List of Major Bitcoin Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses
26.May.2012, 21:39:04
Ente
I think he means the last updated date of July 31, rather than the thread start date. But I agree with you, and I don't see any evidence that ZT hacked BTC-e. With Bitcoinica he had all the passwords and knew the procedures and addresses to attack. Not to mention the evidence collected against him. And I don't think he would commit another crime when he is under investigation for a major crime already. |
|
|
|
At times I wish I was clever and bold enough to pull of a heist. But then my mother's voice keeps going off in my head. "You are better than that!"
I dunno... $200,000USD (the current amount still taken by ZT) can buy a LOT of therapy.  |
|
|
|
You can make this assertion, but you cannot back it up. I am tried of catching you, it's fun and all - not the point of this thread.
Agreed. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95738.0Zhou Tong (or Chen) is the one who stole the coins. All the word play and logic bombs in the world cannot change that, so it's not worth arguing over any more. The discussion should be how to get the rest of the coins back from Zhou Tong, since he sent back 15k already. He still owes 25,000 BTC - about $200,000 USD.  |
|
|
|
Actually there is. While ZT at least tries to pay back the funds, the overall impression from mlawrence (and a few others) is that he tries to prevent exactly this from happening. Now the only one in the world that does not like a payback to happen is the actually thief himself, so...
... that's why ZT has only returned 15k of the 40k bitcoins he has stolen? |
|
|
|
No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.
In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.
In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner. What is your native language? If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR. You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition. What is your native language? Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend. Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief. That is fallacious logic at best. Vampire also exists on this forum. You are not comparing apples to apples. Chen exists no where except in Zhou's mind. |
|
|
|
Chen = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
While I agree, one could also state mlawrence = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. or even mlawrence = phantomcircit. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. or the most probable one mlawrence = Chen. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Except none of their accounts were used. Zhou's account was used. I exist on this forum - I have months of posts and a different writing style than Ryan Tong Zhou. And there is no evidence linking mlawrence to the theft of half a million dollars either.  |
|
|
|
[7/31/12 10:49:33 AM] btc-e.com: Started trading! Since the attack started about 8pm Eastern last night, I have been awake until about now (11am EST) working with BTC-e on the investigation. From the moment they woke up and I broke the news to them, until now they have handled it exeptionally well. Within only a few hours they posted an update https://btc-e.com/news/81 It sounds like they also adopted good security practices and because of it only lost 4500 BTC. Bitinstant will resume to work with BTC-E, however even though trading is resumed we will not be enabling deposits/withdrawals in and out of BTC-e to protect customers funds for the next few hours. Thanks -Charlie It's nice to see how it should be done. Kudos to BTC-e! |
|
|
|
|
Chen = Zhou. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
|
I'm not talking about permission from Bitcoinica/Intersango, I'm talking about a legal warrant that allows him to do what would otherwise be considered a criminal act. Since Bitcoinica did not file a police report (as far as I know), from legal point of view there is no reason to assume there is a criminal act involved. Technically, Bitcoinica's computers were (allegedly) compromised. That would be the criminal act if it was reported. ZT did not file charges against his "friend" either. If I had a friend who took a large sum of money and made it look like I did it, I would report that right away. I certainly wouldn't protect my friend's identity.  |
|
|
|
Can you find the post where Zhou said his buddy stole any funds? I'm having trouble finding that post...
It's the first post of this thread.  Seriously - stick to publishing; you'd make a lousy detective. |
|
|
|
Typing something as Truth does not make it so. Especially when up against the array of evidence, means and motive to the contrary. Not forgetting Zhou's prime bullshit storytelling.
BB.
This applies to you as well. Need I point out again the array of evidence that Zhou did not steal the funds? Please do! All the evidence points to Zhou stealing the funds. Even Zhou himself validated the evidence by saying it was correct but he was framed. Zhou never provided any evidence this "friend" even existed. All he did was say it. You're just one of those people who believes everything they are told. Time to go to church, Mr gullible! |
|
|
|
Truth 6: I didn't steal the money.
ZT stole 20k of bitcoins
At least Zhou is providing information. What are you doing other than frothing? I can do whatever I want - I didn't steal coins from the community. |
|
|
|
Funds have been stolen? They have been in some sort of safe deposit at ZT, and now they are on their way to the creditors. All is fine.
Not quite. ZT stole 20k of bitcoins - only 15k have been recovered. What happened to the other 5k? Are we giving them to ZT as a thank you gift? |
|
|
|
It's unlikely that there's going to be an issue regarding him receiving or holding the funds in trust. Where an issue potentially arises is the transferring of the funds to someone else and I'm sure that Patrick's going to do everything possible to protect himself from any potential liability in that respect.
As an interesting side note, if a NZ entity becomes insolvent and a creditor helps secure assets or uncover hidden ones, the creditor's costs associated with securing those assets become a preferential debt.
Patrick is probably getting paid for "helping" us, and each time he comes to the forum to answer questions, he bills for his time. He'll take his fees out of the balance the users get. |
|
|
|
Domain name: coinbits.com
Registrant Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected ()
Fax:
11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
US
Administrative Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected (@whoisguard.com)
+1.6613102107
Fax: +1.6613102107
11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
US
Technical Contact:
WhoisGuard
WhoisGuard Protected (@whoisguard.com)
+1.6613102107
Fax: +1.6613102107
11400 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
US
Status: Locked
Name Servers:
ns489.hostgator.com
ns490.hostgator.com I'll send a quick email off to hostgator. |
|
|
|
LOL - that's awesome! The ideas some people come up with! Luckily, you need to have at least some bitcoins to use this scam, so hopefully these people will know how Bitcoin works and not fall for it. |
|
|
|
Apparently there are quite a few guys, like mlawrence, out there, that would love to see the pay back fail. One should really start to wonder why that is...
That's nonsense, but wonder away if you wish! |
|
|
|
Well, I think you confuse something here. The consultancy kept our funds for a few months, doing basically nothing. Then ZT stepped up and refunded some 5kBTC. Now within days he made more funds available. In my point of view, ZT is the only one that does actually pay back something. If some BitBuster was repaid from this consultancy - fine, however, for all of us still waiting, ZT seems the only one that does not hide behind some delay tactics. Hell, I think, ZT should, if he can, hack the current account of this lame consultancy, so that the funds can be repaid.
I think it is you who are confused. Ryan Zhou was the one that "hacked" into the site in the first place, stole the coins and destroyed the database. It is because the database was destroyed that they are having a hard time paying people back. ZT can't be praised for anything, because he alone willfully caused this mess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
