I wouldn't use the word "forfeited", but yes, recent withdrawals from "earn" accounts may be subjected to clackback under bankruptcy laws, and the Celsius bankruptcy estate is going to be obligated to maximize the total return (as a percentage of total claims) of claimaints.

I would rather describe the process as account holders who had recently withdrawn may have to have the amounts withdrawn comingled with other Celsius assets, and the amount withdrawn would also be added to the claims of debtholders. I believe you had previously described the probable outcome of account holders as receiving "pennies on the dollar" of their deposits, however, I think this is unlikely, at least based on current financial statements. Any clawback is also going to be subjected to litigation

I don't have the data to back this up, however, I think it is likely for many who have withdrawn to have other claims against Celsius, and any amounts demanded to be returned, that are not returned could be offset by other actual recoveries. This would be far less expensive than trying to go after individual account holders, although there is the potential that some who are not in the above situation may see their (hypothetical) "court ordered" demand to return coin to the Celsius bankruptcy estate to be sold to debt collectors, who in turn try to independently collect.

To most people, this looks like a large number, but when compared to the number of potential private keys, it is not. For all intents and purposes, there will never be a collusion of two private keys mapping to the same address.

This is something the forum administration has already addressed. Certain subs are ordered based on the activity/merit that people who have posted in the thread during the preceding 7 days, along with the activity/merit of those who "super bump" threads. See the above thread for more specific information about how threads are ordered.

I understand that only certain boards are ordered this way, largely due to the prevalence of the exact problem mentioned in the OP. If there are example of this happening in subs not ordered this way, it would be best to bring specific examples of this kind of activity, even if explicit evidence is unavailable, and these subs may be considered to have threads ordered via the above means.

Since email addresses are not verified to be associated with the user, this is not a good idea. I am sure that many members have a fake/invalid email address associated with their accounts.

There is really no reason why the forum will ever contact members via email, many of the traditional phishing attacks will be useless against bitcointalk forum accounts. So as long as the forum is able to keep passwords away from adversaries, and forum members practice general good security, the risk of getting your account hacked is fairly low.

On August 8, 2022, the FBI, pursuant to a search warrant, raided the home of the legitimately elected former President, Donald Trump. This was an unprededented event and was clearly motivated by politics.

It appears that the DOJ intended to "prosecute" Trump via leaks to the friendly press by leaking either inaccurate information or information that is taken out of context. An example of this to date includes leaks to the Washington Post suggesting that some of the "classified" documents in Trump's home were related to "nuclear" secrets.

From the looks of it, the dispute in question appears to be a document dispute between Trump and the National Archives. There is no evidence presented to date that suggests a search warrant was necessary.

The unredacted version of the affidavit that was used to support the search warrant on Trump's home contained no information that suggested evidence of a crime would be found at Trump's home. Prior to the DOJ being ordered to release a redacted version of said affidavit, both Trump and Republican lawmakers have been calling for the DOJ to become transparent regarding the investigation and the case. After the affidavit was released, with its heavy redactions, many continue to slam the DOJ for their lack of transparency.

All of this comes after the DOJ described angry parents who were critical of the Biden Administration's allies (the teacher's unions) as "terrorists".

What do you think? Has Biden weaponized the DOJ against his political opponents? Has the DOJ and FBI lost all credibility?

Sure, it is possible that some will sell in advance of the release of the coins in anticipation that those receiving the coin will also sell. This may lead to some of those who have received coin from the Gox distribution to sell when they otherwise may not have except for the lower price.

The sales cited upthread were unexpected and were not pre-planned. I don't think anyone was selling ahead of the sales related to the luna foundation sales for example. If you anticipate that people will sell ahead of the gox coin being distributed/released, I would say that you anticipate the price decline to be greater than the decline in recent months. However any short-term price decline will not change any underlying fundamentals in bitcoin, including its underlying value.

CB will undoubtidly try to milk their retail customers for as much as they can. I think that crypto customers are going to be more time intensive than the average retail brokerage customer is. This means that CB's existing infrastructure is better suited to handle their customer base than eTrade, and that eTrade would have difficulty integrating CB's business into their own.

This is likely only a good deal if for whatever reason you cannot use Coinbase Pro, and regularly pay more than the monthly cost in fees. I suspect that on net, this hypothetical customer will receive a net benefit. However with that being said, I think it is unusual for someone to be paying that much in fees because of the large spread, and the near zero fees on CB pro. Someone "trading" 10k/month on coinbase proper is already paying an arm and a leg via the spread.

The only way I see this happening is if CB were to sell their servicing division for their retail accounts. Perhaps they would strike a deal such that they would provide back office support for whoever buys their servicing division. It is also difficult to manage credit risk, and I am sure that CB has invested a lot into their credit risk management, and risk management regarding processing withdrawals.

The rule against ban evasion is rarely enforced, and is generally only enforced if the person has caused major problems in the past. I think the administration would rather have someone participate in the community in a constructive manner than someone be excluded from the community. If someone is participating in the community constructively today, in general they will likely be allowed to stay, even if they have an old account that was banned.

The purpose of merit is to highlight posts that others should pay closer attention to. If a post meets this criteria, it should receive a merit. The sMerit that merit sources are allocated takes into consideration that some people will not spend their sMerit for various reasons, including being banned. Further, it is also possible that someone banned will eventually get their ban lifted.

A lot of people have fragile egos, and a lot of people on the forum are bitcoin maximalists. Of course, this doesn't mean that you are not a troll....

I think any nuclear attack against Ukraine will likely result in much of the world really rallying and joining Ukraine in their war against Ukraine. Currently, much of the West is providing weapons and other support to Ukraine, but a nuclear attack would likely turn that into actual troops being deployed, and war being declared.

You can keep your own copy of the software used to generate the private key, but if you are relying on a specific, non-standardized software implementation, you must have access to a copy of that software implementation to access your coin. This creates another layer of risk because now, without the software, you will not have access to your money.

The documents in question are related to his administration. This is a document and dispute between the former Trump administration and the national archives. The national archives says it believes that Trump took some documents that are part of his administration and should be in the national archives.

Lets be honest about the documents that are related to "nuclear" secrets. They are almost certain to be communications between him and NK leader Kim Jung Un. There are no other documents that Trump has any reason to want to keep that are related to "nuclear" secrets. There is a reason that the DOJ wants to keep the affidavit that the search warrant was issued based on sealed -- it is because if unsealed, it would show that none of the documents really would cause any threat to national security if disclosed to the public, and that the search was just a fishing expedition.

I am sure that Coinbase has had its growing pains over its years in existence. It is difficult to reliably determine how frequently these types of problems occur. It is trivial for someone to create multiple reddit accounts (or buy/hack them) and post arbitrary information. I also remember not long after bitfinex was hacked in 2016, they were subjected to many attacks on social media that appeared to be baseless -- I suspect the person/people who were behind the bitfinex hack were also behind these attacks. I don't think that all of the reports you describe regarding coinbase is baseless or that those writing them have ulterior motives, but I do think the number is greater than 0.

When someone wins a civil case, they often are awarded actual damages, plus attorney's fees. You are correct in saying that most users do not have the resources to pursue small amounts in court, and will just eat the losses, but the costs to coinbase if only a small number of customers win cases involving funds being seized that shouldn't be can get expensive quickly.

The problem is that when a bank lends out money, it is not guaranteed that everyone will repay their loan in full. When that doesn't happen, the bank can have losses.

I wouldn't necessarily disbelieve what Celsius says be default, and there may be a reasonable explanation regarding the trading losses. For example, the trades could have been hedging positions, and the trading losses were offset by gains elsewhere on a 1-1 basis. Based on the article, this doesn't appear to be the case, and it appears the trades were speculative in nature.

I will write this without reading the post in question because I think it is unnecessary to read it in order to make this point, although I will append my post if I am wrong....

I think we disagree on many issues, but I always find your arguments to be articulate and well reasoned. Further, I find your arguments to be made in good faith, which is not something I can say about everyone on the forum. I have found that you are capable of engaging in debate with those who disagree with you. As a result of the above, I often respond to your posts. I hope that neither you, nor anyone else views my responses as any kind of flame war, or anything like that.

I think a lot of what you describe are failures to implement procedures/policies properly, to have proper controls, etc. I think if Coinbase had a procedure to intentionally confiscate property in small amounts for reasons they knew were invalid, they would have difficulty retaining customers.

I know you disagree with my conclusion, but I believe the reason there are no court cases whose resolution is to provide their customer with access to their funds that were frozen is because coinbase is not denying access to funds by their customers for reasons that are not consistent with the law. I think if this was not the case, there would be at least a handful of cases in which a competent lawyer would take the case on a pro-bono basis.

Here is an archive of the article that is not subject to a paywall.

Neither Celsius CEO Mashinsky, nor Celsius commented on the article (as of when the archive was pulled), but if the article was accurate, Celsius was speculating with customer money on its own account. I don't know how reliable the reporter is, however, if this is true, Celsius was being very reckless, and I would speculate that the reason for the massive difference between customer deposits and Celsius assets is due to trading losses shortly before Celsius halted withdrawals.

I will reserve judgment until more credible information comes out, but in the interim, I would not let my money anywhere near the people involved.

The article was being broader, and less precise than it should have been. You are correct to say the price decline was closer to 16%, even if this is nitpicking.

Will there be a 60%-80% decline in the price? No, at least not unless there are other factors unrelated to the Gox coin being released to Gox account holders that cause the price to decline. But there will be selling pressure resulting from these coins being released

Both assertations are ridiculous.

The President has the unilateral authority to determine which records are those related to his administration, and these decisions are not subject to court oversight. Before you respond with some hyperbole, I would preemptively respond that this is the law, as ruled by appelette courts. If you don't like this, you should petition Congress to change the law.

Similarly, the President has the unilateral authority to decide that any document is not classified. As the Commander and Chief, the President has the final authority to declassify any arbitrary document. Further, there are many documents marked at various classification levels that are in the public domain, including newspaper articles by major news outlets.