|
People: they've spent over $100,000 over the last couple of years to do nothing -- almost 100% of the cash assets. Don't send these vampires any more of your hard earned money.
Should they manage to get their hands on the BTC that is ours, what on Earth makes anyone think that they won't burn through a similar percentage of that "returning" it to us?
I've lost a ridiculous value of BTC, as I'm sure have many others. But I truly believe that it's gone, and no amount of pouring money into the liquidators hands is going to get it back. Jeez, just look at what they're asking for... $10,000 to attend a meeting in (presumably) Japan from New Zealand. Are they chartering a jet or something? No -- they are going to fly five of them 1st class on our dime, put themselves up in $500 a night hotels, and then bill us $500 a day for a few weeks of "research" -- how else would you come up with a $10,000 estimate?
|
|
|
|
|
Write it off and move on guys. Bankruptcy within a bankruptcy is just a money pit. These thieving liquidators have already burned through all the cash that could have been returned to the cash creditors. Don't give them any more funds to burn not getting any BTC back.
Even if they managed to get hold of any btc from mtgox, does anyone think they'll refrain from burning through a big chunk of that too?
|
|
|
|
If bitcoin was worth zero would you be happy to get zero back for your bitcoins?
Happy... no. But at least I would be getting back what I put in. 50 BTC in ... 50 BTC out. $50 in... $50 out. The claim form suggests that they are aware of the difference, since it asks for "5a. Total Amount of Cash Owed USD (if any)" and "5b. Total Number of Bitcoins Owed (if any)". Clearly then the liquidator understands that the debts are in two denominations. |
|
|
|
|
37k for "liquidators fees"?
We are all going to get reamed.
|
|
|
|
We have not yet determined the method for the distribution to creditors/investors, as we do not yet know the composition of the frozen accounts (ie the number of bitcoins held and balance of USD funds). However, it is likely that any distribution will be made in USD.
Personally I'd rather the BTC; but I really hope that the above doesn't mean they're considering paying us in USD at the time of the freeze. (The above makes it sound like they don't really understand bitcoin). |
|
|
|
The liquidator estimated that the combined value of BTC and USD in the Bitcoinica MtGox account/s was $500,000 based on the information with which he'd been provided and he was waiting for MtGox to confirm that - but that estimate was based on BTC being worth USD 11.
There was $85,181 in Bitcoinica's bank accounts and there should be no impediment to the liquidator obtaining control over those funds.
According to the first report, the value of Bitcoin claims was roughly five times that of USD claims. At today's rates, the 65,057 BTC claimed are now worth almost $2 million, compared to the $765,000 they were worth in November.
One potentially problematic issue is that although 40,000 BTC were stolen in the MtGox intrusion, only 20,000 BTC were returned. Although more USD was returned than was stolen ($60,000 more), movements in Bitcoin price since then mean those missing Bitcoins now have a value of ~USD 600,000.
Obviously, it matters a lot whether the majority of remaining Bitcoinica funds held on MtGox are held as BTC or USD - and that information is currently unavailable.
As pointed out by MPOE-PR, MtGox could actually refuse to acknowledge the authority of the NZ liquidator and choose instead to acknowledge the authority of the California court if the Cartmell plaintiffs prevail and seek domestication in Japan of the California court's order (which you can almost guarantee will happen if MtGox still holds Bitcoinica's funds when the California action is decided).
Thank you for the extremely clear explanation. You are a scholar and a gentleman. GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Let me back-of-the-envelope out loud then using your figures. Current holdings are: Claimed - stolen + returned BTC = 65027 BTC - 40000BTC + 20000 BTC = 45027 BTC
Claimed - stolen + returned USD = 765000/5 USD + (returned-stolen) = 153000 + 60000 = 213000 USD
Total holdings in USD today = (BTC@28.5) 1,283,269.5 + 213000 = 1,496,269.5
Total claims in USD today = (BTC@28.5) 1,853,269.5 + 153000 = 2,006,269.5
Deficit = 2,006,269.5 - 1,496,269.5 = 510,000 USD
Estimated return if funds were cleared today = 74.5796%
Double GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I don't suppose there is any way to persuade the liquidators to use the 60,000 USD that they do control to buy BTC to prevent any further losses from exchange rate changes? |
|
|
|
|
I'm not happy that my money is not under my control; but provided it is now safe, and provided there is reasonable expectation that the legal stuff will eventually be sorted out and I'll get my coins back, then I can live with a delay.
What I would like to hear from liquidators/mt.gox is that that expectation is reasonable. Have Mt.Gox got our money? How much of our money have they got and how much has been lost? It's still not clear to me what percentage of my coins are being held by a trustworthy participant. (Yeah, yeah, I know -- "0" is the answer).
|
|
|
|
|
I've lost track a bit of exactly what's been lost and recovered. From memory (please correct me):
Linode theft; X BTC (losses covered by investors I believe)
Rackspace theft: 20% of BTC; 0% of USD
MtGox API theft: 40,000 BTC; 200,000 USD
Is this right? Does anyone know where that puts all the creditors as a percentage of their deposit?
Are we working on 50% of balances returned? 70%? 80%? 100% seems unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigh.
All that delay to make sure that no fake claims got through, and in the meantime we lose another 30%.
Can I just have my remaining 70% back? We'll call it quits? I really don't want my money in Bitcoinica's hands any longer, I don't trust you to look after it in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
There will be no doubling of price in December; that event is already priced in.
That only factors in speculators. Real users of BTC will only care about dumping all their fiat into BTC and sending it to someone who may then convert it back to fiat. If such real use is a major part of BTC now due things like SR, then a doubling might not be priced in at all before the halving. If I had spare cash I would still buy in now, but I wouldn't be too surprised to loose on the short term with value going down to 5.5 or so during the summer. You're right that it's speculators who are setting the price. But wrong that the second group has any effect on price. Buy X -> Transmit -> Sell X
Would not change the price at all, since for every bit of demand created by "buy X" an identical and opposite supply for "sell X" is created. The thing that drives the price is holdings, call them speculators if you want, but as time goes by and the price of bitcoin becomes less and less volatile, people who are not speculators effectively become speculators -- because the risk is lower -- and increase demand. This process certainly won't be triggered by the halving of the block reward. None of which changes the fact that the block rate halving is unlikely to affect the price in any observable way. The only people it will affect are the miners. Half of whom might switch their rigs off. |
|
|
|
Of course I don't know, But it stands to reason that if supply remains constant and the block reward is halved the price should approximately double.
If people knew that in one week it was guaranteed that the price would double, it stands to reason that they would buy now. Of course that would bring the price up until it was doubled, and people would stop buying. But then we would all know that that was what would happen, so a week before that we'd buy. Oh... except then the doubling would happen two weeks before the guaranteed double date. So a week before that... etc, etc. If an event is known to happen in the future, then the market will ensure that the effect on its price then is included in the price now. There will be no doubling of price in December; that event is already priced in. |
|
|
|
|
It is possible that pirate from BS&T is Dread Pirate Roberts from Silk Road. This would explain why he's got to keep so quiet about what he's doing with the invested coins.
That would mean it's not a Ponzi; it's simply profiting from the Silk Road mixer service. Assume that that this is the case. It would mean that BS&T is not a scam. It doesn't mean it's risk free though.
Now, the feds will be looking to shut down Silk Road, and it's certainly not beyond their ken to make this same potential link as we have. pirateat is leaving IP fingerprints around the place for BS&T... enough for a fed to physically find him (they're good at finding people from IP addresses).
That will then let them shut down Silk Road, but more importantly, will leave all the BS&T investors with no access to their investment.
The other possibility is that it's a Ponzi.
Not sure either of those have a good risk profile.
|
|
|
|
|
"I could care less"
Oh you could could you? So your current level of "caring" is higher than than some absolute minimum? Just like every other level of "caring" right up to "I care quite a lot".
Personally, "I couldn't care less" meaning that it is not possible for me to care any less than I do, my caring quotient is lower than low, it is the least it possibly could be.
(How I wish I cared less about people saying "could care less".)
|
|
|
|
I just put in about ~$1,500 in bitcoin, with a few more grand to come behind it.
Yeah, I'm not kidding.
Line up those asks, I need to empty the order book.
I'm not sure what it is you want us to conclude about you from this. You do know that, as small as bitcoin's market is, $1,500 is not an enormous volume? Why would we think you were "kidding" about such an amount? To "empty" the order book to its 2012 high, $7.12 would cost you about $350,000. |
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. Can someone more familiar with market trading explain current observed behaviour to me?
When Bitcoinica was in full swing, I understood the ask walls. You go 1000 BTC short at 10:1; then you put a 10000 BTC ask wall up on Mt.Gox. You rely on that wall to drive the price down, then collect your Bitcoinica short profit.
There is now no Bitcoinica. What does the owner of the 10000 BTC ask wall want to achieve? If you own a lot of bitcoins, don't you want the price to go up?
I'm not complaining about the walls, the people posting them are as free to trade as anyone else is; I'm simply confused as to what they are trying to achieve. Perhaps I am simply not thinking evil enough... could someone who is more evil than I out there tell me what I'm missing?
|
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin is almost big enough that SM can soon come out in the open and not fear reprisal. Any publicity gained from attacking [him] as they did Assange would gain more publicity for Bitcoin and would help legitimize it. There is nothing illegal about Bitcoin and any fear shown toward SM would show the strength of Bitcoin. It probably won't be long before we know the face behind Bitcoin.
To what advantage for him/her? If Satoshi wasn't interested enough in adulation to reveal his identity years ago; I don't see why he/she would be now. If anything, the big stack of bitcoins Satoshi holds will be more useful to him if his identity remains secret. That only becomes more true the bigger bitcoin gets. My guess is that his identity will never be known; or if it is, it won't be for a long time, possibly after his/our deaths. |
|
|
|
So, are bitcoin businesses really that important to giving value to bitcoin? If not, then what does give it value? Like I said, I hope someone can clear this up for me. Thanks.
Start with an exchange. Someone posts a bid offer; they will pay $6 each for 1000 BTC. That offer sits, and props the price up over a volume of 1000 BTC. The price cannot fall lower than $6 without the volume being at least 1000 BTC. Imagine now that all the exchanges group together making one giant virtual order book of bid offers (arbitrage is what makes this virtual order book in reality). The total volume might be 100,000 BTC to get to $6. What if we add in the other currencies, but we pretend they are in dollars? Even more volume to $6. All that volume represents part of the bitcoin economy. Now imagine a car salesman is willing to sell you a second hand Suzuki for 1000 BTC. You can think of that as being a bid offer of one thousandth of a Suzuki over a volume of 1000 BTC. That Suzuki can go on our virtual order book too. As can all the baklava, alpaca socks, lap dances, etc on offer at any one moment. They all represent someone saying "I believe a bitcoin is worth X". The more people that say that, the more reliable that statement becomes and the more robust the price and bitcoin economy are. ("robust" here meaning "robust against someone who does not think that") |
|
|
|
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: reimbuse.bitcoinica@gmail.comTechnical details of permanent failure: The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: reimburse.bitcoinica@gmail.comTechnical details of permanent failure: The email account that you tried to reach does not exist. Am I just being dim? |
|
|
|
Abandon this. The OP said: The absolutely biggest problem I have with the old logos is I can never find a high resolution image.
psy has done what was needed: For the persons complainting about the current logo not existing in high resolution, here it is in SVG.  The problem was low resolution. That problem was solved. Unless there is another problem ("pancakes" just seems like an issue of personal taste, which is no reason to redesign) reinvention for reinvention's sake is not a good use of time or money.. |
|
|
|
and a software keylogger requires direct access to the keyboard driver, which requires administrator privileges on any sane operating system
No it doesn't. To access the actual keyboard, maybe. But you only want the key events for a key logger; and that certainly doesn't need admin access. If it did then how would what you were typing ever make it to the application? Key events can only be received by whichever application has keyboard focus. They cannot be accessed by other programs without admin privileges. I'm sorry, but that just is not true. In Linux, for example, the window manager, a separate app, can pick up key presses like "Alt-F4" before the app to close the window -- any it doesn't want it simply forwards. At the extreme end on UNIX you could just catch every byte sent to the X window control socket (which is owned by the user, not root). But you could also make one giant transparent window that receives everything and simply passes it through to whatever app underneath the keylogger wants. Have you ever seen virtual keyboard apps? Or accessibility helpers? Both of those get at the keyboard without any difficulty.
Sending key events and receiving those sent to other programs are two different things. The latter is not normally possible under any sane operating system. If you're asking about the possibility that such programs might log their own input, then yes, this is possible, but entering passwords directly into another application is kinda dumb. That's why I mentioned two classes of program. Virtual keyboard apps can send; and accessibility helpers can capture keys (slow modifiers is a common one). Combine those facilities in one application. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
