[Payout Updates] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation

[kokjo]

@Maria:
BITCH PLEASE!

your money is not more important, then others money.
please stop spamming the thread.

[1714786353]

1714786353

[1714786353]

1714786353

[1714786353]

1714786353

[Bigpiggy01]

why do you people not just kick Donald out? he seems like a jerk, first fighting with Zhou on the forum, then with Tihan by email.
what is wrong with this guy??? he is counter productive!

He's probably also the only thing keeping parties unnamed from pulling an Edison on other people's Tesla act

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla and http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_response

[guruvan]

So now I understand that basically none of you are willing to accept responsibility as the GP of Bitcoinica, LP.

Basically, all of the involved people have apparently shirked their responsibility, and now are in possession of funds that they are unwilling to return to their rightful owners.

Sounds more and more like SOMEONE is scamming SOMEONE - and until we find out who is scamming whom, the only presumption we (as customers) can make is that all the parties involved in "Bitcoinica LP" are scamming their customers (through action or inaction)

So, which partner is trying to rip off which other partner? Squeeze them out at a loss? WTF is really going on?

This smells way more dirty than a bunch of fuckups who lost their data and can't figure out how to return some funds.

Why have you not contacted your customers? Why have you not actually been clear about the ownership of your company?

Why don't you PROVE that you actually have the funds. Put them in a trust - otherwise, I think we have to presume that you're running a scam, and either don't really have the money, or won't return it because you're using it to earn for your own company.

Show us the money already.

[imsaguy]

Oh look, 25 days since the last update on https://bitcoinica.com/.  Awesome.

[ninjarobot]

How did you fill the claim form out?  Did you put all "exacts" or "approx."?  I filled out "approx" because I had no idea if I had like .005 BTC added on to any of my transactions and BTC total's in my account.  I just couldn't fill out "exact" b/c I didn't want to  be off by any amount.  

I used "approx." as interest was accruing daily on both my USD and BTC deposits, so I had no way of knowing the "exact" value. However all the significant digits on the left of the decimal point were exact and I provided references and transfer codes to back them up.

[disclaimer201]

Zhou repeatedly said that the money is there, so it's probably still there.

Nice to hear from genjix again. Finally, you are on the right track giving information more often. I believe transparency isn't just good for customers, but is in your own interest as well. I'm certain customers would have been much more supportive and understanding if you had tried to explain the confusion a little more, and a little earlier. If I were you, and I hadn't signed any papers yet, and realized I was blamed for something I wasn't even legally involved in at the time, I would have not been the first to take responsibility, either.

Nevertheless, let's get this over with so we can enjoy the summer and won't need to spend the rest of the summer reading this forum. Make Bitcoinica's customers good, even if it's only 80%, send more confirmation emails, give daily updates. Most will be satisfied and remember this as one big investment mistake, we can all go buy some ice cream, sit in a beer garden with public viewing and watch Italy, Spain and Russia make it to the semi-finals.

[S3052]

Zhou repeatedly said that the money is there, so it's probably still there.

Nice to hear from genjix again. Finally, you are on the right track giving information more often. I believe transparency isn't just good for customers, but is in your own interest as well. I'm certain customers would have been much more supportive and understanding if you had tried to explain the confusion a little more, and a little earlier. If I were you, and I hadn't signed any papers yet, and realized I was blamed for something I wasn't even legally involved in at the time, I would have not been the first to take responsibility, either.

Nevertheless, let's get this over with so we can enjoy the summer and won't need to spend the rest of the summer reading this forum. Make Bitcoinica's customers good, even if it's only 80%, send more confirmation emails, give daily updates. Most will be satisfied and remember this as one big investment mistake, we can all go buy some ice cream, sit in a beer garden with public viewing and watch Italy, Spain and Russia make it to the semi-finals.

+1. I can only echo that genjix's more frequent communication is great in (re)building trust

[Mushoz]

Zhou repeatedly said that the money is there, so it's probably still there.

Nice to hear from genjix again. Finally, you are on the right track giving information more often. I believe transparency isn't just good for customers, but is in your own interest as well. I'm certain customers would have been much more supportive and understanding if you had tried to explain the confusion a little more, and a little earlier. If I were you, and I hadn't signed any papers yet, and realized I was blamed for something I wasn't even legally involved in at the time, I would have not been the first to take responsibility, either.

Nevertheless, let's get this over with so we can enjoy the summer and won't need to spend the rest of the summer reading this forum. Make Bitcoinica's customers good, even if it's only 80%, send more confirmation emails, give daily updates. Most will be satisfied and remember this as one big investment mistake, we can all go buy some ice cream, sit in a beer garden with public viewing and watch Italy, Spain and Russia make it to the semi-finals.

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks for this post

[guruvan]

Zhou repeatedly said that the money is there, so it's probably still there.

And has repeatedly failed to prove this to the rest of us.

Probably? Sorry, none of these guys' words are good enough. Not a one of them has shown that they can tell the truth 100% without fail. So, no "probably" isn't good enough. If there was a single example of one bitcoinica employee/owner/partner/consultant or Whatever, that had told us the FULL truth when first asked then maybe if would be the case that we should (or rather, could) believe them. But, despite repeated questioning, we still don't have the truth on most of the issues.

Proof is what's in order - and really - what is in order is Bitcoinica, LP, putting the funds in a trust that earns interest FOR THE CUSTOMERS instead of hiding it where it earns interest for bitcoinica.

A bunch of unverifiable statements just aren't helping the case here. Looks really scammy guys. More so with each and every day.

[Ichthyo]

Probably? Sorry, none of these guys' words are good enough. Not a one of them has shown that they can tell the truth 100% without fail. So, no "probably" isn't good enough. If there was a single example of one bitcoinica employee/owner/partner/consultant or Whatever, that had told us the FULL truth when first asked then maybe if would be the case that we should (or rather, could) believe them. But, despite repeated questioning, we still don't have the truth on most of the issues.

Proof is what's in order - and really - what is in order is Bitcoinica, LP, putting the funds in a trust that earns interest FOR THE CUSTOMERS instead of hiding it where it earns interest for bitcoinica.

A bunch of unverifiable statements just aren't helping the case here. Looks really scammy guys. More so with each and every day.

Guruvan can you please be a bit more careful with your assumptions and responses?

Almost every post from you shows you drawing wildly and far fetched conclusions and then getting angry based on you own conclusions, not the facts. Please learn to distinguish what is your impression from what has been actually stated!


Without doubt, this situation is annoying and bears a lot of uncertainties. We had quite some badly lacking official communication. But I am not aware of anyone lying to us. There was only partial disclosure (which is a common business practice), but any of the details provided later on did fit into the partial image available beforehand. Please go back an read the official statements on this forum. And read them carefully and try to distinguish from your "impression". Even Zhoutong always indicated what he "thought" should be done or what he "proposed" and on the other hand there are some facts he really knew, and he indicated so, and other people like genjix confirmed those.

The situation is uncomfortable for any of us, but by steering emotions we just help the dishonest and unfair people present in this thread, just waiting for their chance to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

-- Ichthyo


PS: if anyone wants to take legal action, please behave like real business people, talk to you lawyer, draw your conclusions on other business partners for yourself, privately, but stop creating noise and hot air here on the forum publicly.

[proudhon]

Probably? Sorry, none of these guys' words are good enough. Not a one of them has shown that they can tell the truth 100% without fail. So, no "probably" isn't good enough. If there was a single example of one bitcoinica employee/owner/partner/consultant or Whatever, that had told us the FULL truth when first asked then maybe if would be the case that we should (or rather, could) believe them. But, despite repeated questioning, we still don't have the truth on most of the issues.

Proof is what's in order - and really - what is in order is Bitcoinica, LP, putting the funds in a trust that earns interest FOR THE CUSTOMERS instead of hiding it where it earns interest for bitcoinica.

A bunch of unverifiable statements just aren't helping the case here. Looks really scammy guys. More so with each and every day.

Guruvan can you please be a bit more careful with your assumptions and responses?

Almost every post from you shows you drawing wildly and far fetched conclusions and then getting angry based on you own conclusions, not the facts. Please learn to distinguish what is your impression from what has been actually stated!


Without doubt, this situation is annoying and bears a lot of uncertainties. We had quite some badly lacking official communication. But I am not aware of anyone lying to us. There was only partial disclosure (which is a common business practice), but any of the details provided later on did fit into the partial image available beforehand. Please go back an read the official statements on this forum. And read them carefully and try to distinguish from your "impression". Even Zhoutong always indicated what he "thought" should be done or what he "proposed" and on the other hand there are some facts he really knew, and he indicated so, and other people like genjix confirmed those.

The situation is uncomfortable for any of us, but by steering emotions we just help the dishonest and unfair people present in this thread, just waiting for their chance to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

-- Ichthyo


PS: if anyone wants to take legal action, please behave like real business people, talk to you lawyer, draw your conclusions on other business partners for yourself, privately, but stop creating noise and hot air here on the forum publicly.

I agree that we ought to be careful about accusations of lying.  However, given all the inconsistent reports offered by the various bitcoinica representatives, at the very least some of the representatives are misinformed about the subject of their own reports.  And that has only served to weaken my faith in any of their reports, including their consistent claim that people will get some of their money back.

[guruvan]

I have received an email from genjix

We have verified the initial round of Bitcoinica customers and you have
been deemed eligible for the payout as specified in your claim

I was requested to reply with my preference for repayment (GOX-USD or Bitcoin) - and offered other (possible) repayment options if those would not work for me.

I requested GOX-USD. I stated that I would like to know whether the repayment would be 100% of the balance, or not, and the closing price of my open position.

I did not provide ID verification, but as posted earlier in this thread, I did post my OTC key on my personal website, and on my 2 google profiles, all of which confirm my "ownership" of this nickname, also used on my bitcoinica account. My google profiles lead to my real identity, which is not in any way secret. My website domain is the same as my nickname. (srsly a passport would be redundant)

However, I have not as yet received response or payment (nor do I really expect one for a few days)

For the moment, I will shut up and await further word from the team. I look forward to that, and then I will look forward to a complete and full explanation of the entire situation once all legal/financial obstacles have been cleared.

It would be good to finally understand why this has gone so horribly wrong, so that the proper reputations may be restored (and vice versa if appropriate)

[Matthew N. Wright]

I have received an email from genjix

We have verified the initial round of Bitcoinica customers and you have
been deemed eligible for the payout as specified in your claim

Would you mind pasting the headers? I am curious if someone is just fucking with you (completely possible).

[guruvan]

Probably? Sorry, none of these guys' words are good enough. Not a one of them has shown that they can tell the truth 100% without fail. So, no "probably" isn't good enough. If there was a single example of one bitcoinica employee/owner/partner/consultant or Whatever, that had told us the FULL truth when first asked then maybe if would be the case that we should (or rather, could) believe them. But, despite repeated questioning, we still don't have the truth on most of the issues.

Proof is what's in order - and really - what is in order is Bitcoinica, LP, putting the funds in a trust that earns interest FOR THE CUSTOMERS instead of hiding it where it earns interest for bitcoinica.

A bunch of unverifiable statements just aren't helping the case here. Looks really scammy guys. More so with each and every day.

Guruvan can you please be a bit more careful with your assumptions and responses?

Almost every post from you shows you drawing wildly and far fetched conclusions and then getting angry based on you own conclusions, not the facts. Please learn to distinguish what is your impression from what has been actually stated!


Without doubt, this situation is annoying and bears a lot of uncertainties. We had quite some badly lacking official communication. But I am not aware of anyone lying to us. There was only partial disclosure (which is a common business practice), but any of the details provided later on did fit into the partial image available beforehand. Please go back an read the official statements on this forum. And read them carefully and try to distinguish from your "impression". Even Zhoutong always indicated what he "thought" should be done or what he "proposed" and on the other hand there are some facts he really knew, and he indicated so, and other people like genjix confirmed those.

The situation is uncomfortable for any of us, but by steering emotions we just help the dishonest and unfair people present in this thread, just waiting for their chance to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

-- Ichthyo


PS: if anyone wants to take legal action, please behave like real business people, talk to you lawyer, draw your conclusions on other business partners for yourself, privately, but stop creating noise and hot air here on the forum publicly.

No one from that company has really been 100% forthright, and yet you're still bitching at me about saying they're lying while I simply state the fact that when asked, the principals at bitcoinica refused to answer who is the General Partner  - Frankly, I think that's seriously dishonest, and at best completely disingenuous. But, you can think what ever the hell you want - I'm personally sick of having smoke blown up my ass from one side of the other  (and all the sides of bitcoinica represented in this thread CAN'T be telling the truth, because they don't fucking agree!)

But, then I don't really expect most people to understand that to diametrically opposing statements cannot simultaneously be true.

[guruvan]

I have received an email from genjix

We have verified the initial round of Bitcoinica customers and you have
been deemed eligible for the payout as specified in your claim

Would you mind pasting the headers? I am curious if someone is just fucking with you (completely possible).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Delivered-To: ME YO@guruvan.net
Received: by 10.112.41.8 with SMTP id b8csp35420lbl;
        Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.218.7 with SMTP id pc7mr17177451pbc.88.1339370633321;
        Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <genjix@riseup.net>
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net. [204.13.164.18])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sp1si7920571pbc.230.2012.06.10.16.23.52
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of genjix@riseup.net designates 204.13.164.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=204.13.164.18;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of genjix@riseup.net designates 204.13.164.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=genjix@riseup.net
Received: from fulvetta.riseup.net (fulvetta-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.75])
   (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
   (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (verified OK))
   by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86AE05397D
   for <ME YO@guruvan.net>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
   (Authenticated sender: genjix@fulvetta.riseup.net)
   with ESMTPSA id 19EB819F
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1)
        (SquirrelMail authenticated user genjix)
        by fulvetta.riseup.net with HTTP;
        Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:52 -0700
Message-ID: <63921dddb6a9281e59c48946b0924b3d.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:52 -0700
Subject: guruvan - SOME MONEY USD
From: genjix@riseup.net
To: ME YO @guruvan.net
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean

Hello,

We have verified the initial round of Bitcoinica customers and you have
been deemed eligible for the payout as specified in your claim:

[proudhon]

But, then I don't really expect most people to understand that to diametrically opposing statements cannot simultaneously be true.

I'm sure most everybody understands that.  But what should be just as obvious is that two people can make two contradictory claims and neither one be lying.  It could be the case that both are merely mistaken.

[guruvan]

But, then I don't really expect most people to understand that to diametrically opposing statements cannot simultaneously be true.

I'm sure most everybody understands that.  But what should be just as obvious is that two people can make two contradictory claims and neither one be lying.  It could be the case that both are merely mistaken.

In some of the conflicting statements, you'd sure hope no one is mistaken. TBH, I would think that worse than lying.

[kokjo]

YES! the payouts has begun!

[M4v3R]

Not for me, unfortunately

(I have had an account there from day one, and supplied exact amounts of my balance/positions).

[Krakonos]

Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of genjix@riseup.net designates 204.13.164.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=204.13.164.18;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of genjix@riseup.net designates 204.13.164.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=genjix@riseup.net
Received: from fulvetta.riseup.net (fulvetta-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.75])
   (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
   (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (verified OK))
   by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86AE05397D
   for <ME YO@guruvan.net>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT)

Yeah, and what is the riseup.net domain? It does not belong to genjix, nor to bitcoinica, ZT or someone I know of. It seems to be some generic webmail. Sorry to be suspitious, but I'd expect official communication to be at least from well known address and gpg signed.

Maybe somebody can confirm that it's genjix' email.

[ignore this if the email above is fake]If it is true and payouts are really starting, there should be announcement on the bitcoinica.com saying "first 10% of claims has been verified and asked for payment methods. Payments will be processed tomorrow" or stuff. Do you know how this one cheap sentense (with a few trusted people sayit it's true and their accounts are the ones that are paid) would have helped your reputation?[/ignore this if the email above is fake]