Topic: [Payout Updates] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation - page 2. (Read 156693 times)

Too late.  The community has already implicitly forgiven them by supporting happy fun-time at Bitcoinica conference 2012.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Love your posts! These motherfucking scumbags. They care care shit about customers' losses.

Well, in the sense that it was the best that a bunch of incompetent boobs could muster. Master work in terms of masterful? Absolutely not. Master work in terms of the best this hapless group of circle jerking numbskulls could gin up for their little foray into the world of white collar crime? That's what I was shooting for.

LoupGaroux,

Your so dramatic.  I certainly wouldn't call their incompetence a "master work."

Short version? The only people who got anything back were a very few close personal friends of the insiders who destroyed this "company". It has now been sent into receivership by the latest candidate for owner, although nothing has been forthcoming about what the receiver will be doing in the past 5 weeks.

Quick resolution? Write it off. You will never see a damn thing from these criminals. They stole it all, and have created a master work of lies, deception, delays and obfuscation to cover their tracks. And avoid any dealings with the intersango gang, as they are the criminals behind this disaster.

Sorry if this is written somewhere... but does anyone received any amount of BTC back from bitcoinica. I did not nor bitcoins nor replies on emails. I had only 4.2BTC in there but still ... 

relevant: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/open-letter-to-donald-patrick-amir-re-bitcoinica-109316

Yep well, he asked "where is my money?". That will take time for sure.

The return of funds will take time.  Going into receivership/liquidation is a matter of filing paperwork - that part of the process takes very little time (hours at the most).  Finding the right CPA to handle the receivership/liquidation will take more time than lodging the paperwork to put Bitcoinica LP into receivership.

It will take time in any case.

I'm not sure whether Wendon will need to litigate for receivership.  They may be able to put the LP into voluntary receivership without agreement from Bitcoinica Consultancy.  If they do have to litigate, it's possible that the Official Assignee will be appointed as both receiver and liquidator which makes things a bit more complicated than if a private receiver/liquidator is appointed.

Receivership litigation takes a while. Have a seat.

...then... where is MY MONEY?

http://bitcoinmagazine.net/the-july-13-bitcoinica-investigation-and-sound-justice/

Do you have a link to that? I'd like to see it.

-Charlie

I think the "investigation" was limited to establishing how the hacker gained access to the Rackspace server - something which was made public quickly.  As far as we know, there's been no criminal complaint made which might have allowed law enforcement to try to establish the identity of the hacker - the focus rapidly shifted to the claims process.

It would probably be better to keep the most current threads in the Discussion forum and move the older ones.  The older threads contain little information which is relevant to where things are at now.

Actually I would prefer if this thread remains unlocked since all new Bitcoinica threads are being moved to Service Discussion where there is little visiblity/interaction.

Also it would be great if we can actually get the outcome of the 'security investigation' as that has been going on for over 3 months now. (Not that I am holding my breath).

Charlie cannot legally speak for your business, so I do not consider anything he said as a statement on your behalf. I am still interested in a response on your part regarding the questions posted above.

Why are you responding then? Now I'm just confused.

Asking questions is libel now?

Recently an article about Zhou Tong had a single line changed because the author made a mistake in his wording, which had nothing to do with me or my forum posts here looking for answers. The article was not about your company. The article was not retracted.

I'm not a libertarian, but I have learned quite a lot from these forums, enough to know that if we're starting over with monetary policies through bitcoin, we can't afford to let the same draconian empire control everything we do and scare us into submission. When an exchange makes a mistake for example, the exchange should correct the mistake, not constantly attack and spread rumors about the individuals requesting more information and pointing out concerns. If Bitcoin Magazine made a similar mistake, I would hound our own faculty until the issue was resolved just the same I would against MtGox, BitInstant, Bitcoinica, or even my grandma.

To summarize, everyone here is grateful in the proactive nature of AurumXChange, MtGox, and especially Charlie Shrem of BitInstant who literally flies around to solve problems (definition of Super man LOL). No one is arguing anymore that posting a thread in itself on a forum about potential stolen funds is an issue, unless those funds were under investigation. So very simply, Roberto, I am asking you (and you are avoiding answering, which throws up all kinds of worrying red flags):

were the funds under investigation at the time of posting the thread?


Thank you for helping to clear up this issue so that we can put it to rest. I enjoy contributing to the community and I also enjoy seeing issues resolved. I hope that you can see the benefit of resolving this outstanding issue on the part of AurumXChange so that customers and journalists alike will not need to continuously ask the same questions to you in the future.

Thanks!

Of course! I would prefer he speak for himself though on his involvement with that company. I am only trying to understand the bigger picture here since we can all agree there is something that just doesn't feel right.

Could be, but I'd prefer Roberto speak for himself. Thanks!

I don't think it's my job to bring him to court. I don't have an AurumXChange account. My job is to uncover the truth and be unwavering, even in the light of louder voices and big business.

I understood your statement. What I'm wondering is why that doesn't also apply to AurumXchange. Are their TOS and Privacy policy so much different from BitInstant? I can't find the privacy policy for BitInstant online anywhere so I couldn't check. Thank you for clarifying though, I am sure Roberto can clear it up on his own.


If Bit-Pay would add a "referral" tag to their invoicing system to show where orders were coming from, I'd gladly tell you if that were true or not, but I assume it's not. I'm not here representing the magazine, I'm here as a forum user who still feels there's some funny business going on and just trying to answer questions so I can put it to rest.