Topic: Nefario - page 85. (Read 198716 times)

[email protected]

I think hes saying you can assume your investment with the issuer if you give the issuer your email user and btc addressa so they can carry on business without the interface of glbse. However we dont have any information on the issuers in order to contact them in the first place, so its immposible to do whats being asked, unless we can either access glbse or glbse emails each user with all their details.

This obviously should of happened anyway, for if someone doesnt check the website they would be none the wiser anyway, its either complete incompetence or theft.

Does anyone have the email for contacting glbse?

Pirateat40 did the community a favor by defaulting sooner rather than later.  All this trouble was going to happen eventually.   By happening now it has reduced the damage.

you should be able to see your auto saved username through your browsers settings. or even your sign up emails. i am assuming the list of your assets and account balance will be emailed to you. when you give your email username and btc address.

"Q:I'm a GLBSE user, what about my assets and my bitcoin?

You will be able to get back your bitcoin, and if you want to reveal your username, email, and a bitcoin address to accept payments with, you can continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold."

But I cant remember the assets I hold, or even my username it was all autosaved, we need access even if all transactions are locked out in order to get the information.

Does anyone have a list of the issuers?

I think there is room for another foundation - something like "Bitcoin privacy and freedom foundation", the true opposite of  industry driven "Bitcoin foundation".

You can't have a market regulated strictly by market consumers i.e. a free market until you have a small group of thugs enforcing their arbitrary rules through the use of violence. You just can't.

Face it. We are at war and it's being waged against every single person who dares to have the audacity to think they are free to live, free to own and control their own body and free to own and control their property. And until this war persists, anyone who wants to act on their beliefs they must do so only if and when they understand the consequences of dong so, that living by what they believe in will put them at war and that they are going to be attacked for it. It's the only way people will start taking the necessary precautions that will allow them to operate and survive this war.

The SR route sounds like the only way one can find such protection right now so someone better start figuring out how to offer an investment platform service like that.

Agreed on needing more than one.  If mediocre people become involved with the foundation we need a second foundation for when the first fails.

These closing I think are just a natural process of the 'cleaning up' of the economy. In the beginning it's not surprising to see 'mediocre' people seeing an opportunity that isn't afforded to them in other sectors. Gradually more and more talented people will see opportunity here and will join the project.

This is why I support the foundation- we need some organizational group that at least is honestly smart and knows how these things work. It's not perfect and we certainly need more then one, but it's the start of a new chapter that is long over due.

The closing of GLBSE is a big kick to the bitcoin economy and also to the image that bitcoin is giving to the rest of the world.

Lately, lots of problem have ocurred in the bitcoin economy the thing with pirate, bitcoinica and now this.
As a person that believes that bitcoins have a big potential, I'm extremely afraid of this. Each of these events (closing of GLBSE, BS&T, etc.)
makes the bitcoin economy closer to the cliff. Maybe the next big fail in the bitcoin world could push it down the cliff and then it's all lost.

And why?
Because mediocre people are put in front of important points of the bitcoin economy. And that's what happened to Nefario in my opinion.

How is that different to people selling pirate debt ?

afaik: as he already paid his lawyer with user funds that would mean that not all users get their btc.
do you really want that?

I haven't had the chance to make it through this whole thread, but if any of you were at the conference and saw the GLBSE talk, you would understand pretty quickly why it can't actually last in the long run. I asked some pretty pointed questions in the Q&A that essentially convinced me GLBSE would never work.

a) They publicly said in one form or another they would purposefully avoid laws that would regulate them. He thought this meant future legislation that  might come into force and then GLBSE would just move to another jurisdiction. However existing  financial regulations probably already cover them. The kicker was, he didn't have any idea about that.

b) anonymity can't work for stocks. Users can never be sure they aren't actually just investing in GLBSE itself, IE: GLBSE could just make fake companies and list it self and take the money paying out interest a-la ponzi scheme. They are the market itself so they would be in an excellent position to convince people the securities were fabulous deals.

c) they really didn't seem to know much about financial services: maybe it was nerves in front of the crowd, but a good deal of basic financial terminology escaped the speaker.

d) they didn't have a lawyer yet, nor had wanted to talk to a lawyer.

It's a good idea, but it's an already well regulated field. If we're going to have Bitcoin stock exchanges, either someone has to come up with some super clever way of doing it (micro-lending?) that gets around the obvious problems AND legalities, or it needs to be run like a real stock exchange, in which case it's going to get regulated by the state.

If people don't want to be regulated, it needs to be based somewhere other then the UK.

Theymos, please read this post. I also urge you not to give any BTC to Nefario. Thanks.

As I understand it, he may or may not have been using funds from the hot wallet to be replaced by funds that Theymos holds that belong to the holding company. IF thats the case, its questionable, but as long as he doesnt spend more than what GLBSE has in reserves,  in the grand scheme of things, not a major issue IMO.

On a side note, when I watched Nefario's speech at the conference, I was shocked to hear him say how bitcoin OTC saved his ass when he urgently needed (IIRC) 400 pounds to pay for something.  I was expecting him to say the opposite, that bitcoin OTC saved him when he needed bitcoins. But he needed fiat. Its not a crime to be broke, but one has to wonder if its a good idea to put someone in charge of 100s of 1000s of bitcoin when that person has  trouble coming up with 400 pound to pay his bills.

WHAT!??! SRSLY?!?!       

...

For comic relief, I'm just pointing this out:

((person 1)) ... blah blah ... secure process ... prove you own shares ... continue doing business ... Any better ideas?

((person 2)) Get one person to (( submit Anti Money Laundering documentation)) for lots of different accounts for a cut.

...

---

Now that's what I call a (( REALLY BAD )) plan:

This plan should be called the "let's pile a bunch of money together, launder it and then... oh crap the feds are here we're all screwed" plan:

• Places in the world where AML is taken serriouisly
  
• The "RICO" act ... a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering...

...

---

@bitcoin.me

Thanks, I needed that laugh. The GLBSE shutdown was making me sad.

Financial regulation + Bitcoin = You lose.

Fiat based economies can afford to lose time and and resources again and again from due to their incoherent rules. They just print more get away with it.

Bitcoin is different in that supply is very limited and it cannot afford to lose BTCs and lawyer fee to outdated, obsolete oligarchic restrictions. (whatever that mean)

I refuse to limit myself to documents such as SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
Haven't read but I think it's safe to say ~30% of what's written in there is ridiculous and make no sense when applied to a world of bitcoins and global online transactions.

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?

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)

Where did you get that idea ?