Except since this "miracle" is nothing more than a fraud, you've committed a whole other crime, and fraud tolls the statute of limitations.  You are still not entitled to keep the money, and can be imprisoned indefinitely under civil contempt until you disgorge the funds.

Every post in this thread points out this site is a scam.  The mods don't give a shit, though.

They will, however, aggressively enforce the Biographies of Living Persons [WP:BLP] policy on it.  This is especially the case considering it involves disclosure of (potential) facts that would tend to bring down heat on someone who may not even be the person in question.

Barbra Streisand filed a similar lawsuit about a picture of her coastal home.  She not only lost but was ordered to pay costs and fees for the other side under California's anti-SLAPP law.  Publishing photographs of a building that is visible from the public is generally not actionable in the context of truthful reporting (assuming this actually is truthful reporting).

This guy may not be a public figure for general purposes like Streisand, but is certainly a public figure at least for the limited purposes of discussing a subject of legitimate news interest, that is, Bitcoin, especially if he actually admitted to having invented it.

If he actually confirmed it, what justification does he have for suing them?  He would have refused to talk to them and threatened legal action.  I don't necessarily believe that either a) he confirmed it or b) that it was true.  The story just doesn't make sense.

It's still meaningless mediababble.  That one idiot said something dumb does not constitute news.  After all, if Nakamoto doesn't want to talk about it (assuming he even really is Satoshi and not playing along for whatever reason), then why would he come out and publicly comment on something he obviously wants nothing to do with?

If you mean in investment strategy, yes, he is.  He has a very solid, conservative and traditional investment strategy.

But he is politically a flaming liberal.

This is actually a very good point.  Considering how much diligence they put into their codebase, which was Karpeles personally, basically, I can't imagine what their compliance with corporate integrity would have been.  It could be that they also screwed up their corporate filings and other formalities so much that the corporation is basically an alter-ego of the principals, i.e. something more like a partnership than a corporation, where the individual partners can be held liable.

I wouldn't even speculate as to exactly how Japan deals with the concept of "piercing the corporate veil," but I'd consider it highly possible.  Not because of any specific evidence I have, but just because of what a bunch of fuckups these people are.

So which of them involve a purported Japanese corporation trading in a cryptocurrency where the bulk of business was outside of Japan, the CEO is a French national, and there are competing and mutually exclusive claims in Poland, the United States, and Japan?

Additionally, there may be more assets available than Gox is claiming.  I remain skeptical that they actually lost something like 750,000 BTC over the course of months or even years and didn't even notice it disappearing.  Sure, it's hard to imagine why they'd claim that if it weren't true (unless they stole it themselves), but nothing about this makes much sense.

So a Japanese court in bankruptcy (if it doesn't find some forum non conveniens-type reason to say fuck this and let someone somewhere else handle it) will have to resolve what Bitcoin legally is, whether there's a fiduciary duty here (seems there is), what precedence different kinds of debt will have in this situation (particularly cryptocurrency), figure out where the money is if anywhere, etc.  No court has ever addressed these specific issues in Japan, and they are basically unresolved elsewhere.

The fact that scams have existed in the past (duh) isn't really relevant to the legal issues this particular court will have to figure out in this particular case.  The Japanese legal system is also so absurdly slow that it is a virtual certainty some creditors will attempt to bypass it and have another court in another country assert jurisdiction over the same issues, prompting a jurisdictional fight.  I'm not sure why people are certain that Japanese courts are going to be incredibly eager to take up this case, and I think it is just as likely that given any legal doctrine or excuse, they'd rather it were someone else's problem.  Unless, of course, they actually are insulted enough by Magikarpeles that they want to go after him criminally and then they'd probably want to deal with the whole ball of wax.

QFT

Actually, I think you're misunderstanding the point I was making.  We don't even really know what entities or human beings have possession of the actual assets of Gox, or where they're located physically, if they even are.  The Japanese bankruptcy might be the only action that matters, but it could be nothing more than squabbling over the contents of an empty shell, and the real assets are elsewhere long ago.

Pretty much anything anyone can say at this point is speculative, because this is terra incognita.  Nothing quite like this has ever happened before.

Yes, but the Constitution also looks really nice on paper.  It's a question of whether or not you actually get the rights it says you have that matters.

I'll note the bold language you quoted does appear to establish a fiduciary duty by Mt. Gox, which holds them to at least the standard of a bailee (holder of another's property entrusted to them).  Whether or not banking laws apply, this law might apply.

Also, even in the absence of a specific choice-of-law agreement, most countries have statutes or legal precedents defining what country's laws they use when the nucleus of operative facts occur in multiple countries.

Depends.  What did their terms and conditions/TOS/etc say?  Many contracts with corporations have explicit choice-of-law and forum terms, i.e. something like "In the event of any dispute concerning this Contract or the services sold hereunder, suit may be brought only in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of California."

And/or

"Any dispute arising from this contractual relationship shall be governed by Delaware law."

Generally, the choice of law and forum clauses specify the venue and the applicable law, which is usually the same state and/or country/province/whatever.

Even when a country chooses to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute in derogation of a choice of forum clause, courts are usually deferential to choice of law provisions, as the nature of a choice of law clause essentially incorporates the relevant law into the contract as part of what the parties agreed when signing it.

It looks like the Gox fiasco is about to be litigated in multiple jurisdictions, so I guess we'll see how this all plays out in reality, but it'd be nice to know what Goxers actually contracted for when they clicked past some TOS to sign up without reading it.

I'd actually like to see what he'd think about BTC and cryptos in general if he spent more time looking at the issue.  I just don't think it fits into his paradigm, sort of like how Paul Krugman rejects cryptos.  I probably still wouldn't agree with his conclusions, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth hearing.  I'll note Buffett's comments are actually fairly in line with his comments on commodities like gold and silver.  He doesn't like those much either.

His general attitude and the system he uses that comes from it have served him very well over the years, and he can't just be ignored as a senile old fool.  However, that doesn't make him infallible, and even he wouldn't claim that.  Personally, I hope he lives long enough to see whether he was right or wrong, so he can either gloat or we can tell him we told you so.

Who is this Buffet guy?  There's an investor named Warren Buffett, and then there's this Buffet guy, who is a sort of smorgasbord dinner where you serve yourself.

Don't criticize a guy whose name you can't even spell.

Umm. . .you realize 1 to any real number power is 1, right?

As much as I respect Warren Buffett (not "buffet" which is a serve-yourself meal rather than an investor), Bitcoin simply doesn't fit into his model of investment.  His comments also do not reflect having thought much about Bitcoin, but are simply off the cuff comments.  I'd actually welcome more well thought-out comments from Warren Buffett, but these didn't qualify.

If your agent shows up, you are just as present as otherwise for any relevant purposes.

I hope some of them do.  With the army of Kool-Aid drinking morons still defending Gox, though, it seems pretty likely there will always be a bustling market for brazen scams and incompetent snake oil vendors.

Gox wasn't the largest exchange for months before the latest news.  In fact, it had sunk to third place amid growing concern over its erratic behavior.

Now, it isn't even an exchange at all.  It's just a bankrupt shell.