|
~6 hours remain. 0 Entries.
|
|
|
|
Id love to know who is crazy enough to deal with 10-20% commission on exchanges? what the hell ?
That's a rhetorical question right? |
|
|
|
Who is the CEO and/or Director, and/or Officer in charge of the day to day operations of the company? You surely must have a name for us? This is required by any government on earth as far as I know. It is, but it isn't required to be public knowledge. If they promised him/her/them to not reveal it then they should stand by their word if not contractual obligations. btw: I do believe it is in the businesses best interest, but that information shouldn't be forced by us. It should be made known for the business' best interest. OR Said another way: Where do their best efforts lay? With the business or themselves. I am not for forcing them to do it tho... they should do it because it is the right thing to do. If they don't, then they should bear the consequences of it. Not for any moral or ethical reasons but just for purely business reasons. This is the nature of business today. Everyone wants the money but nobody wants the accountability. I would much rather have a person who says: Guys, I fucked up. Here is how. I will try to make it right. Rather than a guy that says: I dunno, it wasn't me, I was sleeping. Isn't that what leaders do, even if it is not their fault? Of course, heads roll but that is the nature of the beast. |
|
|
|
The only person more unjustly labeled a scammer than Bulanula would be Coinhunter/Realsolid.
How is that doxing going sir ? Mr. Edward Smith Atlantic Ocean Floor Sol III, 31337 |
|
|
|
So you guys chose to take over a bucket shop which is constantly at the risk of getting into massive BTC denominated debt (while BTC rallies way up), blinded by greed upon the profits the few shares the mystery investor gave you would promise and now had your reputation tarnished. You made the mistake of operating for free just to commit another one to correct it.  While it is true that the identity of the investor did not have to be shared, I believe the fact that ownership changed in November SHOULD have been announced. Unless there was an announcement I am aware of, zhoutong deceived us for half a year into believing he solely owned the company. +10000 Fine, I don't care who the investor is. Who is the CEO and/or Director, and/or Officer in charge of the day to day operations of the company? You surely must have a name for us? This is required by any government on earth as far as I know.And by the way, Bitcoin LP (the NZ structure) is a PARTNERSHIP and not a corporation, and as per NZ rules, the name of the general partner must be public and known. You don't want to reveal who owns the shop? That's fine. But please provide a name for a responsible officer of the company as required by law. I guess I understand your need to know who you are working with in this industry. Lack of information is information in of itself. There are plenty of legal ways of hiding ownership. Although they do take some money to do so. There are shell corporations, basically companies that own companies, all leading back to a registered agent somewhere who happens to be a trust or organization's attorney (law firm), and it would take a very long legal fight to get the information you seek. Or you are a government and just go get the information. But apart from that need for anonymous non-anonymity which plagues the community, do you actually need to know? I mean, can't you judge based off of their actions, past and present, to determine whether you want to be associated with them. Although, I strongly agree, the change in ownership should have been broadcast to everyone. That is like giving someone else your private gpg key in the -otc. (Which I am sure had been done). Aurumxchange, btw: you might want to remove bitcoinica from your sig. |
|
|
|
|
Well that is possible.
But what I think is that people really good at one thing think they are really good at other things. There is a reason there are 'pinch hitters' in baseball.
Plus Zhou didn't have the best PR consul here because it does look bad.
However, reading between the lines, I see it as him being shown the door with some respect for his accomplishments.
OR put another way: YOU'RE FIRED, but we'll let you resign.
Just a guess.
|
|
|
|
I think that Bitcoinica should join this NZ financial service providers arbitration/dispute resolution service http://www.fdr.org.nz/& Zhou I'm waiting to hear back from you on your main Bitcoinica thread where you offered to refund me for the considerable swaps fees when they were first introduced ages ago - thanks I had our legal department make some queries, and it appears they already did: http://www.business.govt.nz/fsp/app/ui/fsp/version/searchSummaryCompanyFSP/FSP207625/4.do?noReturn=trueWhat is interesting though is that their FSP license ONLY allows them to deal with other businesses and NOT retail customers (i.e. individuals) as they are doing now. Again, as official funding partners, we would very much to know who owns and operates Bitcoinica (as in, for whom are we moving thousands of dollars per week). I do not understand why the secrecy, nor why partners weren't communicated about this "Sell". If we do not receive further information soon, we will be forced to have our legal department subpoena the NZ registry to obtain such information. Thank you Roberto AurumXchange One begs to ask: You didn't do this 'before' you started to move large sums of money? However, thanks for the information. |
|
|
|
|
I miss the lunch box style, but meh...
Perchance can you screen shot the startpage for the piratebox?
|
|
|
|
All I know is, I prefer my systems to be owned by people that can fix them, not people that have to hire others to fix them. Not only that, but I forsee that there will be more of the same since Intersango et al are suddenly more valuable due to the acquisition of control of Bitcoinica.
Not many businesses work that way. |
|
|
|
|
To be honest tho...
Other than you or maybe a couple others that are aware of the game will enter. Or possibly, no one.
I am not actively marketing it. I tried to design it to be fair and avoid arguments as to who one and how the winner was chosen.
My ultimate purpose for the game is not BTC, but BTC community could benefit from it.
But people like Bitcoinica, GLBSE, SatoshiDice, etc... which is OK.
If however, you run a similar game with similar rules, I will enter. I thought about the strategy of going first and which numbers to pick and how many. Especially with a 10 BTC pot.
Another thing I liked about the game is that it can scale easily. Currently the available slots are limited. However if it became popular a minor tweak can double the amount of slots and/or just increase the slot price. So, it can scale all the way up to a parallel lotto game that can accept Millions of players.
|
|
|
|
1 day left to get slots. 0 entries. 10 BTC pot.
It looks like this isn't a popular forum game. I wonder, a little to fair maybe.
I am thinking of giving it one more shot for another week but adding an indisputable closing date and time during the week.
i.e. Some random number generated by a third party where their generation is for another reason and massive public use. Or possibly just hash and post a closing time during the week and post the hash.
Hmm... Now that I think about it, that adds another aspect of fun. Do I act or do I not.
You will know the winning number and we'll be wondering weather you will pick it or not? I might be misunderstanding. 'Fun' doesn't seem to describe that. This game clearly favors the last plays and that makes for a boring week (with maybe an exciting end with 10BTC available, I guess we'll see). It might be cool to design a game where there was some incentive to move early that slowly faded and some incentive to move late that slowly emerged. Maybe cheaper bets early and more information emerging later. Like the sum of the last digit of block hashes or something. Ah... Yea, you are misunderstanding. Currently the game ends on Tuesday Midnight UTC. What I was saying is randomly pick an end date for entries between Thursday and Tuesday. That way if people decide to wait until Tuesday but the end date is say Sunday at 3 as a cutoff then it would change the dynamics as to when to enter and would give incentive for others to enter early. By hashing the random date one could prove it. But you are correct at least one would know the cut-off date and time. So, I would propose using a un-aware third party for that decision. Luckily, because there are so many Lotto games, I could use a friday's lotto number from one of thousands of games played in the US and convert it to a timestamp. Publish the formula and bame. We would have a randomly chosen number that no one can control or know ahead of time. Or if you know somebody that can know ahead of time, PM me, and lets leave this game and run to the bank. lol. |
|
|
|
It looks more and more like a criminal act the long and longer we wait for ANY real action from bitcoinica.
If zhoutong is not the owner, or a decision maker in that company, I don't CARE what he says. I only care what the OWNERS say.
But, wait. The ownership of bitcoinica is a secret? That suggests impropriety in the first place.
Owners and technical managers are silent? That suggests something is seriously wrong.
Yes, we're justified in making any kind of assumptions when the company in question still holds funds in the the form of what is now either a theft, or a "forced loan"
How many trades are taking place with our money right now while bitcoinica shores up it's personal losses to make good on everyone account balance?
Seriously, this smacks of some of the recent wall street type debacles. Trading with customer funds was one of my biggest concerns with bitcoinica. The longer they take with making good on the account balances, the more I suspect that this (criminal act) has taken place.
Considering that the attack came through an 'email server', I would assume the attacker(s) have the emails. So all the behind the scene information will be coming to light. (i.e. Expect Mass Leaks Soon) Unless, the 'owners' pay off the attacker(s) to not release said information. One wonders if they encrypted their emails between principle parties? |
|
|
|
I agree. I have been in this forum since September 2010 regularly, and this is the worst handling of an issue. Even more worrying is that amir taaki who I respect and who is with intersango is quiet like a mouse.
This is not a sign of "customer is king attitude" I would have expected[/color]
The last thing he said about this matter on this thread that I find interesting is this ... "I am angry that our name is being dragged through the mud for something we had no part in." Isn't this his company? LOL Well, it seems, the initial line was that Intersango just have taken over Bitcoinica management two weeks before the hack and they implied that it is not their fault and therefore it is unfair that their name "is being dragged through the mud". However, various later reports suggest that this episode is indeed a direct result of Intersango's mismanagement. This is issue is clear as mud. Intersango or "Bitcoinica LP" should really start talking, silence is deafening. Zhou's statements are not enough until it is acknowledged that he is an official company spokesman. For all we know Zhou Tong is a FORMER developer and owner and employee of Bitcoinica. Hence we have to assume that whatever he said publicly about this incident is unofficial and no official statement by Bitcoinica LP (NZ) owner and operator of Bitcoinica.com has been issued yet. Sort of agree. However, he is an acting 'agent' of the company. So what he says does hold weight. e.g. If Prudential's Insurance Agent says: "This policy is going to pay for Meteor strikes." Prudential is obligated to honor any reasonable expectations of that policy as presented even though they didn't actually cover said meteors. He is an employee, err was. Curiously, after transfer of knowledge, did he continue to have access to the system? If so, that would be a bad procedure. |
|
|
|
But anyone in the IT business (like myself) also knows that implementing IT security is expensive (especially in development time). I think these costs are exaggerated most of the time. When building software with security in mind from the beginning, the required extra development time is almost negligible. The problem lies in many existing libraries and framework which are insecure by design, or where security was not considered during development. When these are used, securing the whole system becomes prohibitively expensive.
When thinking somewhat about that issue, it seems to be an instance of the same problem we're discussing here. Let me explain. If Zhoutong and his friends had been "old style" coders, they'd picked a general purpose language and just some very basic libraries and built the whole distributed Bitcoinica application from ground up. And when considering the use of some additional framework, the'd spend days to weeks to understand that framework in and out. For example, they'd probably dissected the source code of the standard bitcoin daemon and replaced the Berkely DB by another database fitting better into the general picture. As an by-product the resulting system would have a reasonable amount of security built right into the core. Just brilliant -- now we're talking rather about several man months of work.  But that's probably not what they did. (note, the following is just a guess. I might be wrong here!) They happened to know how to apply some web application toolkit set plus they happened to know how to use some cloud hosting service. So this was just a perfetly suitably skill set, allowing them to concentrate on coding up the finance mathematical part of the business. Thus, while the "proper coding craftsman" would still be dissecting other people's framework code and bothering about possible sublte concurrency and security issues, they where allready making money. This is exactly the equivalent to trading on leverage. You achieve an impressively amplified effect by relying on borrowed knowledge and skills (living in the toolkits and services you use to code up your App). And according to the predominant opinion in the open source culture, that is actually the right thing to do. You know, the cathedral and the bazar. And now something nasty happened and some script kiddy used a blatant security weakness to hack Bitcoinica. And all of a sudden, everyone yells and points with fingers upon both Zhoutong and the Bitcoin Consultancy, calling them unprofessional, sketchy and harmful for the Bitcoin idea. So what are the criteria, and who judges? --Ichthyo At first, we should probably define what you mean by "old style coders". Does it mean that they refuse to use libraries in order to avoid duplicating effort? If so, I'd rather call these people "students", because that's what the typical student will do: Re-implementing something just for the sake of learning how it works. Not a bad decision for personal progress, but (as you stated correctly) not useful on a competitive market as it will take many extra months. But this is not what I was talking about. A good coder who is serious about security does not refuse to use libraries. But he will choose secure libraries (also, secure programming languages, secure frameworks etc.) in order to get his stuff done. This may mean a little bit of extra time once in your life (at the point where you have to research what tool to use the first time), but when it comes to actually implementing a project, the extra time needed becomes negligible. I think it is dangerous to spread the rumour that security is expensive or time-intensive because it leads to a "don't care" mentality in executives which would not be necessary if they were working with the right people. However, I will not engage in speculations about how this relates to bitcoinica. It might well be that the developers used perfectly secure programming frameworks, and wrote their code diligently, having security breached by a mistake from their hosting platform, for example. There are programs where it must be written from scratch, no libraries allowed. A long time ago, a class was to come up with a challenge for the programming class. I suggested why not write the Sqrt algo. The teacher/professor said you could just use the sqrt command and that would be to easy. I guess the professor thought that the letters themselves in the Sqrt command was the algo. Knowledge is being lost or diminished because of the reliance and trust in other people's work. There are different ways of solving sqrt. Which method is your algo using? |
|
|
|
Court?
Over 25 BTC? actually 22.5 BTC.
hmm... Petitions court for a seat in the gallery.
When/if BTC is legitimized as a valid currency and is recognized by the legal system of every country, then yes, 22.5 BTC will most definitely be worth a short court appearance and a garnishing of wages for.  Just a FYI, I don't recognize your claim at all. The only person I have to deal with it smart1985. He sent the money Ask to remove the scammer tag and see who they direct you to compensate in order to do so. USD is recognized and I wouldn't goto court over $100 USD. It takes $80 just to file the small claims report, which of course, IF you win, you would get back. |
|
|
|
Oh, so that is a picture of a Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
1 day left to get slots. 0 entries. 10 BTC pot.
It looks like this isn't a popular forum game. I wonder, a little to fair maybe.
I am thinking of giving it one more shot for another week but adding an indisputable closing date and time during the week.
i.e. Some random number generated by a third party where their generation is for another reason and massive public use. Or possibly just hash and post a closing time during the week and post the hash.
Hmm... Now that I think about it, that adds another aspect of fun. Do I act or do I not.
|
|
|
|
Where did that image with all the Bitcoins come from?
What? There is an image of a Bitcoin? Show me a Bitcoin, Please. |
|
|
|
|
More interestingly. Let see if it was Bitcoinica that was providing stability or was it something else? hmm... time should tell in relatively short order.
Actully on MT, waiting for MT to offer interest on Traditional Currency holdings. If even a small percentage of their earned interest, it would do wonders for deposits.
|
|
|
|
IoW, what I'm saying is that bitcoinica owes people their unrealized Gains, is should eat shit on the unrealized losses if it wants to close up with no notice. I'm a little concern about offering people 'unrealized' gains. There is a reason they are unrealized. You are now predicting what a person would have done in the future. Everyone knows what they would have done in the past. (i.e. maximize their profits with future knowledge.) I think it is appropriate to return the underlying bet, not the unrealized gains. e.g. I place a bet on 22 BLACK, someone puts the ball on 00 Green and steals the dealers chips and the placed bets. The player says: hey, I was going to place my bet on 00 Green. Pay me my unrealized gains at 35:1. NO sir. You just get your original bet back. You had $25 dollars in play, you just get $25 dollars back. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
