Never did I claim that I was. If you are here to ask questions, that is completely reasonable. But please, do not be blunt enough to refuse changing your standpoint.

I would like to ask you: does there exist an answer to those questions that will actually change your mind? If there isn't, why do you ask them?

Will you cut it out? Some people have lost money here. We can deal with the "whodidit" thing later. This isn't helping anything.

Do you know the current state of the funds frozen at aurumxchange?

Occam's Razor states that one should proceed assuming the simpler explanation, not that the simpler explanation is correct. And in this case, the more complex explanation has better explanatory power: it explains why the BTC were sold.

Let's pick up the pace, only 20997938 images to go!

The volatility is measured by:


This normalized based not only on %, but also on direction.

The average volatility is 0.0038-0.0167. This covers the 34% of data points that are considered "average".

Please, be rational.

It seems that either people claim Zhou Tong and Chen Jinghai are one person, or that people claim Zhou Tong is more than one person. Wouldn't it be rational to claim that Zhou Tong is one person, and Chen Jinghai is another?

Notice how aurumxchange froze the funds. Where do these funds go? If aurumxchange doesn't turn them in, who makes a profit?

He has stated multiple times that he has savings in BTC. This implies he still considers them valuable. So, why would he sell them? He's not stupid enough to blow his cover that way if he was the thief.

You don't understand. Why else would the thief sell easy-to-launder BTC? Evidently, they are of little value to him. We know that Zhou Tong considers BTC valuable, and wouldn't be stupid enough to sell the ones he stole. Therefore, Zhou did not steal them.

This is a classic framing. There is no reason to suspect otherwise.

Exactly. The thief must have been someone who was not interested in Bitcoin. Zhou is likely not that person.

They are computed from all of Mt. Gox USD history. "Boring" data points, that fit into almost no movement (i.e. between 33rd and 67th percentiles), are excluded from calculation.

It would also make a lot of sense if you replace aurumxchange with Zhou.

Bitcoinica was a mass-marketing ploy. They are the same identity: notice how Bitcoinica offered aurumxchange as a service. Zhou/aurumxchange decided to initiate a mass-marketing campaign, and started Bitcoinica. After bootstrapping on Intersango's fame, aurumxchange became increasingly frustrated at the Consultancy's control, preferring to further advance aurumxchange's recognition. The Rackspace "hack" was initiated to regain control over Bitcoinica, and to create commotion. After the Consultancy refused to relinquish control, Bitcoinica was written off. Aurumxchange began contemplating the best time to begin mass-marketing with the remnants of it. Zhou/aurumxchange then decided to transfer a large amount of claimed funds, claiming theft. As Zhou's identity was written off along with Bitcoinica, aurumxchange continued arguing to gain exposure.

The average volatility does not change. It is computed from two years of Bitcoin Mt. Gox USD data.

I still remember the days when road signs were the norm.

Sure, call me a sock-puppet. Ignore the fact that I registered a year ago, have almost a thousand posts, and am generally well-established in this community.

This lack of professionalism is appalling. From individuals on Bitcoin Talk, it may be expected. But you, you are representing a company. Please, get a new PR! Baseless accusations of sock-puppetry and mental instability are not very effective advertising techniques.

I don't oppose government programs, no, not at all. Governments and organizations like Solar Energy International are crucial leaders in environmental change. But the government, one must admit, is not fully focused on environmentalism; after all, the richest party sponsors happen to be oil companies. Its regulations tend to hurt; they secretly drive alternative energy prices up by creating monopolies. Greenpeace has the opposite problem: they tend to focus on extremist campaigns that damage the reputation of the environmentalism.

I believe in societal environmentalism, and that involves action by people who care, through the collective cooperation of individuals. This can, of course, be bolstered by properly-run campaigns, not by parties interested more in self-preservation.

There is no ploy to destroy industrial capitalism. In fact, a large portion of environmentalism requires "industrial capitalism": alternative energy, sustainable housing, etc.

A multimillionaire would rather return funds than get sentenced to prison and lose his multimillionaire status.

If you consider that impossible, why not reflect on Zhou's possible motives for stealing the money? The aurumxchange side contends that he would be dumb enough to steal the money, transfer the USD to another service, and try to sell the BTC for USD as quick as possible: the next day. I find this story harder to believe than the one involving the relic collector.

Aurumxchange has failed to produce any new evidence, resorting to points that support Zhou's case. Patrick Murck has become involved.

Horizontal lines are not very likely because of the way the plot is made, but they do represent no change in volatility. The value is irrelevant except as a relative measure of volatility: 0 is Bitcoin's average volatility, -30 is far below average volatility, and 30 is far above average volatility.