Topic: GLBSE is offline We will update our users on Saturday. - page 17. (Read 51544 times)

There should be contractual standards as well, and of course an exchange operator has the right of refusal.  For example, an OBSI security may not be transferable but a GIGAMINING or COGNITIVE might be.  This might even increase the trading of more reputable securities.

+1 amen to that. lol 

Ha!  I know!  Bitcoin needs a 'fed' to unload the toxic assets of favored buddy's failing businesses onto.

The problem is when you have a situation like this one where an exchange lists so many toxic assets that no-one in their right mind would want them migrated to their own exchange.

+1024

A general standard across cryptocurrency denominated exchanges should be implemented so that in case one exchange falls, securities can migrate to other exchanges.

I'm not convinced of that.  There are a lot of differences in approach.  And ultimately even if we fail, by design we're not leaving our users hanging.  Asset issuers will have everything they need to transition to whatever's next.

Owning a large part of glbse and being kept in the dark could have something to do with it 

Even if GLBSE got closed down as a result of investigations initiated by US authorities, it doesn't mean they weren't breaking UK law in respect of unregistered securities.  It's highly possible that the existence of GLBSE could be brought to the attention of the UK's FSA and that the FSA would take it from there without US law being involved at all.

I have no idea whether US law prevents unregistered securities being offered to US residents by foreign operators.  Maybe there is some technicality which allows them to go after off-shore, unregulated exchanges even if those exchanges are legal in their local jurisdiction in the same way that they were able to go after the online poker services which were allowing US players on the technicality of transferring funds through US financial services for the purpose of online poker playing.

There are so many things affecting the value of Bitcoin "investments" at the moment that it would not be easy to establish Nefario's role in any decline in value of assets listed on GLBSE.  You'd be looking at an expensive legal case, assuming that it wasn't dismissed out of hand (unlike the US, you can't "sue anyone for anything" in Commonwealth countries and lawyers themselves get sanctioned for bringing frivolous cases before the courts).

Why? Is it because you hold a large share in GLBSE? Or just generally irritated?

The way I see it is that if they can't tell you why they went offline now, what makes you think they will tell you on Saturday.

Oh right I would rather have them be hacked and let us know than to just run off. What's the difference?

Here send me some bitcoins and I'll do the second option to you since it is less painful.

You will have the same issues as glbse eventually. a wise man once said doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is silly

Has Nefario even made a statement at all???

That's interesting .. because compliance ordered by a foreign government.. would that stand up.

If it tanks due to regulatory compliance measures, then none.  A contract based on him not complying with the law wouldn't be enforceable.

Glad I got most of mine out when Nefarious decided to black list that goat fella.

So when this market tanks what's his liability on a lawsuit under UK law I wonder.

That would be awesome...do it!

I've been contemplating taking the LTC-GLOBAL code and putting up a bitcoin version.  I have a few major features I'd like to finish first.  (1 week of dev work?)  Swapping out some text, the css, the litecoind for a bitcoind, and the header/footer would be easy.

Another option I've been thinking about is finishing up the major features, then putting up the code for sale along with a single-use (restricted to bitcoin) license. 

I suspect the shareholders of LTC-GLOBAL would be happy with either option.  Both would be a nice payday for shareholders.