Topic: Verifing account of GLBSE discussion - page 7. (Read 13424 times)

Really should of taken more advice on how to introduce AML/KYC. Hence why it was probably only up for a few hours.
The fact you implemented it at all is controversial of course.

Considering how little info is actually taken from us when starting an account, might of been a good idea to confirm all those details, not just username. I bet there is tons of people who have easy guess usernames because they have used that nickname everywhere.

Also if you going to state you need it for AML/KYC, then you damn well better cite some legal jargon at me, to atleast let me believe it's not going to be misused. Mtgox so far is my only experience via bitcoin of having to provide this, they have a lot there cover them and their users.

I missed the (pathetic) update because they, again, failed to inform me.

The divide between what he said in the conference and his current behaviour is beyond shocking.

Has anyone tried to contact these mysterious gov agencies that may be behind all of this?

These requierements are bullshit. Even Neteller/Moneybookers/Debit Card Issuer/Bookies requiere less information.
And these services are actually used for money laundry unlike GLBSE.

Okay, I am 15y/o, how can I even have my proof of address. I dont pay tax, my parent pays utility bills. Hey seriously, didnt you say you have multinational server back up and blah blah blah?

So now issuers are going to look like scammers for not going along with this..

reveal your username, email and a bitcoin address to continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold.... Nowhere does it say more than full AML/KYC

Smoke and mirrors, half truths and (incomplete) lies....

Priceless.  I'm sure people will flock to Nefario's new *all legal* exchange in droves due to his technical superiority.

I swear to god that most Bitcion venture "CEOs" would have trouble organising a chook raffle.

+1000.  This is totally worth quoting as many times as possible.

Do you really want to contribute to an identity theft database?

They should also provide the documentation for the entity requesting the documents.

We, TYGRR fund owners, were complaining at the time, not knowing how lucky we were. Though Goat didn't accept the codes, so it's probably not good enough.

Anybody’s photographic ID could be used to claim to be my GLBSE account - why not just require  the same credentials as used in the past to log in and use the system to verify the current GLBSE users so they can get the info needed to start direct relationships with asset issuers.
Evidently it was fine for the delisted TYGRR assets at the time?

Nef is a steaming pile of ...

404 Not Found
nginx/0.7.67

This is some crazy shit LOL ...I was just there and was about to see what the process is ....

It looks like if we refuse to provide requested ID information then their designated AML complicance officer would need to make a risk assessment.  If he determined there was no reason to believe the transaction (refund) was an AML risk then they could return the funds.  Otherwise he would need to file an SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) with SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency - approximately UK equivalent of the US FBI) and would be unable to release the funds until either SOCA said to go ahead, or at least 7 days had passed without SOCA telling them to hold the funds.

Of course they then have to deal with the possibly tricky situation of explaining to SOCA why they're requesting AML information and making SARs without being registered with any of the AML supervisory bodies.  But that's their problem - not ours.

Silly thing is that it's likely the vast majority of accounts fall below the threshhold where they need to do any AML checks anyway.  E.g. currency exchanges only need to ask for ID for transactions above a certain amount (I can walk into a high-street bureau and exchange GBP into another currency without giving any ID information at all) .  Same for coneyancing firms (limit there is 15,000 euros - it's defined in euros as the UK law is an implementation of a eurozone-wide directive).

Pretty sure if they go to SOCA whining about someone refusing to provide ID for 10 BTC or even 100 BTC then SOCA would have far more interest in GLBSE than in the customer.

They also DO have an obligation not to unreasonably withhold service if a customer is unable to provide documentation in the form they request - not sure what policy they have for that.  e.g. if someone can't provide the documentation they request then they should be returning funds and (if they believe appropraite) filing an SAR (with a 7 day delay in refunding if they file an SAR).

Oh god. This is too hilarious to be real. Lol!

damnit. i must have just missed the processing period.

i got the login screen but after putting in my email and payout address i got a 404.

now the front page says:

waiting for confirmation that someone actually gets BTC back after sending ID

he was clearly trolling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vmPD_YSQ--k#t=227s

Here Nefario specifically highlights the lack of AML as a reason to use GLBSE.



That was just 3 weeks ago.

Bait and switch, anyone?

Meh, the rules are stupid to begin with, so I'm not surprised it seems stupid to follow them...

They have my info; let's hope they don't go stealing my identity...