Quote
losing Bitcointalk would be a calamity.
My advise is to setup Osiris serverless portal and figure out how to replicate content of the forum there. If something bad happen, we can continue there.
Topic: Nefario - page 83. (Read 198716 times)
Quote
losing Bitcointalk would be a calamity.
My advise is to setup Osiris serverless portal and figure out how to replicate content of the forum there. If something bad happen, we can continue there.Quote
losing Bitcointalk would be a calamity.
My advise is to setup Osiris serverless portal and figure out how to replicate content of the forum there. If something bad happen, we can continue there.
That would help... 
Quote
losing Bitcointalk would be a calamity.
My advise is to setup Osiris serverless portal and figure out how to replicate content of the forum there. If something bad happen, we can continue there. 
Things that make you go hmm....
Seriously tho, it's awesome that people around here have such faith but we return to the maxim of not risking what you're not willing to lose. Add to that, that bitcoin in itself is a risky proposition which means that investing in bitcoin derivatives compounds the risk again.....people are here bemoaning bitcoins bad luck when the financial instruments to begin with have worse odds then loaning money out on trust alone to random strangers.
Never invest what you're not willing to lose, and especially do not invest in that which you don't understand.
But that said, it sucks, and should I ever be here holding the bag myself, I'm sure I too would be happy to hear words of support, so keep on pushing, the spirit of innovation includes resilience when burned.
Seriously tho, it's awesome that people around here have such faith but we return to the maxim of not risking what you're not willing to lose. Add to that, that bitcoin in itself is a risky proposition which means that investing in bitcoin derivatives compounds the risk again.....people are here bemoaning bitcoins bad luck when the financial instruments to begin with have worse odds then loaning money out on trust alone to random strangers.
Never invest what you're not willing to lose, and especially do not invest in that which you don't understand.
But that said, it sucks, and should I ever be here holding the bag myself, I'm sure I too would be happy to hear words of support, so keep on pushing, the spirit of innovation includes resilience when burned.
Today we learned that the bus factor of GLBSE was in fact 1.
Despite Nefario's claim to the contrary.*, **, ***
This raises the question: What is the bus factor of Bitcointalk?
Losing GLBSE was a bummer, losing Bitcointalk would be a calamity.
Does Gox / Tibanne Ltd. have everything they need to keep things running?
(If, for example, the law should come a knocking, or Theymos should be unavailable for some other reason.)
*) IIRC, Nefario stated this in his recent Bitcoin 2012 talk in London.
**) Update 1: Oops. After quickly skipping through the talk, it seems I was wrong about Nefario having made this claim.
He dodged the question when it came up, and only spoke of moving the servers to different jurisdictions if something should happen.
***) Update 2: Disregard last update.
Yes we've got frequent offsite backups, you've need to read our threads on our disaster plans, from government action to me being hit by a bus.
Despite Nefario's claim to the contrary.*, **, ***
This raises the question: What is the bus factor of Bitcointalk?
Losing GLBSE was a bummer, losing Bitcointalk would be a calamity.
Does Gox / Tibanne Ltd. have everything they need to keep things running?
(If, for example, the law should come a knocking, or Theymos should be unavailable for some other reason.)
*) IIRC, Nefario stated this in his recent Bitcoin 2012 talk in London.
**) Update 1: Oops. After quickly skipping through the talk, it seems I was wrong about Nefario having made this claim.
He dodged the question when it came up, and only spoke of moving the servers to different jurisdictions if something should happen.
***) Update 2: Disregard last update.
Please tell me the GLBSE makes multiple off site backups, somewhat frequently.
I know you are working toward going "legit", but worst case and they decide to gank the domain and hit the host, GLBSE will just pop up elsewhere right?
Many would be interested considering the counter party risk involved. You have the only ledger of members in an offering and the holdings of each.
Without you, issuers would have absolutely no way of honouring their commitments.
I know you are working toward going "legit", but worst case and they decide to gank the domain and hit the host, GLBSE will just pop up elsewhere right?
Many would be interested considering the counter party risk involved. You have the only ledger of members in an offering and the holdings of each.
Without you, issuers would have absolutely no way of honouring their commitments.
Yes we've got frequent offsite backups, you've need to read our threads on our disaster plans, from government action to me being hit by a bus.
I for one have a lot of sympathy toward Nefario, there have been missteps but what he (and other shareholders) were trying to accomplish was out of this world.
And he deserves some support from the community.
And he deserves some support from the community.
I do not think so, he deserves to be doxed and haunted for the rest of the time he uses the internet by the online mob.
I for one have a lot of sympathy toward Nefario, there have been missteps but what he (and other shareholders) were trying to accomplish was out of this world.
And he deserves some support from the community.
And he deserves some support from the community.
GLBSE should have been a black market operation, no offense. The fact that the founder is known and visible and that the exchange is centralized is a big red flag.
Agreed. I always argued that GLBSE should be an unregulated platform for trades.
You mean, illegal?
@Theymos, you seem to be the only one here from the meeting who can give a straight answer
what was nefario's reasoning for closing GLBSE?
He managed to convince some of you to support him, so he must have had a good argument, what was it?
I tried to remove him as CEO, but there wasn't enough shareholder support. 5-6 people supported removing him against three (including Nefario) who didn't, but our side didn't have enough shares for a motion. Three large shareholders weren't at the meeting, so it was difficult to get the 51% required.
Later on in the meeting, Nefario somehow managed to convince 1-2 of the people who had supported removing Nefario, which is how he was able to pass a motion to order me to give him the treasury funds. So I doubt a motion to remove Nefario is possible now even if the absent shareholders voted.
It doesn't matter anyway, since Nefario said that he would ignore the shareholders and shut down GLBSE. And shutting down GLBSE is against the bylaws, so he needs a 66% vote. He didn't even pursue a 50% vote.
What would I do with the money if I kept it? I don't have the user database.
Later on in the meeting, Nefario somehow managed to convince 1-2 of the people who had supported removing Nefario, which is how he was able to pass a motion to order me to give him the treasury funds. So I doubt a motion to remove Nefario is possible now even if the absent shareholders voted.
It doesn't matter anyway, since Nefario said that he would ignore the shareholders and shut down GLBSE. And shutting down GLBSE is against the bylaws, so he needs a 66% vote. He didn't even pursue a 50% vote.
What would I do with the money if I kept it? I don't have the user database.
what was nefario's reasoning for closing GLBSE?
He managed to convince some of you to support him, so he must have had a good argument, what was it?
When were you planning on disclosing this aspect of your role in relation to the sale of your stake in GLBSE?
I mentioned it briefly in my sale thread. And I've mentioned it before in other places.
Theymos, as treasurer, shouldn't you be the one to disperse the funds to their rightful owners? Why would you be sending the funds to Nefario in the first place, even if you had no knowledge of his treachery?
I don't have the user database.
Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
One thing I constantly warn people about is self-censorship. If you think it is a good thing to remove Nefario as CEO, then put up a motion, and let him ignore it and take responsibility for this. By not putting up a motion because "he would ignore it", you are simply letting him go on as CEO.
Please do not censor yourself, and do what you think is right for GLBSE regardless of what you think Nefario might do then. That could protect you in the future.
(disclaimer: I don't have any coin or share on GLBSE)
Theymos, please read this post. I also urge you not to give any BTC to Nefario. Thanks.
I tried to remove him as CEO, but there wasn't enough shareholder support. 5-6 people supported removing him against three (including Nefario) who didn't, but our side didn't have enough shares for a motion. Three large shareholders weren't at the meeting, so it was difficult to get the 51% required.
Later on in the meeting, Nefario somehow managed to convince 1-2 of the people who had supported removing Nefario, which is how he was able to pass a motion to order me to give him the treasury funds. So I doubt a motion to remove Nefario is possible now even if the absent shareholders voted.
It doesn't matter anyway, since Nefario said that he would ignore the shareholders and shut down GLBSE. And shutting down GLBSE is against the bylaws, so he needs a 66% vote. He didn't even pursue a 50% vote.
What would I do with the money if I kept it? I don't have the user database.
Damn, thanks for trying though! This really sounds bad. I hope I'll get my money back from GLBSE. I knew I should have withdrawn...
Easy in a hindsight :p
It seems that the main issue on crypto currencies and their spreading around the world is that many not trustworthy people are seeking their chances to pull out some cash for themselves, which crashes the main trust in this technology. Building Trust should be key issue on spreading cryptocoins. Because this is one of the most important issue all currencies have... the more trusted they are, the more value they become/have., or maybe more more truthful: the less trust, the less value in midterm a currency will have.
sadly many bigger players on the cryptocoin market did not understand that yet, or dont care about.
sadly many bigger players on the cryptocoin market did not understand that yet, or dont care about.
What would I do with the money if I kept it? I don't have the user database.
When Goat's assets were kicked off the exchange he received a list of all holders of his assets encoded. All the holders received a code to prove they owned the asset. If the same is done now for the balances (and I read somewhere that it will, no idea about the source though) then you could return all the funds using this information.
Disclaimer: I have no funds, assets or anything of any value on GLBSE
Thanks for trying, Theymos.
When were you planning on disclosing this aspect of your role in relation to the sale of your stake in GLBSE?
I mentioned it briefly in my sale thread. And I've mentioned it before in other places.
Theymos, as treasurer, shouldn't you be the one to disperse the funds to their rightful owners? Why would you be sending the funds to Nefario in the first place, even if you had no knowledge of his treachery?
I don't have the user database.
Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
One thing I constantly warn people about is self-censorship. If you think it is a good thing to remove Nefario as CEO, then put up a motion, and let him ignore it and take responsibility for this. By not putting up a motion because "he would ignore it", you are simply letting him go on as CEO.
Please do not censor yourself, and do what you think is right for GLBSE regardless of what you think Nefario might do then. That could protect you in the future.
(disclaimer: I don't have any coin or share on GLBSE)
Theymos, please read this post. I also urge you not to give any BTC to Nefario. Thanks.
I tried to remove him as CEO, but there wasn't enough shareholder support. 5-6 people supported removing him against three (including Nefario) who didn't, but our side didn't have enough shares for a motion. Three large shareholders weren't at the meeting, so it was difficult to get the 51% required.
Later on in the meeting, Nefario somehow managed to convince 1-2 of the people who had supported removing Nefario, which is how he was able to pass a motion to order me to give him the treasury funds. So I doubt a motion to remove Nefario is possible now even if the absent shareholders voted.
It doesn't matter anyway, since Nefario said that he would ignore the shareholders and shut down GLBSE. And shutting down GLBSE is against the bylaws, so he needs a 66% vote. He didn't even pursue a 50% vote.
What would I do with the money if I kept it? I don't have the user database.
These closing I think are just a natural process of the 'cleaning up' of the economy.
There is not an infinite supply of fools endowed with BTC. I don't expect anyone would touch a shady BTC "securities" exchange with a ten foot pole from now on. Unless a foolproof, user friendly system comes out (which I cannot even imagine), a big chunk of the BTC economy is now dead.
I'd be more concerned for the people who have money in GLBSE, not about how much they might have lost, but rather what they might legally be on the hook for.
Well, I'm not a lawyer but here's how I see it:
The asset issuers obtained money from the sale of securities on an illegal exchange.
The asset buyers are the victims.
I don't think much about turning my BTC or LTC back into fiat.
I know services should be offering this and should be trustworthy, but my operational mindset is that I can protect my BTC/LTC when it's in my possession. My HOPES are that one day they will be super valuable and I can use them for purchasing things without going the Fiat route.
+1
This happened via privmsg. Somebody accidentally messaged me / I had never talked to them directly and didn't recognize them from any threads I was on...
Hmm? who scammed me?
All I know for certain is that GLBSE is unavailable, theymos is pissed at nefario as a result (level of communication, etc.)
... and there is probably some degree of "lawyering up" going on.
The only companies I have shares which were traded on GLBSE the owners / operators are pretty cool
some will even allow you to hold your shares outside of GLBSE, still get dividends, etc. so all is not lost.
What is it they say / suggest about never investing more than you can afford to lose?
I'm personally not "dead in the water" as a result of (temporarily?) being unable to manage any assets via GLBSE. I have not been "scammed" as far as I'm aware.
Edited to add:
That conversation took place before GLBSE updated the single-page "website" with the breif emergency FAQ explaining they were actually shutting down, and that they would try to facilitate the process of:
asset holder <----> security issuer ( the communication thinger )
I know services should be offering this and should be trustworthy, but my operational mindset is that I can protect my BTC/LTC when it's in my possession. My HOPES are that one day they will be super valuable and I can use them for purchasing things without going the Fiat route.
Theymos,
Yes. It's a terrible betrayal.
The exact same thing happened with MtGox users, a while ago. Before MtGox had their ToS in place, they would hold your money ransom and force you to identify yourself to get it back. Nobody had been formally prevented of this. Some people honestly believed they could operate anonymously, as there was nothing saying they could not, and all of he sudden, "a terrible betrayal".
I've protested many times in the occasion, saying MtGox should at least give these people the chance of leaving with their money, if they did not agree to the new terms. There are many threads in this forum on this subject.
If MtGox didn't get a scammer tag due to that - what may be considered reasonable, since maybe they were being forced to act like that - giving a scammer tag to Nefario for the same kind of actions would be a double standard.
Plus, about violating GLBSE bylaws, Nefario is no longer liable for such break of contract if he's doing so under the threat of violence. The criminal wouldn't be him, but the person/group who's forcing him to act criminally - in the case, the state, as usual.
Theymos, I understand you're pissed off by him. He made a series of bad decisions. But if this whole mess was initiated by the state, Nefario is a victim as everybody else. Try your best to be an impartial and fair judge. I honestly have the feeling Nefario is not a scammer, at least not willingly so (of course I may be wrong).
So if you want to remain anonymous, you go penniless?
Yes. It's a terrible betrayal.
The exact same thing happened with MtGox users, a while ago. Before MtGox had their ToS in place, they would hold your money ransom and force you to identify yourself to get it back. Nobody had been formally prevented of this. Some people honestly believed they could operate anonymously, as there was nothing saying they could not, and all of he sudden, "a terrible betrayal".
I've protested many times in the occasion, saying MtGox should at least give these people the chance of leaving with their money, if they did not agree to the new terms. There are many threads in this forum on this subject.
If MtGox didn't get a scammer tag due to that - what may be considered reasonable, since maybe they were being forced to act like that - giving a scammer tag to Nefario for the same kind of actions would be a double standard.
Plus, about violating GLBSE bylaws, Nefario is no longer liable for such break of contract if he's doing so under the threat of violence. The criminal wouldn't be him, but the person/group who's forcing him to act criminally - in the case, the state, as usual.
Theymos, I understand you're pissed off by him. He made a series of bad decisions. But if this whole mess was initiated by the state, Nefario is a victim as everybody else. Try your best to be an impartial and fair judge. I honestly have the feeling Nefario is not a scammer, at least not willingly so (of course I may be wrong).
+1
This happened via privmsg. Somebody accidentally messaged me / I had never talked to them directly and didn't recognize them from any threads I was on...
Quote from: ___nameremoved___
Omg...
I just read..
GLBSE.. WTF!!!!!!
?
Dammit, Im getting sick of this scam stuff... how the hell could he do this ?
How are you making out? is he being reasonable with you ?
This is horrible, beyond horrible...
I just read..
GLBSE.. WTF!!!!!!
?Dammit, Im getting sick of this scam stuff... how the hell could he do this ?
How are you making out? is he being reasonable with you ?
This is horrible, beyond horrible...
Hmm? who scammed me?
All I know for certain is that GLBSE is unavailable, theymos is pissed at nefario as a result (level of communication, etc.)
... and there is probably some degree of "lawyering up" going on.
The only companies I have shares which were traded on GLBSE the owners / operators are pretty cool
some will even allow you to hold your shares outside of GLBSE, still get dividends, etc. so all is not lost.
What is it they say / suggest about never investing more than you can afford to lose?
I'm personally not "dead in the water" as a result of (temporarily?) being unable to manage any assets via GLBSE. I have not been "scammed" as far as I'm aware.
Edited to add:
That conversation took place before GLBSE updated the single-page "website" with the breif emergency FAQ explaining they were actually shutting down, and that they would try to facilitate the process of:
asset holder <----> security issuer ( the communication thinger )
Theymos,
Yes. It's a terrible betrayal.
The exact same thing happened with MtGox users, a while ago. Before MtGox had their ToS in place, they would hold your money ransom and force you to identify yourself to get it back. Nobody had been formally prevented of this. Some people honestly believed they could operate anonymously, as there was nothing saying they could not, and all of he sudden, "a terrible betrayal".
I've protested many times in the occasion, saying MtGox should at least give these people the chance of leaving with their money, if they did not agree to the new terms. There are many threads in this forum on this subject.
If MtGox didn't get a scammer tag due to that - what may be considered reasonable, since maybe they were being forced to act like that - giving a scammer tag to Nefario for the same kind of actions would be a double standard.
Plus, about violating GLBSE bylaws, Nefario is no longer liable for such break of contract if he's doing so under the threat of violence. The criminal wouldn't be him, but the person/group who's forcing him to act criminally - in the case, the state, as usual.
Theymos, I understand you're pissed off by him. He made a series of bad decisions. But if this whole mess was initiated by the state, Nefario is a victim as everybody else. Try your best to be an impartial and fair judge. I honestly have the feeling Nefario is not a scammer, at least not willingly so (of course I may be wrong).
So if you want to remain anonymous, you go penniless?
Yes. It's a terrible betrayal.
The exact same thing happened with MtGox users, a while ago. Before MtGox had their ToS in place, they would hold your money ransom and force you to identify yourself to get it back. Nobody had been formally prevented of this. Some people honestly believed they could operate anonymously, as there was nothing saying they could not, and all of he sudden, "a terrible betrayal".
I've protested many times in the occasion, saying MtGox should at least give these people the chance of leaving with their money, if they did not agree to the new terms. There are many threads in this forum on this subject.
If MtGox didn't get a scammer tag due to that - what may be considered reasonable, since maybe they were being forced to act like that - giving a scammer tag to Nefario for the same kind of actions would be a double standard.
Plus, about violating GLBSE bylaws, Nefario is no longer liable for such break of contract if he's doing so under the threat of violence. The criminal wouldn't be him, but the person/group who's forcing him to act criminally - in the case, the state, as usual.
Theymos, I understand you're pissed off by him. He made a series of bad decisions. But if this whole mess was initiated by the state, Nefario is a victim as everybody else. Try your best to be an impartial and fair judge. I honestly have the feeling Nefario is not a scammer, at least not willingly so (of course I may be wrong).
+1
This happened via privmsg. Somebody accidentally messaged me / I had never talked to them directly and didn't recognize them from any threads I was on...
Quote from: ___nameremoved___
Omg...
I just read..
GLBSE.. WTF!!!!!!?
Dammit, Im getting sick of this scam stuff... how the hell could he do this ?
How are you making out? is he being reasonable with you ?
This is horrible, beyond horrible...
I just read..
GLBSE.. WTF!!!!!!
?Dammit, Im getting sick of this scam stuff... how the hell could he do this ?
How are you making out? is he being reasonable with you ?
This is horrible, beyond horrible...
Hmm? who scammed me?
All I know for certain is that GLBSE is unavailable, theymos is pissed at nefario as a result (level of communication, etc.)
... and there is probably some degree of "lawyering up" going on.
The only companies I have shares which were traded on GLBSE the owners / operators are pretty cool
some will even allow you to hold your shares outside of GLBSE, still get dividends, etc. so all is not lost.
What is it they say / suggest about never investing more than you can afford to lose?
I'm personally not "dead in the water" as a result of (temporarily?) being unable to manage any assets via GLBSE. I have not been "scammed" as far as I'm aware.
Edited to add:
That conversation took place before GLBSE updated the single-page "website" with the breif emergency FAQ explaining they were actually shutting down, and that they would try to facilitate the process of:
asset holder <----> security issuer ( the communication thinger )
Jump to: