That's the plan.

Not that I'm aware of.

That sentence could have made some sense if it weren't for the facts that:
1. It did work. (Nobody chose to use it but that's a different matter. "It" is Anti-Pirate BTW.)
2. There were no usable shorting vehicles.
3. It was not a means to "drown out" anything, it was a means to let people act on their beliefs against Pirate, while collecting a fee for my service.

It's futile to try to understand what's going on inside your head, but if I had to guess I'd say you're jealous that I came up with a streamlined instrument that competed with whatever it is you thought you were offering.

I'll regret asking this, but... What is the "legitimate process" and how does this thread "drown it out"? What is it that you think would have happened had I not started this thread and now won't?

In case you somehow think this thread is a substitute for contacting Alberto personally about the withdrawal - I'm sure many people have already done that and it didn't lead to much. Having some deposit information known to me and publicly is a step forward.

No.

I think there's a question buried deep under the pile of nonsensical personal attacks, so I'll try to answer that. The Bitdaytrade deposits are part of Alberto's debt, and since I am constantly negotiating with Alberto the repayment of his debt, this issue comes up often. With the output of this thread I could have a better understanding of the problem, and have something to compare Alberto's claims against - which can act as a pressure point if there's a mismatch.

Bitdaytrade predated my knowledge of it and my public involvement with the corresponding bonds, to say that I am somehow responsible for it is silly. And I have spoken at length on my accountability for the bonds in the relevant thread.

You can buy back shares at arbitrary times. Just not arbitrary numbers, it's all or nothing.

This one is more sensitive because knowledge of deposits relies on Alberto's database. Other than repeatedly demanding a report on completed and pending withdrawals there's not much we can do.

Also I have now started this thread, please post in it.

If you've had a deposit at http://bitdaytrade.com on Aug 16, please report here the amount and whether it has been paid back to you.

This thread is completely unofficial. I personally don't have any way to verify the claims or to act on them, and I only have (limited) responsibility for the BDT bonds, not the platform itself. I've made this thread to get a better view of the situation.

This is correct.

His deadline is tomorrow. We have negotiated this between Alberto, Nefario and me and it is extremely annoying to be asked for updates every day. This will not be resolved in a timescale of days.

I managed the IPO; I consulted for Alberto and helped him with the PR, and clarified that this is the extent of my involvement.

I did not give any sort of guarantee for the investment. I clarified that I have no intimate familiarity of Alberto. I clarified that people should invest based on their own trust in Alberto and not based solely on "Meni said its ok". I didn't even recommend buying the bond.

I did say I have confidence in Alberto, which was a poor choice of words, but still does not give me any more obligation than an analyst giving stock advice - he doesn't pay out of pocket if it goes bad.

I have also later recommended to sell the bond and indirectly used my own funds to facilitate the buyback. While the funds were insufficient for everyone to sell, everyone who did choose to take my advice got to. Those who ignored it have absolutely no claim against me.

I've done much more for the resolution of this than is my duty. The problem is that the more you do, the more people think you are obligated to do.

I grow weary of having to defend myself, it really amounts to people refusing to own up to their investment decisions and looking for someone to blame.

I did not end up with 4000 BTC stake by choice, it's not really the kind of money I can afford to trust with any one person. My original investment was 2000 BTC, and while it increased a bit over time, most of the rest was due to money I gave Alberto in a desperate attempt to reach a quicker resolution, with a clearly stated expectation that it should be paid back to me soon. I'm well within my right to require paying me back to the 3000 BTC level before the public debt, and I'm not exercising this right.

The distinction between my debt and bondholders is arbitrary. I used to be a bondholder and I'm sure if that remained the case there would be no question that I should have equal share of the returns. The reason I exchanged the bonds for external debt is that the coupon payments were too much for Alberto and I wanted to help by waiving my right to the coupons.

And this brings us back to the "Meni is putting himself ahead of the bondholders!" conspiracy theory. A week hasn't even passed since the negotiations started. Alberto merely paid a token of good faith to encourage Nefario to remove the docs; we haven't formally discussed the distribution and I figured that could be deferred until he pays a more significant amount (which at that point would probably be proportional). But with the incessant second-guessing it's extremely difficult to carry out any sort of planning.

Look, you may be thinking that sharing publicly every bit of detail of internal negotiations the minute they are discussed is the right way to do things, but it's not. Not even a week (with its first deadline) has passed since the initial negotiations. When I have something to report I report it.

You're damned if you negotiate peacefully, you're damned if you negotiate aggressively, you're sure as hell damned if you take legal action and it takes years to recover a fraction of the debt...

The same could be said about pretty much every bond or loan in this market. Some of them were legitimate to various degrees, others not. People have their reasons to want to borrow in this way.

A credit report of Alberto was not pulled; in hindsight that could have been a good idea, but people have been borrowing much larger amounts with much less scrutiny.

You're polling too frequently, we're talking about a timescale of weeks at least.

So far Alberto has paid 200 BTC, which I thought would be reasonable to go towards the debt to me (5% of it) since I didn't get the two last coupons (6.6%). He should pay 2000 soon and if he does we'll figure out the exact distribution.

Right. Nefario?

He paid a bit and is supposed to pay some more in a few days.

Not really. The wallet has a pool of spare addresses. Whenever it needs a new address, whether a change address or when clicking the "new address" button, it takes one from the pool and replenishes it with a fresh one. A change address is always one which was never used before.

As mentioned, the backup is good until 100 new addresses are generated (change from sending + new recipients). The backup should be frequent enough that even under heavy usage you won't use 100 between backups, otherwise all coins could be lost.

This probably is not the case. I wouldn't hold my breath.

You shouldn't run your computer with no disk space, ideally you should have 5%-10% or more free. The blocks are slowly loading because you've run out of disk space. Make some room and then run the program again.

Other than that, if you can't extract the key, your only option is to mail the wallet.dat file to someone and have them retrieve the coins for you. They'll probably expect a fee for the service.

This quote is over a year old and I haven't heard it in any recent context, so I'd say it's fixed.

It will use an address from the buffer, and generate a new address to replenish it. The buffer will always have 100 addresses.

Your wallet file always has a buffer of 100 addresses. Meaning that as long as you haven't generated more than 100 addresses since you made the backup, you'll be fine.

You can assume that an address will be generated for every transaction you send or receive.

Did you look at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Research?

It's nothing like a ponzi. The characteristic of a ponzi is that the underlying business is kept hidden and actually does not exist; in this case the business was specified and did exist (whatever problems it had). The other characteristic is that it is growing, in this case it was an issue for a set amount.

If you take for example nrd525's ponzi indicators it passes about 2 out of 9.

My only knowledge of Alberto's assets is from his own words. His reported status doesn't seem very consistent so it's not clear if he can't pay, won't pay, or will pay (face value) given some time to liquidate assets.


I will not dignify MPOE-PR's comment with a response.

Whatever happens this isn't a win for Micon because his post is nonsensical - this was about developing a trading platform which is completely different from trading, and even if it was a scam it's not a ponzi scam.

We're approaching this in multiple ways. The best outcome by far is if Alberto voluntarily repays, litigation would be a lengthy process with an uncertain outcome.

I expect the trolling to die down.

Fees for small transactions will probably be about a cent, and there will be ways to make a payment with less than 1 transaction amortized.

1.0005.

Nefario and I are working on a repayment plan with Alberto and will post updates when there's significant progress.

I didn't know about the connection until the August 16 events. At that point it seemed like mere speculation but the evidence quickly amounted, and by now it can be considered confirmed.

Maybe I could have known about it sooner if I had looked harder; his handle on Skype and elsewhere is jjfarren, which was also used on the forum as an account determined to be Bitscalper.