Topic: [BitFunder] btcQuick - Bitcoin Sales Service - page 31. (Read 94180 times)
Ascension, I vote to move the shares to another exchange, preferably Havelock. I don't reside in the US and I don't care about whatever legal issues arise.
Wow, I'm done.
I have 17,990 shares. PM me a serious offer and I'll transfer you my shares on bitfunder. I never want to deal with this company again.
I have 17,990 shares. PM me a serious offer and I'll transfer you my shares on bitfunder. I never want to deal with this company again.
See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitfunder-buying-btcquick-via-direct-share-transfer-328919
My offer for your shares:
Quote
./bitfunder_average.sh 17990 < btcquik-bid-output.txt
# buying: 53970, bought: 281, paid: 0.01363412 (0.00454471), avg: 0.00004852
# buying: 53970, bought: 1181, paid: 0.05687012 (0.01895671), avg: 0.00004815
# buying: 53970, bought: 5849, paid: 0.28107416 (0.09369139), avg: 0.00004806
# buying: 53970, bought: 6749, paid: 0.32339216 (0.10779739), avg: 0.00004792
# buying: 53970, bought: 18578, paid: 0.87947345 (0.29315782), avg: 0.00004734
# buying: 53970, bought: 23135, paid: 1.09365245 (0.36455082), avg: 0.00004727
# buying: 53970, bought: 23885, paid: 1.12515995 (0.37505332), avg: 0.00004711
# buying: 53970, bought: 28695, paid: 1.32717995 (0.44239332), avg: 0.00004625
# buying: 53970, bought: 29795, paid: 1.35491095 (0.45163698), avg: 0.00004547
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
17990 shares will be bought for 0.65470698 BTC (avg: 0.00003639 BTC/share)
# buying: 53970, bought: 281, paid: 0.01363412 (0.00454471), avg: 0.00004852
# buying: 53970, bought: 1181, paid: 0.05687012 (0.01895671), avg: 0.00004815
# buying: 53970, bought: 5849, paid: 0.28107416 (0.09369139), avg: 0.00004806
# buying: 53970, bought: 6749, paid: 0.32339216 (0.10779739), avg: 0.00004792
# buying: 53970, bought: 18578, paid: 0.87947345 (0.29315782), avg: 0.00004734
# buying: 53970, bought: 23135, paid: 1.09365245 (0.36455082), avg: 0.00004727
# buying: 53970, bought: 23885, paid: 1.12515995 (0.37505332), avg: 0.00004711
# buying: 53970, bought: 28695, paid: 1.32717995 (0.44239332), avg: 0.00004625
# buying: 53970, bought: 29795, paid: 1.35491095 (0.45163698), avg: 0.00004547
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
# buying: 53970, bought: 53970, paid: 1.96412095 (0.65470698), avg: 0.00003639
17990 shares will be bought for 0.65470698 BTC (avg: 0.00003639 BTC/share)
I think Ascension should give us more information about how many bitcoins was lost and the proof of that lost.
Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
I hold around 1million shares of BTCQUICK , I do 100% agree to issue a PT shares in HF...we need someone who is reliable to dealing with this issue, if Ascension is reject to immigrating our shares from BF to HF...then he just not consider of others feeling, because no available liquidity is totally be irresponsible for investors. Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
It's not a matter of care or not, it's legal issue. But PT is still a way to do it.
If there are legal issue ,they should do a fully research before issuing its IPO. what u think?
I think Ascension should give us more information about how many bitcoins was lost and the proof of that lost.
Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
I hold around 1million shares of BTCQUICK , I do 100% agree to issue a PT shares in HF...we need someone who is reliable to dealing with this issue, if Ascension is reject to immigrating our shares from BF to HF...then he just not consider of others feeling, because no available liquidity is totally be irresponsible for investors. Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
It's not a matter of care or not, it's legal issue. But PT is still a way to do it.
Ascension,
When can we transfer our shares to you to be made direct? Seems this is urgent?
When can we transfer our shares to you to be made direct? Seems this is urgent?
I think Ascension should give us more information about how many bitcoins was lost and the proof of that lost.
Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
I hold around 1million shares of BTCQUICK , I do 100% agree to issue a PT shares in HF...we need someone who is reliable to dealing with this issue, if Ascension is reject to immigrating our shares from BF to HF...then he just not consider of others feeling, because no available liquidity is totally be irresponsible for investors. Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
Take it easy, there's always opportunity to sell at a proper price as long as the company operates where, no many it's listed on exchanges or in the form of direct shares.
I think Ascension should give us more information about how many bitcoins was lost and the proof of that lost.
Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
I hold around 1million shares of BTCQUICK , I do 100% agree to issue a PT shares in HF...we need someone who is reliable to dealing with this issue, if Ascension is reject to immigrating our shares from BF to HF...then he just not consider of others feeling, because no available liquidity is totally be irresponsible for investors. Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
I think Ascension should give us more information about how many bitcoins was lost and the proof of that lost.
Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
Investors should understand that we'd better not have any legal issue in the future. The business is under good operation is much more important for all investors.
My suggestion is: We can find somebody do a pass-through on Havelock(HL). This person shall be the only direct shareholder to hold all shares owned by who wanna pass-through their shares. And when btcquick setup on HL, he shall transfer shares to other investors. In this case, from btcquick's prospective, This person is the legal share holder, other pass-through investors are not. From investors perspective, they get liquidity. From this person's prospective, he can get management fees from dividends.
We can try if Ascension and other investors agree. This pass-through is nothing to do with btcquick in the future.
For all investors, I suggest we support btcquick to operate this business legally. This is most important, and I see some investors don't know that. Look at BTCT and BF, if you were the investor of BTCT, what could happen to you?
More details on what happened.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
And can you explain why don't you move shares to HF? as HF a legal place to trade our shares, We need liquidity!!! Can we have the right to choose list this stock in other place? please do not make it become whatever direct shares...this equal to seized our investment opportunity!~
It does not matter where the shares are moved to, the same legal issues arise.
as a shareholder We need liquidity even it only a little bit ...it is still better then become nothing ? and legal issue? if there are legal problem why still you process the IPO? I invested around 100BTC into BTCQUICK , I need liquidity and I need you works on the legal issue~~ you should take concern of other people's feeling ....there are nothing 100% so called legally operation in BTC related business! We need you to list this company on HF...please!!!!!!
More details on what happened.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
And can you explain why don't you move shares to HF? as HF a legal place to trade our shares, We need liquidity!!! Can we have the right to choose list this stock in other place? please do not make it become whatever direct shares...this equal to seized our investment opportunity!~
It does not matter where the shares are moved to, the same legal issues arise.
It may not matter to you, but liquidity is a big deal! What about the other questions?
More details on what happened.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
And can you explain why don't you move shares to HF? as HF a legal place to trade our shares, We need liquidity!!! Can we have the right to choose list this stock in other place? please do not make it become whatever direct shares...this equal to seized our investment opportunity!~
It does not matter where the shares are moved to, the same legal issues arise.
BtcQuick and Input.IO are different.
We are all customers of Input.IO, so claiming hacking does not help the operator much. Anyway, the operator has to compensate the loss of all customers.
But in BtcQuick's case, we are investors. Whether investors should take the risk of hacking is not so clear. Therefore, whether Ascension will compensate the investors loss is also unclear. But previously he did not compensate the loss caused by charge back. Therefore, it is more likely he will not compensate the loss this time. In this case, claiming 'hacking' becomes convenient to the operator. The shareholders should at least ask for more evidence of the hacking rather than taking the words blindly.
We are all customers of Input.IO, so claiming hacking does not help the operator much. Anyway, the operator has to compensate the loss of all customers.
But in BtcQuick's case, we are investors. Whether investors should take the risk of hacking is not so clear. Therefore, whether Ascension will compensate the investors loss is also unclear. But previously he did not compensate the loss caused by charge back. Therefore, it is more likely he will not compensate the loss this time. In this case, claiming 'hacking' becomes convenient to the operator. The shareholders should at least ask for more evidence of the hacking rather than taking the words blindly.
It is not in any way convenient for us to lose bitcoins to a hacker.
More details on what happened.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
And can you explain why don't you move shares to HF? as HF a legal place to trade our shares, We need liquidity!!! Can we have the right to choose list this stock in other place? please do not make it become whatever direct shares...this equal to seized our investment opportunity!~
More details on what happened.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
How many BTC were at that exchange?
How many exchanges do you use?
Was 2FA enabled if not why the hell not?
How did you fall for a social engineering email? Oldest trick in the book?
You can't keep secrets from shareholders, especially when everyone here wants the company to succeed and will only help with suggestions and solutions. There is no point keeping everyone in the dark.
Wow, I'm done.
I have 17,990 shares. PM me a serious offer and I'll transfer you my shares on bitfunder. I never want to deal with this company again.
I have 17,990 shares. PM me a serious offer and I'll transfer you my shares on bitfunder. I never want to deal with this company again.
Yes, we need some kind of audit system.
And he need hiring more staffs...only he and his friend is not enough for its current volume of trade.
Yes, we need some kind of audit system.
BtcQuick and Input.IO are different.
We are all customers of Input.IO, so claiming hacking does not help the operator much. Anyway, the operator has to compensate the loss of all customers.
But in BtcQuick's case, we are investors. Whether investors should take the risk of hacking is not so clear. Therefore, whether Ascension will compensate the investors loss is also unclear. But previously he did not compensate the loss caused by charge back. Therefore, it is more likely he will not compensate the loss this time. In this case, claiming 'hacking' becomes convenient to the operator. The shareholders should at least ask for more evidence of the hacking rather than taking the words blindly.
We are all customers of Input.IO, so claiming hacking does not help the operator much. Anyway, the operator has to compensate the loss of all customers.
But in BtcQuick's case, we are investors. Whether investors should take the risk of hacking is not so clear. Therefore, whether Ascension will compensate the investors loss is also unclear. But previously he did not compensate the loss caused by charge back. Therefore, it is more likely he will not compensate the loss this time. In this case, claiming 'hacking' becomes convenient to the operator. The shareholders should at least ask for more evidence of the hacking rather than taking the words blindly.
We need more transparency on the information....without evidences anything can be made up.....
We had a net loss due to a security breach in on of our exchange accounts.
Could you please disclose the amount?
Cheers.
BtcQuick and Input.IO are different.
We are all customers of Input.IO, so claiming hacking does not help the operator much. Anyway, the operator has to compensate the loss of all customers.
But in BtcQuick's case, we are investors. Whether investors should take the risk of hacking is not so clear. Therefore, whether Ascension will compensate the investors loss is also unclear. But previously he did not compensate the loss caused by charge back. Therefore, it is more likely he will not compensate the loss this time. In this case, claiming 'hacking' becomes convenient to the operator. The shareholders should at least ask for more evidence of the hacking rather than taking the words blindly.
We are all customers of Input.IO, so claiming hacking does not help the operator much. Anyway, the operator has to compensate the loss of all customers.
But in BtcQuick's case, we are investors. Whether investors should take the risk of hacking is not so clear. Therefore, whether Ascension will compensate the investors loss is also unclear. But previously he did not compensate the loss caused by charge back. Therefore, it is more likely he will not compensate the loss this time. In this case, claiming 'hacking' becomes convenient to the operator. The shareholders should at least ask for more evidence of the hacking rather than taking the words blindly.
Jump to: