No.

What helps is sending your information or anything usable to verify@bitcoinica.com to be attached to your ticket. Getting the numbers exactly right if you can remember them is also very useful.

What will hurt your claim is an inaccurate or falsified report. Claims not matching the records are pushed to the back of the queue.

We can meet today if you want. Send me an email to genjix@riseup.net.


Reducing the cost in risk * cost while we have a high uncertainty for payments. Certainty goes up as we process more payments. At the end, we have a higher certainty that we can send the remaining 50%. This is the sacrifice for having any kind of timely payments where users don't cover the cost of mistakes.

1- yes. Going through them one by one.
2- less than 1%. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to say how many people. But it's a small number.
3- hopefully we get faster with experience. Much of the slow speed is a lack of supporting system to act efficiently.
4- we will bear the cost (I assume).

People do have their coins. We've been processing payments out during the last few days. But the process is extremely slow and tedious.

Sorry, I've updated this info. The dates are final as the venue and everything have been booked. We were just about to announce the conference before this Bitcoinica debacle.

I don't think you get it. BitcoinSpinner / Electrum are fine on a smartphone and the scalability optimisations can be applied. Also entropy can be generated.

These devices are REALLY low spec. They are very very simple devices to simply sign a tx and hold a single key. In fact they are so small that it's tough keeping a bitcoin tx in memory.

I have a question to people who think these are a winner.

The issue seems to be a social issue not a technological one. Do people prefer a secure dedicated device over a less secure mobile phone which offers a far superior featureset?

Random thoughts here:

- Devices are so low spec that it makes it difficult to implement any of the blockchain scalability optimisations that can be used for Electrum. Much of the processing is moved server side which assuming it ever did the volume that is mass usage, would be a serious problem.

- I’m not sure that the hardware on these devices can generate enough entropy. A friend (niekt0) told me that ECDSA (unlike other encryption schemes) requires entropy for each signing, not only for generating keys.

- I’ve seen an addon device for mobile phones that allows secure key signing to be possible via an attached USB or similar device. The functionality for a mobile phone is far more advanced that these low spec devices.

- Even if dedicated devices are more secure, mobile phones have more popular adoption. For small amounts of spending cash, their security is adequate. For larger amounts, larger devices or services are fine.

Bitcoinica issue is delaying the organisation of this. Until Bitcoinica payouts have been made (which should hopefully be within a month).

Fuck you asshole. Our data is rubbish. What would you have us do? Refund every scammer? Or maybe just friends/people on this forum leaving out those not in the community. I never even touched Bitcoinica, and here I am going through hundreds of lines of nonsensical numbers and writing emails, not code. Your guilt by association is retarded considering we've run our own service for 2 years no without a single login or problem incident. Bitcoinica was a load of crap that had been broken into twice before due to incompetence and Tihan realised this, and rushed to acquire us. I was just looking at a piece of code for hedging and saw 3 bugs and numerous hacks to work around flaws. It doesn't surprise me that third time lucky it blows up.

The data is incomplete. To build a case you need to understand the big picture. Once you make a refund, you aren't getting the money back. I think only the scammers are making noise here to rush the process for their selfish gains. The most claimants so far that have emailed me have been very polite because they don't want to jeopardise their claim.

yeah I saw the magazine too. It was really nicely done.

It would be good to see more things focusing on the social aspect and talking about things outside bitcoin but related to it in the free culture and hacker movements. Things like the free wifi (how bitcoin can fund meshnets), tech for circumventing kettling by police .etc

I had to click 3 links: http://bitcoinmagazine.net/bitcoin-magazine-approved-for-barnes-noble-us-distribution/

Nice one though. Was it easy? I imagine the hard part is staying there. A few months ago I saw that some stores in the UK stopped stocking Linux magazines

I just finished answering the emails people sent to me asking about their claim's status. If you didn't receive a reply yet then email me again.

If you email me from your Bitcoinica email, I can tell you the status of your claim.

No database, a huge mass of data (much of it useless) and a number of false claims that could push out legitimate claims. The data makes sense only as a whole which makes payouts difficult (you have to build a case and gather evidence based on the known data). Being careless and paying people without being sure is stupid as you cannot reverse payments if more evidence later ends up contradicting your early guess.

That's why the initial payouts so far have been for only 50%. And only for people we're highly certain of. I support extending that to more, but the others are understandably taking more caution. If people are paid out, then it's realised there is a mistake in our assumptions, that means legitimate people will not get paid (the pool of money for payouts is limited). $1 erroneously paid out, is $1 of someone else's money. The honest and correct decision here is being as certain as possible for people you pay out, and no amount of shouting will speed up the process. The records for making the payouts are incredibly bad and inefficient. It might take 15 mins to check a single person before you realise that the records on hand for that person are useless/contradictory. Now multiply this by 100s of people.

Someone earlier mentioned hiring people but that's not an option here. I would not trust a relative unknown with this data and the time/effort involved with finding a new person who would be competent does not make it a positive tradeoff.

Except we already did make some payments for confirmed people.

I support paying the initial round of people marked as 'accurate', but the process is not under my control. And I can understand why there is a need for more thorough checking. There is no database, a huge mass of data (much of it useless) and a number of false claims that could push out legitimate claims.

I was told this:
"I would suggest that the communication should be strictly about payments progress. Daily factual one-liners as in: "Today we verified 20 balances." or "We expect payments to begin on Friday", or "We're working on a secure system for issuing MtGox codes.""

If you send me a message to genjix@riseup.net then I'll forward you on to them.

Positions will be liquidated around 5 +/- 0.1 depending on the exact math (a close price that's a suitable middle ground between longs and shorts).

Example quick text-interface client for anyone who wants to have a go at trying to make a Qt version: https://gitorious.org/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blobs/master/tests/crap/main.cpp

Not all the password hashes exist. Only a few of them. That's why it says no password hash found. The record is not an old record but simply a recent sample of a random bunch of users. It does not matter how old your account is.

Just tried the email and it seems to work fine for me.

I am not the correct person to answer your questions. I have messaged the correct person.