Topic: GOOD NEWS! GLBSE is sending out shareholders data (Read 6334 times)

LMFAO, I think the SEC will visit the Gypsy trader aka Mircea Popescu first to shut down his Once in a lifetime Wonder Bazar aka MPex.

Some people like to pretend like the data was sent.

The fact of the matter is Nefario with a few friends doctored the listings and stole most of the BTC/more valuable assets.

Hopefully the UK's equivalent of the SEC catches up and we see some filings.

What happened with "sending out shareholders data"?
Did you guys received anything?

It's almost a year and I haven't received a single email and (as expected) i was never sent BTCs that i had on GLBSE account.

So, it's game over i guess?

Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

Sounds pretty solid.  I like it.

I'm gonna have to start building a web frontend for it or something. 

Each new receipt, you must sign the new balance.

So if you have a 0 balance, and then you receive 50 sheep, you sign a receipt that says, "My balance is 0. I'm receiving 50 sheep. My new balance will be 50."

Then let's say you receive another 50 sheep: "My balance is 50 sheep. I'm receiving 50 more sheep. My new balance will be 100."

Then let's say you send 50 sheep to Bob:  "My balance is 100 sheep. Please send 50 sheep to Bob. My new balance will be 50."


See? You must sign the balance on each new request. Therefore the most recent receipt shows the current balance, with your signature on it (and the server's signature.)

Therefore in any dispute, the winner is the one with the newest receipt.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that.  Definitely helped me understand it better.

The signed receipts as a record sound really helpful.  If the OT server goes offline, then the asset holders can send their receipts to the asset issuer and the asset issuer can use them to determine amounts held?  How does it prevent double spend?  Eg:

- I buy 50 sheep
- I sell 50 sheep
- I buy 50 sheep

I now hold two receipts, representing purchases of 50 sheep.  Is there something the asset issuer can use to tell that the first 50 sheep were sold off?

Cheers.

If an issuer issues sheep onto servers A, B and C, then the "sheep" currency is now available on three servers.

If you redeem a cheque that was drawn from an account on server A, then your wallet will naturally redeem it at server A,
just the same as a web browser trying to display an image from webserver A, would download that image from webserver A.
(In both cases, the client software just accesses the appropriate server based on what's in the URL.)

There are several ways to move your "sheep" from Server A to Server B:

1. Anyone who has a "sheep" account on both servers, can perform this transfer for you.

2. Including, obviously, the issuer himself. He can take sheep from you on Server A, and give you sheep on Server B.
   (In fact, anyone with accounts on both servers can do this.)

3. You could sell the Sheep on the exchange in return for Bitcoins. Then withdraw the Bitcoins from the server directly, and move them onto server B, where you use the BTC to purchase Sheep again.

4. A protocol could be devised between servers that allows them to open accounts with each other, and thus perform "wire transfers" on behalf of their users.



This is not correct. The whole idea with OT is that the user stores his last signed receipt, and is thus able to prove his balance, as well as which instruments are valid, simply via that last signed receipt. In other words, the receipt is the account, and both parties have a copy of it.


Remember that the OT server cannot change balances or forge receipts. (Your signed request appears on every server-signed receipt. So the server cannot forge a receipt because it cannot forge your signature, because it does not have your private key.)

And as long as the issuer has an auditing protocol in place that meets his standards, then the server cannot commit inflation either.

Therefore, whether there are 100 servers, or 1000 servers, they cannot defraud the issuers or users.


Thanks for the opportunity  :-)

@gewure ...

Did you receive that response through the claims page of the GLBSE website or via an email to the email address you registered on the page ?

If it was via email, what was the email address you received the response from ? (I'm trying to determine whether or not I have received any emails relating to my claim.)

TIA

i have about 100 bitcoin in stocks on GLBSE and some cash...

havent gotten anything so far -_-


GLBSE ya serious? do something!

the only shit i got was

"Claim finished

Your claim has been submitted and will be reviewed. You will be contacted (via the email address you provided) to keep you up to date on the status of your account, we will try to get your bitcoin to you as soon as possible."

gimme my money back :/

Yay. Received some good info. Got my one share of IBB, good news is good news, now just waiting on asic.coop.

I see most of your points, but I am a little confused as to how/why formalizing in the ToS the part in bold leads you to this:


I kind of figured that a lot of people were treating it like that.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have spent the time coding it all.  I formalized the legal around it to make sure we were all on a level playing field.



In that situation it's pretty obvious that the two organizations are operating as one.  I also suspect that the fantasy casino is not making people sign a contract upon entry stating that their games do not pay out.  Maybe they do?

Also, following that logic, even the likes of Chuck-E-Cheese's would be illegal.  You buy tokens, play games, collect tickets, use the tickets to claim prizes, which you could then sell next door at the pawn shop for cash.  This is not unlike BTC-TC.  BTC is a commodity, not unlike the toys you walk out of Chuck-E-Cheese's with.

In situations where the money changing and the business operations are contractually laid out to be educational fantasy and obviously separate (such as BTC-TC) our argument would be that if all things fantasy that have value are illegal and BTC-TC finds itself in legal trouble, then Blizzard, Second Life, Sony Entertainment, etc, would pretty much all have to be on the side of BTC-TC.  Because if BTC-TC lost such a case based solely on what virtual tokens it used, then they would be exposed as well for their virtual tokens, asset exchanges, and tradability.  This extends to the likes of ebay, where in game assets, and various other commodities (BTC) are regularly traded. 

Things may change in the future, but I think for now the exchange is on pretty good ground.

A company does not have to be registered to be 'real'.  All someone has to do is conduct business under a name and that is a company.  It might be breaking the law by soliciting investments from the public, but that does not make it any less real.  When I started to use GLBSE I treated it as a game that if lost it is no big deal, but many people treated it as real exchange.  It can't be both ways, a bitcoin is either something that has value or it doesn't.

As for exchanges that will use imaginary chips/bits, there are many illegal casinos in America that will not exchange their USD for chips.  Instead they go next door and exchange their money for chips, then walk into the 'fantasy casino'.  If the player wins, they can take their chips out of the casino and go next door and exchange their chips for their money.  It doesn't make it any less illegal and the police is fine with shutting down both operations.

I prefer having the list of email addresses and how many shares each email address holds. After all what is more p2p than email???

I discussed the open transactions server stuff a bit with several members here on the forums.  I didn't really like how it worked.  It's not how you'd think it would work, all decentralized like bitcoin itself.  It was more like a network of exchanges (each server = it's own exchange) that could trade assets around.  Even the trading of the assets was not what I thought, as a single issue could not leave a single server.  (if you have sheep on server A, and goats on server B, sheep could not move A to B.  You have to trade sheep for goats, -or- the issuer has to issue sheep on both servers.)  I could accomplish nearly the same thing if I added a secure cross-site trading plugin to LTC-GLOBAL, then open sourced the code.

There are single point of failure issues with OT because all the assets go poof if the server they are on goes offline.

Problem also emerges that you might have 100 people all running their own "exchange", making it all that much harder for the trustworthy operators to rise above the noise.

(OT guys feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!)

I don't want to start a flame war or anything.  I admire the work the OT guys are doing.  Just saying that based on what was described to me, it's not yet ready for prime-time.  It has some design flaws that need worked out so that it works more like bitcoin itself, totally distributed and independent of any single point of control or failure.

Cheers.

You still have the issuers risk and P2P exchange will note diminish that risk at all. I guess this is what btc asked for no central control and looks like it's starting to bite our asses

BTW, this is getting way off-topic and has nothing to do with: "GOOD NEWS! GLBSE is sending out shareholders data "

Please use the link I posted above. Here is a rough idea to protect issuers, investors and also the exchange

Then maybe it would be better to go for a p2p exchange and learn to use open transactions, to at least reduce the number of people who can scam you for any single thing. But even with that, you always depend on your trust on someone else with little recurse to the law in case you trusted the wrong guy. So unless someone find an effective system of sanctions in case of scams, this investing thing is not going to float IMHO.

Most of the "companies" on glbse were imaginary and in fact so was glbse itself. Tell me one actual listing that was a real registered company in any jurisdiction in the world ?

Maybe it could be remedied by signing a contract with the issuer externally, which mentions that the tokens on such and such site corresponds to real shares of the company. I wouldn't do this if I was the issuer though, at least while I'm located in the first world.

Obviously IANAL, but I think contracts on GLBSE wouldn't work as proof "by themselves" anyway. Signing contracts directly with the responsible party seems to be the best/only option, regardless of it being an illegal securities exchange or a game.

Best strategy for issuers could be to refrain from making their identity public and instead assign publicly known and trusted arbiters to resolve disputes who have their identity. The arbiters' role can be extended to cover passive audits, like periodically receiving a list of shareholders and even checking the accounts.

I agree that this part sucks, but the fact of the matter is that that line by itself allows the exchange to exist.  Without it, it's illegal to operate and can be taken down by a cranky government at any time.  GLBSE was illegal in the UK, Cryptostocks is illegal in Canada, MPex, I'm not sure about, but I know it's illegal for US citizens to use it.

And, in function, there have been little to no repercussions for failed assets anyway.  Maybe a scammer tag.

JOBS act is not going to work out well for open trading exchanges.  If I read it correctly, shares in JOBS act companies cannot be openly traded.

My take is: keep the legal in mind when investing, be careful, do your research, and make the best of a crap situation.  And ultimately, I'm not going to hold it against anyone that doesn't want to use it.  It was painful to have to put that in there.   

Cheers.

Deal breaker for me.  Buy imaginary companies with imaginary tokens from an imaginary currency.  This means anyone can scam a user and not have to face consequences.

I think it would be best to wait for the JOBS act to be implemented and go from there.