Topic: CoinLenders, Inputs.io, Tradefortress (HACK) - page 13. (Read 39738 times)

It's a lot to digest... I'll update my opening post tomorrow.

Woe he just answered all my questions fairly quickly and thoroughly in an email! This is exciting!
Will update shortly.

Maybe he just responds better to direct and specific questions...

I have emailed and called around a half a dozen lawyers, but I will make a new thread there as well. The main reason I wanted to post it here is I think it's one of the most likely places I can find other Americans that can join me in the litigation.

Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336217.new#new

Edit: I can no longer pursue a civil suit, as his debt with me has been settled.

If you're serious about a lawsuit, you should post this in the Legal forum rather than leaving it buried in here.  I've got almost 5 bitcoins in Coinlenders that as of now, I'm assuming are lost forever. 

Oh I see, sorry I hadn't looked much into it. I could also post the address that I had transferred to when I transferred into Inputs.io, if we could get enough of those addresses we could start to paint a clearer picture.
Why not?

It seems like the consensus in the community is that legal action and requesting transparency is a hindrance to TradeFortress, but if what he did was an honest mistake, then he has everything to gain by getting a third party to oversee what he's doing.
It would help him avoid mistakes, insulate him from legal action, and ease the doubts of his creditors.

He doesn't have to trust me and do everything I request to the letter, but he should at least be willing to have a civilized discussion, and be willing to answer some basic questions.

But anyway, I have some questions for TradeFortress;
1.) When did you first notice that the hot wallet was empty?

2.) How and when did you first realize your Linode administrative account was reset?

3.) Could you post the password reset logs for your Linode administrative console, and tell Linode employees that they may verify them for whoever asks?

4.) Do you have, and could you post, the logs of what the hacker did while he was logged into the Linode administrative console?

5.) Were the logins from 101.0.79.18 into your Linode administrative console, that you posted, the only time the hacker accessed it?

Hi all,

In the light of a lack of a clear statement from TF stating his commitment to repay his depositors to the best of his ability, it is getting harder to write posts like this.

However, I always assumed it was not going to be possible for TF to be able to get all his debtors to pay him back immediately. It also makes sense to me that he would be trying to collect a significant pool before beginning to distribute. If this is the case, then I am willing to give him the room that he needs to work and be grateful that I get anything back.

Personally, I don't think that TF should be making his full accounts public just yet. It does seem that he is trying to hide his own poor judgement (single point of failure, lending to businesses with exchange risk, etc), and may be trying to hide the fact that CL might have been in trouble even before the hack given that ASICMINER shares had plummeted and his debtors had been apparently defaulting.

Even these things I can forgive as it was me who decided to invest in a business that had "this is not real" plastered all over it, run by a guy who would not reveal his true identity. I didn't expect a JP Morgan level of competence (oops).

What is getting harder to forgive is after failing to send out the mass email as promised last week, there has been no new timeline for when we can expect an accounting of the situation and, most especially, a statement that he is committed to recouping and distributing to the depositors as many bitcoins as possible. At this point, I am not expecting everything back, but every last bitcoin would help.

To TF: There is a lot of anxiety out here and this hack has created a lot of hardship for a lot of your depositors. Please respect the trust we placed in you and communicate clearly with us what is going on and what you intend to do. It is the responsible thing to do.

To other depositors and people who have relevant information about TF, Coinlenders, and the Inputs hack, I am begin to research and article which will be posted on my website bitcoinwarrior.net. If you have any information that you think should be included, please contact me at [email protected].

Coinlenders

ace207:16.68791006:0:U

I suppose proof is elusive. However, the fact that the post came from his account, and that he was collecting coins from people into it, suggests that he controls it. Does it not? Maybe I'm missing something.

The address maraoz posted for example, it is reasonable to think it belongs to TradeFortress (Not enough to bring to court, but at least as a reference), along with the coins in it. It'd be tricky to confirm unless TF came and said "Yes, this is my address" and signed that message with its private key, but it's something.

How would I prove that they are TradeFortress' coins?

Who copied what from wikipedia?

Nice Thread thanks for the information!

Recommend you delete those numbers around the info because now we know you copied and pasted this from wikipedia

Here's a suggestion to DumbFruit: You could append to the OP of this thread any addresses with money that's confirmed to belong to TradeFortress, so we also have an approximate record of the BTC he does have.

Unfortunately for TradeFortress, the incredibly opaque nature of his handling this whole fiasco is only putting off the inevitable. It's beginning to look like legal action will be necessary, and will happen. I'd be surprised if some weren't already pushing for investigations at the regional level. His smugness throughout sure has not helped my attitude towards him.

It's clear he does have liquid assets. He's just unwilling to spend them (Yet).

My patience is running short, and so is that of many of us screwed over by this "hack." I'm starting to change my stance over not pursuing legal action and while I comparatively had very little in, others had a lot to lose and will be more than willing to extend this to its final conclusion.

I'm curious as what were his exact words, though. Was he just shamelessly not worried about using that money to pay out his debt?

Yep, his profile showed "28", he's obviously changed it now.

If there was, not a dime worth of Coinlenders depositor's coins were in it.

More likely that he wanted to get as much depositors in to pay off old debt (Ponzi scheme), but it didn't work out when the price of btc skyrocketed and a ton of people started withdrawing.
Evidence suggests that's exactly what he was doing for more than two weeks after the hack.

I wasn't threatening to sue him at all until after I read his last "update".

Because it's the best chance of recovering the coins. Not reporting the theft isn't going to protect him from regulatory problems.

It was TradeFortress' responsibility to select loans according the the criterion that he laid out to us, the creditors. Low risk, fully covered by collateral (115%), resistant to exchange rate fluctuations, and/or the debtor is highly trusted with a long history.

He failed, and now we're suppose to just sit back and trust him while he handles default, and we need to just be happy with the answers he deigns to pass our way.

Well, he leave plenty of 'noise' in place when it is from users (or whatever) who talk about how much they want to keep supporting TF and send him even more money.  Just sayin'...

Let's do this!

1.) Did he? I certainly didn't hear that in the interview everyone's talking about.
2.) I think there was a cold wallet, wasn't there? There were other cases where the hot wallet had to be refilled before withdraws could be processed.
3.) Eh.
4.) Eh. Lots of services were hacked previously.
5.) Maybe he wasn't really sure the extent of the theft and if it could be easily absorbed.
6.) That's scary, but why disclose it to a bunch of people threatening to sue you?
7.) Why would he? So they can arrest him for running afoul of thousands of regulations? So they can beat up a bunch of third parties in a failed attempt to track down the BTC?
8.) We don't really know if he's listening a lot. And frankly, a lot of the ideas don't event warrant acknowledgement.
9.) Yeah, the communication sucks.
10.) I think the idea is their collateral (AM) is devalued, the borrower's investments didn't work out, AND they can't buy the BTC to repay the loan. I don't think they were just shorting BTC.