As a tech dude, I prefer to use e-mail rather than phone. I realize not everyone else has the same view on these matters...

However, I'm of the opinion that if a business does provide their e-mail on their web page or otherwise, then they should monitor and respond to any received e-mails with the same amount of attention and precision as they would attend to a phone call.

Failure to do so, but at the same time always answering the phone means that they're looking at e-mail as something less serious. I'm not always present to answer the phone, and in fact I don't like the phone very much. For instance, when you carry a smart phone with you, you're location tracked at all times. I don't like that. In addition, why on earth should I obey to getting out of the zone in whatever I'm doing, just because somebody wants to talk to me. Seldom have I ever had a conversation on the phone that couldn't rather have been done over e-mail. Now, if I have a phone meeting, or a video chat, that's another issue altogether, as it's scheduled and it does have an agenda.

To me, when someone does not answer my e-mail, what they're saying to me is that they don't give a shit about my inquiry.

Most IT-companies and e-commerce companies are quick at answering e-mails, but non tech-companies largely sucks at this. In the events were a company sucks at answering e-mail but readily answers any phone call, I honestly think they should abandon using e-mail altogether.

The annoyance lies in the fact that when some people don't answer the e-mail you either have to call them to notify them about an issue, or you have to go have a meeting with them, which again is a lot of wasted time and expenses mostly.

Even more annoying is the issue of non e-mail answers when there's dedicated staff designated to this very task. And a lot of companies have statements like: Every e-mail is answered within 24 hours during business days, and then you might not even get an answer like forever...

E-mails are great in the sense that they can be short, to the point, and asynchronous, and you also avoid the chit chat, some people are very determined to keep you on the phone with no regard for all the other things you need to do.

Yeah, and another annoyance is answers, typically from government agencies that's so late, that you'd even forgotten you contacted them in the first place. And when that answer basically says they cannot answer, and you have to ask another agency, which you already asked, and pointed to the agency you just got the response from, then life just makes perfect sense, the stars align, and you feel like you've found the true meaning of life.

/rant

Just thought I'd notify about this issue, in the event it is something others has experienced.

System: OpenVZ VPS
OS: Debian GNU/Linux 7.6 (wheezy)
RAM: 2GB
HDD: 150GB
Bitcoind: Bitcoin Core Daemon version v0.9.2.1-g354c0f3-beta

From ~/.bitcoin/debug.log:

receive version message: /Satoshi:0.8.6/: version 70001, blocks=324395, us=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8333, them=0.0.0.0:0,peer=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:59760
2 mins after this:
net thread interrupt
opencon thread interrupt
addcon thread interrupt
dumpaddr thread stop
msghand thread interrupt
Shutdown : In progress...
RPCAcceptHandler: Error: Operation canceled
RPCAcceptHandler: Error: Operation canceled
StopNode()
Shutdown : done

The entire VPS also went offline, not sure if this happened immediately, or a while after bitcoind shut down. I didn't seem to find any interesting info in the system log-files. This happend twice, over the span of two days. Prior to this, the bitcoind daemon had been running fine for a long time without much problems (since the upgrade to 0.9.2.1.). The VPS does not seem to be compromized, and nobody except me currently has access to any credentials accessing the server, apart from staff of the company doing the hosting of course. There's no bitcoins stored on the VPS, it's only acting as a helping node on the network.

There's been no notifications on e-mail from hosting company, and frankly I haven't bothered them with the issue yet, I thought I'd just upgrade to 0.9.3 and see if the issues will still persist, or if it will be solved.

Previously I had some memory issues, but after upgrading the memory, this has not been an issue. Any suggestions as to what may have caused this? If there's some exploit whereby an attacker can deny service, that's something that should be looked into. The core of the problem probably is something else entirely though. Just wanted to see if anybody had some insight to this.

Germany is the home country of the Euro, and afaik it's stable financially.

I think it is great germans are so heavily into Bitcoin (like country #2 after the US), but what are the main reasons you're involved?

For countries where the financial situation is very bad, like Argentina, I understand why bitcoins are popular, but why so popular in Germany?

It seems in general when people are making choices, they more often than not, chose what's the simplest method or product to help them do their business.

For instance, in Kopenhagen, bicycles are popular, not because the majority of the population are environmentalists or health addicts, but rather because it's the 'quickest' method to get from A to B.

Bitcoin is great, but currently it's not the easiest way to pay for anything in Germany, so why is it so immensely popular in Germany?

Please enlighten me!

Initially, what DuckDuckGo claims to do, sounds great. Ie. the search engine that does not track you.

To the best of my understanding, this is an american company though, and all american companies are subject to pressure from any 3-letter agency above them in rank, think the FBI, CIA, NSA etc...

It seems like that DuckDuckGo is completely unsafe. If they were serious about personal privacy, they wouldn't have based themselves in the US. If some govt. thugs come to their offices and basically say, install these black boxes in your server farms, or you'll be considered a threat to national security, do you really think they would not bend over backwards? Of course they would.

Perhaps this would be some food for thought?
http://www.alexanderhanff.com/duckduckgone

Is it even possible a search engine company can exist in the US without violating user privacy en masse? I don't think so. In fact, I would not at all be surprised if DuckDuckGo is a NSA funded company. And if they really really is serious about the privacy of the users, a big question mark is why at all they chose to incorporate in America.

Small companies might go under the radar, but once you become an interesting target, or big enough - which DuckDuckGo probably is at this point, there will be intereference, backroom deals and surveilance and breach of customers privacy. Regarding the link above, it seems like they already lied about their cookie policy, which is already a red sign.

From a deceptive intel agency, what would be better than launching a search engine that claims to respect your privacy, what a great idea to push to the masses, while actually being the completely opposite. While people become more sceptical of google, why not lure them into an alternative which they think is safe in regards to privacy, but really is not..

For anyone trying to launch anything at all that claims to protect customers privacy, they should not base themselves out of the US. Afaik, there's laws that basically could be used to hold you indefinitely, if you're considered a threat to national security, and I would think that the officials could dub you such a threat if you were uncoperative.

So for anyone being serious about personal privacy, do not incorporate in the US, or do not expect anyone to believe your claims when you're US based. The only way to actually uphold your promises about customer privacy if you're US based is if you're willing to spend the rest of your life locked down behind bars. This means giving up the great life you currently have. I don't think many people are willing to do this, then I think more CEO's just accepts the black boxes in their server rooms as a necessary evil.

Another option could of course be to just shut down the complete operations if you start being hassled. But if you do that, what was the point in starting the enterprise to begin with, and why not incorporate somewhere where such a scenario would be less likely?

Thoughts?

PS: While I do applaud the initiative of DuckDuckGo, you cannot believe in unicorns and think you'll never be targeted or harmed. If they're not compromzed yet and there's no intrusive surveilance going on, it's only a matter of time before it does happen.

Just got this message from my bitcoin node:

Warning: Large-work fork detected, forking after block 000000009cf297bc2a9610af823b49fc1d98e001239e99204c3c410e1ad3fe54

Looking at this forum and reddit, I see no further information about it.

Is there anywhere I can get more detailed information about this event?

According to the e-mail I received it happened ca. 22 mins before this post.

I do think that customer reviews are important when deciding whether to buy a service or a product.

I don't think any service or product provider should be afraid of negative reviews. The reason I think they should not be afraid of negative reviews is because if they provide a great service or product, there will be enough customers that will make good reviews, that they will offset the negative ones.

Often you will also see that negative reviews are misguided, where the user simply didn't understand the product or some rules of the service, and complains because it didn't work out in regards to his personal unreasonable expectations

In the cases were a provider of services or products actively try to crack down on negative reviews, I would personally shun that business, as I do think that their ethics is fucked up.

However, I see what I will call corruption a lot of places. For instance, once I went to a hotel, and it was a large poster in every room saying: "If you review our hotel, go to the reception, show the review and receive a fruit basket!"

This is wrong on many levels, and compromises the integrity of the review. There should really be no incentive to make a review, and there should be no reward for making one. I wonder if the front desk would give out a fruit basket if I delivered a scathing negative review of their hotel?

I see also some online services give you discount codes if you review their service with one of the popular review sites. This is an incentive for the user to deliver a good review. What will happen if a bad review is delivered, will there be a revenge from the company if they can identify the customer? Revenge can be subtle, as in providing poor customer service, longer delays for answering etc. That's of course unprofessional, but when done subtle, it can be very hard to prove.

Also, there's a question in regards to integrity of the review sites itself. Recently I received a nigeria-type mail, sent to an e-mail I only had used to register with a certain review site. So either their e-mail database got stolen, or there's a dishonest employee that sells the e-mail list.

I wonder also how easy it is to bribe such review-sites. Here's 10K USD, now please remove the negative reviews about our service! That would make the review site very dishonest, but I'm sure it would be tempting for many running such a site.

So, as a customer we need to trust that the review site is honest and not corrupt, and we need also be aware to not play along with the incentives that the providers are giving to make us post a review.

What are the ways review sites can become most honest and accurate with good integrity? I am sure there's a lot of shenanigan taking place, for instance once I left a rather negative review about a hotel, and shortly thereafter a torrent of positive reviews came in for the same hotel, and what ticked me off was the amount of details in those reviews which normal tourists don't care about, but the kind of info you often read in tourist brochures, like a complete list of all facilitites nearby, the distances to those etc, without adding any personal experiences, those reviews only smell fraud.

I think any provider of services or products should be punished when caught in the act of trying to fix reviews.

What kind of consequences should there be? A complete delisting? A notice about what they have done on top of every review for 6 months?

The problem is that if a business is found to attempt to rig their ratings, then there might also be other issues with the company (what other shortcuts are they making?). At the same time I do understand the need for a company to build a 'reputation', and it can be tempting to kick-start this manually by posting fake reviews.

Companies who without a trace of doubt agressively goes after negative reviews however, should clearly be listed as such on review sites.

The problem then is perhaps that those companies would go after the review sites, and for the review sites to protect themselves, perhaps they should be operated anonymously only accepting cryptocurrency? And perhaps it should also go decentralized, as one can imagine that an agressive business not getting their way could rattle some feathers to have law enforcement take down the review sites physical servers.

Personally I do think that if you plan on being in business for a long time, you should try to be as ethical as possible, and not only seek to maximize profit, on the road to only maximize profit, there are often a lot of things that gets neglected, things that eventually might ruin your business completely.

What was the last encounter you had with a real goat?

Afaik, it was when I was a very young man and we drove over a mountain, we stopped at a mountain farm and got a close up experience with some live goats. I remember I like it.

What about you, did you ever meet a real goat?

hahah, i know what you all think, but honestly it was like this:

[only]

Software: Non-altered 64-bit linux binary 0.9.2.1 bitcoind verified sha256sum and checked that the sha256sum file had a legit pgp signature.

Content of bitcoin.conf:

Code:

server=1
rpcuser=user
rpcpassword=pass
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
logtimestamps=1
alertnotify=echo %s | mail -s "Bitcoin Alert" alert@domain.com
maxconnections=5

Bitcoind is started with:

Code:

bitcoind -daemon

With the above configuration, a portmap scan from another machine revealed:

Code:

nmap -v4 -Pn -p 8332 ipofbitcoinnode
8332/tcp open  unknown

I then altered the config file, shut down and restarted the bitcoin node:

Code:

rpcuser=user
rpcpassword=pass
logtimestamps=1
alertnotify=echo %s | mail -s "Bitcoin Alert" alert@domain.com
maxconnections=5

Code:

$ nmap -v4 -Pn -p 8332-8333 ipofbitcoinnode
PORT     STATE  SERVICE
8332/tcp closed unknown
8333/tcp open   unknown

The question is: In the first configuration, should not rpc-port 8332 only be accessible to localhost (127.0.0.1) and all others be blocked by default? I can't see a rpcdisallowip or similar configuration flag exist. And it seems that setting server=1 overrides rpcallowip=127.0.0.1?

I think that for security reasons, when server=1 is set in bitcoin.conf or given on the command line as -server when starting bitcoind, who can connect to the node should be explicitly needed to configured. For example by introducing a new parameter like rpcdisallowip.

When server=1 i propose that the following should hold true:

rpcdisallowip by default is set to ALL as in 'Deny All'
rpcallowip by default is set to 127.0.01, localhost. (perhaps also bitcoind upon start should print a warning if server=1 explaining that rpc server is active, and that it only accepts connections from localhost, and you need to use the rpcdisallowip and rpcallowip config settings to alter the default behaviour.

The reason I think this is important, is that someone not too experienced might set server=1 and rpcallowip=127.0.0.1 in their bitcoin.conf, and think they're all good to go, while in reality they've opened up themselves to the entire internet.

I think that rpcallowip should override rpcdisallowip.

Example:

Code:

rpcdisallowip=ALL
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1,222.222.222.222

It should mean that only 127.0.0.1 and 222.222.222.222 can connect to rpc port 8332.

 (but perhaps it would be smarter to do it the other way around, so that you always was sure that if you disallowed some ip, that would always be the authoritative setting? Not sure what the best practice here is. But I guess other software like apache, sshd etc. already has this pretty much figured out.

The problem is though if rpcdisallowip is authorative and sett to ALL, then no matter what you did with rpcallowip would have any effect, so the best thing I would think would be to see how other established open source projects has solved rule based access.

However, I might be completely off with my thinking, and this being a complete non-issue, so I'm interested in seeing what others think of this. But currently, how do you prevent everybody from accessing port 8332 when setting server=1 and there being no BLOCK ALL default rule? I can see using iptables or other software to set rules, but I do think it should be possible to set this in bitcoind.

To my understanding, the first 8 connections are outbound, and then further connections are inbound by default, is this correct?

If for whatever reason a user selects to use maxconnections in bitcoin.conf, and set it to a smaller number than 8, does that mean that node only makes outbound connections and does not accept any incoming ones?

Would it be possible to set let's say maxconnections=6 in bitcoin.conf and then have 3 reserved for outgoing and 3 reserved for incoming or even only do outbound connections until node has catched up with the blockchain, and then reserve some of the connections for incoming requests to help the network?

If you wonder why anyone would want so few connections, an example would be when a bitcoind instance is run on a machine with little ram, but sufficient disk space.

Could this be achieved without altering the source code and recompiling the source code? And if the source code needs to be reconfigured, has anyone already done this and has a patch ready?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgoyVRO0A0E

This video has about 26 million views.

I never saw a video talking about something really important have that many views. Imagine if the same 26 million viewers actually spent their time learning about politics and finance and decided to act together with other people.

It's so sad that most people don't even care to create a better society.

Do you people think it will ever change? Will people ever wake up, or is the status quo what will continue to the end of days?

one of my addresses received so much spam I had to abandon it. I think it was in a leak somewhere, and now spammers are all over it with attachments.

Most popular now seems to be to send me notices to appear in court, and previously it was about shipments and failed payments, and ofcourse the off offers of buying viagra. I wonder how successful those spammers are. They have to be successful, or otherwise they would never be doing what they're doing.

It's interesting how different people are.

Some people you hit it on with instantly, others you can't ever seem to be aligned with.
Some people you feel you can trust, while others needs to be held at a distance.

Some people have ambitions in life and think long term, while (it seems most) are only concerned with the present and his current needs.

Some people are filled with insecurities and try to cover it through certain ways of showing off through materialistic means, while others have rock solid confidence and don't feel the need to show off anything.

Some people are loners and prefer to be alone, and to work in the shadows, while others are super-social and cannot manage a single day without the company of friends and family.

Some people are altruistic and helpful to the point where they do not really take care of themselves, while others are extremely egoistical and will only care for their own needs.

Most people judge you by appearance, by your clothing, by how you carry yourself and how you speak, while others are more relaxed to those things and take a more long term look at it.

What about you, are you concerned about giving a good appearance and be 'liked'? Is the effort worth it? Or are you more like the loner that doesn't give a shit if anybody likes you or not?

Most people are afraid to get into arguments and trouble, are you?

OK, a serious question here.

I'm considering signing up for a remote data storage server to hold a few gigs worth of personal data.

This is the features I'm looking for:

- Being able to pay in bitcoin.
- A reliable serious service
- Reasonable bandwidth, not looking for unlimited.
- 2fa if possible
- a few gigs of available space, but less would be sufficient as well.
- encrypted storage should be allowed, I'm thinking of encrypting with pgp 4096 bitkey (according to schneier, that should do it)
- secure transfer method, preferably no proprietary client software.
- preferably not us-based.

It should not be necessary to explain what I will use it for, but I'll throw it out there anyway: In the event of fire or a breakin, it would be nice to preserve personal data, as it's worth more to me than my hw.

PS: I'm not looking for anyone googling for me, I'd rather hear any personal opinions/experiences.

Thanks for all serious input.

Just want to toss this out, perhaps some of you have the resources to make it happen (I'm tied with other projects..):

There's an effort put up to clarify the legal status of Bitcoin around the world:
http://bitlegal.net/

Nice looking site, and I love the concept and the idea, however, I'm not sure how up to date the content is. To the best of my understanding, there's 3 people (see about section) behind the site, and I would guess they've got limited resources.

Now, my idea is that there should be a site for bitcoin purchase, much like tripadvisor is for travels (hotels, restaurants..).

The site could cover many fields like bitcoins businesses (see http://www.thebitcoinreview.com/ for an example), where to buy bitcoins, which banks are bitcoin friendly etc. While thebitcoinreview.com is a good initiative, I think the site itself has potential for becoming more user friendly.

Check out http://www.tripadvisor.com/ for an idea about what I mean. I know that however tripadvisor have much more resources to spend on making their site great and thebitcoinreview.com probably is a one-man project in his spare time.

But since I've seen so many newbees that complain about it being difficult to get bitcoin, perhaps a site where countries are listed, like bitlegal.net, where you can just click on the name of a country and immediately get a list of options for purchasing bitcoins/and see a list of merchants (online/meatspace) would be a good idea?

Example: A german user clicks on Germany and sees bitcoin.de ranking on the top of the list, he then proceeds to read the user reviews, and being satisfied with what he reads, he choses to proceed with a 50 EUR purchase at that site.

The idea here is that as a community, instead of always repeating ourselves in threads were users asks how to get bitcoins, just point them to that site which will be the most exhaustive resource for getting bitcoins. And also perhaps give users an incentive to give feedback, so the community can benefit from it.

PS: If anyone find links in this post offending, please remove them, they're just examples. And I haven't thought much of a revenue model for such a site, but the baseline must be that it must be someone genuinely interested in said subject that is the driving force behind such a project.

According to coinmarketcap, Namecoin has a market capitalization of $ 23,641,881    (I guess it's just last price multiplied with available coins... anyway...)

It's ranked as coin number 8 at coinmarketcap, which means its relatively actively traded.

From what I can see here, there's some activity in terms of development:

https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/branches

I see updates from March and May, so there seems to be work done on Namecoin.

However, I hear very little about it.

I see there's some activity here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/namecoin
http://forum.namecoin.info/
https://twitter.com/search?q=namecoin (not a good signal to noise ratio)

But mostly, it's quite silent about namecoin in comparison to many other coins.

So forgive me my ignorance, as I love the concept, but what's the general sentiment around here?

Is Namecoin actively developed and growing its userbase, or is it a dead end project?

What's the status of namecoin registered domains, and what about content and usage of those domains ? Is it increasing, decreasing or flatlining?

There's been a slow decline in the Namecoin price all year (http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/nmc/usd/btc-e/alltime), but it has flatlined for a while, and has recently slowly increased again. Is this increase due to mere speculation, or is there more substance associated with it?

What's the consensus of namecoins future? Is it dying, or is it thriving? I remember it was one of the first altcoins that brought interesting features onto the table.

When using Bitpay, I see that their site requests to run script from google.com and ajax.googleapis.com. I'm using NOScript wich notifies me about this.

Why does Bitpay not simply rely on providing data from their own servers? I find it hard to believe that Google/NSA is not profiling all crypto usage online, why give them a helping hand like this?

To my understanding, this can be blocked on a user level, using something like NOScript and probably other similar software, however - when giving up your data like this, then Google can track you over a whole hostload of services, and they can know your usage patterns and this will most likely be provided to entities you're not interested in having it.

Are there others that are concerned about these things? Should we write Bitpay about it? Of course, Bitpay could just remove those external scripts, and still cooperate with NSA et al. behind the scenes and claim they're not, but I do not understand why a business uses third party services to provide various functionality that they could've served themselves, eps. not so when they're essentially giving the usage pattern for their users away for free.

And for those who think it's not a big deal; the Snowden revelations have clearly showed that privacy online are attacked from all ends at the same time.

If you're a webmaster, these things are worth thinking of - why give up user data to third party services, and can you trust that the third party service will never serve you malicious content and thus hurting your users?

What do you all think about this ? Should we just use stuff like NoScript on an individual basis, or should we contact these services and state our concerns ?

My definition of idiots are quite broad. 

But in generally it covers people who are difficult for no apparent reason, unfriendly, and difficult to handle.

Here are my favourite way of dealing with idiots.

- If I don't have to answer to them or deal with them on a daily basis and I'm not dependent on them: Ignore the hell out of them. Don't even talk to them.
- If I work with them and its completely unbearable, either push that person away so he needs to find himself a new job, can be a lenghty process and might not work, or just quit myself.
- Just endure the presence of the idiot until I no longer have to deal with that person, be it a flight, a meeting or a project job.

- If forced to deal with an idiot, and I've either somehow managed to become 'enemies' with that person previously, or my efforts to actually have things done and to demand actions are perceived as hostile, and the other person is just being a no-go, then I try to be polite and factual in all communications, and if it just doesn't help, I put in a wrench to gain leverage, be it contacting a supervisor, an overseeing authority or anyone else that has some power over this person, also peer pressure, letting others know what this person is doing might help. That could backfire as well as it could be considered me being a rat. But if the communication consistently is bad and in bad faith, I document everything, so I can prove what's going on if I have to complain to someone. But if I can and the issue at hand is not worth fighting for, I dismiss the entire situation, and rather spend my time productively on something else. Sometimes fighting for something is not worth it, as the payout cannot justify the effort.

Usually I just like logic and saying things straightforward, but add a dash of social IQ to it, but many people have a big problem dealing with honest criticism and things that are in general not good, and if you attack such people in any way, they're usually quick to go into defense mode, and then the case is most often completely dead.

I've also noticed that being angry or attacking is seldom solving a case at all, even though many people, esp. those employed somewhere, are supposed to be professional and handle criticism in a professional manner. Nothing is more annoying than knowing you're right, and then speaking to some drone that claims something else, or just makes up things of thin air.

But in general I think it's wise not to take things personal, as it will wreck your mood pretty much, but it can be difficult at times, esp. when there are things you're trying to solve, and you're dependent on other people to have it solved, and they're just not helping to make it happen. And some of those people, if you complain about their conduct, they just start stonewalling you and nothing happens, even if its against the service statement where they're employed. The end result is that you waste a lot of time and energy trying to solve a simple issue, but it becomes overly complicated because of people - I guess you call that bureaucracy.

A good way to handle idiots on call centers is btw to just hang up and call again, repeat until you have someone on the line that actually acts like a human. Those acting in bad faith, will only unwillingly help, and in the process they will cause a lot of mayhem.

One thing that works with officials however is the law. If you can point to a certain piece of law, they're bound by that - and need to act, or else they're violating their job description, and will rightfully be reprimanded by a superior, but they will very seldom be sacked, so after a little while its business as usual again..

So... what's your favourite way of dealing with idiots?

Now... I'm just wondering.. The users come from all over the world on this forum...

But what's it like to get in touch with your local authorities (police/local govt) to have issues of concern solved, and how are you treated, and how fruitful is the communication and is the issue resolved in a timely manner having the police or local govt. (municipality/town) respond to your concerns in a way that you find ok?

You don't have to mention even country, town or municipality, but if you want to give some general insight it would be interesting.

Where I live the police are in general helpful, with some exceptions and in many aspects they don't really have a guided plan for those parts of their work that's not random (like breakins and violence). I would rate them 5/10, mostly because of their very slow reponse time to written requests.

As for the local town... I'm not impressed and will rate them a 3/10. In general it seems many employees are completely incompetent or doesn't care about the work they do. You have to bug them for months, possibly years before simple issues are resolved, and communication is often one-sided with them not communicating in good faith.

All in all - it seems like the message is: Don't put your nose in our stuff, let us hum along as we see fit!

There are of course exceptions to this rule - but in general things are not great.

Perhaps the best solution is to move out in the woods and be self sufficient with most things, so you simply don't have to care so much about those supposedly put in place to 'help the people'.

PS: I realize these things are first world problems, but still, if you want to make yourself a shake in the kitchen, you find the ingredients and do it immediately. If it was a municipality worker who was going to do that, it would be delivered 3 months later, and it would be the wrong flavour and only half ful, you get my drift.

First of all, I never had more cash/btc in MtGox than I could afford to lose.. So don't make that an issue please. However. it would always be nice to get it or a part of it back.

If anyone visits mtgox.com now, they will notice that there's a note of bankruptcy claim.

It says that claims can be filed until Nov 28 2014.

Now - there's only one address in there for some Nobuaki lawyer guy.

Now - I have already verified with MtGox, and MtGox knows my balance.

Why on earth should I verify again (Ie. sending copies of identity papers to some unknown lawyers in Tokyo, for all I know it can be an extension of this scam). Of course I can do some research on this, but it's hardly worth my time and effort to spend too much time on it.

In this day and age, why on earth could they not even list an e-mail address? Do we really have to send physical envelopes to Tokyo with out claims ?

And no word about how much is expected to be paid back. It's said there will be a meeting July this year to establish how much funds they have left, and then investigation of claims will not start until Feb 2015. God grief.

Is the law system always this slow?

Can't somone be authorized to fix the whole mess up? Someone the community trusts, then whatever is left can be paid back to the customers, and then the whole site just goes offline and buried permanently?

And whatever happened to the bitcoins and the cash? Afaik millions of dollars were unnaccounted for in cash as well as the missing bitcoins, and it should be easy enough to follow the trails of the dollars, and the bitcoins should be possible to find out about where went as well, both with technical help and investigation by police, questioning the Mtgox bunch, Mark and Gay primarily. Are both of these men still free men, not jailed? I cannot understand that.


So... What amount of papers are needed to file a claim? I did take screenshots of my account - but anyone can fake a screenshot. Will the amounts be checked against MtGox balances, if not, anyone can send in any sort of claim, claiming to holding a large balance with MtGox.

And to my understanding, there was a huge number of account holders at MtGox, and handling every case manually for one or two persons will probably take forever, esp. if there's supposed to be claims and paperwork for every customer as well.

Some automated solution, where a reclaim system is built and all legitimate account holders can log in and create a withdrawal address which will eventually receive a percentage of what can be paid out seems to be the only reasonable way to handle it. I prefer it not being made by Mark (no kidding. )

If everybody is to send an envelope with papers to that lawyer, it's going to become a fucking mountain.

Anyone know anything more?

- What should a claim contain?
- Where should it be sent?
- Any way of contacting the lawyers digitally?

In this time and age, I can't believe such inefficiency exists. It's already established that atleast 200K BTC is recovered, and if the rest cannot be found, it should be quite possible to find out what happened to it.

Why is this not happening, and for christ sake, is the lawyer appointed even knowledgeable enough to handle this particular experts, is he going to hire expensive IT consultants to to the 'claim'-work? How much will eventually be left after all administrative costs have been paid?

What a mess!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHqXEodJVY8


It's interesting how you can kill with one hand, and then support with the other hand.