|
"And much more!" in a bullet list sounds like something from daytime tv shop channels. Besides that - great!
|
|
|
|
While it's almost impossible for me to find all of them, most of it (17000 BTC) were coming from Bitmarket's cold storage. I finally found the address (it was 1.5 year ago, so it wasn't easy to find). Here you go:
Thank you. |
|
|
|
What's with the whole witch hunt?
Whenever you feel like releasing blockchain transactions supporting your initial story about gambling at Bitcoinica, please do so. |
|
|
|
If you got a legal route.
1. you would have to convince a govent that your bitconz had real world value.
2. Get a civil court to file a judgement against him to recover the loss from future earnings. (again that could take years.)
This is most likely not an issue at all. Within the EU you can assume it's criminal case and the courts will convict. Please read the following: http://www.virtualpolicy.net/runescape-theft-dutch-supreme-court-decision.htmlThere is no plausible "investment" scenario that will ever pay anyone back their bitcoins. The only way to make sure scammers stop scamming is to start convicting some - and this is probably the best case to start with of all available. |
|
|
|
I can see no financial incentive for mralbi and "others" to "invest" in this essentially insolvent, indebted company.
Agreed. While mralbi supplies personal information all posts reads like a bitmarket.eu admin sockpuppet. Even going so far as trying to explain away why we can't see blockchain transactions. To repeat: If the official story is true there's no reason whatsoever to not show those transactions. I'm now quite convinced that the official story isn't true, mralbi knows this, and I still believe the best action for bitmarket.eu users as well as for Bitcoin as a whole is to press legal charges. (It's a clear cut case, the admin has confessed and Dutch jurisdiction will convict) |
|
|
|
I believe that I answered you regarding Bitcoinica transactions in the Blockchain - it's pointless, because there's virtually now way now for me to prove that the money went TO Bitcoinica (I can prove that the FROM address belongs to me, but I could just send it to another address of mine if I were malicious)
Blockchain analysis together with other known Bitcoinica transfers should give a good indication as to whether the transfers were indeed Bitcoinica related or not. Since there's no reason not to publish the transactions, I find it strange that you claim it's pointless instead of simply doing it. As for what's good for Bitcoin; I'd say Bitcoin scammers behind bars. That would be excellent in deterring future scams.
That seems like a stupid idea. Not only would it not deter others from scamming (they'd just need to avoid publishing their details to scam without risk), you'd actually deter others who made stupid mistakes like this one from coming forward and attempting to fix their mistakes. Now apply your reasoning to non-Bitcoin crimes, like burglary. |
|
|
|
I don't believe he has lost all the bitcoins. I found it strange that my earlier request for blockchain transactions showing the transfer to Bitcoinica didn't get a positive answer. I'm still waiting to see the Bitcoinica liquidation claim as well. As things stand, there's no reason to believe the official story. Supporting proof can easily be given, but hasn't. As for what's good for Bitcoin; I'd say Bitcoin scammers behind bars. That would be excellent in deterring future scams. |
|
|
|
Every post I will ever make in the future will be at a lower average price than the last.
And anyone that believes FPGAs will ever be cost effective for mining is deluded.
Anyone who believes there will ever be a Bitcoin ASIC is simply fucking retarded.
... and finally, we can now end the old heated debate  http://bitcoinmagazine.com/working-avalon-asic-confirmed/Although since price is at $20 I guess we'll never see any posts from Synaptic again - true to his word: Last Active: September 12, 2011, 01:36:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I've never been a user of any of the Bitcoin services where the customer base was scammed, previously. However, I was a user of Bitmarket and while I wasn't personally scammed someone I recommended to the service might've been. I'm thus slightly more interested in this case compared to all the others.
1) Without proof that user funds were indeed used to gamble on Bitcoinica an equally likely explanation is that the site operator is sitting on them. Bailing him out with all these grand business plans makes those bitcoins "clean".
Suggestion: Provide proof of the blockchain transactions and Bitcoinica claim.
2) Any and all business plans that can make 18k BTC in a reasonable timeframe will create zero profit if used with Bitmarket, 18k BTC profit if used with any other site. It's difficult to understand investors who make such a choice.
Suggestion: Provide rational arguments as to why those business plans are better suited for Bitmarket than other sites. They exist, they have large userbases and some have even stayed away from scamming users. Note: The rationale for Bitmarket is not in question, but for the investors it's downright strange.
3) The Bitmarket site owner played the casino with user funds, and lost. If he had won, the profit would've gone to him, not the users. One of the most profitable Bitcoin business models to have surfaced so far (excluding, I believe, Mt. Gox and Satoshi Dice - where I'm wary of the latter) is to open up a service and then simply scam the users. This will continue until one of two things happens:
a) There's a protocol solution making service scamming impossible. This I believe to be critically needed before Bitcoin is a viable transaction medium.
b) Scam artists are prosecuted. We're still waiting for Bitcoinica, but it looks unlikely. Bitmarket isn't, however. Virtual goods have already been the subject of the highest court in the relevant jurisdiction and the site owner has publically admitted to the deed. It would be a straightforward case and likely make future scam artists think twice.
I suspect cognitive biases to play a role here. You would not be as lenient with someone who broke into your house and stole the same amount of money/goods.
|
|
|
|
How large was your last fee on bitmarket.eu? And have your trades been successfully?
No fees, all trades successful. I recommended bitmarket.eu to everyone in Europe I introduced to Bitcoin, and told them to avoid exchanges. That doesn't change the fact that the service owner used funds that didn't belong to him to gamble in a casino - an illegal act in the relevant jurisdiction. The possibility for fraud is why I never, ever, keep BTC under anyone else's control but my own longer than absolutely necessary. (And also why I believe that the solution must be protocol mandated. There's no such thing as "trust" when large sums of money is involved. I don't trust a bank with more money than the EU insures on my behalf either) |
|
|
|
But nevertheless, the site has some potential because
b) the site has a quite good user base i assume
I'm one of them. As with all other Bitcoin services I've always made immediate transfers back to my own locally stored wallet, never keeping any funds on-site. I'm also an ex Bitmarket.eu user. I will, of course, never touch the site again. Scamming-by-ignorance is still scamming. (I'm awaiting the protocol solution to an otherwise unsolvable problem in Bitcoin-world) |
|
|
|
Can't do that here, not without at least clearing it with his primary employer. This is grounds for immediate termination and no court of labor law is likely to side with him here.
Is "here" in your statement above Germany, or at least in the EU? There's no way it would be grounds for immediate termination of an employee in my country. |
|
|
|
because i exchanged the received bitcoins to € and give my boss just €.
Then I do not see any legal reasons your boss might have for firing you over accepting bitcoins. Basically what you did never showed up in his/her administration and accounting. I've paid cab fares in the wrong currency a few times (I'm a frequent traveller). I'm quite sure those drivers weren't fired, and happily accepted the bonus I paid on the exchange rate. Sorry for losing your job, but I suspect there's more to the story. |
|
|
|
I cant go to media, because he had a legal reason to kick me.
(disclaimer: I'm not German, but I am European) I don't see what the legal reason would be from your posts. You seem to have been an employed Taxi driver, but the car was owned by someone else (with a license). That's the normal setup in my country as well. As long as you're charging the proper fare, turning in the receipts etc you have done nothing contractually wrong towards the owner. Vague "cannot trust" statements without having given warnings, followup and proven mismanagement on your part do indeed sound as wrongful dismissal. That said, maybe you weren't a salaried driver but on some sort of contract where you yourself is a registered company? What I don't understand is why you did this without talking to the owner first though. |
|
|
|
Of course there are laws to protect bitcoins. Just not theft laws. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Not even if you repeat it additional times. It just looks silly. |
|
|
|
You can disagree, of course, but in both your examples (land ownership and bank account) there is a third party keeping independent records about who is the rightful owner. There is no third party in bitcoin, If you have the private key you have the bitcoin. This is why in bitcoin the private key IS the right!
You're absolutely correct, of course. That's why no one has ever been convicted of stealing cash. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Why do you take the world of an associate from 'Oslwang law firm' over my word?
Amazing, isn't it? |
|
|
|
I said charged and convicted... the cops are not law experts and can arrest you for whatever they want to. What the prosecutor charges someone with and more importantly what the judge actually rules on is what really matters. That's what you need to see. Not some reporter or street cop saying 'sounds like theft'
"The criminal judge effectively found that those poker chips were property and therefore they were capable of being stolen.
Even though the terms and conditions said they are not property, the judge found that because people put value in them they must have some sort of legal status. (Quote from Jas Purewal - interactive entertainment lawyer) TO GOOGLE!
Sure! Hmmm telling isn't it?
Indeed  He did a lot more than just stealing - and those offenses are covered under that act. the court in the Ashley Mitchell case in effect confirmed that virtual currency is "property" requiring legal protection. The historical approach to virtual currency being a purely a matter of contract law is outdated (Quote from an associate at Olswang law firm) http://www.olswang.com/articles/2011/06/virtual-currency-blurring-the-boundaries-between-gaming-and-gambling/ |
|
|
|
I'd say the hypothesis was pretty well tested.
Lack of filed charges does not mean a crime hasn't been committed. No matter what type of crime. Also, I have no idea why you wish to claim with absolute certainty that Bitcoin theft would be regarded as a criminal offense by every court in the world, despite a lack of evidence for that point.
Because of the very real court decisions I've linked to when it comes to the most similar cases available? Or maybe evidence is only evidence when it supports your opinion. Finnish police are investigating up to 400 cases of theft, with some members reporting the loss of up to €1000 (£840) worth of virtual furniture and other items, according to Detective Sergeant Marko Levonen.
"We have done five home searches in five cities in Finland," he said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207486"The criminal judge effectively found that those poker chips were property and therefore they were capable of being stolen.
Even though the terms and conditions said they are not property, the judge found that because people put value in them they must have some sort of legal status.
Even more recently than that, the Dutch Supreme Court has recently found that when one user took away virtual items from another user without authorisation that constituted criminal theft.
So both of those cases involved the finding the virtual goods had legal status or were even property." - Jas Purewal, interactive entertainment lawyer http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3466221.htmThere's plenty of support for the opinion that Bitcoin theft would be prosecuted as theft. There's very little (none, actually) to support it wouldn't. Your rudeness aside. |
|
|
|
If you can just call anything with value a good then eve online is filled with criminals yet no one has ever been arrested?
Because no one has filed charges. Feel free to be the first. To be tested are the claims over who's effectively in control (game devs or users - not an issue in Bitcoin) and whether an EULA allowing theft in-game is lawful. (I refer to earlier posts when it comes to the definition of goods in the Netherlands and EU) I have no idea why you want to claim that theft of bitcoins isn't theft, but I suggest you put your hypothesis to the test if you're so sure of yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
