Topic: [BitFunder] Moving Forward/Resolution Process - page 29. (Read 292138 times)

Thanks. That was my entry point.

Technologies like CoinJoin aren't yet implemented in standard Bitcoin clients.
Therefore, one can safely assume that all transactions signed by WeExchange's addresses are signed exclusively by WeExchange's addresses.

Given this assumption, one can get a list of most of WeExchange's addresses and transactions from only one single address.
The list isn't complete though, because transactions also have a change address which belongs to the sending wallet. The WeExchange wallet places this change address at an unusual output index, so I didn't include it in the list to avoid fan-out into other wallets.

Using the above quoted address as entry point, one will get these addresses:

http://pastebin.com/LZJPeiRM

...and these transactions:

http://pastebin.com/As66ecst
http://pastebin.com/XgsTaiaL

Now, let's sum up the total amount on all of these addresses over time:

http://postimg.org/image/wvq6x2rsl/

...zooming into early October 2013:

http://postimg.org/image/n693ky4m5/

Firstly, I was surprised seeing the first transactions as early as October 2011 - I didn't know that WeExchange existed at that time.
Secondly, I expected the biggest drop to be in mid-November 2013. However, it was early October 2013.

I filtered the list of transactions to find the big one from 3rd of October:

8a77d88fcc9ef418ec97cb2c332efd1378f21aa90188d3000a8c2e4e89f467cb

...it looks like this address received more than one big withdrawal from WeExchange:

19ENdxtYNwdsFbaEF2web7FywgQHdsNCGt

Other addresses receiving big withdrawals from WeExchange include:

115KrBsBGXvW3saUtmY6seXpXysvgd44BS
1D8zFb9jJvmdxwNmuS1TBGh1sfcqUMyRzf

That's all that I could find out for now. Further investigation would concentrate on who owns these addresses, and where did the coins go next...

Donations for my efforts go to 1PaEvsKNTDxhz4kg8rL1samkbgF65P9NMF. Thanks!

Maybe we need to be more creative in our thinking. What if the cold-storage wallet used a 2-of-3 signature transaction between Ukyo, someone that is off the grid and someone that has recently died or become unavailable? Or retrieving some signatures require some contractual requirement that cannot be disclosed? Or maybe even a block-height timeout in the transaction (not sure why he couldn't tell us this though... "you can all have your coins at block height 300000").

After reading today's reddit post about protesting at MtGox (as foolish as that might have been), I realized that the need for secrecy around cold-storage wallets may have caused some entities to enter into non-disclosable contracts with counterparties, key escrow agents, etc. Security through obscurity sort of stuff.  

I'm running out of ideas that don't fall under those ...

To be fair mate, I didn't say I was optimistic. I can only say that to my knowledge he didn't steal the coins and that he is (or was last we spoke) working on ways to repay us.

The 'only' explanation is not that he stole the coins though. There are a number of other explanations which lead to the coins being unavailable. This has gone on a long time though and I do wish the truth would come out.

I admire your optimism.  But how long you going to wait? What if continues to say nothing for another month? It's already been 2. What about another year? Are you okay with that? Because Ukyo has shown 0 progress on this matter. He seems to spend more time on the forums here defending himself than anytime resolving the issue. Why? Because there isn't anything to resolve, he stole the coins, is the most likely answer.

I don't see the connection.

Even if ukyo lost a his coin to TF, what does this have to do with the confiscated deposits on weexchange? Or am I missing something.

If you are supposing that because Ukyo lost his personal money,  he seized customers' deposits to cover that, I don't how see how this any different from him not losing money in investments, and seizing his customers' deposits to buy a fleet of sports cars . Both are just as wrong and equally illegal.

The evidence points me to thinking that Ukyo invested in TF and got stung when TF got hacked.

...
The evidence points me to thinking that Ukyo invested in TF and got stung when TF got hacked.

Please give me one single plausible reason why Ukyo would not be able to happen to all of our coins.

I can not think of a single circumstance where this would be legal and moral.  

The bare facts are: he took deposits knowing he could not pay them back. He used other peoples deposits to pay people who tried to withdraw earlier. He is defaulting on his loans. Millions are missing. He refuses to tell us any details. He paid us 6 cents on every dollar he stole so far.

There are no possible legal reasons (that I can think of) beyond 'if I told you what happened, you'd be able to sue me more easily.'  That's the quote-unquote legal reason that he has for not telling us what he ******** did to all our money.

I admire your optimism.  But how long you going to wait? What if continues to say nothing for another month? It's already been 2. What about another year? Are you okay with that? Because Ukyo has shown 0 progress on this matter. He seems to spend more time on the forums here defending himself than anytime resolving the issue. Why? Because there isn't anything to resolve, he stole the coins, is the most likely answer.

If I thought he was hiding funds in any way then I'd be shouting about it because 70 btc odd are bloody mine and many people I know have funds stuck as well Anything about governmental gag orders is pure speculation and they certainly would've have been broken by anything that's been said.

The funds aren't available can mean multiple things. I can only say that afaik this is true, that to my knowledge ukyo didn't use or steal them, and he is working on finding a way to pay us all back. At least last we spoke but that was some two months ago now. I really need to catch up and see if I can find out what the situ is.

If I thought he was hiding funds in any way then I'd be shouting about it ...

The funds aren't available can mean multiple things.

The thing is, Glendall, that I do know the reasons as they stood back in nov/dec and I do understand. If you read Danny and ukyo's posts there is a hint there that saying too much could lower the chances of us being repaid.
...

If someone can show I am wrong on this then to ahead. However, it's about the law and business entities, not what you think is right. Basically, can ken under US law claim some rights to ukyo's personal assets, as a Belize company, when ukyo's Australian company owed it money? Everywhere I read about this people are confusing who owns or owes what. And no, being sole director doesn't make you automatically personally liable for a company's debts. That's half the point of a ltd company.

Thanks man, those are great!!!