P

[flip]

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

[1714196885]

1714196885

[1714196885]

1714196885

[1714196885]

1714196885

[1714196885]

1714196885

[Bitcoin Oz]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Bitcoin Oz]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[markm]

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-

[k3t3r]

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]

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]

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]

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 

[starsoccer9]

you can always list it on cryptostocks

[cytokine]

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]

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?

[JoelKatz]

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.

[Smoovious]

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

Redeem them for what, exactly?

GLBSE doesn't possess the shares/bonds. Never did.

-- Smoov

[tbcoin]

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.

Not involves greater risk than any other code reimbursable, the codes have always been to bearer and no protection against theft.

If I generate a MTGOX code today and tomorrow to reimburse they tell me that is already paid, I'm screwed, go mtgox reclaim something, you are responsible for that nobody steals it and assume the risk involved in using them.

It's a matter of trust, and we already trust our money to goat, so is not time to distrust.

If someone complains that your code is not on the list of goat, in this special case will be necessary to talk with nefario.

If someone complains that goat says it was cashed, goat could prove it with information from the communication of the first payment (email sources, user forum, payment address, etc.)