Topic: SCAMMER TAG: bitoinica - page 4. (Read 9669 times)

They have agreed that they owe people money. They have refused to pay that money in full, supposedly because they've lost it.

How is this anything other than a scam?

Put another way, if I borrow 100 BTC from you, then fail to secure it and subsequently fail to pay you back, am I a scammer or not?

If you put $100,000 in an account with Chase and they don't return it upon request (within the terms of your agreement), would you consider that acceptable?

And how exactly does that make it a good solution or a solution at all? For someone telling people they have a low IQ you seem to be have a lot of problems with thinking correctly yourself.

If anyone is going to be beating on anyone else, please direct your threats at the actual hacker(s).

Says the person suggesting we should pick up bats and solve this problem like they use to do back when we lived in a cave..  

you do know that people does not always behave rationally, right? and that it is much more fun not to.

Hazek, I'm happy to see that your ignore label is less than orange now.

I vote no, because a scammer tag would serve no purpose other than as a slap in the face.

I am so sad! You took my petition idea and turned into a poll. I was given them 24 hours to offer up proof that a police report was filed.

I voted. Thanks for the poll, bud. Now back to reading that thread. Still 3 pages from the end. 2,000 new page views since I started reading there. Not a slow reading, just want to digest every word. Glad it's all in 10pt font.  

~Bruno~

Finally someone with a working brain.
And what about that other PR stunt about the "I'm leaving Bitcoin" ?

oh please drop the libertard bullshit, it only shows that your IQ is under 70.

I had all of one bitcoin at bitcoinica. I never trusted those bitcoinica guys because they're statists and promote regulating bitcoin. Statists are never that competent - be sure of that.

I think we need a new tag for them, like "FELONS"

1. Leave money in bucket shop created by 17yo in 4 days time which was hacked at least 2 times before the 3rd and now 4th time and manage to be that much of a gambler or a sucker for interest rates to leave your money there
2. Bucket shop closes down
3. Crying ensues, they all should have scammer tag

BTW, there’s a bit too much zhoutong dick sucking going on for my tastes. As far as I see, he is the only winner here, since he managed to sell off the company to a sucker before it went kaboom with profit, and now doing some PR stunt donating 5k of it to bribe the suckers here to view him as the hero.

If anyone should get the scammer tag, it’s probably him for veiling the change of corporate ownership ever since Nov. 2011 and deceiving customers who explicitely trusted him. And of course for not securing this shit in the first place, despite having been warned.

Violence is never a solution to any problem other than self defense. Ever.

+1 either they scammed us, for our money. or they scammed Tihan's company, because they are noob that claims to be pros.
Therefor they deserved the scammer tag.

good point!

MD said in another thread, that it  was quite convienet for them to get hacked again, when he and 2 others began to sue them...
of cource its circumstantial, but i think that its way more possible that they are skewing us over and over again, then that they are trying to pay there customers... just saying.

the question is really: do you think that they should be beaten with a bat, for the mistakes/crimes/scamming/whatever they have made, or not?
its really that simple. to hell if we only get to put a incorrect scammer tag on them. do they deserve it?

Yeah - sorry - i just can't buy into the story that they got owned multiple times, and are the security gurus they claim to be. One of the two is false.

Take your pick, negligent morons, of plain old thieves. Either way, to run the business knowing that you're either, is a SCAM. Thus, they are scammers in my book.

They have repeatedly been less than truthful, if not outright dishonest. They have repaid their friends before others, and then suffered more losses due to thier delays, negligence and / or theft.

I've suspected criminal behavior because of the mounting numbers of red flags in the whole process from the time zhou tong started cashing out, and having slow withdrawals during major market moves. I suspected then, and noted it, that they were bordering on insolvency. I continue to suspect that they hid the majority of insolvency, and the thefts were perpetrated to hide this fact. The timings were all too very convenient. With this final one, I don't think the series of crimes is any longer plausible.

Given the behavior I've noted for the past few months, I am pretty sure that Zhoutong knew there was something up (thus he was cashing out, and "leaving bitcoin" -- I'm also pretty sure Patrick knew what was going on, and has carefully spoken so as to not "lie" to anyone, while completely failing to tell much , if any, truth. How much did any one in the fund know? hmm. Hard to say - that's why - I'm not sure who the criminal is here, but I'm sure it's an insider.

I've talked with Patrick enough on IRC to come to the conclusion that he isn't an operations or security expert, no matter his own opinion. I've also come to the conclusion he's a pretty sharp guy nonetheless. It just seems to me very hard to swallow that they've just been guilty of incompetence and stupidity. They have not shown enough of either to make that plausible. There must be an additional factor. If that additional factor is not criminal, I cannot imagine what it must be.

+1

There's no real evidence that they did anything. Lots of speculation and circumstantial stuff, a lot of which is hearsay.

Besides, now that the lawyers are involved, there's likely to be court proceedings, so maybe best to wait and see if they say they are guilty before the forum declares them guilty. They'll have access to all the facts at least.  

That was about the fiat.

Oh and of course they are hypocrites.

As it stands right now at most some people might deserve a NEGLIGENT tag but labeling them scammers, I don't see how you can rationally support that.