Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 05:13:07 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 2 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)
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile
December 25, 2013, 02:53:39 PM
 #681

Why is a claim portal for the AM shares necessary in the first place. Every other stock was able to use the share list. Or is it due to running a fractional reserve?
1513357987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357987
Reply with quote  #2

1513357987
Report to moderator
1513357987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357987
Reply with quote  #2

1513357987
Report to moderator
1513357987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357987
Reply with quote  #2

1513357987
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513357987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357987
Reply with quote  #2

1513357987
Report to moderator
1513357987
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357987

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357987
Reply with quote  #2

1513357987
Report to moderator
WeexUser
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119


View Profile
December 25, 2013, 06:24:00 PM
 #682

Why is a claim portal for the AM shares necessary in the first place. Every other stock was able to use the share list. Or is it due to running a fractional reserve?
A share list was sent to the issuers, so they could move the shares to another exchange or convert them to direct shares.

Ukyo is the issuer of the AM PT shares. Ukyo can obviously use the share list to see who own what but he will need a bitcoin address from each shareholder in order to make Friedcat convert them to direct shares. That is what the AM claim site will be used for.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
December 25, 2013, 11:38:54 PM
 #683


Since when did legal disputes happen where you cannot say you are in a legal dispute? 

Ask Twitter. Since gag orders and national security letters became legal:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115151.p.pdf

IM not saying this is what happened here, but its plausible,  particularly if bitfunder/weexchange is being investigated as part of a larger criminal investigation. Think Silk Road, or any of the bitcoin asset scams. Gag orders do apply to this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703

And its not exactly far fetched to see how an exchange would fall in that category. Would also explain why Ukyo is not able/allowed to destroy ID verification data etc.
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
December 26, 2013, 12:39:44 AM
 #684

Since when did legal disputes happen where you cannot say you are in a legal dispute? When megaupload servers were seized we knew about it instantly and were able to follow the case reasonably well.

Could ukyo not have just said 1 month ago "we cannot return the coins now because of a legal dispute with the SEC".
Ukyo said in the beginning of November that he had "a rather important and very positive announcement" about weex. Remember that it doesn't have to be a problem with a government agency, it could be another company.


And why could the 6% be returned now and not earlier?
He had to create the claim site so he could manage the distribution of available coins and people could see the status of their stuck funds. He might also had to get it cleared legally.

Why should another company being able to froze funds that belong to other users? That would only make sense when not enough bitcoins are there anymore and someone got a title so that ukyo cant spend them in order to save the debt ukyo has with him. If that would be the case it would be totally unfair of ukyo because we couldnt join the lawsuit and probably the first suer will get his money, not we.

Anyway... i dont even get my 6%. Again i only get bitcoind is overloaded...
malkusch
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58



View Profile WWW
December 26, 2013, 02:08:35 AM
 #685

Why is a claim portal for the AM shares necessary in the first place.
[..]
Ukyo is the issuer of the AM PT shares. Ukyo can obviously use the share list to see who own what but he will need a bitcoin address from each shareholder
That doesn't sound reasonable. With all those statements about how he's working his ass off to fix bitcoind, preparing statements for statements and doing some secret black magic tricks to recover those missing coins, he can't afford the luxury to build a portal for informations he already has. Bitfunder users can set a bitcoin address in their profile. There's no need to build a new portal for that information. That's the way other issuers did, ages ago.

1335STSwu9hST4vcMRppEPgENMHD2r1REK
WeexUser
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119


View Profile
December 26, 2013, 02:17:21 PM
 #686

Bitfunder users can set a bitcoin address in their profile. There's no need to build a new portal for that information.

Sorry, I should have included the quote from Ukyo to make it clear.

Many users have asked to not
use their email address, or public bitcoin address, etc for the transfer and dividends. So it was decided
to use the same portal as the loan shares or a third portal for transfer management so users can decide what
bitcoin address to send the held dividends to, and what email/bitcoin address to list with FriedCat.
FriedCat will get a weekly lists of transfers and will payout the remaining held dividends he is holding.
glendall
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
December 26, 2013, 08:32:05 PM
 #687

It is more likely the 'legal reasons' that Ukyo is talking about are 'if I told you what happened to your money, you'd have a better chance of suing me, so I'm not going to say anything.'

Some of you guys have your head in the sand.

Ok say for second there is a legitimate legal reason Ukyo can't say what happened to the coins (which is highly implausible, but for hypothetical sake, lets say so). Is that same legal reason preventing him from telling people what happened to the coins also the same reason why he allowed people to deposit to WeExchange for 2 months when he knew that the WeExchange users would not be able to receive their coins back?

I would just love to hear the answer to this. Some of you are are so afraid of admitting to yourself that this is a scam that you aren't even thinking rationally about what has happened, what has been said, and what you have lost.  
WeexUser
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119


View Profile
December 26, 2013, 09:58:24 PM
 #688

Is that same legal reason preventing him from telling people what happened to the coins also the same reason why he allowed people to deposit to WeExchange for 2 months when he knew that the WeExchange users would not be able to receive their coins back?

We might not have much information but don't change the facts. Deposit of funds were disabled less than a month after the withdrawal problems started.
While we have yet to see proof of of the opposite, you can't just make the statement that "he knew that the users would not receive their coins".

I think it is quite clear that WeExchange has suffered from multiple issues as Ukyo also said. At least the bitcoind issue and some legal issue, which probably started around the 20th of November.
moribana
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 167


View Profile
December 26, 2013, 11:09:31 PM
 #689

Is that same legal reason preventing him from telling people what happened to the coins also the same reason why he allowed people to deposit to WeExchange for 2 months when he knew that the WeExchange users would not be able to receive their coins back?

We might not have much information but don't change the facts. Deposit of funds were disabled less than a month after the withdrawal problems started.
While we have yet to see proof of of the opposite, you can't just make the statement that "he knew that the users would not receive their coins".

I think it is quite clear that WeExchange has suffered from multiple issues as Ukyo also said. At least the bitcoind issue and some legal issue, which probably started around the 20th of November.

You are right that it was not 2 months, but it is true that Ukyo still allowed deposits when he new that withdrawal was practically impossible. At that point he might not have known that funds would get stuck for such a long time but at least he should have warned people that withdrawal was impossible for some time. For some time he failed to do this, in spite of several people asking for this explicitly.
pascal257
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile
December 26, 2013, 11:13:56 PM
 #690

I think it is quite clear that WeExchange has suffered from multiple issues as Ukyo also said. At least the bitcoind issue and some legal issue, which probably started around the 20th of November.
Are you really that naiv to still believe that there was an issue with bitcoind?

The main problem of WeExchange was and is that its run by Ukyo.
WeexUser
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119


View Profile
December 26, 2013, 11:39:09 PM
 #691

You are right that it was not 2 months, but it is true that Ukyo still allowed deposits when he new that withdrawal was practically impossible. At that point he might not have known that funds would get stuck for such a long time but at least he should have warned people that withdrawal was impossible for some time. For some time he failed to do this, in spite of several people asking for this explicitly.
I agree that a warning should have been on the site earlier but unfortunately communication between exchanges and customers doesn't seem to be the norm in bitcoin land  :-(


pascal257, are you so naive to neglect that bitcoind actually also struggles on the claim site? (but this time it automatically restarts)
kirawei
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 12:44:16 AM
 #692

Ukyo where is our promised AM share transfer page??? Friday now!!!
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
December 27, 2013, 01:25:14 AM
 #693

Finally i got at least 9BTC out.

ukyo please give a timeline when you will reveal the truth about the missing coins.

The forum lawyer didnt react yet. Someone wrote me he is in holiday now.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 08:37:37 AM
 #694

It is more likely the 'legal reasons' that Ukyo is talking about are 'if I told you what happened to your money, you'd have a better chance of suing me, so I'm not going to say anything.'

Some of you guys have your head in the sand.

Ok say for second there is a legitimate legal reason Ukyo can't say what happened to the coins (which is highly implausible, but for hypothetical sake, lets say so). Is that same legal reason preventing him from telling people what happened to the coins also the same reason why he allowed people to deposit to WeExchange for 2 months when he knew that the WeExchange users would not be able to receive their coins back?

I would just love to hear the answer to this. Some of you are are so afraid of admitting to yourself that this is a scam that you aren't even thinking rationally about what has happened, what has been said, and what you have lost.  

I dont see whats highly improbable. We know for fact Silk Road is being investigated, and its almost certain some other bitcoin scheme's/scams are being investigated as well. Its unthinkable authorities are not at least trying to track associated bitcoin transactions. Its also very likely at least some SR dealers or users would have used BF/WE (as well as other exchanges and possibly security exchanges). For authorities to gain access to BF/WE's IP logs, email addresses and other data, they would have needed a 2703(d) order. I would go as far as saying it would be very surprising if this had NOT happened. Since a 2703 order is subject to a gag order, and a gag order actually would have made some sense, especially if a "trap and trace" was put in place, Ukyo would not be allowed to disclose this.

As for the inability to pay out, here is one of many possibilities; while BF/WE may have been targeted initially just to help catch SR users, it would quickly have become clear to authorities that the exchange itself (not too mention, all the asset issuers) is/are violating all kinds of laws, and once they collected the data they needed for the main investigation, it was shut down, possibly with servers/assets/wallets seized. Danny might be helping in providing a legal way to refund customers without violating money transmission laws, as his company might have the required licenses. The fact that most bitcoins are unavailable might be related to the distinction between BF and WE, with funds supposedly belonging to one or the other being seized. You might guess BF funds were still available as in the past security exchanges have been allowed to close to down properly, see BTCT.

Foot note: Im not risking a single satoshi in this, and Im not exactly afraid to call something a scam when I think it is one. Its just that in his case there is a much more likely explanation. One that in fact, Ive been predicting for quite some time.
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
December 27, 2013, 11:42:57 AM
 #695

It is more likely the 'legal reasons' that Ukyo is talking about are 'if I told you what happened to your money, you'd have a better chance of suing me, so I'm not going to say anything.'

Some of you guys have your head in the sand.

Ok say for second there is a legitimate legal reason Ukyo can't say what happened to the coins (which is highly implausible, but for hypothetical sake, lets say so). Is that same legal reason preventing him from telling people what happened to the coins also the same reason why he allowed people to deposit to WeExchange for 2 months when he knew that the WeExchange users would not be able to receive their coins back?

I would just love to hear the answer to this. Some of you are are so afraid of admitting to yourself that this is a scam that you aren't even thinking rationally about what has happened, what has been said, and what you have lost.  

I dont see whats highly improbable. We know for fact Silk Road is being investigated, and its almost certain some other bitcoin scheme's/scams are being investigated as well. Its unthinkable authorities are not at least trying to track associated bitcoin transactions. Its also very likely at least some SR dealers or users would have used BF/WE (as well as other exchanges and possibly security exchanges). For authorities to gain access to BF/WE's IP logs, email addresses and other data, they would have needed a 2703(d) order. I would go as far as saying it would be very surprising if this had NOT happened. Since a 2703 order is subject to a gag order, and a gag order actually would have made some sense, especially if a "trap and trace" was put in place, Ukyo would not be allowed to disclose this.

As for the inability to pay out, here is one of many possibilities; while BF/WE may have been targeted initially just to help catch SR users, it would quickly have become clear to authorities that the exchange itself (not too mention, all the asset issuers) is/are violating all kinds of laws, and once they collected the data they needed for the main investigation, it was shut down, possibly with servers/assets/wallets seized. Danny might be helping in providing a legal way to refund customers without violating money transmission laws, as his company might have the required licenses. The fact that most bitcoins are unavailable might be related to the distinction between BF and WE, with funds supposedly belonging to one or the other being seized. You might guess BF funds were still available as in the past security exchanges have been allowed to close to down properly, see BTCT.

Foot note: Im not risking a single satoshi in this, and Im not exactly afraid to call something a scam when I think it is one. Its just that in his case there is a much more likely explanation. One that in fact, Ive been predicting for quite some time.

Whats the sense of Trap and Trace when SR isnt anymore and a traced user would have to be really stupid using the same address again? Of course authorities normally arent known as the smartest when it comes to internet related things.
Didnt NEOBEE write that he would have told the truth long ago but he accept ukyo's decision? Doesnt sound like ukyo really is bound legally.
Why should ukyo being allowed to pay back a part of the bitcoins to all users? Doesnt make much sense.
Is it really allowed to seize funds that belong to others? Its not that these bitcoins are ukyo's bitcoins or of its company. They bitcoins clearly belong to the users. If they take them away its stealing and should be different than when we invested in weexchange because then it would become ukyo's funds.

Ukyo please give a time when you reveal the truth!
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 12:11:56 PM
 #696

Whats the sense of Trap and Trace when SR isnt anymore and a traced user would have to be really stupid using the same address again? Of course authorities normally arent known as the smartest when it comes to internet related things.

Trap and trace could have been installed a long time ago, potentially long before the closure of BF/WE or even SR. You wouldnt have known, thats why they invented gag orders. Also, the transactions could have been done ages ago, but some funds might still be on BF or can be tracked indirectly to accounts currently on BF/WE. Feds would be interested in trying to obtain their users identity.

Quote
Didnt NEOBEE write that he would have told the truth long ago but he accept ukyo's decision? Doesnt sound like ukyo really is bound legally.

Possibly its a matter of interpretation what Ukyo is allowed to say and what he is not. As an example, he would almost certainly not be allowed to speak of a silk road related T&T, but it might be less clear if he is allowed to speak of a SEC or FinCEN investigation/seizure relating to his own activities. Perhaps Neobee thinks he can do that, while Ukyo doesnt dare. National security letters are no joke. Keep in mind that afaik burnside never explicitly said SEC or FBI had anything to do with the closure of his site, while reading between the lines, this was fairly obvious.

Quote
Why should ukyo being allowed to pay back a part of the bitcoins to all users? Doesnt make much sense.

Authorities would likely consider BF and WE two separate entities conducting a separate kind of business. Burnside was allowed to refund his customers and just cease operations orderly. Likewise its not unthinkable BF is allowed to dissolve orderly and the funds that are being attributed to BF are allowed to be refunded, while WE is not permitted to do any money transmission activities and/or its funds are seized. Another possibility is that funds are being cleared by authorities once its established they are not related to SR or whatever it is they are investigating, or once the identity of the owner has been confirmed. Although admittedly, the latter would make a pro rata refunding rather bizarre.

Quote
Is it really allowed to seize funds that belong to others? Its not that these bitcoins are ukyo's bitcoins or of its company. They bitcoins clearly belong to the users.

Tell that to SR customers. Or bitcoin-24 customers for that matter. Of course funds and bitcoins can be seized during an investigation. Doesnt mean they will never be released back, but God knows how long that can take.

Quote
Ukyo please give a time when you reveal the truth!

If my hypothesis is correct, Ukyo wouldnt know himself. NSL's have an open-ended, lifelong gag order. Basically you are not allowed to even say you got one until the FBI tells you that you can.
AccountManagement
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26

Trust Bought & Sold


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
 #697

@Puppet:

If a gag order existed, Ukyo would be V& -- he ran afoul of it by discussing the matter with Danny.

Please give a plausible scenario where revealing information to Danny would be exempt.

Secure Account Portfolio Management
Your trusted source of pre-owned quality Bitcointalk accounts since right about now yesterday 2013.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 01:58:26 PM
 #698

@Puppet:

If a gag order existed, Ukyo would be V& -- he ran afoul of it by discussing the matter with Danny.

Please give a plausible scenario where revealing information to Danny would be exempt.

Maybe he didnt tell Danny everything, explaining also why there seems to be a disagreement between them in what can be revealed. Maybe he told Neobee legal counsel which might not be a violation of the gag order. Maybe the gag order is limited to public and press, and Ukyo is allowed to talk to Danny. Im neither psychic nor a lawyer, but this seems a far more probable line of thought than this being a straight scam.
AccountManagement
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26

Trust Bought & Sold


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
 #699

@Puppet:

If a gag order existed, Ukyo would be V& -- he ran afoul of it by discussing the matter with Danny.

Please give a plausible scenario where revealing information to Danny would be exempt.

Maybe he didnt tell Danny everything, explaining also why there seems to be a disagreement between them in what can be revealed. Maybe he told Neobee legal counsel which might not be a violation of the gag order. Im neither psychic nor a lawyer, but this seems a far more probable line of thought than this being a straight scam.

He obviously told Danny enough for Danny to become involved.  Dany claims complete understanding of the situation.  Either Danny is not telling the truth, or Ukyo broke the gag order.
Being allowed to discuss matters under a gag order with another party's legal counsel (which, in turn, discusses it with a third party) is simply absurd.
*NeoBee's counsel is no more privileged in this case than Dimebag Pedro -- none of the Attorney-client stuff applies.

Secure Account Portfolio Management
Your trusted source of pre-owned quality Bitcointalk accounts since right about now yesterday 2013.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
December 27, 2013, 02:19:21 PM
 #700

He obviously told Danny enough for Danny to become involved.  Dany claims complete understanding of the situation.  Either Danny is not telling the truth, or Ukyo broke the gag order.

Sigh. This is becoming semantics. A gag order pretty much forces you to lie.  If Ukyo's gag order did not allow him to speak to Danny about some NSL, and Ukyo did abide by it,  but Ukyo did tell Danny about troubles with the SEC, would you expect Danny to say anything other than claiming to have full understanding of the situation? Similarly if Ukyo violated his gag order, would you expect Danny to make that public?

Quote
Being allowed to discuss matters under a gag order with another party's legal counsel (which, in turn, discusses it with a third party) is simply absurd.
*NeoBee's counsel is no more privileged in this case than Dimebag Pedro -- none of the Attorney-client stuff applies.

We dont know whats in the gag order, if there is one. They can be extremely broad or narrow in scope.
Pages: « 1 2 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!