text: April 23, 2018, 11:38:46 PM
  August 04, 2012, 02:22:14 AM
  Quote from: aurumxchange on August 03, 2012, 01:22:34 AM
  "In retrospect I should have asked to give you a chance to make your case and I would have if I was involved with the publishing of that article."
  So to digress, a very serious accusation has been made against our company by a very well known publishing company that admits the matter have not been well researched at the time the accusation has been made, and also admits our company was not given the opportunity to refute these very serious allegations before they went live on your website? How is this not libel, or at the very least gross negligence from your company?
  Is this not the exact same issue we have with you releasing ZT's information?
  I think everyone agrees with you that information already in the public domain shouldn't be covered as that had already been published though.
  1524526726
  Posts: 1524526726
  August 04, 2012, 02:40:29 AM
  Quote from: Herodes on August 03, 2012, 01:57:00 AM
  It is interesting. It's at the very heart of the whole controversy.
  If the information hadn't been released or if ZT hadn't been incriminated BEFORE he had a chance to at least reply to the accusations then we wouldn't be in this situation.
  None of us would know whether ZT was the main suspect (well there would be theories on the matter but nothing conclusive as AX wouldn't have substantiated it) until a full investigation had been done.
  At that point, ZT would have either been proved a liar or the investigation would have determined that the money really did come from a friend.
  There is nothing else to do whilst the investigation is ongoing. I'm sure the AML investigation is going as fast as it can because until it's resolved, we won't find out if ZT is telling the truth or not.
  This is really the whole problem here. I don't know if ZT is telling the truth. You don't know if he's telling the truth. The investigation will though. Those that say they KNOW he's lying already - I can't see how they could possibly know that. I'm not saying he isn't but how could I conclusively decide that with the information I have?
  All logic dictates that when Zhou Tong at the same time of the hack tries to withdraw an amount equal to that stolen, and an e-mail address associated to him is used along with the 'hack', then it's all reason to be suspicious.
  How can logic determine if ZT is lying or not? Doesn't this also mean you believe he's guilty? How have you proved that his friend doesn't exist? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong but how did you come to that conclusion?
  I would've acted exactly the same way as aurumexchange in such a case
  I would have done everything AX did except I would withold all information until an investigation had been done. That's the way it's meant to be done.
  , and if anyone thought I acted illegally or unethical, then bring the lawsuits on, I applaud aurumxchange for hos he acted in this case.
  Lawsuits can still be brought because the information effectively painted ZT as guilty without giving him an opportunity to reply to the accusations. See how the news media goes about news items - they give both parties the opportunity to address the matter and they publish both sides if it's to be published at all.
  How would you feel if someone stole a large amount of money from you ?
  This implies he's already guilty. Or are you literally just wanting to know how he would feel in that scenario?
  August 04, 2012, 02:44:41 AM
  The way the forum reacted was kind of predictable, but it's not something AurumXchange can do much about
  Shouldn't ZT have been given an opportunity to respond to the accusations first? Without that opportunity to respond, don't you think AX ought to be held responsible for the result of publishing the information that was published?
  Imagine how this might have turned out if ZT had been given an opportunity to respond to the accusations? Wouldn't AX have used AML laws to determine if he was telling the truth or not before publishing? And once that had been determined, I still think publishing would be a bad thing to do but at least the outcry would have been just.
  August 04, 2012, 02:48:48 AM
  Thanks Herodes. Your support means a lot to us. We are a for-profit corporation, true, but I personally CARE for Bitcoin, and we are putting a lot on the line (including having our name dragged through the mud by clearly paid shills) to bring some accountability and transparency to the Bitcoin world, and we are not going to stop on that quest.
  Are you referring to the donations that Matthew referred to? I think Vladimir said that it was to BitcoinTV. If not, what evidence makes the shilling 'clear'?
  I personally don't see any shilling because both sides make good points (except those that somehow know ZT is lying and that his friend doesn't exist).
  August 04, 2012, 02:59:24 AM
  Quote from: Inedible on August 04, 2012, 02:44:41 AM
  August 04, 2012, 03:02:24 AM
  Quote from: bitcoin.me on August 04, 2012, 02:59:24 AM
  August 04, 2012, 04:55:17 AM
  Quote from: Inedible on August 04, 2012, 02:40:29 AM
  I do wonder whether funds from the hack would be being transferred back now had this not become public. In the short-term, the outcome may be better for Bitcoinica users than it would have been had AurumXchange handled this more conventionally.
  August 04, 2012, 06:21:16 AM
  Quote from: repentance on August 04, 2012, 04:55:17 AM
  I see nothing wrong with how AurumXchange handled this matter, but that's merely my personal opinion. Let's see how this turns out and whether the people owed money gets the money back eventually. As I see, now a conventional lawyer has been put on the case AFAIK, and then we can probably expect a large lump of the money ending up in the pockets of that particular lawyer, esp. if this drags out, and there will be court case(s) and so on.
  Since I don't have a stake here, it's not that important for me personally, however I do have sympathy for those who has lost their funds, and I hope they get paid back.
  ZT has been communicating, while the others haven't been communicating that much. And obv. they should. But not much more to say about that as you can't mend broken characters through a forum.
  August 04, 2012, 04:25:10 PM
  Users accusing Aurumexchange of TOS break are indirectly supporting the hypothesis that Zhou Tong is the hacker.
  If Zhou Tong is the hacker, then Aurumexchange released information of a customer.
  If Zhou Tong is NOT the hacker, them Aurumexchange released information of an unknown person.
  August 04, 2012, 07:40:16 PM
  Quote from: augustocroppo on August 04, 2012, 04:25:10 PM
  If Zhou Tong is NOT real, then Aurumexchange released information of a fictitious character.
  August 04, 2012, 09:25:44 PM
  Consider this hypothetical: You open an account with some service. I hack your account and use the service to buy 1,000 copies of Mein Kampf which I leave on the doorsteps of Holocaust survivors. There's a public outcry over this event and the purchase is investigated. The service publicly announces that your account was used to buy those 1,000 copies of Mein Kampf, which embarrasses you. You receive death threats, harassment, and so on. When you respond that you didn't buy them and that someone else must have hacked your account, does that let the service off the hook for the privacy violation? After all, it wasn't your transaction.
  August 04, 2012, 09:48:59 PM
  Quote from: JoelKatz on August 04, 2012, 09:25:44 PM
  That one doesn't quite work because users had noticed Zhou's LR transactions and commented on them just after the hack and Zhou had already said that AurumXchange had frozen his funds for unknown reasons before AurumXchange made their statement. While I still believe that the AurumXchange statement was ill-advised, both Zhou's LR transactions and the fact that AurumXchange had frozen his account had been discussed in this community prior to that statement. Zhou is not claiming that his AurumXchange account through which he sold LR for a friend was hacked.
  While I believe that AurumXchange/Mt Gox were justified in confirming to the community that the stolen funds had been converted to LR, I think that their public statement should have stopped at "we've identified and frozen accounts suspected of being associated with the Mt Gox theft and referred the matter to the appropriate authorities for further investigation". The public request for further documentation from Zhou and information about whether or not it had been provided were utterly inappropriate.
  August 04, 2012, 11:22:55 PM
  I do not feel embarrassed to be associated with Adolf Hitler historical character.
  I do not support fictional Jewish storytelling.
  I do not care about threats made in Internet forums.
  Then I would not even "respond" for whatever enquires would be made regarding your hypothetical event.
  August 04, 2012, 11:39:30 PM
  Quote from: augustocroppo on August 04, 2012, 11:22:55 PM
  And what about the people who are convinced that you were the one that did it and will do as much as they can to damage you, your family and your career off of the forums?
  August 05, 2012, 12:14:54 AM
  Quote from: Inedible on August 04, 2012, 11:39:30 PM
  This reasoning is completely out of context since your hypothesis did not occurred in the case of the user Zhou Tong.
  So please, you and other users, stop with the emotional arguments.
  August 05, 2012, 01:38:01 AM
  Quote from: augustocroppo on August 05, 2012, 12:14:54 AM
  I disagree that it's a plea to anyone's emotions. I can only speak for myself but you wouldn't hear any arguments from me (emotional or otherwise) if others wouldn't make arguments stating as absolute fact that he's guilty.
  August 05, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
  Why harp on people who say he's 100% guilty, just as useless as trashing the people who say he is 100% innocent? I'm in the "seems pretty flimsy" camp and Bitcoinica should have been wound up in NZ more than a month ago, haven't heard a good argument for why I should change stances.