Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 6. (Read 33293 times)

Well.

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)

Nefario, wow. You' fucked up with this one. What was the percentage of fundss withdrawn from GLBSE this week? Have any traders that aren't bailing out? Any assets that aren't collapsing? Nice work. How much investor money are you now responsible for losing?

Maged, no the claim code "system" devised at GLBSE is a complete disaster. You're obviously not qualified to determine the quality of that system. You clearly don't understand how easily it can be compromised.

Theymos, how can you have Maged "judging" things here. He's clearly biased against certain members of the community,. and cannot be expected to "judge" fairly.

I have no question that Goat will make good on his obligations to his investors, but I can't understand why Nefario, and GLBSE, and apparently forum staff would like to make this difficult for Goat. Interesting that one staff member is a major GLBSE shareholder. Bad form. Looks pretty scammy from here.

Nefario where is Goat's money?!!!

I also noticed he hasnt really posted much on the forum in the past few days. He has been very quiet.

How would that work? If Nefario says "I gave that code to Goat". Then what?

And if the person making the second claim says they don't believe that Goat got any other claim, then what? If Nefario gave the same claim code to two people, how can Goat prove that?

Exactly. So as soon as Nefario accepts that liability and agrees to a resolution system, *then* Goat could accept claim codes. But until then, it can't work. (But he won't do that because the liability is massive. See below.)

That would be the only thing he needed to check if he had an agreement in place with Nefario to resolve disputes. But right now, he'd have to be an idiot to start accepting those claim codes. Consider:

1) Person comes to Goat with a code.

2) Goat redeems the code, it's on the list.

3) Another person comes to Goat with the same code.

4) Goat says, "Sorry. That code was redeemed."

5) Person says, "I didn't redeem it. It was issued to me. Maybe you're lying. Maybe Nefario gave two people the same code. I don't know."

Now what? Nefario has not accepted any liability for this situation and Goat would be a fool to do so since he doesn't trust Nefario. Of course Nefario will say the code was only given to one person and that's likely true. But how can Goat prove he's not scamming? And if you say "in this case, we'll trust Goat", then Goat can cheat anyone he wants to.

In other words, for Goat to accept these codes opens himself up to massive liability if his asset holders try to scam him. And nothing Nefario can do can fix this after the fact. The second Goat starts accepting these codes, this window opens up. Goat would have to be an idiot to start redeeming these codes.

And how can Nefario accept liability for this? He doesn't know if the guy is scamming (redeeming the same code twice) or Goat is scamming (redeeming other people's codes himself through an accomplice). And if Nefario says to the guy, "sorry, I only gave your code to one person", (which is probably true) then the guy can argue that Goat is a scammer. So Goat can only accept codes if Nefario makes good for anyone in this situation, even if they are scamming him.

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.

This is false and has been refuted thoroughly in the forums.

For example, what happens if someone presents him a code that isn't on his list? Obviously, he must refuse to redeem it. But then, what happens if someone makes a scammer accusation? If your answer is, "we side with Goat", then you have totally abandoned the asset holders, since Goat can refuse to honor any of them. If your answer is, "we side with the claimer", then Goat is accepting massive liability by accepting these claim codes. He has absolutely no way to know that they were issued to actual asset holders.

What happens if he redeems a claim code and then later someone else presents that same claim code? How can Goat prove the first claim wasn't from someone conspiring with him?

It is absolutely absurd to argue that he has everything he needs to fulfill his obligations. There is huge liability associated with him accepting this scheme -- liability he never agreed to accept that Nefario imposed on him unilaterally. He would have to be an idiot to accept this arrangement at gunpoint. It is GLBSE that abandoned its customers, failed to protect their ownership interests, and left Goat to pick up the pieces at his own expenses and risk.

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.

Nefario,

do you really want to go with this to the bitter end?
This has already caused more damage than the original dispute between you and Goat was about.

Are you really willing to risk your entire reputation and all the work you have already put into GLBSE upon this?

Despite that, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you have reacted without thinking this through. Its more shameful to stay on you point despite all resistance and that a majority disagrees with your course.

Also, there is a lesson to be learned here:

GLBSE needs to but a rule in place, when and why assets can be delisted, as well as an sound delisting process, if it doesn't want this to happen again.

This whole thing lets your entire business look very unprofessional.

Goat if I were you I would use the LAST traded price of the asset to liquidate at. That makes the most sense and is the most fair to your asset holders. Now that you have your question answered you have everything you need to fulfill your obligations to your asset holders.

From what I can tell is you are continually making excuses as to how you CAN'T make things right with your asset holders. Please stop trying to wiggle and just be straight.

I don't understand. How would copies of new communications tell you if Goat was lying about having sent the address? I can understand why Goat thought you wanted copies of previous communications -- how could copies of future communications tell you if he was lying or not?

There is a dispute over whether Goat sent Nefario an address or not. If you're investigating that dispute, you would naturally want copies of past emails. If you aren't investigating that incident, why would a ban threat for lying come up?

I'm very, very confused now.

Unless there's some strange technical problem, either Nefario or Goat is lying about having sent an address. Goat says he did. Nefario says he didn't. Are you investigating this past dispute to see who was lying?

Zendesk is well known for børking formatting of long strings, rich text, etc.

It's very likely Nefario's issue, not yours.

You should have seen what I sent to Nefario...

As long as one third party observer sees the address, it's fine if it's not posted. Also, I agree, this is ridiculous. This shouldn't be this difficult. Finally, yes, I did ask Nefario, but he said that he wasn't sent a valid address, which turns out to have just been a misunderstanding. Nefario is quickly running out of excuses.

Why not just post the address on the forums?  Anyway, this is all kind of ridiculous.  Couldn't Maged just ask Nefario if he got the emails with the bitcoin address?

Thank you for the clarification.

I only asked that it be sent to theymos as a reference. Theymos is not in charge of this investigation. Additionally, I did not ask for the previous communications. I only asked that a NEW email be sent to Nefario that included the address that would be CC'd to us. I needed proof that Goat wasn't just lying about having sent the address, since Nefario told me that the address he was sent wasn't validating.

Yeah, imagine that.  Theymos owns what?  21% of GLBSE?  No conflict of interest there.

That's awesome. 

There is no one better qualified to judge this than I.

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.

The ONLY thing you need to check is that the amount of claim codes match the number of shares issued.

Thank you, Goat. This was apparently just a BIG misunderstanding thanks to a non breaking space character that caused the address to fail validation. I apologize for being so harsh, but neither of you were really acting in good faith, so I didn't know what to expect.

I think we need to make these things more like a prize fight. Where someone wins, and the other person loses. For example Goat and Nefario would get into a thread where no one but themselves could post. They would then go back and forth until one gives up or one wins by predetermined rules set by the moderators. The winner wins, and the loser is banished! That or something else cool. We could do execution rules, but those would be sort of hard to enforce. I don't know, just throwing an idea out there.