4 ms·

FYI, this “Bitcoin Insider” (there should be no such thing in a decentralized currency?) apparently took $5M from mtgox, claiming he could get them through regu

FYI, this “Bitcoin Insider” (there should be no such thing in a decentralized currency?) apparently took $5M from mtgox, claiming he could get them through regulation in the U.S. (he did no such thing)... then sued them for $16B after they went bankrupt, holding the thousands of creditors hostage for years... so far. And apparently now fortress will give him (CoinLab) $11M to move (slightly) out of the way.

wmf 6y ago
Yeah, Vessenes is so far inside that he has a massive conflict of interest in this case. He's also acted in pretty bad faith. Here's the story from a knowledgeable outsider: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/04/coinlab-v-mtgox-imaginarium-of-peter.html https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/04/coinlab-v-mtgox-imaginarium-o... Even putting aside the Mt. Gox bankruptcy, the original contract with CoinLab looks pretty bad: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566.1.1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566... They agreed on damages of $50M if either side breached the contract but neither party ever had nearly that much money and the deal was only worth less than $1M per year. IANAL but this seems like a dumb suicide pact.
- slavik81 6y ago
  > IANAL but this seems like a dumb suicide pact. IANAL either, but those sound like punitive damages, which are unenforceable. The court could accept the assessment in the contract, but if it's blatantly unreasonable, they are supposed to pick a value that more accurately matches the damage incurred due to the breach. Not that I would want to be in a situation where you have to depend on that...
  - staticautomatic 6y ago
    They’re called liquidated damages and they’re typically only enforceable when they are reasonably close to the actual monetary harm that would be caused by a breach of a contract.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sjreese 6y ago
We know today the the FBI sought to destroy bitcoin as a policy objective. The double posting was used inside the trusted network. To undermine the core function, in the end FBI agents went to jail for their own criminal actions - MT Gox was useful for media purposes

wmf 6y ago

Yeah, Vessenes is so far inside that he has a massive conflict of interest in this case. He's also acted in pretty bad faith. Here's the story from a knowledgeable outsider: https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/04/coinlab-v-mtgox-imaginarium-of-peter.html https://blog.wizsec.jp/2019/04/coinlab-v-mtgox-imaginarium-o... Even putting aside the Mt. Gox bankruptcy, the original contract with CoinLab looks pretty bad: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566.1.1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.192566... They agreed on damages of $50M if either side breached the contract but neither party ever had nearly that much money and the deal was only worth less than $1M per year. IANAL but this seems like a dumb suicide pact.

slavik81 6y ago
> IANAL but this seems like a dumb suicide pact. IANAL either, but those sound like punitive damages, which are unenforceable. The court could accept the assessment in the contract, but if it's blatantly unreasonable, they are supposed to pick a value that more accurately matches the damage incurred due to the breach. Not that I would want to be in a situation where you have to depend on that...
- staticautomatic 6y ago
  They’re called liquidated damages and they’re typically only enforceable when they are reasonably close to the actual monetary harm that would be caused by a breach of a contract.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sjreese 6y ago

We know today the the FBI sought to destroy bitcoin as a policy objective. The double posting was used inside the trusted network. To undermine the core function, in the end FBI agents went to jail for their own criminal actions - MT Gox was useful for media purposes