If it's related to my previous email to the Bitcoinica team, no, it's a bad news.
Well, you took the excitement out of that quickly.
Topic: [Payout Updates] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation - page 16. (Read 156711 times)
July 12, 2012, 08:55:32 PM
If it's related to my previous email to the Bitcoinica team, no, it's a bad news.
Well, you took the excitement out of that quickly.
July 12, 2012, 08:49:59 PM
If it's related to my previous email to the Bitcoinica team, no, it's a bad news.
July 12, 2012, 08:26:55 PM
July 12, 2012, 08:08:13 PM
Posting an update soon.
July 12, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
Core Credit LTD is a New Zealand Limited Company and the General Partner of Bitcoinica LP.
Ah this is new info. On 2012/06/07 Amir claimed that Core Credit Limited is Tihan's Parent company (the Limited Partner). See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.946751
Core Credit LTD was renamed to Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD significantly after the events occurred.
Yes it happened on 2012/05/30 and it was never explained why this happened despite me asking repeatedly. Nevertheless the legal incorporation date for Bitcoinica Consultancy is 2012/01/30 according to the NZ documentation.
Look at the documents posted up on the New Zealand Companies House website for the company you just linked: here. If you look through it, the company was registered as Core Credit Limited on the 30th of January 2010 and it was renamed to Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD on the 30th of May. Your own references show that phantomcircuit is right and you're lying through your teeth. This isn't new information either, someone noticed it and brought it up ages ago.
After some more digging I found that you are correct; It is not new info and it does seem I made some false assumptions in one of my earlier posts. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.953181
I assumed CORE CREDIT was the limited/banking partner (Tihan's fund) and BITCOINICA CONSULTANCY the general partner (the Intersango Guys). But I found an earlier post from Zhou that is pretty clear on the topic. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.918845
Bitcoinica has started using a new bank account in New Zealand for wire transfers. This account is opened with Bitcoinica's banking partner Core Credit Limited (an approved FSP in New Zealand).
I thought the company name change on May 30 from CORE CREDIT > BITCOINICA CONSULTANCY indicated something dodgy since there was an earlier BITCOINICA CONSULTANCY record that was withdrawn. But actually it seems this was part of the normal formation process that apparently only completed some time after the hack. (I assumed the process was complete on April 24 since that was when Bitcoin Consultancy's new role in Bitcoinica was publicly announced).
May I remind you that:
[...snip...]
References:
1) http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3715077
- On 2012/01/30 Bitcoin Consultancy became Bitcoinica Consultancy Ltd. (*1)
[...snip...]
References:
1) http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3715077
There is no way you could possibly have interpreted the linked reference to mean what you say it does.
I should probably have been clearer in my wording here. I did not mean that the corporate entity Bitcoin Consultancy became Bitcoinica Consultancy, merely that the same individuals behind the Bitcoin Consultancy became the owners of Bitcoinica Consultancy. See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.922963
The members of Bitcoin Consultancy operated Bitcoinica via a separate New Zealand Ltd company formed for this purpose.
I'm sorry if I added to the confusion. And if anybody feels I have personally defamed them then I offer my apologies. My intent is not to deceive but to understand what is going on and who is in charge since I have a not insignificant balance in Bitcoinica that I would like to see returned. That is all. I assure you that trying to figure out corporate structures is not my expertise nor my hobby ;)
July 12, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
My guess is that all players involved in this transaction are being held up, yours among them, Goat: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/5416502/7a22917744aa9ed740faf3068a2f895424ed816ed1a04012b47df7a493f056e8
But what do I know? I'm only an alpaca.
~Bruno~
I had no communication from bitcoinica except concerning the claim form, and they never answered my emails.
No idea whereas my account is 'accurate' or whatever.
Maybe I should have forgotten to tell them about these last BTC I sent...
July 12, 2012, 01:22:24 PM
Core Credit LTD is a New Zealand Limited Company and the General Partner of Bitcoinica LP.
Ah this is new info. On 2012/06/07 Amir claimed that Core Credit Limited is Tihan's Parent company (the Limited Partner). See: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.946751
Core Credit LTD was renamed to Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD significantly after the events occurred.
Yes it happened on 2012/05/30 and it was never explained why this happened despite me asking repeatedly. Nevertheless the legal incorporation date for Bitcoinica Consultancy is 2012/01/30 according to the NZ documentation.
Look at the documents posted up on the New Zealand Companies House website for the company you just linked: here. If you look through it, the company was registered as Core Credit Limited on the 30th of January 2010 and it was renamed to Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD on the 30th of May. Your own references show that phantomcircuit is right and you're lying through your teeth. This isn't new information either, someone noticed it and brought it up ages ago.
May I remind you that:
[...snip...]
References:
1) http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3715077
- On 2012/01/30 Bitcoin Consultancy became Bitcoinica Consultancy Ltd. (*1)
[...snip...]
References:
1) http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3715077
There is no way you could possibly have interpreted the linked reference to mean what you say it does.
July 12, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
thanks to everyone who posted they got 50 percent of coins back but has anyone else got any us dollars back, pounds or any currency other than btc??
thx
thx
Yes, I did, got back half of my BTC and half of my USD (both were as gox codes)
July 12, 2012, 12:33:55 PM
I was giving them such a hard time because my accurate account status was not paid in a month and that was just uncalled for. However now that is see that my account is no longer accurate and they want time to double check it, it is a whole different game.
My account has been marked accurate for about the same time, but nothing yet.
You should have them see if it is "formatted correctly" and if it is, ask why the delay. Also if it is a large account there will also be delay. I only have 700 BTC and they find this to be a large amount. :/
My guess is that all players involved in this transaction are being held up, yours among them, Goat: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/5416502/7a22917744aa9ed740faf3068a2f895424ed816ed1a04012b47df7a493f056e8
But what do I know? I'm only an alpaca.
~Bruno~
July 12, 2012, 11:06:08 AM
Nothing for me yet either. I'm so determined to get those coins back I started speculating on LTC. What?
Ha, almost did the same thing. Decided to lose money at sealswithclubs instead
I have been doing pretty well with LTC
I'm going to have to double down if I have any change of getting out of the LTC hole I've dug myself in. LOL. You win some, you lose some, and then lose some more.
Where you the guy who made it jump to .01? If so, I'm sorry cuz I sold about 150,000 LTC after that to kill that. I'm still buying (but lower), hope to get 500K or 1M in the next 6 months
No. I bought at 0.0075 or so. I've got some orders on the book that if hit will significantly lower my average price. We'll see.
July 12, 2012, 10:47:38 AM
I found it interesting the other day when, on IRC, phantomcircuit requested that I remove the rating I've made for him on the OTC Web of Trust. (with a "lol" suggesting he thought the rating to be a joke - It is NOT. I find it unfunny I haven't received a dime from these people)
I asked him if he'd sent me any money yet. I was ignored. I asked if he had any intention of sending any funds any time soon. I was ignored.
Seriously? WTF? When are we getting the money? Or did you guys decide to steal it after all?
AFAICT, Bitcoinica is refusing to return funds. That would be theft.
Phantomcircuit - the only reason the rating you have from me will stay is because I cannot lower it below -10. I would be happy to change it once I receive my funds. It is unlikely that it would ever become positive. I don't trust anyone in your organizations.
I asked him if he'd sent me any money yet. I was ignored. I asked if he had any intention of sending any funds any time soon. I was ignored.
Seriously? WTF? When are we getting the money? Or did you guys decide to steal it after all?
AFAICT, Bitcoinica is refusing to return funds. That would be theft.
Phantomcircuit - the only reason the rating you have from me will stay is because I cannot lower it below -10. I would be happy to change it once I receive my funds. It is unlikely that it would ever become positive. I don't trust anyone in your organizations.
July 12, 2012, 10:45:46 AM
Nothing for me yet either. I'm so determined to get those coins back I started speculating on LTC. What?
Ha, almost did the same thing. Decided to lose money at sealswithclubs instead
I have been doing pretty well with LTC
I'm going to have to double down if I have any change of getting out of the LTC hole I've dug myself in. LOL. You win some, you lose some, and then lose some more.
Yeah, I put in a limit order to buy like 10,000 around .0012 or .00012, whichever it was, it never got hit, then I got bored with it quickly. Poker is much more my game as I am closer to a degenerate than anything.
July 12, 2012, 10:36:19 AM
Nothing for me yet either. I'm so determined to get those coins back I started speculating on LTC. What?
Ha, almost did the same thing. Decided to lose money at sealswithclubs instead
I have been doing pretty well with LTC
I'm going to have to double down if I have any change of getting out of the LTC hole I've dug myself in. LOL. You win some, you lose some, and then lose some more.
July 12, 2012, 10:21:23 AM
Nothing for me yet either. I'm so determined to get those coins back I started speculating on LTC. What?
Ha, almost did the same thing. Decided to lose money at sealswithclubs instead
July 12, 2012, 10:09:39 AM
Nothing for me yet either. I'm so determined to get those coins back I started speculating on LTC. What?
July 12, 2012, 09:22:10 AM
I was giving them such a hard time because my accurate account status was not paid in a month and that was just uncalled for. However now that is see that my account is no longer accurate and they want time to double check it, it is a whole different game.
My account has been marked accurate for about the same time, but nothing yet.
July 12, 2012, 09:51:27 AM
I would be more patiently if I knew that my claim will be refunded some day...
I gave all Inormations I could deliver, but no progress is reported to me not by mail nor on my claim-page.
This is frustrating.
Last ask for status report some days ago wasn't answered yet tough I sent it to [email protected] and in cc to [email protected]
It's "only" 64.01 btc but they matter much to me!
If only someone in charge would make a statement that refund process will be done at a fixed date in the middleterm future...
this thread is also not really helpful concerning nothing reliable comes from the actors who processing the claims...
It's a pity that this mess lasts for so long, and that my earlier heroes of Bitcoin Economy/Community burn their reputation to zero within this process.
Patric Strateman , Donald Norman , Amir Taaki you probaly will suffer from this more than everybody else...
Responsable for the origins of this desaster or not your names will be tied to this for a long time. I hope you will be able to fix it soon!
I gave all Inormations I could deliver, but no progress is reported to me not by mail nor on my claim-page.
This is frustrating.
Last ask for status report some days ago wasn't answered yet tough I sent it to [email protected] and in cc to [email protected]
It's "only" 64.01 btc but they matter much to me!
If only someone in charge would make a statement that refund process will be done at a fixed date in the middleterm future...
this thread is also not really helpful concerning nothing reliable comes from the actors who processing the claims...
It's a pity that this mess lasts for so long, and that my earlier heroes of Bitcoin Economy/Community burn their reputation to zero within this process.
Patric Strateman , Donald Norman , Amir Taaki you probaly will suffer from this more than everybody else...
Responsable for the origins of this desaster or not your names will be tied to this for a long time. I hope you will be able to fix it soon!
July 12, 2012, 09:43:04 AM
So how about some fucking respect.
THIS will never get you any.
July 12, 2012, 03:54:37 AM
tl;dr Tihan and friends, Intersango and Zhou are not working well together (or at all) and are not communicating well. They all seem to be protecting their own interests with legal BS and half-truths.
However after talking with X I think they are trying to deal with a shit situation. I would not have done it the way they have but at least I know why they have done it the way they have. Communication is helpful.
However after talking with X I think they are trying to deal with a shit situation. I would not have done it the way they have but at least I know why they have done it the way they have. Communication is helpful.
Any information about the mysterious Wendon?
To be honest, it's always seemed odd that the Intersango guys were called in by Tihan to do a security audit in March and only a month later the announcement was made that they would be operating Bitcoinica. I can well believe that they jumped into that deal without fully understanding its implications - even now, it's not easy to determine who was legally operating Bitcoinica at the time the last intrusion occurred as we've been told that not all the paperwork had been completed.
July 11, 2012, 10:01:55 PM
for what it worth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080212143458AARBFa0
from answers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/corporate.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080212143458AARBFa0
from answers:
Quote
Okay - here's where "piercing the corporate veil" comes in. Sometimes, when investors are also officers who run the company, they run it really really badly. Stupidly. Irresponsibly. Maybe even illegally. When that happens, the law says that the corporate form shouldn't protect those particular investor-officers.
Let's say you and I are investors in a company, each in for 20%. But let's say that I am also the CEO, and you are just someone who owns 20% but doesn't actually run the business. You are kept apprised of what's going on periodically, but you don't make the decisions.
Now, let's say I take some of the corporation's money to Vegas and lose it, and the corp can't pay its electric bill. Now, under the general rule I discussed above, since you and I are 20% investors then we are each liable for 20% of the electric bill. But that isn't fair, is it? It isn't fair that you should be on the hook for 20% of that electric bill when the bill wasn't paid because I did something unlawful.
Since I personally did this bad thing, the law makes an exception to the general rule. It says that I personally should be liable to the electric company. It says that the electric company should be able to "lift" or "pierce the corporate veil" that would otherwise protect me as an investor, and reach out and get me, personally, to pay for the entire electric bill.
So that's what piercing the corporate veil is: it's an exception that allows for investor's to be held entirely responsible (the old-fashioned way they used to) for debts of the corporation. But it usually only applies when the investor has done something bad in running the company that he should not have done. Usually something illegal or unlawful.
Let's say you and I are investors in a company, each in for 20%. But let's say that I am also the CEO, and you are just someone who owns 20% but doesn't actually run the business. You are kept apprised of what's going on periodically, but you don't make the decisions.
Now, let's say I take some of the corporation's money to Vegas and lose it, and the corp can't pay its electric bill. Now, under the general rule I discussed above, since you and I are 20% investors then we are each liable for 20% of the electric bill. But that isn't fair, is it? It isn't fair that you should be on the hook for 20% of that electric bill when the bill wasn't paid because I did something unlawful.
Since I personally did this bad thing, the law makes an exception to the general rule. It says that I personally should be liable to the electric company. It says that the electric company should be able to "lift" or "pierce the corporate veil" that would otherwise protect me as an investor, and reach out and get me, personally, to pay for the entire electric bill.
So that's what piercing the corporate veil is: it's an exception that allows for investor's to be held entirely responsible (the old-fashioned way they used to) for debts of the corporation. But it usually only applies when the investor has done something bad in running the company that he should not have done. Usually something illegal or unlawful.
Just came by to browse this thread as I haven't been here for a while. I notice the above extract about "piercing the corporate veil" and thanks to Vladimir for pulling it up. I would just like to point out it is not very accurate, but it's not a bad attempt from answers.com.
Generally, the company structure provides clear warning to people that they are contracting with an entity with limited liability. For shareholders with fully paid shares, they owe no duties to any third party. So in the above, if I was the other 20% shareholder, the power-company has no grounds to ask me for money.
If I was an officer/director of the company and the company traded recklessly or insolvent, then I may be personally liable for the debts/liabilities incurred during that period.
Piercing the corporate veil is a rare circumstance. It needs to be proven an officer/director of the company is using funds/resources as if it was their own. Therefore, it would need to be proven that another officer/director should be held individually responsible rather than all directors jointly.
So, if Bitcoinica is operating as a limited liability company, the course of action is against the directors from the point in time they became insolvent. Until then, claims are limited to their available assets as paid capital might be near zero (say $10).
(as an aside, I noticed today the Financial Markets Authority is on the floor below mine)
Jump to: