So, here is how things will turn out (most likely) The pyramid scheme will be like this:[/size] Since everybody has to verify (long proccess). Nobody will be able to dump tokens at start. So BTC-E will have time to dump their own BTE assets first. Token soon will be worth a fraction of 1$. Soon many verified user will dump their tokens to get at least some btc back. Since BTC-E dumped first they can rebuy coins later at a fraction of 1$ and give them to the new verified users way cheaper  ...at one point when most of the users dumped their tokens btc-e can rebuy all coins cheap and pump it back to 1$. Business as usual until G.I. Joe shows up and busts them again. This time with all the accounts linked to your personal or "faked" docs whatever... The whole thing looks fishy. This makes no sense. First of all BTC-E is not getting any BTE tokens to dump, it's their users who get BTE token. Secondly there won't be anything to dump "into". There will be no buyers from the beginning. Third, "pumping it to $1" would be stupidity of the most insane degree as btc-e clearly stated that they will buy BTE tokens at the lowest market price back. Pumping it would only be a disservice in that sense as they would need to pay more to settle debt, BTC-E wants, if anything, the price to be as low as possible to have to pay less for the debt. |
|
|
|
@A.Zimmerer
Don't do it = Don't get your coins
As far as i understood they require you to send your docs before you can withdraw. FIAT or coins doesn't matter
If you have only coins you can try sending a fake ID i guess, but how can you get a fake ID??
Nope, we should convince BTC-E to do the right thing. Hand over our coins and token without verification! Sending fakeID is no solution Lionel. So I will have to become criminal to get my coins + tokens from criminal ? Nonsens... If they know it's a fake ID, it means they already knew who you are. Verification would not make sense then. If you give a fake ID there is no way they can tell it's fake. The problem is: how can we get a fakeID ?? Generally how this work is you don't get fake id, but stolen ID, or fake id based on real, but stolen info, and you can get that on the darkweb. However there are several issues to consider here: 1. It's illegal, purchasing and using stolen ID makes you a criminal. 2. If the vendor has sold same info/id to others, that may become an issue if both use it in the same place 3. The id you get is just invalid 4. Poor job resulting in detection 5. You make someone else (the victim of identity fraud) a bigger victim by using their info If I may, I suggest to add watermarks on your docs. This way, if the entity you submit the ID to is dishonest and will resell it etc the document will contain your watermark. That makes it less useful or useless as they would need to photoshop it out before use (they could still use your info of course and fill out a template, but you may be able to blank out the sensitive parts as well). If you have done a good job that may not be possible or too hard to be worth the effort. E.g if you submit ID to btc-e then add BTC-E in text with for example 0.3 opacity and same color as the document. Morally, I think it could be argued that there is nothing wrong with identity fraud, as it is becoming a necessity to preserve anonymity or fighting the state. However the practical limitations should be considered. You put your funds at risk by using a fake ID, therefore I only really think it's worth it if you are a criminal or doing something very shady and can not under any circumstances be identified. |
|
|
|
|
I really don't like the ID requirements. They should allow people to withdraw without ID imo. I've seen the argument here that ID requirements will result in people not claiming their funds. Maybe some small fish, but let's be real, criminals with serious money will simply submit fake or stolen docs.
|
|
|
|
+1 The cash in and run types got pretty rekt on Bitfinex. If the BTC-E backer companies can get a handle on the legal side of things and sue the shit out of the US gov then there is a decent chance of holders getting full refund. Hellabetter than a 55% payoff
From the sound off it, the FBI have stolen a large sum of money from the citizens of the world that used the BTC-e crypto exchange. That is a serious issue, with no clear avenue of response for the exchange customers. There needs to be an organized international class action against the FBI to recover the customer funds and other losses incurred. Do you have definite proof the FBI actually took the money? Do you have definite proof they didn't? Aug 3rd. BTC-e said their fiat was via "Mayzus Financial Services Ltd and at the moment they are arrested". They also said most of their losses were fiat. NOTE.. They 'Said' .. No proof. Usually if the US DOJ/FBI seize anything, it's is with big fanfare showing off. There is none of this going on. This was confirmed directly by OKPAY / Mayzus: https://www.okpay.com/hu/company/news/mayzus-official-statement-in-connection-with-btc-e-closure/So this is proof that btc-e is speaking the truth. However OKPAY did not mention if funds seized was delivered to USA or even if seized by their request, that reminds to be seen. |
|
|
|
These were the BTC-e cold wallets before mixing started: https://blockchain.info/address/16ZbpCEyVVdqu8VycWR8thUL2Rd9JnjzHthttps://blockchain.info/address/19QzVvFZbHV4gcvmSYw3yup5RaBXgMeXayThey have at least 132.000 coins. This is more than 400 Million US$ + another 40 Million US$ in BTC Cash. They could easily pay the fine with the winnings they made in the last 2 weeks by just holding the coins. There is for sure enough coins/fiat to refund everybody, but... what can you do? KYC/AML is just a hazzle to keep even more coins. I am pretty sure the head of BTC-e ends up being a billionaire. Well, that's the game. Verification is no problem for me... they got my data anyway, because I once lost my password. So I will get a few bucks back. I hope each one in this forum will get his/her coins, too. Good luck everybody! Client money != Profit. When client BTC goes up in value, they don't make any profit on client funds. They make $0. You also forgot one small detail: Before they can pay the fine they must spend up to 55 years in jail. |
|
|
|
Hmmmm KYC, AML....
I didnt register my BTC-e acc under my real name. Nor the email address my BTC-e acc is based on. This means im now f***ed?
Nobody had to enter name. Well for registration there was surname and name Well, I didn't have to enter name when I registered, but perhaps they changed it in the later years. From 2012:  Here is a screenshot from June 2017:  |
|
|
|
Hmmmm KYC, AML....
I didnt register my BTC-e acc under my real name. Nor the email address my BTC-e acc is based on. This means im now f***ed?
Nobody had to enter name. |
|
|
|
So if we lose money I assume we can still make a case against USR (R = for robbery)
I would say so. However the thugs in USSA has what is called "civil asset forfeiture" where the burden of proof lies on the victim. What this means in practice is that you need to prove source of funds, that it is legal and accounted for. It's going to be tricky for many, given the nature of cryptocurrencies. Unless you have tracked every single transaction from A -> Z your "proofs" may not be enough. It's likely you'll need to engage an expensive US lawyer as well, I kind of doubt they will open any sort of "claim" process. This is a very practical way to steal funds from low resource individuals or just unfortunate souls who's been enjoying the freedom of cryptocurrencies to not account for every step they make. |
|
|
|
|
Also let's show some appreciation to the fact that USSA failed in their mission to seize all funds. The only reason we get 55% back is because USA agents failed.
If there has been any doubt let me remind you all that USA is the world's biggest treat to freedom and liberty.
|
|
|
|
You will be getting 55% of the coins, it states they take 45% OFF not that you get 45%. That is also in line with the comment that they recouped 55%
Open questions for the 55% are for me still:
What day did they take for the rate calculation? e.g. today you can see in the ETH wallet 50 million USD more than 2 weeks ago.
Is Bitcoin Cash indeed incorporated in this calculation.
What seems odd to me is the following. we know there was a fine of roughly 110 Million, say that is frozen/payed for completely. That should then be the total loss and equal the 45%. if the losses are 45% that means they 110/45%*100%= 244Million USD should be the total amount that BTC-e had before the seize. No. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. USSA don't just seize "the fine", they seize everything they can get their filthy hands on. So...
a) they are counting with old rates (that would be positive for the end % because the 55% would go up)
b) Someone took/froze/stole a lot more than the 110 Million Fine.
Your thoughts?
Nobody has paid any fine. It's likely far more fiat was seized though. Which technically is paying, through I'm sure they will still be demanded for $100m despite already having had their funds seized. As in: first steal all their money, then demand another $100m. |
|
|
|
Such crap.
So if you had a balance of crypto on btc-e before, you get 55% of it in a BS btce token which will only be available on their system. Then can convert it to the base coins they have on hand at their price (currently all high) and can only withdraw 55% after. Also the btce token will crash hard and fast as people will start to get their funds out.
Sounds like utter sheyt to me. Wow, you are so full of shit. BTC-E is showing exemplary behavior. Not only are they on the run from FBI, risking 55 years in jail and had half their funds seized. They have a $100m fine sent their way and they are STILL working their ass off to pay us back what they have left after the thieves in USSA came and robbed them, and not just that, they even have a plan to recover more, including plans to fight back through legal means. BTC-E are being fucking gods and you whine like a little bitch. There is nothing they could have done to improve this situation further. They've done everything in their power. So shut the fuck up man. I bet if you were in their situation you would have stolen all the funds and curled up in a corner somewhere, you ungrateful bitch. If they held the crypto balances safely, they are up over 40% since the 25th. So not only are they up in profits, they are only refunding 55% of your initial value, which means they keep like 65% of the value per today's prices AND limit your withdrawals.
F'ing bullsht.
That's not what they said. Don't spread false information. |
|
|
|
How do you guys think the balances could be transferred to a new platform and authenticate?
Can the usernames and passwords (I assume hashed) and the 2FA settings migrated?
Cant imagine that would be easy!
They have the database, it's just a matter of setting up the db and site on another server. Not that hard. |
|
|
|
My guess (or, hope rather) is that they will take the users balance at the time of the takedown no matter what coins or fiat you were in, and give a corresponding amount of btc back. Also if they lost coins, it will probably be a withdrawal limit at the start so that not everyone tries to pull their coins at once. But overall it sounds promising, at this point I'll be really happy to just get the coins back, it's way better to have missed out a couple of k on trading than to lose your entire balance. If the btc-e team pulls this one off, I'll be damn grateful.
Fighting the US government in court trying to get something back sounds damn near impossible after reading about it a bit. Basically they have the right to confiscate any cash or property suspected to be involved in criminal activity. Even if users were innocent, we "lent" our cash to the btc-e team for trading, and if they are suspected of crimes, their accounts are up for grabs no matter who they owe money to. I'm guessing they will use the funds that they still have (which seems to be most of it) and add some of their own money to reimburse users, and then if/when it's settled in court they'll probably get the seized funds back. I guess.
If BTC-E will continue to operate in normal mode it will be the best ever promo operation sponsored by FBI  And yes, they still have a carzy huge fine that sould be paid They will not pay that because they also have to serve up to 55 years in jail first. To pay the fine they must reveal themselves. They are forced to be on the run. Best case is they show USSA the finger and relaunch the exchange in its full glory, on darkmarket if they have to. More realistically I think they will just do refunds and that will be it, which is still a big fuck you to USSA, and I'll love them forever for it. |
|
|
|
So OKPAY froze the fiat of BTC-E by LE request. This isn't really too big of a surprise... will be interesting to see if they have any fiat left or not, and if they go with socialized losses or no fiat refunds. Statement on okpay.com: 2017. 07. 31. In connection with the closure of one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges (BTC-E) by US law-enforcement agencies, false information was posted by anonymous person(s) on the website btceclaims.github.io about alleged involvement of myself (Sergey Mayzus) and my companies OKPAY CY LTD and MAYZUS Financial Services Ltd. with the BTC-E exchange. I hereby declare that neither myself (Sergey Mayzus) nor the companies OKPAY CY LTD and MAYZUS Financial Services Ltd. that I own are in any way related to the BTC-E exchange, its owners, or employees. The OKPAY trademark and the website www.OKPAY.eu are owned by OKPAY CY LTD. The MoneyPolo trademark and the website www.MoneyPolo.com are owned by MAYZUS Financial Services Ltd. The website www.OKPAY.com is managed by MAYZUS Financial Services Ltd. Services provided to customers through the website www.OKPAY.com are provided by MAYZUS Financial Services Ltd. OKPAY CY LTD, since its founding until today, has not had a single client except for test customers who are residents of the Republic of Cyprus. MAYZUS Financial Services Ltd. might have had among its clients, through the services of MoneyPolo and OKPAY, legal entities who could be operators of the BTC-E exchange, or private persons who could be owners or employees of the BTC-E exchange, however, all accounts of legal entities or individuals whom we considered as possibly related to the BTC-E exchange, are blocked, which was properly reported to the financial regulatory authorities. In addition, information about these individuals and legal entities was forwarded to the law-enforcement agencies of Great Britain. On July 26, 2017, a request was sent by the lawyers of the above companies to GitHub Inc. as well as to unidentified owners of the website btceclaims.github.io demanding that the libelous content about myself (Sergey Mayzus) and the companies that belong to me be immediately removed from the above-mentioned website. However, up to this day we have not received a response from the owners of the above website and have not come to an understanding with GitHub Inc., which brought the lawyers of my companies to start preparing a lawsuit against GitHub Inc. and the owners of the website btceclaims.github.io I ask the editors of the media outlets monitoring the situation around the BTC-E exchange to refrain from disseminating the libelous information published on the website btceclaims.github.io, and those who had the imprudence to publish this information in the first place to remove it immediately in order to avoid further legal consequences. Sincerely, Sergey Mayzus OKPAY is trying hard (almost desperate?) to refute any connection with BTC-E, which, given the horrific charges is totally understandable. If I believe it or not, I'm not so sure. What we do know is fiat deposit to btc-e was sent directly to OKPAY's bank, and it appeared as if BTC-E merely was a user at okpay. Was this option available for other merchants as well or just BTC-E ? The limits for extended verification was far too low for a business like btc-e to operate, so they must have had some special verification that I was not able to get at the time or simply that I was not aware of (I asked support for higher limits than what extended provided but was told there was none, I remember thinking at the time how the hell does btc-e operate then ?). |
|
|
|
Poloniex don't do fiat, hence money, until such time as US laws treat crypto as money, which will be a constitutional nightmare.
In 2013 Silk Road was seized. Ross's lawyer argued in 2014 that Ross could not be guilty of money laundering because bitcoin is not money, but property. The Judge shoots down this argument by stating that "it's close enough to be considered money". Ross lost the case and was sentenced for money laundering, among other things Consequently: bitcoin is to be defined as money. Except the constitution defines money. You can read some of the arguments here: http://www.tmtperspectives.com/2014/02/28/does-the-constitution-have-anything-to-say-about-bitcoin-and-money-laundering/Irrelevant. As the Slik Road case just proved. It's not irrelevant because constitutional law takes precedent over case law. Just because the Silk Road defendant didn't bother to take the matter to the supreme court as an error in law, doesn't mean others wont. Oh yeah, "you can just take it to the supreme court", tell that to Ross who just lost the appeal and is still rotting in jails 4 years after the arrest. In any case, I wouldn't get my hopes up with regards to the supreme court. Nobody cares about the constitution anymore it seems. |
|
|
|
Poloniex don't do fiat, hence money, until such time as US laws treat crypto as money, which will be a constitutional nightmare.
In 2013 Silk Road was seized. Ross's lawyer argued in 2014 that Ross could not be guilty of money laundering because bitcoin is not money, but property. The Judge shoots down this argument by stating that "it's close enough to be considered money". Ross lost the case and was sentenced for money laundering, among other things Consequently: bitcoin is to be defined as money. Except the constitution defines money. You can read some of the arguments here: http://www.tmtperspectives.com/2014/02/28/does-the-constitution-have-anything-to-say-about-bitcoin-and-money-laundering/Irrelevant. As the Slik Road case just proved. |
|
|
|
Poloniex don't do fiat, hence money, until such time as US laws treat crypto as money, which will be a constitutional nightmare.
In 2013 Silk Road was seized. Ross's lawyer argued in 2014 that Ross could not be guilty of money laundering because bitcoin is not money, but property. The Judge shoots down this argument by stating that "it's close enough to be considered money". Ross lost the case and was sentenced for money laundering, among other things Consequently: bitcoin is to be defined as money. |
|
|
|
Offline again now... and no new post.
I don't think we should expect anything contributing and truthful to come from both their forum and twitter account. It's obvious that these accounts don't solely represent the main figures behind BTC-E. According to their previous statements things were about to get fixed, where after that they would come back to serve their customers again. It means that at that time the accounts were under control of (likely) hired staff, or they have been blatantly lying to us. Funny thing is that XBTCE tries to distance itself from BTC-E, while they very likely are the same service. No, I don't think they were lying, they just didn't know. Some of their infrastructure clearly got hit/seized, and interrupted their service. Most likely that message was before they knew of the arrest. |
|
|
|
|
Offline again now... and no new post.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
