Hi Roberto,

Would you mind sharing with us who you were referring to?

Could you also take the time to answer the very important questions on the previous page here?

As it has been several pages of responses from you the first time these questions were asked and you still haven't responded to them since I -reposted- them, and these questions could definitely redeem your actions completely, it's not helping me to understanding your side of the issue much and frankly makes things look even more negative.

Thanks!

Looking forward to clearing up all the confusion through transparency.

No one pays me to call things as I see them. I take great joy in proving you wrong for absolutely free. 

I'll suppress my lulz until I receive a clarified response from you on this one but...


what legal and sane "action" from the "community" was being "obstructed"?

Please don't tell me you think that not wanting murderous bloodthirsty psychos on the internet to stalk and murder a minor over hearsay is obstruction of justice in any way.

After reading the responses in the first lynch mob thread, it's safe to say that this was an accurate picture and there are -plenty- of reasons why it should not be allowed to escalate without criminal investigations.

I will be attending as a speaker and part of the official coverage. No one will recognize me though as I will be wearing a horse head mask.

1) Shouldn't the amount of the active order be covered by the customer's privacy agreement?
2) Shouldn't the location of the customer's bank account be covered by the customer's privacy agreement?



Note that he neither mentions it being frozen nor active, and does not give a specific date, just vaguely refers to having made a transfer.



1) Shouldn't the time of the active order be covered by the customer's privacy agreement?



1) If there is an active AML investigation, wouldn't providing this information publicly be against the law for both parties?



Anyone can understand that as an exchange, you wouldn't want stolen funds running through you. What you have repeatedly failed to answer (and I mean -repeatedly-) is whether or not it is true in the operating country of AurumXchange that discussing details of an open investigation (which had been going on for over 10 days, correct?) publicly is in fact illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If it was not an open investigation, then you'd have to change a lot of what you've been saying.

Not even Charlie Shrem agrees with you on that.



I believe I have above, thank you for being so cordial. I still invite you to contact Vitalik Buterin directly if you have any issue with the article he wrote, but in the meantime, most of us will still like an answer to the question that has been repeatedly unanswered.


Is it not illegal to discuss openly an active AML investigation with the public, including freezing their accounts for the purpose of an AML investigation regardless of what the customer in question has posted on a public forum?
Is it not illegal to hold funds for longer than 7 days if there was no investigation?


Is it not unlawful as an exchange to publicly insinuate that one of your customers is a thief without empirical conclusive evidence provided by authorities care of an AML investigation?

Thanks for helping to resolve these confusions. Feel free to answer when more information is allowed to be revealed. I am confident we can get to the bottom of these confusions that are causing us to butt heads so long as both parties are willing to answer questions openly and transparently.

Cheers

How do you say "Hi Atlas" in French?

I appreciate this honesty and I will be more careful in the future in my presentation of my points regarding sensitive issues of this nature (I admit I have trolled with glee in this witchhunt thread where it seems everyone -but- Zhou should be burned at the stake for going senile), but there is a sense of morals here that honestly I can't shake. Whether it were Zhou or anyone else, all I keep thinking of is "BitMole" being a "scammer" because of what someone says. It can happen to anyone, and truth should be sought out, not hearsay and bullying. This community has been reduced to a bunch of children crying to burn the witch, some attempting on physical violence and total invasions of privacy, just because a picture was painting in a certain light. If the thread was created by a normal member asking questions, I would have had a much different attitude I assure you, but for the authorities in question to come and tell everyone to throw rocks, it kind of makes you lose faith in the system entirely. I think Roberto made a grave and potentially highly illegal mistake in doing what he did, and I -still- yet to see any inconclusive evidence that Zhou Tong has committed a crime, and in contrast he has continued to stick around and provide information.

Zhou Tong is not fake, there is an equal chance his identity was stolen (he does get around a lot and do a lot of things normal users don't do, as does any developer in Bitcoin who also owns a financial business, or anyone who is 17 for that matter), and the emotions surrounding the witch hunt I feel are all due to the fact that the Intersango group have taken a vacation.

It is true that he could be lying and a mastermind, but it's also true that I could be Atlas, that MtGox could be reading everyone's PMs here every single day, and that Pirate controls the price of bitcoin and is not a ponzi at all. Are we going to speculate wildly with people's lives and safety or are we going to demand evidence until we make up our minds? Why does Zhou Tong have to provide all the evidence? Where is the evidence from AurumXChange that they even emailed him in the first place? I think until Zhou gets the money back from Chen, it should be an "on-hold" situation.

Thank you for the thought felt post to Vladimir. Since he's unlikely to be able to reply as swiftly as myself, I've made a response that might answer your questions the best. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84042.msg1074332#msg1074332

Vladimir may decide to response -also-.

Dear Roberto,

I believe character and integrity are shown best in times of the greatest oppression. Your thread labeling Zhou Tong as a thief, discussing an active AML investigation (or if there was no investigation, illegitimately holding the funds in question) was unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination. This is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other human being, although most agree with me. If you were a customer of Bitcoin magazine and we found out you -might- be a scammer, we wouldn't break our customer privacy agreement to release data about you on a public forum for the benefit of---who?


The article at http://bitcoinmagazine.net/the-july-13-bitcoinica-investigation-and-sound-justice/ was not written by me and I mostly approve -print- articles as internet based articles can be published while I sleep and approved by other directors instead. This is something that is not known to the public so I am taking the time to mention it here.

Since you have expressed an issue with the article's contents, the best thing to do would be like everyone else and contact the article's author, which in this case is Vitalik Buterin. I am sure he would be happy to explain his viewpoints on his personal article with you. As for reflecting poorly on your business, with all due respect, the action of posting the thread against your privacy agreement and AML investigation (which I understand is a criminal offense) is probably the culprit behind the reasoning of that article, which although I did not in fact approve myself, I completely agree with. Vitalik is a very good writer.

Bitcoin Magazine is a magazine with integrity and we offer balanced articles to the public, bitcoiners and non-bitcoiners alike. Vitalik Buterin's opinions in his articles do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the rest of the Bitcoin Magazine. As the Editor in Chief, I will be happy to forward your general bullet point list of supposed inaccuracies to the author, but it would be much simpler to just email him yourself at vitalik@bitcoinmagazine.co.uk. If you however believe that the Bitcoin Magazine is in the business of restricting its writers from sharing their opinions, you are mistaken. That said, if you feel Vitalik has crossed some line, the -quickest- way to contact him is through the email address provided.

I thank you for your support of the Bitcoin Magazine as we also loved to support AurumXChange. We're all in Bitcoin for the same reasons. Progress. As a member of this community I truly and genuinely wish your exchange all the success in the world, however, I sincerely hope no further unlawful and aggressive activities will be seen officially from your exchange and that you will be more careful not to break privacy agreements and share information unlawfully in a public forum.

As mentioned earlier (and 8 months ago on DCAO's website), Zhou Tong, who was thrilled at BitTalk.TV, decided to donate $11,000 USD to the project. Since we were incorporating shortly after that, and BitTalk.TV did in fact "start" the ball rolling for Bitcoin Magazine idea-wise, I figured it didn't hurt any to refer to it as one in the same. I was wrong, and now I see why it is more important to be literal about those kinds of things. BitTalk.TV, which has no business registration and therefor is personally mine, received a donation from Zhou Tong for camera equipment. Ken Armitt also had planned on a donation for a rendering computer. Many others had planned donations as well, as everyone in the DCAO wanted BitTalk.TV to grow into something that replace the extremely boring Bruce Wagner comedy hour. I have never denied or even attempted to be anything but proud of that donation, as I still am. BitTalk Media however, to be exact, has received no donations, but investments, and those investments were not from Zhou Tong. The donation is not related to the magazine, there is no conflict of interest, if Tom Williams was the person you posted the thread about (and anyone who knows my posting history knows this) I would -still- call you out on it any day of the week.

Your issue with titles is a good point, we haven't kept up on updating the website(s) as we have been busy working (I know you know how that is sometimes). I am currently Editor in Chief and pretty much always have been, we just weren't sure on the titles in the beginning because we started very small. We are now working with over 40 employees, part-time, contract, and full, and "Bitcoin Magazine" is not "Matthew's". Vitalik Buterin was planned to replace me as Editor in Chief but a decision was made to wait longer and the website was apparently inconsistent with that decision. I will change the about us page now since it's not incorrect and serves no purpose other than to confuse.

As for your question of what can be interpreted by any reasonable court of law as biased or malicious, I will refer to your original thread in which you may have unlawfully released account information in an active AML investigation (which carries with it a punishment of 10 years of imprisonment) OR held funds for longer than 7 days -without- any actual official investigation, also illegal.

As for accusations, we have not seen any proof in the thread that you have contacted Zhou Tong, we have not seen any official registration information provided by you to Zhou Tong, and we have claims that Zhou Tong has never received anything from you. Since both sides are just hearsay, I feel I am completely justified in asking for more proof and having my own opinion. If I am mistaken in my belief that you have in fact posted a thread with private customer information unlawfully and hindered an AML investigation, I would ask that instead of further ignoring the questions given to you to request us to change the contents of our articles, and instead do due diligence and answer the questions.

Question #1: Is there a criminal investigation/police filing on Zhou Tong?

Question #2: Was there at the time the funds were held? I was told that you waited 12 days before posting the thread and that the other parties involved did not want you to because they -knew- it was unlawful to do so.

Question #3: Was a criminal report (if ever filed) filed -after- you posted the thread?

Question #4: Can you provide proof that emails were in fact sent to any email address Zhou Tong owns?

Question #5: Can you provide proof that you have given Zhou Tong contact information for your business? (Adam Harding, our customer accounts manager posting an address on this thread does not count in a court of law as you giving him your contact information)

Thank you Roberto!

I hope we can get all of this figured out soon and get on with our lives.


Matthew N. Wright
Editor in Chief and Co-Founder
of BitTalk Media, publishers of
Bitcoin Magazine

Yep. Personally, I'm gonna be wearing a horse mask when I speak. No one will ever guess it's me.

I for one would never get on the forums again.

Can't..tell..if...serious...

He's talking about the quote tag having the wrong author in it I believe. Probably just an editing mistake.

Sorry, I agree with Nefario here. Keep Bitcoinica issues out of Bitcoin Conference thread. They are completely off-topic.

Whenever the price changes rapidly, assume three things:


1) SilkRoad activity

2) Pirate is doing something odd

3) Bit-Pay is cashing out from BFL orders

It's the first post of the other thread. This theead is just Zhou's response to the madness as that thread turned into a witch hunt almost instantly.

You haven't said anything I didn't already know. It's a popularity contest and isn't related to transactions.

It's funny how that works. They don't mind libeling and breaking their privacy agreement with a user to make claims that he's a crook publicly, but they don't want to post proof and run off of the forums with their tails between their legs once legal action is threatened. Priceless.

The point was that your claim that it wasn't a "rating" goes against the very name and method. You are in fact "rating" people, and my original statement about being able to rate people at will with absolutely no transaction related to the rating or reasoning behind it were correct. If we have a transaction together and you send me an item, I send you money, and everythign is fine BUT I don't like your avatar on the forums, I can rate you -10 just for shits and giggles, and guess what-- it works, it's permanent, and there is no way for me to refute it. -That- is why I think the system is a joke until it's fixed. If you care to comment on -that-, please do. Posting quotes from the website only proved my point.

So the poster DarkEmi was confusing this event related to a identity theft for a small amount with Bitcoinica's funds (which are held by Intersango/Tihan)?

Were you quoting "real world" as if I had said "real world", which I didn't? Or were you just being sarcastic?

I think you should move.

Yep, you should probably move.

Whoa, what? What 400k? Did anyone steal 400K? Is Zhou connected to someone stealing 400k? Where did you get that figure from?

The last time I checked this thread, Aurumxchange was holding $40k of Zhou's money or something to that nature, and Chen was caught stealing something as well, which Zhou is trying to get back from him. Refresh my memory.