Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] Bitcoinica Consultancy abandons customers. Bitcoinica to enter Liquidation - page 10. (Read 54938 times)

aq
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
If I have to choose between getting my funds back or get the thief into jail, I choose funds any day.
Forgetting for now that no one is asking you to choose, the fact that you would rather get back your own money than try to apprehend and deter the theif from stealing from others is at odds with the image you are trying to paint yourself with in your jibe against me (conscientious, fair, etc).

I am not that kind of human, that enjoys someone rotting in jail that much, that I would waste my funds on it. However, I see, that you are probably different than me.
Again you are straw-manning because you have no answer. I'm not a fan of prison at all, but you chose to assume otherwise.

Theif A - Takes everyone's money, is found out and returns it. Therefore both sides are back where they started.
Theif B - Takes everyone's money, is found out and returns it as well as receiving punishment (additional compensation, dispossession, rehab, restriction of freedom). Therefore the victims are where they started and the theif has at the very least been inconvenienced and at the most been reformed.

Which one do you think is more likely to steal again? Don't even think about straw-manning again or debating useless semantics, the fact is that there is no perfect solution to theft of BTC, but your proposed solution is more damaging if anything.

BB.
You have to give the thief some incentive to return the funds.
Bitcoin is a global currency, but there are many countries out there, where a Bitcoin theft is not even illegal.
When the trustee for the payback (consultancy) holds the funds in some unsecured account, whom to you blame more?
When the trustee (consultancy) was also the cause for the hack before (unsecured email), do you still blame the thief?
Make no mistake, the thief is guilty, but it almost borders to keep something that been lost and found.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 502
Well .. I see that shit-storm has again begun. I have 2 questions:
1)  there is still a database claim ?(the one where the filling of fields) \ "database is intact?" \And who now owns base?
2) If the money "found" (magically returned), I think that they did not disappear at all, likewise, need to "return" the database of trade (which is "erased" "hacker") \This database also "hackers"magically returned)?\
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
Hi all and sorry for the wait.

I can confirm that as of last night all the funds Zhou promised to retrieve (approx. $100,000 USD and 20,000 BTC) have been returned to Bitcoinica, LP's MtGox account. The receivership and liquidation process is underway and I'll post updates here as things move forward.

Best,
Patrick
Hi Patrick, please could you answer the question myself and others have asked repeatedly: What/Who has given you the legal authority to take custody of these stolen goods? As I'm sure you can tell, I really would like a clear and full answer on this.


Zhou,  I expect the hacker to come up with the missing funds,  or at the very least you to turn over all his contact details so the appropriate actions can be taken.
As a matter of justice, decency and deterrent, Zhou should turn over any and all of "Chens" details regardless of wether the funds are returned. The theif needs to be hunted down and brought to justice, otherwise the community invites more thefts.


BB.

Patrick Murck has repeatedly been asked to provide proof that he's able to practice federal law in all 50 states as he has claimed. I, personally, asked to see his shingle stating such, but to no prevail.

Until such certificate is produced, I am on record for stating that we have a classic case of the fox watching the hen house. The only reason some funds are being returned is to hopefully take the heat off, coupled with the hope that nobody digs deeper into the background of all those involved. I'm sorry, but a Linkedin page doesn't cut it for me, for I can easily be a lawyer in five minutes, albeit under a different name and of somebody who's listed on The Bar and recently passed away. (to be clear, not saying that's the case, but that's how I would do it)

~Bruno~
member
Activity: 101
Merit: 10
If I have to choose between getting my funds back or get the thief into jail, I choose funds any day.
Forgetting for now that no one is asking you to choose, the fact that you would rather get back your own money than try to apprehend and deter the theif from stealing from others is at odds with the image you are trying to paint yourself with in your jibe against me (conscientious, fair, etc).

I am not that kind of human, that enjoys someone rotting in jail that much, that I would waste my funds on it. However, I see, that you are probably different than me.
Again you are straw-manning because you have no answer. I'm not a fan of prison at all, but you chose to assume otherwise.

Theif A - Takes everyone's money, is found out and returns it. Therefore both sides are back where they started.
Theif B - Takes everyone's money, is found out and returns it as well as receiving punishment (additional compensation, dispossession, rehab, restriction of freedom). Therefore the victims are where they started and the theif has at the very least been inconvenienced and at the most been reformed.

Which one do you think is more likely to steal again? Don't even think about straw-manning again or debating useless semantics, the fact is that there is no perfect solution to theft of BTC, but your proposed solution is more damaging if anything.


BB.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
I'm not saying that things are perfect, so stop straw-manning to defend your ridiculous concept. Anyone who thinks that letting theives give back what they stole without actual punishment as a way of deterring and minimizing theft and losses, is clearly a fucking idiot.
If I have to choose between getting my funds back or get the thief into jail, I choose funds any day.
I am not that kind of human, that enjoys someone rotting in jail that much, that I would waste my funds on it. However, I see, that you are probably different than me.

Irregardless, you take away punishment, and there are no consequences.  Everyone would be free to try and steal and hack because nothing at all would happen to them.  Whether you believe it or not, the threat of punishment stops people from stealing.  ZT needs to be charged for the theft of half a million dollars, we are just waiting until he stops returning funds before we do it.
aq
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
I'm not saying that things are perfect, so stop straw-manning to defend your ridiculous concept. Anyone who thinks that letting theives give back what they stole without actual punishment as a way of deterring and minimizing theft and losses, is clearly a fucking idiot.
If I have to choose between getting my funds back or get the thief into jail, I choose funds any day.
I am not that kind of human, that enjoys someone rotting in jail that much, that I would waste my funds on it. However, I see, that you are probably different than me.
member
Activity: 101
Merit: 10
I'm not saying that things are perfect, so stop straw-manning to defend your ridiculous concept. Anyone who thinks that letting theives give back what they stole without actual punishment as a way of deterring and minimizing theft and losses, is clearly a fucking idiot.


BB.
aq
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
aq - You are either insane or complicit. The whole point of punishing the individual(s) is so that they are very much deterred from doing the same again. A theif has lost nothing if all he does is give back what he stole, therefore inviting more theft.
Because punishing works perfectly, as we can see all over the world. There is not a single crime happening in the real world, because of punishing...  Huh
You must be living in some fantasy world, wake up and face reality.
Bitcoin is money, and there will always be someone who tries to steal it, regardless of punishment.
member
Activity: 101
Merit: 10
Its important to know, because before everyone celebrates that funds have been "recovered", they should be sure that this person who claims to be legally capable and permitted, is so. Additionally, is Patrick in any way involved in any of the ongoing legal investigations?

The implications of the answers are obvious and critical to whether any money actually gets back into the wallets of the victims.

aq - You are either insane or complicit. The whole point of punishing the individual(s) is so that they are very much deterred from doing the same again. A theif has lost nothing if all he does is give back what he stole, therefore inviting more theft.


BB.
aq
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
As a matter of justice, decency and deterrent, Zhou should turn over any and all of "Chens" details regardless of wether the funds are returned. The theif needs to be hunted down and brought to justice, otherwise the community invites more thefts.
Actually it would be great if this behavior would invite other thiefs to also return the funds.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
Hi all and sorry for the wait.

I can confirm that as of last night all the funds Zhou promised to retrieve (approx. $100,000 USD and 20,000 BTC) have been returned to Bitcoinica, LP's MtGox account. The receivership and liquidation process is underway and I'll post updates here as things move forward.

Best,
Patrick
Hi Patrick, please could you answer the question myself and others have asked repeatedly: What/Who has given you the legal authority to take custody of these stolen goods? As I'm sure you can tell, I really would like a clear and full answer on this.

Even if he doesn't have any such authority (and I'm not convinced that he doesn't), what are you going to do about it? Call the cops?
member
Activity: 101
Merit: 10
Hi all and sorry for the wait.

I can confirm that as of last night all the funds Zhou promised to retrieve (approx. $100,000 USD and 20,000 BTC) have been returned to Bitcoinica, LP's MtGox account. The receivership and liquidation process is underway and I'll post updates here as things move forward.

Best,
Patrick
Hi Patrick, please could you answer the question myself and others have asked repeatedly: What/Who has given you the legal authority to take custody of these stolen goods? As I'm sure you can tell, I really would like a clear and full answer on this.


Zhou,  I expect the hacker to come up with the missing funds,  or at the very least you to turn over all his contact details so the appropriate actions can be taken.
As a matter of justice, decency and deterrent, Zhou should turn over any and all of "Chens" details regardless of wether the funds are returned. The theif needs to be hunted down and brought to justice, otherwise the community invites more thefts.


BB.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
I'm pleased that my threat of bringing him to justice forced Zhou Tong to refund.
You appear to be confusing correlation with causation.
Very much so.

Aside - I love the mouseover text on the page: "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'." Grin
donator
Activity: 544
Merit: 500
I'm pleased that my threat of bringing him to justice forced Zhou Tong to refund.
You appear to be confusing correlation with causation.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
I'm pleased that my threat of bringing him to justice forced Zhou Tong to refund.  We actually held off on engaging the PI once he made the announcement he was returning the majority of funds.  But the relationship is now in place and we WILL hold ZT accountable if he does not return the remaining funds soon.

According to ZT himself, the $40K being held is from personal funds, so he has no reason not to refund the rest of the stolen money.
full member
Activity: 223
Merit: 100

I don't believe that users are acting in their own best interests when time and time again they seek no redress against people/entities which have been responsible for substantial losses.  To date, there have been no meaningful consequences for those who've been responsible for losses of user funds - whether through criminal activity or incompetence.  As long as such losses are acceptable to the community and redress is not sought, Bitcoin services will become an increasingly attractive target for scammers and hackers alike and the losses will continue to mount and that's going to have a very real impact on people's willingness to invest in and adopt Bitcoin.


+1
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
Yah, it's the friend story again. For being a bitcoiner, repetance, you seem to place an awful lot of fait in the current established system. Are you an accountant by any chance ?

Business administration was my field for over thirty years.  I'm semi-retired now.  I don't necessarily put faith in the system, but I find it utterly absurd when people won't use the system to their advantage in instances where there are few other options.  

I'm sure Tihan would much rather have avoided receivership and liquidation, but the Bitcoinica drama needs to be brought to an end and pretty much the only remaining practical way do that is via some kind of formal insolvency.

I suspect Roger et al would prefer to avoid litigation and were hoping that filing a lawsuit would bring people to the negotiating table - but I'm sure they're willing to follow through with the lawsuit if that doesn't happen because it's ludicrous to just shrug your shoulders at the loss of over ~$400,000 and not try to recover it.

I also suspect that many of the people who've posted in these threads didn't believe Zhou's explanations for a minute but were willing to play along with the story as long as there was hope of the stolen funds being returned.

I don't believe that users are acting in their own best interests when time and time again they seek no redress against people/entities which have been responsible for substantial losses.  To date, there have been no meaningful consequences for those who've been responsible for losses of user funds - whether through criminal activity or incompetence.  As long as such losses are acceptable to the community and redress is not sought, Bitcoin services will become an increasingly attractive target for scammers and hackers alike, the losses will continue to mount, and that's going to have a very real impact on people's willingness to invest in and adopt Bitcoin.


hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000

You are correct that Zhou stated $140,000. My understanding is that the additional $40,000 includes funds frozen (rightly so) at ArumXchange. I would hope that Zhou would cooperate with authorities in apprehending and prosecuting the hacker.

Zhou has misinformed you.  He has clearly stated here on multiple occasions that the $40,000 which AurumXchange has frozen is from a transaction he conducted on behalf of a friend and that those funds have nothing to do with the hacker.  AurumXchange has frozen an additional $5,000 in funds which are presumed to be related to the hack and which are in an account which Zhou claims was opened without his knowledge using an email account belonging to him.

I realise that your legal involvement does not extend beyond ensuring the recovered funds are secured until control of the assets is passed into receivership and liquidation, but I wanted to clarify for you why you may be asked questions about why the amount recovered is less than what was promised by Zhou.

Yah, it's the friend story again. For being a bitcoiner, repetance, you seem to place an awful lot of fait in the current established system. Are you an accountant by any chance ?
legendary
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1311
My point is that more funds were stolen by the hacker than what Zhou has promised to return.
The hacker needs to refund the total amount that was stolen ASAP.

But then his hacking will not have been profitable.  But seriously, I was trying to make a similar point, and I hope you end up getting as much back as possible whether voluntarily or from the lawsuit.  I wish you the best of luck.  You've done a tremendous amount of good for the project and it's really shitty to see you get screwed like this.
newbie
Activity: 25
Merit: 0

You are correct that Zhou stated $140,000. My understanding is that the additional $40,000 includes funds frozen (rightly so) at ArumXchange. I would hope that Zhou would cooperate with authorities in apprehending and prosecuting the hacker.

Zhou has misinformed you.  He has clearly stated here on multiple occasions that the $40,000 which AurumXchange has frozen is from a transaction he conducted on behalf of a friend and that those funds have nothing to do with the hacker.  AurumXchange has frozen an additional $5,000 in funds which are presumed to be related to the hack and which are in an account which Zhou claims was opened without his knowledge using an email account belonging to him.

I realise that your legal involvement does not extend beyond ensuring the recovered funds are secured until control of the assets is passed into receivership and liquidation, but I wanted to clarify for you why you may be asked questions about why the amount recovered is less than what was promised by Zhou.

Thanks for the clarification, that is helpful.
Pages:
Jump to: