Topic: Bitcoin.org now claiming to be "offical" site - page 2. (Read 2583 times)

If you are talking about Alydian the court papers are all online where Barry Silbert's company, Bitvesment Partners, caught the transfer of the Bitcoins and it was the judge that scolded the legal team for making noises.  I tried to purchase the mining equipment and I said I wanted it delivered.  They went into court and said the potential bidders wanted the equipment left in place.

http://cointext.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/alydiancomplaint.pdf

The rest of the court docs are here:

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/unc1p5dn/washington-western-bankruptcy-court/cli-holdings-inc/

A few entries pulled from the articled linked below:

Document 113-1, Page 24: "THE COURT: So that concerns me even more. Now what you’re saying is the debtor agreed to pay significant incentive compensation to employees of an insider without any court approval at all."

Document 113-1, Page 39: "But if you're asking me am I satisfied with the credibility of Mr. Vessenes? No, I am not."

Document 113-1, Page 41: "THE COURT: I mean, my preference would certainly be that CoinLab shouldn't be paid anything except by a motion and order of the Court, or somebody needs to be looking at the invoices. Because this is a lot of money being transferred to what is clearly an insider."

Document 113-1, Page 42: "THE COURT: I don’t know how legitimate these expenses really are because what I see is a debtor that has absolutely zero existence, zero — the debtor is nothing. The debtor has — doesn’t have — I can’t tell whether the debtor has the assets. Mr. Stehlik raised an issue about who owns the — you know, who owns the technology. I don’t know what it takes to prove what the debtor owns. The debtor has no employees. The debtor has no office. The debtor has nothing. And so I want to make sure that when we do this worldwide advertising we are not misrepresenting to the world what we have to sell, because the integrity of the bankruptcy process is at stake."

Document 113-1, Page 58: "THE COURT: I guess I don’t understand how the mining works such that when the November monthly report was filed on December 17th, it showed no revenue, and it wasn’t until the day after Mr. Vessenes’s deposition that it was amended to show $1.8 million."

Document 113-2, Page 21: "So, Your Honor, it’s very simple. This is a highly profitable enterprise. It doesn’t need this bankruptcy. It has no business filing a bankruptcy petition, and the sale motion that is a big piece of this puzzle should be denied."

Document 113-2, Page 26: "There were payments to insiders two days before, and as of the date — only a couple of hours before the bankruptcy petition was filed, the debtor transferred as of today’s value over $12 million worth of bitcoins. The debtor repeatedly lied about it in his schedules, on Schedule 3B at the 341 meeting of creditors, and only amended SOFA No. 3 the day after the Rule 2004 exam, during which time it was confronted with evidence that these payments were actually made immediately before the bankruptcy petition. We have multiple other misstatements in the schedules, including Schedule D, which states that the debtor had no bitcoins as of the date of the filing of the petition."

Document 113-2, Page 29: "THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Glynn Levin, I can tell you, because I sit up here, that Ms. Simonyan didn’t make any noises or anything like that when she heard you say things that she didn’t like, so you need to give her the same respect."

Document 113-2, Page 33: "First of all, as the Court can see, many of these emails are gibberish. There are characters that are completely unreadable. Some of the font sizes are so small that it’s impossible to even read the parts that are in actual English."

Document 113-2, Page 65: "Post-petition contracts. I suppose the debtor could argue this was in the ordinary course of business, but I’m going to say it’s not. A contract signed between the debtor and a related entity which is signed by the person that I am counting on to be in charge of the debtor in possession, Mr. Vessenes, when he signs with both hats on, I have to have all of my systems on high alert."


some articles

http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/79487498877/peter-vessenes-and-the-curious-bankruptcy-case-of

http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20140212/do-you-trust-the-bitcoin-foundation/

You can claim that the Earth is flat. That doesn't make it true.

How about all the users who trusted the Bitcoin Foundation logos on all those sites where their funds were lost?  If the Foundation logo appeared on a web site it was highly likely the customers would lose their funds.  That is the "brand" of the current Foundation.  Maybe in the future the principles' of the Foundation won't want other wallets/services posted so they just say it is defective to prevent them from being listed?  Don't you think that is a distinct possibility?

The Chairman of the Foundation was aalso ccused of all sorts of things in the recent bankruptcy trial ranging from transferring $millions in Bitcoin hours before filing bankruptcy to his legal team disrupting the court proceedings by making noises in the court while the other party was presenting their case.  Now you want users to go to a web site supported by them so they don't get ripped off?  Some of the same people who run this site are involved with control of that site as well.  You can trust who you want but I don't trust any of those people.

The fact is they are not "official" and they don't represent anyone except themselves.

People rarely do very much research when they are just getting started anyway. Without any kind of "official" (regardless if it can actually be "official") then people will likely end up using some kind of scam wallet (like inputs but not as widely known of a scam).

Nothing is uploaded to Bitcoin.org.  They provide links to various wallet services and there is no standard testing method or standard method of accepting/rejecting something.  It is decided by a small group and since I can't see how the decisions are made I don't always trust the decisions.

i think the point is that anything uploaded to bitcoin.org has atleast been tried and tested to not be scamware.

EG id only trust to get bitcoin-core.exe updates from there, and not dodgycopywebsites.com/fulloftrojans

I guess it is still unclear how it got in there.  It looks like it has been that way for a couple years and nobody did anything to change it.  the description is not in DMOZ or Yahoo directory so it is still unclear.  Google is not my friend and neither is Theymos or the Foundation so I don't trust either site completely.   

Doesn't matter what the website claimed.

But bitcointalk seems to be getting quiet lately and many long time members gone for some reasons.

Most users will learn that google is broken and will misslead you if you dont double check. Google add scams in the past, broken search results now.

Remember google is not your friend.

btw your title looks missleading as your text states that google lists the site as official not the site itself

Scammers?  You mean like the businesses that sported a Bitcoin Foundation logo like Mt. Gox and Inputs.io?  Newbies should not be mislead into thinking Foundation-controlled we sites (or Theymos-controlled wen sites) are official so they do not fall for the things that get posted there.

I had posted an issue on Github.  they claimed they made some kind of fix but it will take awhile for it to complete but they closed the issue already before it was fixed with Google.  It turns out this came up a couple years ago.  https://bitcointa.lk/threads/why-is-bitcoin-org-claiming-to-be-the-official-site-of-bitcoin.71845/

No. I'm saying that it's best to have a "main" site to get all your updates/wallets/etc about Bitcoin.

Did you not see the blockchain.info scam that was happening on google a while ago, where a phishing site was impersonating blockchain? Yea, and there are tons of other scam sites that pretend to be web wallets, etc etc.

All I'm saying is that having bitcoin.org as the "main" site for Bitcoin, is good, especially for newbies, or else they'll all fall into the traps of the scammers.

I thought the site was the main site for the Github project but now you say it is morphed into the main site for all of Bitcoin?  When did that change?  Are you saying this decentralized thing is too complicated and it is much easier to turn things over to an "official" web site that decides which services and wallets get listed? 

On their site as you shown in op, https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us. They say, "Bitcoin.org is not an official website. "

I don't think, " "Official site offering documentation, forums and the open source client software which permits to send and receive bitcoins."  - Site Description showing up on Google.", is them saying they own Bitcoin, but rather that Bitcoin.org is the main site representing bitcoin and/or the one that's safe to download the bitcoin wallets and such. That's helpful since there is a ton of scams going on with Bitcoin, remember that fake blockchain.info phishing site a while back?

Most people won't know.  Not sure what you mean by "us" since Bitcoin is open source and decentralized anyone can use it.

The site decides which wallets and services get listed.  the site is directed at new users who don't know about Bitcoin.  

I think almost everyone in bitcoin world knows that It's not official website.

Further We might see another domain with something like bitcoin.tk .cc claiming official site but it won't matter.

Most people won't care. We know that it's not official and is nor representative of us.

"Official site offering documentation, forums and the open source client software which permits to send and receive bitcoins."  - Site Description showing up on Google.

"Bitcoin.org is not an official website. Just like nobody owns the email technology, nobody owns the Bitcoin network. As such, nobody can speak with authority in the name of Bitcoin."
on page https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us

Most users will see the description that appears in Google and will never read the disclaimer on the other page.