Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 05:13:12 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [BitFunder] Moving Forward/Resolution Process  (Read 290742 times)
glendall
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 08:50:24 AM
 #1041

Hope we can get our coins back soon.

+1

Ukyo, this was asked already, sometimes more harshly, but could you please not ignore and actually answer this simple question.

How come you can't even provide us with a deadline for the next announcement about how the recovery is doing? I'm trying to imagine all possible scenarios, with lawyers sending other lawyers friendly letters of some sorts, etc., but at any rate, you must be waiting for something, with either a positive, neutral or negative out come, but there has got to be some damn thing that you are waiting for and you won't wait for it forever will you?

Example:

"I expect the current phase of the process to be completed no later than in 1/2/3/4/5/6/12/18/24/36/48/more? months, and then I will be able to tell you how much more coins have been recovered, if any"

How hard is this to answer even if you are under the most crazy NDA of all time? Please educate us. Thanks.

The 'legal reason' he can't tell us what happened is because if he told us, we'd be able to use that information against him in court.  There is no known NDA or government info lock down that could possibly prevent him from telling us what happened to the coins, that just is not feasible.  Government agents are not going to swoop and demand that he not allow people to withdraw the money they deposited, at the same time not allowing the owner to tell people that the government is involved.

If you believe that there is some sort of NDA or entity preventing from telling us anything, why would Jon hope to sell his Active Mining shares to give partial refunds to users? That makes just about 0 sense. It would have to be public knowledge if the exchange was shut down by the government.  And if it was a private NDA, how could that possibly be valid that he holds millions of dollars of BTC and then not be able to tell anyone about what happened to them? Like really. Why would any NDA from a company exist that would lead directly to legal actions from hundreds of users that had coins stolen? Can you think of one reason? Can you really believe that?  

Note this is my best guess. And since Ukyo is not saying anything, this is all we have.  Just look at the facts and make your own judgements.

[I apologize if I'm spamming these threads. Thankfully it seems at least finally some of you are coming around to the idea that something isn't right here.]
1513357992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357992
Reply with quote  #2

1513357992
Report to moderator
1513357992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357992
Reply with quote  #2

1513357992
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513357992
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357992

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357992
Reply with quote  #2

1513357992
Report to moderator
fuckukyo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 09:01:39 AM
 #1042

Someone please post Jon Montrol's home address, passport copy, his family informations and or related stuff, or pm me and I will post them.
 
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 09:14:43 AM
 #1043

Kenslaughter of ActiveMining is selling Ukyo's shares for 0.0005 each to regain his 100 btc lost in weexchange.

This means we lost the chance to get a partial refund from Ukyo liquidating his shares (as he said we would, obviously if he was and is in good faith).
...
Well there is the rather obvious point that those shares should have nothing to do with weex ... unless Ukyo has been using people's weex BTC to buy them ... which is something Ukyo can go to jail for doing.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
 #1044

Someone please post Jon Montrol's home address, passport copy, his family informations and or related stuff, or pm me and I will post them.
 
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bza0Sx1iSRWqYVRiMkRaLVlrcFE
ffssixtynine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 05, 2014, 09:59:08 AM
 #1045

The thing is, Glendall, that I do know the reasons as they stood back in nov/dec and I do understand. If you read Danny and ukyo's posts there is a hint there that saying too much could lower the chances of us being repaid.

It's been quite a while since then and I still haven't had spoken to ukyo so I have nothing new. I am also unable to say what I do know (have been told) and I can certainly see what it's taking so long, although it's horrible for those of us owed a lot of money. It also doesn't mean we are going to get any back either.

All I can say is that ukyo hasn't lied to my knowledge and that he was actually trying to do something brave and good. That doesn't absolve him of being at fault, only that he wasn't walking away leaving us pissing in the wind. I requested a third party verify he hadn't used or stolen our money and that was confirmed.

The actm share situation pisses me off. Ken took shares off ukyo when his claim is actually over weexchange aus. Moreover, I believe we all have to be part of it in that situation. It isn't much, but those shares were either nothing to do with us unless a court found ukyo personally liable or they were to be sold on all our behalf.

Ukyo had been trying to get then sold for ages to return more money to weexchange users.

Basically ken is acting illegally, as far as I know, and shitting on WeEx users since this money was already flagged as to go to us. Ukyo doesn't owe ken money. A business for which he is owner does, and they are different in law. The shares were personally owned.

If someone can show I am wrong on this then to ahead. However, it's about the law and business entities, not what you think is right. Basically, can ken under US law claim some rights to ukyo's personal assets, as a Belize company, when ukyo's Australian company owed it money? Everywhere I read about this people are confusing who owns or owes what. And no, being sole director doesn't make you automatically personally liable for a company's debts. That's half the point of a ltd company.
mainline
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 10:39:03 AM
 #1046

The thing is, Glendall, that I do know the reasons as they stood back in nov/dec and I do understand. If you read Danny and ukyo's posts there is a hint there that saying too much could lower the chances of us being repaid.

It's been quite a while since then and I still haven't had spoken to ukyo so I have nothing new. I am also unable to say what I do know (have been told) and I can certainly see what it's taking so long, although it's horrible for those of us owed a lot of money. It also doesn't mean we are going to get any back either.

All I can say is that ukyo hasn't lied to my knowledge and that he was actually trying to do something brave and good. That doesn't absolve him of being at fault, only that he wasn't walking away leaving us pissing in the wind. I requested a third party verify he hadn't used or stolen our money and that was confirmed.

The actm share situation pisses me off. Ken took shares off ukyo when his claim is actually over weexchange aus. Moreover, I believe we all have to be part of it in that situation. It isn't much, but those shares were either nothing to do with us unless a court found ukyo personally liable or they were to be sold on all our behalf.

Ukyo had been trying to get then sold for ages to return more money to weexchange users.

Basically ken is acting illegally, as far as I know, and shitting on WeEx users since this money was already flagged as to go to us. Ukyo doesn't owe ken money. A business for which he is owner does, and they are different in law. The shares were personally owned.

If someone can show I am wrong on this then to ahead. However, it's about the law and business entities, not what you think is right. Basically, can ken under US law claim some rights to ukyo's personal assets, as a Belize company, when ukyo's Australian company owed it money? Everywhere I read about this people are confusing who owns or owes what. And no, being sole director doesn't make you automatically personally liable for a company's debts. That's half the point of a ltd company.

1.  If people are not buying Jon's "wish I could tell you but NO" excuse, you chiming in with "I was told some stuff that I wish I could tell you but NO" becomes particularly irritating.  Unless you're intentionally trolling, stop.

2.  Sure, Ken is at best an opportunist and more likely a thief, but bringing him up in the context of WeEx fiasco and mentioning corporate law is absurd.
Both Jon and Ken have stolen from loosely the same bunch of people, and now they're stealing from each other.  Kindly warn me before bringing up laws in the future so I won't be caught off-guard with a mouthful of coffee.
fuckukyo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 10:56:13 AM
 #1047

Thanks man, those are great!!!

Someone please post Jon Montrol's home address, passport copy, his family informations and or related stuff, or pm me and I will post them.
 
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bza0Sx1iSRWqYVRiMkRaLVlrcFE
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 11:04:50 AM
 #1048

Thanks man, those are great!!!

Someone please post Jon Montrol's home address, passport copy, his family informations and or related stuff, or pm me and I will post them.
 
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bza0Sx1iSRWqYVRiMkRaLVlrcFE
Thanks, but I take no credit for these. Someone else compiled that folder, couldn't find a reference though, just had it bookmarked.
interJ
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 07:25:34 PM
 #1049


If someone can show I am wrong on this then to ahead. However, it's about the law and business entities, not what you think is right. Basically, can ken under US law claim some rights to ukyo's personal assets, as a Belize company, when ukyo's Australian company owed it money? Everywhere I read about this people are confusing who owns or owes what. And no, being sole director doesn't make you automatically personally liable for a company's debts. That's half the point of a ltd company.

Re: the limited liability issue; I would have previously agreed that Ken doesn't legal grounds to stand on to seize Jon's personal shares to absolve the debt held by WeExchange, but it seemed to me that Jon blurred the lines of limited liability to begin with when he put forth using the shares to make repayments. But I also really have no idea. You're right that it's just a pretty convoluted situation - and that in part seems to be what has influenced Ken to act as he has, because it seems like it would be a giant pain for Jon to work it out legally.
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 06, 2014, 03:27:09 AM
 #1050

The thing is, Glendall, that I do know the reasons as they stood back in nov/dec and I do understand. If you read Danny and ukyo's posts there is a hint there that saying too much could lower the chances of us being repaid.
...
Sigh, yet again proving the point that it is simply someone hiding details.

It it was a Govt order to shut Ukyo up about the details, then you have (again) just stated that he broke the gag order and is in deep shit with the Govt that required it.

If it was anything else, then the 'anything else' is a complete load of crap.
Hiding the funds of a trust company (which is how the funds are held) is not something anyone can do for any reason - it's illegal.

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
ffssixtynine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
February 06, 2014, 04:59:04 AM
 #1051

If I thought he was hiding funds in any way then I'd be shouting about it because 70 btc odd are bloody mine and many people I know have funds stuck as well Sad Anything about governmental gag orders is pure speculation and they certainly would've have been broken by anything that's been said.

The funds aren't available can mean multiple things. I can only say that afaik this is true, that to my knowledge ukyo didn't use or steal them, and he is working on finding a way to pay us all back. At least last we spoke but that was some two months ago now. I really need to catch up and see if I can find out what the situ is.
matt4054
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


BitcoinQueue.com


View Profile WWW
February 06, 2014, 08:26:04 PM
 #1052

The funds aren't available can mean multiple things.

not available here is certainly merely a euphemism for gone Undecided
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 07, 2014, 01:13:44 AM
 #1053

If I thought he was hiding funds in any way then I'd be shouting about it ...
Um? Sorry is English an issue for you? (Yes I ask that seriously)
Not telling the owners of the funds, where the funds are, IS "hiding the funds"

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
glendall
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
February 07, 2014, 01:22:29 AM
 #1054

If I thought he was hiding funds in any way then I'd be shouting about it because 70 btc odd are bloody mine and many people I know have funds stuck as well Sad Anything about governmental gag orders is pure speculation and they certainly would've have been broken by anything that's been said.

The funds aren't available can mean multiple things. I can only say that afaik this is true, that to my knowledge ukyo didn't use or steal them, and he is working on finding a way to pay us all back. At least last we spoke but that was some two months ago now. I really need to catch up and see if I can find out what the situ is.


Please give me one single plausible reason why Ukyo would not be able to tell us what happened to all of our coins.

I can not think of a single circumstance where this would be legal and moral.  

The bare facts are: he took deposits knowing he could not pay them back. He used other peoples deposits to pay people who tried to withdraw earlier. He is defaulting on his loans. Millions are missing. He refuses to tell us any details. He paid us 6 cents on every dollar he stole so far.

There are no possible legal reasons (that I can think of) beyond 'if I told you what happened, you'd be able to sue me more easily.'  That's the quote-unquote legal reason that he has for not telling us what he ******** did to all our money.

I admire your optimism.  But how long you going to wait? What if continues to say nothing for another month? It's already been 2. What about another year? Are you okay with that? Because Ukyo has shown 0 progress on this matter. He seems to spend more time on the forums here defending himself than anytime resolving the issue. Why? Because there isn't anything to resolve, he stole the coins, is the most likely answer.
redmetal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160


View Profile
February 07, 2014, 01:48:05 AM
 #1055

If I thought he was hiding funds in any way then I'd be shouting about it because 70 btc odd are bloody mine and many people I know have funds stuck as well Sad Anything about governmental gag orders is pure speculation and they certainly would've have been broken by anything that's been said.

The funds aren't available can mean multiple things. I can only say that afaik this is true, that to my knowledge ukyo didn't use or steal them, and he is working on finding a way to pay us all back. At least last we spoke but that was some two months ago now. I really need to catch up and see if I can find out what the situ is.


Please give me one single plausible reason why Ukyo would not be able to happen to all of our coins.

I can not think of a single circumstance where this would be legal and moral.  

The bare facts are: he took deposits knowing he could not pay them back. He used other peoples deposits to pay people who tried to withdraw earlier. He is defaulting on his loans. Millions are missing. He refuses to tell us any details. He paid us 6 cents on every dollar he stole so far.

There are no possible legal reasons (that I can think of) beyond 'if I told you what happened, you'd be able to sue me more easily.'  That's the quote-unquote legal reason that he has for not telling us what he ******** did to all our money.

I admire your optimism.  But how long you going to wait? What if continues to say nothing for another month? It's already been 2. What about another year? Are you okay with that? Because Ukyo has shown 0 progress on this matter. He seems to spend more time on the forums here defending himself than anytime resolving the issue. Why? Because there isn't anything to resolve, he stole the coins, is the most likely answer.

The evidence points me to thinking that Ukyo invested in TF and got stung when TF got hacked.

Receive $5 free of bitcoin in Australia by becoming verified on CoinJar.com, https://filler.coinjar.com/r/034375f5
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
February 07, 2014, 01:54:04 AM
 #1056

...
The evidence points me to thinking that Ukyo invested in TF and got stung when TF got hacked.
Although he has once stated that they are "gone" (which really makes me wonder myself) it would be unfortunate if the reason was by his using our funds in a manner (as you have described) that could likely mean jail time ...

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
Chris_Sabian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
February 07, 2014, 01:58:24 AM
 #1057


The evidence points me to thinking that Ukyo invested in TF and got stung when TF got hacked.


I agree.  This is the most likely event based on the evidence and timeline.
glendall
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
February 07, 2014, 03:12:20 AM
 #1058

I don't see the connection.

Even if ukyo lost a his coin to TF, what does this have to do with the confiscated deposits on weexchange? Or am I missing something.

If you are supposing that because Ukyo lost his personal money,  he seized customers' deposits to cover that, I don't how see how this any different from him not losing money in investments, and seizing his customers' deposits to buy a fleet of sports cars . Both are just as wrong and equally illegal.

redmetal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160


View Profile
February 07, 2014, 05:56:52 AM
 #1059

I don't see the connection.

Even if ukyo lost a his coin to TF, what does this have to do with the confiscated deposits on weexchange? Or am I missing something.

If you are supposing that because Ukyo lost his personal money,  he seized customers' deposits to cover that, I don't how see how this any different from him not losing money in investments, and seizing his customers' deposits to buy a fleet of sports cars . Both are just as wrong and equally illegal.



I would say he had his hot wallets with TF to earn his huge interest %, or at least most of the funds, if you add up all of the accounts that would of had BTC sitting there either in escrow for trades or the like, he could of exported these funds to try and reap the benefit of the % on offer from TF.

He would of only had to keep 50-100 BTC in we exchange at any one time, only once people withdrew their money he would move it back from Inputs.io....
Which for him would be flagged by the withdrawal action from Bitfunder. It may seem instant on your end but he wouldn't need a whole lot of live cash to keep everything afloat.

Receive $5 free of bitcoin in Australia by becoming verified on CoinJar.com, https://filler.coinjar.com/r/034375f5
g83
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile WWW
February 07, 2014, 07:48:16 AM
 #1060

UKYO PLEASE GIVE US AN UPDATE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!