Release of GLBSE's Documents

[Deafboy]

You heard of wikileaks, right?

[1714056618]

1714056618

[1714056618]

1714056618

[1714056618]

1714056618

[jgarzik]

Just UP the files somewhere. There's no need for drama or suspense.

Otherwise, you made up those files.

Notably, when contacted privately, OP was not interested in posting hashes for the data, leaving no way for the data to be verified by other entities as fiction, or non-fiction (without a line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence comparison).

Smells like fiction + drama.

[augustocroppo]

You heard of wikileaks, right?

Yes, I know what is Wikileaks.

[augustocroppo]

Just UP the files somewhere. There's no need for drama or suspense.

Otherwise, you made up those files.

Notably, when contacted privately, OP was not interested in posting hashes for the data, leaving no way for the data to be verified by other entities as fiction, or non-fiction (without a line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence comparison).

Smells like fiction + drama.

How do you differ fictional data from factual data only with 'hashes'?

[deeplink]

Suppose someone wanted to release that data.

Why would they send it to you instead of just posting it online anonymously?

Secondly, why don't you post it online anonymously? Nobody would be able to prove it was you, or the original sender or anyone else.

[augustocroppo]

Suppose someone wanted to release that data.

Why would they send it to you instead of just posting it online anonymously?

Perhaps because I am able to verify the evidence with an unbiased approach.

Secondly, why don't you post it online anonymously? Nobody would be able to prove it was you, or the original sender or anyone else.

Because I am trying to establish why the documents were sent to me.

[deeplink]

Suppose someone wanted to release that data.

Why would they send it to you instead of just posting it online anonymously?

Perhaps because I am able to verify the evidence with an unbiased approach.

You and everyone else would also be able to verify any alleged evidence after the documents had been made public anonymously. Your answer is not a reason why anyone would send it to you instead of posting anonymously online.

Suppose someone wanted to release that data.

Why would they send it to you instead of just posting it online anonymously?

Perhaps because I am able to verify the evidence with an unbiased approach.

Secondly, why don't you post it online anonymously? Nobody would be able to prove it was you, or the original sender or anyone else.

Because I am trying to establish why the documents were sent to me.

Okay then we are both on the same page for once.

Still, no reason to keep the documents to yourself. If you post them online anonymously nobody can prove you released them. And it doesn't prohibit you from establishing why the documents were sent to you. The community is more likely to find any answers than you alone.

[memvola]

How do you differ fictional data from factual data only with 'hashes'?

You need someone with an authentic copy to cooperate. Okay, they probably would have released them in the first place if they would cooperate in such a circumstance, but I don't see any reason not to publish the hashes either. If they are indeed factual, it's unlikely that people will come out and claim that they aren't based on the hashes, because that would need a conspiracy, which would be hard to establish at this point. So, by not releasing the hashes, you are making a case against yourself.

[deeplink]

Perhaps because I am able to verify the evidence with an unbiased approach.

How are you unbiased? You are one of the few people who have been defending usagi's scamming practices, you have stated that you highly respect theymos and you are VIP donator on this forum. Theymos and usagi were both involved in GLBSE.

I'm all for an unbiased approach, but you are certainly not unbiased.

[augustocroppo]

You need someone with an authentic copy to cooperate. Okay, they probably would have released them in the first place if they would cooperate in such a circumstance, but I don't see any reason not to publish the hashes either. If they are indeed factual, it's unlikely that people will come out and claim that they aren't based on the hashes, because that would need a conspiracy, which would be hard to establish at this point. So, by not releasing the hashes, you are making a case against yourself.

That is why I posted the encrypted written declaration with details of the compacted archive. That will show I did not altered the original compacted archive sent to my electronic mail.

[augustocroppo]

How are you unbiased? You are one of the few people who have been defending usagi's scamming practices, you have stated that you highly respect theymos and you are VIP donator on this forum. Theymos and usagi were both involved in GLBSE.

I'm all for an unbiased approach, but you are certainly not unbiased.

Coming from an user which could not present one single evidence to prove that Usagi was defrauding his investors, your opinion about my ability to examine documents is quite meaningless. Furthermore, I would work with two additional agents to produce a final report. So that would eliminate any possible bias in the investigation since both agents would not be related to the GLBSE enterprise.

[deeplink]

How are you unbiased? You are one of the few people who have been defending usagi's scamming practices, you have stated that you highly respect theymos and you are VIP donator on this forum. Theymos and usagi were both involved in GLBSE.

I'm all for an unbiased approach, but you are certainly not unbiased.

Coming from an user which could not present one single evidence to prove that Usagi was defrauding his investors, your opinion about my ability to examine documents is quite meaningless. Furthermore, I would work with two additional agents to produce a final report. So that would eliminate any possible bias in the investigation since none of the agents would be related to the GLBSE enterprise.

Thanks for confirming my opinion about you. The self-importance and delusional rationalization is just too obvious. I'll keep ignoring you.

I guess anyone who wants to support your attention whoring or use your superior investigation skills is free to do so.

[Walter Rothbard]

I think you need to make up your mind what you want.

Motivation 1:

The point is to let the users of this forum decide if they are really interested to look into the documents.

Motivation 2:

You could post them and then people who are interested could look and those who aren't could ignore them, right?

Completely right!

However I am very interested to know what the forum users thoughts before I release the documents.

Motivation 3:

Because I am trying to establish why the documents were sent to me.

Are you here to find out why the documents were sent, or to find out what people think to satisfy your curiosity, or to let people decide if they want to see them or not?  Or for some other purpose (such as to create and enjoy drama and receive attention)?  Once your mind is made up, I think you should pursue that goal and not let the others get in the way.

Actually, I think you should think primarily about the victims here.  If there's wrongdoing and these documents shed light on it, I think you should put your personal motivations aside and provide what you have to them so that people can know the truth about what was done with their money.  If you consider them first and put your personal curiosity second, I think you'll be able to receive all of the above.

[memvola]

You need someone with an authentic copy to cooperate. Okay, they probably would have released them in the first place if they would cooperate in such a circumstance, but I don't see any reason not to publish the hashes either. If they are indeed factual, it's unlikely that people will come out and claim that they aren't based on the hashes, because that would need a conspiracy, which would be hard to establish at this point. So, by not releasing the hashes, you are making a case against yourself.

That is why I posted the encrypted written declaration with details of the compacted archive. That will show I did not altered the original compacted archive sent to my electronic mail.

No, that's not the concern. I was merely wondering why you don't publish individual hashes.

[jgarzik]

Just UP the files somewhere. There's no need for drama or suspense.

Otherwise, you made up those files.

Notably, when contacted privately, OP was not interested in posting hashes for the data, leaving no way for the data to be verified by other entities as fiction, or non-fiction (without a line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence comparison).

Smells like fiction + drama.

How do you differ fictional data from factual data only with 'hashes'?

Anyone else with the documents may compare their hash to the hash of the data you post.

Thus "verified by other entities"

[jgarzik]

You need someone with an authentic copy to cooperate. Okay, they probably would have released them in the first place if they would cooperate in such a circumstance, but I don't see any reason not to publish the hashes either. If they are indeed factual, it's unlikely that people will come out and claim that they aren't based on the hashes, because that would need a conspiracy, which would be hard to establish at this point. So, by not releasing the hashes, you are making a case against yourself.

That is why I posted the encrypted written declaration with details of the compacted archive. That will show I did not altered the original compacted archive sent to my electronic mail.

Without hash protection, that does not prove you altered the original compacted archive (or not).  Too late now, as that is missing from your original posting.

If you are in the bitcoin community and do not understand what a hash algorithm does, that is quite odd.

[deeplink]

Uhh no, I was not involved with GLBSE. I was just an asset issuer like 100 other people. Second, uhh no, I don't have a scammer tag and I went out of my way to sell over $3,000 of my personal possessions to help pay back shareholders. I didn't have to do that. Take your problems to the scammer accusation forum if you must.

You were an asset issuer on GLBSE, you offered Nefario to set up a community panel, you contacted theymos when he wanted to sell his GLBSE shares and in that process you received insider information about GLBSE. And this is only the stuff we know about.

But you were not involved with GLBSE. Whatever, usagi.

[Deafboy]

You heard of wikileaks, right?

Yes, I know what is Wikileaks.

This was an answer to adamstgBit:

this is BS, these "sensitive documents" can't be trusted, so who gives a f*** what they say...

[repentance]

OK, I'm going to throw in my two cents here.

The lack of transparency relating to failed Bitcoin enterprises bugs the shit out of me.  In the real world, you lose the right to remain opaque if your business venture fails owing people money - even if you're a private company - and I see no reason why that same principle should not apply in the Bitcoin community.  Transparency fosters accountability and it creates a repository of information which others can use to mitigate the risk of failure in similar future ventures.

Because the risk that these documents have been altered cannot be discounted, the possibility that they were sent to augustocroppo to damage his credibility has to be considered.  Why release these documents through augustocroppo if they're authentic when they can be released anonymously without involving any third party?

While my attitude is definitely "publish and be damned" - because I do think that GLBSE has lost its presumed right to any kind of confidentiality - I find myself in the very curious situation of simultaneously encouraging augustocroppo to publish them and advising him to remain aware that someone could be setting him up here.

[augustocroppo]

Are you here to find out why the documents were sent, or to find out what people think to satisfy your curiosity, or to let people decide if they want to see them or not?  Or for some other purpose (such as to create and enjoy drama and receive attention)?  Once your mind is made up, I think you should pursue that goal and not let the others get in the way.

I am here to gauge the responses of the users of this forum before I release the documents. I am letting the users present their arguments to me understand the point of view of everyone. I think it is imperative to first debate the matter and then determine if the release is necessary or not. This is not a drama, this is a serious subject. The documents could answer many questions raised by different user in the last months after the GLBSE shutdown.

Actually, I think you should think primarily about the victims here.  If there's wrongdoing and these documents shed light on it, I think you should put your personal motivations aside and provide what you have to them so that people can know the truth about what was done with their money.  If you consider them first and put your personal curiosity second, I think you'll be able to receive all of the above.

You have to understand that who you consider a victim, another user could consider a perpetrator. Moreover, without an appropriate unbiased investigation, people will hardly know the truth. Few users are already assuming the documents are false. They can be right. The documents sent to me can contain false information. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the documents, I can only vouch that I did not changed any part of the documents since I received it from the anonymous sender.