Topic: Nefario GLBSE - page 3. (Read 28552 times)

How was it stupid? I'm currently in "profit" and still haven't lost a penny like you my friend. I made that bet in July when Bitcoins were $8.50. Please show me how it was "stupid".

Try harder to troll me.  

BTW how much did you have invested with PussyAt30?

Edit: How much also did you have invested with GLBSE (Gigantic Lying Bastards Stealing Eggs?)

Looks like you're on the shit-end of the stick now given your past ramblings of pirate investors etc.

Got any big words you would like to use now that you obviously are in a bad predicament with your "investments"?

Disclosure: I invested $0/0BTC with both pirate and GLBSE.

Have a nice day,

Smoothie

You're asking PR why do they "whine" instead of providing the solutions? What exactly is the thought process that went into that?

Otherwise, MPEx is the solution, and has been, since launch.

 The original intent of glbse was to be simply a trading floor not the judge and jury. The exchange shouldnt pick winners and losers.

Do you believe people can govern themselves or do they need a nanny to tell them what to do ?  The best thing the community can do is come up with independent agencies to do credit checks and verifications and the massive scams should have made people realise theres a great business opportunity for someone to do this. Theres only so  much glbse can do with the resources it has and instead of whining about it why arent you providing solutions instead ?

GLBSE has been fleecing the naive since early 2011 actually. MPEx exists since March 2012, Cryptoexchange since June I think.

Spot on, actually.

Greed is the constant, yessir. One thing I admire about the Bitcoin design philosophy is that greed appears to have been in mind during the process, hence irreversible payments. No amount of design can protect people from their own shortcomings or inability to employ common sense.


I have a feeling that a fairly high percentage of users would put the rent in a slot machine if given half a chance.

Let's be honest - the reason why people are willing to put blind faith in these operators boils down to greed.  They're "investing" on the slight possibility that the scheme is both legitimate and sustainable.  Intellectually they might know that there's a high risk of failure, but the remote possibility of easy money hooks them emotionally - especially if they're people who unlikely to ever acquire wealth by conventional means. 

What is utterly ridiculous is that people keep investing more than they can afford to lose in these ventures.  Every time a Bitcoin venture fails we get posts about people having lost funds they needed for day to day expenses, or even worse, losing funds they'd borrowed and now can't return.  If you wouldn't bet the amount you're placing in Bitcoin schemes at the casino, then you need to consider how catastrophic the failure of your investment would be to your real life.

Agreed. But things will stop looking like scams when an operation's principle actors are asking people to just "trust" them. Trust has been common factor behind all of these failures, which is odd since trust is the exact opposite of Bitcoin's architecture. The con in "con game" is short for confidence for a reason.

I agree - we investors are thinking too short term. Let's hope that the failures this year lead to less failures next year.

The exchanges have been around for what, six months?

I look forward to the day when Bitcoin users stop crying "scam" every time they lose money.  The majority of real world start-ups fail.  The majority of Bitcoin start-ups are woefully under-capitalised and have nothing resembling a viable business plan.  That does not in and of itself make them scams.  Calling every venture which fails a scam stops us from looking at the factors these failures have in common - it stops us from developing a collective wisdom which can be used to reduce the chance of future ventures failing.

Nope... A thumbdrive can have a persistent filesystem. Better not take any chances

You gotta get with the times man! Android PC-on-a-stick!

You gotta get with the times man! Linux live thumbdrive!

Goat,  if Nefario ever relists your assets you should make sure never to connect to GLBSE without chaining 15 proxies while using a Linux live CD(at least)

I look forward to the day that every Bitcoin user assumes the existence of counterparty risk when putting their coins to anything rather than assume that they can "trust" someone because they see their friends doing it too.

Honestly, it's about time that wannabe entrepreneurs started to realise that you can't just do whatever you want within the business environment and claim some kind of magical immunity because...Bitcoins.  I hope the events of the last couple of months do have some kind of chilling effect on start-ups so that we see a much more professional approach to the launching of Bitcoin services in the future. 

Very, very few existing Bitcoin services have the kind of financial reserves necessary to weather regulatory or other legal challenges and that needs to change.  One of the first questions we should be asking those launching services in the future is what their contingency plans are for predictable challenges such as bank accounts being frozen, their service being hacked, regulatory requirements being imposed, etc.

PayPal spent years trying to avoid being regulated and it ended up losing the fight despite having the enormous financial reserves of e-Bay at its disposal.  Facebook abandoned FB credits - which were projected to be a huge source of revenue - in order to avoid potentially expensive legal complications.  I doubt that even the most successful Bitcoin services can afford protracted legal challenges lasting years and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Services need to be far more upfront about what their plans are for dealing with legal and regulatory issues which will almost certainly arise more often as time goes on.  For many services, the honest answer is that they will simply have to close if they come under regulatory or other legal scrutiny - it's about time users were explicitly made aware of that likelihood.

Indeed. I'm not surprised.

I also see them as yet another stepping stone for the education of the Bitcoin community. As much as I love the idea of Bitcoin (so much so that I'm heavily vested in it) and the drive of the community, I have to remember that the young, inexperienced community is Bitcoin's biggest liability.

Great... genjix is endorsing Nefario. That pretty well screws the pooch. GLBSE is a scam.

     I will not be mediating the situation between Goat and Nefario. There are better places to do that, with people who know their local laws better than I do. Goat is already taking advice from his lawyer, he should consult him on how best to deal with this situation, he'd probably know better than most people on an internet forum. Unlike both Nefario and Goat, I don't have legal counsel so I'd rather stay out of it. There are just too many uncertainties. 

     My role here is to decide based on the evidence if Nefario deserves a scammer tag based on his actions. Mostly because of the concerns I wrote about above, I'm undecided on this, which likely means no. I need to be certain of guilt to stake someone else's name and reputation on me being right, and undecided is a long way from certain. I'd also rather wait and see what's going on with GLBSE since it's only a couple more days, maybe that will clear things up a bit as to what's going on. I'd also like to see the results of whatever route Goat decides to pursue, hopefully he'll keep us updated on that. If he can get an official ruling on the legalities surrounding the situation then it's likely I'd go along with that.