Quote from: BTCspoon on November 24, 2014, 03:25:44 PM

Again, a pile of C... . The "hack" was planned as a fail-safe to mitigate an eventual justice problem... (made by the owners and his team as a convenient cover-up story) , there is no fraudsters tale..., they deserve what's coming to them.

"Again" I'd suggest you read the actual reports first and second part.

I understand scrutiny but ignoring the facts is plain ignorance. I provided proof both CR and MidasCoin were hacked by the same attacker. With logs nonetheless.

MidasCoin decided that was probably a great time to bolt with the rest of the coins and rob the community. If you pay close attention, perhaps with reading comprehension, you'll note the original attacker stole 3000MID which was at the time was less than 2BTC.

The MidasCoin owner took the remaining ~20BTC that was left. The report doesn't say that the 'hacker' stole all of the coins. It clearly says that MidasCoin stole the rest of the coins. What is the point of building up this conspiracy theory about it being an inside job when in reality I state and explicitly separate both scenarios.

Unless you mean to say that Jimmy Bluey Amatong, the attacker who stole CR's wallets, is MidasCoin? And it was a roose from the start. Then that is a worthy question and potential argument. But let me disable that theory for you:

- JBA's methodologies, although careless, were much more sophisticated than simply setting up an entire coin project and running away with all the coins
- The IP addresses used by both perpetrators were from different continents.
- Both perps were identified and seem to be completely different people.
- Whether or not they knew each other is also a bit irrelevant because why would they go through all the work, of again setting this entire operation up, only for both of them to leave logs behind showing they both stole coins?

If indeed MidasCoin==JBA, or they knew each other, why wouldn't MidasCoin simply tell JBA to steal all the coins and make it look like a really bad hack?

I responded to your other post, but I guess you ignored it. So I'm glad I was able to respond to you here more thoroughly.