Topic: Big Buyer on BitFloor (Read 2896 times)

Scenario:
I lend you 10 btc.  You agree to pay back on January 1.


January 1 arrived, you say you don't have the Bitcoins.  But, since it was just monopoly money, you have no obligation to pay me back.

Does that sound OK to you?

(sorry to continue this, btw)

My time is valuable, so thanks but no thanks.

If you would like to continue, I suggest we take it outside, or to the "Let insult each other!" thread.

Merely +1.

+1

As an unaffiliated outside observer, I belief both sgornick and shtylman make valid points here and it's not obvious that either is completely right or wrong.  We all know that resolution of conflicts of bitcoin is a legal grey area.

shtylman built a good exchange that was unfortunately caught in a bad situation (or so the story goes) and has done a decent job of attempting to recover from it under difficult circumstances.

sgornick makes excellent and valid points about how that recovery was executed and the potential risks going forward.


Let's not resort to name calling or attempting to silence valid criticism.

Let's use this forum as intended, as a free and open discussion that benefits the entire community.  Put the information out there (color it if you must toward your point of view) and let the each individual decide what's best for their own interests.

QFT.

You're a moron. Go away.

I see what you did there!  Well played, oh master of passive aggressive cross examination. 

Sorry, I mean, 'innocent seeker of pure knowledge and stupefying neutrality.'   

Nice. I have absolutely no dog in this fight. I have no point of view. I have never used a btc exchange. The only exchange I did use was glbse and I have most of my coins returned. The paltry sum of btc I have is from mining and donations for the btc mining related analyses I've written.

I come to a thread and read a post implying that it's ok for BitFloor to not return lost btc. I was fairly certain I was mistaken, but I had to ask.

So you come in, guns blazing, and rather than actually answer any question I ask you present pointless ad hominem attacks. And you think I have some sort of agenda? You could have looked at my history of posts or my blog and you would have seen that my interests lie in another area completely.

Since I disgust you and and you feel I'm dishonest, I'll gladly go on your ignore list. Please do. You certainly wont go on my ignore list - I'm quite keen to see what sort of foolishness you next contribute to the forum.

BTW, do you actually have any proof that " 'Merely' is one of the most overused, obvious weasel words in the English language", or did you merely make that up? I merely ask for information.



Edit: I feel guilty for letting this go OT as long as it has. If you would like to continue, I suggest we take it outside, or to the "Let insult each other!" thread. Shush now! no talking. I'll respond for you:

I see two arguments from you, both strongly implying that BitFloor is wrong and Gornick the mighty internet lawyer has a case:



It doesn't matter if you phrase your points in the form of "mere" questions and are too dishonest to be upfront about your POV.

"Merely" is one of the most overused, obvious weasel words in the English language.  People who use it to poorly disguise obvious aggression sicken me.

So if I hold BTC with you, you have no obligation of returning them to me upon request ?

Don't waste your time, Stephen Gornick is 100% right. Shtylman is in a massive debt towards its users. And not so surprisingly he starts defining Bitcoins as monopoly money as soon as you start reminding him of it. And for some reason a couple idiots follow him...

The only reason there are massive bids, is that people want to get out of bitfloor and put as much distance between them and the massive pile of fail it has become.

Shtylman, you're dead in this business, so is your exchange.

All I see is a question which you've not yet answered. As I said I know nothing about the situation and I'd like to know. Stephen Gornick explained matters sufficiently well, so unless you have a counterpoint to his explanation, post it rather than try to imply .... What are you implying, exactly? I don't even

A "mere obersveration" in the form of pointed, leading questions?   

You've now made two arguments, albeit using the Socratic method (*cough, passive aggression, cough*).

Here was the first one:

The twenty four thousand BTC that were heisted are gone.  I understand that BitFloor doesn't have funds to cover the losses.  I'm not posting here to demand the return of funds that BitFloor doesn't have.

I'm posting because I suspect those who today are carrying a balance of USDs or BTCs at BitFloor are probably expecting that they will be able to withdraw those funds on demand when they want to withdraw them.   But if some account holders whose bitcoins were previously heisted decide to take legal action against BitFloor, it is today's USD and BTC balances that exist in the exchange accounts right now that are at risk.

Take a look at the depth chart at BitFloor:


 - http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitfloorUSD_depth.html

Notice how the blue (asks) is less than 100 BTC for all sell orders at $14 or lower?    Even the bids have low depth (excluding the aggressive bid at $12.30) and there would be just $4K USD of bids on the books.  To me that indicates that others are concerned about leaving funds in their account at BitFloor as well.

BitFloor hasn't settled with those whose bitcoins are still on "hold" and hasn't filed for bankruptcy protection so that it can continue operating without putting at-risk the funds deposited by today's customers.



It wouldn't matter if what BitFloor was storing was its customer's gold, its customer's widgets or its customer's bananas.   A debt is a debt and a company that is not able to honor its debt commitments is insolvent.

All I'm pointing out is that customer deposits with BitFloor are not safe, in my opinion, as long as there are customers such as myself who are not able to access their funds.   Additionally, even customers who do withdraw all their funds might not be safe because of clawback provisions due to preferential transfer (though I'll concede that the amount of preferential transfer that is occurring probably isn't a large enough amount to warrant getting clawback approved nonetheless see any success at actually reclaiming funds from customers.)

What if tomorrow morning a judgment lien were to be granted and BitFloor's bank accounts are then seized?

I wasn't aware I was making an argument, merely an observation. As I said, I know nothing about Stephen Gornick's situation, and I have only vague memories of BitFloor losing a large stash of btc.

So his coins aren't going to be returned? Isn't there some sort of moral imperative to make good? Or is this beside the point?

You're missing where Gornick rambled on about laws that apply to legal tender and not Bitcoin, as if they applied to both equally.

You and he lost this argument about clawback, pooled assets, blah blah a long time ago. 

I got my US$ back and Gornick got nothing except butthurt.  QED.   

.... continuing OT, I really have no idea what's going on here. If Stephen Gornick has currency with you and now cannot access it, what does it matter if that currency was btc or fiat? Or am I missing something here?

Ya, we tried that whole "stating facts and making sense" thing with Gornick. 

It doesn't work; he won't listen.  Just ignore him and his internet tough lawyer act.  Let him stew.   

I would only suggest that you stop confusing bitcoins and USD. The two are not the same thing.