If one *legally* had $200,000 in USD paper, how would such a person get it across national borders? Might be easiest to buy $200k in coins, move to the new country, then repurchase the USD.
I think the issue might be getting around the currency restrictions which are in place in some South American countries. Buying OTC means there'd be no record of the cash entering the Bitcoin system or of the Bitcoins being withdrawn - and no concerns about KYC/AML requirements. And no worries about moving the market. Assuming you can find someone who can buy/sell that many without running to MtGox to offset it. 20,000 BTC/USD 200,000 isn't really all that much if you trickle it into the market over a few days or spread it around the exchanges. You could use it to create walls if you wanted to, but there's no reason why you have to. |
|
|
|
If one *legally* had $200,000 in USD paper, how would such a person get it across national borders? Might be easiest to buy $200k in coins, move to the new country, then repurchase the USD.
I think the issue might be getting around the currency restrictions which are in place in some South American countries. Buying OTC means there'd be no record of the cash entering the Bitcoin system or of the Bitcoins being withdrawn - and no concerns about KYC/AML requirements. |
|
|
|
It struck me that monthly profits are estimated at $140k. Let's say with stealth deals $200k. The amount of work behind SR must be enormous: coding, constant security audits, server infrastructure (likely distributed), management of escrows, dispute resolution, customer support, whatnot. There is no way a single person can run this business with this success.
It's always good to remember that revenue is an unreliable indicator of profit. Many people starting their first business grossly underestimate the cost of overheads and especially how much those overheads will increase as the business grows. You soon reach the stage where it's impossible for one person to handle all aspects of running the business, but often before you have sufficient profits to automate processes and hire additional staff and before your business has anything which makes it attractive to outside investors (even if the owner is willing to trade equity for capital to fund growth). |
|
|
|
I is apparently "well documented in various places (it's all in a frozen mtgox account)" 01[15:23] <Transist-> Phantom, unrelated to intersango, Some of creditors, myself included, would like to know what kind of security is protecting the remaining assets ? You may understand we are worried given Genjix track record on security.
01[15:23] <Transist-> Thank you
[15:24] <@phantomcircuit> Transist-, that is well documented in various places (it's all in a frozen mtgox account), also im tired of telling you that this is an inappropriate method of communications
03[15:24] * phantomcircuit sets mode: +b *Transis*!*@*
03[15:25] * You were kicked by phantomcircuit (Transist-)
Session Close: Thu Aug 02 15:25:02 2012 Disgusting! And he wants some respect somehow! What a horrible human being. It will certainly be interesting to see how he responds to the Bitcoinica LP liquidator's requests for information. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure where "breaker" comes into it, but "necrobumping" refers to posting in very old threads and bringing them to the top again. It is generally unnecessary; a new topic should be started with a link to the old one.
There's been a lot of necro-posting over the last week and it's starting to get annoying. A lot of other messageboards have the software set to lock threads after a certain time since the last post was made. Others have a warning that tells you it's an old thread when you go to post to it (similar to our "there have been new replies" warning"). I agree that starting a new thread with a link to the old one is the best option. It stops annoying necro-posts and also limits "this has been discussed before" responses by showing that the poster is at least aware of the old thread. |
|
|
|
Users accusing Aurumexchange of TOS break are indirectly supporting the hypothesis that Zhou Tong is the hacker.
If Zhou Tong is the hacker, then Aurumexchange released information of a customer.
If Zhou Tong is NOT the hacker, them Aurumexchange released information of an unknown person.
This makes no sense at all. Consider this hypothetical: You open an account with some service. I hack your account and use the service to buy 1,000 copies of Mein Kampf which I leave on the doorsteps of Holocaust survivors. There's a public outcry over this event and the purchase is investigated. The service publicly announces that your account was used to buy those 1,000 copies of Mein Kampf, which embarrasses you. You receive death threats, harassment, and so on. When you respond that you didn't buy them and that someone else must have hacked your account, does that let the service off the hook for the privacy violation? After all, it wasn't your transaction. That one doesn't quite work because users had noticed Zhou's LR transactions and commented on them just after the hack and Zhou had already said that AurumXchange had frozen his funds for unknown reasons before AurumXchange made their statement. While I still believe that the AurumXchange statement was ill-advised, both Zhou's LR transactions and the fact that AurumXchange had frozen his account had been discussed in this community prior to that statement. Zhou is not claiming that his AurumXchange account through which he sold LR for a friend was hacked. While I believe that AurumXchange/Mt Gox were justified in confirming to the community that the stolen funds had been converted to LR, I think that their public statement should have stopped at "we've identified and frozen accounts suspected of being associated with the Mt Gox theft and referred the matter to the appropriate authorities for further investigation". The public request for further documentation from Zhou and information about whether or not it had been provided were utterly inappropriate. |
|
|
|
I is apparently "well documented in various places (it's all in a frozen mtgox account)" 01[15:23] <Transist-> Phantom, unrelated to intersango, Some of creditors, myself included, would like to know what kind of security is protecting the remaining assets ? You may understand we are worried given Genjix track record on security.
01[15:23] <Transist-> Thank you
[15:24] <@phantomcircuit> Transist-, that is well documented in various places (it's all in a frozen mtgox account), also im tired of telling you that this is an inappropriate method of communications
03[15:24] * phantomcircuit sets mode: +b *Transis*!*@*
03[15:25] * You were kicked by phantomcircuit (Transist-)
Session Close: Thu Aug 02 15:25:02 2012 Oh my. Perhaps Patrick would care to enlighten users as to what he does regard as an appropriate method of communication. |
|
|
|
Try investigating in the direction - WikiMedia+Bitсoiniсa.  I can not find the thread, but it is confirmed Zhou. And it is strangely disappeared from view. I also donated pretty much the same amount to Wikimedia Foundation Inc. He's talking about donations he made after the sale of Bitcoinica - addressing Maria's conspiracy theories regarding Matthew's role in Bitcoinica. |
|
|
|
Is there no one in Australia, going to Trinity college, is into Bitcoin that could verify he has a class in ethics?
To reveal that information would be unethical and thus defeat the purpose of the class  Or of the other 300 (only) people that attend that college (approximately 1,200 online). The only reason I can see Zhou Tong attending that college is so that he can be only 2.9 miles from his virtual mailbox. ~Bruno~ Phin, the fact that you've concluded Trinity College is an "online university" is a demonstration of just how flawed your reasoning has become. The Foundation Studies students are face to face students, as are the students of the Residential College. Students of the Theological School have the option of studying online, in the community or on campus. Believe what you want about Zhou and whether he's studying in Australia but there is no need to slander the reputation of one of Australia's oldest academic institutions in the process. what was slanderous about stating 300 people attend face to face classes and 1200 attend online classes? Maybe he is mistaken (I do not know and do not really care), but it is far from being slander if so. Phin's implying that Trinity College is an "online university" in the perjorative sense of that term (Zhou chose it because he only needs to go to his mail box to attend). He could quite easily have checked the extent to which Trinity College offers online courses and whether they're offered to students who are resident overseas but he was less concerned with facts than he was about the narrative he wants to create about everything remotely connected with Zhou. |
|
|
|
Is there no one in Australia, going to Trinity college, is into Bitcoin that could verify he has a class in ethics?
To reveal that information would be unethical and thus defeat the purpose of the class Or of the other 300 (only) people that attend that college (approximately 1,200 online). The only reason I can see Zhou Tong attending that college is so that he can be only 2.9 miles from his virtual mailbox. ~Bruno~ Phin, the fact that you've concluded Trinity College is an "online university" is a demonstration of just how flawed your reasoning has become. The Foundation Studies students are face to face students, as are the students of the Residential College. Students of the Theological School have the option of studying online, in the community or on campus. Believe what you want about Zhou and whether he's studying in Australia but there is no need to slander the reputation of one of Australia's oldest academic institutions in the process. Seriously, it's these kind of wild, unfounded assertions which are leading to people ignoring your posts. |
|
|
|
Just browsed through this, as the last pages are a complete shitstorm discussing minutious details that are completely uninteresting.
It is interesting. It's at the very heart of the whole controversy. If the information hadn't been released or if ZT hadn't been incriminated BEFORE he had a chance to at least reply to the accusations then we wouldn't be in this situation. None of us would know whether ZT was the main suspect (well there would be theories on the matter but nothing conclusive as AX wouldn't have substantiated it) until a full investigation had been done. At that point, ZT would have either been proved a liar or the investigation would have determined that the money really did come from a friend. But the point is that there's no point arguing over minute details while millions worth of USD is missing.
There is nothing else to do whilst the investigation is ongoing. I'm sure the AML investigation is going as fast as it can because until it's resolved, we won't find out if ZT is telling the truth or not. This is really the whole problem here. I don't know if ZT is telling the truth. You don't know if he's telling the truth. The investigation will though. Those that say they KNOW he's lying already - I can't see how they could possibly know that. I'm not saying he isn't but how could I conclusively decide that with the information I have? All logic dictates that when Zhou Tong at the same time of the hack tries to withdraw an amount equal to that stolen, and an e-mail address associated to him is used along with the 'hack', then it's all reason to be suspicious.
How can logic determine if ZT is lying or not? Doesn't this also mean you believe he's guilty? How have you proved that his friend doesn't exist? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong but how did you come to that conclusion? I would've acted exactly the same way as aurumexchange in such a case
I would have done everything AX did except I would withold all information until an investigation had been done. That's the way it's meant to be done. , and if anyone thought I acted illegally or unethical, then bring the lawsuits on, I applaud aurumxchange for hos he acted in this case.
Lawsuits can still be brought because the information effectively painted ZT as guilty without giving him an opportunity to reply to the accusations. See how the news media goes about news items - they give both parties the opportunity to address the matter and they publish both sides if it's to be published at all. How would you feel if someone stole a large amount of money from you ?
This implies he's already guilty. Or are you literally just wanting to know how he would feel in that scenario? I do wonder whether funds from the hack would be being transferred back now had this not become public. In the short-term, the outcome may be better for Bitcoinica users than it would have been had AurumXchange handled this more conventionally. |
|
|
|
|
Apart from the issue of whether or not you have any right to use the customer information you possess for any reason that isn't directed by those legally responsible for the refund process - which Tihan has stated will be a receiver and then a liquidator - how on earth can any Bitcoinica user be confident that the user information you and others associated with Bitcoinica hold is in any way secure given that you guys haven't been able to adequately protect your own email accounts or critical business information?
Seriously, every single one of you needs to get whatever Bitcoinica related data you have out of your personal possession and into the hands of someone who is both legally entitled to possess it and legally obligated to properly protect it. You can't just go around using data you were given access to for a specific purpose for whatever you want. It's not your personal mailing list and you shouldn't be using it for anything unless you've been specifically authorised to do so by those to whom the user information belongs. Did the limited partner, the general partner, or Patrick Murck authorise this mail out?
|
|
|
|
|
For fuck's sake, there's already a thread for Rarity/ml derails - stop shitting up this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Great. A former employee using Bitcoinica-held customer information for personal communication is just what this clusterfuck needs now.
|
|
|
|
All the fuck I'm trying to do is help the Bitcoin community find the truth. The evidence is clear. But in case it's not, I'll pen a better timeline.
Peace, all.
~Bruno~
Here's your major problem. Things which you think are clear evidence, others believe are tenuous connections at best or conspiratorial nonsense at worst. It's often difficult for people to establish what it is you believe the information you've presented proves, let alone why you believe it proves your assertions. You're going off on so many tangents that any meaningful connections you may have found are getting lost among the more dubious stuff. |
|
|
|
Now this may raise a number of very interesting questions. Additional I could have go over their legalese with a fine comb and likely find so many inconsistencies that it likely would be enough to bury them in most legal proceedings. Should have hired a real lawyer in proper jurisdiction to draft those terms.
Honestly, the published legalese of many Bitcoin services is woefully inadequate and would likely not withstand scrutiny by a court. The reason why the published legal terms of services like PayPal and Technocash run to tens of pages is because one page, vaguely worded ToS and privacy policies have little real world meaning or enforceability. People don't read the detailed legal shit before agreeing to it any more than they read and fully understand EULAs. They're often especially unaware of domestic legislation which may have legal superiority over the civil law agreement to which they're a party. One reason I'm so against businesses ripping their ToS or privacy policies off other websites is that they're often not competent to judge whether those terms/policies are legally valid or applicable in their own jurisdiction. It's effectively just mumbo jumbo which lulls users into a false sense of security and may have absolutely no real world relevance. Unfortunately, many Bitcoin start-ups are launched on a shoe-string budget and don't seem to regard spending money to get the legal stuff in order a priority. My viewpoint is that if you fail to get the legal stuff in order when starting your business, you have only yourself to blame if it bites you in the ass down the track. |
|
|
|
|
Personally, I believe everyone involved with Bitcoinica was in over their head and that combined to produce a perfect storm which could only end in disaster.
The only person whose actions actually appear to malicious (as opposed to naive, irresponsible, inadequate or incompetent) are the hacker's. Bitcoinica may have failed even without the hacks but the multiple losses of funds at such a vulnerable stage of its development made failure almost certain. Every single Bitcoin business which holds user funds needs a disaster plan. I hope this calamity has caused more Bitcoin businesses to think about the mistakes which have been made in managing Bitcoinica both pre- and post- hacks and considered how they might manage critical incidents affecting their own services.
|
|
|
|
I would like clarification on this law in the Commonwealth of Dominica that says that privacy agreements are null and void if you admit to being a customer of the organization. I have never heard of such a law anywhere and, as presently described, essentially implies that if a customer says "I have to go withdraw some money from XYZ bank today" on an internet forum XYZ bank somehow gains the right to start disclosing private details about its relationship with the customer. To my intuition, this sounds ridiculous. If I am wrong, I would be glad to be enlightened.
With due respect, it is rarely enough to know what the legislation states without also knowing the case law on how that legislation has been interpreted. As a side note, several people have referred to AML law which was actually repealed by Dominica last year and replaced by several new pieces of legislation aimed at preventing and punishing money laundering. it's estimated that money laundering accounts for about 2% of Dominica's GDP and there appear to have been very few prosecutions for money laundering in Dominica, despite the previous legislation. The existence of legislation does not indicate the extent to which it's enforced. Privacy policies and agreements are not the same as actual privacy laws. Customers' financial information may still be protected by law even in the absence of a privacy policy or if the privacy policy is legally deficient. The extent of that protection may well vary greatly by jurisdiction, though. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno, take a couple of days off this weekend and go do something totally unrelated to Bitcoin and the Bitcoinica drama. You're not doing your own mental health any good trying to find evidence of some grand Bitcoinica conspiracy in which no-one is what they seem. If there's evidence to be found, it will still be there in a couple of days.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps that's the way it's taught at Trinity College which Zhou Tong claims to attend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_College_(University_of_Melbourne) In addition to its resident community of around 300 students and tutors of the university, Trinity includes three other major educational programs: Trinity College Foundation Studies, which prepares 700–800 international students for admission to the University of Melbourne annually http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/Founded in 1872 as the first residential college of the University of Melbourne, Trinity is a unique tertiary institution that provides a diverse range of high-quality academic programs for some 1500 talented students from across Australia and around the world. The 1500 figure represents the 300 residences and the online students. ~Bruno~ Phin, you're misunderstanding what the "colleges" within the old universities are. Only a very small proportion of people - including overseas students - studying at Australian universities live on campus. Some universities don't even provide student accommodation. The fact that someone isn't one of the 300 residential students doesn't mean a person is a distance education or flexible delivery student. Foundation Studies students aren't eligible to be residential students of the College. Zhou may or may not be in Australia attending Trinity college, but the nature of Trinity college and its programmes neither supports nor refutes that possibility. To be honest, if you're so damned sure that he's not in Australia, I'm not sure why you haven't asked him to take a photo of himself in front of a uniquely Melbourne landmark holding today's paper instead of trying to prove it through tenuous connections. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
