Pages:
Author

Topic: SaveGox.com - page 3. (Read 12573 times)

legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 14, 2014, 04:00:22 AM
[ ... ]
In a chess match, you cannot assume that the other player will do what you would like him to do.  You must assume that, at every move, he will do whatever he can that is best for him.  If he can take your queen, he will take it, no matter how much that upsets you. If he can checkmate, he will, even if that would be a PR disaster among you and your friends.

Same here.  Doing a thorough and honest audit, distributing the 220'000 coins fairly to clients, starting a criminal investigation to find the other 600'000 coins and distributing them to clients -- that is what you would like Sunlot to do; but that is completely irrelevant when trying to predict  what they will do.  You must ask what they can do -- ethical or not -- that will result in most money for them.  This includes telling lies, falsifying and omitting documents, making secret deals with anybody, etc.. 

(And then there is the issue of the two different criteria for distributing the coins, by final account balance or by input/output balance.  Each choice is good for some clients but bad for others.  Sunlot obviously has chosen which clients it likes the most.)

To set things clear, I could not care less about whether MtGOX clients get their coins back or not.  What I want is that all the criminals involved in the MtGOX scam and anyone who tries to help them get taken out of circulation and deprived of their money.  Anyone who doesn't like being robbed should want that too.

I agree with you that we may want to consider this matter in term of what the new team can get away with, and that the new team will attempt to maximize their profits and get away with as much as they can get away with.   

Regarding convicting criminals, there may or may NOT be proof of criminal activity, and accordingly, a better result may be to attempt to make whole as many customers as possible.  We do NOT have enough information to make broad general statements to pursue one avenue at the exclusion of another, and we do NOT know the extent to which multiple avenues may be pursued simultaneously.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
May 13, 2014, 12:28:31 PM
[ ... ]
In a chess match, you cannot assume that the other player will do what you would like him to do.  You must assume that, at every move, he will do whatever he can that is best for him.  If he can take your queen, he will take it, no matter how much that upsets you. If he can checkmate, he will, even if that would be a PR disaster among you and your friends.

Same here.  Doing a thorough and honest audit, distributing the 220'000 coins fairly to clients, starting a criminal investigation to find the other 600'000 coins and distributing them to clients -- that is what you would like Sunlot to do; but that is completely irrelevant when trying to predict  what they will do.  You must ask what they can do -- ethical or not -- that will result in most money for them.  This includes telling lies, falsifying and omitting documents, making secret deals with anybody, etc.. 

(And then there is the issue of the two different criteria for distributing the coins, by final account balance or by input/output balance.  Each choice is good for some clients but bad for others.  Sunlot obviously has chosen which clients it likes the most.)

To set things clear, I could not care less about whether MtGOX clients get their coins back or not.  What I want is that all the criminals involved in the MtGOX scam and anyone who tries to help them get taken out of circulation and deprived of their money.  Anyone who doesn't like being robbed should want that too.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 12, 2014, 06:02:58 PM
if NO one is contesting their balance, then the rest of your speculation does NOT matter.  If customers agree that they had X amount of BTC and Y amount of Fiat, then what else is there to question?
Perhaps this will make things more clear:

Suppose there were only two clients, J and M.

In reality, when MtGOX collapsed, J had 200'000 BTC balance in his account, M had zero BTC, and MtGOX had 200'000 BTC in their wallets.  Then if those 200'000 BTC were distributed proportional to the balances, J would get 200'000 BTC, M would get nothing.

But, according to the doctored database, J still had 200'000 BTC, M had 600'000 BTC.  J checks the balance and says it is correct.  Then MtGOX should have had 800'000 BTC in their wallets, but unfortunately 600'000 were stolen by invisible goblins so only 200'000 are left.  Now, if those remaining 200'000 BTC were distributed proportional to the balances in that database, J would receive 50'000, and M would receive 150'000.

If MtGOX were liquidated by the court instead, the 200'000 BTC would be split between J and M according to their deposits and withdrawals, which are much harder to doctor since they can be checked against bank records and the blockchain.  So perhaps J would get most of the 200'000 and M would get close to nothing.

Is that clear enough, or should I use a bigger font?

I will grant that you made a lot of good points here, and you articulated your points fairly well.... in picking out an area in which I may have overstated the case that customers' verifications of their deposits is a very important starting point.  I will grant you that customer verifications is NOT the ending point, and partly based on the reasons that you stated.... I agree that if fraud could undermine the balances of the true stakeholders, then it would be best to identify those types of fraud, if they exist.









at least, one can say you (and your team) seem to have a pretty good imagination.
Thanks for the compliment.  It must have been my team-sized paranoid imagination that made me write that MtGOX was obviously insolvent (because it did everything that every insolvent company does), back when most seasoned bitcoin experts insisted that everything was fine.  Because, one could not assume then that all (or a majority of) the MtGOX management and their improvised auditors had malicious motives.


Now you may be gloating a bit too much. 

Accordingly, I am sure that you are NOT the only person who identified that there were potential problems with GOX and the GOX math was NOT adding up.
sr. member
Activity: 274
Merit: 250
May 12, 2014, 05:55:42 PM
please note I think sunlot are buying mtgox at a bargain price
if mtgox had not "stuffed up" and lost all our money it could be worth as much as $700 mil ( about 700,000 customers at $100 per customer . )
This is quite incorrect. First, for the purposes of a recovery plan, each customer is worth a NEGATIVE amount equal to its account balance (that is what MtGOX owes him), plus a positive amount equal to the fees that he is expected to generate over, say 2 years.

IIRC, the sum of the accounts was found to be about 800'000 bitcoins, worth about 400'000'000 USD at current prices, plus a large amount of dollars.  That is the NEGATIVE part.

For the positive part, only active customers count; inactive customers, that do not trade, generate no income. IIRC, according to analysis of the database leak by @rpietila,  MtGOX had around 70'000 active customers, and that with a very generous definition of "active".  To pay 100 US$ of trading fees, a customer would have to trade a lot.  If the NewMtGOX decided to charge significant maintenance fees, most of those 70'000 customers would probably close their accounts.  So this positive term -- the value of MtGOX's customer base -- is very small, maybe only 1/100 of the negative term above.

The significant positive terms in the evaluation of MtGOX are the bitcoins and dollars that MtGOX actually had (I lost count, was it 220'000 BTC?).  Adding everything gives a huge NEGATIVE value for the company.  Who would pay even a satoshi for the "privilege" of having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of debts?

The Sunlot proposal makes sense for them only because they propose to assume only the positive terms above, spend some of that money for certain expenses, and then perhaps distribute the crumbs to customers, thus declaring the debts extinct.


A company's value is relative to each individual's view. It is generally accepted that the current value of a public company is the latest trade value times the number of shares outstanding. If all of the public companies traded on Wall Street were valued as you propose above, the market would crash. Including banks. Most are traded on FUTURE earnings.


MtGox is worth much more than one bitcoin. When the dust settles, this will be the case whether a Savior enters a bid before liquidation, or we need to find the sum of all liquidation purchases.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 12, 2014, 05:42:08 PM
I wouldn't say that you need a particularly fertile imagination to suppose that the balances have been out for years, say because Mark or some associates decided to borrow, sell, short or whatever at the wrong time.

Then it would help to simply inflate the balances of those in on the scam. These are Goxcoins we are talking about here, remember; I don't see why inflating some balances would necessarily require deflating others.

One thing is for sure. The people wanting to take over have BTC in their eyes. Being one of those with "funds" in Gox I personally would like to see some kind of rehabilitation. But a 16.5% stake stinks. The sum of balance holders should have at least parity with the new owners - 50%, nothing less.

An investment group is at liberty to propose whatever terms that it wishes in order to attempt to persuade the various stakeholders and the court to go with that rehabilitation plan as the better of the evils. 

It would be hard pressed to find any investment group that would be willing to allocate that much equity (50%) to past customers.  Surely, I am NOT opposed to any such arrangement, and I would be very interested in hearing about any comprehensive and realistic proposal that had such a high level (50%) equity "sharing" arrangement.
sr. member
Activity: 352
Merit: 250
https://www.realitykeys.com
May 12, 2014, 03:03:00 PM
In other words you don't believe there will be a criminal investigation to discover where the BTC went. 
Quite the opposite.  If MtGOX is liquidated by the court, there may be a criminal investigation, initiated by the liquidators or by clients.  If Sunlot takes over, who knows.

We do not know who will do the audit. We know that Sunlot will distribute and spend the remaining coins without waiting for a criminal investigation.


Maybe nit-picking here but I don't think we do know that. Jon Holmes didn't answer my question about it on the other thread, and I don't think Surle has inside knowledge. My impression is that they've already spent quite a lot of money on this deal and they'll tell the community whatever they need to tell them to make it happen. The creditors want a fast payout, so they're telling them they'll get a fast payout. Once the creditors have agreed to the deal they'll be more concerned with avoiding litigation, which may well mean sitting on the funds for a while.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
May 12, 2014, 02:47:04 PM
I think this fits in here quite well.

From reddit:

http://pastebin.ro/cs5Lr0gO

Quote
I haven’t even gotten to the original content of Debonneville’s complaint that Pierce worked so hard to have stricken from all public records. As this is the internet, the sealed text is still available despite Pierce’s best efforts.
 
(...)
 
The statement from Debonneville reveals that Brock Pierce and Marc Collins-Rector were unusually close. The complaint also alleged that Brock Pierce misappropriated stock and about $200,000 of IGE’s money in order to pay the settlements in the civil cases against Pierce and Collins-Rector. Additionally, Debonneville revealed that Pierce made business decisions with Yantis behind Debonneville’s back. Specifically, Pierce knowingly agreed to Yantis’s plan to sell duped and exploited virtual currency and items to MMORPG players, something that IGE had taken a very public and vocal stand against in the months before its merger with Yantis.

Mtgox - Sunlot - Audit - Refund ?
 Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1437
Merit: 1002
https://bitmynt.no
May 12, 2014, 02:09:20 PM
In other words you don't believe there will be a criminal investigation to discover where the BTC went. 
Quite the opposite.  If MtGOX is liquidated by the court, there may be a criminal investigation, initiated by the liquidators or by clients.  If Sunlot takes over, who knows.
You are still trolling.  You have still not given any sensible explanation why Sunlot would want to lose a lot of money.

[ You think that ] The court doesn't care about whether a deposit is real or not.  Why not? 
The court certainly will care.  Sunlot will not care about deposits/withdrawals, it will use the account balances.
After an audit, which means they will check exactly that.  Please explain again why you think Sunlot want to burn their own money.  Why take over MtGox to do that?  A lighter will do the job much easier.  You are 100% troll.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
May 12, 2014, 09:46:42 AM
In other words you don't believe there will be a criminal investigation to discover where the BTC went. 
Quite the opposite.  If MtGOX is liquidated by the court, there may be a criminal investigation, initiated by the liquidators or by clients.  If Sunlot takes over, who knows.

We do not know who will do the audit. We know that Sunlot will distribute and spend the remaining coins without waiting for a criminal investigation.  We know that they will have no obligation to release all the audit data so that the public can check it. We know that they will let Mr. Gay-Bouchery off the hook even before the audit.  We know that their PR person has not answered when asked whether they will "pardon" Mark too.

[ You think that ] The court doesn't care about whether a deposit is real or not.  Why not? 
The court certainly will care.  Sunlot will not care about deposits/withdrawals, it will use the account balances.
legendary
Activity: 1437
Merit: 1002
https://bitmynt.no
May 12, 2014, 09:11:16 AM
If MtGOX were liquidated by the court instead, the 200'000 BTC would be split between J and M according to their deposits and withdrawals, which are much harder to doctor since they can be checked against bank records and the blockchain.  So perhaps J would get most of the 200'000 and M would get close to nothing.
In other words you don't believe there will be a criminal investigation to discover where the BTC went.  The court doesn't care about whether a deposit is real or not.  Why not? 

BTC deposit records are the easiest to alter by recording a real tx unrelated to MtGox as a deposit to a MtGox account.  This would go unnoticed if the court take the deposit records as a fact without doing a proper audit/investigation following all BTC from deposit to withdrawal.
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
May 12, 2014, 08:48:10 AM
if NO one is contesting their balance, then the rest of your speculation does NOT matter.  If customers agree that they had X amount of BTC and Y amount of Fiat, then what else is there to question?
Perhaps this will make things more clear:

Suppose there were only two clients, J and M.

In reality, when MtGOX collapsed, J had 200'000 BTC balance in his account, M had zero BTC, and MtGOX had 200'000 BTC in their wallets.  Then if those 200'000 BTC were distributed proportional to the balances, J would get 200'000 BTC, M would get nothing.

But, according to the doctored database, J still had 200'000 BTC, M had 600'000 BTC.  J checks the balance and says it is correct.  Then MtGOX should have had 800'000 BTC in their wallets, but unfortunately 600'000 were stolen by invisible goblins so only 200'000 are left.  Now, if those remaining 200'000 BTC were distributed proportional to the balances in that database, J would receive 50'000, and M would receive 150'000.

If MtGOX were liquidated by the court instead, the 200'000 BTC would be split between J and M according to their deposits and withdrawals, which are much harder to doctor since they can be checked against bank records and the blockchain.  So perhaps J would get most of the 200'000 and M would get close to nothing.

Is that clear enough, or should I use a bigger font?

at least, one can say you (and your team) seem to have a pretty good imagination.
Thanks for the compliment.  It must have been my team-sized paranoid imagination that made me write that MtGOX was obviously insolvent (because it did everything that every insolvent company does), back when most seasoned bitcoin experts insisted that everything was fine.  Because, one could not assume then that all (or a majority of) the MtGOX management and their improvised auditors had malicious motives.


hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
One Token to Move Anything Anywhere
May 12, 2014, 06:04:27 AM
I wouldn't say that you need a particularly fertile imagination to suppose that the balances have been out for years, say because Mark or some associates decided to borrow, sell, short or whatever at the wrong time.

Then it would help to simply inflate the balances of those in on the scam. These are Goxcoins we are talking about here, remember; I don't see why inflating some balances would necessarily require deflating others.

One thing is for sure. The people wanting to take over have BTC in their eyes. Being one of those with "funds" in Gox I personally would like to see some kind of rehabilitation. But a 16.5% stake stinks. The sum of balance holders should have at least parity with the new owners - 50%, nothing less.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 12, 2014, 04:35:57 AM
1. They have money invested themselves.  What makes you believe they want to lose their own money?
2. The finder is entitled to 10% of the lost funds.
I don't know how my experience with accounting compares with yours, but it seems that I have a bit more imagination.  Wink

Agreed.  If one cannot think of anything positive to say about you, Jorge, at least, one can say you (and your team) seems to have a pretty good imagination.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 12, 2014, 04:31:09 AM
What makes you think that they really want to find the lost funds? Just because they said so?
Ah, you are playing idiot again.  No, saying so makes no difference. There are several parts to this: [ ... ]
Perhaps the problem will be easier to understand if explained in a bigger font:

What makes you think that they really want to find the lost funds?



You do seem to have a good sense of humor, though... even though you ask trolling questions.... that have obvious answers.  Everyone wants to find the coins, except for the ones that stole them..,. You cannot necessarily assume all (or a majority of) actors have malicious motives, even though some actors may have malicious motives.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 12, 2014, 04:23:53 AM
An audit will trivially reveal if the trade data matches the balances caused by deposits and withdrawals.
An audit done by whom?  By Mark? Gonzague? Roger Ver?
Why are you trying to make this more difficult than it is by playing stupid?  They have just as much interest as us in finding the lost funds.  Which means they will put capable people on the task of figuring out exactly what happened to out funds.  There will probably be a criminal investigation as well.

Jorge likes to make matters difficult, to spread FUD, to exaggerate the most unlikely scenario, and to distract from meaningful communications.  He's a troll, and we probably entertain him too much, even though every once in a while he may make a good point.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
May 12, 2014, 04:20:17 AM
There main difference between this case and Madoff, is that the trades actually happened, and people were making their own trading decisions.
I don't know what the court will say, but they could say that the people were trading non-existent coins, so the balances are meaningless.

Actual deposits and withdrawals are numbers that the court can verify with the banks and in the blockchain.  The trades inside MtGOX are recorded only in Mark's database, and any information that comes from him must be treated as a mere hint that needs independent evidence to be trusted.  The database may have been doctored to give large bogus balances to some clients.


sure some of your speculation may be correct; however, if NO one is contesting their balance, then the rest of your speculation does NOT matter.  If customers agree that they had X amount of BTC and Y amount of Fiat, then what else is there to question?
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
May 12, 2014, 02:22:08 AM
1. They have money invested themselves.  What makes you believe they want to lose their own money?
2. The finder is entitled to 10% of the lost funds.
I don't know how my experience with accounting compares with yours, but it seems that I have a bit more imagination.  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
May 12, 2014, 02:10:06 AM
I'm more interested in the audit being done by the trustee appointed by the Tokyo District Court. I doubt the Sunlot deal will go anywhere until that happens.
legendary
Activity: 1437
Merit: 1002
https://bitmynt.no
May 12, 2014, 01:50:52 AM
The criminal investigation will have access to all of them, and their findings should match what other investigators find.  Another complicating factor if you want to fake trades.
Up-thread you were saying they were going to pay out the bitcoins without waiting for the criminal investigation, because their audit would be able to find everything on its own.
If they find everything on their own, and they can be sure of it, why wait for the criminal investigation?  The results should match, however.  If not, and the new owners have been altering the books, they will have a problem.  Likewise, if the previous owner altered the books, and the new owner didn't do their audit well enough.
legendary
Activity: 1437
Merit: 1002
https://bitmynt.no
May 12, 2014, 01:47:18 AM
What makes you think that they really want to find the lost funds? Just because they said so?
Ah, you are playing idiot again.  No, saying so makes no difference. There are several parts to this: [ ... ]
Perhaps the problem will be easier to understand if explained in a bigger font:
What makes you think that they really want to find the lost funds?
1. They have money invested themselves.  What makes you believe they want to lose their own money?
2. The finder is entitled to 10% of the lost funds.
Pages:
Jump to: