Topic: Nefario - page 34. (Read 198678 times)

LMFAO

his username is "nefario" for fuck's sake!

Surely he wouldn't try to pull something "nefarious", would he?


lololololol

I'm getting very, very tired of reading posts justifying James' actions. They're not even funny.
He was in business to make a buck and people who are making a buck have responsibilities. Period.
Then he decides to close shop suddenly and unilaterally, taking everyone's money with him and rendering assets worthless.
[He could've closed shop and let everyone take out their money, assets could've been dissolved as well into BTC at current value.]

Now he's redefining the term clusterfuck so deeply arms manufacturers might hire him as a designer.
[This will, of course, literally explode on their faces.]

But still, people stand up for him, incl. people that have lost btc over this and probably will never get them back.
Wtf?

I'm a positive person but... Goat, I bet we won't see any of that.
Well, maybe something... but all in this schizophrenic, double-or-nothing, highly entropic way.

His actions dont align with the things he is saying/not saying. Now the customers have to suffer.

And what would actually be the difference? That you believe you could get prosecuted or that you are advice that you are subject to prosecution pretty much calls for the same course of actions. And if he were to get legal actions from the SEC or similar entities, the fact that he unknowingly (which does not make you not-guilty) committed a crime and ceased operation when he got enlightened (with advice or not), would go in his favor big time, especially considering the crime itself was one with no permanent damage.

If you like taking that much risk, just go to high rollers section of casino and sign your bank tab and go all in.

The guy took a decision to put his life out of the cross hair. Not for greed, power or reconision. If it were for those reasons, people would not see those bitcoins in their wallets right now.

Seriously?  LOL.

I wonder how many guests from regulatory authorities were at the conference.

^Made my day

Be careful what you ask for...

I got _just_ the email.

Maybe ask for your BTC first...

i have no comments on this unbeliveble hyperclusterfuck...

btc is a nice progressive concept with great potential.
like, say, nuclear power.

problem: it's being handled like chernobyl

Reading the shareholders' meeting chat log in disbelief.

He went from explaining in the conference how GLBSE was legally impossible to attack and how there was a contingency plan and others had the code and passwords to run the site, to this:


Fucking appalling.

Where is my email?

I wonder what the legal status of an essentially anonymous shareholder is, in the first place.

Nefario is correct about Nefario=GLBSE... as, from what I read, he is the only one who stepped up with his RL identity to run the company. Therefore, as far as the law is concerned, wouldn't he be considered the only owner?

His name is on everything. Even if he sold off all of his interests, everything is still in his name, and as far as the law is concerned, he's the one responsible.

Now, if the other shareholders wanted to step up and put their own identity on the line along with him, then they also are entitled to the representation, and consideration about the company.

The atty would be correct in not speaking with anonymous shareholders.

It is easy to heckle the guy with his freedom on the line, when you're sitting in the cheap seats.

Shareholder2 is particularly an idiot it seems. Realities escape his logic.

-- Smoov

thanks.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1283157

If the lawyers advice is something like that "everything you have been doing is illegal in one way or the other and these are the details why" I am not sure I would want that opinion in writing. What good is that going to do? On the opposite, if somebody finds that paper that could be very bad news to me. I certainly am not going to tell people that I am not 110% sure that they are not going to leak the details into the whole internet to see to get hold on that kind of information that could be very incriminating to me.

On the other hand if there would be other individuals that A) could be in the same legal trouble, and B) seem to worried about that possibility and would like to know the details to maximally cover their ass, I would be somewhat morally obligated to tell them some of the highlights, privately to these few trustworthy and concerned individuals only after letting them to swear never to tell this information onwards.

To me it seems that the other shareholders are not in the same trouble because it seems that a lot of cases where the individuals are somewhat anonymous and in different jurisdiction than where the "crime" might have taken place, it seems that they escape any kind of repercussions. Another point is that it seems that they agree and are not very concerned about this possibility, on the contrary, they want to continue do the business.

If the business continues, it could very well mean that nefario is in bigger legal trouble than he already is and it seems that the other shareholders seem not that concerned that the actions they want to take might severly hurt somebody legally, to me these circumstances sound like that the morally right thing to do is to follow the lawyers advice and shut up and stop doing the crime that you have been doing.
  

url to post or it did not happen

I hope Theymos answer this.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1285230

Some are in Australia and Canada, which are part of the commonwealth.

Nefario said he was most concerned about AML stuff, not about the legalities of selling unregulated securities to Americans.  If there's an investigation going on, it seems far more likely that it's a domestic one (which could have been precipitated by information shared by US investigators looking into pirate's ponzi).


At this point in time, so many Bitcoin services are complete clusterfucks that you'd never be sure whether it was a competitor or an angry user who reported you.  Every time a Bitcoin service fucks up spectacularly these days, I pretty much assume that a few of their users will report them to the authorities - and services themselves should probably work on that assumption too.

If I ran a bitcoin service, and I was not compliant with current laws, and I suddenly got attention from regulators. The first thing I would think would be: "Who is to gain from this?"

Naturally, competitors would be an answer. So would this not be the same as shooting yourself in the foot if you report your competitor to the regulators? What is there to protect you from your competitor reporting you too ? Would it not be in the best interest of all services to keep quiet?

I would make that same assumption.  When lawyers "gag" their clients, they tend to tell those clients to refer people who want to know what's going on to them - then the lawyer gets to stonewall people, eliminating the risk of the client saying something stupid which will dig them into a deeper hole.

It's not that I don't believe a lawyer would tell Nefario to shut GLBSE down - there are a lot of Bitcoin services operating that are skating on very thin ice when it comes to compliance with financial laws and regulations, and judging by some of the comments in those minutes some of them have probably been reported to regulators by their competition - I don't, however, believe that he has received legal advice in anything other than a personal capacity and I'd be worried that he'll throw everyone else under a bus if that's what it takes to save his own ass.

I just assume Nefario is acting in bad faith untill I see something official from the lawyer.

And no lawyer in a Commonwealth country is going to maintain that the absence of a written contract means that a partnership didn't exist.  There is clear evidence that the "shareholders" were not angel investors who had no role in the operations of GLBSE - some of them even performed the roles of office-bearers and it's apparent that they held regular meetings to discuss GLBSE issues.  

If a lawyer told Nefario to with-hold information from the co-owners (because that's what they are) of GLBSE, it's not because no written partnership agreement exists (the absence of written partnership agreements is common enough that legal systems have default ways of dissolving partnerships, and this particular one did have by-laws - signed or not), it's because Nefario consulted that lawyer as an individual rather than on behalf of GLBSE.

It's more than clear that the partners did regard it as a toy company and didn't seek legal advice before deciding to throw it together - nobody who's obtained competent legal advice is going to set up an enterprise in a manner which exposes them to unlimited personal liability - but that doesn't mean that no laws apply to it.


There are circumstances where you have a positive obligation to disclose material information and it's utter bullshit to pretend that an investigation into the operations of GLBSE - a business for which all of the partners are legally responsible - is not material information.  If Nefario was seeking legal advice on behalf of GLBSE rather than as an individual, you bet he had an obligation to disclose that material information to his co-owners - the business, and not Nefario personally, would be the client in that instance.  Likewise, a CEO of a real company seeking legal advice on behalf of the company could not with-hold that advice from the board of directors.

He has produced zero evidence of having consulted a lawyer and zero evidence of being advised to close down the business - which I've already pointed out that the lawyer could have given without disclosing the existence of any active investigation.  There is no way that if I'm seeking legal advice on behalf of a business - something I've done on many occasions - I am not going to get my lawyer to confirm that advice in writing 1) so there is no confusion about the advice when I relay it to others and 2) so that if it turns out to be unsound advice, I have evidence that we were badly advised.