Topic: bitfloor needs your help! - page 19. (Read 177459 times)

"Not even close" and stating that it is worth "at least 40%" as if the person making the offer was completely stupid for thinking it was worth anything less is pretty berating.  Especially when all you said is "send your offers," not specifying a particular amount to begin with.

I just think it's silly when people ask others to send offers, then scold them for lowballing when there was no precedent for the value of item to begin with.  If you're looking to receive a certain amount for something, then state as much up front.  Anything else is just wasting people's time.

And if you want to discuss the valuation of Roman's defaulted obligations, why not just propose said discussion?  Say, "What would you pay for a piece of Roman's default obligations, as a percentage?"  Bam.  Simple as that.  No need for people to send you useless offers that you will refuse because you're really only just looking for a valuation.

You are the only person doing any berating in this thread.

What I did was kickoff a very necessary discussion into the valuation of Roman's presently defaulted obligations.

Do you have anything constructive to contribute?  If not, please take a Midol and the rest of your life off from posting to me.

Why didn't you state up front that you were looking for at least 40% instead of berating people for sending what they believe to be a reasonable offer?

I look forward to the day when valuing BTC is a no-brainer for a judge but valuing USD would be laughable. (Think Zimbabwean dollars, Weimar marks, or Confederate dollars.)

Not even close.  Bitfloor in liquidation is worth at least 40% of the reported losses.  Plus gross negligence on Roman's part should make it straightforward to get a judgement against his personal assets.

If theres one thing that bitcoin teaches you it is that if you give your money to a third party then no you dont own it anymore.

Well, I don't have an account and it's closed for registration. Other than that I'd offer 25, deal?

All means of Bitcoin transfers have been shutdown on bitfloor.

I would expect Roman to faciliate the tranfer of obligations to your account.

How do you plan to make the sale effective? do you sell your account?

D&T, is it possible that Bitcoin account holders could be seen as secured creditors (secured because they held an asset - bitcoins - instead of simply being a loaner of USD), and would thus be required to be paid back first?

I tried looking at cases where someone might have a secured claim on a commodity at a bankrupt company, but haven't really been able to find anything like that.

And really, I don't have much of a clue when it comes to bankruptcy law anyway.

I will purchase it for my 36 BTC balance at bitfloor

I am soliciting offers for the purchase of my 103 BTC balance at Bitfloor.

Yeah I had to use ignore also, I was part of the group stating Roman had no claim over USD deposits and should return them.  Icebreaker's rants were just pages and pages of wasted space and helped to TOTALLY derail this thread.


Exactly.  The law is never absolute. If all lawyers agreed 100% on everything well you wouldn't need courts.  Your lawyer and my lawyer would simply reach a consensus, have a handshake, and resolve the situation.  

Generally when you have an insolvent debtor all unsecured creditors are treated equally.  The exception would be if deposits were put in "protected and segregated accounts" and that usually requires a trust and third party administrator (casino deposits are an example).  While all unsecured creditors recognized under the law are generally considered equal and paid on a fractional basis in Bankrutpcy, Bitcoin doesn't yet have any standing under the law.  It is questionable if a judge would take that leap and give the BTC creditors equal standing.  That would be a huge decision for a judge to make but it certainly ins't impossible.  Right now many aspects of Bitcoin are simply is undecided law.  

As I pointed out while the standing of BTC depositors may be undecided the standing of USD depositors is certainly not undecided.  In a case of undecided law it simply comes down to risk manangement.  There is no "risk free option".  It is unlikely any retained lawyer would provide absolutes on undecided law.   Still if your lawyer told you the risk of holding the deposits is significantly greater than the risk of allowing them to be returned what would you do?

Yeah. I didn't use the ignore button, but i don't even bother reading the rants anymore. Your opponent has gotten the better of you.

sorry icebreaker

you just earned yourself one week on ignore

nothing personal, read you again when you have cooled down

peace

Wrong again.  That "Don't get me started" quote is about Corzine's actions re:MFGlobal and has nothing to do with the fact that I am great and all who disagreed with me acted stupidly.

You might want to have some more coffee.   

Wow.  12 quotes in a row just to say "Boo hoo hoo, I don't like being held accountable for being foolish enough to debate iCEBREAKER on topics he is more knowledgeable about than myself."

You might want to cut back on the meth.   


I agree.  Finally, you got something right!  Good for you.


Oops, now you're back to being wrong.  Scheduled ACH withdrawals did go out, even while the site was down for a much-needed security audit.  Any ACH withdrawals were "acceptable" (IE perfectly legal) the entire time, even before the lawyers retroactively approved them.

The "final determination" is exactly clear (despite the best obfuscatory efforts of Fail Team FUD) and it is that I'm going to get my USD back in 2-3 days.

That's nice you didn't lose anything, hooray! 

But you are still wrong about those who did lose BTC having the standing to enjoin/sue USD anyone.  They don't have standing, won't file for an injunction, and can't sue for clawbacks.  Period.  Case dismissed!

The "web page" I accessed that led me "to believe" I'll get an ACH/wire transfer in a few days is BitFloor.com, not some random geocities page.

How reprehensibly immature of you to purposefully conflate a well-known, reputable exchange with just any old probable scam site!   

Should we can be taking this to Scam Accusations?   

If you truly and honestly believe Roman and his BitFloor exchange are not going to pay out the requested ACH transfers as promised, please present your evidence for that conclusion. 

Oh wait, you don't have any.   

Silly widdle dawggy, you really should learn to stop pooping on the carpet.  Wait to go outside, or at least use the newspaper.  Until then, I'll just have to keep swatting you with the newspaper and rubbing your nose in it.   

Wow. 12 posts in a row all to say "Neener, neener, neener. I'm great and you are all dumb!"
You might want to cut back on the caffeine.

BitFloor did the right thing.  They contacted legal help and made sure that everything was handled properly rather than taking the advice of you, me, or any other random person trying to give advice on an internet discussion forum.  They shut down ALL withdrawals, and stopped all public communication for a few days (probably on advice from those lawyers) giving the lawyers time to figure out the best legal course of action.  It is not yet clear exactly what the final determinations were, but they have decided that ACH withdrawals of USD are now acceptable.  That's great and I'm glad to hear it, but there may be a lot of circumstances behind that decision, and it might not be as simple as you've implied.

I'm not going to sue anyone because I didn't lose anything. I realize this idea may simple be too complicated for you to grasp - but it is possible to think and reason about things that aren't actually happening directly to me.

Talking to you is like playing hide-and-go-seek with a very young child who thinks that because they he can't see anyone else, nobody can see him, either.

Here's the deal: it doesn't actually work that way. Not with hide-and-seek, and not with facts or law.

Your "reasoning" (which has the same relationship to actual thinking as mud pies do to apple pies) seems to spring from one source: your own self-interest. You want the USD back that you had deposited at Bitfloor so you could exchange it for some worthless experimental imaginary internet nerd tokens. Accordingly, any possible facts or ideas which might get in the way of YOU getting what YOU wanted, RIGHT NOW, are to be rejected as communist tricks; and any formulation of words, no matter how ridiculous, which apparently supports you getting what you want is celebrated as "common sense" or "common decency".

(And I'm sure your ideas about "common sense" and "common law" would have dictated an opposite result, in the event that you had BTC on deposit instead of USD.)

What happens or doesn't happen to Bitfloor has zero impact on my finances because I do not leave significant funds (in whatever currency) on "deposit" with online exchanges.

I had approximately 11 cents at Bitfloor at the time of the hack, left over from an exchange transaction - I don't remember if it was BTC or USD, and don't really care either way.

So when I write something about Bitfloor, it's not because I'm panicked that I exchanged my last funds on this earth for "experimental imaginary internet nerd tokens" that were stolen - or because I'm elated because it turns out that I can get my USD back since my money hadn't been exchanged yet.

I realize that you're excited that you were able to access a web page that led you to believe you'll get an ACH/wire transfer in a few days. That's good news for you. I can see you feel like a winner. And I can see that you think that since you're a winner, everyone who you don't like is a loser.

So go ahead. Run with that. Celebrate. You win!

*climbs back on turnip truck*

You're right, "imminent" was the wrong word to use.  

Because I, among others, just logged on to BitFloor and initiated an ACH transfer despite your endless whiny impotent protests.  

Why don't you put your money where your overused mouth is, and file an injunction against Bitfloor to stop these shameful, illegal actions?

Better still, why don't you sue me and try to claw back some USD that were never yours and always mine?  

My guess is you know you have zero, zip, zilch, nada chance of success but just can't bring yourself to admit that you were 100% wrong.

Your embrace of Corzine-style bankster logic is communist because it disregards property rights and falsely conflates equality of outcomes with fairness.  Now do you hear what I'm saying bro; now do you know what I mean, dawg?

Your embrace of overcomplicating, complexifying, and lawyering what should be a simple matter is a trademark of cultural Marxism.  Is that clear enough or do you require further elaboration (perhaps even citation) to facilitate comprehension?

Could you possibly fail any harder, Mr. "Nothing has been proven despite current and ongoing ACH transfers."?  

I don't think so.  If you found a way to be any more wrong, that in itself would be some kind of accomplishment.