TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 5.

pyrkne

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: reeses on October 02, 2012, 06:33:29 PM

Quote from: Smoovious on October 02, 2012, 04:35:54 PM

Quote from: reeses on October 02, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

How do you value an asset that can no longer be exchanged?

By audit.

You take an audit of the 'company' involved to determine its value. Then, divide that value by the # of shares, and that is how you value a share for a private company.

Its not rocket science...

Then, the people who hold those shares can, and do, make private trades here and there, sometimes above value, sometimes below value, depending on what they agree to between themselves. All they would need to do is inform the CEO/CFO that the shares have exchanged hands and have new owners.

-- Smoov

So you see the problem.

Indeed.

reeses

donator

Activity: 151

Merit: 100

Assholier-than-thou retard magnet

Quote from: Smoovious on October 02, 2012, 04:35:54 PM

Quote from: reeses on October 02, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

How do you value an asset that can no longer be exchanged?

By audit.

You take an audit of the 'company' involved to determine its value. Then, divide that value by the # of shares, and that is how you value a share for a private company.

Its not rocket science...

Then, the people who hold those shares can, and do, make private trades here and there, sometimes above value, sometimes below value, depending on what they agree to between themselves. All they would need to do is inform the CEO/CFO that the shares have exchanged hands and have new owners.

-- Smoov

So you see the problem.

Smoovious

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Scattering my bits around the net since 1980

Quote from: reeses on October 02, 2012, 01:15:42 PM

How do you value an asset that can no longer be exchanged?

By audit.

You take an audit of the 'company' involved to determine its value. Then, divide that value by the # of shares, and that is how you value a share for a private company.

Its not rocket science...

Then, the people who hold those shares can, and do, make private trades here and there, sometimes above value, sometimes below value, depending on what they agree to between themselves. All they would need to do is inform the CEO/CFO that the shares have exchanged hands and have new owners.

-- Smoov

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: pyrkne on October 02, 2012, 03:48:16 PM

I did not know that, as a matter of fact. It's hard to get information about MPex other than you are a "pornographer" - not really relevant.

What is this coinbr site? Is it operational?

Likely the problem is you don't use IRC. Try #bitcoin-assets sometime. Coinbr is in beta I think. Run by Juraj Variny aka Jurov.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: ShireSilver on October 02, 2012, 11:41:26 AM

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first.

How does he do that? He has no contact information for them.

Quote

If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there.

How does he *prove* he got a double code usage? If he does this, someone can just submit a code twice using an accomplice and then accuse Goat of scamming.

Quote

At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

Right. So long as Goat has a plan to blame the resulting predictable mess on someone else, he should go ahead and screw over his asset holders, just as Nefario did because he thought he could blame the predictable failure of the obviously-broken redemption scheme on Goat. No reputable individual or business would knowingly give assets to the wrong people just because they knew it was someone else's obligation to somehow fix the mess, especially if the entity whose obligation it was has never acknowledged that obligation.

pyrkne

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: MPOE-PR on October 02, 2012, 02:11:04 PM

You could use a broker site like coinbr or a broker-person like Brendio, smickles, buncha others, you know this?

I did not know that, as a matter of fact. It's hard to get information about MPex other than you are a "pornographer" - not really relevant.

What is this coinbr site? Is it operational?

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: bitcoinbear on October 02, 2012, 10:54:32 AM

It depends on how you measure it. What would you call the biggest stock exchange? I think GLBSE has the largest number of assets listed.

Obviously would depend on what you call an asset. Tongue

Quote from: ciuciu on October 02, 2012, 11:01:25 AM

A few weeks ago Smickles@Co were worried because the main Bitcoin address of that exchange received only 4000BTC.

Actually > 15,000 BTC. Also, people on IRC were explaining to you that by looking at outgoing payments it became obvious addresses with significantly larger BTC inputs were being involved.

Quote from: reeses on October 02, 2012, 01:28:52 PM

But we have to (tell other people to) do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!-e^πi!!!!

Almost like the US Congress, minus a whole pile of "thank you for your leadership".

Quote from: pyrkne on October 02, 2012, 01:39:33 PM

You know Mircea we're all waiting for you to waive that 20BTC fee. Why won't you let us give you our coins??? Tongue

~pyotr

You could use a broker site like coinbr or a broker-person like Brendio, smickles, buncha others, you know this?

pyrkne

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

I would like to believe that Goat can just try the codes and get everything to work, but let's be honest - some of his shareholders can't even find the forum, how are they going to work this out?

No matter how much everyone works on this, there's still going to be that one loose end that only traded in the assets because of the convenience of the exchange. I don't foresee a clean outcome of the claim-code system even without any fraudulent claims.

pyrkne

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Quote from: MPOE-PR on October 02, 2012, 01:20:32 PM

Quote from: ShireSilver on October 02, 2012, 11:41:26 AM

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first. If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there. At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

This is a horrible idea.

Actually, this sort of "doing without knowing what" is exactly how Nefario drove GLBSE into the wall.

You know Mircea we're all waiting for you to waive that 20BTC fee. Why won't you let us give you our coins??? Tongue

~pyotr

reeses

donator

Activity: 151

Merit: 100

Assholier-than-thou retard magnet

Quote from: MPOE-PR on October 02, 2012, 01:20:32 PM

This is a horrible idea.

Actually, this sort of "doing without knowing what" is exactly how Nefario drove GLBSE into the wall.

But we have to (tell other people to) do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!-e^πi!!!!

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: ShireSilver on October 02, 2012, 11:41:26 AM

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first. If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there. At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

This is a horrible idea.

Actually, this sort of "doing without knowing what" is exactly how Nefario drove GLBSE into the wall.

reeses

donator

Activity: 151

Merit: 100

Assholier-than-thou retard magnet

Quote from: guruvan on October 02, 2012, 05:13:35 AM

This thread has clearly shown me that I shouldn't trust:

GLBSE
Nefario
Bitcointalk.org staff
Maged in particular (but I didn't trust Maged already)

You shouldn't trust anyone. However, you should distrust this list. Put a "scammer" tag on in your head, or inject custom CSS with their posts.

This is a clusterfuck from all angles. Goat screwed up to a certain degree, and his attitude¹ encouraged all of the above into believing that a) he was wrong and b) he would be easily pushed into some sort of settlement that was not in his best interest.

Nefario is inept and incompetent. He is in way over his head and if GLBSE continues to do business, it will merely continue its trend to being the Silk Road of BTC "security exchanges"² or blow up completely. It should not continue to exist.

The staff should not be dictating policy of BTC businesses. This ticket system is moronic. How do you value an asset that can no longer be exchanged?

As I read it, and I am ready to be corrected, Nefario and the forum staff have colluded to put goat out of business.

1. Yes, he is a prick. But if we don't defend pricks, then, well, you run the risk of monster pricks being really, really big pricks.
2. Quotes for irony.

ShireSilver

sr. member

Activity: 382

Merit: 253

IMHO what I think Goat should do is try the code redemption process. Ask for all the shareholders to report to him first. If all of the shares get accounted for and there's no double coding, then he should settle that. If there are actual attempts at double code usage, then process nothing and take it from there. At least according to my understanding of the process it should work if everyone acts properly, and it can fail if anyone acts in bad faith. The process isn't perfect but it could work. At least giving it a try first instead of claiming that it *could* go wrong seems the better route. Then if something goes wrong the problem clearly would belong to nefario.

ciuciu

donator

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bugpowder on October 02, 2012, 09:51:29 AM

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange

GLBSE is not the largest bitcoin stock exchange.

You are a dreamer. "The bitcoin exchange" is running more than 80% on margin. A few weeks ago Smickles@Co were worried because the main Bitcoin address of that exchange received only 4000BTC. And all of them sent bitcoins to that address. The explanation of the pornographer: all other are "private deals".
Try selling in that fake bids and you will see. But that is not a problem yet, because nobody is using that exchange.

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bugpowder on October 02, 2012, 09:51:29 AM

Quote

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange

GLBSE is not the largest bitcoin stock exchange.

It depends on how you measure it. What would you call the biggest stock exchange? I think GLBSE has the largest number of assets listed.

Bugpowder

sr. member

Activity: 394

Merit: 250

[/quote]

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange

[/quote]

GLBSE is not the largest bitcoin stock exchange.

deeplink

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

In cryptography we trust

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 02, 2012, 04:50:58 AM

This code system is so fundamentally broken and so at odds with everything we know about security that it looks like it was thought up in two minutes by a below-average third grader. And, in any event, for Nefario to impose it on Goat and his asset holders without even trying to reach an agreement on a scheme that's at least not so obviously broken is an inexcusable breach of GLBSE's obligation to protect its customers' ownership interests in their assets.

It worries me a lot that someone running the largest Bitcoin stock exchange is proposing this obviously flawed code system. No question security issues should be your main specialism when running a stock exchange.

Adding more concern is the fact that the website is not up to standards (and has not been improving for months) indicating that the programmer(s) are not very serious or skilled.

Adding even more concerns are the more than questionable action of de-listing and the complete ignoration of valid objections by the community.

The way this is handled by GLBSE/Nefario is not unacceptable.

Big big fail for GLBSE.

guruvan

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

You know, I'm reminded of nefario once asking pirate to lock Goat's account at BTCS&T.

This is yet another attempt by nefario to harm goat financially.

With no word, nor action from nefario, I find it hard to imagine what other conclusion could be drawn here.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: memvola on October 02, 2012, 06:21:54 AM

One more point though. It should be clear that GLBSE still has obligations to the owners of those shares, as Maged stated.

These are obligations that Nefario, it appears, has currently directed GLBSE to default on and continues to default on. Assuming there isn't some dramatic "other side to the story" that we haven't heard, that alone seems to merit a scammer tag until that obligation is honored. Combine that with the apparent failure to return even undisputed amounts of Goat's money that Nefario directed to be frozen and the case is a slam dunk. I think that if it were anyone else, it would resolved already.

I'm not on a witch hunt. By far my preferred resolution to this problem would be GLBSE accepting responsibility for the mess Nefario made, finding a way to make things right with their customers, and pledging to work out a freezing and delisting policy that will avoid a repeat of this fiasco.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: memvola on October 02, 2012, 04:14:44 AM

Quote from: Maged on October 01, 2012, 11:10:32 PM

The claim system is good enough. If someone gives you a claim code you don't have, tell them to bring it up with Nefario. If more than one person claims a code, just give it to the first person. It's not your responsibility to figure it out. If there is a problem with how the claim system was done, it is Nefario's responsibility to reimburse anyone that has a problem that a better system would have solved. Period. If he didn't want this liability on his hands, he would have just done it right in the first place.

That would be satisfactory. It seems Goat needs to publish every code upon receipt, otherwise he won't be able to prove he has redeemed it when he receives the code twice.

Making the code public is only asking for others to try to use it... Even if i were to find a way to accept the codes it does not solve all of the problems. Crossing a code off the list does not make the code turn back into an asset.

The claim system dictates that it is so. You can't afford to not disclose the codes you receive, otherwise you won't be able to prove you did indeed receive those codes.

According to what Maged said, it isn't even your burden. Nefario will reimburse anyone that has a problem that a better system would have solved. Interestingly enough, a better system (i.e. merely not rushing the delisting out of spite for a single person) would have solved the precise problem we're having now. For this reason, I think this time Nefario should publicly confirm what Maged said.

One more point though. It should be clear that GLBSE still has obligations to the owners of those shares, as Maged stated. And that is not surprising because it's very hard to devise a system for transferring control of anonymous assets without cooperating authorities. If we had an easy way to do it, we wouldn't need Satoshi to create Bitcoin.

Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 5. (Read 33293 times)