Topic: Nefario GLBSE - page 11. (Read 28552 times)
What were the exact words he said when he made the listing "legitimate"?
Can you post the version that was not changed this April. We need to see why Nefario thought he could trade his shares for the "fake" GLBSE shares last winter.
We do not know what was changed in April.
Thank you.
Part 5 Section 8 accepted via motion at the Annual General Meeting held on April 13th, 2012.
To sum it up, since you didn't look very hard, is that it added means of meeting to accept IRC for voting and such.
So "fake"/"fraudulent" GLBSE shares were listed but also still remain listed and traded?
And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?
And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?
They are no longer listed or tradeable on the exchange. They can be "traded" off the exchange by using the transfer function (transfer assets from one account to another account).
This is correct.
Nefario however let the "fake" GLBSE trade for months after he said they would be converted to real GLBSE assets.
I now hold "fake" GLBSE stock and do not consent to them being sold to Nefario for .1 BTC Nefario needs to just leave them alone as I value them more than he does.
What do you value them at? Theymos is selling shares of GLBSE for 0.3BTC.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but Nefario said about 30BTC were sold at an IPO of 0.1. That puts a cap of about 300 shares sold. Goat bought shares at 0.05 to 0.06BTC, so even if he owned 300 of them that he paid 18BTC for them. Since then he's sold 3 for 31BTC. He holds an undisclosed number of existing shares, that he does not want to have bought back for 0.12BTC.
Does that about sum it up?
So "fake"/"fraudulent" GLBSE shares were listed but also still remain listed and traded?
And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?
And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?
They are no longer listed or tradeable on the exchange. They can be "traded" off the exchange by using the transfer function (transfer assets from one account to another account).
Goat, wouldnt your time be better spent on "Going after Trendon Shavers" ? Or was that just bleating?
So "fake"/"fraudulent" GLBSE shares were listed but also still remain listed and traded?
And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?
And, the "real" shares in the GLBSE are not actually traded on the GLBSE?
Just how much do you think GLBSE will be worth when people know you own part of it ?
Doesn't matter anymore. If Nefario just does nothing, everthing will be fine:
Yes, I just want to keep my GLBSE asset.
I am not asking a price. However I would like them to be converted to valid GLBSE stock but since I do not have a contract with Nefario I can not force the issue.
However I will not just consent to him paying me a token for this asset. I do not consent to him taking my "worthless" asset. If it really was worthless Nefario should just leave it be.
Just how much do you think GLBSE will be worth when people know you own part of it ?
Not saying it's true or anything, but I've noticed that nicknames seem to speak a lot about people...
ne·far·i·ous
Definition of NEFARIOUS
: flagrantly wicked or impious : evil
— ne·far·i·ous·ly adverb
Examples of NEFARIOUS
a nefarious scheme to cheat people out of their money
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nefarious
It is so hard to trust anyone in this community at all. You really have to think about long-term implications of "what can go wrong". Everyone seems to be so willing to rush into deals with each other, then are quick to yell "Lawyer Up, dude" when there is some disagreement.
This is exactly what is wrong with the world right now. No personal responsibility.
-p
ne·far·i·ous
Definition of NEFARIOUS
: flagrantly wicked or impious : evil
— ne·far·i·ous·ly adverb
Examples of NEFARIOUS
a nefarious scheme to cheat people out of their money
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nefarious
It is so hard to trust anyone in this community at all. You really have to think about long-term implications of "what can go wrong". Everyone seems to be so willing to rush into deals with each other, then are quick to yell "Lawyer Up, dude" when there is some disagreement.
This is exactly what is wrong with the world right now. No personal responsibility.
-p
Goat, can you please add additional info to the OP? It's important what exactly Nefario said, as is a rough idea about face value and volume of the real and extra GLBSE stocks then and now.
I'm all in favor of people sticking to their word, but not if that leads to unreasonable claims under scammy circumstances. Nefario already said he'd pay some sort of compensation, you say it's too small, so how about we look at the compiled numbers and statements? I can't make heads or tails from it as is.
I'm all in favor of people sticking to their word, but not if that leads to unreasonable claims under scammy circumstances. Nefario already said he'd pay some sort of compensation, you say it's too small, so how about we look at the compiled numbers and statements? I can't make heads or tails from it as is.
I operated for months with the assumption that I was a part owner of GLBSE and would eventually get more stock either given to me or I would be able to buy it.
What I am upset with is the forced sale of my asset even if others see it as worthless. I do not want to sell I should not be forced.
If Nefario does not want to hold his word that is fine but he should not take what I own.
If all you want is to keep you worthless fake GLBSE shares and Nefario wants to force buy them you indeed have a point, IMO.
My understanding was that you wanted a ridiculous price or ownership in GLBSE for them.
If that's not the case, than please accept my apology.
Goat, can you please add additional info to the OP? It's important what exactly Nefario said, as is a rough idea about face value and volume of the real and extra GLBSE stocks then and now.
I'm all in favor of people sticking to their word, but not if that leads to unreasonable claims under scammy circumstances. Nefario already said he'd pay some sort of compensation, you say it's too small, so how about we look at the compiled numbers and statements? I can't make heads or tails from it as is.
I'm all in favor of people sticking to their word, but not if that leads to unreasonable claims under scammy circumstances. Nefario already said he'd pay some sort of compensation, you say it's too small, so how about we look at the compiled numbers and statements? I can't make heads or tails from it as is.
[sarcasm]Of course I don't believe in property, things can not be owned, they can only allow you to use them for some time.[/sarcasm]
Why you don't have any shares on real GLBSE has been stated over and over in this thread. I'm not going to repeat it.
By no I'm sure that you just don't understand what my problem is here.
I got the feeling that you absolutely don't understand the difference between law and common sense.
Don't get me wrong goat. I think you are a highly intelligent person. But I get the feeling that you have a huge lack in emotional intelligence.
Edit:
After reviewing, I recognized that this sounds much more offensive that I intended it to. Lets say it was due to my lacking skill in the English language.
Why you don't have any shares on real GLBSE has been stated over and over in this thread. I'm not going to repeat it.
By no I'm sure that you just don't understand what my problem is here.
I got the feeling that you absolutely don't understand the difference between law and common sense.
Don't get me wrong goat. I think you are a highly intelligent person. But I get the feeling that you have a huge lack in emotional intelligence.
Edit:
After reviewing, I recognized that this sounds much more offensive that I intended it to. Lets say it was due to my lacking skill in the English language.
Oh drama... solve this please.
Nefario is not a scammer. (rediculous)
I also bought GLBSE stocks before V2 was introduced, why was this stock available for such a long time if it was not legit ?
GLBSE allowed this scam to happen so GLBSE is responsible.
Nefario is not a scammer. (rediculous)
I also bought GLBSE stocks before V2 was introduced, why was this stock available for such a long time if it was not legit ?
GLBSE allowed this scam to happen so GLBSE is responsible.
You may not do anything legally wrong here.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
?
goat always did what he said (ok, sometimes he does things and does not tell: but he never broke contract)
on the other side nefario (sometimes) does things because he THINKS thats the right thing to do - and sometimes i think otherwise.
as goat offers securities/investments i think he can do whatever he wants as long as he honors his contracts (what he does).
nefario as the owner of the biggest bitcoin exchange should think very wisely before he acts (examples are DMC, publicate IDs, forcing existing listings to provide id, forbid IPO's listings after taken the fee and so on).
Please do not interned extra content into my posts.
I didn't mean that Goat doesn't honor his contract. I mean the opposite. Goat takes contacts and even things said to a level where it just isn't reasonable by common sense anymore.
Just see this thread, or the thread where he tries to get shares on bitcoin magazine.
That's all I meant. I'm still confident that goat will honor all his contracts. I would be carefully if I deal directly with him, or if he would be shareholder of my business, though.
You may not do anything legally wrong here.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
?
goat always did what he said (ok, sometimes he does things and does not tell: but he never broke contract)
on the other side nefario (sometimes) does things because he THINKS thats the right thing to do - and sometimes i think otherwise.
as goat offers securities/investments i think he can do whatever he wants as long as he honors his contracts (what he does).
nefario as the owner of the biggest bitcoin exchange should think very wisely before he acts (examples are DMC, publicate IDs, forcing existing listings to provide id, forbid IPO's listings after taken the fee and so on).
You may not do anything legally wrong here.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
But you proof again that it is very dangerous to do business with you.
You show that if business doesn't work out the way you expected you will search for every possible loophole to screw you business partner.
Showing this kind of behavior may be the deathblow to your already damaged reputation.
OMG. Not this again.
Goat, don't you have any feeling for what in morally wrong or right?
Lets assume for a moment you claims where right (which the seem to be not), that doesn't mean you should stick to your claims ant any costs.
That's exactly the same kind of behavior that the people have that sue a coffeehouse because their coffee is to hat and there was no warning.
...
Oh, I know get it. The whole thread was ironic. Good acting Goad. You fooled me.
Goat, don't you have any feeling for what in morally wrong or right?
Lets assume for a moment you claims where right (which the seem to be not), that doesn't mean you should stick to your claims ant any costs.
That's exactly the same kind of behavior that the people have that sue a coffeehouse because their coffee is to hat and there was no warning.
...
Oh, I know get it. The whole thread was ironic. Good acting Goad. You fooled me.
No slander sonny, just a valid question. You were very active listing assets when it was free and unregulated to do so. This issue came up during a weekend, which was coincidentally when you tended to create your ventures. The language in the contract documents was startlingly similar to the language used in your asset listings.
I just suggest that those with access to the data may want to think about a little comparison to learn why some very vocal children are crying for so much attention.
Your insistence on oblique shifts in discussion do nothing to strengthen your position. Nefario never claimed they were "valid" shares. He claimed that there would be a way of honoring them. Without any stated method for doing so, and with the clear stated and obvious proviso that honoring them was an accommodation for the error in not controlling the name of the asset prior to its criminal implementation. And demanding access to the codicils of an investment group which have been available for over a year is silly. Do your homework before you shoot off at the mouth.
And claiming I listed the asset is churlish and baseless. As Nefario can clear up for you, I was very actively engaged with him at that very time looking for scammers, like yourself, who were destroying the first version of the market. In fact... now that I recall, wasn't Peter Lambert a big fan of yours? And didn't he actively coach you on asset creation? And wasn't that right around the time GLBSE Fake was created, and then the LIF family of funds turned out to be just as fake as the pass-through you ran for pirate?
Are you absolutely certain you want to open up that kettle of fish, rice boy?
I just suggest that those with access to the data may want to think about a little comparison to learn why some very vocal children are crying for so much attention.
Your insistence on oblique shifts in discussion do nothing to strengthen your position. Nefario never claimed they were "valid" shares. He claimed that there would be a way of honoring them. Without any stated method for doing so, and with the clear stated and obvious proviso that honoring them was an accommodation for the error in not controlling the name of the asset prior to its criminal implementation. And demanding access to the codicils of an investment group which have been available for over a year is silly. Do your homework before you shoot off at the mouth.
And claiming I listed the asset is churlish and baseless. As Nefario can clear up for you, I was very actively engaged with him at that very time looking for scammers, like yourself, who were destroying the first version of the market. In fact... now that I recall, wasn't Peter Lambert a big fan of yours? And didn't he actively coach you on asset creation? And wasn't that right around the time GLBSE Fake was created, and then the LIF family of funds turned out to be just as fake as the pass-through you ran for pirate?
Are you absolutely certain you want to open up that kettle of fish, rice boy?
Thats an interesting line of thought.
If they are valid you broke the glbse bylaws by selling them. Do you not understand this 
?
Ignoring all the real problems for a moment... there is nothing binding about the GLBSE bylaws by default. I presume the bylaws forbid transfer of shares to anyone who doesn't contractually accept the bylaws, but that obviously wasn't the case here. ?Jump to: