Topic: P (Read 78397 times)

Exactly... this is basically the share-/bond-holder list that the asset issuer has received.

The issuer doesn't know who "codexxxxx" is... the share-/bond-holder, is given that code, to be used to identify himself to the asset issuer, who can then update his list, with the name/email of the owner of that entry.

All the code is, is identity. Nothing more.

Replace that code with your name, or your email, and it is still a code, just of a different type.

-- Smoov

I've been thinking about this, and it doesn't solve all the problems but it may help to address some issues, it does still require some participation from GLBSE, which even when this first happened may have been difficult.

GLBSE and Goat each provide a hash of the data given (the full list) GLBSE to confirm Goat's list, Goat to provide proof of the full data, and someone generates a list of salted hashes of each redemption code and publishes these hashes. This provides evidence of all valid codes. When Goat receives a code, redeemed first come first serve, and publishes the code and it's salt (preferably the hash as well for convenience).

This provides:
-Evidence that a code does or does not exist
-Evidence of a code being claimed or not

This doesn't fix:
-Two people submitting at roughly the same time (probably trying to scam goat).
-GLBSE giving out the same code twice (hopefully they wouldn't, but assuming no trust).
-Goat claiming codes (since he already knows them all).

I understand this is their position. I consider it a scam. Until a transfer of ownership records to some other scheme is completed (or reasonable efforts to accomplish it fail), GLBSE cannot abandon its obligation to protect its customers' ownership interest.

Same thing -- GLBSE has something of value that needs to trade hands -- the record of ownership of the asset.

Same here. GLBSE has in its possession the only usable record of who owns how much of the asset. The value inherent in being the recorded owner of the asset is what needs to be retrieved from GLBSE.

They represent ownership of the asset, which is exactly what needs to be transferred.

If you honestly believe that GLBSE has no further obligation, please explain what happens in this case:

1) Someone posts to the forum claiming Goat refused to honor a code.

2) Goat responds that the code was already redeemed by someone else.

3) The person complaining swears they got the one and only code from GLBSE.

4) Goat says he doesn't know if GLBSE gave the same code to two people or if the person complaining shared their code with someone and is trying to scam him.

What happens? Remember, your position is that GLBSE has no further obligation at all, so don't tell me GLBSE will or must do something. How do Goat, the community, and the purported owner resolve this?

If you think this scenario is unrealistic, I would remind you that all the evidence we have suggests that Nefario invented this code scheme in the span of a few minutes as part of a plan specifically to harm Goat and in the absence of any known legitimate business reason while apparently totally disregarding any obligation to preserve the value of the asset or the ownership interests for its customers. Nefario either didn't stop for a second to think about what this would do to the value of the asset, harm to his customers, or he didn't care.

I understanding that the code list represents only asset amount, no holder identity

example:

codexxxxx > 2000 TYGRR-P
codeyyyyy > 1593 TYGRR--

Where this comparison falls apart, is that with an MtGox code, MtGox has something of value that needs to trade hands with the person who redeems the code. In this case, Bitcoin (or is it paper, I haven't needed to use one).

When you give someone the code, you are doing so as payment for something, and the recipient expects to be able to take that code to MtGox, and turn it in, to get the funds that code represented. This is something that MtGox actually does have in its possession.

The codes from GLBSE, do not represent funds, or a transaction, or even shares/bonds.

The GLBSE codes represent identity. Nothing more.

-- Smoov

>bangs his head against the wall for a moment<

Ok... one more time...

GLBSE does not hold, or possess your shares/bonds. All it did was track them, and handle the accounting. Your shares/bonds, are from the asset issuer themselves.

The only purpose of the code, is so the asset issuer, can match up the anonymous owner of those shares/bonds, to the list that they have received from GLBSE at the time the asset was delisted.

The list, is a list of anonymous owners, represented by the code, and all the code does, is identify the owner of his shares/bonds, when the owner makes himself known to the issuer.

The only part of this section that you are correct on, is "The shares/bonds are still owned by the people who bought them through GLBSE, just as they always are."

GLBSE's cooperation, was providing the codes, without identifying who owned the shares. You can't have expected GLBSE to continue managing your shares in an issue that is no longer trading on GLBSE (completely setting aside the actual closing of GLBSE which is a whole other mess, and which I agree, the way he handled that particular fiasco, does warrant a scammer tag, even tho this TYGRR mess, doesn't.)

GLBSE offered a service to those issuing bonds/stocks listed on their exchange, for as long as they were listed on the exchange, and when they are no longer listed on the exchange, they are under no obligation to continue offering said service.

They _are_, however, still obligated to maintain the anonymity of the traders, who agreed to that anonymity when they signed up. Hence, the codes.

GLBSE can't set that anonymity aside for you, you have to do it yourself.

Now, if the new exchange is willing to put in code, where the issuer lists their asset, where they can input the ownership list, using the codes themselves, and then the trader, has a method where they can go into a menu for that asset where they can claim ownership of their shares/bonds using the code, preserving the anonymity from the asset issuer, that is up to the new exchange.

I don't wanna have to keep going back and forth with you over this, but damnit, you have GOT to get your logic straightened out!

You can't redeem the codes with GLBSE, because there is simply nothing to redeem those codes for, that GLBSE has, to give you. If you still believe you have to redeem them with GLBSE to get your shares/bonds, just what is it do you think they are able to give you?

-- Smoov

That is not true.

Right, that's why you cannot redeem a Mt. Gox code without Mt Gox's participation. You need the issuer of the code to say whether the code is genuine and whether it was already paid. A scheme where Mt. Gox issues codes and then some other entity redeems them with no cooperation from Gox is not going to work.

It's not about who the owners trust, it's about who Goat trusts. He's the one who bears the risk this scheme will fail. (For example, suppose Nefario issued lots of codes to accomplices of his and Goat opts to redeem for Bitcoins. The result of Goat redeeming the codes is that lots of his coins will go to Nefario and lots of his asset owners will think he's scamming them. At this point, Goat likely has zero trust in Nefario.)

Exactly. Any redemption scheme only works if Nefario is available to resolve these disputes and obligated, or trusted, to do so. At the moment, there is no evidence this is the case and it would be outrageous to ask Goat to rely on him.

None of that would prove anything.  We'd still have no way to tell if Goat was scamming, Nefario was scamming, or the asset owner was scamming. Goat would still have no way to know whether he was turning away legitimate users. Goat would still be incurring huge risk if Nefario is scamming him.

All of this comes down to "Why doesn't Goat trust Nefario?" If you don't know the answer to that question, then you haven't followed the circumstances of the delisting. All the evidence I've seen suggests Nefario did this specifically to screw over Goat and in total disregard of GLBSE's obligations to its customers. Given that, it's crazy for Goat to trust Nefario.

For shares of the asset. The only conceivable purpose of the codes would be for owners to redeem them for shares of the asset.

That's right. The shares/bonds are still owned by the people who bought them through GLBSE, just as they always are. The problem is that they have no way to establish this without GLBSE's cooperation, and GLBSE does not appear to be cooperating. The people who bought these shares contracted with GLBSE to protect the record of their ownership interest and GLBSE has defaulted, in fact completely disregarded and disclaimed, this obligation. IMO, that makes GLBSE effectively a scam.

Not involves greater risk than any other code reimbursable, the codes have always been to bearer and no protection against theft.

If I generate a MTGOX code today and tomorrow to reimburse they tell me that is already paid, I'm screwed, go mtgox reclaim something, you are responsible for that nobody steals it and assume the risk involved in using them.

It's a matter of trust, and we already trust our money to goat, so is not time to distrust.

If someone complains that your code is not on the list of goat, in this special case will be necessary to talk with nefario.

If someone complains that goat says it was cashed, goat could prove it with information from the communication of the first payment (email sources, user forum, payment address, etc.)

Redeem them for what, exactly?

GLBSE doesn't possess the shares/bonds. Never did.

-- Smoov

The codes are unusable unless GLBSE redeems them. That's been well-established in several threads. Goat would be taking an essentially unbounded risk in attempting to redeem them.

For example, say Goat decides to start honoring them. How long before this happens:

1) Someone posts to the forum claiming Goat refused to honor a code.

2) Goat responds that the code wasn't on his list.

3) That someone swears they got the code from GLBSE.

If you say Goat wins, then he can refuse to honor any code. If you say the person saying Goat refused to honor the code wins, then anyone can make Goat look like a scammer. And say this happens:

1) Someone posts to the forum claiming Goat refused to honor a code.

2) Goat responds that the code was already redeemed.

3) That someone swears they got the one and only code from GLBSE.

4) Goat says he doesn't know if GLBSE gave the same code to two people or if the person complaining shared their code with someone and is trying to scam him.

If you say Goat wins, same problem -- he can refuse to honor any code. If you say the person saying Goat refused to honor the code wins, then anyone can force Goat to do a double redeem or make him look like a scammer. Worse, GLBSE may already have set him up, and he can never prove it.

Goat can't even mitigate this by creating redemption windows because he has no way to contact all asset holders. And if there are too many conflicts in a redemption window, he'd just have to abort the redemption anyway.

The codes issued to Goat are useless unless GLBSE agrees to redeem them. That's the reality.

Really TYGRR holders, we must identify? nefarious reneged on your assets and provided the codes. If pirate pay someday, you have everything you need to pay us. Not so?

Goat: I own 2036 of these bonds. I've already emailed pirate about this and provided a payout address for myself. Should I also send you that same information?

I'm trying to get my claim code from the GLBSE, but so far they have not responded to my emails.

I have perfect rep (you can just ask my investors) and so if Nefario is going to attempt to steal these bonds from me by holding me hostage by requesting unnecessary identity information, then I hope you'll work with me to make the situation right.

Of course, this assumes Pirate pays anything at all, which I give a very low probability.

you can always list it on cryptostocks

Im sure you can list your rice plantation somewhere 

i see two possibilites:

 - goat said nefario scammed him because he wanted to "steal" his glbse shares (this has nothing to do with glbse directly)
 - maybe nefario did phone sec and feared the outcome of all ppt. (i dont believe this one, because other ppts are still there; though not traded [afaik])

for me it seems that nefario (as a person) just dont like goat.

No. It was because goat created a  threat to glbse somehow and had to be removed.

From what i have gathered these assests have been delisted due to them being illegal, is that correct?

Are goats Assets more illegal than the other PPT's or Are the other PPT's going to being delisted for the same reason?

Open Transactions doesn't magically make all this liability stuff go away.

I deliberately turned off the (on by default) ability of all users to issue assets at will on my Open Transactions server deliberately to avoid this kind of mess.

It is nice to have learned here that people need to know ahead of time that delisting is possible so I might as well mention that part of the criteria for a stock exchange bounty from the DeVCoin bounties was that delisting an asset be possible so yes, delisting will be possible in the event I run an Open Transactions server other people can issue assets on.

I am torn now between creating a separate server per each issuer of assets to keep it real clear who is liable for all assets on that server, and running an Open Server where anyone can create assets at will and each nym is liable for the assets created by that nym.

Maybe doing both would let people play around creating test/demo assets on the Open Server, then get a dedicated server for only their own assets once they are ready to actually open for business, to get out from the likely/probably cesspool of iniquity the test/demo server ("Open Server") is likely to turn into?

-MarkM-

+1 the actions indicate that GLBSE acts in its own best interest. The question is, could it afford to do otherwise since the infrastructure is still in its infancy?

The actual problem was created months ago when GLBSE allowed assets to be listed which were used to support scam activities.
Now what we see is the fallout and an attempt to contain the damage by preemptive strikes. Somebody is in the middle of their learning curve...