Topic: GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday. - page 16. (Read 51544 times)

This is such a ridiculous mindfuck that it's actually the most plausible theory I've heard so far. At least it fits my expectations on how authorities work. No helicopters and Men in Black needed.

My assumption was that closing down some of the Pirate pass-throughs was part of his preparation for FSA approval.  Where the work is going to come is in meeting the due diligence requirements on every security on there: from what I can see the vast majority of stuff on there can't be handled by anyone who's FSA approved anyway.

And of course the KYC/AML type requirements could take a lot of effort to comply with.  I can just imagine the backlash here if it turns out anyone who just wants to withdraw from GLBSE will still have to prove their identity first (as GLBSE was running as a for-profit service AND was taking deposits the requirements are pretty tight).

While this is true, Nefario should have been well aware of the need to close down GLBSE while approval was pending - such a shutdown should have been planned and advertised well in advance, if only so that user funds weren't inaccessible for however long the approval process takes and so that users weren't at risk of being adversely affected by either acceptance or rejection of GLBSE's application.

Whatever's going on, it seems to be something which Nefario did not anticipate.  Once we know the circumstances behind the shut-down, we'll be better placed to evaluate whether it's something he should have foreseen and prepared for.

I disagree for a number of reasons (and agree to a certain extent as well to be fair.)

a) Bitcoin as a solution is dis-similar to pretty much all other modern solutions.  It is not inflationary on a theoretical level and thus does not require that an economy grows exponentially in order for the economy to perpetuate itself.  So, a lot of the standard economic theories about capital do not necessarily apply in the same way.

b) In addition to continued technical development, the main thing which will assist Bitcoin (or more generally p2p crypto-accounting solutions) is that it is seen as a reliable and useful utility.  People getting constantly ripped of in the vastly underdeveloped and (imo) malformed and downright ugly economy which currently exists is not at all helpful.

c) As I alluded to, Bitcoin is currently a solution in search of a problem at this point and in my locale since the USD, credit, and Paypal work admirably for a lot of us (my not being in debt.)  I feel it more important to develop a robust and scalable solution, not necessarily the 'biggest at any cost' at this point in time, and I think that doing so has the best chance of serving humanity well in the end.  If 'the end' never comes, that's fine with me since we've got it pretty damn good as things stand (again, in my locale.)

d) When the chips were down and I feared for the future of the solution, I spent a fair amount of USD mopping up some of the excess supply.  Long before the trough I had called $1.80/BTC as a dangerous level.  The primary driver for this action was probably not purely altruistic, but that was something of a factor.  So as far as I'm concerned I took a big chance and if I want to rest on my laurels (and my BTC) rather than hand it over to other people I have no shame in doing just that.  Besides, limiting supply (by hoarding) is probably the biggest factor in increasing the fiat/BTC ratio (for whatever good that is.)

Now I will agree the the 'mildly parasitic' comment, but the host is the developers of the solution...not the hoards of scam artists and computer criminals who want to separate me from my wealth which is how I could characterize the the economic activity at this juncture.

I and relatively few other people spoke up with concerns about the Bitcoin Foundation before it was created and during the request-for-comments phase.  None-the-less, I will probably be a direct contributor when I've satisfied myself that the concerns are being addressed.  I believe that this will have infinately more positive effect on the solution than jacking off to a web cam or pissing my net worth away on a gambling site which is designed to make someone else money.

It makes sense, but it is not necessarily true, otherwise ppl would be scared to buy or own gold since most of it is owned by a few central banks who can dump it at any time. Of course, gold may be different than our funny internet money.

Here's why you are wrong: If one person holds for example 20 million BTC and the rest of the economy is based on the remaining million, there's always the threat looming that all your money might be devalued 20 times in an instant once this person decides to get out.

If there are only 1001 coins, everyone holds fractions of this 1 and I hold 1000 (not disclosing anything about my plans what to do with these 1000 coins) would this hold back people from trusting this currency or not?

Here's why you are wrong: The whole economy can run off 1 Bitcoin. That 1 Bitcoin or more can be invested and used as much as you like. The persons holding more are holding back nobody.

This is not a problem in itself, but the economy would not grow if everyone acted like you, so the attitude you prescribe is mildly parasitic. There is nothing wrong with it, but you shouldn't act as if you are doing something right and the people who use GLBSE are somewhat stupid. Shut up and enjoy your hoarding while we create value.


Exactly...


There are many proposed solutions to decentralizing this specific part of our financial structure, but we won't get there in a day. It's actually somewhat fortunate that there are enough people who dare to get their hands dirty only to fail. We are currently in the phase of identifying problems and brainstorming. I'm convinced that an "efficient" decentralized stock exchange is very doable, but still think we need an integrated solution to at least help with trust.


Crypto::Stocks seemed nice. It's basically the same thing, so I guess this time we need more assurances and a general policy explanation from the owner. More importantly, an automatic fallback mechanism if the exchange goes down.


I LOL'd.

I appreciate your consideration of such things and it seems to me like something worth expending significant effort towards.  I'm not confident that I can predict what the results of such efforts might be (if the solutions work) but it's always good to have options in my opinion.

Technically, the barriers should be as low as that, assuming your idea and website are good enough. But no! Thanks to unaffordable licenses and kilometric, ambiguous and incomprehensible regulations that no human being can possibly follow strictly, yeah, your barriers of entry get really high.

I dont know why he woudnt just cut ties with glbse and just setup a new site without the baggage in that case.

Limiting your mind to a decentralized, distributed currency is thinking too small.

Think decentralized, distributed financial system.  Bitcoin is just the base for something bigger.

Another scenario:

Too centralized.  Try distributed bonds.

Or even better, a merge-mined data timestamping service...  no blockchain bloat, as it is just another merkle branch in the merged-mining merkle tree (of which a single merkle root is then published in each block's coinbase).

lol. calm down people

FSA: Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding: Staying on the right side of the FSA

There's no need for anyone to have brought GLBSE to the attention of the FSA - nefario was actually trying to get it registered with them.  One pretty reasonable theory on what's happening gos like this:

Nefario: Hi FSA, I'd like to register my company GLBSE as a financial services provider.
FSA: Do you provide services that are required to be registered with us?
Nefario: Yes
FSA: Then please submit your application.  Oh - and if you're already providing such services then you need to stop until we approve or decline your application to register.

The application/approval process typically takes a few months.

He can't register with the FSA unless he provides services that they register.  And if he DOES provide services that should be registered with them, then he shouldn't be providing such services without being registered.

Obviously if GLBSE ends up registered with the FSA then it would have to comply with AML/KYC requirements - so if the announcement on Saturday mentions FSA registration everyone should start getting their photo id, proof of address etc ready if they want to get back access to their assets.

Note: I'm in no way saying the GLBSE WILL end up FSA regulated.  Nor is the above the only credible scenario for what's happening - just the most likely in my view.

my thoughts exactly

"Hey, relax guy.  Trust me."

I find the "How am I ever going to offload my toxic securities onto someone else now that GLBSE is down" laments somewhat amusing.


I think it's vital that operators actually do this instead of accepting just about anything because it brings in money.  They also need to be willing to suspend trading in particular securities far more than they have in the past.

Don't get me wrong, there's a market for toxic assets, but they have the ability to compromise the integrity of an exchange as a whole and they should be avoided by exchanges which want to build a reputation for high quality, well vetted offerings.  It's not enough to simply exclude illegal stuff if you're going to continue allowing things like usagi's house of cards to trade after new information reveals its recursive nature.