Quote from: zeroday on October 20, 2013, 05:06:21 PM

Quote from: RationalSpeculator on October 20, 2013, 03:56:06 PM

Agreed that the banking system in general is not safe. Some banks however take on much more risk than others. If you had done your homework better you could have selected a bank with a much lower risk profile for your business account. And you could also have diversified between several banks on top. Sure more energy, more inconvenience, but lower risk was achievable for you too.

Eventhough I still think you are using the word robbery incorrectly, I understand your anger towards banks and politicians, and it's justified in my opinion. I think you also made a rational and wise decision to switch to bitcoin. You do inspire me.

You probably didn't read April news. This was exact robbery. My bank, which was the second largest bank in the country, was forced by European Commission to be sacrificed and many billions of customer's money were seized to repay country's debt.

I think you are reversing things here. From what I've read, the Laiki bank invested a lot of money in greek debt, which defaulted. The money of the bank was not confiscated to pay a country's debt. The money was invested in some country's debt. Big difference that is. So what are the exact facts here?

Quote from: zeroday on October 20, 2013, 05:06:21 PM

This was not regular bankruptcy process, but a perverted form of robbery. In case of normal bankruptcy I would get the most of my money back because current accounts are the first in the queue of getting money from liquidated bank, and only after that shareholders and bond holders receive the remaining. But in this perverted scenario regular current account holders lost everything above insured 100k.

I have never heard that current accounts are the first to be payed back in bankruptcy.

Indeed stock holders lose first, then bond holders, both of which happened, and then saving account holders, all of them, except for the 'government guarantee' of 100.000 per client. It looks to me that the bankruptcy law was correctly applied. (though I'm not an expert in bankruptcy law)

I do find it odd that all money was lost above 100.000 per client. That means the bank lost likely 50-80% of their investments which seems very high. Normally after liquidating all assets, the shortage should be around 25% or something, like it was in the collapsed DSB bank in the Netherlands. So you might be right that the government just stole assets from the bank and thus you.

Do you have any proof or articles that show that capital was robbed from the bank by the government?