Topic: CRYPTSY stopping withdraw locking accounts without notifying users! Class Action - page 277. (Read 1006940 times)
January 21, 2016, 01:39:47 AM
so are we getting paid out or not?
January 21, 2016, 01:29:02 AM
f you live in the USA and want an easy way to buy BTC use Campbx.com. Use my referral link and get 10% off of your Bitcoin commissions register here: https://CampBX.com/register.php?r=71W7SUaY6y9
ya i clicked here and the first thing pops up is dwolla!!!~~~i thought they got kracked?
wtf fool?
ya i clicked here and the first thing pops up is dwolla!!!~~~i thought they got kracked?
wtf fool?
owsleybeatsbigcartel was quoting BitJohn in Purple. Here's one source depicting the original quote:
http://time-updates.blogspot.com/2013/08/talkwalker-alerts-alert-for-usa-news.html
owsleybeatsbigcarte copy & paste the quote but didn't grab the 'I' in 'If'.
owsleybeatsbigcartel's here is in reference to BitJohn's here of whom he's quoting, albeit not employing standard quoting procedures.
In context, owsleybeatsbigcartel is expressing to BitJohn that he clicked the referral link (here) and was directed to a site where the first thing that popped up was dwolla, further commenting, "i thought they got kracked?" owsleybeatsbigcartel ends the post with "wtf fool?" perhaps expanding on his comment "i thought they got kracked?"
I did the research and 100% know who owsleybeatsbigcartel is, and he's not BitJohn, otherwise, again, I would be yelling from atop the tallest pile of
Was racineraiders also a bad typer ?!?
http://trollboxarchive.com/search/username/racineraiders/
owsleybeatsbigcartel = racineraiders = John Hammes
It's just a coincidence that John Hammes' name resembles the pseudonym BitJohn of whom we've yet to identify.
owsleybeatsbigcartel = racineraiders = John Hammes = ASICSRUS https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/asicsrus-140852 =
Robert Doer
6255 Barranca ave.
Azusa, California 91702
United States
7078207701
cell: (626)419-8220
Did the Minersource gang move to California before heading north for Oregon ?
re: [INSTOCK in California] Selling Gridseed Asics. Ship from California. [$235]
So far I have nothing but excellent things to say about zoomhash ships really fast and I love my gridseeds!
Bumping this in case anyone missed it..
And I'm adding this... just because I like the word IF.
https://www.gldtalk.org/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=43
January 21, 2016, 01:14:03 AM
For the last 24h , 11.43 BTCs ~ $4800 were moved from Cryptsy to Local Bitcoins.
January 21, 2016, 01:04:16 AM
Please don't cheat by skipping to the end of this post to learnt the GREAT REVEAL, for I've put a lot of work into this post with hopes of Paul Vernon extending me a simple thank you for my efforts. 
Hopefully, I accomplished penning an easy read of laying out the facts and timeline. Please inquire of me if anything needs explaining or expanded upon.
Source: https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/17oUqLHwuavYceexZg5XTJW3SWsMTJXuV
Before I go into further detail about the four txs highlighted in the center of the pic above, I'm going take the time to depict something I've found interesting with this address, in which I'll refer to it as Cryptsy's Staging Wallet - not really hot nor cold, where some golden hair gal may opine, "It's just about right!"
Timestamp (GMT) +/- Ending Balance [D]:H:M:S Between Inputs/Outputs
2014-09-13 15:53:03 -14. 0. 15:05:30
2014-09-12 21:47:33 +14. 14.
2014-08-30 02:07:55 -8. 0. 04:40:33
2014-08-29 21:27:22 +8. 8.
2014-08-21 11:27:36 -7.16067724 0. 01:02:11
2014-08-21 10:25:25 +3.05306618 7.16067724
2014-08-21 10:25:25 +4.10761106 4.10761106
2014-08-13 16:47:45 -2.17175017 0. 03:07:33
2014-08-13 13:40:12 +2.17175017 2.17175017
2014-08-12 11:36:29 -10. 0. 02:47:23
2014-08-12 08:49:06 +10. 10.
2014-08-11 20:38:09 -0.1491 0. 00:42:44
2014-08-11 19:55:25 +0.1491 0.1491
2014-08-05 00:48:30 -21.7 0. 02:16:04
2014-08-04 22:32:26 +21.7 21.7
2014-07-29 13:17:36 -1.9998 0. 00:35:06
2014-07-29 12:42:30 +1.9998 1.9998
2014-07-29 08:54:46 -29.98 0. 11:07:01
2014-07-29 08:54:46 -60. 29.98 [2] 08:07:18 32Hours:07:18
2014-07-28 21:47:45 +29.98 89.98
2014-07-27 00:47:28 +60. 60. Saturday Evening 20:47:28 EDT
2014-07-21 16:07:07 -14. 0. 02:31:44
2014-07-21 13:35:23 +14. 14.
2014-07-20 21:52:14 -10. 0. 06:24:54
2014-07-20 15:27:20 +10. 10.
2014-07-18 16:09:20 -10. 0. [1] 00:19:37
2014-07-17 15:49:43 +10. 10.
2014-07-15 17:08:08 -20. 0. 09:17:24
2014-07-15 07:50:44 +20. 20.
2014-07-06 21:36:11 -2.4999 0. 01:47:53
2014-07-06 19:48:18 +2.4999 2.4999
2014-06-29 17:38:00 -40. 0. 01:22:38
2014-06-29 16:15:22 +40. 40.
2014-06-27 20:42:27 -7.9998 0. 01:42:04
2014-06-27 19:00:23 +7.9998 7.9998
2014-06-11 15:17:37 -51. 0. 01:57:01
2014-06-11 13:54:49 -15.8993 51. 01:01:14
2014-06-11 13:20:36 +51. 66.8993
2014-06-11 12:45:35 +15.8993 15.8993
2014-06-10 23:47:22 -0.08 0. 01:09:57
2014-06-10 22:37:25 +0.08 0.08
2014-06-02 21:09:13 -99. 0. 01:55:28
2014-06-02 19:13:45 +99. 99.
2014-06-02 14:41:18 -28.5 0. 01:12:41
2014-06-02 13:28:37 +28.5 28.5
2014-05-30 22:08:47 -28.78761889 0. 05:00:20
2014-05-30 17:08:27 +28.78761889 28.78761889
2014-05-26 01:49:52 -30.69897351 0. 16:05:53
2014-05-25 09:43:59 +30.69897351 30.69897351
2014-05-23 17:11:27 -20. 0. 04:38:37
2014-05-23 12:32:50 +20. 20.
2014-05-22 20:32:03 -10. 0. 12:39:49
2014-05-22 07:52:14 +10. 10.
2014-05-21 14:14:56 -14.386 0. 02:29:58
2014-05-21 11:44:58 +14.386 14.386
2014-02-12 07:24:12 -5. 0. [3] 20:24:04
2014-02-11 21:46:11 -4.5 5. [4] 14:04:46
2014-02-08 11:00:08 +5. 9.5
2014-02-07 07:41:25 +4.5 4.5
Fact: This wallet address was compromised on July 29, 2014, at 08:54:46 GMT.
https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/48721871b11f716688fcf80a91a5c7586a1dddee83d90b84b564f3f29e11504c
Fact: Paul Vernon didn't know what happened or by whom(s) by several of his accounts of the event.
Fact: Paul Vernon opted to continue funding this address at 12:42:30, a mere 3:47:44 after the event NOT knowing if this wallet address had been compromised, proof below:
Fact: The last transaction from 17oUqLHwuavYceexZg5XTJW3SWsMTJXuV was exactly 14 BTC sent to 1EzK7T326C3eU3pi4MWFDzUptg143vV4K5 on 2014-09-13 15:53:03 GMT.
Fact: 1EzK7T326C3eU3pi4MWFDzUptg143vV4K5 was created on 2014-07-29 19:24:10 GMT, exactly 6:41:40 after the event.
Fact: The reallocated 60 BTC was predominantly funded via MintPay.com: https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/05638e948967c9cc6015153bca8a74dca3bb94a0ec8bd72eaced5e7d6d0e8ef9 (in bold)
Fact: (safely assumed) This is a highly regulated bitcoin wallet address controlled personally by Cryptsy staff (presumably Paul Vernon) oppose to being automatically funded and depleted via some preset program.
Fact: ~3.75 hours (3:47:44) after Cryptsy's reduction of funds event, 1.9998 BTC was deposited into the then-now compromised bitcoin wallet address administered by Cryptsy: https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/52bc7d5038fad2fa4b7f8a5a9ace8ab06a138fac4d50b25b85c4429b819b6914
The 1.9998 BTC came from an address tagged MintPay.com, namely 1E3BuxDXy988aMahgYv5Wg7qLW3BLEgrx7 as seen in this tx: https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/52bc7d5038fad2fa4b7f8a5a9ace8ab06a138fac4d50b25b85c4429b819b6914
1E3BuxDXy988aMahgYv5Wg7qLW3BLEgrx7 is notorious for funding known Cryptsy wallet addresses in their control, with myriad coins stemming from there that's now part of the infamous event's booty wallets.
https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/297d12c144d9c5a811f1be1d9d34ce967c6e90dc38eb21e1215a8e498bd274cc
The above depicts where and when the 1.9998 BTC came from - out of the 4.9995 BTC (MintPay.com) which was funded by Cryptsy on 2014-07-29 at 08:16:57, exactly 37 minutes and 49 seconds prior to the 60 BTC being reduced via the event.
Fact: On 2014-07-28 at 21:47:45 GMT, there were 89.98 BTC in the 17oUqLHwuavYceexZg5XTJW3SWsMTJXuV bitcoin wallet address.
Fact: The gentleman or lady responsible for the event took the time to break up the 89.98 BTC into two separate reduction of funds: 60 BTC and 29.98 BTC, respectively timestamped reduced.
The 29.98 BTC was a separate transaction than the 60 BTC - https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/e8bb46bc6ea5f4580dd2b73f5d6a116e9023c84eb7c0fd4f34bcef3aca606fad - now residing comfortably numb here: https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/1AA8YJ2DeYr99BS1PrsFKWC1p9hXT28dup (with some of the change comfortably numb here: https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/1HEQxXqk1oBFP1ikvL7WE5su5hhaqZndZ7)
Fact: With the exception of the lady or gentleman responsible for the event reducing the odd-amount 0.0961 BTC, all the withdraws were whole numbers, leaving 3.1983 BTC on the proverbial table, along with scant change per transactions, some back in Cryptsy's control, with others resting comfortably numb.
Fact: There were 59 transactions: 30 inputs; 29 outputs. Sans this transaction - https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/400f9d02d2704869c4af55922dc5a77ab86bfd8ae1791f147fac524179c26ae8 - commencing after the event (~3 weeks), all inputs and outputs corresponded with one another (1:1).
Fact: Of the 30 inputs, 13 were of whole-numbered BTC, just like how the event dude or dudette likes his numbers. Personally, I'm fond of pi, perhaps why I'm consider an irrational mentally unstable dude
in these here parts.
The Great Reveal: (hopefully, not just being melodramatic) With the exception of the first two inputs and a 10 BTC input/output time span on 2014-07-18 at 16:09:20 - https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/c1f10a78a44536e46d89e6c76a0ee43a43e559adce32acb7a60207965c79816b - the ONLY other input that took longer than 24 hours to be processed out was of the 60 BTC making up the first reduction of funds of the event perhaps by a very remorseful lady or gentleman.
The shortest time span was of the first input/output directly after the event, followed by eight more inputs into this compromised wallet until it was no longer used by Cryptsy ~6 weeks later.
Hopefully, I accomplished penning an easy read of laying out the facts and timeline. Please inquire of me if anything needs explaining or expanded upon.
Source: https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/17oUqLHwuavYceexZg5XTJW3SWsMTJXuV
Before I go into further detail about the four txs highlighted in the center of the pic above, I'm going take the time to depict something I've found interesting with this address, in which I'll refer to it as Cryptsy's Staging Wallet - not really hot nor cold, where some golden hair gal may opine, "It's just about right!"
Timestamp (GMT) +/- Ending Balance [D]:H:M:S Between Inputs/Outputs
2014-09-13 15:53:03 -14. 0. 15:05:30
2014-09-12 21:47:33 +14. 14.
2014-08-30 02:07:55 -8. 0. 04:40:33
2014-08-29 21:27:22 +8. 8.
2014-08-21 11:27:36 -7.16067724 0. 01:02:11
2014-08-21 10:25:25 +3.05306618 7.16067724
2014-08-21 10:25:25 +4.10761106 4.10761106
2014-08-13 16:47:45 -2.17175017 0. 03:07:33
2014-08-13 13:40:12 +2.17175017 2.17175017
2014-08-12 11:36:29 -10. 0. 02:47:23
2014-08-12 08:49:06 +10. 10.
2014-08-11 20:38:09 -0.1491 0. 00:42:44
2014-08-11 19:55:25 +0.1491 0.1491
2014-08-05 00:48:30 -21.7 0. 02:16:04
2014-08-04 22:32:26 +21.7 21.7
2014-07-29 13:17:36 -1.9998 0. 00:35:06
2014-07-29 12:42:30 +1.9998 1.9998
2014-07-29 08:54:46 -29.98 0. 11:07:01
2014-07-29 08:54:46 -60. 29.98 [2] 08:07:18 32Hours:07:18
2014-07-28 21:47:45 +29.98 89.98
2014-07-27 00:47:28 +60. 60. Saturday Evening 20:47:28 EDT
2014-07-21 16:07:07 -14. 0. 02:31:44
2014-07-21 13:35:23 +14. 14.
2014-07-20 21:52:14 -10. 0. 06:24:54
2014-07-20 15:27:20 +10. 10.
2014-07-18 16:09:20 -10. 0. [1] 00:19:37
2014-07-17 15:49:43 +10. 10.
2014-07-15 17:08:08 -20. 0. 09:17:24
2014-07-15 07:50:44 +20. 20.
2014-07-06 21:36:11 -2.4999 0. 01:47:53
2014-07-06 19:48:18 +2.4999 2.4999
2014-06-29 17:38:00 -40. 0. 01:22:38
2014-06-29 16:15:22 +40. 40.
2014-06-27 20:42:27 -7.9998 0. 01:42:04
2014-06-27 19:00:23 +7.9998 7.9998
2014-06-11 15:17:37 -51. 0. 01:57:01
2014-06-11 13:54:49 -15.8993 51. 01:01:14
2014-06-11 13:20:36 +51. 66.8993
2014-06-11 12:45:35 +15.8993 15.8993
2014-06-10 23:47:22 -0.08 0. 01:09:57
2014-06-10 22:37:25 +0.08 0.08
2014-06-02 21:09:13 -99. 0. 01:55:28
2014-06-02 19:13:45 +99. 99.
2014-06-02 14:41:18 -28.5 0. 01:12:41
2014-06-02 13:28:37 +28.5 28.5
2014-05-30 22:08:47 -28.78761889 0. 05:00:20
2014-05-30 17:08:27 +28.78761889 28.78761889
2014-05-26 01:49:52 -30.69897351 0. 16:05:53
2014-05-25 09:43:59 +30.69897351 30.69897351
2014-05-23 17:11:27 -20. 0. 04:38:37
2014-05-23 12:32:50 +20. 20.
2014-05-22 20:32:03 -10. 0. 12:39:49
2014-05-22 07:52:14 +10. 10.
2014-05-21 14:14:56 -14.386 0. 02:29:58
2014-05-21 11:44:58 +14.386 14.386
2014-02-12 07:24:12 -5. 0. [3] 20:24:04
2014-02-11 21:46:11 -4.5 5. [4] 14:04:46
2014-02-08 11:00:08 +5. 9.5
2014-02-07 07:41:25 +4.5 4.5
Fact: This wallet address was compromised on July 29, 2014, at 08:54:46 GMT.
https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/48721871b11f716688fcf80a91a5c7586a1dddee83d90b84b564f3f29e11504c
Fact: Paul Vernon didn't know what happened or by whom(s) by several of his accounts of the event.
Fact: Paul Vernon opted to continue funding this address at 12:42:30, a mere 3:47:44 after the event NOT knowing if this wallet address had been compromised, proof below:
Fact: The last transaction from 17oUqLHwuavYceexZg5XTJW3SWsMTJXuV was exactly 14 BTC sent to 1EzK7T326C3eU3pi4MWFDzUptg143vV4K5 on 2014-09-13 15:53:03 GMT.
Fact: 1EzK7T326C3eU3pi4MWFDzUptg143vV4K5 was created on 2014-07-29 19:24:10 GMT, exactly 6:41:40 after the event.
Fact: The reallocated 60 BTC was predominantly funded via MintPay.com: https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/05638e948967c9cc6015153bca8a74dca3bb94a0ec8bd72eaced5e7d6d0e8ef9 (in bold)
Quote
1GYVCsK6cTBe5V4M2kuHDRyrG1SXjxRpqk 17.12897565 BTC prev. tx
1GYVCsK6cTBe5V4M2kuHDRyrG1SXjxRpqk 32.8798 BTC prev. tx
1DYpFaLqPiBpEqRYMYVW9chr358xhyKHRc 21.27798426 BTC prev. tx
1GYVCsK6cTBe5V4M2kuHDRyrG1SXjxRpqk 32.8798 BTC prev. tx
1DYpFaLqPiBpEqRYMYVW9chr358xhyKHRc 21.27798426 BTC prev. tx
Fact: (safely assumed) This is a highly regulated bitcoin wallet address controlled personally by Cryptsy staff (presumably Paul Vernon) oppose to being automatically funded and depleted via some preset program.
Fact: ~3.75 hours (3:47:44) after Cryptsy's reduction of funds event, 1.9998 BTC was deposited into the then-now compromised bitcoin wallet address administered by Cryptsy: https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/52bc7d5038fad2fa4b7f8a5a9ace8ab06a138fac4d50b25b85c4429b819b6914
The 1.9998 BTC came from an address tagged MintPay.com, namely 1E3BuxDXy988aMahgYv5Wg7qLW3BLEgrx7 as seen in this tx: https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/52bc7d5038fad2fa4b7f8a5a9ace8ab06a138fac4d50b25b85c4429b819b6914
1E3BuxDXy988aMahgYv5Wg7qLW3BLEgrx7 is notorious for funding known Cryptsy wallet addresses in their control, with myriad coins stemming from there that's now part of the infamous event's booty wallets.
https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/297d12c144d9c5a811f1be1d9d34ce967c6e90dc38eb21e1215a8e498bd274cc
The above depicts where and when the 1.9998 BTC came from - out of the 4.9995 BTC (MintPay.com) which was funded by Cryptsy on 2014-07-29 at 08:16:57, exactly 37 minutes and 49 seconds prior to the 60 BTC being reduced via the event.
Fact: On 2014-07-28 at 21:47:45 GMT, there were 89.98 BTC in the 17oUqLHwuavYceexZg5XTJW3SWsMTJXuV bitcoin wallet address.
Fact: The gentleman or lady responsible for the event took the time to break up the 89.98 BTC into two separate reduction of funds: 60 BTC and 29.98 BTC, respectively timestamped reduced.
The 29.98 BTC was a separate transaction than the 60 BTC - https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/e8bb46bc6ea5f4580dd2b73f5d6a116e9023c84eb7c0fd4f34bcef3aca606fad - now residing comfortably numb here: https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/1AA8YJ2DeYr99BS1PrsFKWC1p9hXT28dup (with some of the change comfortably numb here: https://www.walletexplorer.com/address/1HEQxXqk1oBFP1ikvL7WE5su5hhaqZndZ7)
Fact: With the exception of the lady or gentleman responsible for the event reducing the odd-amount 0.0961 BTC, all the withdraws were whole numbers, leaving 3.1983 BTC on the proverbial table, along with scant change per transactions, some back in Cryptsy's control, with others resting comfortably numb.
Fact: There were 59 transactions: 30 inputs; 29 outputs. Sans this transaction - https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/400f9d02d2704869c4af55922dc5a77ab86bfd8ae1791f147fac524179c26ae8 - commencing after the event (~3 weeks), all inputs and outputs corresponded with one another (1:1).
Fact: Of the 30 inputs, 13 were of whole-numbered BTC, just like how the event dude or dudette likes his numbers. Personally, I'm fond of pi, perhaps why I'm consider an irrational mentally unstable dude
in these here parts.The Great Reveal: (hopefully, not just being melodramatic) With the exception of the first two inputs and a 10 BTC input/output time span on 2014-07-18 at 16:09:20 - https://www.walletexplorer.com/txid/c1f10a78a44536e46d89e6c76a0ee43a43e559adce32acb7a60207965c79816b - the ONLY other input that took longer than 24 hours to be processed out was of the 60 BTC making up the first reduction of funds of the event perhaps by a very remorseful lady or gentleman.
The shortest time span was of the first input/output directly after the event, followed by eight more inputs into this compromised wallet until it was no longer used by Cryptsy ~6 weeks later.
January 21, 2016, 12:33:29 AM
"Thank you for calling Cryptsy, Chimpsy speakin'. If you like to make a withdraw, press one. If like to make a deposit, press one twice. If you like to speak with BigVern, monkey-punch the touch-tone phone, otherwise rotor your ass off while cupping your balls and squawking like a chicken."
January 21, 2016, 12:26:44 AM
January 20, 2016, 11:56:59 PM
Is it possible for these exchanges to get data breach insurance?
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
Whoever heard of purchasing fire insurance for an all steal and concrete building ?
Although he can't be that smart if he steals his own shit. He must've thought once he got to China he'd be home free.
January 20, 2016, 11:53:19 PM
Is it possible for these exchanges to get data breach insurance?
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
That would result in all these "hacks" getting investigated by the insurance companies, which makes it a lot harder to hack yourself.
Part of the reason that people try to/do get away with these failures is because nobody really know how to, or is incentivized to actually get to the bottom of the situation.
An insurance company on the hook for a 10m payout would certainly have a reason to actually get to the bottom of things.
Also, bitpay's insurance didn't pay out when they gave away 5k btc when their CFO's email got compromised. I'm not sure if bitcoins/altcoins would be included in the "data" they are insuring.
This bitpay case is interesting.
From http://www.coindesk.com/bitpay-sues-insurer-after-losing-1-8-million-in-phishing-attack/
Quote
Following an investigation, BitPay's claim was rejected by the insurer. Massachusetts Bay argued in its rejection letter that BitPay incurred an indirect loss rather than a direct one, thereby excluding the incident from coverage.
Further, the insurance company argued that because bitcoins exist in an electronic medium, any incident resulting in their loss wouldn't be considered as taking place on BitPay’s "premises".
"It is Hanover's understanding that the bitcoins were held online, and transferred online, and are not on the physical premises of BitPay. It does not appear that the bitcoin transactions involved a transfer of property from inside the premises to outside the premises," the insurer wrote. "As such, Hanover must respectfully decline to provide coverage for this loss under the Computer Fraud Insuring Agreement."
Further, the insurance company argued that because bitcoins exist in an electronic medium, any incident resulting in their loss wouldn't be considered as taking place on BitPay’s "premises".
"It is Hanover's understanding that the bitcoins were held online, and transferred online, and are not on the physical premises of BitPay. It does not appear that the bitcoin transactions involved a transfer of property from inside the premises to outside the premises," the insurer wrote. "As such, Hanover must respectfully decline to provide coverage for this loss under the Computer Fraud Insuring Agreement."
this lawsuit seems to be just starting. It will be interesting to see how it turns out. However, the wording of their policy does seem really iffy.
Quote
As noted in Insuring Agreement 6 cited above, the Policy requires that the loss of money be the direct result of the use of any computer to fraudulently cause a transfer of that property from inside the premises to a person or place outside the premises. “Direct” means without any intervening step i.e. without any intruding or diverting factor. The Computer Fraud Insuring Agreement is only triggered by situations where an unauthorized user hacks into or gains unauthorized access into your computer system and uses that access to fraudulently cause a transfer of Money to an outside person or place. The facts as presented do not support a direct loss since there was not a hacking or unauthorized entry into Bitpay’s computer system fraudulently causing a transfer of Money. Instead, the computer system of David Bailey, Bitpay’s business partner, was compromised resulting in fictitious e-mails being received by Bitpay. The Policy does not afford coverage for indirect losses caused by a hacking into the computer system of someone other than the insured.
Furthermore, there is an important distinction between fraudulently causing a transfer, as the Policy language requires, and causing a fraudulent transfer, which is what occurred upon the CEO’s approval of the bitcoin transactions after receiving the fictitious e-mails. The loss incurred by Bitpay was not a direct loss.
Furthermore, there is an important distinction between fraudulently causing a transfer, as the Policy language requires, and causing a fraudulent transfer, which is what occurred upon the CEO’s approval of the bitcoin transactions after receiving the fictitious e-mails. The loss incurred by Bitpay was not a direct loss.
http://privacyriskreport.com/bitcoin-hack-triggers-litigation-under-commercial-crime-policy/
http://www.logicforce.com/blog/2015/11/10/bitpay-cyber-insurance-case-proves-not-all-claims-are-equal/
Quote
In December 2014, a hacker of unknown origin spearphished BitPay’s Chief Financial Officer by performing a social engineering attack that captured corporate credentials. Those credentials were then used to send spoof emails to the company’s CEO, effectively tricking the CEO to send three bitcoin transfers over the course of two days that totaled over 5,000 bitcoins which were valued at $1,850,000.
Filings:
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2nlxxoo4t/georgia-northern-district-court/bitpay-inc-v-massachusetts-bay-insurance-company/
January 20, 2016, 11:46:24 PM
Is it possible for these exchanges to get data breach insurance?
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
That would result in all these "hacks" getting investigated by the insurance companies, which makes it a lot harder to hack yourself.
Part of the reason that people try to/do get away with these failures is because nobody really know how to, or is incentivized to actually get to the bottom of the situation.
An insurance company on the hook for a 10m payout would certainly have a reason to actually get to the bottom of things.
Also, bitpay's insurance didn't pay out when they gave away 5k btc when their CFO's email got compromised. I'm not sure if bitcoins/altcoins would be included in the "data" they are insuring.
January 20, 2016, 11:40:35 PM
January 20, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
January 20, 2016, 11:25:28 PM
Is it possible for these exchanges to get data breach insurance?
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
https://databreachinsurancequote.com/cyber-insurance/cyber-insurance-data-breach-insurance-premiums/
The going rate quoted here seems to be about $50 - 60k/year for $10 million in coverage.
January 20, 2016, 11:23:27 PM
vernon is bad man
January 20, 2016, 11:01:51 PM
damn this is a sexy page
January 20, 2016, 10:43:44 PM
A little help for your pesky problem Gleb
January 20, 2016, 10:37:38 PM
"Dude, don't tease me! Cup that bitch!"
You da man! Sometimes memes sneak up on you; other times you gotta grab them while fresh within reach.
Where did you find this gif of Josh Garza?
Marshall Long sent it to be from his family album, supposedly taken by Josh "So Jealous" Zerlan.
Full Disclosure: I've stared at this GIF for twenty minutes straight and my dick didn't hard, ergo I'm not gay... Wait, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME, not that's there's anything wrong with that.
Finishing up that post now, just adding some notes and misc. Please stay tuned.
January 20, 2016, 10:36:03 PM
"Dude, don't tease me! Cup that bitch!"
You da man! Sometimes memes sneak up on you; other times you gotta grab them while fresh within reach.
Where did you find this gif of Josh Garza?
January 20, 2016, 10:34:53 PM
"Dude, don't tease me! Cup that bitch!"
You da man! Sometimes memes sneak up on you; other times you gotta grab them while fresh within reach.
Where did you find this gif of Josh Garza?
January 20, 2016, 10:13:25 PM
Meet the saddest man in the world:
Meet the happiest elephant:
Meet the happiest elephant:
January 20, 2016, 10:11:11 PM
Meet the saddest man in the world:
Meet the happiest elephant:
Meet the happiest elephant:
Jump to: