Topic: MtGox withdrawal delays [Gathering] - page 43. (Read 908727 times)

I admire the questioning attitude regarding the ledger, and the "we don't need no stinkin' lawyers" fighting spirit. However, what is the elephant hiding in the room? It's not whether there are tainted gox coins or not, or whether "the spoils" are to be distributed in Yen or bitcoins. It's the proportional amount.

How do you calculate a proportion? If 200K out of 850K BTC have been found, then you need to divide the first number by the second one and get .235 or 23.5%.

We only have the word of the original Mt. Gox bankruptcy filing at the end of February, 2014 that there were ever 850,000 bitcoins. This filing also blamed the collapse on the transaction malleability bug, which at this point is more or less a proven lie. So, my question is why do we trust this filing so far as the improbably large number of bitcoins supposedly held?

Mark Karpels has stated in June, that he does not believe any more than the 200,000 bitcoins will ever be recovered. The only way he could be so certain is if he knows there were never more than 200,000 bitcoins. If this is the case, the proportion is 100%, not 23.5%, and the bitcoins could be returned more or less immediately to the original owners.

The story about hackers or rogue traders making off with 650K bitcoins is completely unsubstantiated. gox-self-helpers need to pressure the authorities to document any supposed bitcoin losses in order to know whether or not they are valid.

Some have done this, but I have no contact. I'm not interested in sophisticated confrontations like this. In this game we will always lose. I'm sure. We have other (legal) weapons, because we are a very big group. If they will embezzle the available Coins, we are going to track these coins. I personally will not accept them as payment and I'm sure many other victims will do the same. Even if only some of the victims are not accepting these coins they became more and more worthless, because people will avoid to mix these coins with their good money. There are many, many victims who don't like to accept their own money as payment. Bankruptcy lawyers and other people are used to deal with fungible values and things they can hide​​. If they try to deduct us, they will learn their lesson for sure. We do not need lawyers for this.

Yeah, this will never happen in Japan. You need to remember this is a country where a signature is valued less than a rubber stamp (yes, which anyone can order to be made), I can't see the authorities ever allowing identification to be on anything other than physical paper. Japan seems high tech from the outside but Govt offices & banks seriously live in the 70s/80s with regards to record keeping.
Despite Kobayashi's inferences I also think there will be difficulty in distributing BTC under the legal system unless a claimants BTC address is included on the claim form. Only in that case could I possibly see some hope for that. Otherwise we may well see an auction similar to Silk Road, and a yen or USD figure then attached to claimants BTC holdings as at the time of bankruptcy filing or Gox's final trade. (most likely bankruptcy filing).

Why would the court want to send money (or bitcoins) to someone without knowing his identity?

Asking them to sign a message with a known Bitcoin deposit address perhaps
If the court has access to the deposit logs in user accounts should be possible to get that done

I don't see why it is hilarious.  How could the court return the spoils to the clients, without knowing who they are?

Also it's hillarious that previous customers needs to identify themselves to get access to their funds. Lots of accounts are already verified. God knows where all the ID-papers are today...

I saw that detail in several other posts.  However I believe that he actually said something closer to "we may look into it".  But in Japanese culture (the old-fashioned one at least)  a flat-out "no" is considered too rude, and that phrase could be just a polite way of avoiding to say "we do not intend to" (which would probably have elicited some angry responses from the crowd).

Anyway, that is not the question I asked.  The question is how the claims of each client are to be computed: by the balances in the final MtGOX ledger, or by deposits minus withdawals.  Whether the recovered amounts are returned in BTC or yen is an independent decision.

From the point of the courts, using the MtGOX ledger seems dicey.  One problem is that there may be no way to ensure that the ledger has not been tampered with, or even that the accounts belong to the claimants.  Whereas, the money deposits and withdrawals can be certified by the banks, and those in BTC can be partially verified in the blockchain.

"A día de hoy no se sabe el porcentaje de recuperación, como tampoco se sabe la forma en la que se devolverán las cantidades (dinero de curso legal o BTC). Con todo, hay que tener en cuenta que la ley japonesa obliga a la devolución en yenes, aunque el Juez respondió que dadas las peculiaridades del caso quizás se pueda realizar de otra forma."

Google translate:

"Today is not the recovery rate is known, nor the way in which the quantities (legal tender or BTC) is known be returned. However, keep in mind that Japanese law compels the return yen, although the judge responded that given the peculiarities of the case perhaps can be made otherwise."

http://afectadosmtgox.blogspot.com.ar/

The problem is that the client's opinion may not be relevant, if there are laws/precedents that determine how claims are assessed.  If the law says to use method X, and one client tells Kobayashi that he prefers method X, it will almost certainly be method X.  Even if all clients say that they prefer method Y, Kobayashy may say, "sorry, I must follow the law and use method X; thereafter you get together and re-distribute the spoils among yurselves as you like".

That question should be posed to Japanese bankruptcy lawyers and/or to Mt. Kobayashi.  Didn't any clients retain Japanese lawyers to advise/represent them at the meeting?

No, nothing, so far as I know. We have already discussed this point on Gox Self-help some time ago. It has been shown that probably a majority favor the "last balance" solution. This also fits well with your assessment. We had agreed so far:

"The remaining assets in Bitcoins should be distributed to creditors
proportionately to their final Bitcoin balance (as seen on mtgox.com).
The remaining assets in legal currency (FIAT) should be distributed to
creditors proportionately to their final currency balance (as seen on
mtgox.com)."

https://wiki.olivere.de/goxwiki/ClaimsGoxSelfHelp
(Auth needed)

There are a lot pro and cons but overall - I think - every other solution would be much more complicated and would be perceived as unfair by the most people. That will not fly by. People want the 200,000 coins divided fair. People want there money and Bitcoin is money.  

I had my Bitcoins almost two years on Gox. I was a Newbie and Gox was my wallet. I was happy with Gox, because they had very early a Yubikey and a very good HMAC based API. And they were big. And they were organized in the Bitcoin Foundation, were I'm also became a lifetime member. So I felt save even if I had only little knowledge about Bitcoin in this time. Gox gave me a feeling of guaranty in an uncertain environment. Sure, I was naive. So I lost nearly 200 coins. Nearly all I had. Gox was simply my main wallet. By trading and some panic (yes, I was a lousy trader) I had even lost coins. However, not much, maybe 20%. But that was completely okay for me, because it was really my fault and I've learned a lot from it about myself and about trading. In FIAT currency I have lost nothing. I think many have a similar position. But the lost Bitcoins hurt me very much. I'll fight like a tiger for my coins. You'll see.

There are philosophical argumens for and against both methods of counting claims, and of course each client will find one of them fair.  The question is which one will Mr. Kobayashi use.   Some people claim what he has no choice given the laws and precedents, some claim that he may choose either one.

Since there have been no comments about this issue (and surely there will be, whatever the choice), It seems that either no one thought of asking that question at the meeting, or it was asked and he refused to answer.


If bitcoinbuilder's CEO believes that he is the current legal owner of some GOXCoins, because he bought the rights to them off-exchange from MtGOX clients, I suppose that he should  submit a claim with proof of those purchases, and it will be evaluated like the other claims.  Under one interpretation, I suppose that he would claim to be the rightful owner of a certain number of BTC in the balances of those clients' MtGOX's accounts.  Under the other interpretation, he would claim to be entitled to (some fraction of) whatever those clients deposited, minus whatever they withdrew, over their history at MtGOX.

I can see the merit of this means of accounting were it a proven fact that Mt. Gox was running a fractional reserve. However, if there never were more than the 200,000 or so coins currently admitted to have been found in the old-format wallet, then all trades were actually based on "real" coins and never fake ones.

Many of these kinds of issues could be resolved merely by releasing the addresses of the alleged rouge traders or whomsoever supposedly made off with bitcoins from Mt. Gox. Then customers can trace them for themselves and see what happened.

Also, I'm curious how the bankruptcy court would deal with bitcoinbuilder's claims? Gox/btc were auctioned off and transferred to him in exchange for withdrawing real btc through his web site. Would these Gox/btc that he holds be considered "real"? Since no new coins were ever deposited to Mt. Gox by bitcoinbuilder, then it would appear under this procedure that virtually all his claims are void and so are those of his clients.

One important question that I have yet to see answered is how the claims are to be computed.

Many clients seem to assume that the amount they can claim is simply the BTC and currency balances in their MtGOX account, by the time the site was shut down (or at some earlier date).

However, some people who claim to be familiar with bankruptcy cases have claimed that the standard procedure in such cases is to ignore the balances (which are fictitious anyway, since they are the result of trading coins and money that did not exist), and define a client's claim instead as being only the amounts he deposited minus the amounts he withdrew, summed over all time, converting BTC to JPY by the market price at the moment of deposit or withdrawal.

Obviously the two methods will give very different results.  A client who has a huge claim under one interpretation may be excluded under the other, and vice-versa.

Was any information offered recently about which method will be followed by Mr. Kobayashi?

I don't pretend to understand what has happened any more than anyone else.  But note that the April story is Mark reporting the theft (or reacting to someone else's complaint) to the police.  Presumably he told the police that it was the malleability hack, and the police naturally could not do anything from that, and just archived the complaint.

Actually, those news report that Mark said that he handed over documents to the police.  Mark said many other things, though...

I would guess that the new investigation is unrelated to that April filing, and is based on clear evidence uncovered by Kobayashi's investigation of the MtGOX books.  I hope that more will come.

I found this in an article dated April 16, 2014:
It's probably safe to say that the Tokyo police were called in to investigate at a very early stage after the collapse. Why they waited until the end of July to declare it an "official" investigation is hard to say. Perhaps Kobayashi had something to do with it, but more than likely, it was merely done for some bureaucratic convenience.

The fact that they are investigating such a relatively small number (27,000) of the alleged 650,000 missing, may be an indication that Mt. Gox never held much more than those 200,000 found in the old-format wallet. The 650,000 number missing could have been a gross exaggeration due to either unintentional double counting or else possibly even intended deception by some parties unknown.

Mark Karpeles stated in a late June Wall Street Journal interview that "he doesn't believe more [than 200,000 coins] will be found." He sounded pretty sure. This might even explain Karpeles' seemingly blase attitude about the matter as displayed by his recent postings on reddit and twitter. Perhaps in his view, the case is solved. The bitcoins have been found, and now it is up to Kobayashi to take care of returning them to their rightful owners.

The endless delays and obfuscation in the bankruptcy proceeding could result from a blame game in which the responsibility for the mess gets shifted from one party to the next--in effect, a political hot potato.

If the true cause of the closure was a freeze up of funds at Mt. Gox's banks and not missing bitcoins, it could well explain why there has been a reluctance to date to come forward with any explanation.

You don't need a browser to subscribe. Just send a mail to:

[email protected]

(Subject and body will be ignored.)

You will then receive a confirmation mail. To confirm that you want to be added to this mailing list, simply reply to this message, keeping the subject intact.

The police will only investigate if someone makes a concrete accusation of a crime.  Clients would be hard-pressed do it while they don't even know whether the coins were really stolen (perhaps they never existed?) or when they were stolen.

My understanding is that the Japanese police was asked to start a criminal investigation only recently, at the request of Mr. Kobayashi, and for only a small part of the missing BTC (less than 30'000).  I imagine that he already found clear evidence of such a theft, but there may be more in the future.

I don't know of any other police investigation before that.  Perhaps clients did not care enough about catching and punishing the thief (or did not have enough information to file a complaint), and chose to do nothing or to file civil lawsuits only, which are now preempted by the bankruptcy process. 

Some US clients apparently had done a private investigation that resulted in evidence of criminal acts, but they only filed a civil lawsuit in the US and then retracted it to support the Sunlot proposal.

I understand that Mr. Kobayashi is doing a private investigation of his own (using external expert consultants for the technical aspects).  However his first concern is to understand MtGOX's accounting and evaluate the merits of the client's claims.  Given that the final situation of MtGOX and the clients' claims were the result of several years of intense trading, that alone is not an easy task.  Hopefully he will figure out enough about what happened to call for further police investigation.

Too bad my command line browser doesnt support images yet, but i certainly like your style.

All excellent points. The fact that this initial apparent fabrication about the "malleability bug" has been allowed to stand, more or less completely unchallenged for six months, when provably false has raised some doubts about the true nature of the "investigation". Were the perpetrator or instigator(s) already known to those in charge, or at least strongly suspected, then this could as much be a negotiation to establish terms for returning the coins as it is one of mere fact finding alone. Should there be any political or diplomatic fallout resulting from these deliberations, then this could be yet one further source of some delay--for example, were state supported hacking involved.