Quote from: aardvark15 on March 14, 2016, 11:02:07 AM

Quote from: Fontas Returns on March 14, 2016, 04:43:01 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on March 14, 2016, 04:16:27 AM

Quote from: CartmanSPC on March 14, 2016, 03:58:54 AM

Quote from: Cryptcracker on January 20, 2016, 01:22:24 AM

Hello I have offered to give big Vern the identity of the person that committed the theft against cryptsy and help them be put to justice

So Cryptcracker appears to know the identity of the person who stole the coins and is asking for a % back once recovered. He does not have some magical way to brute force the private keys.

Now it appears that he is not divulging the identity but acting as an intermediary most likely threatening the thief with exposure if they don't comply. I imagine the delay is attempting to communicate with the person holding the coin.

If Mr. Cracker has the kind of leverage you're suggesting wouldn't it be easier to just extort the thief instead of involving BigVern and other risks?

The whole scheme of returning all coins to BigVern and then expecting the bounty within 3 hours makes no more sense than BigVern getting hacked, not telling anyone, buying a fancy house etc. Which is to say - smoke and mirrors. IMHO.

Think about it. If he involves himself in blackmailing the thief he then has a bunch of tainted coins that are proceeds of the crime. If he gets the bounty those coins are free and clear.

If he blackmails the thief to get the coins, then the original thief knows who has the coins now. I think they would have to split the coins to keep things quite. Or maybe they are the same person.

I was going off CartmanSPC's version that already implies that CheeseCracker is blackmailing or otherwise forcing the thief to give the coins up. So the question is why have the coins go to BigVern first and then hope for a bounty on a flimsy "contract" instead of just telling the thief "send 3000 BTC to this address or else".

Now CheeseCracker is dragging his feet, what a surprise.