The last information about the amount CSC Cryptsy has. Let's see, will they move these coins... But I think they may have more... Do you have the addresses Crypsy owns? Would be interesting to see how much they have.
The problem is they change all the time. you could try depositing a coin and following the transaction to see where it lands. Maybe with a bit of luck you'll see it hit a cold wallet that has a large balance. My most recent withdrawal came from this address: http://csc.blockexp.info/address/CUYPXyBUD4fdDT4amZkbVNyi3sJXNkrYJaLooks like they are still sitting there, lol. In the grand scheme of things, that QTY won't be THAT big of a dump (assuming that is their only wallet). It is not the only one, we know of 1 person with 1mln coins in cryptsy so we really hope those get out there one day and get returned to their rightful owner. I know another guy with 340k that was trapped in there. BTW - on a side note - in August/September, I was able to get a friend's 1m CSC out, but it took me having to shame Cryptsy publicly for almost a week encouraging people to contact Silver Law Group before Mullick contacted me and manually sent me his coins. The scary thing was it wasn't even my account and they never even tried to verify me in our communications. It was at that point, that it became apparent that Cryptsy probably didn't have enough CSC to cover their balances. When I look at the rich list, I can easily identify more than half of the holders in the top 50. Most in the top 27. Unless Cryptsy is storing coins in 10k coin chunks in a lot of wallets, I just don't see any unexplained wallets that could add up to 3m coins. Maybe this is why Cryptsy didn't release the coins when they opened up other alts. This cryptsy fraud may run a lot deeper and darker than anyone imagines. We should have a watch list on addresses known to be in Cryptsys possession. I post a few in this thread. Report those to Alcurex to hold the coins if they get deposited from those addresses. Fortunately there is no where for them to sell the coins...the buy side on Alcurex is so small currently that they would only be able to get about 4.4 BTC out...perhaps people should take their buy orders out?  There was a recent dump of about 34K but that is too small to be cryptsy...but who knows. |
|
|
|
Cryptsy may not own any land or buildings, but since Paul Vernon and Project Investors are named in the lawsuit, anything property they own may be subject to seizure as well. I'm just guessing on that though.
Unfortunately not in Florida. Florida (and a couple other states I think) will not allow your primary residence to be seized for almost any reason (at least that's what I've heard from attorney friends over the years). |
|
|
|
who wants to stake all the time anyway. His loss. Good for the network, bad for him, who cares.
Yup, I was for a while and then I noticed my wallet file start to balloon up in size so now I only stake every couple of weeks. |
|
|
|
can anyone tell me if this bigvern fellow is still in the united states, and can't leave the country? the last news i know is his house is for sale and the site is down, and no new notifications, so are these guys gone forever or is the case against them in full progress?
i still have 24 btc overthere
thanks for anyone who can help me
24 btc "overthere" eh? well i guess you helped fund Verns retainer. his lawyers accept btc no doubt... What Lawyers? ORDER by Clerk of Entry of Default Re:22 Motion for Clerks Entry of Default as to Project Investors, Inc. (Default mailed to Project Investors, Inc.). Signed by DEPUTY CLERK on 3/24/2016. (ar2) Ah, a "no-show". I suppose that was expected. So where are we now? Does this mean they (Paul & Co.) have additional time to respond to the default? Any time frame specified? ...or did the court go ahead and appoint the receiver? |
|
|
|
In p2pool it is biphasic. Initially as the hashrate of the pool increases your variation decreases, and then as the hashrate gets larger again, variation starts increasing again Thanks ck (and Cortana)! I learned a new word today.   |
|
|
|
Maybe he is using YOUR special wallet from that post, you should know about it it is yours after all: Here is a version of the Potcoin Windows wallet that reduces the max split from 2 million to 5 thousand: potcoin-08.7.2-win32-5Kv2.zip This version will cause you to stake more often if you have over 5K POT. It stakes more often because it divides up each stake into a max of 5 thousand coins instead of 2 million. This will not increase your staking reward. It should average to be about the same as the official wallet. This version also implements a fix for allowing outputs to merge even if they're from the same transaction as the staked output. It does not include support for uPNP. I may compile in support for uPNP at a future date if time permits. Source: https://github.com/CartmanSPC/PotcoinDisclaimer: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. DO NOT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOST COIN. But it you feel like this wallet is hurting the network, and that it should be take offline, you can always voice your concern and get what you ask for ... Like Potcoin have so many wallet staking with so many node that it can dismiss some ... let's do some math: He is staking around 3,6 Millions coins of the actual 30 Millions staking now, so: - so around 12% - With 3.6 Millions coins split in 5k block that is 720 blocks - 8 hours for staking is 480 minutes, with 1.5 block per minute so 720 blocks. So that he managed to stake continuously (smaller stake) to keep the network going seems so bad to you  And so strange with those Maths ?? GJayJayG, it does not appear that he is using the 5K staking wallet. I thought it would be clear what the concern is about but my mistake. That wallet appears to be staking its entire amount (~3,196,462) every time quite quickly (about once a minute). Once staked the amount staked should not be able to stake again for around 8 hours. His wallet is obviously not doing that....well I guess not so obvious but I hope it is clear now what I was trying to point out. It appears to me that he may have modified the wallet to do away with the 8 hour restriction between staking. Can someone (hopefully rdyoung) confirm my suspicion?Edit: Wait...never mind! I was looking at the block explorer incorrectly! My mistake  He is NOT staking all ~3mil as I thought...whoops. Again sorry for the false alarm!!! I'm so embarrassed. LOL See, I AM human!  |
|
|
|
No, seriously, I doubt it's related. It's not a porn site nor a penny auction.
LOL, you're probably right...perhaps same DC...is this the location of cryptsys DC?  |
|
|
|
OMG. So this is how their server looks up inside?. No sandboxing and poor security. How did you get access to this?. Did you make it up?
If it's a fake it's a fairly good one. The dates add up etc. Still not sure what exactly is it supposed show. That they ran Lucky7 wallet as root? ...and who is netcyber.com? Could be their hosting provider or perhaps just some bogus PTR records. Perhaps bogus or updated PTR but 204.11.237.74 = 74.netcyber.com |
|
|
|
OMG. So this is how their server looks up inside?. No sandboxing and poor security. How did you get access to this?. Did you make it up?
If it's a fake it's a fairly good one. The dates add up etc. Still not sure what exactly is it supposed show. That they ran Lucky7 wallet as root? ...and who is netcyber.com? |
|
|
|
His only viable outs are 1sell Cryptsy or
Absolutely no one will buy Cryptsy outright. If it goes into receivership (has it already?) then he (the appointed receiver) will sell whatever assets are in the company for whatever he can get or (unlikely) open it back up for business. Absolutely no one will buy the debt. The only real assets are the site code. I give that a value of 100K tops...probably more like 20K IF you can even find a buyer for it. Don't fool yourself it believing someone will come in and buy the whole thing and be indebted to the users for over 10mil. I realize most people have no idea what it means for a company to go into receivership so if you are interested look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReceivershipIf the company’s assets are able to cover the debt owed then they may be able to continue operating after receivership, but this is more of a rare exception than the standard. In most cases the insolvent company is too far behind to cover their liabilities using only their assets, at which point the business must be completely liquidated and dissolved in order to repay as many secured debts as possible. When the company (Cryptsy) gets put into receivership Paul is out of picture in it's operation and/or liquidation. I don't know what legal trouble he will be in at that point but I'm sure it cant be good. Edit: Believe it or not I doubt Paul will face any jail time for his gross negligence running Cryptsy but ignoring this mess will not help. |
|
|
|
although one of the users, Microsoft, just started ceasing to accept it as payment), like all shorts of other electronic payment options.
Not true! It was a mistake that the news agency's picked up on. They continue to accept BTC as always. “We continue to support Bitcoin for adding money to your Microsoft Account which can be used for purchasing content in the Windows and Xbox stores,” a Microsoft spokesperson told VentureBeat. “We apologize for inaccurate information that was inadvertently posted to a Microsoft site, which is currently being corrected.” If this is true, I stand corrected. I was aware of what was reported on the news recently -about a week ago-, not of the apparent correction... That's the problem with most news agency's these days. They quickly report headline grabbing articles without confirming to beat the next news guy to the punch. Almost none of them bothered to reach out to MS for confirmation. |
|
|
|
although one of the users, Microsoft, just started ceasing to accept it as payment), like all shorts of other electronic payment options.
Not true! It was a mistake that the news agency's picked up on. They continue to accept BTC as always. “We continue to support Bitcoin for adding money to your Microsoft Account which can be used for purchasing content in the Windows and Xbox stores,” a Microsoft spokesperson told VentureBeat. “We apologize for inaccurate information that was inadvertently posted to a Microsoft site, which is currently being corrected.” |
|
|
|
v4. for 8 chip
im need 12 chip...
im download and write to sd v4.0
this version not correctly for 12 chip board
my sd card work good !!!!
im try 3 pcs sd card for write v5.0
with the version 4.0 I see raspberriey in the network and with the version 5.0 is not.
You understand what I wrote?
Yes, I think emdje understands. Please give him a few days to check on v5. Until then you can try this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141802.0 |
|
|
|
I am in the middle of moving, but I will download the ISO (instead of using the one on my computer), burn it freshly and check if it works out of the box in the comming days. If there are issues I will try and adress them.
If you have another SD card you can always just plug in the v4, if that seems to work for you.
emdje, I too was never able to get v5 working. Reverted to v4. Tried two different SD cards. Didn't report since it appeared others were successful. felix, I would recommend trying v4 to see if you can get that one working. |
|
|
|
who would buy this debt hole is cray ! lol
They wouldn't buy the debt...only the assets. Proceeds from the sale would go to the debt holders. This is what a receiver does. Tries to recover value of whatever assets still exist for the benefit of the debtors. you must not have used the site much, it was the buggiest exchange ever! Really? It sucked as an exchange then? I'm not talking asking it's liquidity problems...just it's function as an exchange. |
|
|
|
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified: http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.htmlEdit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds. People keep saying this, but I don't see any value. A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch? I believe the supposed theft was possible because they did not isolate (sandbox) each wallet. The compromised wallet was able to send commands to other wallets because they were on the same server or network. That really had nothing to do with the exchange itself. Maybe my use and emphasis of the word "ton" was too strong but I believe there is value in the framework/customers/...and yes, even the name...although if it was me taking over I would seriously consider changing it. Up until they stopped trades it was the biggest and most successful altcoin exchange (that I am aware of). Other than liquidity issues (being able to withdraw) it ran fairly well. Their only real issue (again from my perspective..I was not a big user) was a lack of funds from the supposed theft. This is of course me looking at it from the outside. Under the hood it could be a mess and any potential future owner/buyer would have to make that determination. It is conceivable that the receiver attempts to sell the code and any remaining assets rather than try to continue operating. Actually that is most likely what he will do. Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.  |
|
|
|
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified: http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.htmlEdit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds. Does this mean bitebi9 has to close down because they are using the trade engine which is IP of project investors and not licensed to them? Bao Luo aka Paul Vernon should lose that then right.... Bitebi9 may have purchased the right to use the trade engine/source, etc....the receiver will have to look at the terms of the contract (if there is one) and try to extract as much value out of it for the benefit of the creditors/debtors/account holders. Keep in mind though that trying to enforce anything with a company in China will be difficult at best (I would imagine). I suppose you (court/judge) could connect the dots and make a case that Bitebi9 was a "way out" of the mess by Paul and attempt to take over control of that company as well but again...China :/ ...think there is a word/legal term for this type of thing but it's been a long week. e.g someone takes all the assets of a failed business to start a new one leaving the debtors holding the bag. |
|
|
|
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified: http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.htmlEdit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds. |
|
|
|
So 10 days left to return customer funds or likely lose control of the company entirely. Tick tock... Company? There is no company. It is now just a huge pile of debt with everyone working there suspected to be involved somehow in the scam. He would be lucky to get rid of it now... would you really deposit more funds? Nice, I called it!  Some employees may be retained in a receivership but Paul will most definitely be ousted. A company in receivership (that continues to operate) cannot directly pay off old debtors but I don't believe that will apply to people with coins stuck on cryptsy...perhaps it will but the argument can be made users with coins on cryptsy are not debtors. I believe a receivership tries to obtain whatever value is left in a company by either continuing to run or liquidating it's assets to pay off debtors from the failed entity. Debtors may or may not be people with coins on cryptsy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
