Topic: [scam tag request] user unclescrooge founder and operator of bitfinex.com - page 2. (Read 18273 times)

The only people you "schedule meetings" with are prostitutes, if they take food stamps that day, and cops, if they feel like beating up on some schmuck while passing by your reputable business space station/bus stop.

-

What gave it away? Was it perhaps


Everyone knows REAL offices of REALLY more reputable businesses than yours are run off boats and satellites. And maff.

-

You must be new here

Huh?
Bitfinex runs on RoR... in some cases they even gave full error logs (I might still have one lying around... "/home/raph/www" rings a bell?) on 500 errors.

I just hope they keep their software patched up to the latest as there are again some exploits floating around in the wild. This has nothing to do with the remaining scam accusations here (1 million USD credited out of thin air and cutting out a share holder(?) by maybe(?) founding another company)

-

Not at all. He's posted enough to make it clear he was an early round, low valuation investor who is now seeing his stake converted by "management" (ie, the thief with the logins) for the benefit of later stage investors.

The exact method employed in the tortious transfer of interest in Bitcoin Magazine a few months back. Ample reason to go to jail in most any part of the civilised world for that matter.

I find it funny that someone like myself got 10% of profits in the first place. Also the talk of "oh so rich" investors (who is this "Mr. Tang"?) seems a bit weird to me, maybe I come from a different background, but even though a loss of 50k USD is a lot, it is not that much for a financial business startup with a business model that has very much known risks where one can get burned. You were warned over and over about getting Goxxed

I personally pulled partly out of Bitfinex regardless of these accusations, simply because interests in the last month were not covering the risks that I perceive at all, so there's no real point in putting my money in danger for low returns.

Building on Bitcoinica's code in the first place was probably not the smartest move, I'm still hoping that soon(TM) there will finally be an open-source trading platform with leverage, be it on Ripple, with their own IOUs, with OpenTransactions or however else. As regulatory hurdles are anyways the main issue, and not the actual trading engine having competitors setting up dozens of their own exchanges is very unlikely anyways...

I got off-topic though, so back to these accusations:
As Eisenhower34 said:
* There's need for proof that myself even holds 25% of bitfinex limited and it would be nice to know who holds which parts of bitfinex technology limited
* What's up exactly with this 1 million USD (an amount that should be quite hard to hide in logs etc.), where's proof for that?
I would also add:
* An audit from a third party would be great to have, ideally with a transparency initiative - there was a thread about which numbers should be published how and where, so far Bitfinex is still quite a black hole and the "public trades" page is not enough to properly audit the page externally or create a ledger (amounts cut off, only 100 entries available, no mention of platform or fee...)

If there was a complete trading history released (with good + proper data of the trades) it would be possible to massage this into a format readable by ledger-cli for example and calculate how many USD, BTC and LTC the platform should have at risk at any point of time. Then all that needs to be done is to provide evidence (e.g. screenshots, bank statments, auditor statements, exchange balances) that these funds are really existing and everything is fine.

I'd like to remind Raphael though of a few things:
Being a "rich rich rich" insurance owner in Hong Kong does not make somebody a useful partner. If at all it would make me suspicious how this person can get so rich when he invests in these high-risk ventures.
Having a few things to say on a forum or suggestions via mail does not make someone a useful advisor. (You're free to send me bitcoins though for my suggestions/advice... )
Someone who just pulls a CEO + investors in a month(!?) out off his hat that understand both Bitcoin and margin trading while himself coming from a semiconductor background is in my eyes just too good to be true.

Because by now it has evolved into a singularity (torus shaped) and a bunch of golums are circling it chanting "my preciousssss, my preciousssss".

Particularly amusing is the blogpost of the Raphael muppet. Oh he's worked so very hard (so what if stupidly?!) and his personal life is a mess so please can he at least have this?

The answer, of course, is no. That's not how life works. This isn't the artificially constructed environment known as school where if you whine and appeal to emotion enough the teacher might give you a passing grade.

Go back to high school Raphy, that's where your delusions of what professional means aren't out of place.

This thread is lulz, wonder why the Bitfinex source Bitcoinica source hasn't been re-leaked already.

I already said above, you didnt post any evidence to proof that so far.

then why was bitfinex technology limited funded ?  ofc on documents I have 25% of bitfinex limited and R have 75% and ofc i am not going to sing any papers regarding bitfinex limited
numbers and stuff posted here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2412313

I see that a bit different because we are still mixing up two things here.

1) According to all things posted here "myself" was an employee. The agreement via email / contract dont back his demand for being a real partner and not only an employee payed by a percentage of the profit. Im sorry for you "myself" but emplyees can be fired. Check your emails, maybe you find something he said which imply that you are a real partner.

2) The second point is the more concerning one according to my opinion. We already cleared the 150k covered by the funds of a personal account, but what about "Devasini [who] was credited one million dollars, money that he didn't have deposited in his account"? Giving out funds of this amount are a huge liability and are possible fraud (as long as you have no real good explanation).

Bitcoins5411 I think has a good point.

I guess I'm not exactly sure what's going on with this taking customer money thing, but it seems like no one was out anything by deception which is an integral part of a scam.  Having an unsecured loan may be bad business practice, but unless the company was actually maliciously trying to make money by cheating it's customers, it's not really a scam.  As I have said before, the "scam" accusation with regards to the customer account handling is marginal at best.  There is definitely no scam with regards to myself and the ownership's dispute--it appears to be an internal shareholder and/or employer dispute.

If you put your investor's money in a bank with no FDIC insurance, it's a bad business practice, but it's not a scam.  If you did the same but told your investors the money was protected, it's lying to them, but still not really a scam.  If you tell investors their money is in an FDIC insured bank, but it's actually gone to buy you a corvette, now it's a scam.

the working link is
https://community.bitfinex.com/content.php/32-Regarding-recent-team-change

On the contrary: scammers outing each other makes for a great service to the community.

last time i did check taking customer money with out their permission to be on the market was not legal (you can google search MF global) no matter what excuse you put 

I concur, based on the limited information provided here, I'm of the same opinion that no one was scammed and it seems like an internal dispute between owners and/or employees.