Topic: SCAMMER TAG: bitoinica - page 2. (Read 9669 times)

No scamming going on here.

Take it from a man that knows how it's done

This is a joke ...

I voted, "I don't care", and I'm owed a lot.
This thread isn't helping anyone.

I could come up with about 20 qualificatives to describe them, but "Scammer" is not one of them yet.

Hey, stop that Bullshit!

Your reasoning is outright wired, arrogant and delusional.

Who is filling 76+ pages with assumptions, guessing, and musings?

Who is getting more and more thrilled and excited in constructing one conspiracy theory after another??

And what exactly does this prove? Only that you and your buddies are having fun playing detective here in these threads.



We all agree that Bitcoinica failed and neither the communication nor the payouts were handled as you'd expect.


But to apply a scammer tag to some individual people, you first need to come up with a proof (mind me, not some random guesses)
that exactly these people did purposefully trick and scam someone else with the goal of stealing money.

More specifically...

can you prove that Zhou Tong purposefully betrayed someone?
can you prove that Genjix purposefully betrayed someone?
can you prove that Patrick purposefully betrayed someone and ran with the money to the island?


No you cant. In fact, you guys are mud-slingers and witch hunters.


Come on, lets behave like adults and stick to the facts.

We know that there where insufficient security measures in place. But we don't know who exactly was responsible at what point and who was bound to care for some detail and failed to do so. In fact, the involved people cross-wise blame each other.

But we don't have the slightest proof, that they purposefully blame each other while in fact someone purposefully opened a backdoor somewhere for stealing money.

Next, we know the business people, namely Tihan and Donald Norman disagree on the question of responsibility.
But we don't have the slightest proof, that they purposefully set up this disagreement as a scam to buy time, while speculating with the money meanwhile.

Moreover, we know that the life database was destroyed by the hacker, but that some transfer logs and accounting snapshots where available, plus the data provided by the people in the claims process. We even know that some real scammers entered fake claims, because the total sum of claimed funds don't add up.
Yet we don't know what data is available and what is missing, and we don't know why the decision was made to pay some people and don't pay others. And we don't have the slightest proof, that those people having received a payment are affiliated in any way with the people processing the payouts. Just someone heard from someone else that someone else got the impression this might be the case.

And besides that information, we don't know much. We don't even know who is Bitcoinica. Who is/was the general partner at what time? How is the financial situation? Is the business insolvent? We've just heard lots of guesses and semi information on those core questions.

That was kind of my point.  If you're going to apply the tag, then you do it to the individuals rather than to Bitcoinica as an entity because if Bitcoinica never operates again then having scammer tag against the Bitcoinica Consultancy account really doesn't serve as an alert to anyone.  You're right that some of the same people run Intersango, but it's not clear whether all of the Intersango guys were formally involved in Bitcoinica - if not, should the ones who weren't also get the tag?

yep, some has. but not me.

Has anyone sued yet?

You reasoning is wrong. Some of the same people run Intersango. Their customers deserve a warning, or do they not? So, if Bitcoinica was a scam, which more likely than not it was, then it is very much necessary and meaningful to give a scammer tag to these individuals and consequently to Intersango LTD. Either it was a scam (which most people by now have agreed upon) or it wasn't. After reading 76+ pages of so called "security" investigation and "payout" threads for over 2 months, there is little to nothing that can prove these guys are innocent. In fact, you even get a pretty good picture of their personalities, particularly about one very cranky, and arrogant, and even blackmailing Patrick.

Company name changes on the day of the hack? OMG.

Hacked three times in a row, unlocked accounts after the second hack? Come on. How naive do you have to be to buy into that story? When do we see the scammer tag applied? Who is responsible for it on this forum?

Some people have posted that they've received 50% of their claim back.  I don't think anyone knows how the latest compromise will affect the payout process other than the fact that payouts will be reduced.

I don't see any point in giving Bitcoinica as an entity a scammer tag.  It's not operating at the moment.  It's just a brand name.  It may never resume trading and if it does it may be under the control of parties who were unrelated to this series of disasters.  If the same principals were to launch a similar endeavour or relaunch Bitcoinica then I think that a cautionary note would be appropriate but it would be meaningless right now.

Has anyone received funds back yet ? I dont know about a scammer label but maybe a "Consumer Alert" or "Under Review"  is warranted untill the claims process is dealt with.

Bahahahaa

You really think bitcoinica was run by a goat ?

I thought a goat was a smart animal with some security expertise and a real sense of responsibility.

+1 

I predict everyone involved gets to chow down on an XL shit sammich. Learn your lessons you greedy bastards.

they are his personal friends, give him break he is unable to see things clearly(sadly he is a admin too, not much we can do).


@theymos: are you willing to pay my 40btc?(aka your non-scammer friends debt.)

I dont think the bitcoin consultancy are scammers I think they got fed a shit sandwich.

Hopefully the users dont have to also eat the sandwich.

Are you saying you know the identity of the thief? Please enlighten us.


Did not shakaru get the tag because of debts relating to a claimed series of thefts, how is this any different to people involved in running bitcoinica?

What scammer tag will do is help protect people from their future actions. This is important because they have been criminally negligent if not directly involved in the theft (which is, as someone noted, essentially the same thing in many jurisdictions).

These people should never be trusted with anything of value again. That they have repeatedly demonstrated an inability follow even the most basic security and resiliency paradigms is irrefutable.

Theymos, if you are willing to vouch for these individuals and their actions lead to losses for bitcoinica customers, you should be willing to wear the scammer tag yourself.

Tihan also stands behind Zhou to a large extent. 


http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4241249

Donald has been the invisible man in all of this.  His actions should be no less subject to scrutiny than the actions of anyone else involved in this clusterfuck - and neither, for that matter, should Wendon's (I do wonder if he's the nameless minority limited partner).

Someone should arrest Patrick before he actually jumps onto a ship to a remote island.

Narrowing it down further, Roger Ver stands behind Zhou Tong, and Tihan Seale name seems to have some traction for being in the clear. That leaves only Patrick, who I keep reading has jumped ship, but I have yet to read proof of that.

~Bruno~

Like I said, do a little bit of gumshoe work if you're going to spout off about it. The dude has already been doxed several times. LIKE I SAID, the sticking point is whether there is enough evidence, NOT where or whom the guy is.
Improve your own reading comprehension, fool.

Hindsight is 20/20.