Topic: bitfloor needs your help! - page 20. (Read 177467 times)

Relevant comment from a newbie thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/make-bitfloor-solvent-so-it-can-resume-operations-then-pay-back-losses-106234

I didn't think you would lose the argument gracefully, Mr. "Nothing has been proven despite imminent ACH transfers."  Thanks for living down to my low expectations.   

Sounds like we need get you onto Jon Corzine on behalf of the MF Global customers who are still waiting for their deposits back ....

Nothing has been proven. I suspect that Roman's actions indicate that he will absorb the BTC losses himself, or investors/lenders will provide him with funds to do so. I suspect (but do not know) that Roman has talked to one or more attorneys, hopefully he'll be smart enough to keep his mouth shut about what they told him so that he won't waive the attorney/client privilege.

I have waited to post updates until I had a clearer understanding of how to move forward.

After careful consideration, ACH withdrawals of USD from Bitfloor will soon be re-enabled, with details to be posted on bitfloor.com.
cheers,
~Roman

until I had a clearer understanding of how to move forward.

After careful consideration

ACH withdrawals of USD from Bitfloor will soon be re-enabled

Let it go iCEBREAKER.

Here's your "due process" champ: Roman talked to a lawyer, who told him exactly what Death&Taxes, myself, and others have been saying all along.  

Here's your "legal clarity" ace: The burden is on those who 'lost' BTC to sue those of us who are looking forward to a nice, juicy ACH transfer into our happy bank accounts.

Good luck with that flimsy pretext, which will be thrown out of court like last week's garbage as completely frivolous and totally without merit.

Recognition of property rights is enshrined in the US Constitution.  Specifically, the 5th Amendment.  If you can't understand that, STFU when the adults are talking.  

Well you lost that bet.  Big Time.  You were wrong about both the terms and the timing.

iCEBREAKER: Expressed an opinion about US law that was soon proven to be correct.

blakdawg: Expressed an opinion about US law that was soon proven to be incorrect.

So dawg, who needed to STFU?  Oh yes, it was you!

So dawg, who made a fool of themselves to a great extent?  Again, it was you!

My bet is that everyone with funds at Bitfloor will end up with a pro rata share of the total "deposits", with BTC valued at today or yesterday's average USD exchange rate. And court fees, attorney fees, accountant fees, trustee's fees, and all of the rest come out first.

So a pretty good outcome would probably look like 25% of your total deposits (assuming, overall, that half of the value deposited was BTC (which is now gone) and half was USD, and half of what's left gets spent on the friction of litigation), and you'll probably get it in 12-18 months.

If your sole qualification for making statements about US law is the fact that you have an opinion about US law, you might want to STFU before you make a fool of yourself to a greater extent.

These are all things for the legal council (and if it goes to U.S. court, the judge) to decide in order to figure out what actions are appropriate. That's where the "due process of law" comes in. You're entitled to your process, BitFloor is entitled to theirs. BitFloor seeking legal council is where he ensures that he is acting in a way most within the law. Your process would be serving BitFloor and/or suing them.

Things are not that simple that withdrawals can happen just for the solvent parts of the business held; welcome to the world of BitCoin, where everything is without absolute legal precedent (yet). If a legal precedent can be set that the BTC has value, it would be illegal for them to use any portion of the assets (including remaining balances held for what wasn't hacked) to pay out to anybody until the appropriate process on reimbursing has been determined in court.

This WILL not be a quick process. The only quick process would be if the coins were returned by the hacker, or if someone invested BTC in BitFloor in exchange for ownership (or a portion of). I'd imagine this case (albeit not a likely one) is the one that BitFloor is hoping for the most.

Best case for USD holders (and worst case for BTC holders) is that his legal council (or the court system) determines that BTC will be considered "worthless" and that USD should be distributed to account holders as it's the only part of BitFloor that needs to be legally held solvent. However, I can just about guarantee that if this happens, anyone holding a large amount of BTC will file an injunction and appeal, which will almost certainly prevent payout of USD funds from happening quickly.

Hang on folks, this is likely to be an interesting one, especially since it's occurring in the oh-so-litigious US.

Unfortunately for those of us who had significant USD balances at Bitfloor, what others are saying is correct: Roman must now cease all activity — even activity that many of us would consider "the right thing to do" — and seek legal counsel. Assuming everything is handled sanely in the court system (a big assumption), we might expect a refund of our USD balances in a few months — either all or in part, depending on whether the balances were legally segregated and allocated, which I doubt they were.

Actually, that clause is exactly the problem.  Until due process of law, it is not legally clear whether any of the USD controlled by bitfloor is the property of those who had BTC on deposit, the property of bitfloor, or solely the property of those who have USD on deposit with bitfloor.  Bitfloor therefore cannot legally give USD to anyone until due process determines exactly whose property each and every $0.01 is.

I'm sorry, what's that? I'm sure it was important and insightful, maybe post it again.

This is not at all clear under US law, which would presumably apply given Bitfloor's ties to the US.

Replace word "bitcoins" by "potatoes" and any judge will figure out on the spot what to do.

This user is currently ignored.

Customer assets are customer assets.  It doesn't matter if they are dollars, bitcoins or bananas.  If BitFloor does not have reserves (and that was reported in OP) or any other way to make customers whole, then this is a bankruptcy case.  This exchange is operating in the U.S., there are very specific laws as to how to proceed.

Disbursing funds to some customers and not others would be a criminal act under those.

I believe a court order (injunction) should be filed to help ensure the exchange operator proceeds as prescribed by law.

Doesn't work that way in the U.S.

A quick search and I couldn't find the exact description about how customer funds are pooled (giving a net balance), regardless if the account had a balance of securities or cash, then disbursed. 

Here's from Canada, which is pretty much the same in the U.S.