Topic: TYGRR.* assets on GLBSE delisted. - page 9. (Read 33293 times)

That really doesn't answer my question.

Okay, so then is this what happened:

1) Goat and Nefario talk in private.

2) Goat claims Nefario is holding his bitcoins hostage.

3) Nefario publicly claims that all he needs is a withdrawal address and he'll pay Goat back.

4) Goat publicly says to Nefario/GLBSE that if all he needs is a deposit address, here is one. Now pay me.

5) You claim this is evidence Goat was lying back at 2.

If Goat was telling the truth back at 2, isn't what he did in 4 exactly what you would expect -- calling Nefario's on his claim?

It is, by the way, entirely possible that Goat and Nefario simply came back from the discussions at the beginning with different impressions. Goat may genuinely have believed Nefario expected concessions for him to get the undisputed coins back and Nefario genuinely believed he had simply asked Goat to direct him how to repay him. Everything I've seen after that is consistent with this, and we do know that communications broke down at least to some extent.

I never made the claim that there was any excuse for not returning the coin, or that there even was a dispute, save for the claim that Goat hadn't sent an address to send them to.

Nefario did post a message on the forums at one point, that that was all he needed.

-- Smoov

What a difference one week makes...

So many questions... so little Nefario.

Nefario! Come out of your cave!

There's interesting discussion to be had!

Do all the issuers who someone kicked off the platform owned shares of get given these codes, so they can track for themselves those of their shareholders who are unable to use GLBSE anymore?

For example if I had an offering on GLBSE of which Goat bought some, would I too have been put in this position of being offered codes, and have to hope Goat got in touch with me with his code to "redeem" his shares I issued that suddenly are not handled by GLBSE?

-MarkM-

I believe that Nefario was making Goat conditional offers to return the coins that Goat reasonably interpreted as waiving some of his claims against GLBSE. So Goat did exactly the right thing -- he put an unconditional request for the return of undisputed amounts on the table. If you have any evidence that Nefario or GLBSE ever offered to return the funds that didn't require Goat to waive claims he considered legitimate, please cite it. But the lack of such an offer can reasonably be described as holding the coins hostage.

Goat is documenting his side in the forums in great detail. That makes it very easy to find some minor thing you think is inconsistent. And you keep imagining perfect conduct on the part of GLBSE and Nefario, despite their total silence. If Nefario or GLBSE made an unconditional offer, let them say so. Otherwise, it's grossly unfair for you to imagine that they must have been perfectly willing to do the right thing all along.

By the way, I'm not sure how you figured that this was the first time Goat offered him an address to send the coins to. This may have been one in a long series of similar requests from Goat, just the first he chose to make public. I don't know either way. Without Nefario or GLBSE's side, we can only guess. And again, it appears you made the assumption most unfavorable to Goat. You may know. You may be right. But the rest of us don't know.

Do you at least agree that now there is no excuse for Nefario/GLBSE not returning to Goat amounts that are not in dispute?

His silence is so out of place that for a day or two, I assumed there had been an official statement. I assumed I must have just missed it.

So now we're left wondering... will we have more information by the weekend? By next week?

I swear when I started reading these forums, Nefario was quite active.

Nefario's silence on this issue basically supports the case that this was personally motivated.   He has logged in multiple times and I am quite sure he is aware of the numerous people that have asked for his official statement on this situation. 








Caveat Emptor

Instead of reading your post, I saved time and instead imagined you making fun of Goat and defending Nefario.

I recommend this strategy to others who value their time.

See, now this is exactly the kind of thing that has been going on that is making it so damned hard for me to see Goat as credible through this.

He is claiming that he wasn't preventing the return of his BTC, and finally supplies a BTC address (unless he actually sent XXXXXXXXXXXX)... claiming that they were being held hostage, when without an address to send them to, Nefario had no choice but to hold onto them. Saying they were being held hostage implies that Nefario actually had a choice to still have them. Without a withdrawl address (until now), what other choice did he have with them? So, who was the one actually holding them hostage, Nefario without an address to send them to, or Goat, who up until now, refused to supply a withdrawl address in the first place?

Goat, you may actually have a valid argument somewhere in everything you're spouting, but you're constantly exaggerating and escalating, burying whatever argument you're trying to put forth. It is making you less than credible.

-- Smoov

I'm sure he'll give you the coin. It's the right thing to do.

Although judging by Nefario's presence (or lack thereof) on the forum lately... GLBSE might be needing that dead man's switch.

Well in fact Nefario claimed DMC will be suspended "until an independent audit will be performed". He then unlocked that without any audit whatsoever being performed. It's pretty clear that what Nefario says doesn't really matter at this point, so indeed the best solution would be to just ignore him completely and return to the statu quo ante.

I have never owned TYGRR shares and I don't believe I have any bitcoins on GLBSE, but I'm going to go double check and sell any shares I might own.

I believe I am unbiased here.

I will never use GLBSE again because of this episode, and Nefario will not win my trust back on this issue. This behavior is extremely uncalled for. What's worse is that there was no warning. If Nefario blindsided everyone with this move and still feels ok about it, he will do it again when he feels like it.

I assume you can only deal through a registered stock broker but IANAL. You cant go on the NYSE or the "pink sheets" and buy shares directly. GLBSE was supposed to cut out the brokers and the red tape.....

I'm sorry if this was answered before, but did the shares (of other companies) owned by your companies get stuck as well? If not, I don't see the problem.


I know you want to make it harder for Nefario, but this discourse made me feel you are also likely to begin making it harder for us too. We'd appreciate if you made more effort into resolving this mess. Maybe ask GLBSE to implement a channel for you to communicate anonymously with code owners.

Yeah, we are code owners now.

This is starting to remind me of bitcoinica and intersango behaviour. The users dont deserve to get screwed over because the owner of a site has a hissy fit.

I hope it works out amicably and soon.

I have sold 90% of my shares and moved all of the BTC off of GLBSE.

I urge the rest of you to do the same.

It is run by a Little Lord Fauntleroy.

You didn't give any reason for the asset to be delisted immediately. No one is sayin a delisting can't occur, and no one is saying it can't be done without notice. It can happen. But give me the reason why this wasn't handled to my satisfaction. What would be the negative consequences of this being handled smoothly? I'm not saying it's legally required, I'm saying that creating this situation for no reason is an unfortunate move.


So you are Goat, and you received two colliding codes. What do you do now? Which one is the scammer? The issuer can't work it out by himself. GLBSE is still involved, and it's not a superficial involvement.

Do you really not see the qualitative distinction between a contract I digitally sign together with Goat and a claim code I receive from GLBSE?


This isn't too different to what I'm saying. As a customer, I need to know the reasons so that I make a judgement call. I have more than 15,000 EUR worth of assets "left" there. This final blow has reduced the already low liquidity. Why the hell shouldn't I care?


It's obviously foolish, but can also be malicious. Imagine for a moment that everything didn't go the way you prescribe, which is what I would expect. What now? If it's not GLBSE's obligation to resolve this issue, and Goat can't technically do it?


GLBSE decided to delist, so they initiated the delisting. I'm entitled to an explanation. If it could be done better, it's GLBSE's fault in the context of the relationship between me and GLBSE. I think I've repeated this enough times.


I believe you're in the latter camp, but who is in the first camp? It is a complete misrepresentation. I suppose most people here (including me of course) think that the delisting can and maybe should have occured, including this case, but it is mishandled. I can't see where I argued against the delisting. Or who in this thread even said that (other than Goat)?


You are getting close. If you think about this some more, you will realize that the measures we recommend should definitely have been taken. And it would completely change the outcome for us shareholders.

EDIT: One more thing. Moving shares from one system to another is no easy task. It's not a technology you can put together on a whim.

Yes, that's that. And his position seems to be that once he has given out the claim codes, his responsibility has ended. So that's that.

There's a real liability for duplicate or conflicting claims, a liability Goat never agreed to accept that Nefario unilaterally imposed. Goat has no contact mechanism to set up a claim window (to weed out duplicate claims) and no working relationship with Nefario or GLBSE to work out conflicting claims.

We'll see if that's GLBSE's position.

GLBSE: Will you make a public statement that you will run the claim code system, at least to resolve disputes, and assume the liability for duplicate or conflicting claims?

If Nefario can't be relied upon to resolve the discrepancy, or GLBSE, then that's that, isn't it?

No, my position was that GLBSE no longer has any obligation to manage people's shares. Confirming if a claim code is valid, is a reasonable thing to expect GLBSE to do, should a discrepancy come up, but anything beyond that, I don't see any further obligation here.

"Yes, this claim code indeed associated with my.username for # shares"
"No, this claim code wasn't associated with my.username for # shares"

-- Smoov