Topic: SaveGox.com (Read 12562 times)

Only if you ignore the fee.  My bot paid generous amounts in fees over the years, to put it mildly.
[/quote]
Since MtGOX was not doing what clients thought it was doing, the fee

I am pretty sure that the court will consider a creditor to be a person (or company), not an account.  Creditors will have to identify themselves and state their claims.

If you thought MtGOX was going bankrupt of course you would not have put your money and coins there in the first place.

People with multiple accounts may try to be smart and claim only accounts where they mostly deposited, omitting those from which they mostly withdrew.  That would be an attempt to defraud the court (like a contractor claiming a debt that was actually paid in cash), which means jail if caught.  For money withdrawals, the risk is too big.  For bitcoin withdrawals, the risk may be smaller but an audit with expert assistance may identify the owner of the omitted account.

The accounting was bogus in the sense that the coins that clients thought they were buyng and selling and/or the money they thought that Mark was keeping for them  did not actually exist.

It is risky to state publicly suppositions about crimes, but in restrospect there is only one plausible explanation for the withdrawals delays that started many months before the total block, including why the "malleability bug" was not understood and fixed promptly. 

There is another website devoted to the analysis of the database (the one with many colorful plots), whose link I cannot find now.  Some of those plots are hard to understand, they seem to show lots of trades at prices well removed from the then-current market prices. 

One of the main worries about that database is whether accounts of some "friends" were inflated in order to snatch a large portion of the remaining coins.   Also there is the possibility of insider trading, fudging with "dead" accounts, mislabeling of managers' accounts as accounts of friends, etc..  Basically, since the previous management was caught lying (about MtGOX's solvency), and their role in the disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars has still to be explained, one cannot trust any information that comes from them.

Only if you ignore the fee.  My bot paid generous amounts in fees over the years, to put it mildly..

What if you had two accounts?  I only deposited 10 BTC on my bot account, and withdrew much more than that.  Mostly to a verified MtGox account where I sold the BTC and withdrew fiat.  The value at the time of deposit was about the same as at the time of withdrawal, and I am probably very far in the negative on my bot account, while my normal account will have a positive balance according to your method.  If I knew about this rule, I would have exploited it hard to get as much money as possible from the bankruptsy just by moving BTC between accounts, and some people may have done that intentionally.  (If this rule is chosen, I will of course choose not to mention my bot account in my claim.)

So far we don't know if MtGox's accounting was bogus or not.  Probably not.  The leaked data seems to be in good shape.  We just know they somehow lost a lot of BTC and some fiat, and we still don't know how this happened.  I believe Mark thought he had the BTC until he shut off withdrawals.  Madoff knew all along his books were bogus.

Is there a link to that "favorable decision by the US court" about Savegox's plan?  (Not a news article, but the actual court paper?)
Thanks...

One question for the SaveGox team. Will existing MTGox customers be able to access their historical trading and account information? This may be needed in some cases for income tax compliance for example.

Think about it, this would be completely ludicrous. Madoff's example also isn't comparable with MtGox, a virtual currency exchange.

Hello Jon Holmquist?

Could you provide details of how the equity distribution has been calculated?

Thanks.

PS. I must add that courts of law generally do not count "missing an opportunity of some hypothetical gain" as a loss.  In particular, they won't be impressed by the argument "if I had not deposted my 1000 BTC into MtGOX in 2012, I could be selling them today for 500'000$". 

According to the earlier poster, the Madoff clients are disputing with the courts to get dollar inflation over the 20 years considered.  That sounds reasonable. But the profits that they made according to Madoff's books, and did not withdraw, were ignored.

I don't know about forex and gold companies, but they probably work the same.  It may depend on the terms of service, but if whatever asset you deposited was worth 1000$ when you deposited it, iit is effectively the same as if you sold the asset on market just before depositing and deposited the 1000$.

That is the amount by which your wealth was diminished at the time.  Once you deposited, you did not own the asset any more, you owned a paper from the company promising you something.  Once the company failed, its promises became meaningless, only the wealth you lost when investing was still meaningful.  That is my understanding of the logic behind the inputs-minus-outputs criterion.

No, in this case the inputs-minus-outputs will still be the original deposit, since those intermediate withdrawals and deposits will cancel out.  (Deposited 1000 BTC when price was 200$/BTC, withdrew 1000 BTC when price was 500$/BTC, deposited immediately 500'000$ = the inputs-minus-outputs balance is still 200'000$, not 500'000$.) This is in fact an argument for the input-output rule.

You may have some argument if the price at MtGOX was different than the assumed market price.  In the example above, if market price was 500 $/BTC but MtGOX price was 600 $/BTC, you could say that you withdrew 1000 BTC worth 500'000$ but deposited 600'000$.  But the court/adversary would say that you deposited exactly what you withdrew, whether you count that 500'000$ or 600'000$ (because you did not add a cent from your pocket in that operation); if MtGOX's books showed that you had 1000 BTC before the trade and 600'000$ after that, not 200'000$, it is only because MtGOX's accounting was bogus (like Madoff's').

Online poker companies in the US and elsewhere have gone bankrupt or closed for various reasons over the last 20 years.  Some may have been involved in illegal investment of user deposits.  I assume there were assets left.  I don't know how to search for foreign court documents.

How about bank bankruptsies then?  If I deposited 100 USD back in 1914, and someone else borrowed 100 USD with no downpayments for the next 100 years.  Does the creditor and debtor both get/owe 100 USD?  No interest considered, just what they put in / got out?  How about online forex or gold trading coimpanies?

Another way to look at it, is to let every trade count as a withdrawal and deposit and fee payment.  In this case final balances will be correct.