Bitcoin Forum

Ok I realize this is totally tasteless.  But I'm going to express my thoughts with a picture (it is worth 1000 words btw):


Also, I find it hilarious that this is a rule of his service "Unfortunately, we do not allow nor encourage our customers to enable WHOIS privacy." yet he uses email addresses like stevejobs804@gmail.com or whatever to try and hide his identity.

BTW: what does "Zhou Tong: A.k.a. Ryan" mean on your website https://www.zhoutong.com/ ?  Living in Melbourne now?  Old news?  I duno.

I know "innocent until proven guilty" and I never lost a single bitpenny on his bitcoinica website so I have no reason to complain, but it aggravates me to see him among us like it never happened.

Pretty well known that he's a student in Australia. Read some shit before you post. That's not to say he's not likely a pathological liar and thief (really don't know personally but his stories are pretty out there) but the signal to noise ratio around here is lousy enough as it is.

It's not just him, whether real or not! It's the ones pulling the strings and pressing the buttons that's got me all tearing eyed. Once Bitcoinica is out of the picture, the operators of said overseer will still be here, hawkin' a new Bitcoin thingy. That's the important part that I'm tryin' to relay.

I can't believe all the named Bitcoiners linked to Bitcoinica who have/had other domains using different names and addresses that don't even exist on any map on Earth. And so much of all this stems from the domain industry and the SEO gurus, along with at least one marketing guru I've known for years.

~Bruno~

I have been reading quite a bit and I hadn't heard about the Australia thing until just now.  And I can sort of understand the 'Ryan' thing, sometimes foreigners take up english names.  But yea.  I just felt like commenting on the fact that he bought up all the ad slots at an astronautical price like he's a baller and the auction thread is locked.

Bruno, for once, I really have to ask you: wtf are you actually talking about? Stop adding to the noise. I fear you're becoming unhinged. You have some useful things to add on occasion, but this is not one of those occasions.

Remember, supposedly Zhou Tong was not even part of Bitcoinica when those ads where purchased. Bitcoin Magazine didn't get it's first leg until long after Zhouey Boy sold the company.


Would you be so kind as to help me find 1297 Ercole Street Stonington, ME 04134 on a map? Any map? Even a relic one.

I have strong reservations of having Patrick A Murck holding any bitcoins in a trust fund. Would you give any money to anybody to put in a safe, one that they don't even know the combination to, but his/her (I'll get back to her, albeit a different research result--and not Maria) close advisers will handle everything? Would you? And check out that DC address that Patrick has used in the past. Note a William Murck there, and check out the other results for that address. And while I'm on a roll, who the hell is Roy Ditmas? Am I the only one here that knows how to use Google?

Please accept my apology if this post comes across a tad terse, shockD.

Later, bud.

~Bruno~

Note to self: Get another dog.

Gotcha, I'm sorry, I am truly being a bit abrasive this evening but it did seem a well known fact to me from following the zillion threads relating to him. Consider this an official apology for being a dick though.

Cheers

mc_lovin is shockD by that heartfelt apology, which has been sincerely accepted!

+1


I can not understand why theymos pulled this deal with this scammer. Oh sorry - of cause he can not be called scammer, because it's not proven. There is no evidence at all.

Now this thread has been moved to off-topic to ensure that ZT's new "customers" do not get distracted by totally irrelevant information...

Well, maybe ZT will use some of the new funds from NameTerrific to refund some of the Bitcoinica victims... out of pure generosity... ::)

Bitcoin is full of hypocrites. That is not a new development but has been increasingly so since prices went back up after last years dip.  >:(

Greed brings out "the best" of people.

Careful. They are going to ban you and pretend you never existed. Maged (a moderator here) has pledge over and over his support for Zhou. Here is Theymos explanation of why taking the funds from Zhou was an ok thing to do (disturbing if you ask me). You judge for yourself:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94475.msg1062355#msg1062355

I just found out that the Bitcoin Magazine took a "large donation" from Zhou. It seems he knows how to buy friends with high exposure, and with a clear ability of control the information in the bitcoin world. It would be interesting to get anybody from this forum to fully disclose how much money Zhou Tong has "donated" to the same.

You just found out he donated money to BitTalk.TV (not Bitcoin Magazine. Bitcoin Magazine didn't exist at that time)? Why did you just find that out? I posted that literally 8 months ago. http://dcao.org/?p=39


That was of course for cameras back when BitTalk Media was just bittalk.tv. The magazine came way later and -that- funding was 100% from Vladimir, myself and recent investments through angel.co. Thanks for the free publicity though! http://bitcoinmagazine.net

@OP: Until Zhou is proven guilty of something, I don't know why you would have a problem with him advertising on the forums. Do you have a problem with Pirate advertising on the forums?

I don't really have a problem with it, especially if he's considered innocent, but even then it's really none of my business.  I thought shakaru was innocent and look how that turned out.  I just noticed that there was no current discussion thread about his advertising on here and decided to start one.  Maybe should have done so without the image.

Fair enough. I though Shakaru was innocent too until he changed his mind about having cancer and never reported that little 'fact' to the forums. He still hasn't paid anyone back afaik.

Has he even been charged with something yet?


Anyway from good judgment, in comparison how quickly the scammer label is applied to persons he should get one. You can argue that the label is commonly used prematurely and that in this case special care is needed but the latter is not the case.

Again, it's hypocrisy.

Scammer tag is usually quickly applied because there is clear evidence that the party is guilty. Not very clear here, too many conflicting facts and too much speculation.

50% or more of all scammer tags take over 2 weeks to fully process before they get applied. I would not call that "quick". The ones that are applied faster than that are extremely clear-cut.

Funny how you Mods quickly show up for his defense, way to show an united front.  :o

IMO, if this were anybody else he'd have that label by now. The evidence seems pretty clear and from what I can tell anything to the contrary comes from ZT himself.

So a lack of evidence is a defense? Funny how your vision gets clouded by a witch hunt. Where there is an opposing statement, there is ambiguity that needs to be resolved. What reason do you have to completely ignore his statements as if they were false, just because they oppose your opinion as to what may be going on?

http://whois.domaintools.com/dailycheckout.com

http://www.dailycheckout.com/faq.asp?#100003
^you were looking for Roy Ditmas, you could do worse than call this number  ;)

Statements made by a suspect shouldn't be counted as evidence. If there was somebody independent bringing that up it should be valid.

In that case, I hereby suspect you of drug trafficking for a major cartel, and you can't defend yourself because you are the suspect. Deny it all you want, but it means nothing! Yeah right.

Well then what was the point of the thread where AurumExchange was presenting the evidence to us? Of course you can say that wasn't evidence just accusations. Are you doing that?

Sure, there was evidence, but the suspect provided counter-evidence that refuted some of the conclusions that the accuser jumped to. So yes, some of it was nothing more than accusations.

He denied an not refuted. At least I haven't found any evidence of the existence of his associate.

In case I have missed it, point me to it.

We'll know soon enough, assuming ZT ever wants that $40k back, thanks to an official AML investigation that requires ZT's, his friend's and Chen's identity.

"there was evidence" ok.

"the suspect provided counter-evidence that refuted some" - You say it refuted this is not agreed. Dismissing "some" does not equal dismissing all.

"some of it was nothing more than accusations." dismiss them and focus on what is known