Topic: Lauda, MinerJones, Blazed | Missing escrow funds (Read 25992 times)

It resolved itself, unless you want me to cast a couple of spells.

Ok, Thanks. I'll give my try at following the BTCs final paths.

This is not resolved. I don’t think it will ever be resolved.

I'm a lurker on here, no main. I just thought I'd investigate it myself with the tools I have.

Post this from your main account and you might get an answer.

Did this get solved or are these bitcoins just lost in the void?

How many scams and still a DT member.I guess i will need to make a collection and forward it to some project owners.

There are no facts (presented by you), and you (nor your accompanying scam buddies) are certainly not qualified to perform any objective analysis. The only fact is as follows: No funds have been lost, and more funds have been returned than was required.

My analysts and the underlying facts speak for themselves.

No, it doesn't say that; this is what happens when a butthurt, pathetic scammer is interpreting the situation. That was that investment address; it has nothing to do with where funds were going to be kept.

There is no contract that implies any such restriction, nor was there any breach of any kind of imaginary contract.

There are no missing funds. When will you stop being upset that I trampled over your shady account-farming business? It's time to forfeit the lies.

I think that is a pretty ridiculous assertion.

The above says two things, 1st it explicitly says that the bitcoin would be held in 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z, and 2nd, it implied that each of the three above escrows would be the sole custodian of one of the three private keys that can spend funds in the above address, requiring two of those keys.

The bitcoin very much was not held in that address, and there is circumstantial evidence that all of the bitcoin was able to be spent by one person.

The above is a breach of contract.

Further, there is a minimum of 10BTC unaccounted for in regards to the BCH coins being exchanged for bitcoin. If you were to describe this in the most generous of terms, you would say this is a "fee" for exchanging the coins, however this was neither disclosed, nor agreed to before the "fee" was charged. Realistically, this money was stolen, and the amount is most likely to be closer to 30BTC or so, based on trading volumes at the time.

I would make similar statements in regards to the various alts collected, however the amount missing is far greater, in the millions of dollars, and the percentage of money from the sale of the altcoins missing is also far greater.

Which is more than sufficient; if people can't follow PGP chains than that is their own problem. More changes are coming.

This is the best explanation I've seen so far: 


Them's fightin' words! 

remove lauda from escrow listing services until this problem fix. pls dont let other people down by loosing their money. staffs should take action on this. there is other thread also about lauda escrow.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/escrow-ripper-here-guys-warnnning-5053593
yesterday im almost use lauda services but the seller said to me he dont trust lauda, im fee lucky my deal smooth thru bitify or MAYBE i will have the same problem too

Just returned to the forums after a 2-week hiatus. Are there any threads where Lauda explains the purpose of these recent changes to their forum account? Link please.

And after reviewing the past couple of pages that I needed to catch up on, I just want to state some unbiased input:

As defined by Merriam Webster dictionary, escrow means a deed, a bond, money, or a piece of property held in trust by a third party to be turned over to the grantee only upon fulfillment of a condition.

Based on the terms that were (irresponsibly) set and dictated by the board of NVO, it seems as if the services of the escrows involved were completed according to the terms that were established by the parties involved. The accusations brought forth in this thread are that the escrows were acting in their best interest to imply theft of a portion of the escrowed funds. However, to me (and I hope that it doesn't appear I'm taking sides), it appears that no terms of the original agreement were broken by the escrow(s).

Does that mean that they didn't profit from their holdings? No; I'm sure that they probably did. Is this morally wrong? That's for you to decide, but to me, a responsible escrow is one that fulfills the terms as brought forth upon them at the time the escrow is opened.

In this particular instance, I find most of the fault for this whole ordeal to be due to the shitty unthought terms that were established by NVO.

Anyways, my main reason for this post was to see if there is anyone that can point me to the reason for the changes in Lauda's account lol. Just thought I'd add some input, too.

Carry on.

Why wonder when you can go and check their accounts ?

See if they are online. Start sending them messages and see if they respond.

BTW did u see who has Lauda on DT2 and tried contacting them ?

It seems that group of people almost entirely have their fingerprints on DT and many of them have acted unethically at best and illegally at worst. Calls for them to be removed have been ignored.

Didn't expected this from you Lauda. I wonder where are those people now who got me removed from default trust, ganged up on me when I came back. I have gotten arrested for something I never did but atleast I didn't had a single person who can claim I took a penny from him.
Shame on you.

This happens quite frequently with one of these parties. Unfortunately, in this case, the accusation is quite credible, yet those in power have scared anyone from seriously caring...

Isn't ironic when someone is accusing you about scam, you'll give him/her neg tag instead of defending your self.