Statement about the suspect of recent Bitcoinica hack

[vampire]

Typing something as Truth does not make it so. Especially when up against the array of evidence, means and motive to the contrary. Not forgetting Zhou's prime bullshit storytelling.


BB.

This applies to you as well. Need I point out again the array of evidence that Zhou did not steal the funds?

Sure. Since I don't remember you posting any evidence. The only thing you posted as evidence that zhou is interested in bitcoin's success, which I already proved to be wrong.

[Vod]

Can you find the post where Zhou said his buddy stole any funds? I'm having trouble finding that post...

It's the first post of this thread.      Seriously - stick to publishing; you'd make a lousy detective.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

I'm not talking about permission from Bitcoinica/Intersango, I'm talking about a legal warrant that allows him to do what would otherwise be considered a criminal act.

Since Bitcoinica did not file a police report (as far as I know), from legal point of view there is no reason to assume there is a criminal act involved. Technically, Bitcoinica's computers were (allegedly) compromised. That would be the criminal act if it was reported.

[vampire]

Typing something as Truth does not make it so. Especially when up against the array of evidence, means and motive to the contrary. Not forgetting Zhou's prime bullshit storytelling.


BB.

This applies to you as well. Need I point out again the array of evidence that Zhou did not steal the funds?

ZT didn't steal the money but his "Buddy"!

Can you find the post where Zhou said his buddy stole any funds? I'm having trouble finding that post...

Friend, buddy, associate... Same thing in this context.

[Vod]

I'm not talking about permission from Bitcoinica/Intersango, I'm talking about a legal warrant that allows him to do what would otherwise be considered a criminal act.

Since Bitcoinica did not file a police report (as far as I know), from legal point of view there is no reason to assume there is a criminal act involved. Technically, Bitcoinica's computers were (allegedly) compromised. That would be the criminal act if it was reported.

ZT did not file charges against his "friend" either.  If I had a friend who took a large sum of money and made it look like I did it, I would report that right away.  I certainly wouldn't protect my friend's identity.   

[Gyrsur]

Please click always on this below if it appears:

"Advertisement: Bitcoin is worth $10 each on NameTerrific."

I don't want to see this every time and we should protect Newbies.  

[dree12]

Please click always on this below if it appears:

"Advertisement: Bitcoin is worth $10 each on NameTerrific."

I don't want to see this every time and we should protect Newbies. 

There is nothing wrong with NameTerrific.

Typing something as Truth does not make it so. Especially when up against the array of evidence, means and motive to the contrary. Not forgetting Zhou's prime bullshit storytelling.


BB.

This applies to you as well. Need I point out again the array of evidence that Zhou did not steal the funds?

Sure. Since I don't remember you posting any evidence. The only thing you posted as evidence that zhou is interested in bitcoin's success, which I already proved to be wrong.

So he's not interested in Bitcoin's success, eh? Well, that explains blowing his cover by selling his coins the very next day.

Bullshit.

[vampire]

So he's not interested in Bitcoin's success, eh? Well, that explains blowing his cover by selling his coins the very next day.

Bullshit.

And that's your evidence? BULLSHIT.

[dree12]

So he's not interested in Bitcoin's success, eh? Well, that explains blowing his cover by selling his coins the very next day.

Bullshit.

And that's your evidence? BULLSHIT.

What's yours? Oh, wait, also bullshit.

Both explanations are terrible. I believe mine to be better.

[Gyrsur]

Please click always on this below if it appears:

"Advertisement: Bitcoin is worth $10 each on NameTerrific."

I don't want to see this every time and we should protect Newbies. 

There is nothing wrong with NameTerrific.

Indeed it is brand new! BUT I would not trust the person behind this business because the whole story smells like bullshit.

[Maged]

I note that in his most recent response (which actually tells us nothing new), Patrick has again neglected to tell us if he has obtained a warrant for his actions and what he is permitted to do. As you should all be able to tell, this is a pretty important area of ambiguity that needs clarification. Please answer the question Patrick.

Patrick acted upon the request of Bitcoinica's creditors. Since Bitcoinica, to our best knowledge, did not file a police report, nor seems to care whether the funds are returned to the creditors or not, it might be possible to argue that the creditors are the legitimate owners.

Really? Because I'm a creditor and I don't ever recall authorizing that.

[Mike Jones]

Chinese law enforcement can't investigate this as much as you guys would want them too. I suggest hiring a Private I. in this case and getting the evidence through them.

The Chinese are known for bureaucracy like no other.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm not talking about permission from Bitcoinica/Intersango, I'm talking about a legal warrant that allows him to do what would otherwise be considered a criminal act.

Since Bitcoinica did not file a police report (as far as I know), from legal point of view there is no reason to assume there is a criminal act involved. Technically, Bitcoinica's computers were (allegedly) compromised. That would be the criminal act if it was reported.

ZT did not file charges against his "friend" either.  If I had a friend who took a large sum of money and made it look like I did it, I would report that right away.  I certainly wouldn't protect my friend's identity.   

Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

Really? Because I'm a creditor and I don't ever recall authorizing that.

I don't see you on the Bitcoinica Fund Recovery Initiative claim list, nor do I recall you contacting me. I posted several times in different places that people should contact me if they want to be included in the legal action:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93074.msg1050392#msg1050392
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93109.0

Since we have no access to Bitcoinica data, we do not know how to contact individual creditors.

Based on my understanding of the outstanding debt, the sum of the claims on our list represent the majority of the claims.

[vampire]

So he's not interested in Bitcoin's success, eh? Well, that explains blowing his cover by selling his coins the very next day.

Bullshit.

And that's your evidence? BULLSHIT.

What's yours? Oh, wait, also bullshit.

Both explanations are terrible. I believe mine to be better.

Really? Are you being on purpose silly?

Here is my evidence.

Zhou's account was used to steal money.
Zhou's knowledge of bitcoinica was used.
Zhou knew the lastpass password.
Zhou's was money laundering through aurumxchange (transferring money for a friend IS money laundering)

[Mike Jones]

Really? Because I'm a creditor and I don't ever recall authorizing that.

Since we have no access to Bitcoinica data, we do not know how to contact individual creditors.

Can't you guys get a subpoena going?

[vampire]

Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?

I guess your English is bad.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/associate_2



someone who is closely connected to another person as a companion, friend or business partner

[dree12]

Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?

I guess your English is bad.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/associate_2



someone who is closely connected to another person as a companion, friend or business partner

Key word: OR.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

Can't you guys get a subpoena going?

I do not exclude the possibility that we might have access to the data at a later stage (obtained, for example, as you suggest), but for the moment, as far as I know, we do not have it.

[vampire]

Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?

I guess your English is bad.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/associate_2



someone who is closely connected to another person as a companion, friend or business partner

Key word: OR.

or 1  (ôr; r when unstressed)
a. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other.

Back to school?