BitMarket.Eu has closed down

[Sultan]

Isn´t it a  good idea to pay our fees with the BTCs on hold? So we can reduce our loss for ourself? That is more trustworthy. People are so maybe more motivated to work again with bitmarket.eu.

That is an excellent proposition. But then m4v3r will pay the expenses for running bitmarket.eu from his own pocket (which is empty, as he says). How many years he needs to do that before he makes +18K bitcoins in fees?

My friend, ever since we started trading there have been 43.71319707 BTC traded up to today, (this is since 3rd Janruary) This results in a total of 0.109282993 btc made in fees within 6 days.

With these trends we can expect to earn 18k worth of bitcoins in around 164,710 days.

So to answer your question, it would be around 450 years before bitmarket.eu can earn 18k worth of bitcoins in fees. (It might be slightly less because I think some investors are planning to invest some money.)

[1714134705]

1714134705

[1714134705]

1714134705

[1714134705]

1714134705

[mralbi]

no, i think we all agree that solely from the "trading fee" concept it will not be possible ever to reimburse the debts.

The money needs to come somehow from advertising / product commissions or, what is actually my idea, from allowing bitmarket users to offer P2P services to each other via bitmarket. We are currently brainstorming on ideas, and also how the possible investments can be done and how we can put trust back into the site.

But also development of ideas would take time and please dont expect any quick results. Even when we get an investment sum of 20.000 euros or so it does not mean that the money would not be used to pay out frozen coins immediately

[M4v3R]

My friend, ever since we started trading there have been 43.71319707 BTC traded up to today, (this is since 3rd Janruary) This results in a total of 0.109282993 btc made in fees within 6 days.

With these trends we can expect to earn 18k worth of bitcoins in around 164,710 days.

So to answer your question, it would be around 450 years before bitmarket.eu can earn 18k worth of bitcoins in fees. (It might be slightly less because I think some investors are planning to invest some money.)

There were more than 100 BTC traded in that period, not all of them are confirmed by sellers yet though.
Also, please keep in mind that the volume now is very low now, because Bitmarket lost some users that lost trust in the site. It will take probably few weeks for volume to go back to regular levels. And with proper advertising + new features, it could further rise.

Finally, as mralbi said, we will try to make some key arrangements with other Bitcoin services to generate further revenue.

Isn´t it a  good idea to pay our fees with the BTCs on hold? So we can reduce our loss for ourself? That is more trustworthy. People are so maybe more motivated to work again with bitmarket.eu.

That is an excellent proposition. But then m4v3r will pay the expenses for running bitmarket.eu from his own pocket (which is empty, as he says). How many years he needs to do that before he makes +18K bitcoins in fees?

The expenses always were, and will paid from our pockets. Comparing to the debt they aren't that big. The idea you proposed is really good. If no one has anything against it, I might implement it very soon.

[defxor]

I've never been a user of any of the Bitcoin services where the customer base was scammed, previously. However, I was a user of Bitmarket and while I wasn't personally scammed someone I recommended to the service might've been. I'm thus slightly more interested in this case compared to all the others.

1) Without proof that user funds were indeed used to gamble on Bitcoinica an equally likely explanation is that the site operator is sitting on them. Bailing him out with all these grand business plans makes those bitcoins "clean".

Suggestion: Provide proof of the blockchain transactions and Bitcoinica claim.

2) Any and all business plans that can make 18k BTC in a reasonable timeframe will create zero profit if used with Bitmarket, 18k BTC profit if used with any other site. It's difficult to understand investors who make such a choice.

Suggestion: Provide rational arguments as to why those business plans are better suited for Bitmarket than other sites. They exist, they have large userbases and some have even stayed away from scamming users. Note: The rationale for Bitmarket is not in question, but for the investors it's downright strange.

3) The Bitmarket site owner played the casino with user funds, and lost. If he had won, the profit would've gone to him, not the users. One of the most profitable Bitcoin business models to have surfaced so far (excluding, I believe, Mt. Gox and Satoshi Dice - where I'm wary of the latter) is to open up a service and then simply scam the users. This will continue until one of two things happens:

a) There's a protocol solution making service scamming impossible. This I believe to be critically needed before Bitcoin is a viable transaction medium.

b) Scam artists are prosecuted. We're still waiting for Bitcoinica, but it looks unlikely. Bitmarket isn't, however. Virtual goods have already been the subject of the highest court in the relevant jurisdiction and the site owner has publically admitted to the deed. It would be a straightforward case and likely make future scam artists think twice.

I suspect cognitive biases to play a role here. You would not be as lenient with someone who broke into your house and stole the same amount of money/goods.

[SgtSpike]

I've never been a user of any of the Bitcoin services where the customer base was scammed, previously. However, I was a user of Bitmarket and while I wasn't personally scammed someone I recommended to the service might've been. I'm thus slightly more interested in this case compared to all the others.

1) Without proof that user funds were indeed used to gamble on Bitcoinica an equally likely explanation is that the site operator is sitting on them. Bailing him out with all these grand business plans makes those bitcoins "clean".

Suggestion: Provide proof of the blockchain transactions and Bitcoinica claim.

2) Any and all business plans that can make 18k BTC in a reasonable timeframe will create zero profit if used with Bitmarket, 18k BTC profit if used with any other site. It's difficult to understand investors who make such a choice.

Suggestion: Provide rational arguments as to why those business plans are better suited for Bitmarket than other sites. They exist, they have large userbases and some have even stayed away from scamming users. Note: The rationale for Bitmarket is not in question, but for the investors it's downright strange.

3) The Bitmarket site owner played the casino with user funds, and lost. If he had won, the profit would've gone to him, not the users. One of the most profitable Bitcoin business models to have surfaced so far (excluding, I believe, Mt. Gox and Satoshi Dice - where I'm wary of the latter) is to open up a service and then simply scam the users. This will continue until one of two things happens:

a) There's a protocol solution making service scamming impossible. This I believe to be critically needed before Bitcoin is a viable transaction medium.

b) Scam artists are prosecuted. We're still waiting for Bitcoinica, but it looks unlikely. Bitmarket isn't, however. Virtual goods have already been the subject of the highest court in the relevant jurisdiction and the site owner has publically admitted to the deed. It would be a straightforward case and likely make future scam artists think twice.

I suspect cognitive biases to play a role here. You would not be as lenient with someone who broke into your house and stole the same amount of money/goods.

To counter some your arguments, I suggest there are a few other points at play:

1) I completely agree.

2) I partially agree.  But, an investor coming into Bitmarket would have a few advantages vs starting from scratch:
a) Bitmarket already has an existing userbase
b) Bitmarket already has an established name (it could be argued that this is a negative effect, but I think it would have the opposite effect if an investor quickly jumped in and fixed the whole situation)
c) By fixing the whole situation, an investor would be viewed as a hero to those who are creditors to the situation, and an honest/trustworthy businessman to everyone else
d) One less unresolved scam in the Bitcoin world, so a bonus to ALL Bitcoin users
e) As to whether all of the above combined is worth anywhere close to the 18k, I doubt it very much.  So I agree with you on the point as a whole.

3) a & b both need to happen, in my opinion!

I agree cognitive roles play a role here.  I think people are just desperate, and given the track record of prosecuting scammers in the Bitcoin community, they would rather see someone else "invest" in the scammer so that they can at least get some of their money back instead of seeing criminal justice come to fruition, while quite possibly seeing nothing back. It is a rather strange way of thinking that has evolved here though, where we become complacent with scammers and thieves as long as the potential to get some of our money back is there.

[Ollie]

Are there other Finnish users of Bitmarket.eu, who lost their bitcoins? We should discuss filing a police report together. Also, do any Finnish forum members have experience on how the Finnish police handles this kind of international financial fraud cases? Does anyone have personal details on the people who run Bitmarket.eu?

Can we get Interpol involved?
http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Financial-crime/Financial-crime

[malevolent]

Ask mtgox if they would like to buy bitmarket.eu for 18k BTC


EDIT: not the domain name but the whole exchange. And only once you start getting your customers return to using bitmarket.

[M4v3R]

Blockchain transactions will prove nothing, because there is no one from Bitcoinica to prove that the addresses belong to them. Soon their liquidators will post reports regarding all claims, which hopefully will be an enough proof that the funds were in fact there.

The rationale for investing is that bigger services either won't sell to anybody, or the price is impossible for investors to pay. In case of Bitmarket for relatively small price the potential is quite big.
Please keep in mind that MtGox paid ~17000 BTC for bailing out bitomat.pl's users, which was MUCH smaller (only traders from Poland), so here it's not unreasonable. Lastly, I'm offering my technical support at every stage of investement, even months after that, until all is repaid.

Update: I've implemented deducting the fee from "on hold" balance if a user has one, as suggested above.

[Stemby]

I've implemented deducting the fee from "on hold" balance if a user has one, as suggested above.

Very good!

[disclaimer201]

Is there a chance that you will get anything back from Bitcoinica? You know, the 20th is the deadline for the form to be sent to that insolvency administrator in New Zealand. Or did you really gamble all the money away? For me, it's only about 50 BTC that bitcoinica owes me, but I was lucky to get half of my coins back from Amir and a few more from that Zhoutong "charity" fund. I'm guessing you had no luck in that respect for they wouldn't pay back to big creditors until...well never. But who knows what this insolvency agency will do...

[galaxy07]

Please keep in mind that MtGox paid ~17000 BTC for bailing out bitomat.pl's users, which was MUCH smaller (only traders from Poland), so here it's not unreasonable. Lastly, I'm offering my technical support at every stage of investement, even months after that, until all is repaid.

Have you contacted MagicalTux? That would be a good idea.

[crazy573]

Update: I've implemented deducting the fee from "on hold" balance if a user has one, as suggested above.

Would be nice if the users could see a record from their own deductions.

Further a rating system or at least a manual how the buying system works, because the amount of canceled transfers from buyers who didn't knew what they were doing is ridiculous.

[onpdm]

Update: I've implemented deducting the fee from "on hold" balance if a user has one, as suggested above.

I just logged in into my account and saw that my "on hold"-balance shows up 12.995 BTC instead 13 BTC? Why is there a difference of 0.005 BTC in fact of these 13 BTC where part of an offer but had not been sold at point of closing market. Nevermind that small value about 0.005 BTC but wanted to know why?

[M4v3R]

onpdm: you have sold 2 BTC before, and confirmed it on 11th. The fee is taken upon confirmation.

Would be nice if the users could see a record from their own deductions.

Further a rating system or at least a manual how the buying system works, because the amount of canceled transfers from buyers who didn't knew what they were doing is ridiculous.

What do you mean by a "record from their own deductions"?

I'm in progress of remaking the UI for buying and selling, to allow picking the seller manually. I understand that with current system new buyers are sometimes confused with what's going on.

Also, I might add an option for selling your "on hold" Bitcoins to other people. It would be clearly stated, especially for the buyer, that these Bitcoins can't be withdrawn at the moment, but you can trade them like an alternate currency within Bitmarket. I'm sure there are some people, wanting to get rid of these now, that are willing to sell them at a discount to people for whom Bitcoin is a long-term investement.

[onpdm]

onpdm: you have sold 2 BTC before, and confirmed it on 11th. The fee is taken upon confirmation.

Ah thx for the info ...

[crazy573]

What do you mean by a "record from their own deductions"?

A list of the deductions which are taken from the 'on hold' balance. So we can check how much and why it dropped.

[pazor]

is bitmarket.eu not reachable ?
it seems to be down!

[galaxy07]

Hello Maceij,
what is going on?
I decided to trust bitmarket again and to trade on it, despite of the current dept balance. Please do not shatter that trust.

is bitmarket.eu not reachable ?
it seems to be down!

[cpunks]

I can only confirm that it's down from my perspective too:

Critical error
Module 'main' source file not found!

[chiliftw]

Hello Maceij,
what is going on?
I decided to trust bitmarket again and to trade on it, despite of the current dept balance. Please do not shatter that trust.

is bitmarket.eu not reachable ?
it seems to be down!

Same over here. I started trading again, hopefully it´s just a server problem and no further...unpleasant surprise...