Topic: [ANN] Bitcoinica Consultancy abandons customers. Bitcoinica to enter Liquidation - page 10. (Read 54936 times)

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.

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)?\

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~

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... 
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.

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.

Actually it would be great if this behavior would invite other thiefs to also return the funds.

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?

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.


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.

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'."

You appear to be confusing correlation with causation.

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.

+1

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.

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 ?

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.

Thanks for the clarification, that is helpful.