Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:53:54 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: GLBSE - request for next features  (Read 25722 times)
Newar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


https://gliph.me/hUF


View Profile
June 16, 2012, 06:23:19 AM
 #181

These things are usually made by a traditional broker, not an exchange.  I have been working on a 3rd party platform that would show the last thing in this list.

Can you point me to a broker?

OTC rating | GPG keyid 1DC91318EE785FDE | Gliph: lightning bicycle tree music | Mycelium, a swift & secure Bitcoin client for Android | LocalBitcoins
1480956834
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956834

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956834
Reply with quote  #2

1480956834
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
June 16, 2012, 06:24:33 AM
 #182

These things are usually made by a traditional broker, not an exchange.  I have been working on a 3rd party platform that would show the last thing in this list.

Can you point me to a broker?

Build it and they will come.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 12:27:18 AM
 #183

These things are usually made by a traditional broker, not an exchange.  I have been working on a 3rd party platform that would show the last thing in this list.

Can you point me to a broker?

It would be great to have a glbse share brokerage. They could then handle fiat deposits to buy shares on glbse as well. It might be better than glbse handling it directly and dealing with an extra layer of security/customer service.

EskimoBob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 08:24:28 AM
 #184

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.


While reading what I wrote, use the most friendliest and relaxing voice in your head.
BTW, Things in BTC bubble universes are getting ugly....
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 08:29:22 AM
 #185

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.



This is difficult because which verification do you think is the bare minumum ?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlqK0vuJMY4idG54YmZrakluSmNGbnVhNnl1SllQQXc#gid=0  I made a doc showing who has and who hasnt verified.

Sukrim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:33:07 AM
 #186

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

https://bitfinex.com <-- leveraged trading of BTCUSD, LTCUSD and LTCBTC (long and short) - 10% discount on fees for the first 30 days with this refcode: x5K9YtL3Zb
Mail me at Bitmessage: BM-BbiHiVv5qh858ULsyRDtpRrG9WjXN3xf
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:43:42 AM
 #187

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:49:07 AM
 #188

Couldn't the GLBSE work with the major bitcoin exchanges to enable people to invest in GLBSE assets with fiat payments.  Hey they could even accept PayPal.  It would certainly induce more investing and could even work as an expensive way of buying bitcoins?

I emailed support@glbse.com and they said they will be implementing this idea of cash payments into the GLBSE for bitcoin security's but not and never a PayPal option.

Fuck Paypal. That is all.

+1

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

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
 #189

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

+1

Yes there should be some reward for going through the process. I like the idea of letting people have only so many assetts as they have verified infos. So if you have facebook you get 1 assett, add a photo and you get 2 assets etc.

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:57:24 AM
 #190

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.

Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.

Fuck regulation!

EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?

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

Activity: 532


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:58:20 AM
 #191

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

+1

Yes there should be some reward for going through the process. I like the idea of letting people have only so many assetts as they have verified infos. So if you have facebook you get 1 assett, add a photo and you get 2 assets etc.

Any social network account is lame and does not prove anything.  Not everyone has one.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 10:59:14 AM
 #192

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.

Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.

Fuck regulation!

EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?

Or come up with a service that offers it. See it as a business opportunity.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 11:02:24 AM
 #193

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

+1

Yes there should be some reward for going through the process. I like the idea of letting people have only so many assetts as they have verified infos. So if you have facebook you get 1 assett, add a photo and you get 2 assets etc.

Any social network account is lame and does not prove anything.  Not everyone has one.

Of course they are lame  Smiley

stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 11:10:31 AM
 #194

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.

Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.

Fuck regulation!

EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?

I sense a little hostility, anyway I am not a broker, I only promote brokerages to form.  I would love to make one but I don't have the time right now.

Also, I don't see what is wrong with private company of a private exchange creating private regulations.  People are free to use and issue assets on the exchange or not.  I bet most people dont' look at the verification at all and mostly from their trust using the reputation of the issuer in the bitcoin community anyway.  I do think there should be some kind of asset issuer contract between GLBSE and the issuer.

This market would be similar to the pre 1930's stock market:

Quote
... a strikingly information-starved environment. Many firms whose securities were publicly traded published no regular reports or issued reports whose data were so arbitrarily selected and capriciously audited as to be worse than useless. It was this circumstance that had conferred such awesome power on a handful of investment bankers because they commanded a virtual monopoly of the information necessary for making sound financial decisions. Especially in the secondary markets, where reliable information was all but impossible for the average investor to come by, opportunities abounded for insider manipulation and wildcat speculation.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 02:15:18 PM
 #195

The downside of having so many junky low-quality (and occasionally fraudulent) assets is that it will lower investor confidence in GLBSE as a whole and thus the high-quality assets. In particular, it will scare away new blood, which is what is needed more than anything. I can think of some ways to approach solving this problem, such as creating a separate grouping for "highly verified and trusted" GLBSE assets, but the solutions I see have downsides as well.
Daily Anarchist
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 615



View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
 #196

If GLBSE wants to limit IPO's to verified individuals only, it's their prerogative. However, if they do that then they open the door for a competitor. On the flip side, if they do not verify individuals then they risk losing confidence.

There is no right or wrong here. It's totally GLBSE's preference.

Discover anarcho-capitalism today!
arsenische
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1116


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 03:58:09 PM
 #197

If GLBSE wants to limit IPO's to verified individuals only, it's their prerogative. However, if they do that then they open the door for a competitor. On the flip side, if they do not verify individuals then they risk losing confidence.

There is no right or wrong here. It's totally GLBSE's preference.

Just let the users to filter out unverified shares

nimda
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


0xFB0D8D1534241423


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 04:30:52 PM
 #198

Due diligence is due. For example, I've invested in Goat's bonds, and he's not verified at all. I let his reputation be the collateral. There are some other securities, however, which I refuse to invest in because there's no verification, and the issuer is not well-known within the community.

TLDR freedom please

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.
Otoh
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 05:52:57 PM
 #199

How about extra points for verification with a diplomatic passport, photo driving license, ID card & utility bills package

I'm just surprised that they don't take bitcoins, though I expect someone on TSR probably does if only as acting as a pass through.

Node40.com is a leader in DASH hosting, dedicated exclusively to fully managed masternode hosting. Professional, organized, and responsive. I have many dozens of nodes with them.    
BTC = $c²     BTC = 1otohotohMoQoxHuxLBveQiZcV3Pji3Tc      DASH, Digital Cash = www.dash.org   
   CHARITY | MY REP | DICE
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 07:04:33 PM
 #200

TYGRR is 100% unverified and yet he seems to be a fair guy - IMO more trustworthy than some others, verified ones.
So I vote against a requirement to verify!

As Otoh has pointed out, the verification process can be cheated - such a requirement would only create an illusion of safety, without actually making GLBSE a safer place.

I agree that it would be a nice feature if a user could choose in his settings whether he wants to have the unverified stuff listed, or not.
Though, personally I would have it set to "yes" Smiley

Check out gocoin - my original project of a bitcoin client written in Go, with some unique features.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!