Mr Bitcoinshttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58814https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84031.msg926464#msg926464Sir, We have been working for over 12 months on Bitcoin projects, Mr Bitcoin is owned by the same company as Crypto X Change.
Our aim is to benefit the Bitcoin community, sure there have been scams but at the same time there are real companies in this space building real business's to grow bitcoin.
http://mrbitcoins.comDear users,
We are offline for some upgrades till 26th Nov 2012.
Regards,
MrBitcoins Team http://mrbitcoins.com/t/AboutUsAbout Us
Mr Bitcoins is a service that provides Bitcoins anonymously in Australia, USA and India by simple cash deposits and Hundreds of thousands of locations.
Mr Bitcoins is owned and developed by the same company as Crypto X Change Kenseycol PTY LTD.
After being in the Bitcoin development business for some time and after numerous requests for a fast, simple and anonymous ways to buy Bitcoins safely and legally our team developed Mr Bitcoins.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us, please not that all Australian and Indian clients MUST deposit cash, we do not accept bank transfers. For USA our clients need to deposit via BitInstant which has many growing deposit and anonymous methods.
Thank you for visiting Mr Bitcoins, we hope our service is beneficial to you.
Regards
The Mr Bitcoins Team. http://www.ewhois.com/mrbitcoins.com/Whois Record
Domain Name: Mrbitcoins.com
Registrant: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Created: 2012-02-03
Expires: 2013-02-03
Updated: 2012-05-24
Name Servers:
NS1.CCRSOFTWARESHOP.COM
NS2.CCRSOFTWARESHOP.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/bySearchId.jspx?searchId=158963663&searchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=cw9yx3czw_4Business Name Summary
Business name:MR BITCOIN
Status: registered
Registration date: 22/06/2012
Renewal date: 27/10/2012
Address for service of documents: 27 Kamdell Pl Orange NSW 2800
Principal place of business: 27 Kamdell Pl Orange NSW 2800
Holder Name: KENSEYCOL PTY LTD
Holder Type: Body Corporate
ABN: 12 140 244 828
|
|
|
|
It is a waiting game right now, but the fact that they're upgrading the MrBitcoins site suggests that they intend to keep operating that business - something they would not be able to do if the company is insolvent. There is no indication that they're planning to shut down MrBitcoins and the notice about upgrading the site is new - it's been posted since the announcement of the CryptoXchange shut-down.
I guess we all just wait and see what upgrades are made to the MrBitcoins site (this is supposed to be done by 26 November) and whether payments start being processed over the next couple of weeks. How do you know that and who is "they"? |
|
|
|
where's their official thread?
You can keep track of what is going on here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126552.0I made this thread to centralize all the relevant information regarding the Cryptoxchange insolvency. There is a link for the "official" Cryptoxchange thread. |
|
|
|
I have a home network of several (14) more or less high-end computers, which i need for various tasks, not only for bitcoin. The wallet was stored at three places, on my bitcoin mining server plus on my laptop (which was the access point for the hacker) and i also have a backup copy of my wallet.dat on a USB stick totally offline from all IT infrastructure i have. Via TeamViewer all PCs were connected, so the hacker managed to delete the wallet.dat on my mining server AND on my laptop. The wallet.dat file was used at the same time by the server's Bitcoin client and the laptop's Bitcoin client? Even though my hard drive was erased, i still had a copy of the wallet.dat on my offline storage and i could make a screenshot after reloading this wallet in my newly setup computer. Even though 2600 were stolen from my local wallet, this was luckily "only" the minor part, since I stored the rest at other "offline" places or for example simply on my MtGox account. You did not explain how you managed to discover the deposit address used by the thieves. When you discovered the erased hard drive? Please, provide an accurate date and time. From that point, how did you managed to recover the wallet.dat file? |
|
|
|
Nuke user: N/A in topic #0 by member #72944
Nuke user: N/A in topic #0 by member #72956
Nuke user: N/A in topic #0 by member #72954 What "nuke user" means? |
|
|
|
another concern I have is that in order to be 'verified' on cryptoXchange, I had to supply scans of license and passport information. What will CryptoXchange do with this information even IF they pay back everyone?
I notice that CryptoXChange are very quiet on these boards, but I know they are reading, and they should be addressing these concerns
http://www.cryptoxchange.com/t/TermsAndConditionHowever, you are granting us and our agents permission to use your submissions in connection with the operation of this web site and its other businesses, including but not limited to: the right to copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, reproduce and edit your submission all without payment of compensation to you or any other person or business or entity of any time for any such usage. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is no more tangible than EVE ISK. Or USD in a bank account. It's all just bits on a computer somewhere.
X Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has. Fail... |
|
|
|
If you know Trendon Shavers ( www.trendonshavers.com) and you know the make and model of the brand new BMW or the F550 truck he recently purchased on any other assets he has, you might want to let the IRS know about it. Any assets Trendon Shavors has or controls could only have been purchased with fraudulent income from his Bitcoin Securities Ponzi scheme.  |
|
|
|
augustocroppo ??
I don't know Gineta and I can't really understand what he's trying to say. I have no problem doxing a scammer and applying any LEGAL pressure to attempt recovery, however I do find this thread troubling.
I requested Gineta to show his ID, but he refused. Instead, he produced a message with my name in his Facebook account. That proves that Gineta is controlling the profile of Jacob Maldonado. This corroborates the evidence provided in the previous posts. [EDITED] I say that Kelticfox made unsubstantiated allegations. I have demonstrated that Gineta is Jacob Maldonado. The IRC's users should settle a deal with Gineta and let his actions to prove his intentions. A scammer tag is not required for an user which did not demonstrated any intention to defraud users in this forum. So I agree with you: this thread is largely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
There is something wrong about your allegations. You said the wallet.dat file was stolen from your computer by a Trojan horse. That means the thieves would have to extract the private keys from your wallet.dat file and then redeem the electronic coins. The redemption occurred on 16 November 2012, 03:28:22: http://blockchain.info/tx/8d6602b0e8e4479d79e5dab0c35bdb4f7545513cb426411348ec1502413a8f80Received Time 2012-11-16 03:28:22 You alleged that Bitcoins in your Mt.Gox were also stolen on the same date: At the same time of course he also stole 200 from my mt gox account, for that the hacker used the email address avolokova@bk.ru and the transaction data was Transaction reference: f5e5acd4-50a6-4de5-9061-1c0e3964eafe Date: 2012-11-16 03:30:13 GMT IP: 178.177.115.229 At that time, you would not have had access to your computer files because the hard drive was completely erased: well, the hard drive was erased, so i could not identify the program. But i am sure you fill find more information when you can log into the guys email: When required to prove you are controlling the address listed in the alleged transaction, you provided a screenshot showing your address list. Moreover, you also indicated that you became aware that the Trojan horse was inserted in your computer by the software Teamviewer: This is completely inconsistent. If your hard drive was really erased, then you would: 1. Not have access to your Bitcoin client to take a screenshot of your address list. 2. Not have access to your operating system to determine how the Trojan horse was inserted. 3. Not have access to your wallet.dat file to determine how the electronic coins were redeemed. How do you explain this? |
|
|
|
Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself. If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!
If an arrangement of things is not a thing itself, what is? Nothing itself? If a "set of lines in the sand" is nothing, what is? If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. No, I did not stolen from you. The information is in your brain, not in the "lines in the sand". It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!
It could, but that is not the definition of ownership. Moreover, the pattern recorded in my memory is different of the pattern you recorded in your memory. Merely look at "lines in the sand" is not equivalent to own the same information. Two or more observer always will perceive the "lines in the sand" at the same time from a different perspective. |
|
|
|
He's not talking about a house. You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object. That's physically impossible; Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible: (...) Cute. Use an object designed to be utilized by two people at once as your example. Fair enough, it's not impossible, if that is part of the design. But do both people possess a car, if only one can drive it while the other rides? Even in your photo, the woman in the back is not in control of the bike, so does she possess it? That's arguable. Whatever is arguable or not, I have demonstrated that two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house. So: You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property. How I do not own the house if jointly own the house? He's not talking about a house. You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object. That's physically impossible; regardless of the legal shorthand that claims that you both might own the house together. He's talking about data. You can each possess a copy, but then neither of you owns the data, only the copy that you possess. Whatever is the house or the data (private key), two or more people can share a single object at the same time. Therefore they can both share the ownership. Only the absence of an act, state or right to possess the object would mean an absence of ownership. |
|
|
|
Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.
Of course information is a pattern! You refusal to admit that is "something" is what I expected from a deceiver like you. There is no middle point to justify "neither". Information is "something", not "nothing". If information is neither "something" or "nothing", it only can be a thing. This particular argumentation begun with: You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing. Yes, I can own data. No, you can't. Data isn't property. Which I replied: I will put again, in case you did not read: Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something". Data is "something". Data can be property if you admit that data is a pattern: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property?s=tproperty
— n , pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc
2. law the right to possess, use, and dispose of anything
3. possessions collectively or the fact of owning possessions of value
4. a. a piece of land or real estate, esp used for agricultural purposes
b. ( as modifier ): property rights
5. chiefly ( Austral ) a ranch or station, esp a small one
6. a quality, attribute, or distinctive feature of anything, esp a characteristic attribute such as the density or strength of a material
7. obsolete logic another name for proprium
8. Usually shortened to: prop any movable object used on the set of a stage play or film http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/information?q=informationDefinition of information
noun
[mass noun]
(...)
2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=tinformation
in·for·ma·tion
noun
1.
knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.
knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.
the act or fact of informing.
4.
an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
5.
Directory Assistance.
— n
1. knowledge acquired through experience or study
2. knowledge of specific and timely events or situations; news
3. the act of informing or the condition of being informed
4. a. an office, agency, etc, providing information
b. ( as modifier ): information service
5. a. a charge or complaint made before justices of the peace, usually on oath, to institute summary criminal proceedings
b. a complaint filed on behalf of the Crown, usually by the attorney general
6. computing
a. the meaning given to data by the way in which it is interpreted
b. another word for data
7. informal too much information I don't want to hear any more |
|
|
|
He's not talking about a house. You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object. That's physically impossible; Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:  No, it's not. Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself. Like this, you buy a book. You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book. If books are bought to be read, the buyer have interest to absorb the data imprinted in the book. If the buyer memorize the name of the author, he/she owned data, he/she acted to possess a piece of information. It not means he/she is the legitimate or solely owner of the information, it means that he/she posses an unique piece of information. He/she could forever keep that unique information for itself and be the only owner, or then express that unique information and share the ownership. But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding. Of course not! For any reader would be quite difficult to completely own the information contained in the book. That is why the author is recognized as the legitimate owner of the information contained in a book. The author produced the information from his own data. He is completely aware of the information produced while the reader is not. The book content becomes the data transferred from a owner (author) to another owner (reader). You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy. I am not arguing over the right to destroy data in possession of others. I am arguing over the definition of ownership. In the moment you own certain thing, it not means other are granted with ability to destroy your possession. What could or not could be done regarding ownership is quite relative to the moral standards of a certain society. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you'll listen to OED: each: used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately: joint: shared, held, or made by two or more people together: You cannot each own the house because you jointly own the house. Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by each person that has it. All right, let's deconstruct: Own: [with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess. Possess: have as belonging to one; own. Property:[mass noun] a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. "You cannot regarded and identified separately possess the house because you two or more people together possess the house."You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property. "You cannot have as belonging to one a thing belonging to someone at the same time someone else does. If two people can have as belonging to one something at the same time, neither have as one’s own it, because it is not a thing belonging to someone."In another words, your statements shows that your definition is not coherent. You are arguing that if two or more entities share the possession of a given object, none can possess the object. Since I am disputing the meaning of ownership, your answers have already provided enough evidence to me refute your inconsistent arguments: Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address. You are contradicting your initial statement. To "change the record for that particular address" it is necessary first to own the private key. Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it. Deconstructed: Possession: the state of having, owning, or controlling something. "Sole state of having, owning, or controlling the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address.""Nope, you must have as belonging to one the key. If two people can have as belonging to one the same thing at the same time, neither have (something) as one’s own it."I can share any private key with my wife to let she have as belonging to one (possess) the electronic coins I have as one’s own (own). This is shared ownership, not absence of ownership. Moreover, you made a statement which contradicts your original argument: "Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by every one of two or more person that has it."Private keys are data. Information. Data. Knowledge. Meaning. Look any of those words up in the dictionary. I suggest dictionary.com, instead of Oxford, since dictionary.com provides more meanings for the words, and may give you a better understanding of the language. You ignored this question: information is nothing or something? |
|
|
|
You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house. So: You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property. How I do not own the house if jointly own the house? Data is "something".
No. Data is information. Really... What is information? Nothing or something? Meaning is data (...) No. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=MeaningDefinition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action: Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information. Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned. In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed ( have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ( [with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess). This is a contradictory statement. But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data. I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions. Keep trying. |
|
|
|
Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property. So, in your definition, if I (psychically and legally) posses the house at the same time my wife (psychically and legally) posses the house, we do not owns the house. Who owns the house? No, you can't. Data isn't property. I will put again, in case you did not read: Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something". Data is "something". I dispute that.
I see. We both know the meaning of the word "air." Someone copied that data into our brains. The transfer of that data into your brain occurred without my permission. The transfer of that data into my brain happened without your permission. Have you stolen from me? Have I stolen from you? You are disputing over the act of possessing something which cannot be possessed... You can own data, but you cannot own what the data means. You can own the data which represents "air", but you cannot own the meaning of "air". I can own the numbers and letters which of private key, but I cannot own what that numbers and letters means. Therefore, the answer for your questions is: no, no. |
|
|
|
one-line refutation: lets say i have the intention to return the key i memorized...  Well, that would be a prank, not an act of theft. |
|
|
|
However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself. I am not disputing the legitimacy of the possession. I am arguing over the meaning of ownership, whatever is legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, there is a method to determine who is the legitimate owner the electronic coins: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfWe need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. Thus, possession of the private keys must be presumed to have been aquired honestly. The Bitcoin protocol do not presume "honestly" to determine ownership. Either way, the coping of the private keys, which are simply numbers, isn't theft of property; it's theft of the access to that property. The act of steal requires a direct subject. If you steal my door key to grab my computer with the private keys to obtain the ownership of my electronic coins, you have stolen my Bitcoins, not my access to that electronic coins. The result of your criminal act is defined by your initial intention. Whatever method you use to obtain the ownership, you are acting to possess something you were not allowed with no intention to give back to me. If I give you my door key, my computer password and ask you to verify if is any problem in the Windows registry, and then you copied my wallet.dat file to obtain the private key and posses my electronic coins, you are not stealing my access to that electronic coins. I granted you the access myself! You are indeed copying something you were not allowed with no intention to give back to me. In this particular case, that property isn't tangible, but nor is it digital; If is not digital, what is http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/digital?q=digitalDefinition of digital
adjective
1(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfThe proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash. it's simply a concept that, by using this system, we have implicitly agreed to. That the transaction entries in the blockchain represent the (presumed legtimate) transfer of value. This is no different than the tranfer of value that occurs within banking computers daily. It's entirely abstract. IT comes down to agreements. You own what you own because you have a honest claim to it that I do not, and I can coose to honor that claim or not, but society at large develops a consensus upon ownership. I own because I own because I own... Circular logic. I own my electronic coins in the blockchain because I posses the private keys which allows the Bitcoin protocol verify the previous ownership of my electronic coins with the society's consensus (miners). |
|
|
|
Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it. Wrong again... If two people posses something, both people OWNS the thing. You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing. Yes, I can own data. I am right know owning countless quantity of data in my brain. Moreover, if the copy happens without prior permission of the owner of the object copied, it is theft. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
