Topic: BitMarket.Eu has closed down - page 26. (Read 204185 times)

I found it strange that my earlier request for blockchain transactions showing the transfer to Bitcoinica didn't get a positive answer. I'm still waiting to see the Bitcoinica liquidation claim as well.

As things stand, there's no reason to believe the official story. Supporting proof can easily be given, but hasn't.

As for what's good for Bitcoin; I'd say Bitcoin scammers behind bars. That would be excellent in deterring future scams.

chosing to invest means that you have the general WILLINGNESS to support the investors by investing either "new money" into the site or by changing the frozen coins into shares of the new company somehow. Not more not less. It does not oblige to do anything yet, but it indicates you have the general willingess.

AFTER the initial questionnaire is finished all persons that click "invest" would be contacted immediately afterwards with another questionnaire about things like how much additional money/bitcoins they would like to invest and also a proposal how the shares are distributed, how votings rights are and in general how the investment plan would look like, i.e. which new services would be developed first, if there are further proposals, who should be in charge and all kind of stuff.

Then everyone can decide if he would like to accept the terms and conditions and be on board or not.


In case the cooperation rate is too low this step would be completely useless and skipped, therefore we wait for the outcome of the first questionnaire first.

In case the site does NOT reopen for whatever reason (e.g. since response rate is too low or not enough cooperate or the investment money would not be available or there is an earthquake and all participants die) then it just goes the "official" liquidation way.

In case of "I will decide later/ I have another idea", you would either have another idea and tell us about it. It can be as stupid as "M4V3r should play the lottery or rob a bank to pay the frozen coins back ;-) Any idea is welcome

Or in the other case we assume that you do not want to cooperate, but you also do not demand an immediate payout of frozen coins

hello guys, I do not understand these 2 options :


What happens if you decide:

 to invest, but for one reason or other, the site does not reopen?

What happens if I choose this option :

I will decide this later / I have an other ideaIn

no, sorry it was wronlgy quoted, i deleted the wrong row when quoting *g

And well, the investment would be made in a clear contractual frame were roles and responsibilties are clear. There would be a business plan on what would be developed and how the payback is regulated or how the shares are regulated and who will be in charge etc etc.

But this is only the next step after the "screening" with the questionnaire. Before any investment can take place the general will of the creditors to cooperate is necessary, otherwise every plan would fail.

Are you arguing with yourself???

What happens if you decide to invest, but for one reason or other,  the site does not reopen? or the new company decides to close it?

No i cannot post a draft agreement ;-) This is the next step when the questionnaire is finished as everything depends on the outcome and on how much investment capital we would have. Or we would see from the result that liquidation is the only way out as too little amount of persons are willing to cooperate.

And if you can find the lost coins somewhere please let us know... ;-) Before that i would say its conspiration theory.


Unfortunately there is no "best" option, only a "least worse" ;-) At least i clicked the "invest" option as i like the idea to be somehow participated in the new project instead of wasting money for lawyers

Of course, if someone is willing to serve prison term instead of cooperating with their creditors, then nobody can force them do anything against their own will.

in your opinion, what is the best option ?

I have 60 btc ... What should I choose? help me because I do not know which option to choose 

That is wishful thinking. It would be as effective as the government forcing you to work with 100% taxation.

Look at all other Bitcoin thefts/scams we have seen in the past. Nobody has found a way to force cooperation. Liquidators and government are useless and will not enforce anything except their own pay check.

- Practically this service has already stopped. So, stopping the service is kind of funny threat.
- What is this agreement? Can you post the draft here?
- This owner has already broken the agreement he had with his customers. What will stop him from doing same again?

I don't believe he has lost all the bitcoins. No one can guarantee that he isn't just trying to "sell" bitmarket.eu for 40K bitcoins to his customers. I'm sorry to say that but the only guarantee is well known for centuries - the prison!

sorry, i dont get it....

how should the old owner be able to stop the new service once the site has been transferred? In this case it would be out of his control, but why should he want to do this? The new site would be based on an agreement to pay back the old debts. CURRENTLY, while we do not have an agreement,  M4V3R can stop the service tomorrow when he wants to, but not anymore after an agreement to transfer the site has been "signed".

And your ideas about how liquidators work are quite weird ;-) I have followed few cases of liquidation, these guys are simple buerocrats, they collect all kind of paperwork together, try to sell the assets and charge a high fee for little work. After that they check once in a while if the bankrupt person has any new assets and thez distribute it fairly amongs the creditors and thats it.

Do you really beleive the liquidator would understand anything about the business or bitcoin? He does not care less. And that he would come up with ideas on how to improve the website?? And after that he "forces" the old owner to programm things that are beneficial for the creditors and when he does not do it he goes 2 months longer into jail?

Im totally on your side when you say it should not have happened that coins are simply lost.

I don't get this. What is the point of reopening the site under new ownership if old owner can stop the service whenever they decide to do so even under the new ownership?

The Liquidator can, of course, FORCE old owners to fully cooperate! If old owners choose to fully cooperate they get minimal possible sentence. If old owners obstruct the Liquidator then they obstruct the law and get maximum possible prison sentence for criminal offenses.

the point is... the 100 BTC or let it be 1000  would simply go to the liquidator
also, please do not forget M4v3Rs will to clean up the situation should be considered really more valuable than you would get from going through any formal liquidation processes...

becoin: If we went "official" and follow the bankrupcy/liquidation procedure, users would hardly get a bitcent right now. This is because BitMarket has virtually no "own" assets at the moment. Everything that is stored on site belongs to users who can withdraw them at any moment. And because it would scare the investors off, there would not be any other additional funds for the repayment. On the top of that, I personally don't have much assets as well - I rent the place I live and selling my car would probably get you less than 100 BTC.

The only thing that would be achieved this way is me prosecuted, probably, with no means of developing Bitmarket to earn back the missing funds. Which doesn't do any good for anyone involved - it's a lose-lose situation.

This option means the following:

The site is reopened under new ownership, independent from the old site. The invested (additional) money would go directly into the initial payout of frozen coins. Furhter payouts would be done on a monthly basis from 50% of the profits of the new site. The problem is of course, that the question "what happens exactly" cannot be answered fully right now, as we still need to see (with the questionnaire) who is willing to invest and also it needs to be clarified how much is the investment sum. Also from development point of view it needs to be discussed what can actually be done in which timeframe.

Starting from there new functions for example a peer2peer market is planned to be developed beyond the standard bitcoin buying/selling to make the site actually profitable (so far it hardly makes any profit). More details would only follow after this pre-screening questionnaire when we know exactly how much is the investment sum plus how big is the amount of cooperation.

In case the cooperation rate is too low the new site project would not be started and the "official" liquidation is inevitable which in fact means the closure of the site.

becoin, it is not (only) the decision of the liquidator if the site continues, but also up to the admin ;-) I agree that liquidation is the "official" way, but i am quite sure it will hardly bring you back frozen coins, maybe 6% according to the figures i have seen.

So in that sense deeplink is right, no liquidator can force the admin to develop new stuff or keep the site running on his own time while at the same time he liquidates all his plenty private assets like 70 inch Plamsa TV, his ferrari, rolexes and all his real estate ;-) *irony off

I don't think so. Liquidator can decide whatever he wants, but he cannot force the current owner to keep the site running. Most likely in case of liquidation the owner is going to stop operating it and business will stop.

I am willing to accept the current restoration plan


hi guys, please, explain what this option means ?

if I choose this option, exactly what happens?

No! Definitely not!

Liquidation means that the Liquidator will decided if this site will continue to do business as usual or will stop. If this site is making money then it will continue to operate as usual. If this site is losing money while conducting their business, then it will be stopped.

I have a different opinion on this. If it is a case where the reason for bankruptcy is illiquidity while there are a lot of (valuable)assests behind that could be monetarized it might make sense. In this case you have basically the website plus some minimal private savings which would be eaten up by the costs of the liquidation procedure. I also dont think that selling the website would bring so much. It is just another buerocratic process where in the end no one would get anything except the lawyers.


I agree, the term does not matter, the coins are simply not there anymore.


No, there should be a clear way out with a restoration plan (reopening the website, sharing profits between users etc etc.) which cannot be changed anymore once everyone participating "formally" agreed on it.


The liquidation in fact would mean that the website closes entirely and legally it is part of the liquidation mass as it might have some value. And in this case the current owner would do a shit in doing any extra effort to pay back additional user funds beyond what is left over after liquidation.