Topic: bitfloor issues? - page 21. (Read 55562 times)

There was news 2 to 3 days ago.  Basically, the bank has received a legal opinion that it can open an account and return the funds without needing to obtain it's own KYC/AML documentation.

The one concern I have:  I can read the language in AudenX's report that all the customers have to fill out the KYC/AML documentation before the disbursement begins.  If that is true, one nonconformist yahoo can hold up the wagon train for all the rest of us.

Well, I had given up on it months ago.  So if I don't get it, oh well.

But, I am holding out some hope since audenx has been holding Roman's feet to the fire, as they say, and there has been some promising progress so far.

On that note, I just checked audenx's Bitcoin Musings page.  Didn't see anything new there yet.  Anyone know if there's any new news on this yet?

Personally, I've decided to take a plan for the worst, hope for the best position on the issue.

I don't "expect" to get my money back, but I'm still holding on to hope that I will.

Meanwhile, I've moved on and made the necessary adjustments in my budgets and activities built around an assumption that I won't be receiving any of that money.

Don't mistake hope for a belief that something actually will happen.

Sorry, but at this point, I almost want to say the same thing to you. You think you're getting your money back? WTF? Really? I mean that in the nicest way of course.

Move on. If I'm wrong, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

I know that once I get my money back, I'm never touching anything Roman does again.

WTF? Really?

Hopefully they'll get the exchange back online once he gets the new bank arrangement.

Remember, the bitcoin markets/exchanges are completely unregulated, know that when you send a wire to them, don't cry about it now.

He was free to file bankruptcy, as any person or company can when their liabilities exceed their obligations.  Many businesses come through such a process far better off.  Barring the bankruptcy, yes he needed my permission to use my money in ways that I did not agree to when that money was put on deposit with him.

The question of who stole the original 25000 coins is an excellent one.  I have no information, other than a failure by Roman to provide any proof that their was a third party involved, or that he took any substantial actions to report the incident to appropriate authorities.  He did stay in London partying at the Bitcoin conference for days after the supposed incident occurred.

Failures fail.  And Bitcoin has a lot more failures to come before it matures.

True.


Also true, though there hasn't been a good explanation for why he went out looking for investors, or promised to pay the coins back with revenues, and was actually doing so. Did he basically come up with a clever scheme of borrowing 25,000 BTC at great risk to his business?


If you are claiming that he actually had those coins because he stole them himself, I'll need proof. If not, then what was paying them back bit by bit if not "making good on the coins on deposit?"


Do you own him or his business? If not, then why does he need your permission? Would you have preferred that he stop operating his business, and you never get any of your coins back? Why would others who did want their coins back allow you to do that?

I agree. Have him prove it, one way or the other. That would actually have some validity, as opposed to some random anon stating that Roman stole those funds himself, as if that was a fact.


The September theft has deprived me of about 150BTC. That's the only skin I have in this game. I have plenty of credibility, thank you very much, as I have not lied or made baseless claims as facts here.


There are the facts:
25,000 or so BTC dissappeared in September.
Roman temporarily shut down his exchange, at great risk to his business.
Roman went out looking for investors, but was not able to find any.
Roman claimed he would use revenue from the exchange to return the missing coins.
No police report or anything beyond Roman's claims was ever shown to prove whether those coins were stolen by Roman or by someone else. At this point, we still don't know.
Twice since, Roman has used revenues to pay off those coins.

Now with this new situation:
Roman claimed that his bank gave him 30 day notice that they were closing his account
Roman claimed that his account was instead closed prematurely (same day I think?)
I don't remember if calls were made to the bank to corroborate this story. I don't think they were.
Roman claimed that he was sent a check for the entire USD balance, as is typical when a bank closes your account.
Roman claimed that he is having trouble finding a bank to take this check to allow for return of funds, and has a lawyer helping him.
Lawyer's name is known, and the situation with the check and trying to open bank accounts was corroborated by at least one other person.
Attempts to open a bank account for a bitcoin business have been met with failure many times before over the last 2 years.
The lawyer seems to be continuing to work on this, contacting various banks that others have suggested, while Roman was away on vacation.

If I missed anything, please add it.

These are the facts I would like people to stick to. Because, you know, they are facts. I, personally, do not like unsubstantiated bullshit, and will call people out on it. Why? Because I have the time to spend hours on this forum (yay government work  ) while others don't, and may interpret "unsubstantiated bullshit stated as fact" as actual fact. That doesn't help me get my 150BTC back, that doesn't help you get your USD back. In fact, it doesn't help anyone at all. If you want to vent at Roman, please do so. I will even defend you. His lack of communication was, and still is, total shit. His handling of the situation is pretty shit as well. Although that is my personal opinion, since I don't know what the full situation is. Neither do you, or anyone else. Because his lack of communication is shit.

I hope this explains my position, the reasons for my posts, and my credibility.

Of course you give up.  You made a completely unsupportable claim - That seizure of funds was within the operating terms of Bitfloor - and I called you on your complete bullshit.

Now instead of acknowledging that you massively overstepped yourself and cannot defend such a claim your fall back on pretending I'm unreasonable.

You're going to have to try harder if you want to be Roman's apologist.  He hasn't given you much to work with.

I give up.  It has become clear that you are not open to reason, logic, or honest communication.  I won't waste any further time on a one-sided conversation.

You get stunningly defensive when I challenge your ridiculous notion that people agreed to let Roman use their funds in whatever manner he desired.

Ignoring your strawman arguments about things I didn't say, why don't you go ahead and tell me where I agreed to be a creditor to Roman in the event he got 'hacked' or any other circumstance for that matter.

And do feel free to ignore me.  I'm only going to continue to point out when your are full of shit, and that obviously infuriates you.

Roman held the bitcoin in trust, and then defaulted on delivery.  He claims that was the result of a 'hack', but no proof has ever been shown.  Neither has a police report for the supposed theft.

Regardless of the reason he found himself short 25000 BTC, refusing to make good on the coins on deposit was a seizure of the coins.  I never agreed to allow him to continue operating while holding my coins.

WTF?  How does that answer my question?  That doesn't even make sense.

---

Lets try that again, maybe you simply ignored my question because it was inconvenient for your agenda.  Lets try some of my other statements:




Nope, still doesn't make sense.  What do sock puppets, Stockholm syndrome, his lifestyle, or your opinion about why the bitcoins were called "on hold" offer in the way of proof "demonstrating a lie"?

---

Lets try again:


Sorry, still doesn't make any sense.  Nothing in that comment of mine about seizing your bitcoins or funding a lifestyle.  Nothing that would seem to indicate any socks, puppets, or Stockholm syndrome yet.  You really are cherry-picking and attempting to ignore context to push your agenda aren't you? I suppose there are some small-minded people who will fall for such a ruse, but what does that get you?

---

Ok, last sentence of my post.  I'm guessing this is going to have to be the one you're commenting on?


Ok, at least were starting to see some vague connection to reality now.  I mention the words "terms of service" and you reply with the phrase "direct me to where I agreed", I defend a behavior as possibly not being considered illegal under current laws, and you apparently feel I'm sympathizing enough to be under the influence of "Stockholm Syndrome".

Of course, if anyone takes 5 seconds to look at what I actually said, and what your comments assume I said, they'll quickly realize that you either are struggling with reading comprehension, or are intentionally attempting to imply meaning that doesn't exist by ignoring context and using name calling to attempt to draw me into a battle of insults rather than an analysis of facts.

Nothing was said by me about "you agreeing that he could seize your bitcoins".  My "neither of those things are outside the ToS" comment referred specifically to a Roman failing to take financial responsibility for providing insufficient security to prevent a "hack", and to his lack of communication.  Please show me a verifiable copy of the ToS that guarantees frequent communication in the event that the business is shut down, or where it indicates that BitFloor will reimburse you for any losses that result from a hacker gaining unauthorized access to any bitcoins stored by BitFloor.

We can continue this conversation if you can provide any one of the following:

• Reasonable proof that the bitcoins were stolen with the willful cooperation of a BitFloor employee
• Reasonable proof that the ToS guarantees BitFloor will reimburse your losses do to unauthorized access
• Reasonable proof that the ToS guarantees frequent communication from BitFloor
• Reasonable proof that failing to communicate more often is illegal
• Reasonable proof that failing to replace bitcoins that were stolen by unauthorized access while otherwise under BitFloor's control is illegal

Barring your ability to provide anything substantial, I think we are done.  Any further attempt to misconstrue my words, or flame-bait me will result in your being placed into the "ignore" list.

It would seem that Roman should prove that one, not a depositor.   Your question is silly at best, but as I read your constant berating of anyone who criticizes Roman, you lose more and more credibility and I actually wonder what skin you have in this game.    disingenuous is being polite.   Read your posts.   Think about the "facts" that you now know.   If I was on a jury of 12, there would be at least one guilty vote against Roman and I am pretty sure the other 11 would vote the same as me.

What? No! I was just asking Entropy-uc to tell me where he got information that it was Roman who seized our bitcoins back in September, and not a thief as Roman claimed. I just want to confirm that for myself, that's all.

Russia;
you are starting to sound pretty disingenuous.    Who do you feel overpowered Roman and controlled his business decisions?    Do you actually believe some of the ridiculous rhetoric that you post?    So, you think someone other than Roman is preventing him from being a human being and forcing him to act like a complete piece of shit?

Likewise, please direct me to where you got information that Roman was the one who seized my bitcoin.

Please direct me to where I agreed he could seize my bitcoin by calling them on 'hold' and use the proceeds to continue funding his lifestyle through this business.

You are either a sock puppet for Roman or suffering from a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.