Big Buyer on BitFloor

[EuSouBitcoin]

Right now I see a $12.16 bid for 409 BTC at BitFloor.com. Earlier he was bidding for over 2,000 BTC. It's good to see a larger order coming back to BitFloor. I like that exchange and would like to see more activity there.

[1714900808]

1714900808

[1714900808]

1714900808

[HDSolar]

Right now I see a $12.16 bid for 409 BTC at BitFloor.com. Earlier he was bidding for over 2,000 BTC. It's good to see a larger order coming back to BitFloor. I like that exchange and would like to see more activity there.

+1

Mtgox is good but so is bitfloor and competition is good for us all.  Having all your eggs in one basket usually ends up with a mess so right on to this buyer of bitcoins.

[Stephen Gornick]

Having all your eggs in one basket usually ends up with a mess so right on to this buyer of bitcoins.

Except BitFloor still is in debt to the amount of more than twenty thousand bitcoins to its customers following the September security breach.

If an account holder (or a group) were to pursue this debt through the court system they would probably get a judgement and gain access to BitFloor's funds -- and if you have funds (USD or bitcoins) in a Bitfloor account, those are Bitfloor's funds as far as what a judgement against Bitfloor would have access to.

[shtylman]

If an account holder (or a group) were to pursue this debt through the court system they would probably get a judgement and gain access to BitFloor's funds -- and if you have funds (USD or bitcoins) in a Bitfloor account, those are Bitfloor's funds as far as what a judgement against Bitfloor would have access to.

Please stop spreading misinformation about the debt responsibilities and client holdings of BitFloor as it relates to the US legal system.

[iCEBREAKER]

If an account holder (or a group) were to pursue this debt through the court system they would probably get a judgement and gain access to BitFloor's funds -- and if you have funds (USD or bitcoins) in a Bitfloor account, those are Bitfloor's funds as far as what a judgement against Bitfloor would have access to.

Please stop spreading misinformation about the debt responsibilities and client holdings of BitFloor as it relates to the US legal system.

I've had Gornick set to IGNORE ever since he lost his mind during the BitFloor heist fallout.

Decent guy otherwise, but mentioning BitFloor transforms him into a cross between an Internet Lawyer and an Internet Tough Guy.

It's not pretty; he doesn't deal well with being proven wrong.   

[EuSouBitcoin]

$12.30 Bid for 604 BTC right now on BitFloor. Looks a good price to sell at compared to the bids at other BTC/USD exchanges.

[Stephen Gornick]

If an account holder (or a group) were to pursue this debt through the court system they would probably get a judgement and gain access to BitFloor's funds -- and if you have funds (USD or bitcoins) in a Bitfloor account, those are Bitfloor's funds as far as what a judgement against Bitfloor would have access to.

Please stop spreading misinformation about the debt responsibilities and client holdings of BitFloor as it relates to the US legal system.

I am not a lawyer, however ....

There is no question that my account shows that my balance of bitcoins today shows "hold" and that I am being refused access to my coins.

This makes BitFloor in default of its obligation to me.

From another thread:

BF is pretty much bailing itself out by taking a forced 0% interest loan on people who have coins "on hold" there.

So... They're holding funds hostage AND reopening for business WHILE being technically bankrupt?

I don't know what can be intelligently said about that. Except that it can't possibly be legal anywhere.

When a company becomes insolvent or enters the zone of insolvency, things change -- directors and officers become fiduciaries of the corporate assets for the benefit of creditors.  Each time a person withdraws funds from BitFloor, that is a disbursement to its creditors.   That ability to obtain funds is not offered to all creditors equally because today I am still being denied access to my funds that have been on my account since before the September breach.   I don't know in the State of NY, but in some areas that would be considered preferential transfer that could even be clawed back (up to two years worth of any payments to creditors):
 - http://www.thebankruptcysite.org/resources/bankruptcy/filing-bankruptcy/the-clawback-provision-preferential-transfers.htm

Now, if several creditors who together have a big enough claim go petition to have a judge approve a wind down or get a judge to freeze BitFloor's bank funds (to halt further preferential disbursement) then it isn't shtylman who decides who gets access to their USDs and their bitcoins.   BitFloor could file today for bankruptcy protection so this doesn't happen, but the same thing -- anyone with USD or BTC funds held with BitFloor would not be able to withdraw them as bankruptcy law then determines who gets paid what and when.

[shtylman]

If an account holder (or a group) were to pursue this debt through the court system they would probably get a judgement and gain access to BitFloor's funds -- and if you have funds (USD or bitcoins) in a Bitfloor account, those are Bitfloor's funds as far as what a judgement against Bitfloor would have access to.

Please stop spreading misinformation about the debt responsibilities and client holdings of BitFloor as it relates to the US legal system.

I am not a lawyer, however ....

There is no question that my account shows that my balance of bitcoins today shows "hold" and that I am being refused access to my coins.

This makes BitFloor in default of its obligation to me.

From another thread:

BF is pretty much bailing itself out by taking a forced 0% interest loan on people who have coins "on hold" there.

So... They're holding funds hostage AND reopening for business WHILE being technically bankrupt?

I don't know what can be intelligently said about that. Except that it can't possibly be legal anywhere.

When a company becomes insolvent or enters the zone of insolvency, things change -- directors and officers become fiduciaries of the corporate assets for the benefit of creditors.  Each time a person withdraws funds from BitFloor, that is a disbursement to its creditors.   That ability to obtain funds is not offered to all creditors equally because today I am still being denied access to my funds that have been on my account since before the September breach.   I don't know in the State of NY, but in some areas that would be considered preferential transfer that could even be clawed back (up to two years worth of any payments to creditors):
 - http://www.thebankruptcysite.org/resources/bankruptcy/filing-bankruptcy/the-clawback-provision-preferential-transfers.htm

Now, if several creditors who together have a big enough claim go petition to have a judge approve a wind down or get a judge to freeze BitFloor's bank funds (to halt further preferential disbursement) then it isn't shtylman who decides who gets access to their USDs and their bitcoins.   BitFloor could file today for bankruptcy protection so this doesn't happen, but the same thing -- anyone with USD or BTC funds held with BitFloor would not be able to withdraw them as bankruptcy law then determines who gets paid what and when.

I would only suggest that you stop confusing bitcoins and USD. The two are not the same thing.

[iCEBREAKER]

Please stop spreading misinformation about the debt responsibilities and client holdings of BitFloor as it relates to the US legal system.

I am not a lawyer, however ....

[*pretends to be a lawyer, fails miserably*]

I would only suggest that you stop confusing bitcoins and USD. The two are not the same thing.

Ya, we tried that whole "stating facts and making sense" thing with Gornick. 

It doesn't work; he won't listen.  Just ignore him and his internet tough lawyer act.  Let him stew.   

[organofcorti]

I would only suggest that you stop confusing bitcoins and USD. The two are not the same thing.

.... continuing OT, I really have no idea what's going on here. If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat? Or am I missing something here?

[iCEBREAKER]

I would only suggest that you stop confusing bitcoins and USD. The two are not the same thing.

.... continuing OT, I really have no idea what's going on here. If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat? Or am I missing something here?

You're missing where Gornick rambled on about laws that apply to legal tender and not Bitcoin, as if they applied to both equally.

You and he lost this argument about clawback, pooled assets, blah blah a long time ago. 

I got my US$ back and Gornick got nothing except butthurt.  QED.   

[organofcorti]

You're missing where Gornick rambled on about laws that apply to legal tender and not Bitcoin, as if they applied to both equally.

You and he lost this argument about clawback, pooled assets, blah blah a long time ago. 

I got my US$ back and Gornick got nothing except butthurt.  QED.   

I wasn't aware I was making an argument, merely an observation. As I said, I know nothing about Stephen Gornick's situation, and I have only vague memories of BitFloor losing a large stash of btc.

So his coins aren't going to be returned? Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good? Or is this beside the point?

[Stephen Gornick]

So his coins aren't going to be returned? Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good? Or is this beside the point?

The twenty four thousand BTC that were heisted are gone.  I understand that BitFloor doesn't have funds to cover the losses.  I'm not posting here to demand the return of funds that BitFloor doesn't have.

I'm posting because I suspect those who today are carrying a balance of USDs or BTCs at BitFloor are probably expecting that they will be able to withdraw those funds on demand when they want to withdraw them.   But if some account holders whose bitcoins were previously heisted decide to take legal action against BitFloor, it is today's USD and BTC balances that exist in the exchange accounts right now that are at risk.

Take a look at the depth chart at BitFloor:


 - http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitfloorUSD_depth.html

Notice how the blue (asks) is less than 100 BTC for all sell orders at $14 or lower?    Even the bids have low depth (excluding the aggressive bid at $12.30) and there would be just $4K USD of bids on the books.  To me that indicates that others are concerned about leaving funds in their account at BitFloor as well.

BitFloor hasn't settled with those whose bitcoins are still on "hold" and hasn't filed for bankruptcy protection so that it can continue operating without putting at-risk the funds deposited by today's customers.

I would only suggest that you stop confusing bitcoins and USD. The two are not the same thing.

It wouldn't matter if what BitFloor was storing was its customer's gold, its customer's widgets or its customer's bananas.   A debt is a debt and a company that is not able to honor its debt commitments is insolvent.

All I'm pointing out is that customer deposits with BitFloor are not safe, in my opinion, as long as there are customers such as myself who are not able to access their funds.   Additionally, even customers who do withdraw all their funds might not be safe because of clawback provisions due to preferential transfer (though I'll concede that the amount of preferential transfer that is occurring probably isn't a large enough amount to warrant getting clawback approved nonetheless see any success at actually reclaiming funds from customers.)

What if tomorrow morning a judgment lien were to be granted and BitFloor's bank accounts are then seized?

[iCEBREAKER]

I wasn't aware I was making an argument, merely an observation. As I said, I know nothing about Stephen Gornick's situation, and I have only vague memories of BitFloor losing a large stash of btc.

Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good?

A "mere obersveration" in the form of pointed, leading questions?   

You've now made two arguments, albeit using the Socratic method (*cough, passive aggression, cough*).

Here was the first one:

If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat?

[organofcorti]

I wasn't aware I was making an argument, merely an observation. As I said, I know nothing about Stephen Gornick's situation, and I have only vague memories of BitFloor losing a large stash of btc.

Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good?

A "mere obersveration" in the form of pointed, leading questions?   

You've now made two arguments, albeit using the Socratic method (*cough, passive aggression, cough*).

Here was the first one:

If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat?

All I see is a question which you've not yet answered. As I said I know nothing about the situation and I'd like to know. Stephen Gornick explained matters sufficiently well, so unless you have a counterpoint to his explanation, post it rather than try to imply .... What are you implying, exactly? I don't even

[davout]

Please stop spreading misinformation about the debt responsibilities and client holdings of BitFloor as it relates to the US legal system.

So if I hold BTC with you, you have no obligation of returning them to me upon request ?

All I see is a question which you've not yet answered. As I said I know nothing about the situation and I'd like to know. Stephen Gornick explained matters sufficiently well, so unless you have a counterpoint to his explanation, post it rather than try to imply .... What are you implying, exactly? I don't even

Don't waste your time, Stephen Gornick is 100% right. Shtylman is in a massive debt towards its users. And not so surprisingly he starts defining Bitcoins as monopoly money as soon as you start reminding him of it. And for some reason a couple idiots follow him...

The only reason there are massive bids, is that people want to get out of bitfloor and put as much distance between them and the massive pile of fail it has become.

Shtylman, you're dead in this business, so is your exchange.

[iCEBREAKER]

All I see is a question which you've not yet answered. As I said I know nothing about the situation and I'd like to know.

I see two arguments from you, both strongly implying that BitFloor is wrong and Gornick the mighty internet lawyer has a case:

If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat?

Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good?

It doesn't matter if you phrase your points in the form of "mere" questions and are too dishonest to be upfront about your POV.

"Merely" is one of the most overused, obvious weasel words in the English language.  People who use it to poorly disguise obvious aggression sicken me.

[organofcorti]

All I see is a question which you've not yet answered. As I said I know nothing about the situation and I'd like to know.

I see two arguments from you, both strongly implying that BitFloor is wrong and Gornick the mighty internet lawyer has a case:

If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat?

Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good?

It doesn't matter if you phrase your points in the form of "mere" questions and are too dishonest to be upfront about your POV.

"Merely" is one of the most overused, obvious weasel words in the English language.  People who use it to poorly disguise obvious aggression sicken me.

Nice. I have absolutely no dog in this fight. I have no point of view. I have never used a btc exchange. The only exchange I did use was glbse and I have most of my coins returned. The paltry sum of btc I have is from mining and donations for the btc mining related analyses I've written.

I come to a thread and read a post implying that it's ok for BitFloor to not return lost btc. I was fairly certain I was mistaken, but I had to ask.

So you come in, guns blazing, and rather than actually answer any question I ask you present pointless ad hominem attacks. And you think I have some sort of agenda? You could have looked at my history of posts or my blog and you would have seen that my interests lie in another area completely.

Since I disgust you and and you feel I'm dishonest, I'll gladly go on your ignore list. Please do. You certainly wont go on my ignore list - I'm quite keen to see what sort of foolishness you next contribute to the forum.

BTW, do you actually have any proof that " 'Merely' is one of the most overused, obvious weasel words in the English language", or did you merely make that up? I merely ask for information.



Edit: I feel guilty for letting this go OT as long as it has. If you would like to continue, I suggest we take it outside, or to the "Let insult each other!" thread. Shush now! no talking. I'll respond for you:

I'm ignoring everything you write because I'm able to use my vast intellect to read between non-existent lines.

[iCEBREAKER]

BTW, do you actually have any proof that " 'Merely' is one of the most overused, obvious weasel words in the English language", or did you merely make that up? I merely ask for information.

I see what you did there!  Well played, oh master of passive aggressive cross examination. 

Sorry, I mean, 'innocent seeker of pure knowledge and stupefying neutrality.'   

[davout]

I see what you did there!  Well played, oh master of passive aggressive cross examination. 

Sorry, I mean, 'innocent seeker of pure knowledge and stupefying neutrality.'   

You're a moron. Go away.