[quote author=xtraelv link=topic=1669443.msg49620662#msg49620662 date=1549510500]  https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/police-continue-make-progress-cryptocurrency-investigation[/quote] and nothing denying that a second lot of funds were stolen...Police continue to make progress in cryptocurrency investigation
Thursday, 7 February 2019 - 3:22pm
Canterbury
Please attribute to Detective Inspector Greg Murton:
The Police investigation into the Cryptopia hack and theft of cryptocurrency is progressing well and advancing on several fronts.
The focus is on identifying those behind this offending and retrieving the stolen cryptocurrency.
This is a complex investigation involving the theft of cryptocurrency in an unregulated environment.
The stolen cryptocurrency is being actively tracked by Police and specialists worldwide due to the nature of the cryptocurrency blockchains being publicly available.
Excellent progress is being made in the investigation and we are working with Cryptopia management plus current and former employees who have been providing valuable assistance.
We are working closely with our international partners and cybercrime experts to continue the investigation.
Cryptopia’s managers are on site at their Christchurch address and Police are expected to finish at the premises by the end of next week (Friday 15 February).
This investigation is expected to take a considerable amount of time to resolve due to the complexity of the cyber environment.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre
[quote author=Winstar78 link=topic=1669443.msg49618481#msg49618481 date=1549491989] in bitgrail case, the withdrawals were reopen for a couple of hours then suddenly closed again by the italian court, who declared bankrupcy months later, so also who had only no coin stolen (btc instead of nano) will have to wait forever. I think this is the worst solution for all. [/quote] At best next week solicitors for the various group legal actions that have been proposed will serve Cryptopia's Owners with papers freezing assets. At worst, Cryptopia will file for insolvancy. Will be interesting to read if Cryptopia will do the "we were hacked, and first come, first served to recover your funds" like they did during the 100+ 51% attacks last year. Definitely not over yet.
Police skills in doubt over Cryptopia probe into missing $23m https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110387805/cryptopia-director-says-technicians-are-helping-police-track-stolen-23m / ( Archive) Chris Hutching16:34, Feb 05 2019 An expert in corporate law is questioning whether police have the skills to resolve the $23 million theft from Christchurch-based Cryptopia.
Auckland University associate professor of commercial law, Alex Sims, said information about the investigation had not been handled well and regulatory authorities were "struggling" to deal with cyber theft.
"No one seems to have a clue what's going on. But this hasn't come out of the blue. There has been a lot of dialogue in recent years about the security of cryptocurrency and where to store the digital wallets.
"Cryptocurrency is a legitimate business. It's not a scam. But our regulators are really struggling compared with the US, Japan and European countries which have set up secure custodial services," Sims said.
Cryptopia had held investors' digital wallets, when they should have been held by the investors or with a safe custodial service, and any money kept in trust by the exchange, she said.
Sims said cryptocurrency and the underlying blockchain technology was here to stay.
"It would be like someone in 1900 saying we should outlaw cars because someone got run over. If you outlawed New Zealand cryptocurrency exchanges people will just use overseas exchanges."
She made the comment as Cryptopia's sole Christchurch-based director Pete Dawson apologised for his silence because of the risk to the police investigation.
"Our team is giving police technical assistance and their advice to is maintain radio silence in case we inadvertently say something that might interrupt their investigation," Dawson said.
Dawson said the overseas reports had misinterpreted further transfers of some of the stolen cryptocurrencies, which can be traced through different trading exchanges.
Other overseas reports said police had said Cryptopia could be operating again this month, but an official police spokesperson said there had not been any indication of when it might re-start business.
A New York-based analyst, Max Galka of Elementus, said the thieves been busy liquidating the stolen tokens by converting them into other cryptocurrencies via an international exchange called Etherdelta.
Another Christchurch exchange called BitPrime recently assured stakeholders them it did not hold or manage customer funds.
"Holding customer funds increases the risk, which can turn out disastrously," BitPrime chief executive Ross Carter-Brown said.
"Our own cryptocurrency reserves are held by an institutional custodian in cold storage, with US$100 million worth of insurance coverage.
"If you use a centralised exchange, ensure you withdraw all of your funds to your own wallets as soon as possible. If the coins are not in a wallet that you control the private keys for, in effect, then they're not really your coins."
Another Kiwi exchange called Vimba gave similar advice.
"When you keep crypto on an exchange you don't actually have ownership of those coins. We highly recommend you to move it into a personal wallet that you control."
Ross Carter-Brown said investors would be unable to claim all tax losses losses because until their digital coins were cashed up they could be classed as income.
He has also written about what may happen when cryptocurrency investors die.
"Traditionally, gaining access to a bank account is relatively straightforward after a family member passes. In the case of Bitcoin, it is much more complicated as there are wallets, passphrases and security boundaries.
"If your family isn't aware of the existence of your crypto holdings, it will be lost forever. Keep your wallet passphrase somewhere secure like a deposit box or a locked safe and provide instructions on how to get to it in your will."
|
|
|
|
|
@youngbusinessman
That's quite a list you've managed to put together. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
I think this is relevant: I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. ( Archive) because I first asked, then banned you from posting in my Cryptopia online article list when you and and another user decided it would be ok to have an off topic arguement that was not relevant to the thread. Clearly that's trust abuse. (by you)Read my responce to theymos here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49604562#msg49604562 |
|
|
|
I'd rather read a poster that's posted just one thousand quality post versus ten thousand unbalanced posts such as your hero "Bruno".
What does that have to do with the fact that you're wrong about Cryptohunter being Bruno? You do understand that trust was *neutral* ?? It wasn't even negative. |
|
|
|
[quote author=Thule link=topic=5105851.msg49606765#msg49606765 date=1549437993] [quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5105851.msg49604530#msg49604530 date=1549419623] Glass Houses and all that... [/quote] I haven't seen you removing your false negative taggs. My taggs are more than valid for your false tagging and clear abuse. I sent you a PM asking to remove after a year this nonsense red tagg or provide some proof i have any relation to Quickseller. Your answer was a second negative tagg which theymos clearly stated was not appropiate. [/quote] None of my tags for you are false. I don't trust you. I gave my reasoning for why I don't trust you. Your behavior since makes me trust you less. How can I change my trust of you to "not negative" when your own behavior feels it is warranted to post such gems as this: You are in effect wanting me to trust you. I cannot do that.
Food for thought: [quote author=LoyceV link=topic=5095156.msg49608196#msg49608196 date=1549445496] Let me quote this for attention: [quote author=theymos link=topic=5095156.msg49140832#msg49140832 date=1547057006] All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to " bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.[/quote] [quote author=theymos link=topic=5095156.msg49600801#msg49600801 date=1549393068] - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.[/quote] It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes. [/quote] |
|
|
|
[quote author=nutildah link=topic=5095156.msg49606025#msg49606025 date=1549433305] [quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5095156.msg49605883#msg49605883 date=1549432136] I can't fit them in one screen shot, but you or the previous owner of your account has given BiPolarBob, YuTü.Co.in, Zin-Zang (who has given me red trust out of the blue not that long ago) Phinnaeus Gage, Gleb Gamow all glowing trust wall trust (to name but a few) [/quote] Uhh... 1. My account was never sold, I can sign messages proving it. 2. I gave Zin-Zang a red trust, might want to look at that again, detective.  [/quote] Touché - at least you won't be able to use your account for dubious loans anymore: [img width=800]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob82a990f7ef080bf2.jpeg[/img] More credibility than Bruno regarding his own alt accounts? Like who? He's been extremely forthright in which alts are his -- there's no reason to suspect he has _yet another_ alt account with OVER 10,000 POSTS, and he'd be keeping that one a secret (unlike the other 2).
I'd rather read a poster that's posted just one thousand quality post versus ten thousand unbalanced posts such as your hero "Bruno". (I'll leave the asking for proof of your continued ownership of your UID to others at this point)
And then I found this: http://archive.fo/sJKrb#selection-439.9-445.25 |
|
|
|
[quote author=nutildah link=topic=5095156.msg49605813#msg49605813 date=1549431534] [quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5095156.msg49605050#msg49605050 date=1549424294] What I wrote for you is: [img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob17b6f69d35e631d2.jpeg[/img] So no. I probably won't be removing that post - as I said a couple of posts (half hour or so) ago. I haven't given any of Bruno's alts negative trust wall trust as yet. [/quote] Just FYI this person definitely is not Bruno. [quote author=Phinnaeus Gage link=topic=5096017.msg49196859#msg49196859 date=1547317060] Full disclosure: I'm not cryptohunter in spite of some users claiming otherwise. [/quote] [/quote] Hmm... IDK - I might wait for someone with a bit more credibility to come along: WTS Hero Member account (this one) ( Archive - #2)
Phinnaeus Gage scammer tag request 17 June 2013, 16:03:49 ( Archive)
I can't fit them in one screen shot, but you or the previous owner of your account has given BiPolarBob, YuTü.Co.in, Zin-Zang (who has given me red trust out of the blue not that long ago) Phinnaeus Gage, Gleb Gamow all glowing trust wall trust (to name but a few) |
|
|
|
|
[quote author=cryptohunter link=topic=5095156.msg49604971#msg49604971 date=1549423613]
[quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5095156.msg49604959#msg49604959 date=1549423496]
[quote author=cryptohunter link=topic=5095156.msg49604943#msg49604943 date=1549423308]
Sounds like collusion.... you can come on DT if you change your red tags to suit us. Haha great system. They will throw in some merits too perhaps?
I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you?
[/quote]
Don't delude yourself; I won't be removing my Red Paint TM, it's an indication of who I trust, or not as the case may be.
[/quote]
Well then you will not get on to DT anytime soon. This is a tight knit crew. You don't red trust Huge Black Woman and get on DT right now.
[/quote]
Heh, actually it's funny, I replied so quickly I thought I was replying to Thule...
What I wrote for you is:
[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blobe5f77c5a81853810.jpeg[/img]
So no. I probably won't be removing that post - as I said a couple of posts (half hour or so) ago.
I haven't given any of Bruno's alts negative trust wall trust as yet.
|
|
|
|
demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines?
I think the idea is that we either use DefaultTrust according to "guidelines" (which are very lax really... not to use it for disagreements and other petty squabbles) or it will be taken away from us. This strategy is often used (and mostly doesn't work) with toddlers but at least some us are supposedly adults so maybe there's hope. So there's not going to be enforcement that you're expecting. Those users are not in DT anyway. What I actually said was: So theymos...
I take it you're going to sit down and write a letter to all the persons who've given me negative trust (an small example of which is contained in the screen shot below) and demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines? cutting a sentence into parts more often than not changes the context. Please refrain from doing so again.
Where did I get it so wrong?
Am I one of the DT Trolls? Have you pressured others into removing their DT trust of me? I think I may have said something unpleasant about your ratings once or twice. I know that when I had you in my list some users lit up red for no good reason. I'll take a look at it again but it's gonna take some time.
Thank-you, that's all I ask. |
|
|
|
Sounds like collusion.... you can come on DT if you change your red tags to suit us. Haha great system. They will throw in some merits too perhaps?
I would guess for a start you best not have red trust Huge Black Woman aka The Pharmacist. That will not have gone down well. You didn't did you?
Don't delude yourself; I won't be removing my Red Paint TM, it's an indication of who I trust, or not as the case may be. |
|
|
|
[quote author=The Pharmacist link=topic=5095156.msg49603350#msg49603350 date=1549407915] [quote author=Thule link=topic=5095156.msg49602986#msg49602986 date=1549405035] So why did he get tagged ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.[/quote] Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales. Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted. Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.
Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it. Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on. Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.[/quote] Most people have failed to notice that I have for more than a year taken a mostly hands off approach to my participation in BCT (check the known alts thread if you don't believe me) - any accounts I've given negative trust to in that time I've only done so at the request of the finder of said alts and have given -ve when they themselves have also given red trust. You would (should) also recall that I've repeatedly stated that a person should give known alts negative themselves instead of calling on others on the DT list to do their work for them. I even started a poll on the 06 February 2016, 23:40:33 and have given trust wall trust based on the consensus gained in that on going poll. The DT Trolls TM have time and again stated they'd have me on their DT list if I didn't get the odd one or two cases wrong - so I'm still calling all DT Trolls TM out - which ones? Where did I get it so wrong? The DT Trolls' bullying of others to remove me from their DT list is trust abuse. I call that out. *edit* I never -ve tagged suchmoon's account for acquiring bruno [img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob7284db243e4a8fbb.jpeg[/img] and I don't recall ever slapping any of Bruno's accounts with negative. [img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob9f19cc7eb8e434de.jpeg[/img] |
|
|
|
Being also called a scammer by suchmoon each time i represent facts about his abuse and he has no more arguments.
I asked him like 100 times to show me a single person i scammed in my 7 years and still got no answer.
Seven years eh? http://archive.fo/PJCev#selection-3987.53-3987.77Name: Thule
Position: Sr. Member
Date Registered: 15 July 2014, 01:35:37 |
|
|
|
Archived for future reference: http://archive.fo/prEh6#selection-1905.0-1941.187[quote author=theymos link=topic=5095156.msg49600801#msg49600801 date=1549393068] [size=5pt]I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.[/size][/quote]
So theymos... I take it you're going to sit down and write a letter to all the persons who've given me negative trust (an small example of which is contained in the screen shot below) and demand they remove it to follow your guide-lines? 
What about the DT Trolls TM who've either bullied others to remove their trust of me or given me negative DT trust because they simply didn't agree with my findings on a handful of [color=#0a80b1]Known Alts of any-one[/color] cases, but neither had the courage nore the ability to voice their concerns in the forum or in a PM? |
|
|
|
I don't want to spread FUD and sadness, but I was thinking... Think at the owner of an exchange that has been hacked, therefore has totally lost users' trust. He has (?) million of dollars on cold wallets and he perfectly knows that when will reopen, ppl will run to withdraw EVERYTHING and go trade elsewhere. He will face very hard months, in addition in a bear market that has already killed some exchanges. If you were him, what would you do?  When Cryptopia announced they were going to "allow" people to withdraw a portion of their holdings after they suffered 100+ 51% attacks and froze the accounts for multiple months I suggested on my Twitter Account that people withdraw all their funds on Cryptopia as they (Cryptopia) were effectively trading while insolvent. With multiple class actions being flagged against Cryptopia it stands to reason a liquidator would be called in to ensure creditors were paid out first followed by depositors a distant last place. Anyone who predicts Cryptopia will somehow reopen in February 2019 doesn't understand the magnitude of what is going on. (feel free to remind me in just 22 days time)
@xtraelv Your screen shot again implies I said those things. I did not. Please quote your source. |
|
|
|
Reposted for xtraelv's benefit: [quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=2544574.msg49589742#msg49589742 date=1549332033] [quote author=Thule link=topic=2544574.msg49589397#msg49589397 date=1549328602] You just proofed earlier you don't care about trust abuse as you gave me already a negative tagg for being an alt of QS where you of course have no evidence. [/quote] ...and *this* is what all the Butt Hurt TM is all about: I'd hate to see how stinging Thule's squeeling would be if I actually said s/he *was* an alt of QS [/quote]
Just to be clear - I didn't say Thule was quickseller... (remind me why you're on the DT list again?) |
|
|
|
|
Ladies, you're off topic...
I'm going to have to ask you to either leave the thread, or lock the topic if you can't focus on the shinny bauble in front of you...
|
|
|
|
Archived for future reference: http://archive.fo/U2t1E#selection-7247.0-7323.137Funny how only a couple of days ago xtraelv was debunking stuff.co.nz
Stuff has reported numerous things that are plain stupid.
Most custodial exchanges hold users’ assets in cold wallets, which cannot be easily accessed. Smaller sites, like Cryptopia, may not be able to afford the same protection, making them targets for hackers.
Since when are cold wallets expensive ?Police have now stormed the office of a Christchurch cryptocurrency trader after millions of dollars worth of currency appears to have disappeared in a security breach.
Apparently Police storms buildings when you call them."Some of the exchanges in New Zealand deliberately won't hold cryptocurrencies on behalf of people because they just become a target for hackers." Show me a peer to peer centralized exchange that doesn't hold cryptocurrency on behalf of people.Their main expert they keep quoting Associate Professor Alex Sims is a associate professor of law. Some of her reported assertions about crypto technology have not been accurate or out of context.Either she does not have the technical insight, Stuff has been reporting her comments incorrectly or quoted the comments out of context..[/s] Your quotes imply I said them... I did not. If you are quoting someone else, please add the website to your post. Your questions appear to be directed at someone else - perhaps you should direct your anger at that person, not me. |
|
|
|
The police has already refuted that claim. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110287959/police-dispute-claims-more-cryptocurrency-taken-from-christchurch-company-cryptopiaPolice dispute claims more cryptocurrency taken from Christchurch company Cryptopia Blockchain analysis company Elementus' CEO Max Galka has written a blog post claiming another $260,000 worth of Ethereum (a type of cryptocurrency) has been transferred from about 17,000 Cryptopia wallets (like a bank account for digital currency) since police began investigating. The transfers allegedly began about 1am on Tuesday. Detective Inspector Greg Murton, of Canterbury police, said it was "not correct" that more currency had been transferred without authorisation. there has been no official refuting from the New Zealand Police - https://www.police.govt.nz/news/search-results/cryptopia - Last satatement from NZ Police was on the 22nd of January 2019. Funny how only a couple of days ago xtraelv was debunking stuff.co.nz Nothing in the media has been confirmed either way. The Stuff website has been factually incorrect on a number of occasions.
Prior speculation will have no influence on the outcome. The results of the police investigation will establish the facts.
Now he's relying on their same website to back up his assertion. |
|
|
|
[quote author=Thule link=topic=2544574.msg49589397#msg49589397 date=1549328602] You just proofed earlier you don't care about trust abuse as you gave me already a negative tagg for being an alt of QS where you of course have no evidence. [/quote] ...and *this* is what all the Butt Hurt TM is all about: I'd hate to see how stinging Thule's squeeling would be if I actually said s/he *was* an alt of QS |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
