I just trawled through 2 pages of shit and learned nothing new
Topic: [BitFunder] Moving Forward/Resolution Process - page 61. (Read 292108 times)
Can you lot keep this somewhat on-topic?
I just trawled through 2 pages of shit and learned nothing new
I just trawled through 2 pages of shit and learned nothing new
When we are able, we will announce more details on what is being done to repay the remaining coins that are owed to WeExchange.co users.
In the above quote, Danny is stating that there will be something done to replay the remaining coins above the 386 that are still available. He has clearly set expectations that something (presumably useful) will be done to get our full amounts back. Based on that, some of us are going to be more patient.
if forums become obsolete!
what does that even meanIll translate this for you: crumbs would be suicidal without his hobby
More inaccuracies i'd like to clear up:
The reason behind my pressing the point of exactly who is involved -- NeoBee or Danny -- is there's a world of difference, not just the salaries drawn by the employees.
Initially, Danny claimed that NeoBee is behind this -- a corporation with its corporate coffers. Later, he recanted by claiming that only he, Danny, an individual, is behind this -- not the corporation he fronts.
If Danny is as savvy in finance as i assume him to be, he structured his finances in a way as to be worth nothing on paper. If this comes down to litigation, there will be simply nothing to pursue with NeoBee coffers off the table. This is why i wanted him to answer my question. He led people to think that NeoBee was behind this, but in reality it's only him -- a point you still seem to be ignoring.
I do not know what Danny is doing to help Ukyo, and neither do you, so the remainder is nothing but conjecture.
⇩ ...and this is why we can't have nice things
The reason behind my pressing the point of exactly who is involved -- NeoBee or Danny -- is there's a world of difference, not just the salaries drawn by the employees.
Initially, Danny claimed that NeoBee is behind this -- a corporation with its corporate coffers. Later, he recanted by claiming that only he, Danny, an individual, is behind this -- not the corporation he fronts.
If Danny is as savvy in finance as i assume him to be, he structured his finances in a way as to be worth nothing on paper. If this comes down to litigation, there will be simply nothing to pursue with NeoBee coffers off the table. This is why i wanted him to answer my question. He led people to think that NeoBee was behind this, but in reality it's only him -- a point you still seem to be ignoring.
I do not know what Danny is doing to help Ukyo, and neither do you, so the remainder is nothing but conjecture.
⇩ ...and this is why we can't have nice things
Yes, its a bit confusing who is helping ukyo. I guess first he wanted to promote NEOBEE by setting it behind the thing and planned to come out as the hero who saved all... in order to promote NEOBEE. When he found that it wont work this way and people started to ask if NEOBEE will be damaged from it he claimed NEOBEE isnt involved. Its only him privately helping.
Regardless of that... there is no legal reason you can put your hands in Danny's or NEOBEE's pockets to take bitcoins out. There is simply no legal responsibility they have against ukyo and that way to each weexchange user. They never announced there is such liability.
I think they might helped too because NEOBEE has some Bitcoins in weexchange wallet. Another reason most probably is that NEOBEE is the company that will take over weexchange. The big buyer ukyo spoke about. All together led to the point that NEOBEE jumped in to help. Though i cant explain why someone should buy weexchange. The more when you see its damaged.
If the trade was done already then youre right. But NEOBEE would be stupid if it would have bought weexchange when problems occur. If they didnt buy it then there is simply no legal way to take their bitcoins. I think we are restricted to ukyo as of now. And im really interested to hear the explaination...
PunkKate again lol!
Hey Kate I know you read this, your anus is itching again? What a crazy whore you are..
Not interested in drag queens thanks...
Well said Klee! Did you know someone started a popularity voting booth for him? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sick-of-crumbs-311309
Also an interesting note on the troll.. He has yet, as far as I can find, to have added his funds to the list. Just trolling? Based on other threads, I would guess so...
Think more negative trust is in order... Next? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=127503
Ahh, the ignore button is AWESOME!!
Also an interesting note on the troll.. He has yet, as far as I can find, to have added his funds to the list. Just trolling? Based on other threads, I would guess so...
Think more negative trust is in order... Next? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=127503
Ahh, the ignore button is AWESOME!!
Crumbs - the guy who will commit suicide if forums become obsolete!
Your response is predicated on a dubious assumption -- assumption that a financier is trying to help you. If that was indeed the case, your argument is begging the question -- its conclusion is presupposed in its premise.
Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said. At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer." I presentyou the poster i am responding to with a hypothetical scenario. Let me stress again that i try to be precise in what i say, specifically to avoid this sort of confusion. I try not to make unbacked accusations, please return me the courtesy.
Regarding your hypothetical: If Ukyo committed a crime, asked Microsoft to cover it up and Microsoft complied, then yes -- Microsoft would be guilty of aiding and abetting. This would remain true even if Microsoft partially reimbursed the victims of said crime.
Again, please take care to understand that nowhere have i said that Ukyo has committed a crime, that Microsoft aided him after the fact, or anything else you might read into this. That's not what the word hypothetical means.
Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said. At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer." I present
Regarding your hypothetical: If Ukyo committed a crime, asked Microsoft to cover it up and Microsoft complied, then yes -- Microsoft would be guilty of aiding and abetting. This would remain true even if Microsoft partially reimbursed the victims of said crime.
Again, please take care to understand that nowhere have i said that Ukyo has committed a crime, that Microsoft aided him after the fact, or anything else you might read into this. That's not what the word hypothetical means.
Ok... its hypothetical. But Microsoft wouldnt be guilty the same way NEOBEE wouldnt be. NEOBEE never claimed they will cover it all up. In fact they always claimed they arent involved financially and that they only try helping to fix it. Nothing more. Might be you wish they are bound somehow but for that being true they would have to state they will be liable and pay for ukyos debts. And why should they do such stupid thing?
They only wrote about helping.
...
More inaccuracies i'd like to clear up:
The reason behind my pressing the point of exactly who is involved -- NeoBee or Danny -- is there's a world of difference, not just the salaries drawn by the employees.
Initially, Danny claimed that NeoBee is behind this -- a corporation with its corporate coffers. Later, he recanted by claiming that only he, Danny, an individual, is behind this -- not the corporation he fronts.
If Danny is as savvy in finance as i assume him to be, he structured his finances in a way as to be worth nothing on paper. If this comes down to litigation, there will be simply nothing to pursue with NeoBee coffers off the table. This is why i wanted him to answer my question. He led people to think that NeoBee was behind this, but in reality it's only him -- a point you still seem to be ignoring.
I do not know what Danny is doing to help Ukyo, and neither do you, so the remainder is nothing but conjecture.
⇩ ...and this is why we can't have nice things
Your response is predicated on a dubious assumption -- assumption that a financier is trying to help you. If that was indeed the case, your argument is begging the question -- its conclusion is presupposed in its premise.
Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said. At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer." I presentyou the poster i am responding to with a hypothetical scenario. Let me stress again that i try to be precise in what i say, specifically to avoid this sort of confusion. I try not to make unbacked accusations, please return me the courtesy.
Regarding your hypothetical: If Ukyo committed a crime, asked Microsoft to cover it up and Microsoft complied, then yes -- Microsoft would be guilty of aiding and abetting. This would remain true even if Microsoft partially reimbursed the victims of said crime.
Again, please take care to understand that nowhere have i said that Ukyo has committed a crime, that Microsoft aided him after the fact, or anything else you might read into this. That's not what the word hypothetical means.
Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said. At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer." I present
Regarding your hypothetical: If Ukyo committed a crime, asked Microsoft to cover it up and Microsoft complied, then yes -- Microsoft would be guilty of aiding and abetting. This would remain true even if Microsoft partially reimbursed the victims of said crime.
Again, please take care to understand that nowhere have i said that Ukyo has committed a crime, that Microsoft aided him after the fact, or anything else you might read into this. That's not what the word hypothetical means.
Ok... its hypothetical. But Microsoft wouldnt be guilty the same way NEOBEE wouldnt be. NEOBEE never claimed they will cover it all up. In fact they always claimed they arent involved financially and that they only try helping to fix it. Nothing more. Might be you wish they are bound somehow but for that being true they would have to state they will be liable and pay for ukyos debts. And why should they do such stupid thing?
They only wrote about helping.
By the way... i now contacted Marco Santori asking him what he wants for asking ukyo what happened and giving the info to me or more clients if more then myself are paying for that info.
You got 1BTC from me for this purpose.
Ok... ill keep that in mind... though i hope it should cost way more than that. I might be wrong since i never worked with that lawyer before.
By the way... i now contacted Marco Santori asking him what he wants for asking ukyo what happened and giving the info to me or more clients if more then myself are paying for that info.
You got 1BTC from me for this purpose.
...
I hope i never forget never to help you. Helping you sounds very dangerous.
Anyway... you can claim what you want. If Danny claims he tried to help no judge will bring him into jail. Its completely nonsense trying to sue him because he tried to help. No one is getting legally liable only by wanting to help. I wonder what laws you know. If any.
You can claim that ukyo is a scammer but following your logic... if ukyo would have asked microsoft to repair his wallet because he cant access the bitcoins anymore then microsoft has to be sued because in fact ukyo had stolen the coins. Thats some twisted logic you follow.
...
Regarding hypothetical scenarios: Danny is not a random passer-by either to those invested in his bank or to the scammed WeEx users, who delayed taking legal action due to Danny's promise that Neo & Bee is working to resolve the matter & everyone should sit tight.
So the more fitting hypothetical here is Josh being robbed, and Danny telling him "cops won't get your money back. I'm friends with the d00d who robbed you & will get it back for you."
As you can see, not only does Josh have the right to be angry at Danny but Danny is fully implicated and legally liable.
Hope i have cleared things up for you.
So the more fitting hypothetical here is Josh being robbed, and Danny telling him "cops won't get your money back. I'm friends with the d00d who robbed you & will get it back for you."
As you can see, not only does Josh have the right to be angry at Danny but Danny is fully implicated and legally liable.
Hope i have cleared things up for you.
I hope i never forget never to help you. Helping you sounds very dangerous.
Anyway... you can claim what you want. If Danny claims he tried to help no judge will bring him into jail. Its completely nonsense trying to sue him because he tried to help. No one is getting legally liable only by wanting to help. I wonder what laws you know. If any.
You can claim that ukyo is a scammer but following your logic... if ukyo would have asked microsoft to repair his wallet because he cant access the bitcoins anymore then microsoft has to be sued because in fact ukyo had stolen the coins. Thats some twisted logic you follow.
...
Your response is predicated on a dubious assumption -- assumption that a financier is trying to help you. If that was indeed the case, your argument is begging the question -- its conclusion is presupposed in its premise.
Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said. At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer." I present
Regarding your hypothetical: If Ukyo committed a crime, asked Microsoft to cover it up and Microsoft complied, then yes -- Microsoft would be guilty of aiding and abetting. This would remain true even if Microsoft partially reimbursed the victims of said crime.
Again, please take care to understand that nowhere have i said that Ukyo has committed a crime, that Microsoft aided him after the fact, or anything else you might read into this. That's not what the word hypothetical means.
There is a difference between calling Ukyo a scammer and a thief and saying that "that guy who is defending him was paid off by him and was in on it all along" without not even one solid proof of evidence
Thats how it goes in here. Noobs and fiery people try to beat in all directions in the hope to get a hit.
Regarding hypothetical scenarios: Danny is not a random passer-by either to those invested in his bank or to the scammed WeEx users, who delayed taking legal action due to Danny's promise that Neo & Bee is working to resolve the matter & everyone should sit tight.
So the more fitting hypothetical here is Josh being robbed, and Danny telling him "cops won't get your money back. I'm friends with the d00d who robbed you & will get it back for you."
As you can see, not only does Josh have the right to be angry at Danny but Danny is fully implicated and legally liable.
Hope i have cleared things up for you.
So the more fitting hypothetical here is Josh being robbed, and Danny telling him "cops won't get your money back. I'm friends with the d00d who robbed you & will get it back for you."
As you can see, not only does Josh have the right to be angry at Danny but Danny is fully implicated and legally liable.
Hope i have cleared things up for you.
I hope i never forget never to help you. Helping you sounds very dangerous.
Anyway... you can claim what you want. If Danny claims he tried to help no judge will bring him into jail. Its completely nonsense trying to sue him because he tried to help. No one is getting legally liable only by wanting to help. I wonder what laws you know. If any.
You can claim that ukyo is a scammer but following your logic... if ukyo would have asked microsoft to repair his wallet because he cant access the bitcoins anymore then microsoft has to be sued because in fact ukyo had stolen the coins. Thats some twisted logic you follow.
The proportional withdrawal looks good on the first glance. But it should be considered more carefully because not every balance to be returned is of the same type of risk:
1. Coin which was deposited after "the accident". This coin should be paid back first as it should not be used to repay other debt from before the accident!
2. Coin which was deposited before "the accident". This coin should be paid after the returned coin from the above point.
3. Coin which comes from selling Ukyo.loan. This coin should be paid the last. I am stressing on this matter since ukyo.loan shareholders in my opinion should be the most affected group as they were paid for risk taken while regular deposits were supposed to be risk-free. Treating regular deposits the same way as balances coming from closing ukyo.loan would not be fair!
This proposed order of resolution depends of course on type of the "accident". Since we don't know exactly what happened You must be the judge on that matter.
1. Coin which was deposited after "the accident". This coin should be paid back first as it should not be used to repay other debt from before the accident!
2. Coin which was deposited before "the accident". This coin should be paid after the returned coin from the above point.
3. Coin which comes from selling Ukyo.loan. This coin should be paid the last. I am stressing on this matter since ukyo.loan shareholders in my opinion should be the most affected group as they were paid for risk taken while regular deposits were supposed to be risk-free. Treating regular deposits the same way as balances coming from closing ukyo.loan would not be fair!
This proposed order of resolution depends of course on type of the "accident". Since we don't know exactly what happened You must be the judge on that matter.
Let me guess... you deposited coins after the accident?Always interesting how people try to claim why they and their funds are more important than others.
When it is POSSIBLE to release the full information as to what happened, that information will be posted and many on here will quickly become quiet. Has no one given it the thought that by revealing too much information could result in a decreased chance of getting those coins back?
So it really will be the hacker-story? You know... the hacker already know what he did. He wont be alarmed that you search for him. But i really doubt there is a hacker at all.
Maybe we should start collecting deposit addresses for weexchange. Might be that we find a pattern what happened with the bitcoins?
By the way... i now contacted Marco Santori asking him what he wants for asking ukyo what happened and giving the info to me or more clients if more then myself are paying for that info.
Can we stop with the conspiracy theories please?
On here? Not likely. Besides, as Augusto pointed out, bitcoin doesn't have a great history. I don't blame anyone for saying it.
There is a difference between calling Ukyo a scammer and a thief and saying that "that guy who is defending him was paid off by him and was in on it all along" without not even one solid proof of evidence
Can we stop with the conspiracy theories please?
On here? Not likely. Besides, as Augusto pointed out, bitcoin doesn't have a great history. I don't blame anyone for saying it.
Maybe Ukyo returned ff69 his coins in exchange for those words.
Can we stop with the conspiracy theories please?
Maybe Ukyo returned ff69 his coins in exchange for those words.
Nope. Can't prove it until everything else comes out though, sorry. Choose to believe me or not, that's all I can say.
Maybe Ukyo returned ff69 his coins in exchange for those words.
Hi pompo, firstly I'm not anonymous and I'm totally happy to Skype if you want. Just PM me. I don't want to get into ActiveMining in public as that's a whole other kettle of fish but I will speak privately on skype if you want. Same goes for anyone wanting to talk about anything
Yeah, but pirate was anonymous.
The forum participant Pirateat40 was not anonymous at all. His identity and his business relationships were well know by many people not only here, but outside this forum as well.
Notice the date of this post:
Pirate is 3rd from the right. His real name is Trendon Shavers and he lives in McKinney, TX. He will be turning 30 in September.
Quote
In fact, Danny runs a large start-up, has over 30 people working for his company, deals with several officials in Cyprus (part of the EU, not some backwater where people can run away), meets both businesses and individuals to discuss the neo, and has respectable international legal and accounting cover. Of course it could all be an amazingly elaborate scam but it wouldn't make any logical sense.
I verified that your participation in this forum did not completed one year yet. So you must understand that your speech for many of us, the old participants (which includes our resident troll Crumbs), is nothing new. The same kind of rhetoric you are using to defend Ukyo and Cryptocyprus was used several times by many people to defend Pirateat40.
That said, I am not endorsing the accusations made against Ukyo and Cryptocyprus. However, I must recognize that your effort to liaise in favour of both individuals appears very suspicious to anyone following this case.
By the way, if you want to use the fallacy guilty by association to prove that Cryptocyprus is a trustworthy individual, then I am sure you are doing more harm than good. Cyprus is well know for its corruption:
Quote
Banks, industrialists, politicians and those who had “insider trading connections” made millions from this financial honey trap, while Citizen Joe lost his savings, home and livelihood. To this day, nobody has been prosecuted or held accountable for the biggest financial scandal and fraud on the island. Profiteering, protected by vision-less governments has gone too far!
Read more at: http://www.news.cyprus-property-buyers.com/2012/03/14/vanishing-cyprus-consumerism/id=0011001
Copyright © Cyprus Property News
So, let's rephrase what you wrote, but with added content:
In fact, Danny runs a large start-up, has over 30 people working for his company, deals with several officials in Cyprus (banks, industrialists, politicians and those who had “insider trading connections” made millions from a financial honey trap, while Citizen Joe lost his savings, home and livelihood), meets both businesses and individuals (which has not been prosecuted or held accountable for the biggest financial scandal and fraud on the island) to discuss the neo, and has respectable international legal and accounting cover. Of course it could all be an amazingly elaborate scam but it wouldn't make any logical sense.
I'm beginning to be a little worried about ffs69 too.
It's true he was the first who raised the weexechange issue, and although before I had interpreted it as a proof of trustworthiness, I'm not sure about it anymore.
I'm happy about the danny's intervention in this huge mess and I agree with some ffs69's point, but his repeated need to justify the actions taken and trying to give Ukyo ever increasing time to clear the mess is really suspicious.
I remember this:
Nope, didn't miss that. And wasn't surprised to see it. Ukyo said there would be an announcement later today after which he would have more time to deal with weexchange issues. From the sound of it, weexchange will be sorted out properly in a few weeks but for now we just need the wallet to work again.
Let's hope much much much sooner than a few weeks..
That seems excessive...
At the time, nothing seemed to suggest a need of "few weeks" to sort the things right, Ukyo himself intervened to seem confident in a faster resolution. FFs69 has always been extremely tolerant, for someone who is risking 70+ xbt. I'm in for 10.5 xbt and while I agree we should not act impulsively to achieve some result, I'm really pissed and it is not easy to be quiet.
Finally, he REALLY acted shady when he was in the activemining board, when the share price collapsed with huge amount of shares sold in the same day and shortly after he and the other board members announced they left the board. Surely it was inside trading and I can understand it in the unregulated bitcoin securities world, it's certainly not a plus in its favor
Hi Augusto, what you say is all fair comment and you seem more than capable of making an educated judgement.
It comes back to engaging legal counsel if you are concerned about what's happening with Danny rather than people sitting and sniping without actually being productive. At this point in time, if not happy with the input from Cyprus, I don't see what else one could do.
As you say, bitcoin has seen this all before and definitely before my time in it. I would say that bitcoin doesn't have an exclusive on scams or legal action so I'm not without experience here.
For my part, I can only reiterate that I was the first one reporting problems, was pretty loud about it, and Ukyo had to convince me more than once of what he still hasn't convinced others. Unfortunately it hit a point where nothing much could get said in public, including from me. Nothing I can do about it or I definitely would. So I had a choice of shutting up completely or saying that to my knowledge this was the best chance of us getting our money, and that to my knowledge Ukyo has not stolen so misspent out funds. I didn't ask to be put in that position, I just wanted my withdrawal sorted like everyone else.
I'm just a random person on the internet so I would not expect people to just take my word for it, only factor it in when weighing up what's happening.
It comes back to engaging legal counsel if you are concerned about what's happening with Danny rather than people sitting and sniping without actually being productive. At this point in time, if not happy with the input from Cyprus, I don't see what else one could do.
As you say, bitcoin has seen this all before and definitely before my time in it. I would say that bitcoin doesn't have an exclusive on scams or legal action so I'm not without experience here.
For my part, I can only reiterate that I was the first one reporting problems, was pretty loud about it, and Ukyo had to convince me more than once of what he still hasn't convinced others. Unfortunately it hit a point where nothing much could get said in public, including from me. Nothing I can do about it or I definitely would. So I had a choice of shutting up completely or saying that to my knowledge this was the best chance of us getting our money, and that to my knowledge Ukyo has not stolen so misspent out funds. I didn't ask to be put in that position, I just wanted my withdrawal sorted like everyone else.
I'm just a random person on the internet so I would not expect people to just take my word for it, only factor it in when weighing up what's happening.
Jump to: