bitfloor issues?

[Entropy-uc]

piles of BS removed

You get stunningly defensive when I challenge your ridiculous notion that people agreed to let Roman use their funds in whatever manner he desired.

Ignoring your strawman arguments about things I didn't say, why don't you go ahead and tell me where I agreed to be a creditor to Roman in the event he got 'hacked' or any other circumstance for that matter.

And do feel free to ignore me.  I'm only going to continue to point out when your are full of shit, and that obviously infuriates you.

[DannyHamilton]

And do feel free to ignore me.  I'm only going to continue to point out when your are full of shit, and that obviously infuriates you.

I give up.  It has become clear that you are not open to reason, logic, or honest communication.  I won't waste any further time on a one-sided conversation.

[Entropy-uc]

And do feel free to ignore me.  I'm only going to continue to point out when your are full of shit, and that obviously infuriates you.

I give up.  It has become clear that you are not open to reason, logic, or honest communication.  I won't waste any further time on a one-sided conversation.

Of course you give up.  You made a completely unsupportable claim - That seizure of funds was within the operating terms of Bitfloor - and I called you on your complete bullshit.

Now instead of acknowledging that you massively overstepped yourself and cannot defend such a claim your fall back on pretending I'm unreasonable.

You're going to have to try harder if you want to be Roman's apologist.  He hasn't given you much to work with.

[Rassah]

What? No! I was just asking Entropy-uc to tell me where he got information that it was Roman who seized our bitcoins back in September, and not a thief as Roman claimed. I just want to confirm that for myself, that's all.

It would seem that Roman should prove that one, not a depositor.  

I agree. Have him prove it, one way or the other. That would actually have some validity, as opposed to some random anon stating that Roman stole those funds himself, as if that was a fact.

Your question is silly at best, but as I read your constant berating of anyone who criticizes Roman, you lose more and more credibility and I actually wonder what skin you have in this game.

The September theft has deprived me of about 150BTC. That's the only skin I have in this game. I have plenty of credibility, thank you very much, as I have not lied or made baseless claims as facts here.

Think about the "facts" that you now know.   If I was on a jury of 12, there would be at least one guilty vote against Roman and I am pretty sure the other 11 would vote the same as me.

There are the facts:
25,000 or so BTC dissappeared in September.
Roman temporarily shut down his exchange, at great risk to his business.
Roman went out looking for investors, but was not able to find any.
Roman claimed he would use revenue from the exchange to return the missing coins.
No police report or anything beyond Roman's claims was ever shown to prove whether those coins were stolen by Roman or by someone else. At this point, we still don't know.
Twice since, Roman has used revenues to pay off those coins.

Now with this new situation:
Roman claimed that his bank gave him 30 day notice that they were closing his account
Roman claimed that his account was instead closed prematurely (same day I think?)
I don't remember if calls were made to the bank to corroborate this story. I don't think they were.
Roman claimed that he was sent a check for the entire USD balance, as is typical when a bank closes your account.
Roman claimed that he is having trouble finding a bank to take this check to allow for return of funds, and has a lawyer helping him.
Lawyer's name is known, and the situation with the check and trying to open bank accounts was corroborated by at least one other person.
Attempts to open a bank account for a bitcoin business have been met with failure many times before over the last 2 years.
The lawyer seems to be continuing to work on this, contacting various banks that others have suggested, while Roman was away on vacation.

If I missed anything, please add it.

These are the facts I would like people to stick to. Because, you know, they are facts. I, personally, do not like unsubstantiated bullshit, and will call people out on it. Why? Because I have the time to spend hours on this forum (yay government work  ) while others don't, and may interpret "unsubstantiated bullshit stated as fact" as actual fact. That doesn't help me get my 150BTC back, that doesn't help you get your USD back. In fact, it doesn't help anyone at all. If you want to vent at Roman, please do so. I will even defend you. His lack of communication was, and still is, total shit. His handling of the situation is pretty shit as well. Although that is my personal opinion, since I don't know what the full situation is. Neither do you, or anyone else. Because his lack of communication is shit.

I hope this explains my position, the reasons for my posts, and my credibility.

[Rassah]

Roman held the bitcoin in trust, and then defaulted on delivery.

True.

He claims that was the result of a 'hack', but no proof has ever been shown.  Neither has a police report for the supposed theft.

Also true, though there hasn't been a good explanation for why he went out looking for investors, or promised to pay the coins back with revenues, and was actually doing so. Did he basically come up with a clever scheme of borrowing 25,000 BTC at great risk to his business?

Regardless of the reason he found himself short 25000 BTC, refusing to make good on the coins on deposit was a seizure of the coins.

If you are claiming that he actually had those coins because he stole them himself, I'll need proof. If not, then what was paying them back bit by bit if not "making good on the coins on deposit?"

I never agreed to allow him to continue operating while holding my coins.

Do you own him or his business? If not, then why does he need your permission? Would you have preferred that he stop operating his business, and you never get any of your coins back? Why would others who did want their coins back allow you to do that?

[Entropy-uc]

Roman held the bitcoin in trust, and then defaulted on delivery.

True.

He claims that was the result of a 'hack', but no proof has ever been shown.  Neither has a police report for the supposed theft.

Also true, though there hasn't been a good explanation for why he went out looking for investors, or promised to pay the coins back with revenues, and was actually doing so. Did he basically come up with a clever scheme of borrowing 25,000 BTC at great risk to his business?

Regardless of the reason he found himself short 25000 BTC, refusing to make good on the coins on deposit was a seizure of the coins.

If you are claiming that he actually had those coins because he stole them himself, I'll need proof. If not, then what was paying them back bit by bit if not "making good on the coins on deposit?"

I never agreed to allow him to continue operating while holding my coins.

Do you own him or his business? If not, then why does he need your permission? Would you have preferred that he stop operating his business, and you never get any of your coins back? Why would others who did want their coins back allow you to do that?

He was free to file bankruptcy, as any person or company can when their liabilities exceed their obligations.  Many businesses come through such a process far better off.  Barring the bankruptcy, yes he needed my permission to use my money in ways that I did not agree to when that money was put on deposit with him.

The question of who stole the original 25000 coins is an excellent one.  I have no information, other than a failure by Roman to provide any proof that their was a third party involved, or that he took any substantial actions to report the incident to appropriate authorities.  He did stay in London partying at the Bitcoin conference for days after the supposed incident occurred.

Failures fail.  And Bitcoin has a lot more failures to come before it matures.

[joesmoe2012]

Hopefully they'll get the exchange back online once he gets the new bank arrangement.

Remember, the bitcoin markets/exchanges are completely unregulated, know that when you send a wire to them, don't cry about it now.

[wtfvanity]

Hopefully they'll get the exchange back online once he gets the new bank arrangement.

Remember, the bitcoin markets/exchanges are completely unregulated, know that when you send a wire to them, don't cry about it now.

WTF? Really?

[dwolfman]

Hopefully they'll get the exchange back online once he gets the new bank arrangement.

Remember, the bitcoin markets/exchanges are completely unregulated, know that when you send a wire to them, don't cry about it now.

WTF? Really?

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

I know that once I get my money back, I'm never touching anything Roman does again.

[wtfvanity]

Hopefully they'll get the exchange back online once he gets the new bank arrangement.

Remember, the bitcoin markets/exchanges are completely unregulated, know that when you send a wire to them, don't cry about it now.

WTF? Really?

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

I know that once I get my money back, I'm never touching anything Roman does again.

Sorry, but at this point, I almost want to say the same thing to you. You think you're getting your money back? WTF? Really? I mean that in the nicest way of course.

Move on. If I'm wrong, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
You think you're getting your money back? WTF? Really? I mean that in the nicest way of course.
- snip -

Personally, I've decided to take a plan for the worst, hope for the best position on the issue.

I don't "expect" to get my money back, but I'm still holding on to hope that I will.

Meanwhile, I've moved on and made the necessary adjustments in my budgets and activities built around an assumption that I won't be receiving any of that money.

Don't mistake hope for a belief that something actually will happen.

[dwolfman]

Well, I had given up on it months ago.  So if I don't get it, oh well.

But, I am holding out some hope since audenx has been holding Roman's feet to the fire, as they say, and there has been some promising progress so far.

On that note, I just checked audenx's Bitcoin Musings page.  Didn't see anything new there yet.  Anyone know if there's any new news on this yet?

[ProfMac]

Well, I had given up on it months ago.  So if I don't get it, oh well.

But, I am holding out some hope since audenx has been holding Roman's feet to the fire, as they say, and there has been some promising progress so far.

On that note, I just checked audenx's Bitcoin Musings page.  Didn't see anything new there yet.  Anyone know if there's any new news on this yet?

There was news 2 to 3 days ago.  Basically, the bank has received a legal opinion that it can open an account and return the funds without needing to obtain it's own KYC/AML documentation.

The one concern I have:  I can read the language in AudenX's report that all the customers have to fill out the KYC/AML documentation before the disbursement begins.  If that is true, one nonconformist yahoo can hold up the wagon train for all the rest of us.

[dwolfman]

- snip -
You think you're getting your money back? WTF? Really? I mean that in the nicest way of course.
- snip -

Personally, I've decided to take a plan for the worst, hope for the best position on the issue.

I don't "expect" to get my money back, but I'm still holding on to hope that I will.

Meanwhile, I've moved on and made the necessary adjustments in my budgets and activities built around an assumption that I won't be receiving any of that money.

Don't mistake hope for a belief that something actually will happen.

Yup, sounds more like what I'm doing.  

In my case though, being unemployed, every penny counts.  I don't have much money to begin with, and all that money that bitfloor has of mine was mining proceeds I mined while I've been unemployed.  Getting ready to start a new job finally, so it won't matter too much, but if that money could come back to me within the next couple of weeks, it could make a huge difference for me.  So I may have written it off already, I don't have much choice about hoping that it will come back to me soon.

[dwolfman]

Well, I had given up on it months ago.  So if I don't get it, oh well.

But, I am holding out some hope since audenx has been holding Roman's feet to the fire, as they say, and there has been some promising progress so far.

On that note, I just checked audenx's Bitcoin Musings page.  Didn't see anything new there yet.  Anyone know if there's any new news on this yet?

There was news 2 to 3 days ago.  Basically, the bank has received a legal opinion that it can open an account and return the funds without needing to obtain it's own KYC/AML documentation.

The one concern I have:  I can read the language in AudenX's report that all the customers have to fill out the KYC/AML documentation before the disbursement begins.  If that is true, one nonconformist yahoo can hold up the wagon train for all the rest of us.

Guess I should have said "since 2-3 days ago". 

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
if that money could come back to me within the next couple of weeks, it could make a huge difference for me.
- snip -

Even if I was confident that we'll be getting that money back, I'd still be really surprised if we received any of it in the next couple of weeks.  I'd expect it to be something more like next couple of months.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
The one concern I have:  I can read the language in AudenX's report that all the customers have to fill out the KYC/AML documentation before the disbursement begins.  If that is true, one nonconformist yahoo can hold up the wagon train for all the rest of us.

Agreed.  This statement from the message was worded poorly and wasn't exactly clear:

the lawyer said Bitfloor must collect that information from all customers in order to start processing USD refunds

Does that mean that they can't start processing the first refund until each and every single customer has provided KYC/AML information?

Or does it mean that they can't start processing in individual customer's refund until that particular customer has provided KYC/AML information (but can still process any other particular customer's refund after that particular customer provides the info)?

[Rassah]

He was free to file bankruptcy, as any person or company can when their liabilities exceed their obligations.

You do know what happens when a Limited Liability Corporation that has no money at all files for bankruptcy, right?

[Entropy-uc]

He was free to file bankruptcy, as any person or company can when their liabilities exceed their obligations.

You do know what happens when a Limited Liability Corporation that has no money at all files for bankruptcy, right?

I certainly do.

I expect that the domain name, trademarks and software would have sold in liquidation for more than was recovered by waiting and hoping Roman would turn out to be a responsible adult.  Someone competent could have stepped in and operated what was a promising contender to replace Mt.Gox.  They might even have offered to transform the bitcoin debt into equity in the new company.

Now, between the damage to goodwill that Roman has done to the trademark, and Fincen's position on regulation, the company is probably worthless.  That is the problem with allowing an incompetent to continue operating a company; they actually reduce the value of the company over time instead of increasing it.

[Rassah]

...what happens when a Limited Liability Corporation that has no money at all files for bankruptcy...

I expect that the domain name, trademarks and software would have sold in liquidation for more than was recovered by waiting and hoping Roman would turn out to be a responsible adult.

Maybe? I doubt it was worth anything at all at that time. The domain and trademark were in distress, to the point that ...

Someone competent could have stepped in and operated what was a promising contender to replace Mt.Gox. They might even have offered to transform the bitcoin debt into equity in the new company.

...no one was willing to step up and take over, or invest any money in the thing, even though Roman offered. A company in distress that was still operational could't find anyone. Would a company in distress that filed for bankruptcy actually fare better?

Now, between the damage to goodwill that Roman has done to the trademark, and Fincen's position on regulation, the company is probably worthless.  That is the problem with allowing an incompetent to continue operating a company; they actually reduce the value of the company over time instead of increasing it.

I think the value of the company was precisely $0 in September, as no one was willing to buy or invest in it, and ended up only being worth anything because Roman had a loyal customer base that he himself decided to continue to serve. So it went to $0, then went up in value as things started working again, only to crash even worse with this new problem.