Quote from: davout on July 08, 2013, 07:01:43 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 08, 2013, 06:34:27 AM

It is common sense that the possibility of arranging a cold wallet setup and surveillance which protected against catastrophic loss existed. Was it to much to ask that your organization managed to do so? My answer is 'yes'. You guys talked a big game, but then everyone does that. I knew my funds were at risk all along.

Again, an assumption, by some sort of logic backflip gets transformed into factual information. Did you read the results of our independent security audit? You did not. Did you bother to string a few words together, have them translated and shoved in a mailbox? You did not. Do you make up factual information on the basis of your imagination? Looks like it!

Sorry, no. It is an undeniable fact that at the very least you locked up accounts for 3 months and to the best of my knowledge have never stated whether you were going to or could pay everyone back.

Quote from: davout on July 08, 2013, 07:01:43 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 08, 2013, 06:34:27 AM

Given that the funds you bought or were given by Jav (and subsequently lost or stole) were funds that I personally deposited, it is distinctly my business.

You were explicitly told about the switch, and chose to keep your funds there. That's exactly where the scope of "your business" ended in a small poof of "i don't care", apathy is not, and will never be an excuse to anything.

Oh, and you still didn't say how it could be in any way relevant to the matter at hand.

The first is a fair point. The second would have significant ramifications in the event that this matter is brought to court. Understanding the means and motivations for your group to obtain these funds would be helpful in trying to determine if you are likely culpable in the subsequent disappearance of them.

Quote from: davout on July 08, 2013, 07:01:43 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 08, 2013, 06:34:27 AM

You were hardly 'Johnny on the spot' with information about the police report other than an initial assertion that you had filed one. It would have been ultra simple to have simply followed up with some simple information when probably 50 people asked about it.

We did it as a courtesy, because communicating on open cases to some angry mob is not usually how it's done.

Quote from: tvbcof on July 08, 2013, 06:34:27 AM

And most of us asked with the utmost in tact.

I guess I didn't notice the tact among the threats, internet policemen and the "let's streetview the fuckers" being thrown around.

Don't paint everyone with that broad brush. I personally defended the logic of keeping quiet about many aspects of this event but requested, and very tactfully, that it be verifiable that appropriate action was being taken. A lot of others were similarly polite. It was a simple thing which would not have harmed in any way the ability to resolve this matter. It was also completely appropriate given the history of similar thefts in the on-line wallet space.

As I recall, I also spoke up against stupid and poorly thought out actions against Bitcoin-Central even when I was most dis-satisfied with your performance and most suspicious of your behavior. True, this was partially because I felt it would be counter-productive should a decision be taken to pursue things legally, but part of it also was that I find such things low-class and generally useless.

Quote from: davout on July 08, 2013, 07:01:43 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 08, 2013, 06:34:27 AM

More information will be available once we see how your dispensation is handled. This will be useful for further perusing the matter if such a pursuit is undertaken at all.

I'm sure teh forums will get right on that.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go do some actual doing.

Yes you do. The deadline is coming right up. As always, best of luck (for real!)