Quote from: PeterHarrisonCY on December 14, 2013, 05:20:12 PM

There is a difference between calling Ukyo a scammer and a thief and saying that "that guy who is defending him was paid off by him and was in on it all along" without not even one solid proof of evidence

Thats how it goes in here. Noobs and fiery people try to beat in all directions in the hope to get a hit.

Quote from: crumbs on December 14, 2013, 03:13:02 AM

Regarding hypothetical scenarios: Danny is not a random passer-by either to those invested in his bank or to the scammed WeEx users, who delayed taking legal action due to Danny's promise that Neo & Bee is working to resolve the matter & everyone should sit tight.
So the more fitting hypothetical here is Josh being robbed, and Danny telling him "cops won't get your money back. I'm friends with the d00d who robbed you & will get it back for you."

As you can see, not only does Josh have the right to be angry at Danny but Danny is fully implicated and legally liable.
Hope i have cleared things up for you.

I hope i never forget never to help you. Helping you sounds very dangerous.

Anyway... you can claim what you want. If Danny claims he tried to help no judge will bring him into jail. Its completely nonsense trying to sue him because he tried to help. No one is getting legally liable only by wanting to help. I wonder what laws you know. If any.
You can claim that ukyo is a scammer but following your logic... if ukyo would have asked microsoft to repair his wallet because he cant access the bitcoins anymore then microsoft has to be sued because in fact ukyo had stolen the coins. Thats some twisted logic you follow.

Quote from: hammurabi on December 14, 2013, 12:38:57 AM

The proportional withdrawal looks good on the first glance. But it should be considered more carefully because not every balance to be returned is of the same type of risk:

1. Coin which was deposited after "the accident". This coin should be paid back first as it should not be used to repay other debt from before the accident!
2. Coin which was deposited before "the accident". This coin should be paid after the returned coin from the above point.
3. Coin which comes from selling Ukyo.loan. This coin should be paid the last. I am stressing on this matter since ukyo.loan shareholders in my opinion should be the most affected group as they were paid for risk taken while regular deposits were supposed to be risk-free. Treating regular deposits the same way as balances coming from closing ukyo.loan would not be fair!

This proposed order of resolution depends of course on type of the "accident". Since we don't know exactly what happened You must be the judge on that matter.

Let me guess... you deposited coins after the accident?
Always interesting how people try to claim why they and their funds are more important than others.

Quote from: cryptocyprus on December 14, 2013, 07:52:24 AM

When it is POSSIBLE to release the full information as to what happened, that information will be posted and many on here will quickly become quiet. Has no one given it the thought that by revealing too much information could result in a decreased chance of getting those coins back?

So it really will be the hacker-story? You know... the hacker already know what he did. He wont be alarmed that you search for him. But i really doubt there is a hacker at all.

Maybe we should start collecting deposit addresses for weexchange. Might be that we find a pattern what happened with the bitcoins?

By the way... i now contacted Marco Santori asking him what he wants for asking ukyo what happened and giving the info to me or more clients if more then myself are paying for that info.