|
Title: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 03, 2013, 11:01:40 PM please note the following
i am extremely mad and my English is very bad this post will be updated term many time used unclescrooge= Raphael= R urwhatuknow=Giancarlo=G this is happening live here is a list of thing that did happen recently 1) is got my bitfinex admin login revoked 2) i got my admin access revoked https://community.bitfinex.com/member.php/1-Myself yes the forums license was mine (and still is mine) 3) R try to avoid me by filtering my emails and sending me auto reply emails that he is on vacation broken agreements 1) read only access to BFX 2) the agreement that i wont take any loses from BFX (i dont have to put money for the loses on BFX) 3) payment of dividend at the end of the month ( other share holders got money i did not) BFX did pay a 10 000 USD dividend for the month of may i know many people put the trust on me and they put money in BFX because of that, since tonight I lost my read only access and I cant keep a eye on their money Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 03, 2013, 11:29:50 PM i lost my log in access emails
Code: From - Mon Jun 03 22:53:16 2013 Code: From - Mon Jun 03 22:58:06 2013 i got this in reply Code: From - Mon Jun 03 23:01:28 2013 so i decide to send a email from other email address Code: From - Mon Jun 03 23:28:04 2013 but this time i get a manual reply Code: From - Mon Jun 03 23:27:54 2013 and ofc i see that this is bullshit Code: From - Mon Jun 03 23:28:04 2013 the reply Code: From - Mon Jun 03 23:34:53 2013 Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 03, 2013, 11:39:23 PM the agreement part
Quote myself is granted an access to the data exposing the financial situation of the website www.bitfinex.com. He can access these data any time he wants andQuote myself will receive a financial compensation of 10% of the profits of the previously mentionned website, every month andQuote should financial results be negative, myself won't pay nor receive anything for these negative months R and the other investors insist that i need to pay for BFX loses and my agreement clearly say i do not have to put any money if there is a loss and this agreement was made previous to the join of investors just when there was R and me using this strategy to push me out of BFX and to take my part away now that all the BFX logic is sound, there is a new market that there was not before on bitcoin world, the lending for leverage. first agreement Code: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 04, 2013, 12:06:15 AM why I don't want to put money for the loses bitfinex have
Code: From - Mon May 06 12:55:08 2013 Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 04, 2013, 01:15:49 AM A. That is the worst most laughable pathetic excuse for a "contract" I've ever seen. There is a reason you solicit the help of experts when drawing up contracts, and pay for this benefit. That reason is so that your contracts look like stuff on MPEx and more importantly work. The alternative is the mountain of fail depicted above.
B. You're no better than the other scammers involved. Quote "it wouldn't be the same and probably it couldn't be existing any longer, because it was a bucket shop." versus -the trust issue: yes, MPOE lady you are right, this is a big issue. At this point I don't see what I could do more than exposing my full name, address and photo, and being as transparent as I can. For those who feel this is not enough (and I understand you), maybe you can wait until we're a registered company. 3. Besides that is required an audit for the entire bitfinex platform, the platform tempered/adjusted twice, first with mister Tang and was credited from him 150.000 USD, that he didn't deposit in his account, the second time when mister Devasini was credited one million dollars, money that he didn't have deposited in his account. Because of this I cannot be sure if the current losses are real or not. You knew it was a bucket shop just like I knew it was a bucket shop. You knew it was running a joke of a codebase just as I knew it was running a joke of a codebase. You kept quiet about it, as long as you were an insider. You are no longer quiet about it, because the other thieves involved locked you out. Yes please, scammer tags. For all those involved: the OP Giancarlo Devasini <g.devasini@gmail.com> J.L. van der Velde <jlvdv@hotmail.com> Raphael Nicolle <raphbot@gmail.com> Once that's done, let's re-read historical posts: -the trust issue: yes, MPOE lady you are right, this is a big issue. At this point I don't see what I could do more than exposing my full name, address and photo, and being as transparent as I can. For those who feel this is not enough (and I understand you), maybe you can wait until we're a registered company. The problem here is that you seem to be starting from a point of "I shall be doing this" and then consider what could bolster your position. This is completely wrong and wholly unacceptable: you should not be doing this. At all. It is a horribly bad idea to be doing this. It can't end well. It's running with scissors as a four year old with a bad knee and a broken ankle on an old stairwell made of long-rotten pinewood which has lots of ice splotches on top of it during an earthquake at sea in rough weather on a wet deck with hurricane level winds blowing portside. Maybe one day you might find yourself in the position of being a world-renowned acrobat who can run with scissors up and down an old stairwell made out of rotten pinewood with ice splotches in rough sea etc. Maybe. Provided you are born tall and lanky and with a talent for ballet, and your parents send you to the proper schools from a fresh young age and you are muchly interested in all that's required to become thusly acrobatically accomplished and are very disciplined and get lucky enough to amass the right sort of experience then possibly, maybe, sometime, one day, you might meet this opportunity of your life and thus dance on the proverbial rotten pinewood stairwell (with ice on it). So, practically: forget about this project. Close it down. Go read up on finance, go read up on computer programming, on security, on business management, on law. Start small, prove that you can correctly handle fifty bitcoins over the span of A FEW YEARS. Then move into larger and larger things until one day you can maybe, if you're still inclined and it's still fashionable, try this. Nobody cares that you register a company. It makes no damned difference, in the time it took me to type out this I could have registered five. A monkey with a funny hat can register a company. It's a fifty dollar expenditure in most US states, it's the practical equivalent of organizing a dinner with your ex who happens to be visiting your town. It adds precisely zero to your overall chances to not end up in a sad, sad position a few months down the road. Why drag a bunch of people with you? Prosperity is in general the result of the working of free markets. The one caveat to this observation is that market participants have to be responsible. It doesn't matter so much if they are intelligent or not, it doesn't really matter if they're good christians or devout muslims or anything else, but they do have to be responsible. When some people behave irresponsibly the result is that they lose their money, which flows, albeit indirectly and circumvolutedly but nevertheless unerringly, to more responsible participants. When a small majority* of participants behave irresponsibly however the net result is not just pain to their own fortunes, but pain spread across the board. All of a sudden you have to be very intelligent, and very experienced, and very well informed to manage to keep your money safe, and often enough even that's not going to suffice. Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating a high powered idiot. He can now wreak havoc on the exchange rate, which increases volatility and on the long term hurts everyone involved in bitcoins, because volatility is, much like inflation, an indirect tax on users. Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating half a million bitcoins' worth of valueless receipts, which are pretty much indistinguishable to the naked eye from valid receipts. Thus, if you pay on anyone's credit you are basing your judgment not on actual fact, but on an unknown and pretty much unknowable mixture of fact and hogwash. Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot is a bad idea. There are people whose personal responsibility in this matter is greater than that of most everyone else, people who have in effect acted as lieutenants for the random idiot. This thread is a convenient spot for all of them to avoid the indignity of being called out, and instead freely and willingly admit their mistake, and by admitting it learn from it. Specifically, learn that they aren't nearly as qualified as they thought to play the "banker", and by this make one step towards maybe one day actually being bankers. The wanna-be bankers are not alone in their hour of humiliation. There are plenty of others who spend their entire day spouting nonsense on this forum, either under the guise of being "journalists" for some monthly magazine that does a couple issues a year or just as random internet experts in everything. Obviously they won't be learning anything on this opportunity as they haven't learned anything on any of the previous ones in their lives. That's after all fine, what would a mining town be without the drunks and general scum? Aside from these practical considerations, there are some more general points to be taken home by anybody who wants to be a little smarter today than last month, and possibly have a little better shot at actually making money than before. 1. Learn the pecking order. All opinions are not equal. Some people are to be respected. Learn who. Some people are irrelevant and easily ignored. Learn who. More importantly than the who, learn why. Is it just because "everyone else seems to think so"? That's no good, forget it. Is it because they were right when everyone else was wrong? That's perfect, especially if it occurs with any sort of consistency. 2. Business means something very specific. Only the permanently poor imagine business = "anything to do with money". There's no business without a business plan. If something purports to be a business but "it can't" or it just won't share its business plan it is not a business. This means you can't be investing in it. Sure, you can throw money at anything you wish, as for instance the toilet bowl, Ponzi scams or scantily clad girls. However, in order to invest you absolutely need a business first. 3. Learn how to deal with your own mental limitations. If you think you don't have any you find yourself most likely in the situation described here (http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html): Quote If one skims through the psychological literature, one will find some evidence that the incompetent are less able than their more skilled peers to gauge their own level of competence. For example, Fagot and O'Brien (1994) found that socially incompetent boys were largely unaware of their lack of social graces (see Bem & Lord, 1979 , for a similar result involving college students). Mediocre students are less accurate than other students at evaluating their course performance ( Moreland, Miller, & Laucka, 1981 ). Unskilled readers are less able to assess their text comprehension than are more skilled readers ( Maki, Jonas, & Kallod, 1994 ). Students doing poorly on tests less accurately predict which questions they will get right than do students doing well ( Shaughnessy, 1979 ; Sinkavich, 1995 ). Drivers involved in accidents or flunking a driving exam predict their performance on a reaction test less accurately than do more accomplished and experienced drivers ( Kunkel, 1971 ). In short: if you're not aware that there's anything wrong with your judgment of "business", "finance", "investing", "money" and so forth that is almost certainly due to the fact that you are very weak on all of these topics, likely significantly below average. You should spend a good deal of time reading and a greater deal of time testing things out methodically before you promote yourself mentally to "average", or even "crummy". This means years. Years. The advantage of BTC is that it's a very cheap and very clean way to learn about finance. The disadvantage (if we can call it that) is that it's much akin to falling in love: very, very, very hard on the knees. Vitriolic to the ego. 4. Step outside of your ideology. You might have been brought up in a very repressive social milieu in which some particular ideological slant was drilled into you. This is working to your disadvantage, get rid of it. Are you sticking up for your friends because they're your friends rather than because they have a point? Great for facebook, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Are you following the crowd like a welfare state lemming? Great for the white collar slave, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Do you think form is above content and as such it's okay to invade foreign countries and slaughter civilians just as long as nobody says shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits on TV? Great for being an American, horrible for the free world. You will lose money. 5. Re-read this entire post. It probably didn't fully sink in on the first pass. Seriously. Alternatively it is always easier to just not like me. You will lose money. --------- * This term of... art, let's say, will go down in BTC history. And perhaps learn something from it all. This time, the Nth time. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 04, 2013, 11:02:16 AM @MPOE-PR if you want any reply from me make short and to the point questions atm i am not in a state to deal with with long+spin+god_know_what posts
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: ssbtoday on June 04, 2013, 11:03:23 AM myself u are a scammer
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: nrd525 on June 04, 2013, 06:58:53 PM There doesn't appear to be any duration terms specified in Myself's agreement.
I think a better written contract would have a duration or process for ending it. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: unclescrooge on June 04, 2013, 11:00:06 PM Ianov FARSACIU,
Let me recapitulate the whole story: We agreed on a contract, where you would be giving advices to me, in exchange for 10% of profit. You would not participate in the decisions, nor in the losses. This is a consulting contract with remuneration based on performances. And so for months, I paid 150+ btc to cover bugs to users, paid thousands of euros for incorporation,... You didn't put a dime, fair enough, it was the contract. You acted as an advisor/consultant. Now come other associates which I gladly invited to the team. They don't want a crypto-anarchist project, they want a serious team, they don't want a joke of a contract, they want legal papers. They came in April, a month during which we lost quite some money with the Big Crash. So at the end of the month, we agreed to cover all losses, if we were to be associates. You refused it, and stated that you only want to share profit and will never take any losses. By doing this you confirmed that you want a consulting contract, not be an associate. So we proposed you, and multiples times since then, to tell us what you were looking in term of remuneration for a consulting collaboration. You never answer to this. You just came yesterday asking us 5000 BTC so you can leave the team. After which I cut you access to the read-only part of the admin side of Bitfinex (what would you expect?). there was never money put in that was not going to be paid. If our associates which you met, and you now how wealthy they are, weren't there, there would be no more Bitfinex. They allow us to pass a hard time of 5 figures losses, and now be strong as we are. Now Ianov, I'm sorry we have come to this. I'm sorry you refused to discuss at all, I'm sorry you were paranoid from day 1, just to end up creating some thread on a forum to do what? You know, and I believe everyone knows, that I am really open to discussion. I mean fuck it's been a month since I asked you to state the kind of contract you want with us, and explained you that you are not, and never acted as, an associate. I believe this is a reasonable time to discuss things. Now as I said, we are not a crypto-anarchist project but a real team with a project in the real world for the future, and we are doing things as a company do. That means that if you push us to do something, we won't create a thread on a forum. I hope the message is clear. I don't want to read anymore that we steal your forum licence (this is wrong, we bought everything back to VBulletin and third parties, and it's a shame as we could have bought it from you if you were only open to discussion), I don't want to read that we credit money that doesn't exist, I don't want to read this kind of false accusations. MPOE-R you still don't get how Bitfinex matches user position with real funds of lenders and doesn't act as a bucket shop, and it's a shame from you. For everyone, sorry to have this dirty laundry in public. If you feel uneasy and want to withdraw your funds from Bitfinex, please do. Best regards Raphael Bitfinex team Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 04, 2013, 11:11:27 PM I only give up 5% to 20% I did never give up the whole 25%
and yes i told you if you want my 20% that's the price take it or leave it Quote I don't want to read anymore that we steal your forum licence (this is wrong, we bought everything back to VBulletin and third parties, and it's a shame as we could have bought it from you if you were only open to discussion) when i made this thread that was not the case Quote I don't want to read this kind of false accusations bullshitQuote From - Wed Apr 03 15:37:44 2013 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000 X-Mozilla-Keys: Message-ID: <515C309F.6010303@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:37:35 +0200 From: myself <myselfbtc@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Raphael Nicolle <admin@bitfinex.com> Subject: Re: Tang Insurance References: <CAG4Gv-LRZc0_GxXCpT2syafiK9mfZXw8zG5-3PsVUE3i97NZmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHBavDPn1LZ-MxzWdBvvoQ3Xa2enMMWnsrQ+QznSAv1ZrtU5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-JSZoHFqGLLS2y3DcUwJK5Ztojdbu4BKjex_a_DczscoQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHBavCaWSP+SKCkhEzaG3tnWPGfGQ-2-HLVmU2Qh0YT3FeLWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-+orhKNCjWQ1qQfngTOo17k3d157gLJaEYroaURGjqepA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHBavAsp33=3a2WPgd5hd3WHBrWphS6Ab3_tgtOWhbcQ1KZ-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-KyR33m+Y1cytoTwWvsk4wkYMSKK6j1XqJhu5zC09AUmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-KtYimE6OOzF0y5=7EUK2ZV+XVWb1tV5QVKz2r59Hxv2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHBavBLOguibb9FdDVxwG1j90oaxZBWSJdBW0rFZQnfxsQ=+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-+LYmYjsucs921T2b=nERY+giwNRQr3G1PCc+jLj9xM0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHBavCVWgXO73oP_N_Jho2sGZMaJpzBbiRyKC=RXNXjFtN7Ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-LSdpfKmodHa-6gtYtjSA+84YkWMx+zLR_pgVRgP5jqXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4Gv-J-Hj+Bqq-pZ_qo=E25BN5e72v7ykwxd8pnbEGvafgMkw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG4Gv-J-Hj+Bqq-pZ_qo=E25BN5e72v7ykwxd8pnbEGvafgMkw@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2BWHFDPSIAQTGRPRLCSTE" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2BWHFDPSIAQTGRPRLCSTE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030602020206000500000305" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030602020206000500000305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 03.04.2013 15:04, Raphael Nicolle wrote: > Just a confirmation to answer your question "Myself": we lend MrTang > the money to buy the forced executed. He will have a negative balance > until he sells the bitcoins he has and/or repay the difference should > the price go even lower. > i dont like that ....also why dont you lent me 150k lol --------------030602020206000500000305 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1" http-equiv=3D"Content-Type"> </head> <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 03.04.2013 15:04, Raphael Nicolle wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote cite=3D"mid:CAG4Gv-J-Hj+Bqq-pZ_qo=3DE25BN5e72v7ykwxd8pnbEGvafgMkw@mail.gm= ail.com" type=3D"cite"> <meta http-equiv=3D"Context-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1"> <div dir=3D"ltr">Just a confirmation to answer your question "Myself": we lend MrTang the money to buy the forced executed. He will have a negative balance until he sells the bitcoins he has and/or repay the difference should the price go even lower.</= div> <br> </blockquote> i dont like that ....also why dont you lent me 150k lol<br> </body> </html> --------------030602020206000500000305-- ------enig2BWHFDPSIAQTGRPRLCSTE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJRXDClAAoJEAo1/8s223x36XAL/i7lAjbET7uR7WArpkW3IAyS s654K/eF110VdRv5fCl8mGyGMMRBNmp/g61KqNiCd64vPByb2TMkE2F1l0JaWkQO jCc+DqZBgJd9L7o0XVMJ6m6FTB4loEDD+Hv1a8zp4ZxVAfZaMVUawk75QN+v93G8 pucx6/a53BoWAq4WDqKrKAM1aN8c35DOyid7fDtSFLRUcJWDjcAb56cki8+FtmS5 jkukkc/iOJj6sdiuXxJV3j28Tm7NW1Oixl/mJic3JIBIq6lBxPxxyTJmFZ2x/67r 5i2lzVURv/a8/uhvB2Bakm0u7TPLCZeeSsqkg/LAwZIr5CXGewT8c+fE5I6cCnjE WgY6/0qHV+BBQG6DyYdLBQfhwZWDxOHva2x8+6w+xqyhIEP6NwPo1OvbCbKYamQ5 lrys9gdz0Ebar1VaQOuEW/TSp9nzL7b/G9Yzj9HbPnvvIl5MZgDAdWrAxhL2E5uA zfi6LJQ+Hx0EEZXQsXjT4mISCO00xPvdcCuJJQfqkQ== =pcJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2BWHFDPSIAQTGRPRLCSTE-- Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: simonk83 on June 04, 2013, 11:13:17 PM Man, I should have put MPOE-PR on ignore so long ago. My bad, but consider that rectified. What a dick.
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 04, 2013, 11:22:28 PM i go to sleep now and tomorrow i am out so don't expect any reply's soon
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Malawi on June 04, 2013, 11:25:07 PM myself u are a scammer Have you looked under your avatar lately? Trust: -9: -2 / +0(0) Warning: Trade with extreme caution! Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: unclescrooge on June 04, 2013, 11:47:29 PM I think my post was clear, and I won't add anything to it. If you want to waste your time on childish posts, please do. If you want to drag other names into it, please understand this will not continue on a forum. Thanks Raphael Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: 2586 on June 04, 2013, 11:48:09 PM @unclescrooge and myself:
Quote 3. Besides that is required an audit for the entire bitfinex platform,the platform tempered/adjusted twice, first with mister Tang and wascredited from him 150.000 USD, that he didn't deposit in his account,the second time when mister Devasini was credited one million dollars,money that he didn't have deposited in his account. Because of this Icannot be sure if the current losses are real or not. So the first incident was due to a delayed forced liquidation, correct? What was the second incident (Devasini)? Some sort of bug in the platform? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Malawi on June 05, 2013, 12:02:56 AM @unclescrooge and myself: Quote 3. Besides that is required an audit for the entire bitfinex platform,the platform tempered/adjusted twice, first with mister Tang and wascredited from him 150.000 USD, that he didn't deposit in his account,the second time when mister Devasini was credited one million dollars,money that he didn't have deposited in his account. Because of this Icannot be sure if the current losses are real or not. So the first incident was due to a delayed forced liquidation, correct? What was the second incident (Devasini)? Some sort of bug in the platform? Think it was that if you put in a wrong value in the price-field, and clicked the "sell/buy at market price", it would use the price you had specified if a counter offer was in the order-list. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 05, 2013, 05:08:27 AM @unclescrooge and myself: no is no like that and there was no incident Quote 3. Besides that is required an audit for the entire bitfinex platform,the platform tempered/adjusted twice, first with mister Tang and wascredited from him 150.000 USD, that he didn't deposit in his account,the second time when mister Devasini was credited one million dollars,money that he didn't have deposited in his account. Because of this Icannot be sure if the current losses are real or not. So the first incident was due to a delayed forced liquidation, correct? What was the second incident (Devasini)? Some sort of bug in the platform? 1) they did not deposit 1 single USD on this accounts 2) they got 150k and 1mil in balance given by R since he got convinced to do this 3) all that money was customer money 4) with that money they get to buy all forced execution positions until all money got used and then sell when the market bounced Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 05, 2013, 09:13:20 AM @MPOE-PR if you want any reply from me make short and to the point questions atm i am not in a state to deal with with long+spin+god_know_what posts That's okay honey, the idea that you somehow are suddenly any less dumb today than last week or last year was a longshot anyway. It's not for you. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: 2586 on June 05, 2013, 04:11:02 PM no is no like that and there was no incident 1) they did not deposit 1 single USD on this accounts 2) they got 150k and 1mil in balance given by R since he got convinced to do this 3) all that money was customer money 4) with that money they get to buy all forced execution positions until all money got used and then sell when the market bounced On 03.04.2013 15:04, Raphael Nicolle wrote: > Just a confirmation to answer your question "Myself": we lend MrTang > the money to buy the forced executed. He will have a negative balance > until he sells the bitcoins he has and/or repay the difference should > the price go even lower. So Tang and Devasini were just taking on the liabilities incurred by the delays in forced liquidation when the market crashed? As opposed to having lenders take the hit? Am I understanding correctly, and if so, what's wrong with that? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Deprived on June 05, 2013, 11:20:21 PM So Tang and Devasini were just taking on the liabilities incurred by the delays in forced liquidation when the market crashed? As opposed to having lenders take the hit? Am I understanding correctly, and if so, what's wrong with that? You're not understanding it at all. Imagine you go to a poker game. You pay some cash in and get given your chips to play with. Well in this game (according to myself) some of your opponents were given chips without having to pay for them. That means you lose either way: If you lose to them then your money is gone. If you win at the poker then there's not enough money to buy your chips back off you. Replace poker with 'gamble by margin-trading on the BTC/USD currency pair' and that's what is being alleged. The extent to which it (in practice) harmed investors would depend on the price at which bids were placed to buy forced-executed closes : were they at or above market or well below (with a timely DC from Gox to force the execution onto internal orders). Remember there's no advantage to the person having a forced-execution for it to be to someone associated with the site rather than to random stranger on MtGox. And there's no real benefit to the site either - as selling BTC held in trust for a user to someone who hasn't deposited the cash to pay for the BTC isn't better in ANY respect than selling to someone for actual cash. If true it would sound like the Tang situation was along the lines of Tang saying "Can I borrow $150K? I think BTC is going to go back up shortly so I'd like to buy up some cheap BTC from all the panic sellers and people forced to sell due to margin calls". And the site crediting him with it. Obviously that's horrendous for all other users of the site - as if he gets his trading wrong and then doesn't pay then $150k of THEIR cash has now vanished. Whether it's true or not is hard to tell. There's two reasons why - 1. Myself is a self-confessed liar. If what he's saying now is true then he lied previously when claiming everything was honest on the site - and generally acted in a deceptive manner for months, only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take. So we have to decide whether he lied then, now or both times. And we can't take his word for it - so we lack evidence to reach any conclusion. 2. Scrooge not responding is consistent with innocence (he doesn't want to waste time on entirely fabricated allegations) or with guilt (he just wants the topic to die so he can get away with it). So we can't conclude anything from the lack of a detailed rebuttal. The allegations do have the ring of truth about them to me. But I'd never actually go so far as to reach a conclusion based just on that. The problem is that although we now all know for certain that myself is a liar, we don't know how GOOD at lieing he is. So he could just be a very accomplished liar able to make up a convincing-sounding allegation. Either way myself should get the scammer tag - either for deceiving investors back then or for trying to besmirch the site now (or, conceivably, both). His own posts convict on one or the other - no need to decide which to give the tag. If mods want to move forward with the unclescrooge tag then a good starting point would be asking him to confirm or deny whether the email referring to Tang is legitimate. It's likely it can be verified that it's genuine (if it IS genuine and if he denies it). If he admits its genuine then an explanation of why they were loaning site members' cash to 'Mr Tang' would be welcome. Doubt anyone gives a shit about the falling out over the detail of a contract which had no specified duration. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 06, 2013, 12:25:10 AM There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing.
This is what I gather: 1) myself was a consultant. He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work. If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses. This is to say that he had no equity in the organization. He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing. Is this part correct? 2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity. He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to). The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line). As such his access to the site was revoked. Is this part correct? I'm not sure what the issue is here. He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated. Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: nrd525 on June 06, 2013, 03:53:24 AM If the Mr Tang loan is real (and I can understand the site operators thinking that they had to take some action while not being able to connect with MtGox and force liquidate at market prices). The question is whether there was any collateral. If not, then it was an extremely bad idea as there was an good chance that the BTC price was going down for a long bear market like 2011.
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Pale Phoenix on June 06, 2013, 05:35:37 AM There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing. This is what I gather: 1) myself was a consultant. He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work. If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses. This is to say that he had no equity in the organization. He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing. Is this part correct? 2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity. He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to). The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line). As such his access to the site was revoked. Is this part correct? I'm not sure what the issue is here. He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated. Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated? My reading of the situation is the same as yours. I understand that Myself is upset, possibly because of the way he was locked out and ignored, but there doesn't seem to be any cause for him to expect a buy-out or additional compensation. The "contract" is clear, and Myself was also very clear in his signature here on the forum that he was "just a consultant for Bitfinex." Myself's posts are obviously those of someone who is hurt and angry. He was involved from the beginning, and it seems that both he and Raphael shared some kind of anarchic idealism that fueled the project early on. Now that things have grown, and professional investors have come on board, Myself probably feels squeezed out, and disrespected. If his accusations were limited to the running of an unlicensed copy of the forum software, that would be that. The talk of phantom deposits, however, is extremely serious, and scammer tag or not, could permanently damage trust in the platform. Raphael should voluntarily address this issue head on, because no matter how undignified it might seem, these are not just random accusations from outsiders, but from someone with access to the books. There must be others who, like me, will need to be convinced that things really are on the up and up before returning funds to Bitfinex. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Ente on June 06, 2013, 10:12:01 AM 1. Myself is a self-confessed liar. If what he's saying now is true then he lied previously when claiming everything was honest on the site - and generally acted in a deceptive manner for months, only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take. So we have to decide whether he lied then, now or both times. And we can't take his word for it - so we lack evidence to reach any conclusion. I don't see that point yet. The 1M$ accused event is all new, it's not like the site was dishonest over any longer period and 'myself' ignoring it without coming forward for months? Or am I missing some point? Right the opposite, as I understand it, 'myself' was shut out partly as a consequence for asking questions about that 1M$ accusation? Sorry, the OP is awfully long. I read through it some days ago, I'm sure I already am mixing things up. Ente Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 06, 2013, 01:56:53 PM So Tang and Devasini were just taking on the liabilities incurred by the delays in forced liquidation when the market crashed? As opposed to having lenders take the hit? Am I understanding correctly, and if so, what's wrong with that? example;now let talk in small numbers so i can explain it better 1 lets say you get 1BTC forced executed at 10 2 I buy your 1 BTC position at 10 usd but i dont deposit said 10 USD 3 you the trader take the loss and you are done 4 the platform now have 1 BTC instead of 10 usd 5 the market price now is 5 USD 5 now the platform total assets is 5 USD lower that is should because it has 1 BTC instead of 10USD the platform is 5 USD in loss 6 when you get forced liquidated on mtgox at 10 that create a 10 USD reserve at mtgox and now at 5 another trader can borrow 10 USD and buy 2 BTC on a long position 7 if the additional 10USD reserve are not on mtgox the trader can borrow the 10 USD but its buy order dont get executed because of lack of funds Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 06, 2013, 02:22:41 PM ...... Quote If true it would sound like the Tang situation was along the lines of Tang saying "Can I borrow $150K? I think BTC is going to go back up shortly so I'd like to buy up some cheap BTC from all the panic sellers and people forced to sell due to margin calls". And the site crediting him with it. Obviously that's horrendous for all other users of the site - as if he gets his trading wrong and then doesn't pay then $150k of THEIR cash has now vanished. that idea was G idea and he proposed that to mr Tang Quote only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take. maybe i should have said more that just "i dont like that", each time you compromise it come back to kick your ass and i got and will get mine kicked Quote Either way myself should get the scammer tag - either for deceiving investors back then or for trying to besmirch the site now (or, conceivably, both). i did not lie to the investors and at least one of them (G) did have 100% knowledge about all this since he was in the team Quote Doubt anyone gives a shit about the falling out over the detail of a contract which had no specified duration. i post on that later Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: 2586 on June 06, 2013, 05:17:13 PM So Tang and Devasini were just taking on the liabilities incurred by the delays in forced liquidation when the market crashed? As opposed to having lenders take the hit? Am I understanding correctly, and if so, what's wrong with that? example;now let talk in small numbers so i can explain it better 1 lets say you get 1BTC forced executed at 10 2 I buy your 1 BTC position at 10 usd but i dont deposit said 10 USD 3 you the trader take the loss and you are done 4 the platform now have 1 BTC instead of 10 usd 5 the market price now is 5 USD 5 now the platform total assets is 5 USD lower that is should because it has 1 BTC instead of 10USD the platform is 5 USD in loss 6 when you get forced liquidated on mtgox at 10 that create a 10 USD reserve at mtgox and now at 5 another trader can borrow 10 USD and buy 2 BTC on a long position 7 if the additional 10USD reserve are not on mtgox the trader can borrow the 10 USD but its buy order dont get executed because of lack of funds On 03.04.2013 15:04, Raphael Nicolle wrote: > Just a confirmation to answer your question "Myself": we lend MrTang > the money to buy the forced executed. He will have a negative balance > until he sells the bitcoins he has and/or repay the difference should > the price go even lower. Is the bolded part true? Was that the agreement with Tang and Devasini? Were they in a position to make good on that agreement, in the event that the price did not recover? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: wonkytonky on June 06, 2013, 06:11:39 PM "myself" is the scammer lol
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 07, 2013, 04:04:32 AM There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing. This is what I gather: 1) myself was a consultant. He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work. If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses. This is to say that he had no equity in the organization. He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing. Is this part correct? 2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity. He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to). The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line). As such his access to the site was revoked. Is this part correct? I'm not sure what the issue is here. He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated. Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated? 1) well at the beginning R offer me 50% and i said no to that and i only take 10% and no loses (that was the point i dont take any loss) 2) in late January thing moved to make Bitfinex limited and i got 25% shares in this company 3) there where some loses after that that go paid by R and some got paid by platform earnings 4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in 5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay 6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: simonk83 on June 07, 2013, 04:47:24 AM 4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in 5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay 6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them Right, but as per your "contract": - - -raphael has the right to ignore any of these proposals - - -raphael has the right to change any of these proposals Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 07, 2013, 04:57:43 AM 4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in 5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay 6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them Right, but as per your "contract": - - -raphael has the right to ignore any of these proposals - - -raphael has the right to change any of these proposals Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 07, 2013, 08:51:30 AM is true that when the markets are closed on weekends or very boring i am not at the PC and most ppl who know me are aware that on weekend they cant reach me
regarding the accusation ( https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change ) that I was not reachable and I disappeared when the btc market drop like a rock on 10/04/2013 here is a picture of the send emails (emails that have same time are duplicate because of the filtering) this image dont lie and if i click any of the emails the pgp will verify the time on the email https://i.imgur.com/PRPdAvS.jpg Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 07, 2013, 09:05:48 AM regarding that i am weird ( also posted here https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change )
for example being gay for some is weird for others is normal, what is normal for me can be weird for you, what is weird for me can be normal for you, I think the proper term for this in English is subjective opinion Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 07, 2013, 04:24:45 PM Ianov FARSACIU, <lies and misrepresentations> Thank you. 1. Myself is a self-confessed liar. If what he's saying now is true then he lied previously when claiming everything was honest on the site - and generally acted in a deceptive manner for months, only blowing the whistle when he got cut out from the take. So we have to decide whether he lied then, now or both times. And we can't take his word for it - so we lack evidence to reach any conclusion. The correct construction on the events isn't that we lack evidence to reach any conclusion, it's that we have sufficient and concrete evidence to support the worst possible conclusion for all the people involved. Not only is this the logically correct approach but it also disincentivizes scammer behavior such as displayed by ALL the people involved with this site, starting with Devasini and van der Velde (yes, it IS wrong to bankroll scams, and no you will never get away with it) while providing no actual detriment to serious, honest entrepreneurs, making it also the ethically correct approach. 2. Scrooge not responding is He did, above. Doubt anyone gives a shit about the falling out over the detail of a contract which had no specified duration. Well, we did have some lolz over reading the purported "contract". And now to address Raphael Nicolle's retarded bullshit: They came in April, a month during which we lost quite some money with the Big Crash. So at the end of the month, we agreed to cover all losses, if we were to be associates. You refused it, and stated that you only want to share profit and will never take any losses. there was never money put in that was not going to be paid. If our associates which you met, and you now how wealthy they are, weren't there, there would be no more Bitfinex. They allow us to pass a hard time of 5 figures losses, and now be strong as we are. MPOE-R you still don't get how Bitfinex matches user position with real funds of lenders and doesn't act as a bucket shop, and it's a shame from you. Problem solved. They're both liars, they're both very bad at it. They're both idiots, the sort that pretend to be "entrepreneurs" on rich people's money. They're both very bad at it. Attention Bitcoin wanna-be investors: You are not losing your shirt "because Bitcoin". You are losing your shirt because of your own stupidity, dealing with chumps such as these two. The longer you keep at it, the lower your chances overall. Business, that means war. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: nrd525 on June 07, 2013, 08:17:47 PM MPOE-PR's posts are a mixture of outrageous trolling and insight. This is trolling.
I'm guessing that the trolling is based on fundamental opposition to being able to buy or sell on the margin and a preference for an options system. Now it is fine if you want that - however there are risks with people not being able to cover their options as well. MPOE's options system is directly in competition with BFX. So slandering the competition makes sense. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 07, 2013, 08:55:44 PM MPOE-PR's posts are a mixture of outrageous trolling and insight. True. This is trolling. False. That's how politics works, especially where low information voters are concerned. Well done, a loser is you. I'm guessing that the trolling is based on fundamental opposition to being able to buy or sell on the margin and a preference for an options system. MPEx has margin. What now? MPOE's options system is directly in competition with BFX. Bitfinex is a bucket shop. As such it may be construed to be in competition with bad radio programs (the sort that promote the various conspiracy theories) and perhaps Max Keiser. Even such a claim would be a significant (and unwarranted) leap. Now it is fine if you want that - however there are risks with people not being able to cover their options as well. Not on MPEx. Read up on things before you discuss said things. So slandering the competition makes sense. Calling out the various scams and idiocies (the two are often hard to distinguish) has been misrepresented as slander by scammers and idiots since about forever. It never worked, it's never going to work, it's just a waste of breath. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 07, 2013, 10:23:22 PM There is a lot of people who are talking about different things thinking it's the same thing. This is what I gather: 1) myself was a consultant. He was paid a certain percentage of the profits for his work. If there were no profits, he did not incur any losses. This is to say that he had no equity in the organization. He was an employee working solely for compensation based on profit sharing. Is this part correct? 2) at some point, he was asked to contribute to the losses in exchange for equity. He refused (as everyone has agreed was his right to). The equity partners decided at this point to terminate his employment status as a consultant (which is a modification of the contract as per the last line). As such his access to the site was revoked. Is this part correct? I'm not sure what the issue is here. He had a job, was told he could either be promoted to an equity partner (by paying his share) or else he would be terminated. Is he contending that his contract stated that he could not be terminated in the manner in which he was terminated? 1) well at the beginning R offer me 50% and i said no to that and i only take 10% and no loses (that was the point i dont take any loss) 2) in late January thing moved to make Bitfinex limited and i got 25% shares in this company 3) there where some loses after that that go paid by R and some got paid by platform earnings 4) then i got diluted to 20% so investors can get in 5) and the rules of the game was to be changed since i was asked to pay some loses that before i did not have to pay 6) i never give up any terms of my contract and never accepted to renegotiate them i think you are mixing up profit sharing shares and equity shares. it sounds like you were offered 50% equity shares at the beginning. But since you wanted to be shielded from loss, you turned that down and agreed to 10% of profit shares (dividends if you will). At some point, you were upgraded to 25%, still profit sharing shares, since you had no risk. Then that was diluted to 20% The rules of the game did in fact change, but you were given the option to play under the new rules or leave the game. That is perfectly fair. They did not force you to pay for the losses because that's not what the contract said. But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses). You didn't accept to renegotiate the terms and I don't think anyone disputes that. That's why you were fired. You were given the option of renegotiating, and you chose not to. As such, your employment with the company in question was terminated. As in all terminations, you kept your pay from before the termination and they owe you nothing more. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 07, 2013, 10:30:29 PM i think you are mixing up profit sharing shares and equity shares. it sounds like you were offered 50% equity shares at the beginning. But since you wanted to be shielded from loss, you turned that down and agreed to 10% of profit shares (dividends if you will). At some point, you were upgraded to 25%, still profit sharing shares, since you had no risk. Then that was diluted to 20% The rules of the game did in fact change, but you were given the option to play under the new rules or leave the game. That is perfectly fair. They did not force you to pay for the losses because that's not what the contract said. But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses). You didn't accept to renegotiate the terms and I don't think anyone disputes that. That's why you were fired. You were given the option of renegotiating, and you chose not to. As such, your employment with the company in question was terminated. As in all terminations, you kept your pay from before the termination and they owe you nothing more. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: simonk83 on June 07, 2013, 10:30:35 PM MPOE-PR's posts are a mixture of outrageous trolling and insight. This is trolling. I'm guessing that the trolling is based on fundamental opposition to being able to buy or sell on the margin and a preference for an options system. Now it is fine if you want that - however there are risks with people not being able to cover their options as well. MPOE's options system is directly in competition with BFX. So slandering the competition makes sense. Of course, they're incredibly transparent. But then what would you expect from someone like this: http://polimedia.us/trilema/2012/the-nigger-homeowners-and-other-niggers/ Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 07, 2013, 10:48:46 PM But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses). From what retarded planet do you bring these tidings of shareholders "responsible for part of the losses"? That's why you were fired. From what alternate universe do you bring these tidings of "firing" shareholders? This is the funniest thread of the week for seriously. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 07, 2013, 10:57:51 PM From what retarded planet do you bring these tidings of shareholders "responsible for part of the losses"? Earth??? If you were were in a partnership with a me and we were 50/50 partners selling widgets when our widget plant burns down. Would we not both be responsible for the losses? Or if you buy stock in Apple at $100 and next week they are slammed with a fine of 2 billion dollars, and the stock value dropped to $10, would you still claim that Apple owes you the full $100 for your stock? Even "myself" himself acknowledges that sharholders are "responsible for part of the losses." He just is now claiming that his preferred shares were shielded from the losses (implying that the common shares were not). I will address this in a minute. From what alternate universe do you bring these tidings of "firing" shareholders? Man, what's up with all the insults? Like I said before, and as others said before, we are under the impression he was an employee and not a shareholder. He was paid based on profit sharing, but not in a fixed salary. No one is claiming anyone fired a shareholder. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 07, 2013, 11:11:56 PM i think you are mixing up profit sharing shares and equity shares. it sounds like you were offered 50% equity shares at the beginning. But since you wanted to be shielded from loss, you turned that down and agreed to 10% of profit shares (dividends if you will). At some point, you were upgraded to 25%, still profit sharing shares, since you had no risk. Then that was diluted to 20% The rules of the game did in fact change, but you were given the option to play under the new rules or leave the game. That is perfectly fair. They did not force you to pay for the losses because that's not what the contract said. But they essentially gave you the option of converting your profit sharing shares to equity shares (had you chose to do so, since they were equity shares, you would have been responsible for a part of the losses). You didn't accept to renegotiate the terms and I don't think anyone disputes that. That's why you were fired. You were given the option of renegotiating, and you chose not to. As such, your employment with the company in question was terminated. As in all terminations, you kept your pay from before the termination and they owe you nothing more. Actually, they both exist. Preferred stock traditionally actually has no voting power. There are of course exceptions (I an not familiar with FB stock), but while preferred stock has preference of dividends over common stock, common stock actually has more voting power (once again with some exceptions like the issuance of new preferred stock). Profit sharing shares is traditionally given to employees of a company as part of their compensation package. For example, I work for Tech Machines Inc. in the Widget Sales department. My salary is $100,000 a year. However. as part of my compensation package, I also get profit sharing from the profits that my department makes. Let's say that the company determines that 10% of our net profits will be distributed to employees. There are 100 shares of profit sharing total, and since I am the supervisor, I get 20 profit sharing shares. The other 8 guys who work for me get 10 shares a piece. So if our Net profit for the year is $1,000,000 then the company pays out $100,000 in profit sharing. Of that, since I have 20 shares (out of 100), I get $20,000 bringing my annual compensation to $ 120,000 (plus other benefits). The other 8 guys on my team get $10,000 a piece. Going back and reading the contract, "myself will receive a financial compensation of 10% of the profits of the previously mentionned website, every month" [sic, emphasis mine]. No where in the contract does it say anything about issuing you preferred shares. It specifically uses the word profits. That being said, we are getting a bit off track. Usually, companies, before they fire workers, if the workers are of significant value, have a severance agreement with their employees. Do you think some sort of severance pay would be to your satisfaction? And if not, what do you think a satisfactory result should be? Once again, in case anyone is unclear on the matter, I am completely neutral in this case. I actually have no idea who BFX is or what they do, and have met none of the parties here, but I am just trying to help make the community a bit better by facilitating a dialogue and "arbitrating" if you will. (Which is also why I don't understand the insults being thrown my way). Clearly, you're not just here to bitch and moan--there is something that you, "myself" wants from this. What resolution would be to your satisfaction? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 08, 2013, 04:57:31 AM Regarding this part of R post https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change
Quote Please notice that the fact that he was an advisor for Bitfinex and not a shareholder was always clear and never in doubt. well the email about share dilution from 16/03/2013https://i.imgur.com/6axoUYh.jpg this begs the questions if i am not a share holder why i get diluted ? why i get to share with other people that are considered share holders ? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 08, 2013, 09:51:13 AM That being said, we are getting a bit off track. Usually, companies, before they fire workers, if the workers are of significant value, have a severance agreement with their employees. Do you think some sort of severance pay would be to your satisfaction? And if not, what do you think a satisfactory result should be? Once again, in case anyone is unclear on the matter, I am completely neutral in this case. I actually have no idea who BFX is or what they do, and have met none of the parties here, but I am just trying to help make the community a bit better by facilitating a dialogue and "arbitrating" if you will. So basically you're just an uppity clueless noob. The veheheeeery uppity but extreeeheheeemely clueless and therefore extremely lulzy variety. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: wilfried on June 08, 2013, 09:55:28 AM you mentioned "first agreement" - is there a second agreement concerning the shares? i have the impression that
-first agreement grants you 10% of the profits as payment for consulting (of course no participation for losses with that, it might be kind of a service contract). no consulting, no profit for you. agreement lacks completely the minimum amount of consulting that triggers your right to receive 10%. also it lacks the question if you get a service-fee for times of null-consulting. maybe this fact might lead you to the conclusion that you get 10% even if there is no consulting. very questionable. imho the agreement can be terminated any time. -second agreement might be the shareholder agreement (shares of the ltd). you state holding 20-25% percent of the ltd but dont participate losses. maybe. imho such an agreement requires you to buy yourself in first (deposit cash in return for the share). but this questions imho cant be answered by the first agreement. if there is no "second" agreement, well, then you would have to check back the legislation under which the ltd was installed - what is the content of a null-content-contract for shares of a ltd under this legislation? are you a dormant partner? if this legislation grants you a participation for profits, good for you, if it only grants you profits with share of losses, bad - or good too, if they just let you out without payment.. ? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 08, 2013, 03:45:24 PM imho such an agreement requires you to buy yourself in first and i did note: that was the case for BITFINEX LIMITED CR number:1872039 with date of Incorporation:08-MAR-2013 and not for Bitfinex Technology Limited CR number:1912844 with date of Incorporation:24-MAY-2013 u can check this here http://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/ Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 08, 2013, 04:02:08 PM regarding this
Quote In the following days he then withdrew the vast majority of his funds, showing very little trust in what we had done (I don't blame him for that, it's his money and he can do whatever he wants with it, but still...). i took my money out on and i did not made a secret from itQuote myself: i got my bfx money Apr 17 Quote xxxxxx: myself, I understand you have moved funds from Gox? Just wondering how long that have taken? Apr 17 myself: i moved funds via BFX I took my money out because mr tang did not deposit the 150k and no money was deposited until I lost my read only access this june if the money was deposited I was not notified and the deposited money did not show up on his market maker account this account did have a total usd in negative if the money was deposited via other account or other way I have no idea Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 08, 2013, 05:56:55 PM Regarding this part of R post https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change Quote Please notice that the fact that he was an advisor for Bitfinex and not a shareholder was always clear and never in doubt. well the email about share dilution from 16/03/2013https://i.imgur.com/6axoUYh.jpg this begs the questions if i am not a share holder why i get diluted ? why i get to share with other people that are considered share holders ? Because the profits are a fixed size pie and the pieces have to be moved around. In my example above, It's me and 8 employees. If a 9th employee comes in, then the shares of profit sharing will get diluted. None of us are shareholders in the company, but we do get profit sharing as part of our compensation package. But regardless of this, and whether or not you think you are a shareholder or not, what is the resolution you are looking for? (And is the other party even still responding to this thread? If not, then anything we talk about is irrelevant at this point.) Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: nrd525 on June 09, 2013, 03:46:51 AM Based on his "contract" Myself should have been sharing in the losses - in that the losses should have been reducing the profits. All you need to do is to set a reporting period to be a quarter or a year (instead of monthly) so that you have enough profits to cover your losses. So long as the company is profitable over that time period it will work.
So that part about not taking losses seems full of holes. -- BFX executes trades on MtGox, Bitstamp, or its own exchange based on short/long positions. People aren't betting against the house. There was an exception to this for a couple days in April when the MtGox connection was lost -- are you referring to that? If not, then how is this bucket shop activity? And if this is bucket shop activity what is logistically wrong with it? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 09, 2013, 04:55:29 AM Because the profits are a fixed size pie and the pieces have to be moved around. In my example above, It's me and 8 employees. If a 9th employee comes in, then the shares of profit sharing will get diluted. None of us are shareholders in the company, but we do get profit sharing as part of our compensation package. But regardless of this, and whether or not you think you are a shareholder or not, what is the resolution you are looking for? (And is the other party even still responding to this thread? If not, then anything we talk about is irrelevant at this point.) Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 09, 2013, 04:58:51 AM Based on his "contract" Myself should have been sharing in the losses - in that the losses should have been reducing the profits. All you need to do is to set a reporting period to be a quarter or a year (instead of monthly) so that you have enough profits to cover your losses. So long as the company is profitable over that time period it will work. u can read my email here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224745.msg2363350#msg2363350So that part about not taking losses seems full of holes. no one take loses because the operator say so with no audit with nothing even more after allowing other to be on the market if they did not deposit the money before hand Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: bitcoins5411 on June 09, 2013, 10:17:13 AM I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam.
As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 09, 2013, 02:46:02 PM I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam. As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam. I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 09, 2013, 03:24:39 PM I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam. As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam. I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 09, 2013, 06:20:10 PM I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam. As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam. On the contrary: scammers outing each other makes for a great service to the community. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: vokain on June 09, 2013, 06:39:40 PM 6) After a few days we joined forces (end of March) the price started to raise a lot and it accelerated further to hit 266 on the 9th of April. With the price grew our concern as we started to fear a crash. At the beginning of April we therefore put in place an account, under the name of mr Tang ( the Hong Kong insurer mentioned above) in order to start providing insurance for the loans. This account would have the ability to have a liability toward Bitfinex for up to a previously and formally agreed amount. But we were not quick enough to implement this. We all recall what happened, make a long story short the price started to collapse and MtGox suspended trading. As MtGox was our main (and only third party platform at that time, as Bitstamp didn't join in yet) liquidity provider, we were left with a bunch of leveraged positions that needed to be liquidated but couldn't as MtGox was down. Me and Giancarlo spent long hours on the phone during that night (I will never forget it) and he was really helpful in the situation. He said he and the investors team were going to cover for any losses that this crash would have caused. He said we should not make lenders lose any money and that this move (taking this loss) would have paid back several times in the future. But there was no time to physically transfer the funds required before Gox resumed operations, so I allowed mr. Tang ( the insurance shareholder I mentioned before whose real name is not mr. Tang by the way, we care about the privacy of our customers) to go 150k in red for a few hours. All the losses originated that night went into his account and were promptly covered by the shareholders after that. To put things straight this wasn't representing a risk for the company as Giancarlo gave me his personal word that these 150k would have been transferred the day after AND he personally had liquidity on his personal account in Bitfinex for way more than the above mentioned 150k and this was the collateral of Mr. Tang liabilities. And so we did, after Gox resumed operations we liquidated the leveraged positions and ended up making a loss of "only" 50,000 usd. None of our lenders lost one cent, and this was possible only because we had a strong financial backup. I can't think of a lot of people that would have done the same in our shoes. For clarity Mr. Tang later provided the funds that are now used to give insurance on the loans of our lenders. Please notice that we have always been very clear and transparent about what happened during these days, as this announcement published the day after the big crash shows: https://community.bitfinex.com/conte...-night-Tsunami Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: wilfried on June 09, 2013, 07:01:10 PM the working link is
https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 10, 2013, 12:31:45 AM I propose to the moderators to close this thread because no one was actually scammed. This is a dispute between partners and has nothing to do with the general public. No one on Bitfinex has actually lost any money, so by definition this isn't a scam. As long as withdrawals on Bitfinex continue to function perfectly there is no scam. I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees. Bitcoins5411 I think has a good point. I guess I'm not exactly sure what's going on with this taking customer money thing, but it seems like no one was out anything by deception which is an integral part of a scam. Having an unsecured loan may be bad business practice, but unless the company was actually maliciously trying to make money by cheating it's customers, it's not really a scam. As I have said before, the "scam" accusation with regards to the customer account handling is marginal at best. There is definitely no scam with regards to myself and the ownership's dispute--it appears to be an internal shareholder and/or employer dispute. If you put your investor's money in a bank with no FDIC insurance, it's a bad business practice, but it's not a scam. If you did the same but told your investors the money was protected, it's lying to them, but still not really a scam. If you tell investors their money is in an FDIC insured bank, but it's actually gone to buy you a corvette, now it's a scam. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Eisenhower34 on June 10, 2013, 07:32:31 AM I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here.
1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. The agreement via email / contract dont back his demand for being a real partner and not only an employee payed by a percentage of the profit. Im sorry for you "myself" but emplyees can be fired. Check your emails, maybe you find something he said which imply that you are a real partner. 2) The second point is the more concerning one according to my opinion. We already cleared the 150k covered by the funds of a personal account, but what about "Devasini [who] was credited one million dollars, money that he didn't have deposited in his account"? Giving out funds of this amount are a huge liability and are possible fraud (as long as you have no real good explanation). Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on June 10, 2013, 08:31:28 AM I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here. 1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. The agreement via email / contract dont back his demand for being a real partner and not only an employee payed by a percentage of the profit. Im sorry for you "myself" but emplyees can be fired. Check your emails, maybe you find something he said which imply that you are a real partner. then why was bitfinex technology limited funded ? ofc on documents I have 25% of bitfinex limited and R have 75% and ofc i am not going to sing any papers regarding bitfinex limited numbers and stuff posted here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=224745.msg2412313#msg2412313 Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Eisenhower34 on June 10, 2013, 09:22:29 AM 25% of bitfinex limited I already said above, you didnt post any evidence to proof that so far.Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: davout on June 10, 2013, 10:26:33 AM This thread is lulz, wonder why the
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 10, 2013, 01:02:28 PM This thread is lulz, wonder why the Because by now it has evolved into a singularity (torus shaped) and a bunch of golums are circling it chanting "my preciousssss, my preciousssss". Particularly amusing is the blogpost of the Raphael muppet. Oh he's worked so very hard (so what if stupidly?!) and his personal life is a mess so please can he at least have this? The answer, of course, is no. That's not how life works. This isn't the artificially constructed environment known as school where if you whine and appeal to emotion enough the teacher might give you a passing grade. Go back to high school Raphy, that's where your delusions of what professional means aren't out of place. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Sukrim on June 10, 2013, 04:44:27 PM I find it funny that someone like myself got 10% of profits in the first place. Also the talk of "oh so rich" investors (who is this "Mr. Tang"?) seems a bit weird to me, maybe I come from a different background, but even though a loss of 50k USD is a lot, it is not that much for a financial business startup with a business model that has very much known risks where one can get burned. You were warned over and over about getting Goxxed
I personally pulled partly out of Bitfinex regardless of these accusations, simply because interests in the last month were not covering the risks that I perceive at all, so there's no real point in putting my money in danger for low returns. Building on Bitcoinica's code in the first place was probably not the smartest move, I'm still hoping that soon(TM) there will finally be an open-source trading platform with leverage, be it on Ripple, with their own IOUs, with OpenTransactions or however else. As regulatory hurdles are anyways the main issue, and not the actual trading engine having competitors setting up dozens of their own exchanges is very unlikely anyways... I got off-topic though, so back to these accusations: As Eisenhower34 said: * There's need for proof that myself even holds 25% of bitfinex limited and it would be nice to know who holds which parts of bitfinex technology limited * What's up exactly with this 1 million USD (an amount that should be quite hard to hide in logs etc.), where's proof for that? I would also add: * An audit from a third party would be great to have, ideally with a transparency initiative - there was a thread about which numbers should be published how and where, so far Bitfinex is still quite a black hole and the "public trades" page is not enough to properly audit the page externally or create a ledger (amounts cut off, only 100 entries available, no mention of platform or fee...) If there was a complete trading history released (with good + proper data of the trades) it would be possible to massage this into a format readable by ledger-cli for example and calculate how many USD, BTC and LTC the platform should have at risk at any point of time. Then all that needs to be done is to provide evidence (e.g. screenshots, bank statments, auditor statements, exchange balances) that these funds are really existing and everything is fine. I'd like to remind Raphael though of a few things: Being a "rich rich rich" insurance owner in Hong Kong does not make somebody a useful partner. If at all it would make me suspicious how this person can get so rich when he invests in these high-risk ventures. Having a few things to say on a forum or suggestions via mail does not make someone a useful advisor. (You're free to send me bitcoins though for my suggestions/advice... :P) Someone who just pulls a CEO + investors in a month(!?) out off his hat that understand both Bitcoin and margin trading while himself coming from a semiconductor background is in my eyes just too good to be true. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 10, 2013, 05:07:16 PM I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here. 1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. Not at all. He's posted enough to make it clear he was an early round, low valuation investor who is now seeing his stake converted by "management" (ie, the thief with the logins) for the benefit of later stage investors. The exact method employed in the tortious transfer of interest in Bitcoin Magazine a few months back. Ample reason to go to jail in most any part of the civilised world for that matter. Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 10, 2013, 05:10:03 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Sukrim on June 10, 2013, 06:33:55 PM Huh?
Bitfinex runs on RoR... in some cases they even gave full error logs (I might still have one lying around... "/home/raph/www" rings a bell?) on 500 errors. I just hope they keep their software patched up to the latest as there are again some exploits floating around in the wild. This has nothing to do with the remaining scam accusations here (1 million USD credited out of thin air and cutting out a share holder(?) by maybe(?) founding another company) Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: davout on June 10, 2013, 06:38:44 PM Because it doesn't run on exploit-riddled ruby-on-rails You must be new hereTitle: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 10, 2013, 08:22:22 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 10, 2013, 09:54:15 PM Because it doesn't run on exploit-riddled ruby-on-rails You must be new hereWhat gave it away? Was it perhaps How dare you call me a scammer, you spread lies for MPEX, the biggest Bitcoin ponzi scheme who's office is just a house in romania. I run a much more reputable business than you, and you even dare to call me a scammer... Everyone knows REAL offices of REALLY more reputable businesses than yours are run off boats and satellites. And maff. Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 10, 2013, 10:22:00 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 10, 2013, 11:14:23 PM I've scheduled a meeting with my financial advisor tomorrow and will be letting them know my intentions to invest in illegally traded stocks on an unregulated stock exchange, who's office is, again, a middle class dude's house in Romania. Seems legit. The only people you "schedule meetings" with are prostitutes, if they take food stamps that day, and cops, if they feel like beating up on some schmuck while passing by your reputable business space station/bus stop. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: WuLabsWuTecH on June 11, 2013, 12:06:22 AM I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here. 1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. The agreement via email / contract dont back his demand for being a real partner and not only an employee payed by a percentage of the profit. Im sorry for you "myself" but emplyees can be fired. Check your emails, maybe you find something he said which imply that you are a real partner. 2) The second point is the more concerning one according to my opinion. We already cleared the 150k covered by the funds of a personal account, but what about "Devasini [who] was credited one million dollars, money that he didn't have deposited in his account"? Giving out funds of this amount are a huge liability and are possible fraud (as long as you have no real good explanation). Once again, it might be bad business practices, but is it really elevated to the point of a scam that deserves a scammer tag? Even if all the things said here were true, no one lost any money in the deal and while the company took a risk, it seemed to have done so to protect it's assets and those of it's clients. I think the request for this to be closed makes sense because even if everything said against the company were true, it still doesn't seem like anyone lost anything at all? At which point the scam tag request would be denied. Just my opinion though. This whole damn thing has gotten to be very convoluted due mostly to the fact that the OP seems to be confounding 2 things into one. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 11, 2013, 01:26:45 AM Once again, it might be bad business practices, but is it really elevated to the point of a scam that deserves a scammer tag? Even if all the things said here were true, no one lost any money in the deal and while the company took a risk You are either mixing yourself in discussing topics significantly outside of your intellectual purview out of a naive but ultimately dangerous conviction that simply being born out of woman qualifies you to form an opinion on any topic and to speak in any circumstance, or else you're a shill. Now which one is it? Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 12, 2013, 12:43:06 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: davout on June 12, 2013, 01:28:29 PM The only people you "schedule meetings" with are prostitutes, if they take food stamps that day, and cops, if they feel like beating up on some schmuck while passing by your reputable business space station/bus stop. {random blurb} Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 12, 2013, 01:32:21 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: davout on June 12, 2013, 01:44:11 PM Also, just to note in about a month (5th July approx) I will be sending you some interesting information that you probably already know about InstaWallet but have yet to make public. No point telling everyone now when I can't show any proof. Sure, you'll end up in the Roger Wehbe folder if you're lucky.Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 12, 2013, 04:26:06 PM It's funny how you say I'm such a bad person because of what I do for work when we essentially both do the same thing, you get paid to make MPEX/MPOE look good on the forums, I get paid to make your competitors look good on the forums. No, you have it exactly backwards. You don't get paid. I do. You dick around trying to "make whatever scam look good". I stick around telling people the truth, with particular inclination for the truth they don't particularly wish to hear. And they complain about it. Specifically, the scammers and scammers-to-be complain that I'm not doing a very good job of what you folks imagine the job is. You're wrong, on absolutely all scores, starting with what PR means, going through what business and entrepreneurship are and ending in your own estimation of yourself and others. And by wrong I mean exactly backwards. PS. You're not "part of the competition", for anything whatsoever. To compete you have to do something. You don't do anything. but anyways, no, you Romanian's wouldn't know anything about them, you've probably never seen one before. I'm sure they've seen your mom, and since we're on it: plural and possessive work differently in English (two girls, the girl's shoe), and I'm from California. Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 12, 2013, 05:46:04 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 12, 2013, 11:06:22 PM I'm from Bulgaria but I escaped, so I know all about your country and the kind of financial businesses that come from it. They say that the average domestic goat regards its herder as another goat, of about the same age. What with being from Bulgaria and all maybe you're in a position to shed some light on this topic? Fail that, I recently met a guy from Bulgaria, his name is Momchil. You know him? Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MPOE-PR on June 15, 2013, 11:21:12 AM Gratuitous bump.
Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 17, 2013, 02:29:54 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Atruk on June 17, 2013, 02:38:40 PM Fail that, I recently met a guy from Bulgaria, his name is Momchil. You know him? WTF does that have to do with anything? This company that pays you to make them look good is a scammer, simple. Read up on some bitcoin history, around 2010. Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 17, 2013, 02:41:04 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Atruk on June 17, 2013, 02:55:37 PM Read up on some bitcoin history, around 2010. I thought she was talking about something non-bitcoin related. Link please? Now I am curious. If you have to ask you could probably benefit from the education that comes with searching on your own. Title: - Post by: BTCTalkAccounts on June 17, 2013, 03:05:31 PM -
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Atruk on June 17, 2013, 03:11:15 PM If you have to ask you could probably benefit from the education that comes with searching on your own. No its because of the rating limiting on the forum search and the fact that I refuse to use Google and let them harvest my data. I do my internet searches using Yacy P2P search, admittedly the search algroithms aren't as good as Google's though so this time I have to forfeit the NSA my data. Who said anything about using a search engine. Just read for a while. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: MOHOTMO on July 03, 2013, 08:37:57 AM Hello myself.
May be you can explain your problem for the spanish comunity. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=246416.new#new Saludos. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: myself on August 03, 2016, 05:35:36 PM karma is a bitch ;D
Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: johnwick3 on November 29, 2017, 03:09:49 AM karma is a bitch ;D I don't know... is it? I'm very worried about the entire crypto space... it seems like there might be some legitimacy behind this Tether bullshit... digging through old posts like this one... not good. Title: Re: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com Post by: Ente on November 29, 2017, 08:30:18 AM karma is a bitch ;D I don't know... is it? I'm very worried about the entire crypto space... it seems like there might be some legitimacy behind this Tether bullshit... digging through old posts like this one... not good. That was more than a year ago.. Ente |
