I'll be happy to take up the lawsuit from USA. I have his contact information and have contacted an attorney and an australian private investigator.

You're doing a great job, Dumbfruit.  I'm a dual US/NZ citizen, and I'll certainly join you in a class-action if it comes to that.  But I don't think the time is now.  Frankly, at this point I think the money would be better spent on a good private investigator in Sydney.  I'd' still like to know if anyone on this forum knows TF's name.

TF: It should be pretty clear to you that time is running out.  I still stand by what I told you in an email: I'm willing to leave my coins in longer-term with some verifiable assurances that I'm likely to be paid back in full later on.  By my count, there are some 1500 coins potentially available to you (from JohnHarmer, TomJeff and other relative minnows like me) should you reach out directly to your investors.  We're by far the best friends you have here   

Quote from: TomJeff on November 13, 2013, 04:55:54 AM

I can tell you personally that if I got 100% of my BTC refunded (or at least a binding promise to refund 100% of my principal in a year while still earning interest on it) and CL overhauled their security (a third-party security audit would go the distance to prove that fact to me) then I'd happily keep all my current deposit

+1

I told TF exactly this in an email several days ago (I have not heard back).  It might be useful to start a list of CL creditors who feel the same way (Dumbfruit, if you'd rather it not clutter up this thread I can start a new one).  First, it seems clear that no one should be forced to take a loss: each and every creditor should have the option of keeping their coins in CL for a time and being paid back in full (with interest of course) at some later date.  Second, however, if enough CL creditors feel this way (particularly some of the large holders; I think the top ten largest creditors account for some 70% of the total on CL; and TomJeff obviously accounts for most of the coins on Inputs), then there should be no grounds for TF to refuse the offer.  And every reason for him to accept, if his business model is any good.  Of course, added security -and transparency- is crucial.  But my guess is that a lot of CL creditors feel the same way.  It would be good to know...

(1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the following offences provided these offences are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year or by death:
...
14. Embezzlement.
...
19. Fraud by an agent, bailee, banker, factor or trustee, by a director or officer of a company or by a promoter of a company, whether existing or not.
...
(5) If extradition is requested for any offence mentioned in a preceding paragraph of this Article and that offence is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year or by death, that offence shall be extraditable under the provisions of this Treaty whether or not the laws of both Contracting Parties would place that offence within the same category of offences made extraditable by that preceding paragraph of this Article and whether or not the laws of the requested State denominate the offence by the same terminology.

Quote from: TomJeff on November 13, 2013, 04:55:54 AM
TF, you have a great brand and innovative products.

Just an idea. Maybe an investor with  $1 million+ dollars could turn this situation around.  I'd like to see all this succeed--call me crazy but II/CL is still salvageable.

^ This. CL was a great concept with a growing lender base, a successful track record at making BTC loans profitable for itself and its depositors. That is a fact that cannot be denied and it would be a real shame if TF did not capitalize on that fact, which is really his most valuable asset (after our BTC, of course!).

If he was smart he'd be out there working every single connection he could to find a few large investors so as to rectify the situation and then turn this crappy event into killer marketing. I can tell you personally that if I got 100% of my BTC refunded (or at least a binding promise to refund 100% of my principal in a year while still earning interest on it) and CL overhauled their security (a third-party security audit would go the distance to prove that fact to me) then I'd happily keep all my current deposit - and likely increase it by 200-300% right away.

Hopefully we all learned the lesson here... some of us cheaply, and some at an extremely dire price: Be wary of every and all third parties when dealing with BTC, online wallets are just looking for trouble and zero liability is asking for even more trouble.   But yes, at this stage, an incident like this must not remain forgotten, especially if we want Bitcoin to be widely adopted. It was not okay in the MyBitcoin days, and it's certainly worse today.

Anyway, let's stick to the topic.

Yes that is a very large amount to store in an online wallet. Most of the large accounts were kept at Coinlenders where they could (theoretically) earn interest.
The "sliding scale" is going to kill you. I currently have the largest amount listed at Inputs.io at 20.795btc (although I am sure there were larger balances) and I only got back 41.3% so you will probably get back substantially less than 180btc.
On the other hand we don't know what % reimbursement we are getting at Coinlenders so whatever you get back might be the better deal...