This thread will not be updated daily anymore.
The people in charge are no longer posting relevant updates.
Gejix and Phantomcircuits went in some sort of vacation, they have stopped all work related to returning funds.
Topic: Actual Bitcoinica Updates ... only (daily) (Read 4542 times)
Posting an update soon.
*Two Zhou posts not ported , (suggesting bad news)
*scrapped*
tl;dr Tihan and friends, Intersango and Zhou are not working well together (or at all) and are not communicating well. They all seem to be protecting their own interests with legal BS and half-truths. However after talking with X I think they are trying to deal with a shit situation. I would not have done it the way they have but at least I know why they have done it the way they have. Communication is helpful.
X of Intersango started talking to me on skype last night after no contact with him in months. He claimed that what I said about intersango changing their story was wrong. My reply was the stories from the different intersango team did not match up. But anyway out of everything I have said on the forum that is the one thing he has issue with. So I will drop that claim and you all read the thread and see for yourselves. I could be wrong.
Anyway lots of interesting information came out in this 1.5 hour conversation. I’m not sure why he told me all of this, maybe it was to get around the supposed NDA maybe it was because he knows how well I have been informed about this bitcoinica stuff from the start. I knew stuff about Tihan that they just recently found out about.
Anyway X thinks it is in the best interest of everyone that they do the claims. They will not pass it onto Zhou at this point because they fear getting sued if Zhou messes up. They also think that it is illegal to give it to Zhou. This makes me think they have the legal responsibility to deal with this mess. They claim their other option is to give it to the “govt”.
They claim that they did not know that there was not a good back up system in place and that they only checked the code.
They claim a lot of the delay was cuz they were not sure that they had the authority to do anything. I’m going to assume that they think they have the authority now.
They claim 38% of the coin has been paid out.
They claim some people were paid back 100% however that was an accident or they did not have many coins in the account. A friend of Tihan was supposedly given preferential treatment.
There were secret deals made, the status of these deal and their legality are in question. The deals seem to have not been honored by intersango.
X now thinks the NDA is not as limited as he once thought and “a lot of things will come out”
They claim things are moving much faster now that Zhou and Tihan are not holding up claims.
There is not a full database.
They have changed the way the process data and some accounts that were accurate need to be redone (like mine).
Some accounts that we were told were accurate are no longer accurate (like mine).
Tihan will not nullify the NDA.
Tihans “boss” claims to have no affiliation with Tihan.
Tihan now claims to be a passive party.
This is the biggest craziness of all, X claims he does not know who the owners really are. He does not know who the owners of Bitcoinica LP are and thinks that they might be “potentially criminally negligent”
When I asked why they are doing this as charity work they more or less said to clean up their image since they will be connected to it anyway.
Intersango was “wildly mislead about the amount of data left”
X claims that if they did not take on the claims the money would have been passed onto the “Govt”
X says Tihan has “requested or maybe ordered that we do not release all the details about security”
X said they did not give the claims to Zhou cuz Tihan would not let Intersango get out of being “responsible if Zhou was negligent” Tihan I guess made it seem that they would cover loses if something happened. They said it in a way that was not legally binding.
X made it clear again he does not know who he is working for and says he is doing it only because if they did not they would pass it on to the govt.
They won’t give it to Zhou because “anyone could easily sue us”.
X thinks the NDA might be still in force but that Tihan might not have ever had the authority to place an NDA.
Tihan claims to have been fired by the guy who claims not to be Tihans boss.
My biggest issue was why was an account that was accurate not being paid out. It seems they want to double check that the funds hit bitcoinica. Easy to check with the block chain and from the E-mail Zhou sent me about it but whatever. I will wait now that I know they need more time to check. Saying it was fully done and then not paying out well is just silly. They never e-mailed me saying I was no longer accurate. I just hope they check my account before they start paying out others more than 50%
If anything in this was misquoted or incorrect I will be happy to correct errors. I am a reasonable person.
Thanks.
*[/quote]*
Quote
Membership in a DRS is mandatory for FSPs who provide a service to retail clients, because it provides consumers with an avenue for redress when a dispute arises with their financial service provider. Membership in a scheme is a pre-requisite for registration as an FSP.
Why did Bitcoinica LP not sign up with a Dispute Resolution Scheme?
Quote
FSPs who are unsure as to whether they need to join a dispute resolution scheme should seek legal advice.
Did Bitcoinica seek legal advice in this matter, if so what was the outcome?
I haven't done much research, but to my best knowledge, DRS only applies to NZ residents.
Over 99% of Bitcoinica customers are not NZ residents so they are not classified as "retail clients". I believe that the company had plans to amend the Terms of Service to mention the illegibility of NZ non-accredited/non-institutional investors for Bitcoinica service.
FYI: Today I got a reply from FSPR Compliance regarding my question whether the mandatory Dispute Resolution Scheme for FSPs applies to non-NZ retail clients (most of Bitcoinica customers):
Quote
From: FSPR Compliance [email protected]
Dear Sir
I refer to your query below.
All financial service providers must be a member of a dispute resolution scheme in respect of a financial service provided to a retail client. A retail client is defined in section 49 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 as any person who is not a wholesale client. There is no requirement that retail clients be New Zealand customers.
There is no offence provision where a FSP is not a member of a dispute resolution scheme. The Registrar will inform the Financial Markets Authority of your complaint.
Dear Sir
I refer to your query below.
All financial service providers must be a member of a dispute resolution scheme in respect of a financial service provided to a retail client. A retail client is defined in section 49 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 as any person who is not a wholesale client. There is no requirement that retail clients be New Zealand customers.
There is no offence provision where a FSP is not a member of a dispute resolution scheme. The Registrar will inform the Financial Markets Authority of your complaint.
So there you have it. Bitcoinica does not meet the requirements for financial service providers in NZ and also seems to be in violation of it's own ToS by not offering this service as an option to their customers:[/b]
Quote
[21] Governing Law; Arbitration and Court Jurisdiction
Binding Arbitration: For any Claim (excluding Claims for injunctive or other equitable relief) where the total amount of the award sought is less than $10,000, you or Bitcoinica may elect to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration conducted in person, on-line or based solely upon written submissions where no in-person appearance is required. In such cases, the arbitration shall be administered in accordance with New Zealand law or any other established Alternative Dispute Resolution provider mutually agreed upon by the parties. Any judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered, exclusively, in any court located within New Zealand. Exclusive Court Jurisdiction: Alternatively, you agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within New Zealand to settle any dispute, which may arise in relation thereto.
Binding Arbitration: For any Claim (excluding Claims for injunctive or other equitable relief) where the total amount of the award sought is less than $10,000, you or Bitcoinica may elect to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration conducted in person, on-line or based solely upon written submissions where no in-person appearance is required. In such cases, the arbitration shall be administered in accordance with New Zealand law or any other established Alternative Dispute Resolution provider mutually agreed upon by the parties. Any judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered, exclusively, in any court located within New Zealand. Exclusive Court Jurisdiction: Alternatively, you agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within New Zealand to settle any dispute, which may arise in relation thereto.
Dear Bitcoinica team,
Please stop using my name "Ryan" for any outbound emails. It's my de facto Christian name.
Also, stop mentioning my "plan". I have received no contact from you for almost two month and it's simply wrong for you to judge my involvement in Bitcoinica either morally or legally.
I'll resign immediately when 50% of funds have been paid back, or upon receiving your instruction, whichever is earlier.
I reserve the right to protect my reputation.
EDIT: Amir has clarified that the first name is a random one due to Gmail's naming policy. He didn't intend to mean me personally. He has changed it to "Jason Bitcoinica".
Also, stop mentioning my "plan". I have received no contact from you for almost two month and it's simply wrong for you to judge my involvement in Bitcoinica either morally or legally.
I'll resign immediately when 50% of funds have been paid back, or upon receiving your instruction, whichever is earlier.
I reserve the right to protect my reputation.
EDIT: Amir has clarified that the first name is a random one due to Gmail's naming policy. He didn't intend to mean me personally. He has changed it to "Jason Bitcoinica".
Your analysis is not only wrong but straight up defamation.
Why would I maliciously misrepresent your words or actions? I have nothing to gain by this. I linked to references that are either legal documents or written by members of Bitcoinica LP.
Bitcoin Consultancy LTD is a UK Limited company which is neither owned nor owns any other company.
I did not claim this. I claim the members behind both companies are the same. Based on Tihans quote: "The members of Bitcoin Consultancy operated Bitcoinica via a separate New Zealand Ltd company formed for this purpose."
Intersango LTD is a UK Limited company which is neither owned nor owns any other company.
I did not mention Intersango LTD at all.
Bitcoinica LP is a New Zealand Limited Partnership.
I agree, and did not claim otherwise
Core Credit LTD is a New Zealand Limited Company and the General Partner of Bitcoinica LP.
Ah this is new info. On 2012/06/07 Amir claimed that Core Credit Limited is Tihan's Parent company (the Limited Partner). See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.946751
Core Credit LTD was renamed to Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD significantly after the events occurred.
Yes it happened on 2012/05/30 and it was never explained why this happened despite me asking repeatedly. Nevertheless the legal incorporation date for Bitcoinica Consultancy is 2012/01/30 according to the NZ documentation.
I personally have absolute no legal obligation to assist in any of this. 100% of my time and effort is donation.
I didn't say you were individually liable. As far as I understand the General Partner is liable. The General Partner is Bitcoinica Consultancy Ltd. You are a member of Bitcoinica Consultancy Ltd. (Unless this changed on May 30) Please correct me if I am wrong.
As for Zhou's "plan" that is precisely what he said he intended to do, a strategy I find to be immensely immoral.
It seems it is you doing the defamation here.
Oh and Patrick - Respect is earned. In the same way I earned the 30.000+ USD worth of funds that you are holding against my consent for the last 2 months.
I realize I am probably putting my claim at risk by pissing off 'the only person' who can help me get 'most' of my funds back but so be it.
As for Zhou's "plan" that is precisely what he said he intended to do, a strategy I find to be immensely immoral.
From the sounds of it Zhou was the only one that had any actual day to day ops knowledge of the system. This was probably the best plan given that right now you are basically trying to put together a puzzle with a million pieces and you don't even have the box to refer too for what the fucking thing is supposed to look like.
17 year old asian kids remember everything.
His plan was to pay the most vocal people 100% of their claimed amount.
Those funds would come directly out of other users pockets.
There are x assets and y liabilities.
x < y
If people are paid 100% of their claims, necessarily those funds are coming out of other users pockets.
Not only is this strategy immoral, but it is arguably illegal.
Of course the intention there is to save face and to give back funds to people most likely to litigate.
I will have no part in anything I believe to be immoral.
How about you give some respect to Zhou ?
Why? He is the one who took on a large project he didn't know how to do, and lost everyone's records. The entire reason you are all in this mess is because he couldn't be bothered to do a braindead backup.
May I remind you that:
- On 2012/01/30 Bitcoin Consultancy became Bitcoinica Consultancy Ltd. (*1)
- On 2012/03/22 Bitcoinica Consultancy Ltd became the General Partner of the newly formed Bitcoinica Limited Partnership (*2)
- On 2012/03/27 Bitcoin Consultancy was retained to perform a comprehensive security audit. (*3)
- On 2012/04/24 Bitcoin Consultancy took over ownership and daily operations of Bitcoinica from Zhou (*4)
- On 2012/05/11 Bitcoinica was hacked due to a root password reset via a compromised email server (belonging to a member of Bitcoin Consultancy). (*5)
IOW: Bitcoin(ica) Consultancy is responsible and liable for what happened on 2012/05/11. Bitcoinica Consultancy (a.k.a. "Intersango Guys") includes Donald, Patrick and Amir. Zhou was merely a Bitcoinica employee at that time (or maybe not even that since he has not been paid for work since 2012/04/01).
References:
1) http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3715077
2) http://www.business.govt.nz/fsp/app/ui/fsp/version/searchSummaryCompanyFSP/FSP207625/4.do?noReturn=true
3) https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.919130 (Tihan's post)
4) http://bitcoinmedia.com/first-licensed-advanced-trading-platform-for-bitcoin/ (written by Donald, CEO of Bitcoin Consultancy)
5) http://bitcoinica.com (post-mortem)
Your analysis is not only wrong but straight up defamation.
Bitcoin Consultancy LTD is a UK Limited company which is neither owned nor owns any other company.
Intersango LTD is a UK Limited company which is neither owned nor owns any other company.
Bitcoinica LP is a New Zealand Limited Partnership.
Core Credit LTD is a New Zealand Limited Company and the General Partner of Bitcoinica LP.
Core Credit LTD was renamed to Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD significantly after the events occurred.
I personally have absolute no legal obligation to assist in any of this. 100% of my time and effort is donation.
As for Zhou's "plan" that is precisely what he said he intended to do, a strategy I find to be immensely immoral.
This is crazy... What is intersangos motivation for dealing with this anyway? I wish we knew their motivation. If we did we might understand this craziness. They should know better.
As I have made painfully clear before Intersango IS NOT INVOLVED IN BITCOINICA IN ANYWAY.
Anybody saying Intersango LTD is a partner in Bitcoinica LP IS LYING.
My personal motivation here is to help people get back most of their funds, really the only chance you all have of getting your funds back is me.
So how about some fucking respect.
I could have easily passed this all off onto zhou and I'm sure he would have paid only the larger claims before running out of funds.
Does that sound fair?
Got 220 BTC back, nothing big that's for sure... Hopefully you guys with larger balances will get yours soon.
It seems like they're dragging their feets with larger accounts.
That is the impression I got as well (I you check the BTC transfers they are typically in the 2 digit range)
53BTC was returned...only real proove was my passport as i had a verified account
I'm happy for flower1024 but it worries me that they are paying out small claims with poor proof over large claims with solid proof. A lot of small mistaken payouts will still amount to a lot of losses. And genjix was claiming that any mistaken payouts will not be covered (which I find unacceptable btw). So it sucks if you are last in line simply because you had a lot of money there.
Do I understand this correctly that the GOX codes are being sent UNENCRYPTED through plain text e-mails?
People requested gpg encryption or even other strange side channels have received that.
I got back 50% today.
Received 50% of my claimed amount, which was approximate and slightly underestimated, but whatever, just happy to be getting something.
Might I suggest sending a small message along with the mtgox code, a standard copy/paste would be fine, for the spam filters. I almost deleted my code
Might I suggest sending a small message along with the mtgox code, a standard copy/paste would be fine, for the spam filters. I almost deleted my code
Do I understand this correctly that the GOX codes are being sent UNENCRYPTED through plain text e-mails?
Yes, plain text e-mails.
still haven t received anything..i received this email from ryan bitcoinica:
Hi,
Your claim will take longer to process as we need to build a case for
your account.
no explanation or something..?
Hi,
Your claim will take longer to process as we need to build a case for
your account.
no explanation or something..?
Just got 50% of mine back today - half of my BTC and half of my USD - both as gox codes
Just received 40% of my claim amount, I guess they reserved(or sold?) some BTC for the lose of my long position.
Sorry, I have to repeat my question:
Lets say you have 100 BTC, 0 USD and your position has a net value of -10 USD, 10 USD worth of BTC will be sold to cover at current market prices (not at 5.1 or 4.9), so at 6.8(an example) you would be sent 100 - (10/6.Sorry, I have to repeat my question:
Quote
Hi genjix/phantomcircuit,
The base price of my long position is higher than 5.1 and my USD balance is zero, so will you sell my BTC to cover the lose of my long position? @what price? Thanks.
The base price of my long position is higher than 5.1 and my USD balance is zero, so will you sell my BTC to cover the lose of my long position? @what price? Thanks.
~= 98.5 BTCThanks for your response. but we still have one issue, who will determine the price to sell my BTC? Do I have the option to get back all my BTC and deposit USD to cover the position lose?
This option should be made available. Bitcoinica team please consider it.
It's absolutely fair to exchange a 10 USD Mt. Gox code with the 100 BTC refund in the above-mentioned situation. No one will complain about the price any more.
Closing long position at 5.1 ? really ?, I would estimate most position were long ones and I have big doubts that you liquidated all positions right after the hack.
If you did, that was a stupid move because the price would have fallen from the event. If it didn't, it just didn't rise as much as it should've.
Apart from this week, You did not state once how position would be liquidated, if you did, show me the post, and lets see what price it was.
(7 day after the hack the price was 5.15 and raised ever since with an average of ~5.6
Your website doesn't say shit yet about positions being liquidated and you obviously didn't send an email either.
If gambling with customers money helped you out recover stolen money, on top of Tihan money, FINE, I've more to worry about.
To be honest, every new minutes that passes I'm worried me that you may loose everything on the main wallet.
If you did, that was a stupid move because the price would have fallen from the event. If it didn't, it just didn't rise as much as it should've.
Apart from this week, You did not state once how position would be liquidated, if you did, show me the post, and lets see what price it was.
(7 day after the hack the price was 5.15 and raised ever since with an average of ~5.6
Your website doesn't say shit yet about positions being liquidated and you obviously didn't send an email either.
If gambling with customers money helped you out recover stolen money, on top of Tihan money, FINE, I've more to worry about.
To be honest, every new minutes that passes I'm worried me that you may loose everything on the main wallet.
Bitcoinica only hedges when there is a change in net position. After shutdown, no change happens so no hedge should occur either.
The open positions for both long and short are almost equal, so there's no profit/loss to Bitcoinica regardless of the liquidation price they set. It can be $100 if they really want to. However, the people with short positions would have been forced to liquidate and there was no way to recover the losses beyond their deposit, it makes sense to choose a price close enough to the market price when liquidation is no longer possible, so that no one will owe anything to Bitcoinica and everyone will be able to get a fair share of refunds.
If you set the liquidation price to $6.5, my estimation is that you'll only get 50% of your money back (unless the shorts pay for their losses by extra deposits, which they won't). For most people they will be worse off.
It's a zero sum game to return the money. Any unexpected benefit for anyone means an unnecessary loss to someone else. What Bitcoinica is trying to do is to make everyone happy with priorities: prevent "real losses" rather than "opportunity cost", making the winners profit less rather than losers lose more.
Closing long position at 5.1 ? really ?, I would estimate most position were long ones and I have big doubts that you liquidated all positions right after the hack.
If you did, that was a stupid move because the price would have fallen from the event. If it didn't, it just didn't rise as much as it should've.
Apart from this week, You did not state once how position would be liquidated, if you did, show me the post, and lets see what price it was.
(7 day after the hack the price was 5.15 and raised ever since with an average of ~5.6
Your website doesn't say shit yet about positions being liquidated and you obviously didn't send an email either.
If gambling with customers money helped you out recover stolen money, on top of Tihan money, FINE, I've more to worry about.
To be honest, every new minutes that passes I'm worried me that you may loose everything on the main wallet.
If you did, that was a stupid move because the price would have fallen from the event. If it didn't, it just didn't rise as much as it should've.
Apart from this week, You did not state once how position would be liquidated, if you did, show me the post, and lets see what price it was.
(7 day after the hack the price was 5.15 and raised ever since with an average of ~5.6
Your website doesn't say shit yet about positions being liquidated and you obviously didn't send an email either.
If gambling with customers money helped you out recover stolen money, on top of Tihan money, FINE, I've more to worry about.
To be honest, every new minutes that passes I'm worried me that you may loose everything on the main wallet.
Bitcoinica only hedges when there is a change in net position. After shutdown, no change happens so no hedge should occur either.
The open positions for both long and short are almost equal, so there's no profit/loss to Bitcoinica regardless of the liquidation price they set. It can be $100 if they really want to. However, the people with short positions would have been forced to liquidate and there was no way to recover the losses beyond their deposit, it makes sense to choose a price close enough to the market price when liquidation is no longer possible, so that no one will owe anything to Bitcoinica and everyone will be able to get a fair share of refunds.
If you set the liquidation price to $6.5, my estimation is that you'll only get 50% of your money back (unless the shorts pay for their losses by extra deposits, which they won't). For most people they will be worse off.
It's a zero sum game to return the money. Any unexpected benefit for anyone means an unnecessary loss to someone else. What Bitcoinica is trying to do is to make everyone happy with priorities: prevent "real losses" rather than "opportunity cost", making the winners profit less rather than losers lose more.
Just received 40% of my claim amount, I guess they reserved(or sold?) some BTC for the lose of my long position.
Sorry, I have to repeat my question:
Lets say you have 100 BTC, 0 USD and your position has a net value of -10 USD, 10 USD worth of BTC will be sold to cover at current market prices (not at 5.1 or 4.9), so at 6.8(an example) you would be sent 100 - (10/6.Sorry, I have to repeat my question:
Quote
Hi genjix/phantomcircuit,
The base price of my long position is higher than 5.1 and my USD balance is zero, so will you sell my BTC to cover the lose of my long position? @what price? Thanks.
The base price of my long position is higher than 5.1 and my USD balance is zero, so will you sell my BTC to cover the lose of my long position? @what price? Thanks.
~= 98.5 BTCThe claims process (both policies and procedures) are very reasonable.
Dude, if you think that communicating through an obscure thread on a forum about peoples lost monies is reasonable then you should have your brain checked for severe damage.
Seriously. Worst communication practices ever. There is nothing reasonable about this process whatsoever.
There is no confirmation of deposition of claim, for one.
You say claim period is closed, but i don't even know you received or accepted my claim because you didnt care to confirm it.
Careless practices.
Now stop making it look nicer than it realy is and don't patronize people.
And please take a course in communication asap, you clearly need it.
If you didn't get a confirmation email then you either did not open a claim successfully or your email provider classified it as spam.
Almost everybody has received additional emails requesting payment instructions as well.
You have no claim.
The online claims process is now closed to new claims.
If you wish to pursue a claim you will need to send a notarized copy of any and all information you have by mail to the registered address as listed by business.govt.nz
The online claims process is now closed to new claims.
If you wish to pursue a claim you will need to send a notarized copy of any and all information you have by mail to the registered address as listed by business.govt.nz
I do have a claim, and its a public one. Part of the funds you are holding are for a pending donation list I have including 1000 BTC for the forum. My claim now is aprox. 16500 BTC interest included.
If you have no intention of honoring my claim, please let me know. I have a PLAN B for your type of people.
Maria.
The claims process (both policies and procedures) are very reasonable.
Your refusal to go through the standard claims process constitutes clear and obvious bad faith.
As I said
The online claims process is now closed to new claims.
If you wish to pursue a claim you will need to send a notarized copy of any and all information you have by mail to the registered address as listed by business.govt.nz
If you wish to pursue a claim you will need to send a notarized copy of any and all information you have by mail to the registered address as listed by business.govt.nz
Hello genjix,
would you mind explaining some details of how you handle your payout? It seems this could settle the worries of a lot of people here.
(1) assumed someone is considered 100% correct, and this claim is for a position of M bitcoins and N USD.
Is it correct then that this claimant recieves an payout of M bitcoins and N USD? Obviously, as you stated, the first round of payouts will be 50% on each part, but in any case, no conversion whatsoever happens?
would you mind explaining some details of how you handle your payout? It seems this could settle the worries of a lot of people here.
(1) assumed someone is considered 100% correct, and this claim is for a position of M bitcoins and N USD.
Is it correct then that this claimant recieves an payout of M bitcoins and N USD? Obviously, as you stated, the first round of payouts will be 50% on each part, but in any case, no conversion whatsoever happens?
It's up to the claimant. They can specify their payment preferences with the main ones at the moment being BTC and MtGox codes. But we're also able to provide other payment options within reason (like bank deposits).
genjix, how are the 50% disbursements going? It's been a while since anyone's posted about getting a payment. Just wondering if there's a hold up or if you're still making regular payments. Do you email people to notify them that you've sent a payment? Do people get emails notifying them that they're accurate and just in a queue for payments?
~35% of claimants are marked accurate
~86% of total funds are marked accurate
~25% of total funds have been repaid
No people aren't getting emails when their account status changes. I want to get whether a claim is marked accurate or not added to the claim ticket.
Quote
When I finally got an email about my claims status I was told that my "account is in the queue and waiting to be reviewed". I'm assuming that means that my account just hasn't been gotten to at all yet. Is that right? Or does it mean that there's something wrong with my information and it needs to be reviewed in more depth?
Yep, you're right. If your account needs to be reviewed more in depth then you would get a message along the lines of either "your account will take a longer to review" or that "your account is placed at the end of the queue because...".
...
(2) you stated in the past that you will close out open positions at a fixed buy/sell rate, which is close to the BTC/USD price at the time the site was taken offline.
Is this statement still valid?
(3) how do you intend to handle the case that a (accurate) claim includes a position, but the opening base price of that position can't be established preciesly?
Thanks for any clarifications
-- Ichthyo
(2) you stated in the past that you will close out open positions at a fixed buy/sell rate, which is close to the BTC/USD price at the time the site was taken offline.
Is this statement still valid?
(3) how do you intend to handle the case that a (accurate) claim includes a position, but the opening base price of that position can't be established preciesly?
Thanks for any clarifications
-- Ichthyo
2- not sure. I'll have to check and repost here. I think they are being closed at 5 (not sure though).
...
...Do you email people to notify them that you've sent a payment? Do people get emails notifying them that they're accurate and just in a queue for payments?
...You've not answered, I suggest you send notice before and after sending payment... to avoid sending to wrong addresses.
I'd swear I had answered this.
Anyways shorts close @ 4.9 longs @ 5.1
I want to explain the logic behind 50% initial payments:
For each claim you have a certainty of its validity. You have the sum of funds from before the site had the database stolen which is equal to the site's previous balance. This sum must be distributed among claims somehow.
Ideally you would mark claims that you thought were accurate and those that weren't (based on what the data indicates to us). Then you would end up with some total value which you compare to the total funds available.
If less than the total funds, then be more permissive and allow certain more claims in. Repeat the above step.
If more than the total funds, then knock out low certainty claims and maybe redistribute funds among lower certainty claims (better that someone who is maybe legitimate, gets something rather than nothing).
You then end up with claims that are refunded with a best-fit according to the available data.
However people demand funds quickly. So as a compromise, we make 50% payouts initially (for claims we are highly certain are accurate). This allows an error margin so that in the final step we can still juggle balances around to resolve payments for everybody. The only downside is that you cannot decide to pay someone 0% after you've paid them 50%.
Then once people have been refunded for 50% and the final balances are decided, the process goes back over payees and refunds them for the remaining amount. I assume the final step should not take long given that it's just making payments out for known beneficiaries.
For each claim you have a certainty of its validity. You have the sum of funds from before the site had the database stolen which is equal to the site's previous balance. This sum must be distributed among claims somehow.
Ideally you would mark claims that you thought were accurate and those that weren't (based on what the data indicates to us). Then you would end up with some total value which you compare to the total funds available.
If less than the total funds, then be more permissive and allow certain more claims in. Repeat the above step.
If more than the total funds, then knock out low certainty claims and maybe redistribute funds among lower certainty claims (better that someone who is maybe legitimate, gets something rather than nothing).
You then end up with claims that are refunded with a best-fit according to the available data.
However people demand funds quickly. So as a compromise, we make 50% payouts initially (for claims we are highly certain are accurate). This allows an error margin so that in the final step we can still juggle balances around to resolve payments for everybody. The only downside is that you cannot decide to pay someone 0% after you've paid them 50%.
Then once people have been refunded for 50% and the final balances are decided, the process goes back over payees and refunds them for the remaining amount. I assume the final step should not take long given that it's just making payments out for known beneficiaries.
I am supposed to only give out the status for emails. Accounts are in 3 states:
- Fake. This is a minority of accounts so far we are certain are impostors.
- Accurate. At my last count, this was around 1 in 20 (5%). Only a portion of these has been paid so far. Still working through paying these people back (I don't have access to funds personally. It works like Donald gets a portion and does them in chunks at a time with proper authorisation from Tihan and Patrick).
- Queued. Majority of claims are in the queue waiting to be examined. Around half (a guess) of claims I believed were accurate, and various fakes got pushed back into the "lets examine then later category". Most simply haven't been looked at yet.
The idea is to sort out claims with the highest certainty (this means quicker payouts), then as you work down, you reconcile them with other payments. I know people here are congratulating me, but I've actually been a hindrance for the claims process. Several times, I caused some mix-ups and confusion so Donald hands me batches/tasks to complete at a time.
- Fake. This is a minority of accounts so far we are certain are impostors.
- Accurate. At my last count, this was around 1 in 20 (5%). Only a portion of these has been paid so far. Still working through paying these people back (I don't have access to funds personally. It works like Donald gets a portion and does them in chunks at a time with proper authorisation from Tihan and Patrick).
- Queued. Majority of claims are in the queue waiting to be examined. Around half (a guess) of claims I believed were accurate, and various fakes got pushed back into the "lets examine then later category". Most simply haven't been looked at yet.
The idea is to sort out claims with the highest certainty (this means quicker payouts), then as you work down, you reconcile them with other payments. I know people here are congratulating me, but I've actually been a hindrance for the claims process. Several times, I caused some mix-ups and confusion so Donald hands me batches/tasks to complete at a time.
Genjix, can you please clarify to me under which status does my accounts hold at the moment?
Maria. <3
You have no claim.
The online claims process is now closed to new claims.
If you wish to pursue a claim you will need to send a notarized copy of any and all information you have by mail to the registered address as listed by business.govt.nz
about forum PMs - please email the address. Getting too many messages and need them all in one place.
bitcoinBull, OK, take it up with Patrick. I'm just retelling a story.
bitcoinBull, OK, take it up with Patrick. I'm just retelling a story.
No, you take it up with Patrick. You're the one who works with him. Get your story straight before retelling it. Two people of a three-person company should be be communicating better.
I did. I told you what I know happened. You said no. I said OK, fine ask Patrick.
Patrick requested him to be added because he wanted to reset server root passwords. And he did receive several email reset confirmations. Whether the email is his personal email or work email, it shouldn't matter. It's the same email that he use to receive the confirmations and all Bitcoinica sensitive emails.
According to zhou, Patrick's email was added at Patrick's request to reset passwords. I can't believe Bitcoin Consultancy doesn't have their story straight this late in the game, and we are still seeing communication failures among their team.
Why would I need that? I already had the password for rackspace.
Indeed I had recently reset the root password for one of the virtual machines by using that password.
I can understand how this might be slightly confusing so I'll clarify.
There are two password reset mechanisms at rackspace.
One is for the rackspace control panel, this sends you an email with a password reset link, I had no use for this.
The second is for the root password of the virtual machines, this is accessible from the control panel, this is what I had used.
Jump to: