Not technically a squatter.  It's one of the three domains that TradeHill acquired the rights to use in exchange for $1 million in equity but the rights were conditional were on them continuing operation.

And yeah, there is a NZ venture capitalist who incorporated a company called Bitcoin Limited in NZ in June, but he appears to have no connection to those who are widely believed to own Bitcoin.com.

From what Zhou posted, the Rackspace hacker would have gained the information needed to access the MtGox account. The source code leak may have confirmed to the Rackspace hacker that the password likely hadn't been changed, or they may have already been waiting for funds to be transferred into the MtGox account to make repayments and decided that it was worth seeing if the credentials they had still had access.  It's far less likely that someone who randomly viewed the leaked source code just lucked in.

It's weird that Jered's name would be mis-spelled in something like that.

There's not really any way for the Intersango guys to give control back to "the owners".  The structure of the partnership is such that Bitcoinica Consultancy Limited (the Intersango guys) are effectively directors and Wendon are effectively shareholders.  The only quick option is them jointly agreeing to dissolve the partnership and wind the business up in liquidation - "quick" being a relative term here.  Either party can apply to a court to have the partnership wound up in liquidation but that just wastes both time and money. 

Wendon has no reason at all to want "control", because with control would come liability (the whole point of being a limited partner is to limit your liability).

I agree that there needs to be an update soon.  I'm just not sure what they could actually say at this point.  People aren't going to find "we're seeking advice on how best to handle the situation following recent events" very satisfying, even if it is factually correct.

Apparently they know about it and are working on fixing the problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94449.msg1044552#msg1044552


It's thought that Tihan acquired equity in TradeHill...

And the fund he represented bought Bitcoinica...

Mt Gox users are praying he doesn't acquire equity in Gox.

I laughed.

It's Saturday evening in Tokyo and Mt Gox doesn't work weekends.

The reason I don't think it would happen the way you think it would is because then the unsatisfied creditors would have a cause of action against the liquidator (and then the matter would have to be determined by a court).  Bitcoinica Consultancy has already accepted the Bitcoin claims as valid and a liquidator can't simply ignore that.

Even though the manner in which a liquidator must disburse proceeds is laid down by law, creditors can petition the court if they are unsatisfied with that process and even have the liquidator removed - and as the liquidator must make regular reports to creditors they are well aware of his intentions before disbursements are made and have time to take action to dispute those intentions.

This is one reason why I wonder about the nature of Wendon's contribution to the Bitcoinic LP partnership.  It might not have been capital, but rather the right to use the domain and the IP.

SO does that mean that everyone hitting Bitcointalk to post "what the hell is going on with Gox" messages is then interpreted as a DDOS and that's why the forum also goes offline?

One way or another it is going to get that far.  The Limited Partnership is not going to continue which means it will be terminated.  Whether it's the general partner, the limited partner or the creditors who initiate this process (the GP and LP can agree to place the partnership in voluntary liquidation without petitioning the court), the LP will be wound up in insolvency.

It's not possible to know how a liquidator would regard Bitcoin debt, but one shouldn't assume they will regard it as having no value.  They may treat it as a commodity, they may simply assess it in terms of its $ value, they may look to how Bitcoinica LP was regarding that debt in their refund process (personally, I think this is the approach they would take as a liquidator cannot deal with disputed debt).


That's true but remember that the original claims process valued BTC at around $5 each.  I'm not sure that even a large amount of Bitcoins coming on the market would move the price from its current level back down to $5 (although obviously buyers would be looking for a bargain).

It's also important to remember that in a New Zealand Limited Partnership, the limited partners are (literally) the equivalent shareholders and if the entity is liquidated then any uncalled shares are one of the assets which can be used for the benefit of creditors.  None of us know the exact nature of Wendon's holdings in Bitcoinica LP or whether their capital is paid up (if indeed their investment was in the form of money).

As I said to someone privately earlier today, I feel like locking everyone involved in this in a room and saying "none of you fuckers are going home until you reach a decision about how to break this deadlock".

This should have been done even before the latest hack, but this community was vocally against turning the refund process over to an independent third party and the principals involved were also reluctant to take that path.

One way or another, this company will end up being liquidated.  Whether it's by the Official Assignee or by a private liquidator depends on who moves first.  The opportunity for it to be placed under administration and trade out has long passed.  

While it's hard to imagine the Bitcoinica domain having any value now, the IP may still have some value.  Depending on who actually owns those assets (it might not be Bitcoinica LP), the may be available for liquidation and someone might make an offer for them.

It would be better for this community as a whole and especially for Bitcoinica users if the limited partner and the general partners could at least put aside their other disputes for 5 minutes and agree on a course of action so this process can be started as soon as possible rather than forcing users into the position of having to take court action to initiate an insolvency.  

The partnership coming together on this one issue won't prejudice any other causes of action which may exist, and - quite frankly - it is petulant bordering on the irresponsible for this next step to be delayed because of other conflict between the parties.  Just grow the fuck up and do it now so that the formal process can begin.  Users have already been disadvantaged enough and should not be further disadvantaged by having to has funds to take this to court when you guys know damned well that you can initiate the process yourselves.  The sooner this is turned over to a third party, the sooner users will have some kind of certainty, Intersango can concentrate on its core business, Wendon can do whatever the hell they're going to do, and everybody can step back a bit and take a more dispassionate look at the lessons to be learned from this series of events.

How do they know the debt wasn't repaid?  I doubt they have complete financial records for both the village and Berlin from 1562 onwards.

I'm not sure why an historian would feel qualified to give an opinion on the validity of a debt. 

Are you going to form a company for your 18th birthday present (it's next month, isn't it)?

As you've discovered, domain names are big business - remember that TradeHill paid $1 million for a domain name which came with conditions.  I suspect that one of your comments refers to the "typo-squatting" lawsuit - which was dismissed.  It's an interesting variation on the old "domain squatting" thing.  As you're aware, every time you do a whois you get a list of similar domain names which are not already taken.  Many large enterprises have registered the most common mistypings of their names to redirect for years (I mistype domain names all the time).  

I do think it's something which raises some interesting questions about domain names and just how far your rights should be able to be extended without you actively protecting them.  I'm not going to make a moral judgement on the issue of typo squatting.  As a general rule, successful people see opportunities where others do not.  

I mentioned in another thread that there's a NZ VC who has registered 3 entities this year with Bitcoin associated names.  Now maybe he's just waiting for the right projects to come along, or maybe he's positioning himself to effectively sell the company purely for the name.  He's formed Bitcoin Ltd - which would become a very desirable company to acquire purely for it's name.  Is he basically just "squatting", I don't know but he's certainly created an opportunity which others might have overlooked whether he realises it or not (and I'm sure he does). Are we going to see lots of people "company squatting"?  Perhaps we will, but right now I'd regard that as creating your own opportunities rather than doing something immoral.

Do you see your own business of selling antique barn wood as creating your own opportunity?  There are others who would certainly see it as immoral.  It's all a matter of the perspective from which you see the issue.

Now if only we could cure you of your Atlas obsession.   

I knew you'd still be around.  You're too much of a pain in the ass to slink away quietly.   

Welcome to the world of venture capital and private equity.  It's extremely common to find the same group of players in varying combinations investing in start-ups within a certain industry.  Venture capitalists know that many of the enterprises in which they invest will either lose money or at best break even.  They are looking to recoup that money on the handful of investments they make which are profitable.  The terms on which venture capitalists invest are often quite brutal to the outside observer, but money tied up in a failing venture is money which could be better put to use elsewhere.

Every venture capitalist has a long list of investments that didn't pay off - risk is what venture capital is all about.  Obviously, venture capitalists aim to minimise risk while maximising potential returns but I've never met a venture capitalist yet who didn't make an investment without an exit strategy in mind.

In a new industry like Bitcoin, I'd be shocked if there wasn't a lot of cross-investment going on.  I'd imagine that VCs would also be looking for related investments which would mesh well with Bitcoin.  The objective is pretty much to find something new and get in on the ground floor before the world at large realises it has value.  I'm not saying that to be an apologist for Tihan, but rather to give a context to your observations.  Make no mistake, while VCs might often be called "angel" investors, they play hardball when it comes to the bottom line.

You probably remember, as I do, that this time last year the community was excited about the possibility of newborn Bitcoin businesses attracting venture capital.  People were wondering how pitches could be made to venture capitalists and saw attracting VC as a kind of benchmark for how seriously Bitcoin was being taken.  This was a community full of ideas but with very little capital to put them in motion.  What has happened with Bitcoinica is certainly not going to make other venture capitalists or private equity funds who saw this as a litmus test more willing to take a risk with funding Bitcoin ventures.

Rapidly expanding businesses need external investors to survive, and the learning curve for Bitcoin businesses has been steep.  Look at how many promising ventures have come and gone.  Some were poorly conceived and badly executed from the start, but for others lack of money to fund rapid growth was a major factor in their demise.  We often forget just how short-lived some of the most brightly shining stars were.

These are lessons to remember for the future.  The best idea in the world still needs the right people to execute it and it needs money to fund it through a period of rapid growth.  If people accept outside investment in their ventures, they need to put aside their excitement and make sure that they really, truly understand the nature of their agreements and be certain that they're prepared to live with the worst case scenario.  

Perhaps what the Bitcoin community could look at doing for the future is putting together a network of mentors who have conventional business experience and who can at least let those considering putting their heart, their soul and their life savings into a new venture know what questions they should be asking themselves.  Nobody starts their own business expecting it to fail, but success requires more than just a good idea.

On a lighter note, I just looked for Maria's "Wendon Mews" thread so that we could all laugh at the information her "private detectives" had supposedly uncovered and she's deleted it. 

I can't wait to see what document he posts next.

Let's assume for a moment that you're right Phin.  How would that in any way affect the current situation regarding Bitcoinica and its users?  If Tihan is indeed one of the limited partners, how does establishing that in any way bring Bitcoinica users closer to receiving refunds?