Quote from: JoelKatz on October 03, 2012, 03:35:39 AM

1) The problem with this solution is that accepting liability may not mean he actually makes good on that liability. Goat would actually have to pay out funds relying on Nefario to make good on his acceptance of liability. It's not clear that this acceptance would be binding on the asset holders either, so if Nefario reneges, Goat could still be left with liability. So Goat can only redeem based on this acceptance of liability if he believes Nefario will make good on it. (And how would this even work? Someone goes to Goat with a code, Goat sends them to Nefario saying the code is not on his list. Nefario says "that's a made up code that I never issued". They now go back to Goat and complain that Nefario lied and they were in fact issued that code. Does Nefario have to make good on this? If not, how does Goat know Nefario didn't steal the asset? If so, an unlimited number of people can scam Nefario and he'd have no choice but to renege on his acceptance.)

Nefario, of course, CAN steal the asset. However, with such a statement in place, he'd still have to pay for it. I highly doubt that Nefario would accept this, but I made it an option, anyway, since it does solve the issue.

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 03, 2012, 03:35:39 AM

2) The problem with this solution is that that's just another unilateral imposition of a broken redemption scheme on Goat, just a slightly less broken one. It still causes substantially the same problems. Two people can still come to Goat with possession of the same private key. Goat still has to decide whether to redeem twice or once. If twice, he's still getting massive liability crammed down his throat that he never agreed to accept. If once, then he's still taking the risk of being branded a scammer if Nefario issues the same code to two people, and he'll never even know whether it was Nefario or the claimant is lying. (Consider the same scenario as in 1 above.)

So two of your proposed solutions can't work.

No, you're wrong: All THREE don't work. What's stopping Nefario from relisting and giving himself ALL of each asset? How could you POSSIBLY prove that to be wrong? By this reasoning, MtGox is also a scam. Sorry, but at some point, you're just going to have to trust Nefario.

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 03, 2012, 03:35:39 AM

I don't think anyone has any business trying to coerce either side into accepting specific solutions and there's no sense in pressuring one side to agree to a solution the other side won't agree to -- how does that help? If they can't *agree* on a solution, we need to evaluate whether that's because either of them is scamming. (Unless Goat agreed to 1 and 2 above, in which case, he's a fool, but congrats on brilliant mediating. But if he didn't, what good is getting Nefario to agree to things Goat will, and should, never agree to?)

We get to find out who is acting in good faith.

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 03, 2012, 03:35:39 AM

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was just a bad decision on your part.

I'm open to better ideas. However, relisting is off the table.

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 03, 2012, 03:35:39 AM

But several people have already told me privately that they believe you are conspiring with Nefario to appear to pressure him into an agreement that we all know Goat won't accept to shift the blame to Goat. I hope that's not true and that this was just an honest lapse in judgment.

Minus the conspiring part, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. That's how this works: you keep shifting the blame with more and more reasonable offers until an agreement is made.

Quote from: Deprived on October 03, 2012, 03:43:45 AM

This may be a dumb idea, but why not have nefario provide goat with a list of BTC addresses linked as a deposit address to the user's GLBSE account and a share count.

Then there's no liability for goat - as if they lose control of their GLBSE account then they're in exactly the same position as if they'd lost control of it BEFORE goat was delisted (the unauthorised user can sell shares/withdraw BTC). All liability after goat sends the funds then rests with GLBSE -as it would have done had he been paying by their dividend mechanism. And the block-chain allows verification of whether funds were actually sent.

On the surface, it's a good idea. However, it has the following problems:
1) Deposits may not have all come from a non-shared wallet. This opens the potential for MtGox, etc., to fraudulently claim shares as their own. This is besides the fact that some people will NEVER be able to claim their shares. The same goes for withdrawal addresses.
2) This breaks the privacy that users expected that they had with GLBSE.
3) Nefario could just make up the list. You know, since apparently he can't be trusted to do anything right.

These exact issues also exist with email addresses, except replace 1 with "Users may not have signed up with a secure email address, since it wasn't ever supposed to single-handedly protect the account." Same with any other personal information GLBSE has.

Ask yourself, what does it take to liquidate all of a person's assets and empty their account at GLBSE? The answer is access to their account. Thus, access to someone's account should be all the protects this transfer of assets.

Quote from: Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย on October 03, 2012, 03:53:20 AM

I have already been told I can not accept plan 1 and 2 by my lawyer/adviser. Only plan 3 will be legally acceptable.

Really? I would have thought that listing your assets on an unregulated exchange that has never been audited and has no sense of the meaning of the word "receipt" would be just as illegal, if not significantly more. You must have a bad lawyer.

Quote from: Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย on October 03, 2012, 03:53:20 AM

GLBSE and forum staff trying to forcing me to take a scammers tag because I refuse to do something illegal will backfire.

By listing on GLBSE, you have already broken the law. Thus, we must revert to using something less restrictive for the purpose of this investigation.

Quote from: Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย on October 03, 2012, 03:53:20 AM

I know GLBSE and the staff here want people to think this is my fault. The best thing they can do is explain why I was delisted and why my fees have not been refunded. Because right now it looks like extortion and theft.

They should do that, just because it's good PR. But I will not compel them to do so.

Quote from: Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย on October 03, 2012, 03:53:20 AM

I have already been threatened with a ban unless I did something Maged demanded in 48 hours... highly illegal...

This is a private forum. You do not need to use it if you don't like it. If you want to stay in good standing here, though, you will need to abide by our decisions.

Quote from: burnside on October 03, 2012, 05:17:56 AM

Option 4) Goat chooses a new exchange. Nefario works with that exchange to replicate the shares and accounts necessary for Goat to continue operating his assets.

Occurred to me, as I keep getting PM's asking us to setup a BTC version of litecoinglobal.com. I think all I'd really need is email addresses and share counts.

That's the best outcome, but is no different than option 2, in a practical sense.