Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 2. (Read 33293 times)

To clarify, that just means that we won't give you a scammer tag in that situation. You're still an asshole if you do that, though. Even then, the evidence that you're posting needs to be pretty significant.

By the way, the mining bonds do not need to backed by actual mining unless the contract specifically requires it.

Yes, it is. Most other forums not only ban scammers, but they require much less proof. By our own policy, we decided not to do things that way. Scammer tags are only handed out to people who are pretty clearly scamming after potentially HOURS of paperwork. Bans are also just as hard.

No, I didn't make a mistake, but you misunderstand your current situation. PREVIOUSLY, when you claimed to send the address and Nefario said it wasn't valid, there was the potential for you to be banned for trolling and libel. However, we resolved that. Even if you never did respond, it would be up to Nefario to have pursued that. To be clear, though, you are NO LONGER in a position to be banned. In fact, at the moment, you aren't even at risk of the scammer tag. That may change depending on Nefario's response, however.

Again, there is a difference between laws we care about for the scammer tag, and those that we don't. Since I strongly believe in personal responsibility, I don't feel that the securities laws should apply when it comes to the tag. If you find another exchange to take over your assets, you are no worse off legally than you were before.

Because you are the issuer and GLBSE doesn't want to list you anymore. If you weren't concerned with legal issues, you could even do it yourself.

Why?
That doesn't matter. If you wanted GLBSE to do that or otherwise compensate you if you were to get delisted, you should have written up a contract that says that and required GLBSE to agree to it before you started listing. If they wouldn't have agreed to that, I guarantee that you could have found an exchange that would.

Because you keep posting in public.
Absolutely! While we already discussed the "ban" issue (you won't be banned), I'll also answer that question as if you said "marked as a scammer".
For the scammer tag, you can be publicly silent if you wish. All you have to do is answer any questions I send you (or explain why you can't answer them) and consider any offers from Nefario in good faith. If you don't answer, I will always try to assume the best unless the other side has enough evidence to counter anything I can think of.

That's because we've had it with your games. Nefario isn't thought of that highly either.

Again, I was just explaining what we can LEGALLY do. It is unlikely that we will do it.

No, of course not. That was already handled.

You do not have to fight me. In fact, it is far more likely that you'll walk away from this just fine if you don't. I'm here to help you, but I must consider the interests of both sides.

No, he cannot get away with lying.
Again, you'll be just fine. These also aren't threat. Instead they are statements of fact about what will most likely happen if you don't comply with something or give an explanation of why you can't. If you prefer, I can leave that information out and just let you infer it.

Because that's really hard to figure out, especially since the fake GLBSE has no value.

That wasn't me, that was Nefario. In fact, I still presented it as one of the three options of settling this to Nefario. However, I told you that it's off the table when coming up with ideas because we already know that Nefario will most likely not agree to any such thing and that it's his right to be in business with only those people/organizations that he want to. Under no circumstance will Nefario get a scammer tag simply for not allowing you to continue using his exchange.
Glad to hear it!
That's also wise, just because this forum really sucks as far as communication goes. You're not going to be banned at this point, though.
Ok.


Once I have caught up more to the thread I'll make another post.

That's only really likely to happen if the value of Bitcoins also plummets, in which case it's still a pretty cheap loan.

No. This is seriously incorrect and I think your approach is fundamentally misguided because of this confusion. The third solution does not require Goat to assume any risk he has not already agreed to accept.

If the assets are relisted, there is no way anyone can go to Goat and accuse him of scamming and there is no way Nefario can make Goat look like a scammer. Sure, Nefario can screw over Goat's asset holders, but they agreed to accept GLBSE to protect their ownership interest and it would be absolutely clear to them that it was GLBSE that had defaulted.

You are correct that with option three the asset owners and Goat have to trust Nefario, but only to the extent they have already agreed to trust him by listing their asset with him and purchasing them on his exchange. No new trust is required.

The other two options both require Goat to assume the risk that someone will claim that he is refusing to redeem a valid claim code and he won't know whether it's because of Nefario or the asset owner. This is a risk he never agreed to assume, significantly different in type from other risks he has agreed to assume, and frankly one I don't think he should assume. This risk does not arise in option 3.

In the absence of any redemption agreement, it was Nefario's decision to delist Goat's assets that directly harmed the asset owners.

Goat has never agreed to accept any arrangement where Nefario can make it look to his asset holders like he is scamming. Unless Goat agrees to accept this risk, there is absolutely no sense in trying to get Nefario to agree to impose it on him. It was Nefario's decision that harmed the asset holders and that decision appears to have been made without adequate justification to obtain leverage in another dispute with no consideration for the harm done to GLBSE's customers. You've been asked to investigate that. If you're trying to minimize that harm by moderating, you need to obtain permission from Goat and Nefario first. You can't force yourself into a mediating position, nor is mediating by ultimatums likely to be productive. You're supposed to be investigating.

This is mostly true, but as a cheap loan it is not without significant risk.  If difficulty stays even or goes down it becomes not so cheap a loan.

FUUUUUUUCK indeed.  Smart one, Maged.  And by smart, I mean, FUUUUUUUCK.

There is literally no reason a perpetual mining bond needs mining equipment at all. I knew this a year ago when I thought about how to get a cheap loan in bitcoinland. The answer is to issue mining bonds based on difficulty which is basically a loan with reducing interest rates.

Its not ethical but theres nothing you can do about it unless mining equipment is specified in the contract. I guess goat doesnt have the same ethical boundaries as most of us. Or he just wanted a really cheap loan. Actually you may never get paid back what you lent him  if difficulty ramps up dramatically 

It was in a public channel, and in my and many others irc history too.  Why do you need permission?

I don't get the logic here. Who cares if he mines or not, as long as he gives the bond holders a dividend corresponding to the PPS output of 1 MH/s? What difference does that make for the bond holder whether he mines, he invests in mining or he does anything else with the investment? Would they get more dividends if Goat mined by himself? Would they have any claim to the mining hardware Goat would buy (those are not shares)?

From the contract, one can assume that the bond will never be bought back unless Goat doesn't need the money anymore. As long as he gives holders dividends corresponding to the contract, what's wrong with a bond whose returns are indexed on fixed mining?

Now, if the question is "are people wrong in investing in such bonds?", well, anyone can see the answer in this case. And if you agree that it would make no difference if Goat mined by himself, you will also see that investing in perpetual fixed mining bonds (the problem here is more "perpetual" than anything else) does hardly make sense.

I went back and read the whole conversation. FUUUUUUUCK! 
I think it must be posted here.

Let me quote Maged

I guess you can post the log to clear this mess up.

Although he did confirm that he invested it in hookers and opium. He anticipates a dividend from that soon...

I'd post the log, but when asked for his permission, Goat said no, and I'm honoring that refusal.

-- Smoov

I was reading IRC log for lulz and guess what, there was one interesting conversation - Goat and Smoov going at it. Smoovius was asking questions and Goat was answering. 

After reading this, it looks like goat never ever invested the coins from his "mining" bonds to any mining equipment nor did he bother buying  any shares in any other mining bond or from gpumax?
It sounds like he took out a perpetual "loan" for what ever and he can pay it back when ever via perpetually diminishing dividends (unless the difficulty falls) 
I personally call this bull shit. If you sell mining bond, you mine. Period.
If this is what Nefario closed down, so Goat can not run away with the bond buyers money, then Nefario acted in the interest of all the TYGRR.BOND-A (B?) holders. 

Now TYGRR.BOND-A (B?) investors have a chance to get the coin back and ONLY because Nefario blocked Goat accounts.


Same applies to TYGRR.BOND-B?

This is a TERRIBLE move on your part.  I don't know why it didn't occur to me before my last post, but YOU are now the one exposing your shareholders to potential scammers and that is not the right way to prove whatever point you are trying to prove.  I'm going to break this up into points that should make it clear why I have come to this conclusion:

1) If you are going to honor your obligation and deal with your shareholders as Nefario asked, then you have caved, which is fine, albeit unfair.  In that scenario, there is no reason you would be kicked from the forums.  I, for one, have withdrawn all of my BTC from GLBSE and won't be depositing again if GLBSE doesn't offer any sort of compromise (and GLBSE getting what it wants while you deal with the fallout is not compromise).

2) At least one of your contracts has [email protected] as your e-mail address because it was transferred from GLBSEv1.  That means some shareholders don't have your e-mail address.  It also isn't public in your forum profile, meaning they can't get it that way either.  I could ask what it is here, but any number of people could scam me by claiming to tell me your address, but using a fake one, and then acting as if they are you to get my code if I e-mail it.  Given (1) above, there is no reason (that using e-mail would solve) not to use PM for this, and as such, insisting on resorting to e-mail only serves to put your shareholders at additional risk and/or make you look like a manipulator/scammer.  Putting your shareholders at risk yourself does NOT prove that Nefario put them at risk, and could theoretically absolve him of responsibility for doing so.

But the shareholders didn't consent to the disclosure of their ownership, as you said, so Step 3 is out of question. Also, you can't expect them to give GLBSE their CryptoStocks account name either (assuming this is the alternative).

I still think whoever takes over the authority over the shares should have a communication channel to the shareholder. Since GLBSE is the only entity who has given communication access, they have a duty to create this channel (i.e. continue being the broker until the shares are transferred). This will allow the new stock exchange to verify the claims.

Step 1: Shareholder gets the claim code from GLBSE
Step 2: Shareholder submits this claim code to Exchange2
Step 3: Exchange2 sends a verification number to GLBSE to be communicated to the shareholder corresponding to given code (automated)
Step 4: GLBSE sends the verification number to the corresponding e-mail address (automated)
Step 5: Shareholder submits the verification number to Exchange2

When this is over, the transfer is complete. Optionally, Exchange2 can inform GLBSE that it is.

ETA: The claim code itself could encode the asset name and number of shares, this way GLBSE doesn't need to share the initial list as a "Step 0". However, there at least needs to be some agreement as to which asset names on GLBSE maps to which ones on Exchange2.

Just realist on one of the other exchanges:

Step 1: GLBSE creates a list:  eMail address / Number of shares
Step 2: GLBSE published a hash (MD5, SHA2) of that file on the forum
Sept 3: GLBSE sends the list to the new exchange, the new exchange confirms receipt and matching hash
Step 4: The new exchange creates accounts for all emails that are not yet registered
Step 5: Load the share balances into the new exchange

Here the what-ifs:
1. What if a user disputes his share numbers
     a) The number on the new exchange is not identical to the list provided, the new exchange fixes the issue
     b) The number on the new exchange is identical to the list provided, GLBSE to resolve the issue
     c) Anyone disputes the list?  Thats why the hash was posted. No disputes possible. Probably need a 3rd party to validate the contents of the list and its hash-value. But either exchange would be crazy to dispute the list, as the hash will point the correctness.
2. Users not registered yet, how do they know the new password of the auto created account?
    a) Web pages usually have a "resend me my password" features
3. How do the users know about the new exchange?
    a) New exchange sends an email to the user list provided informing them about the new exchange
4. Why not give the email addresses to the security issuer?
    The shareholders didn't consent the disclosure of their share ownership. They probably want to remain anonymous

All that is now necessary is:
a) a decision to move to a new exchange. In the absence of a voting feature for delisted companies, the security issuer will need to make a decision in the best interest of the share holders
b) Decide on a new exchange

Actually it solves nearly all of the fraud problems from Goat's perspective, I think, so long as the list of addresses and amounts is made public by Nefario. If Goat checks the signature on and keeps all the signed messages transferring ownership, he can easily prove that someone with the appropriate private key did redeem the shares and there's no way for him to fake this himself. It doesn't really matter to him whether Nefario or the claimant is trying to scam him, especially since Nefario could do the exact same thing with normal shares listed on GLBSE.

(Really this needs full-blown distributed timestamping and a public record of transfers in order to prevent certain kinds of fraud between stockholders when transferring shares, but that's a lot more complicated to achieve.)

ONE of TyGrr's assets was a PPT, the rest were not.  I'm guessing other asset creators with multiple accounts ONLY had their PPT assets de-listed.  You are suggesting that GLBSE would probably re-list if they could re-list without TyGrr.Bond-P (if that is the PPT asset), but I am guessing you are wrong.  I doubt they will re-list at all, but even if they would, I doubt they would give Goat the GLBSE shares, which should have been treated the same as the PPT shares and de-listed (hence leaving them in the accounts for novelty purposes [and apparently transfers, but not automatic trading] unless people wanted to transfer them out / get rid of them) instead of being forcibly purchased.  If they did this and only de-listed TyGrr.Bond-P, a lot less people would believe Goat had a leg to stand on.  Moreover, if Goat is correct about them wanting to take GLBSE so they can use it (as opposed to taking it to protect themselves from liability), then doing these things now would probably count as compromise if both parties would agree, because I don't think either party would like it.  I suppose Deprived's suggestion could also be considered compromise.  That having been said, I'm not convinced either party understands compromise.  If they do, they don't really seem willing to give it a go.  Nonetheless, it seems I am a bit late to be commenting on this post, as it appears to have recently turned into the digging of a deeper hole.

ETA: '/]' where necessary to remove my comments from dentldir's quote.

Appreciate the input.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

If they want to get you, they will, no matter what you do.  The game is rigged so we're all felons.

Branding it as a game won't solve the issue.  If money is changing hands it always runs afoul of AML & PATRIOT act type laws, game or no game.  We gotta keep them thar terrists in their place and if it means we get to give every citizen of the world a financial rectal exam all the better!

Anyone who thinks they are able to skirt the law in this regard, simply by attempting to reclassify their business as a "game" is sorely mistaken and will end up being spanked by the law at some point. 

Point of fact, a contract requires 3 things; offer, acceptance and consideration.  Consideration is usually money, but can literally be anything.  Courts tend to treat non-money consideration in terms of it's monetary value in a fair and open market.  Thus if you're swapping bonds for BTCs, the open market value of those bonds is the market value of the BTCs.  Trading them requires the exact same (if not more), limitations and verifications as trading against those bonds in local fiat.

I promise you a judge will look at bitcoin and BTC denominated transactions, the exact same way as ANY foreign currency contract.

Your best bet is to incorporate in some foreign country with lax securities laws (idontgiveadamastan), and then set your self up as a proper exchange in THAT country.  Not every country requires compliance with US laws and US law can't really touch you in those countries, they're just damned glad to see some money moving through their country.

banking4bankers.com has some good resources to point you in the right direction.  My current fav if you're a USAian is to start looking at Belize for this sort of thing.