Topic: OPEN LETTER to Donald, Patrick & Amir RE: Bitcoinica - page 9. (Read 26987 times)

I don't understand what the argument is.


There have been no new facts disclosed that change my opinion since I wrote this post, quite a while ago. The least complex explanation that fits all known facts involve no one but Zhou:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1065233

With regards to Donald, Patrick and Amir I would just consider them to be in denial, besides being utterly incompetent.

Let's say, for sake of argument, Gavin said the same thing about me--Bruno. But Bruno Boy is the only known person to have ever met Zhou. That aspect can be put up for dispute.

About the media attending the conference. If any of them are worth their salt, they should be asking very serious questions in regard to Bitcoinica of said three attendees.

Also, I mentioned it once on this thread, and has been echoed in a different way: Iain, the liquidator, should look into Zhou's involvement in Bitcoinica. His actions should not be left off the table.

For what it's worth, thanks, Tihan, for moving this forward. I would love to comment more on this, but I now need to check some edits on this forum.

~Bruno~

Tihan Seale is who he says he is, according to Gavin. I'm not sure there's much more trust than that to be had in the Bitcoin community.

I am kind of finding this fiasco hard to believe.  Although, I have only had a few conversations with Amir over the internet, he has been really nice and patient with me during the previous process.  I have never spoken to Prince Patrick, though.

What would be the downfall of signing this document from their POV?  The sooner this shit gets done, the sooner the community can move forward.  Unless I am missing something, I don't even know why these guys would want to be in public around other bitcoin people while all this shit is still up in the air.  It is fucking embarrassing and starting to get just a tad bit ridiculous.  I would have a seriously hard time looking people in the eye when speaking and meandering around the conference.

Please, just sign this thing and let's turn the page.
 

Do you realize you're polluting by quoting whole posts and adding nothing to it ?

Sounds like someone doesn't realize they're a mushroom 

With what's known, how can you expect us to speculate they have done anything ?  Since the last theft they have said nothing relevant about it that I can see.

On the other hand, I remember things like :"I could care less about people like Roger Ver who have a lot of money lost ..." -Amir  

(that's what allowed the theft of 40 000+ BTC) https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1101382

This elaborated statement from Amir : "This is not a kangaroo court"   https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/this-is-not-a-kangaroo-court-innocent-until-proven-guilty-95814

Patrick Strateman having fun : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98622.20

Patrick Strateman's only statement on the lost of 400 000 USD of customers fund: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1054988

How is it that they can organize a conference and work on their intersango exchange / electrum but can't be bothered to update bitcoinica.com or make use of the Bitcoinica mailing list to reassure customers ?

Am I missing something ?

In a practical sense, they are thieves.

And sorry, but if the goal of intersango is to clear their reputation by holding MY money and making us PAY for legal and civil attorney, then they are essentially saying :
"hello dear users we dont care at all about you all we care about is our reputation"
What does that precisely say about them ? Any guess ?

They need to realise that the only way to redeem themselves is precisely to help the users.
If the users in some way get fucked up I am sure that a lot of people will be commited to ruining their precious reputation one way or another, ESPECIALLY if they sacrificed the users for their legal reputation or whatever that is

A few people have met him.


Then it probably is too hard to say "We can not comment until X as advised by our lawyer" ?
In the meantime I guess it was / is too hard to post any update to mail or the website for months ?

Do you think I have not being patient sending dizains of mails for no answer ?
The only contribution that I can recall of patrick is posting trolling videos.


Everybody is asking for that, but NOT from the liquidator and NOT from my fund.
WE CANT DIRECTLY ATTACK THE HACKERS AS HE DID NOT STEAL FROM US, AND THE RECUPERATION OF THE FUND IS NOT DIRECTLY DEPENDANT FROM THE THEFT.

They had every right to declare a theft from the bitcoinica company yet they did not. Or did they ?

IF they did anything why is everybody in the bitcoin community except their london buddies acting like they did not ?


How ignorant that remark is.
I am probably much more informed than you about everything regarding the creditors side.
The only thing I am probably missing is the intersango guys side, but it is not like they had no chance to give it.

When they lost the 400k$ I still remenber "I guess users will have to take a 30% loss". Not a single "sorry" or anything.


A personnal attack even though you know nothing about me and what I may have done or not for bitcoins.
Excellent way to gain credibility on your post.

They have every right to present and organise the conference, we have every right to go and be there and make this topic a hot issue at the conference.

And wether or not you want it probably will.

I doubt there are very many people on this forum who would not like to see the thief/thieves caught and prosecuted.  That is - however - a separate legal issue from liquidating the company, which is what needs to happen for the assets which are currently in hand to be distributed to creditors.  There is absolutely no need to delay payments to creditors through the civil process of liquidation.  If further funds are recovered at a later date as a result of criminal prosecution, the distribution of those funds will be determined separately.  The liquidation of Bitcoinica does not preclude recovery of funds through other legal means outside of New Zealand (and it doesn't even affect the recovery of funds within New Zealand if they have been illegally or fraudulently obtained).

Criminal proceedings against the thief/thieves should absolutely pursued and it's in the best interests of all at Intersango to actively seek and assist a criminal investigation by the relevant authorities of the Bitcoinica thefts.

I, for one, will be reading the liquidator's reports with great interest and if they appear inadequate I can assure you that I'll not only make that fact public on this forum but I'll also be on the phone to the Official Assignee's office in New Zealand.  Zhou's role in this will not go unexamined.

For the record, Tihan is anything but "semi-anonymous".  If you don't know any information about him which he hasn't disclosed on this forum, then it's because you haven't looked.  Do you really think that when the shit hit the fan with Bitcoinica and Tihan's involvement was first revealed people didn't go digging.  Hell, even the amount he paid for his house is a matter of public record.

I even believe that walking away from the refund process following the MtGox intrusion was the right thing for the Intersango guys to do.  In doing that, however, they had a duty to ensure that the process of returning user funds was legally handed over to someone authorised to conduct that process as soon as possible - by passing a resolution like the one in the OP and appointing a liquidator.  It really is that simple to put a business into voluntary liquidation and it could have been done a long time ago.

Nefario: you need to understand people who lost coins/money are simply desperate about it and cannot go much longer without hearing about any real progress.

I'm not amongst them but I can understand their feelings, including those of investors who lost heavily in the operation.

How do you know they have done nothing? Just because people don't post updates on the situation of legal proceedings on the forum doesn't mean nothing is being done. Also how do you know Tihane(or whatever his name is) has done anything or is even who he says he is (has anyone here even met him?)? All he's done is make statements on the forum(has anyone noticed he's been editing earlier statements to make them consistent with what he's said more recently?).

Has no one here considered that they've been advised not to speak on the situation by their lawyer or that they ARE taking action, actual action instead of posting on the forums?

The reason this should go to court is because someone has committed a crime, theft, and attempted to destroy the reputation of an organisation. If you don't prosecute the criminal, even if they give back the money when caught, then that is an economic incentive for them to continue stealing, it's self defeating. Intersango's reputation has been seriously damaged by this incident and this hangs over everyone who works there. Taking this to court will do several things, clear their name, have the thief prosecuted and jailed, and have funds returned to users.

I don't work for Intersango but I it's blatantly obvious you guys are allowing yourselves to be manipulated, some pseudo anonymous person makes a post on the forum saying he did something (can you verify that he did?) and you all run off in the direction he says the criminals went.

Regarding the conference, it starts tomorrow(proper, started unofficially on Wed.), it's been mostly organised BY the guys from Intersango so they have every right to be there. If you don't come (with the aim to boycott Intersango) well fine, thats your loss, I don't think anyone there will miss you and we'll go and create the future of bitcoin without you. It's already a huge success both financially, media and attendance wise.

It's not entirely true that they have nothing to lose.  There will be lawsuits regarding Bitcoinica and the findings of the liquidator are bound to be introduced into those proceedings.  It's never a good thing to have evidence that you have failed to act in good faith presented in litigation against you.

The liquidator is obliged to investigate the totality of the circumstances surrounding Bitcoinica's failure.  His investigation will not be limited to what took place between 24 April and 12 July - it will certainly look at the state of the business when Bitcoinica Consultancy assumed control and whether it was on the brink of collapse at that time.  Given the very short life of the company, it is highly probable that it's financial history since it was formed will be reviewed.  People other than the directors can be found to have personal liability in respect of the failure of the business, and to the extent that Bitcoinica Consultancy claims that they were not totally to blame for the failure of Bitcoinica (a stance with which I happen to agree), the liquidator can determine any other parties who may have civil or criminal liability.

i hope they sign, but then again why would they?

they have nothing to lose at this point and clearly they do not care about the community and the people who lost money or it would have been resolved by now:(

They should have obtained legal advice about liquidating the partnership two months ago.  They know that it can be put into voluntary liquidation immediately with their agreement or forced into liquidation without their agreement by court order.  It's not like this issue has only just arisen.  Creditors lose out twice over if the liquidation has to be ordered by the High Court.  Firstly from yet another unnecessary delay, and secondly because all legal costs associated with obtaining that ruling will be deducted from the insolvent estate before distributions to creditors are made.

Yeah. I actually wonder if this very public request was deliberately timed to be difficult or impossible for the people named to actually fulfil by the deadline stated.

I think getting the legal advice required to make an informed decision about company operations in a completely different country may take a bit longer than 60 seconds.

By refusing, do you mean they have failed to reply or simply that they have replied "no"?