Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 12:01:00 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  

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.

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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: P  (Read 71721 times)
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 02:36:17 AM
 #801

You keep saying I lost nothing. But I was told more than once and I operated as if I was a part owner of GLBSE and would get more stock soon. This is worth way more than 30 BTC. A year of work making many assets that did not scam. Sadly I am 50% of GLBSE and I brought in most of the other good 50%.

I was used and now that Nefario wants to sell out he does not want to give me what he owes me. And it is a lot more than 30 BTC...

The value of real shares is ~0.3 BTC ea.  You could buy some right now.  It would require approval from other shareholders.  Approval you likely will never get because you are a giant liability to any business you have contact with.   The fake shares can't have value higher than real shares.

So how many fake shares do you own?  My guess is you won't answer because you know you have suffered no loss.  You could be a shareholder of GLBSE right now but YOUR own actions, not Nefario's have closed that door (likely forever).  Any owner would have to be brain dead to bring your tantrums and drama into a business.
1481198460
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198460

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198460
Reply with quote  #2

1481198460
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481198460
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198460

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198460
Reply with quote  #2

1481198460
Report to moderator
1481198460
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198460

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198460
Reply with quote  #2

1481198460
Report to moderator
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 02:50:36 AM
 #802

Be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

"I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC."
Your subjective value is irreverent.  No court of law would consider that.  If you had 100 shares and they were legit then they would only be 0.13% "part owner".  The idea that you had some massive loss of equity (believed or otherwise) is laughable.

The facts:
you owned X shares.
if real those shares are worth ~0.3 BTC.
you were offered 0.1 BTC per share.
you have already profited ~30 BTC.
At best your "loss" is negligible and most likely you profited from the entire experience.

So be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?
flip
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 02:53:37 AM
 #803

I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC.

http://i.qkme.me/3r2sta.jpg
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 03:00:49 AM
 #804

Be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

"I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC."
Your subjective value is irreverent.  No court of law would consider that.  If you had 100 shares and they were legit then they would only be 0.13% "part owner".  The idea that you had some massive loss of equity (believed or otherwise) is laughable.

The facts:
you owned X shares.
if real those shares are worth ~0.3 BTC.
you were offered 0.1 BTC per share.
you have already profited ~30 BTC.
At best your "loss" is negligible and most likely you profited from the entire experience.

So be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?


It does not matter. It could have just been one. The point is I was told that I would get first shot at new shares sold because I was a shareholder. The amount does not mean anything, the value is that I had the rights of the shareholder.

I would have not sold my last share for 1000 BTC because I wanted to have the rights that I got for owning that share.

I did not have real GLBSE shares but I was told in the future I would.







Not without majority shareholder approval you dont. In fact I know the existing shareholders would rather burn glbse to the ground than let you own any of it. Would you call the shareholders scammers because they would refuse to sell you their shares ?

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 03:05:08 AM
 #805

I see you are unwilling to state how many shares you owned.  You believing 1 fake or real share of GLBSE is worth 21,000,001 BTC doesn't make it so.  Your belief on what is is worth is irrelevant.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 03:08:19 AM
 #806

Be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

"I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC."
Your subjective value is irreverent.  No court of law would consider that.  If you had 100 shares and they were legit then they would only be 0.13% "part owner".  The idea that you had some massive loss of equity (believed or otherwise) is laughable.

The facts:
you owned X shares.
if real those shares are worth ~0.3 BTC.
you were offered 0.1 BTC per share.
you have already profited ~30 BTC.
At best your "loss" is negligible and most likely you profited from the entire experience.

So be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?


It does not matter. It could have just been one. The point is I was told that I would get first shot at new shares sold because I was a shareholder. The amount does not mean anything, the value is that I had the rights of the shareholder.

I would have not sold my last share for 1000 BTC because I wanted to have the rights that I got for owning that share.

I did not have real GLBSE shares but I was told in the future I would.







Not without majority shareholder approval you dont. In fact I know the existing shareholders would rather burn glbse to the ground than let you own any of it. Would you call the shareholders scammers because they would refuse to sell you their shares ?

If I held real shares yes. But sence I do not and was only tricked by Nefario no. My issue is with Nefario only.


BTW GLBSE broke their ToS with me when killing my account. I don't know if that is just Nefario or all of them but that is scamming :/




You mean you would force people to sell their shares to you ? How exactly would you accomplish this without sending men with guns to peoples houses ?

theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 03:19:21 AM
 #807

No, shareholders get first shot at new shares sold. If I was a real shareholder I would then have the right to buy all of Theymos's shares and he can not refuse me.

Shareholders have right of first refusal for new shares. Shareholders don't have that right over my existing shares.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 03:28:45 AM
 #808

Be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?

"I was tricked to act like a part owner for over a year... The value on that is greater than 30 BTC."
Your subjective value is irreverent.  No court of law would consider that.  If you had 100 shares and they were legit then they would only be 0.13% "part owner".  The idea that you had some massive loss of equity (believed or otherwise) is laughable.

The facts:
you owned X shares.
if real those shares are worth ~0.3 BTC.
you were offered 0.1 BTC per share.
you have already profited ~30 BTC.
At best your "loss" is negligible and most likely you profited from the entire experience.

So be a man and answer the obvious question.  How many shares did you have at the time your account was closed?


It does not matter. It could have just been one. The point is I was told that I would get first shot at new shares sold because I was a shareholder. The amount does not mean anything, the value is that I had the rights of the shareholder.

I would have not sold my last share for 1000 BTC because I wanted to have the rights that I got for owning that share.

I did not have real GLBSE shares but I was told in the future I would.







Not without majority shareholder approval you dont. In fact I know the existing shareholders would rather burn glbse to the ground than let you own any of it. Would you call the shareholders scammers because they would refuse to sell you their shares ?

If I held real shares yes. But sence I do not and was only tricked by Nefario no. My issue is with Nefario only.


BTW GLBSE broke their ToS with me when killing my account. I don't know if that is just Nefario or all of them but that is scamming :/




You mean you would force people to sell their shares to you ? How exactly would you accomplish this without sending men with guns to peoples houses ?

No, shareholders get first shot at new shares sold. If I was a real shareholder I would then have the right to buy all of Theymos's shares and he can not refuse me. But he does not have to sell, but if he sells he would have to sell to me if I wanted to buy.

No guns needed.




You cant forcibly buy glbse shares I dont want to sell to you, then call me a scammer for that refusal.

Smoovious
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 03:35:22 AM
 #809

No, shareholders get first shot at new shares sold. If I was a real shareholder I would then have the right to buy all of Theymos's shares and he can not refuse me. But he does not have to sell, but if he sells he would have to sell to me if I wanted to buy.

No guns needed.
No he wouldn't.

Not being allowed to sell them to a non-shareholder without a current-shareholder vote of approval, is not the same as _having_ to sell to you if you wanted to buy.

They're his shares... if he wanted to sell them to another shareholder, but specifically did not want to sell them to you, he is under no obligation to sell them to you, just because you wanted them.

-- Smoov
nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

Inactive


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 03:45:18 AM
 #810

However I do agree that this has damaged GLBSE.  I will never offer a security on that site under any conditions.  The "we do what we want when we want" is too much of a counterparty risk.  


Nefario avoids manipulating securities due to theft, i.e. trade roll-backs, but delists securities when an issue directly affects him and is in his best interest.


Both of these issues are complicated to deal with, but there is a sense that's it's all quite arbitrary.


I'll just leave this here.
Open Transactions
Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
September 26, 2012, 04:17:15 AM
 #811

However I do agree that this has damaged GLBSE.  I will never offer a security on that site under any conditions.  The "we do what we want when we want" is too much of a counterparty risk.  


Nefario avoids manipulating securities due to theft, i.e. trade roll-backs, but delists securities when an issue directly affects him and is in his best interest.


Both of these issues are complicated to deal with, but there is a sense that's it's all quite arbitrary.


I'll just leave this here.
Open Transactions
+1 the actions indicate that GLBSE acts in its own best interest. The question is, could it afford to do otherwise since the infrastructure is still in its infancy?

The actual problem was created months ago when GLBSE allowed assets to be listed which were used to support scam activities.
Now what we see is the fallout and an attempt to contain the damage by preemptive strikes. Somebody is in the middle of their learning curve...

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 04:18:31 AM
 #812

Open Transactions doesn't magically make all this liability stuff go away.

I deliberately turned off the (on by default) ability of all users to issue assets at will on my Open Transactions server deliberately to avoid this kind of mess.

It is nice to have learned here that people need to know ahead of time that delisting is possible so I might as well mention that part of the criteria for a stock exchange bounty from the DeVCoin bounties was that delisting an asset be possible so yes, delisting will be possible in the event I run an Open Transactions server other people can issue assets on.

I am torn now between creating a separate server per each issuer of assets to keep it real clear who is liable for all assets on that server, and running an Open Server where anyone can create assets at will and each nym is liable for the assets created by that nym.

Maybe doing both would let people play around creating test/demo assets on the Open Server, then get a dedicated server for only their own assets once they are ready to actually open for business, to get out from the likely/probably cesspool of iniquity the test/demo server ("Open Server") is likely to turn into?

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
k3t3r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 180



View Profile
September 26, 2012, 01:15:12 PM
 #813

From what i have gathered these assests have been delisted due to them being illegal, is that correct?

Are goats Assets more illegal than the other PPT's or Are the other PPT's going to being delisted for the same reason?

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 02:15:25 PM
 #814

From what i have gathered these assests have been delisted due to them being illegal, is that correct?

Are goats Assets more illegal than the other PPT's or Are the other PPT's going to being delisted for the same reason?

No. It was because goat created a  threat to glbse somehow and had to be removed.

flower1024
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


luck is just a share away


View Profile
September 26, 2012, 02:22:00 PM
 #815

From what i have gathered these assests have been delisted due to them being illegal, is that correct?

Are goats Assets more illegal than the other PPT's or Are the other PPT's going to being delisted for the same reason?

No. It was because goat created a  threat to glbse somehow and had to be removed.


i see two possibilites:

 - goat said nefario scammed him because he wanted to "steal" his glbse shares (this has nothing to do with glbse directly)
 - maybe nefario did phone sec and feared the outcome of all ppt. (i dont believe this one, because other ppts are still there; though not traded [afaik])

for me it seems that nefario (as a person) just dont like goat.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 02:28:45 PM
 #816

From what i have gathered these assests have been delisted due to them being illegal, is that correct?

Are goats Assets more illegal than the other PPT's or Are the other PPT's going to being delisted for the same reason?

No. It was because goat created a  threat to glbse somehow and had to be removed.


i see two possibilites:

 - goat said nefario scammed him because he wanted to "steal" his glbse shares (this has nothing to do with glbse directly)
 - maybe nefario did phone sec and feared the outcome of all ppt. (i dont believe this one, because other ppts are still there; though not traded [afaik])

for me it seems that nefario (as a person) just dont like goat.

Nefario does not like me. 6 months ago he froze all of my accounts on GLBSE, tried to have outside BTC frozen, and extorted my ID documents out of me.

Nefario does not like me :/

Sadly I was his largest and almost oldest non scamming asset issuer. Oh well...  RIP GLBSE



Im sure you can list your rice plantation somewhere  Tongue

starsoccer9
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1582



View Profile WWW
September 26, 2012, 03:20:07 PM
 #817

you can always list it on cryptostocks

cytokine
Donator
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
October 10, 2012, 02:55:08 AM
 #818

Goat: I own 2036 of these bonds. I've already emailed pirate about this and provided a payout address for myself. Should I also send you that same information?

I'm trying to get my claim code from the GLBSE, but so far they have not responded to my emails.

I have perfect rep (you can just ask my investors) and so if Nefario is going to attempt to steal these bonds from me by holding me hostage by requesting unnecessary identity information, then I hope you'll work with me to make the situation right.

Of course, this assumes Pirate pays anything at all, which I give a very low probability.
tbcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 02:59:53 AM
 #819

Really TYGRR holders, we must identify? nefarious reneged on your assets and provided the codes. If pirate pay someday, you have everything you need to pay us. Not so?

Sorry for my bad english Wink
Bitcoin card for deposit and payment + Little POS
Donations:1N65efiNUhH6sEQg7Z6oUC76kJS9Yhevyf
JoelKatz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2012, 09:03:08 AM
 #820

Really TYGRR holders, we must identify? nefarious reneged on your assets and provided the codes. If pirate pay someday, you have everything you need to pay us. Not so?
The codes are unusable unless GLBSE redeems them. That's been well-established in several threads. Goat would be taking an essentially unbounded risk in attempting to redeem them.

For example, say Goat decides to start honoring them. How long before this happens:

1) Someone posts to the forum claiming Goat refused to honor a code.

2) Goat responds that the code wasn't on his list.

3) That someone swears they got the code from GLBSE.

If you say Goat wins, then he can refuse to honor any code. If you say the person saying Goat refused to honor the code wins, then anyone can make Goat look like a scammer. And say this happens:

1) Someone posts to the forum claiming Goat refused to honor a code.

2) Goat responds that the code was already redeemed.

3) That someone swears they got the one and only code from GLBSE.

4) Goat says he doesn't know if GLBSE gave the same code to two people or if the person complaining shared their code with someone and is trying to scam him.

If you say Goat wins, same problem -- he can refuse to honor any code. If you say the person saying Goat refused to honor the code wins, then anyone can force Goat to do a double redeem or make him look like a scammer. Worse, GLBSE may already have set him up, and he can never prove it.

Goat can't even mitigate this by creating redemption windows because he has no way to contact all asset holders. And if there are too many conflicts in a redemption window, he'd just have to abort the redemption anyway.

The codes issued to Goat are useless unless GLBSE agrees to redeem them. That's the reality.

I am an employee of Ripple.
1Joe1Katzci1rFcsr9HH7SLuHVnDy2aihZ BM-NBM3FRExVJSJJamV9ccgyWvQfratUHgN
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 »
  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!