
 #915

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.


I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

What will that do?  The owners of BTCT & Bitfunder are both American.  Bitfunder domain resolves to eNom's whois blocker -- a US addy.
Everything's strictly in-house  Smiley


Then we are doomed. The us authorities cannot stop this shit even at home!  Wink Why didn't they close these exchanges a long time ago? I actually though that Bitfunder is not operated from the US. And if it is then I do not see how blocking us customers would mean compliance. Does this mean that the us can export this evil and offer it to citizens of other countries?  Wink
crumbs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:15:20 PM
 #916

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.


I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

What will that do?  The owners of BTCT & Bitfunder are both American.  Bitfunder domain resolves to eNom's whois blocker -- a US addy.
Everything's strictly in-house  Smiley


Then we are doomed. The us authorities cannot stop this shit even at home!  Wink Why didn't they close these exchanges a long time ago? I actually though that Bitfunder is not operated from the US. And if it is then I do not see how blocking us customers would mean compliance. Does this mean that the us can export this evil and offer it to citizens of other countries?  Wink

Fear not, citizen.  The gears of Justice grind slowly, but they grind...
You must realize that size does matter, and the government despots had bigger fish to fry.
But (to keep my cesspool of stale metaphors churning), every dog has his day, and even Pedro pushing bunk bundles eventually gets a ride in the Party Van. 
Now who's that pulling up the drive? Shocked
arousedrhino
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 347
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 12:31:40 AM
 #917

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

A chinese restaurant operating in china, no one sane would call that the US market. Its the chinese market and chinese laws will apply.

But a chinese company doing online sales of hamburgers, drugs, bitcoins or securities to US residents in the US, yes that is the US market and it doesnt matter one yota if its a chinese company doing it,  or if its from any other country.

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Allowing illegal exchanges requiring no disclosures, no financial reserves, no safety guarantees, no nothing to compete with legal and compliant one's isnt exactly my idea of fair competition or even of a free market.

What do you consider a free market then? A market with regulations?
pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031



View Profile
October 11, 2013, 12:40:47 AM
 #918

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

A chinese restaurant operating in china, no one sane would call that the US market. Its the chinese market and chinese laws will apply.

But a chinese company doing online sales of hamburgers, drugs, bitcoins or securities to US residents in the US, yes that is the US market and it doesnt matter one yota if its a chinese company doing it,  or if its from any other country.

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Allowing illegal exchanges requiring no disclosures, no financial reserves, no safety guarantees, no nothing to compete with legal and compliant one's isnt exactly my idea of fair competition or even of a free market.

What do you consider a free market then? A market with regulations?

There must be some rules in place so it can be fair for everyone.

BitThink
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 11, 2013, 01:53:29 AM
 #919

(copy from the security post)
A proposal to help US investors of this stock:

As we know, this stock, unlike most others, has sound foundation and solid dividend. If not for the BF issue, the share price will be well above 0.0003. US investors, however, have to sell this stock at current market price, which is pretty unfair if they believe the price will rise after everything calms down. They could at least lose much less if they could stay in the market for two to three months.

So how about instead of selling shares at current market price, US investors (or other investors don't want to submit documents) sell a contract to verified investors. By selling the contract, he could benefit a higher return if the share price recovers in certain period.

The contract includes the following elements (amount, current price, target price, expire date, commission). Then the buyer send BTC (amount * target price - commission) to an escrow service, and the seller transfer the shares to the buyer. Once buyer receives the shares, she/he releases (amount * current price) in the escrow to the seller. If the market price exceeds (strictly larger than) the target price before the expire date, the rest in escrow will be released to the seller. Otherwise, the rest in the escrow will be returned back to the buyer.

This proposal has various advantage. First, it's like an option escrowed out of the stock market, so once the contract is sold, the seller can safely leave the BF. Second, the seller does not need to trust the buyer. Third, this is a one-time trading so it is much easier than a private proxy service, which is too complex for an escrow service. Fourth, since this is a one-to-one contract, so there should be much less legal issues compared with a proxy service.

Any thoughts? If you are US investors (or other investors don't want to stay in BF), are you interested in this contract?
knybe
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


decentralize EVERYTHING...


View Profile
October 11, 2013, 06:15:28 PM
 #920

(copy from the security post)
A proposal to help US investors of this stock:

As we know, this stock, unlike most others, has sound foundation and solid dividend. If not for the BF issue, the share price will be well above 0.0003. US investors, however, have to sell this stock at current market price, which is pretty unfair if they believe the price will rise after everything calms down. They could at least lose much less if they could stay in the market for two to three months.

So how about instead of selling shares at current market price, US investors (or other investors don't want to submit documents) sell a contract to verified investors. By selling the contract, he could benefit a higher return if the share price recovers in certain period.

The contract includes the following elements (amount, current price, target price, expire date, commission). Then the buyer send BTC (amount * target price - commission) to an escrow service, and the seller transfer the shares to the buyer. Once buyer receives the shares, she/he releases (amount * current price) in the escrow to the seller. If the market price exceeds (strictly larger than) the target price before the expire date, the rest in escrow will be released to the seller. Otherwise, the rest in the escrow will be returned back to the buyer.

This proposal has various advantage. First, it's like an option escrowed out of the stock market, so once the contract is sold, the seller can safely leave the BF. Second, the seller does not need to trust the buyer. Third, this is a one-time trading so it is much easier than a private proxy service, which is too complex for an escrow service. Fourth, since this is a one-to-one contract, so there should be much less legal issues compared with a proxy service.

Any thoughts? If you are US investors (or other investors don't want to stay in BF), are you interested in this contract?

which stock does the above refer to?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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