Hey Gleb I bet you can translate these Lyrics to The Cryptsy Situation...
There is no pain, you are receding
A distant ship smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons
Now I've got that feeling once again
I can't explain, you would not understand
This is not how I am
I have become comfortably numb
Topic: CRYPTSY stopping withdraw locking accounts without notifying users! Class Action - page 199. (Read 1006931 times)
March 19, 2016, 09:15:10 PM
March 19, 2016, 07:31:56 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
People keep saying this, but I don't see any value.
A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch?
I believe the supposed theft was possible because they did not isolate (sandbox) each wallet. The compromised wallet was able to send commands to other wallets because they were on the same server or network. That really had nothing to do with the exchange itself.
Maybe my use and emphasis of the word "ton" was too strong but I believe there is value in the framework/customers/...and yes, even the name...although if it was me taking over I would seriously consider changing it. Up until they stopped trades it was the biggest and most successful altcoin exchange (that I am aware of). Other than liquidity issues (being able to withdraw) it ran fairly well. Their only real issue (again from my perspective..I was not a big user) was a lack of funds from the supposed theft.
This is of course me looking at it from the outside. Under the hood it could be a mess and any potential future owner/buyer would have to make that determination. It is conceivable that the receiver attempts to sell the code and any remaining assets rather than try to continue operating. Actually that is most likely what he will do.
Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.
Correctamundo, the Cryptsy wallets were NEVER off-line while the person who calls me a NUTTER - Jim Shockney - was claiming to its users that Cryptsy was secure with ALL its wallets off-line protecting their assets worth millions. BTW, May 20, 2013, to July 29, 2014, is the only timeframe that Cryptsy could've been operating on the up-and-up, but that's highly unlikely given all the evidence presented to date. It's been ONE BIG FUCKIN' LIE from the start, with John Hammes aka BitJohn supposedly being stationed in a war zone in Afghanistan working for Cryptsy sans pay till he trained Jim Shockney and his support team in October 2013, from Paul Vernon's Support Shift that was defunct in January 2013, all documented. The other two lyin' pieces of shit were Mullick and John MacPherson... oh, and Marshall Long.
March 19, 2016, 05:27:53 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
People keep saying this, but I don't see any value.
A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch?
I believe the supposed theft was possible because they did not isolate (sandbox) each wallet. The compromised wallet was able to send commands to other wallets because they were on the same server or network. That really had nothing to do with the exchange itself.
Maybe my use and emphasis of the word "ton" was too strong but I believe there is value in the framework/customers/...and yes, even the name...although if it was me taking over I would seriously consider changing it. Up until they stopped trades it was the biggest and most successful altcoin exchange (that I am aware of). Other than liquidity issues (being able to withdraw) it ran fairly well. Their only real issue (again from my perspective..I was not a big user) was a lack of funds from the supposed theft.
This is of course me looking at it from the outside. Under the hood it could be a mess and any potential future owner/buyer would have to make that determination. It is conceivable that the receiver attempts to sell the code and any remaining assets rather than try to continue operating. Actually that is most likely what he will do.
Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.
You wouldn't believe how many dumbass exchange operators, pool operators, etc., have done exactly this... Just because crypto is on the fringe doesn't mean it isn't full of dumbasses that have no business programming or being in charge of money.
March 19, 2016, 10:29:23 AM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
People keep saying this, but I don't see any value.
A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch?
I believe the supposed theft was possible because they did not isolate (sandbox) each wallet. The compromised wallet was able to send commands to other wallets because they were on the same server or network. That really had nothing to do with the exchange itself.
Maybe my use and emphasis of the word "ton" was too strong but I believe there is value in the framework/customers/...and yes, even the name...although if it was me taking over I would seriously consider changing it. Up until they stopped trades it was the biggest and most successful altcoin exchange (that I am aware of). Other than liquidity issues (being able to withdraw) it ran fairly well. Their only real issue (again from my perspective..I was not a big user) was a lack of funds from the supposed theft.
This is of course me looking at it from the outside. Under the hood it could be a mess and any potential future owner/buyer would have to make that determination. It is conceivable that the receiver attempts to sell the code and any remaining assets rather than try to continue operating. Actually that is most likely what he will do.
Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.
you must not have used the site much, it was the buggiest exchange ever!
who would buy this debt hole is cray ! lol March 19, 2016, 09:16:22 AM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
People keep saying this, but I don't see any value.
A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch?
I believe the supposed theft was possible because they did not isolate (sandbox) each wallet. The compromised wallet was able to send commands to other wallets because they were on the same server or network. That really had nothing to do with the exchange itself.
Simpler hypothesis : this was an inside job, they stole. Don't fall for their smoke screens.
Quote
Maybe my use and emphasis of the word "ton" was too strong but I believe there is value in the framework/customers/...and yes, even the name...although if it was me taking over I would seriously consider changing it.
Contradiction. Same was said for Mtgox, and at a time there was a fake draft project that circulated, probably crafted by Karpeles himself, claiming the enterprise could go on under the new name Gox.
Quote
Up until they stopped trades it was the biggest and most successful altcoin exchange (that I am aware of). Other than liquidity issues (being able to withdraw) it ran fairly well. Their only real issue (again from my perspective..I was not a big user) was a lack of funds from the supposed theft.
You're pretty funny. They run rather well as a cryptomoney service, it's just they don't have the money anymore. Not different from shitty banks everywhere in the world, they run well though they don't have the money they claim is due to their customers, fractional reserve crooks one way or the other.
Quote
This is of course me looking at it from the outside. Under the hood it could be a mess and any potential future owner/buyer would have to make that determination. It is conceivable that the receiver attempts to sell the code and any remaining assets rather than try to continue operating. Actually that is most likely what he will do.
Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.
Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.
Put Vernon and cronies between the hands of justice. Then if these morons didn't fuck up the theft, the keys could be retrieved. Best scenario.
March 19, 2016, 03:52:53 AM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
People keep saying this, but I don't see any value.
A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch?
I believe the supposed theft was possible because they did not isolate (sandbox) each wallet. The compromised wallet was able to send commands to other wallets because they were on the same server or network. That really had nothing to do with the exchange itself.
Maybe my use and emphasis of the word "ton" was too strong but I believe there is value in the framework/customers/...and yes, even the name...although if it was me taking over I would seriously consider changing it. Up until they stopped trades it was the biggest and most successful altcoin exchange (that I am aware of). Other than liquidity issues (being able to withdraw) it ran fairly well. Their only real issue (again from my perspective..I was not a big user) was a lack of funds from the supposed theft.
This is of course me looking at it from the outside. Under the hood it could be a mess and any potential future owner/buyer would have to make that determination. It is conceivable that the receiver attempts to sell the code and any remaining assets rather than try to continue operating. Actually that is most likely what he will do.
Edit: Just realized...the Cryptsy wallets would have had to be running UNLOCKED for the hack to occur.
March 18, 2016, 11:30:40 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
People keep saying this, but I don't see any value.
A name in the shitter. Software that can't be trusted because whether or not they stole the coins, it's been proven that they installed a malware infested wallet at leat once. Wouldn't it just be easier to start over from scratch?
March 18, 2016, 10:36:01 PM
so to anyone who has been watching the whole Eternal Insolent and Cryptcracker show in the other thread, they are the same person.
This was posted for about two min and then deleted:
Eternal Insolent posted saying that he was making another dispatch news post today and they and paul had talked to Eternal Insolent and that a resolution was near.
However they logged in as Eternal Insolent by mistake when it was posted. It was deleted right after, but there it is... clear as you need.
This was posted for about two min and then deleted:
Eternal Insolent posted saying that he was making another dispatch news post today and they and paul had talked to Eternal Insolent and that a resolution was near.
However they logged in as Eternal Insolent by mistake when it was posted. It was deleted right after, but there it is... clear as you need.
Nice catch !
Although it won't form an anagram of anything as interesting, I suggest an account rename to Eternal Incompetent
OOOOH NOOO! LMAO!!! their own incompetence ruined their own deal to give the 1000 BTC to themselves and save face by returning the funds to themselves! Now everyone knows for a fact Cryptsy is behind their own hack. They may have sent it back and made it seem like a Contract was signed with an anonymous person. Now that they are caught posting from the "Bounty Hunters" account it is proof that they would hack themselves and perpetuate the perception they tried to use to make themselves look innocent. Even if they did it as a joke it now incriminates them even further. As if we needed more proof lol...
Meanwhile, Jim Slockney and Leroy Fodor are calling me a nutter, with some other dude new to the scene using proof provided by Leroy and Joshua Zipkin that I'm not to be trusted in spite of it's me that's helping him. Weird fuckers, I say.
March 18, 2016, 10:30:24 PM
so to anyone who has been watching the whole Eternal Insolent and Cryptcracker show in the other thread, they are the same person.
This was posted for about two min and then deleted:
Eternal Insolent posted saying that he was making another dispatch news post today and they and paul had talked to Eternal Insolent and that a resolution was near.
However they logged in as Eternal Insolent by mistake when it was posted. It was deleted right after, but there it is... clear as you need.
This was posted for about two min and then deleted:
Eternal Insolent posted saying that he was making another dispatch news post today and they and paul had talked to Eternal Insolent and that a resolution was near.
However they logged in as Eternal Insolent by mistake when it was posted. It was deleted right after, but there it is... clear as you need.
Nice catch !
Although it won't form an anagram of anything as interesting, I suggest an account rename to Eternal Incompetent
OOOOH NOOO! LMAO!!! their own incompetence ruined their own deal to give the 1000 BTC to themselves and save face by returning the funds to themselves! Now everyone knows for a fact Cryptsy is behind their own hack. They may have sent it back and made it seem like a Contract was signed with an anonymous person. Now that they are caught posting from the "Bounty Hunters" account it is proof that they would hack themselves and perpetuate the perception they tried to use to make themselves look innocent. Even if they did it as a joke it now incriminates them even further. As if we needed more proof lol...
March 18, 2016, 09:51:50 PM
Right this moment Im sure people are looking to replicate this attack elsewhere, does shapeshift avoid this by lining up contracts not holding the funds itself Im not sure
They do to some extent. Even if shapeshift has to hold some reserves for faster trading that's still far less than when users start treating an exchange as an online wallet.
However Cryptsy's issue - if we believe the official story, which is shaky at best - wasn't really the centralized nature of the exchange. It was the sheer stupidity of holding 10k+ BTC in "warm" wallets. Any properly operating exchange should not sacrifice security for convenience and should not put more funds at risk than is absolutely necessary to keep in the hot wallet at any given time. Which can still become a big issue if it goes unnoticed for a long period, e.g. Bitstamp hack, so obviously it has to be done with all sorts of other alerts and precautions,
Funny how the funds got "warm" after Team Cryptsy had just announced that funds weren't online (cold wallet/storage) and an audit had just taken place, thus the site was safe and ready to accept more moneys into the system.
Funny, still, how Paul Vernon claims in this blog that spending was cut back due to the hack, but a ~U$1.3M home was purchased for him and his retarded wife and two retarded kids, retarded because that's the ONLY reason I can think of for the honorable Paul Vernon to leave his loving family for another Chinese piece of ass not as retarded having a normal kid that may or may not be sucking his new daddy's dick.
Maybe paul thought the servers being in a cold airconditioned environment meant that was cold storage?
At least Paul's balls were keep warm while being cupped by Marshall Long, perhaps causing Jim Slockney to become jealous.
March 18, 2016, 09:39:36 PM
Right this moment Im sure people are looking to replicate this attack elsewhere, does shapeshift avoid this by lining up contracts not holding the funds itself Im not sure
They do to some extent. Even if shapeshift has to hold some reserves for faster trading that's still far less than when users start treating an exchange as an online wallet.
However Cryptsy's issue - if we believe the official story, which is shaky at best - wasn't really the centralized nature of the exchange. It was the sheer stupidity of holding 10k+ BTC in "warm" wallets. Any properly operating exchange should not sacrifice security for convenience and should not put more funds at risk than is absolutely necessary to keep in the hot wallet at any given time. Which can still become a big issue if it goes unnoticed for a long period, e.g. Bitstamp hack, so obviously it has to be done with all sorts of other alerts and precautions,
Funny how the funds got "warm" after Team Cryptsy had just announced that funds weren't online (cold wallet/storage) and an audit had just taken place, thus the site was safe and ready to accept more moneys into the system.
Funny, still, how Paul Vernon claims in this blog that spending was cut back due to the hack, but a ~U$1.3M home was purchased for him and his retarded wife and two retarded kids, retarded because that's the ONLY reason I can think of for the honorable Paul Vernon to leave his loving family for another Chinese piece of ass not as retarded having a normal kid that may or may not be sucking his new daddy's dick.
Maybe paul thought the servers being in a cold airconditioned environment meant that was cold storage?
March 18, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
Does this mean bitebi9 has to close down because they are using the trade engine which is IP of project investors and not licensed to them? Bao Luo aka Paul Vernon should lose that then right....
Bitebi9 may have purchased the right to use the trade engine/source, etc....the receiver will have to look at the terms of the contract (if there is one) and try to extract as much value out of it for the benefit of the creditors/debtors/account holders. Keep in mind though that trying to enforce anything with a company in China will be difficult at best (I would imagine).
I suppose you (court/judge) could connect the dots and make a case that Bitebi9 was a "way out" of the mess by Paul and attempt to take over control of that company as well but again...China :/ ...think there is a word/legal term for this type of thing but it's been a long week. e.g someone takes all the assets of a failed business to start a new one leaving the debtors holding the bag.
bitebi9 is paul vernon aka project investors.. surely selling it to yourself for nothing or giving it away to yourself would look shonky and not hold up. But then again when he's in china how are you going to stop him using it... o look i recoded something that just happens to look like the old one.. i stayed up all night to do it because im just that awesome at it.
March 18, 2016, 09:35:32 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
Does this mean bitebi9 has to close down because they are using the trade engine which is IP of project investors and not licensed to them? Bao Luo aka Paul Vernon should lose that then right....
Bitebi9 may have purchased the right to use the trade engine/source, etc....the receiver will have to look at the terms of the contract (if there is one) and try to extract as much value out of it for the benefit of the creditors/debtors/account holders. Keep in mind though that trying to enforce anything with a company in China will be difficult at best (I would imagine).
I suppose you (court/judge) could connect the dots and make a case that Bitebi9 was a "way out" of the mess by Paul and attempt to take over control of that company as well but again...China :/ ...think there is a word/legal term for this type of thing but it's been a long week. e.g someone takes all the assets of a failed business to start a new one leaving the debtors holding the bag.
March 18, 2016, 09:02:48 PM
Right this moment Im sure people are looking to replicate this attack elsewhere, does shapeshift avoid this by lining up contracts not holding the funds itself Im not sure
They do to some extent. Even if shapeshift has to hold some reserves for faster trading that's still far less than when users start treating an exchange as an online wallet.
However Cryptsy's issue - if we believe the official story, which is shaky at best - wasn't really the centralized nature of the exchange. It was the sheer stupidity of holding 10k+ BTC in "warm" wallets. Any properly operating exchange should not sacrifice security for convenience and should not put more funds at risk than is absolutely necessary to keep in the hot wallet at any given time. Which can still become a big issue if it goes unnoticed for a long period, e.g. Bitstamp hack, so obviously it has to be done with all sorts of other alerts and precautions,
Funny how the funds got "warm" after Team Cryptsy had just announced that funds weren't online (cold wallet/storage) and an audit had just taken place, thus the site was safe and ready to accept more moneys into the system.
Funny, still, how Paul Vernon claims in this blog that spending was cut back due to the hack, but a ~U$1.3M home was purchased for him and his retarded wife and two retarded kids, retarded because that's the ONLY reason I can think of for the honorable Paul Vernon to leave his loving family for another Chinese piece of ass not as retarded having a normal kid that may or may not be sucking his new daddy's dick.
March 18, 2016, 08:56:41 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
Does that mean the receiver won't have no need for the support team which includes the porn dude, Jim Slockney?
March 18, 2016, 08:55:31 PM
Right this moment Im sure people are looking to replicate this attack elsewhere, does shapeshift avoid this by lining up contracts not holding the funds itself Im not sure
They do to some extent. Even if shapeshift has to hold some reserves for faster trading that's still far less than when users start treating an exchange as an online wallet.
However Cryptsy's issue - if we believe the official story, which is shaky at best - wasn't really the centralized nature of the exchange. It was the sheer stupidity of holding 10k+ BTC in "warm" wallets. Any properly operating exchange should not sacrifice security for convenience and should not put more funds at risk than is absolutely necessary to keep in the hot wallet at any given time. Which can still become a big issue if it goes unnoticed for a long period, e.g. Bitstamp hack, so obviously it has to be done with all sorts of other alerts and precautions,
March 18, 2016, 08:30:32 PM
Just read the tweet...the receiver has been identified:
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
http://www.sallahcox.com/james-d-sallah-esq.html
Edit: As bad as this situation is there is a TON of value left in Cryptsy. It is foreseeable that it can continue to operate under new management. The bad management by the current team should not reflect on new future owners/operators. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome the stigma left with what occurred to get them to this point but as a whole the only downfall was the (supposed) theft of funds.
Does this mean bitebi9 has to close down because they are using the trade engine which is IP of project investors and not licensed to them? Bao Luo aka Paul Vernon should lose that then right....
March 18, 2016, 06:27:59 PM
Quote
Hes going to ruin any chance of us getting our coins returned.
There was never a chance to get them back this way. Think it over....
Think this way, for a million dollar bounty he would have returned the coins the same day and been done with it
and moved on to his /her new life. I personally don't know anyone who would not have done exactly that. Tempting as
it would be to just take the stolen coins, there would be people tracking them and the chance to get caught would go up.
This was simply a troll to get the masses fired up, nothing more... and its over now.
And give Jim Slockney something to do while Ginny's filming herself fucking their pigs in the backyard to unload on Library of Thumbs to replace her previous videos she's since taken down. Boy, what I would give to find videos of Lorie Ann Nettles so that I can jack off to them too.
March 18, 2016, 06:17:49 PM
Quote
Hes going to ruin any chance of us getting our coins returned.
There was never a chance to get them back this way. Think it over....
Think this way, for a million dollar bounty he would have returned the coins the same day and been done with it
and moved on to his /her new life. I personally don't know anyone who would not have done exactly that. Tempting as
it would be to just take the stolen coins, there would be people tracking them and the chance to get caught would go up.
This was simply a troll to get the masses fired up, nothing more... and its over now.
March 18, 2016, 03:33:20 PM
Quote
We at Bitcoin.com do hope that funds are returned to their rightful owners and exchanges incidents such as this cease to exist.
I dont think incidents like this will cease to exist, thanks to human innovation and the massive honeypot incentive that a large exchange gives to every person knowledge of loopholes to attack with. Not just Cryptsy but I think the whole blockchain standard comes into danger when its chucked into one place, we seem to have that problem with bitcoin in general. Its so industralised now and scaled up beyond back room operations that the threat is from itself really. We can call out bad people and avoid them but really this amount of coins or hash power in one place is going to cause problems and losses and upset like we got here.
Its not a one off, thats all Im saying big Vern isnt the sole cause whether you like him or not is irrelevant.
Right this moment Im sure people are looking to replicate this attack elsewhere, does shapeshift avoid this by lining up contracts not holding the funds itself Im not sure
Jump to: