Pages:
Author

Topic: [CLOSED] GLBSE drama - page 3. (Read 17857 times)

full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
October 09, 2012, 11:22:57 PM
Quote
This is not a matter of whether or not the shares were worthless. Potential buyers can decide the shares' value themselves. The question is, did Theymos misrepresent any information that could have prevented someone from assigning a fair value to those shares?

Yes, he misrepresented the shares as having worth.  
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
October 09, 2012, 11:21:12 PM
Maged,

I believe if I don't get claim codes (or whatever they are) for the assets I hold, then shareholders of BitcoinGlobal should all get scammer tags.  What do you think?
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
October 09, 2012, 11:12:17 PM
Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.
Then ignore my bias. It doesn't matter what I, individually, think. Your goal should be to convince everyone else. Of course, that doesn't make my questions any less valid.

Also, those reasons came from a quick skim of the thread, so I am legitimately curious to see if I missed anything.
The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  
This is not a matter of whether or not the shares were worthless. Potential buyers can decide the shares' value themselves. The question is, did Theymos misrepresent any information that could have prevented someone from assigning a fair value to those shares?
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
October 09, 2012, 10:06:59 PM
Quote
I would expect someone who was a party to the sale to come forward with information about how disingenuous and deceptive ~theymos was if that were the case.

This will not occur, as Nefario's brave whistleblowing actions made the sale moot. 
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
October 09, 2012, 09:58:26 PM
Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.  The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  

That's conjecture, not fact as stated.  In fairness though it is not completely outside the range of reason.

I would expect someone who was a party to the sale to come forward with information about how disingenuous and deceptive ~theymos was if that were the case.  Still waiting so it well could be the case that potential serious buyers (if any) were completely comfortable with the legal status of the asset and any negotiations were considered straight by the effected parties.  Even if not, I've tended to consider the scammer tag to apply to people who invent schemes with pre-formed intentions of ripping people of, this event probably would not qualify as such.  For that matter it's debatable whether ~nefario's various exploits do either.

I still think there should be a tag for general plonkers who clearly cost people money even if it is not totally clear whether they are full-on scammers or just incompetent boobs.  Bitcoin Consultancy, fr'instance.

hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
October 09, 2012, 09:57:47 PM
Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

There was no legal action besides nefario supposedly speaking to a lawyer.

There is still no proof at all that any authorities have even spoken to Nefario and none of the shareholders have been contacted either.

Of course there is proof.  We have Nefario's testimony and the extreme reaction of his partners in crime who have tried to extort and scam their way out of holding the bag at the last moment.  The SEC will not act in haste or scream about what they are doing.  They handle these matters patiently. 

My official statement to the SEC
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
October 09, 2012, 09:53:29 PM
Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

There was no legal action besides nefario supposedly speaking to a lawyer.

There is still no proof at all that any authorities have even spoken to Nefario and none of the shareholders have been contacted either.

Of course there is proof.  We have Nefario's testimony and the extreme reaction of his partners in crime who have tried to extort and scam their way out of holding the bag at the last moment.  The SEC will not act in haste or scream about what they are doing.  They handle these matters patiently. 
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
October 09, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 

There was no legal action besides nefario supposedly speaking to a lawyer.

There is still no proof at all that any authorities have even spoken to Nefario and none of the shareholders have been contacted either.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
October 09, 2012, 09:24:38 PM
Quote
How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?

Any shares in a criminal organization are worthless because the government may confiscate them at any time.  In this situation however the funds were particularly worthless because the insider trader knew of the imminent legal action that would shut down the illegal operation. 
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Wat
October 09, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.  The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  


How are they worthless ? Are shares in silk road worthless because its possibly illegal ?
vip
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
Don't send me a pm unless you gpg encrypt it.
October 09, 2012, 09:04:25 PM
The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless

Selling something that you adjudge to be worthless isn't a scam.  They're called garage sales.  "One man's junk is another man's treasure."  Misrepresentation, if it occurred, is a whole different ballgame.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Look upon me, BitcoinTalk, for I...am...Rarity!
October 09, 2012, 09:00:11 PM
Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?

Neither of those are my claims, the bias here from Theymos and his lackeys is absurd.  The scam was attempting to dump stock that was worthless because unregulated markets of this kind are illegal and the imminent legal action his insider status made him well aware of would obviously shutter the business.  
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1015
October 09, 2012, 08:56:56 PM
Quote
Again, I don't see the logic in the accusations; theymos (et al) were very straightforward with what was being sold and why they were selling it.

No, they were not.
So let me see if I got this straight, the current reasons I see for why theymos was not being straightforward with the sale of the GLBSE shares are:
1) He wasn't clear that he was selling shares for other people as well.
2) He didn't specify that he was the treasurer (I can't remember if this was true or not).

Anything else? Also, what reasons for selling were withheld? Could you also please explain why any one of the points you make or made actually matters with respect to misrepresenting what and why he was selling?
sr. member
Activity: 574
Merit: 250
October 09, 2012, 08:24:24 PM
Maged- what say you? Does he get a scammer tag for his involvement in this? Do the other owners of GBLSE get the scammer tag for the exact same reasons as nefario?

You seem to be mistaken about why Nefario got the scammer tag, it's not at all comparable.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1258773

Okay, your Honor, I stipulate that there is a difference in the precedent that obviates my original query. So, let's try this:

BadBear- what say you? Does material ownership of a now-locked up asset full of other people's bitcoins, a lack of control over the lunatic who is consistently not being accurate about what is happening with their jointly owned company, the allegations about ownership and attempted dumping of an asset, and the horrible communications surrounding theymos' involvement in GLBSE, along with that of the other owners of GLBSE warrant a scammer tag?
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
October 09, 2012, 07:49:04 PM
This is a credit rating and bail bond system. Also, you're posting something that was clearly public knowledge, not really good "evidence" for malfeasance, there. I still don't get where the "lied" and "falsely" part comes in.

The thread may be titled such, but in Nef's post it's pretty clear he's talking about the launch of GLBSE.

...we are launching the development of the Bticoin Stock Market...

I'm not trying to point out evidence for malfeasance or whatever.  Just showing that it has long been known (or knowable by reading that thread) who the Officers of GLBSE are (were?)
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
October 09, 2012, 05:00:12 PM
This I'd maybe be more inclined to agree with, but it took you 5 or 6 accusations to get there.

Nope, it's exactly in the first post.
donator
Activity: 1419
Merit: 1015
October 09, 2012, 04:48:31 PM
This is a credit rating and bail bond system. Also, you're posting something that was clearly public knowledge, not really good "evidence" for malfeasance, there. I still don't get where the "lied" and "falsely" part comes in.

Quote
In any event theymos no longer holds the claim to personal integrity required for being the administrator of this forum, or a principal in any other respectable bitcoin venture.

This I'd maybe be more inclined to agree with, but it took you 5 or 6 accusations to get there.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
October 09, 2012, 03:06:27 PM
Must not have been these funds.

May we have the public address of said paper wallet please, so that we may keep an eye on them?

I don't see any reason why this cannot be released. 18bEUAuzWg97swzHXzK4prGGYSBAMCUgz

The funds tied to that address are now in control of BG's secretary.

Which is bullshit, why send ~800btc more to be controlled by Nefario when he already has ~8000btc of illegally obtained funds?

What will giving Nefario ~800btc more do that he couldn't have done with the ~8000btc?

As I said, the funds were sent to the secretary, not Nefario. He only accepted them reluctantly (rather than have Theymos keep them) so that Nefario would have no reason to not begin dispersing customer funds.

Who exactly is BG's secretary?  Do they have a name on the forum, do they have a real name and public identity?  At this point I believe this should all be transparent given the circumstances.


Who exactly is BG's secretary?  Do they have a name on the forum, do they have a real name and public identity?  At this point I believe this should all be transparent given the circumstances.

I'm not comfortable revealing information about BitcoinGlobal shareholders which have not self identified, sorry.

See, the problem with this is you guys are knowingly transferring stolen funds to people who you are not willing to disclose, you should all get scammer tags, this forum is full of crooks and it appears to be run by a crook also.


I believe we have another name to add to the list of people who should get scammer tags "chrisrico".  I was not 100% in agreement with Theymos getting a scammer tag and being completly crooked until this bullshit...  These people are knowningly transferring stolen funds and then refusing to tell people who they were transferred to.

This forum is a fucking joke, Theymos you've destroyed your forum with this curroption.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
October 09, 2012, 02:29:49 PM
Theymos lists a bloc of shares for sale.  He mentions that he doesn't want to be part of GLBSE, especially as treasurer, but does not explicitly state that he is the treasurer.  Who knows, maybe someone asked him to be treasurer, and he decided that was time for him to leave?

Relavent:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54804
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/need-a-bitcoin-treasurer-3548
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
October 09, 2012, 02:08:13 PM
At this point it seems pre-emptive to argue for a scammer tag when we presently don't know the legalities surrounding the situation or who knew what and when. This forum has never given scammer tags out indiscriminately. Whenever I've argued for one I've always had to provide overwhelming evidence, and I'd be downright upset if circumstantial evidence alone were sufficient enough for one. At least BadBear and Maged would understand my concerns with this.

Of course, this is all aside from the legalities of the situation, which I may actually agree with the detractors on.

From the original post, bolded for your convenience:

This paints an ugly enough picture as it is. In any event theymos no longer holds the claim to personal integrity required for being the administrator of this forum, or a principal in any other respectable bitcoin venture. A scammer tag may be warranted even if nobody took his bait and so luckily no bitcoin was actually lost: the offer was made in bad faith in any event.
Pages:
Jump to: