4 ms·

Once again, statements from an exchange are vague and inconsistent. large fund withdrawals in the last weeks which have lead to a complete depletion of our

by panarky 13y ago

Once again, statements from an exchange are vague and inconsistent. large fund withdrawals in the last weeks which have lead to a complete depletion of our cold wallet balance versus We'll take the current available cold storage balance and distribute it based on the below described distribution logic Is the cold wallet completely depleted or isn't it? And why choose such a cockamaime distribution scheme? 50% to the largest accounts and 50% to the smallest accounts? Why not pro rata based on each account's balance? So the largest accounts will enjoy 100% recovery while those in the middle get less, or even zero? This gives preference to certain accounts while providing the illusion of fairness. Yet again, there's no disclosure of a balance sheet, no visibility to total assets and liabilities. Why do people continue to trust their funds to incompetents and fraudsters?

kiba 13y ago
Why to people continue to trust their funds to incompetents and fraudsters? Because they live in a world where they can trust the system. However, in bitcoin land, they still behave they can still trust the system. Bitcoin and the core developers are the only group you can trust to any extent, really.
matt_heimer 13y ago
>Why do people continue to trust their funds to incompetents and fraudsters? At this point its a gamble. You either give up and admit Vircurex has lost all of your wallet or you keep using them and hope the profit they generate from you will make its way back into your wallet while at the same time hoping they don't have any more security issues. Its not so much "trust" as it is hope.
kordless 13y ago
Addressing you questioning the payout scheme. They are paying off large accounts first. Once those accounts are clear, you move on down the stack. By resolving the lower end accounts, you end up with less total users who 'have a problem'. That serves a few purposes, including encouraging the customer base to continue using the service, which serves the purpose of funding the rest of the users, including those in the middle. It also allows you to effectively address the issue with the remaining people who have funds frozen - something difficult to do with all users. I think your overall argument is based on cognitive dissonance. You'd like everyone to be paid in full immediately. That makes perfect sense to me, but it remains they lost funds. With that fact at hand, you can no longer hold the expectation of everyone being paid in full immediately and the situation of lost funds getting resolved. This makes you angry, and so you lash out with blaming statements which are logically flawed. Simply put, you are attacking something with an approach that makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because you are having an unresolvable argument with yourself! Honestly, I see no way of fixing this in a better way than what they have implemented. To me, that indicates we should extend some amount of trust they'll resolve this in a way that gets people's money back to them. Your last statement is probably the most valid, but may not be 100% applicable to Vicurex. I agree they appear to have been incompetent (which implies they may still be incompetent) but they don't appear to be fraudsters. Mt. Gox was both, if you ask me, because they never did a decent job of disclosing. To your first point, Vicurex should come clean now they've frozen funds and give estimates of recovery time.
tlrobinson 13y ago
And why choose such a cockamaime distribution scheme? Perhaps to hide outright theft by Vircurex. If you don't receive funds, you might conclude your account balances fell somewhere in the middle... or perhaps they didn't distribute any funds at all. There's no way for users to know how large their account balances are relative to others.

by panarky 13y ago

kiba 13y ago

Why to people continue to trust their funds to incompetents and fraudsters? Because they live in a world where they can trust the system. However, in bitcoin land, they still behave they can still trust the system. Bitcoin and the core developers are the only group you can trust to any extent, really.

matt_heimer 13y ago

>Why do people continue to trust their funds to incompetents and fraudsters? At this point its a gamble. You either give up and admit Vircurex has lost all of your wallet or you keep using them and hope the profit they generate from you will make its way back into your wallet while at the same time hoping they don't have any more security issues. Its not so much "trust" as it is hope.

kordless 13y ago

Addressing you questioning the payout scheme. They are paying off large accounts first. Once those accounts are clear, you move on down the stack. By resolving the lower end accounts, you end up with less total users who 'have a problem'. That serves a few purposes, including encouraging the customer base to continue using the service, which serves the purpose of funding the rest of the users, including those in the middle. It also allows you to effectively address the issue with the remaining people who have funds frozen - something difficult to do with all users. I think your overall argument is based on cognitive dissonance. You'd like everyone to be paid in full immediately. That makes perfect sense to me, but it remains they lost funds. With that fact at hand, you can no longer hold the expectation of everyone being paid in full immediately and the situation of lost funds getting resolved. This makes you angry, and so you lash out with blaming statements which are logically flawed. Simply put, you are attacking something with an approach that makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because you are having an unresolvable argument with yourself! Honestly, I see no way of fixing this in a better way than what they have implemented. To me, that indicates we should extend some amount of trust they'll resolve this in a way that gets people's money back to them. Your last statement is probably the most valid, but may not be 100% applicable to Vicurex. I agree they appear to have been incompetent (which implies they may still be incompetent) but they don't appear to be fraudsters. Mt. Gox was both, if you ask me, because they never did a decent job of disclosing. To your first point, Vicurex should come clean now they've frozen funds and give estimates of recovery time.

tlrobinson 13y ago

And why choose such a cockamaime distribution scheme? Perhaps to hide outright theft by Vircurex. If you don't receive funds, you might conclude your account balances fell somewhere in the middle... or perhaps they didn't distribute any funds at all. There's no way for users to know how large their account balances are relative to others.