Topic: ETH Foundation was basically caught trading stolen coins in exchanges (Read 5801 times)

The Poloniex did not return the ETC to me when they lend out my ETH before the hard fork. So I think it is not a good exchange.

What a shit show cluster fuck of idiocy here on every damn topic and comment LOL  

Legal ?

Are you fucking kidding me ?

There is way too many brain dead greedy retarded noobs in Crypto.. RUNNING IT !

Polo is a sleazy ass pile of shit.
All they ever do is what serves them (makes them look good with the majority)
While they make money in a FREE MARKET LAWLESS SYSTEM

What part of Free Market your all chanting don't you get ?
It means they can scam it up as much as they want and you all can't say shit about it.

ETH is a scam.
What is there to debate about ?

Oh sorry i forgot.. YOU PROFITS  

It is difficult to say that the Ethereum is vaporware. It has very good community support and the market cap is about $1 billion.

These guys are just opportunists. Being involved with Bitcoin = negative moral authority...
To be blunt, no major high tech project in history has had sleazier players than BTC.

And ETH is clinging to it's market value by it's fingernails... because vaporware is a lottery ticket.

oh yeah, they said, so we should believe and forget this idea.. 

Hacker will pump ETC hard before selling, its way too cheap now. Also he hates Vitalik so he will try to make ETC go high enough to start creating doubt in ETH just for shits and giggles.
There's no way he will dump at this cheap price.

This is much more reasonable.  Poloniex doesn't want to risk the lucrative business around ETC to be damaged by too much shady dumping which may get them being seen in a less positive daylight by their customers.

These "funds" are not "stolen" in the sense that you could get into legal trouble with it.  In order for them to be stolen, they have to be reported stolen, and declared stolen by some or other authority.  In order for that to happen, a lot has to happen.  Because these funds didn't "belong" to anybody.  They were data on a distributed ledger or, at best, they were owned by a legally non-existing entity, the "DAO", which has no legal structure AT ALL, with no representatives, no moral declaration etc...

So the DAO hacked funds are way way way from being legally declared "stolen", and hence, handling "fungible" coins on an exchange which remains neutral to these issues wouldn't put them in the slightest bit of legal difficulty.

The only genuine holders of property, in as much as this is even legally recognized, are DAO TOKENS which belong to the people holding the secret keys, or exchanges holding these secret keys for them.  But DAO tokens were never stolen.

But "stealing coins from a legally non-existent entity" is something that is food for lawyers and judges (in what jurisdiction ?) for years, and in my opinion, the illegal character of a venture capitalist structure without legal declaration is probably much more of a problem for the DAO owners, than having the coins declared stolen from their illegal structure (in as much as it has to exist to even possess something).  In far most jurisdictions, it is legally forbidden to set up something like a venture capitalist firm without going through a whole lot of legally obliged stuff.  The DAO didn't do that and was hence an illegal company in most jurisdictions.   As such, it would be extremely difficult for a non-existent, non-represented, and mostly illegal entity to go and claim justice without getting a lot of troubles in return.

Basically you have until the 2nd September to dump all your ETC criminal coins before the criminal does.

This is a clear warning.

I don't think there will be any funds left if etc price is low and the lawyers eat it all up with legal fees.  That might be good for etc though.

Poloniex owners will not allow their exchange to be used as an escape route by people known to have funds that are known to be acquired in a questionable way. That will be bad for their reputation and they will risk having their exchange rated low by the community. It might also make their customers leave the site.

The reason why the exchanges allowed ETC is because the volume is good and it is profitable for them. But allowing the attacker to use their exchange will not be good for them. It is a simple business decision.

The coins they have from the white hate hackers should be held for now and they should consult with a lawyer.

The investigation could take months. And if the ETC is not sold out, it might become worthless when the other hacker dumps.

I think Poloniex do not want to be convicted of knowingly handling stolen funds.  They are bound by KYC (Know Your Customer) regulations.  If they had stolen funds previously, they could argue "plausible deniability" because the story wasn't out.
It is in the hands of lawyers now so there will be an investigation.  It could take years to resolve and get those funds back to their rightful owners.

The hacker will be smart. He might mix the ETC before he sends the ETC to exchanges. He might do it out of exchanges.

no sorry i think you mess up something.
the blockchain is imutable
exchanges are biz and have to optain the rules of the real world like SEC or LAW.

The point of view, which I support, is that if you agree with letting block chains and so on run as they are intended to run (ETC, immutability,...), then you shouldn't interfere either with people wanting to exchange coins, and remain neutral.  So indeed, why did Poloniex support ETC, but then turns around and starts judging whether certain coins are "theft" ?  That doesn't make sense.  If you go for immutability and running block chains as intended, you should also not "colour coins" and be picky about what people did to obtain them, right ?

Now we know for sure : when the hacker will try to dump on exchange the founds will be frozen.

so no dump on 2nd of September, this is clear.

how is it a simular situation ?
the black hat hack coins have not been moved to the exchange as far as i know.


and etherfork did know there is the posibility that the fork ends in 2 chains. and 2 coins. the new one Ether fork and the old one still same as befor fork etc. vitalik and co did know about that risk. vitalik as i understand was involved a lot in the discution on bitcoin for or not fork . where all this risks where discust.
its also if you have not real consensu means all down to the basis do agree to the fork a fork will always end in 2 chains. its called a faild fork as i understand it. but its basic blockchain technique i was told.

so why would etc be the bad coin ? just becouse it refuses to die ?


and let see waht polo does if the black hat hacker wants to sell there.
id say freeze it and report it. where i live it selling or helping to sell stolen goods is  a crime- fencing or handling of stolen goods.

therefor what polo did is legal

now they have to tell what is the next step
do they report ?
cant give it back to the hacker for sure

I agree with that PoV.

I don't understand how Poloniex can decide to freeze funds that were 'stolen'?
They chose to allow ETC, which is a similar situation, surely if they are being laissez-faire, they shouldn't freeze anything!

Do they now sit on these coins, or return then?