indeed a lot of afected users are getting along against it. This people of bips.me are indeed are cynical. and they also take forever to give their not so precise answers by their support web. Let time I wrote them was 8 days ago. Still waiting for the answer. And when they answer they say thins like this I show you here.
as you say, I think at least we must receive the refund of the money transferred to them, but is unfair, since I bought the BTC at 94 euros, and it had reached on the meantime up to 600 or more and now 400 euros.
but, given that explanation you say makes sense, if that is the case, the minimum we must receive be the refund of the money paid.
thanks for your comments.
m
Topic: users afected by bips.me hacking (Read 705 times)
sounds like some kind of pyramid scheme gone wrong. Hope you able too get your funds back and spread the word abou the possible scam taking place. Wouldn't want others to get taken for the same ride again and again, good luck.
I would question in your case if you ever received (owned) the Bitcoins you bought.
Ownership of Bitcoin means the knowledge of the private key that is able to sign transactions moving that Bitcoin.
Ownership might be joint or exclusive depending on if the knowledge of the key is shared or more than one keys are needed.
I do not think you had any of that. You eventually did not even know the address they were stored, (if they were stored segregated at all), so you could not independently audit the holding.
At max you owned a Bitcoin proxy, in its weakest form of an unaudited online statement.
I would assume that whoever provides a proxy is responsible for what it stands for.
Alternatively they might be obliged to unwind the sale that was never fulfilled.
Instead of settling like above, claiming that the customer should have known better is cynical at least.
PS: I am not a lawyer, above is just my personal opinion.
Ownership of Bitcoin means the knowledge of the private key that is able to sign transactions moving that Bitcoin.
Ownership might be joint or exclusive depending on if the knowledge of the key is shared or more than one keys are needed.
I do not think you had any of that. You eventually did not even know the address they were stored, (if they were stored segregated at all), so you could not independently audit the holding.
At max you owned a Bitcoin proxy, in its weakest form of an unaudited online statement.
I would assume that whoever provides a proxy is responsible for what it stands for.
Alternatively they might be obliged to unwind the sale that was never fulfilled.
Instead of settling like above, claiming that the customer should have known better is cynical at least.
PS: I am not a lawyer, above is just my personal opinion.
Hi there!
I was one the guys afected by bips.me hacking and I just want to get in touch with other people that had loosed their bitcoins in this web.
The thing is that they haven't been transparent with this issue and they drop small bits of information at a time.
The Bitcoins I loose where bought from them directly, so the obvious thing was to kkep them in their wallet if I was going to keep them online, I kind of was nonsense to move them to another wallet. If I trusted them to buy is obvious I would trust them to keep them.
I have been exchanging emails with them and the last time they "amused" me with this line: "In your case having actually bought bitcoins from us, that is a little different. Not everyone bought bitcoins from us and many who did, moved those to an external wallet for safe keeping."
Don't you think that this a terrible sentence almost admiting that their wallet was not safe? I refer specifically to this: "...moved those to an external wallet for safe keeping", so that means keeping bitcoin with them was not safe and they knew it?
What do you think about this guys?
I was one the guys afected by bips.me hacking and I just want to get in touch with other people that had loosed their bitcoins in this web.
The thing is that they haven't been transparent with this issue and they drop small bits of information at a time.
The Bitcoins I loose where bought from them directly, so the obvious thing was to kkep them in their wallet if I was going to keep them online, I kind of was nonsense to move them to another wallet. If I trusted them to buy is obvious I would trust them to keep them.
I have been exchanging emails with them and the last time they "amused" me with this line: "In your case having actually bought bitcoins from us, that is a little different. Not everyone bought bitcoins from us and many who did, moved those to an external wallet for safe keeping."
Don't you think that this a terrible sentence almost admiting that their wallet was not safe? I refer specifically to this: "...moved those to an external wallet for safe keeping", so that means keeping bitcoin with them was not safe and they knew it?
What do you think about this guys?
Jump to: