Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login


You seem to be talking about Mt. Gox, based on https://bitcoinomics.net/if-youre-going-to-get-into-bitcoin-...

I am one of those fools who "lost their life savings": $11k, that my father worked diligently to gather for me over many years. It still haunts me today that I squandered years of a person's life with such a decision. And yes, I would be happy to recover some of the money -- I supposedly am owed 7.7 BTC if Mt. Gox pays out.

Now, all that said, I am really not happy to see your comment here. And since I paid $11 thousand dollars to be in a position to reply to you, I think I will: it wouldn't matter if he murdered someone. You can't just come up on a completely unrelated thread and be like "It makes me sick to see you here on HN."

Ultimately, we have all made our choices, and part of those choices involved taking risks. That's why it's called a risk. I theoretically would have gained some ~$100k from my risk, but instead I lost my father's hard work. But I consider myself much richer for the lesson: I can pass this knowledge on to my own children so that they will be better positioned not to make similar mistakes.

As someone who has spent countless nights agonizing over such things, my advice is this: make peace with yourself. Externalizing like this only makes everything worse. If Satan himself wanted to leave a thoughtful, relevant HN comment, Satan should be permitted to do so without being harassed. There are very few communities where such an important rule is the norm, and it's worth preserving that culture.

Hey sillysaurus, I've seen you around for years on here so I knew you're one of the people who lost a lot and I'm happy you're at peace with it. I'm someone who only lost a little so I'm not losing sleep over it.

That's not why I'm attacking Peter even while that's against my favorite forum's rules and I might get banned for it. I don't think Peter is comparable to Satan. Peter also hasn't murdered someone, he's not committed an act that stemmed out of emotion, or a great need, or that he regrets.

Peter is a human being that has made the decision to put his greed ahead of tens of thousands of people. At any moment could he say, "ok I'm sorry this was a bad idea" and stop and still gain millions of dollars. He doesn't. He is consciously hurting people for a possibility to make this absurd amount of money.

In my frame of ethics, I can't just let him go around unharassed. If he goes unharassed it means that I, or we as a community, are ok with people behaving in an unethical manner. I'm sorry you had to witness my comment, I know it hurts the thread, but I just can't not make it.

I think I speak for many people on here when I say, we don't care about your drama and don't want this forum to turn into another failed Reddit social justice crusade forum.

If the poster above has an informative post, I'll upvote it regardless of who he is.

It's about the content, not the people.

I usually don’t respond to comments like this because they tend to inflame the conversation; I can tell you care, so I’ll take a shot here at saying my perspective in hopes that it might help add some understanding.

I’m sorry you both lost money and had it locked off for years; many people in the world, including me have had the same experience. I’m not the cause of your loss, and I’m not in control of its return.

Some longer thoughts on the case below; if it expands your perspective all good.

What we have asked for in the six years since we sounded the warning on mt gox insolvency with our suit (a full year of public warning for everyone who used gox) is a fair trial. The trustee repeatedly slowed or stopped that process, including going to the extraordinary measure of helping get Tibanne into bankruptcy six weeks before our US trial so that the case would be stayed. Before then Mark avoided the suit so aggressively that we had to go through The Hague convention to even serve him papers.

That was many many years ago. We have never slowed a single court date or asked for a single extension. We just believe we are owed a fair adjudication of our contract and have proceeded both in confidence on the merits of our case and with the fundamental confidence that a party harmed by breach of a contract has the right to have damages determined.

The narrative that we are the hold up is absolutely not true. In fact, we have never even been offered a settlement from the trustee which we could accept or reject. The trustee cheerfully went to court in venues he thought he could win, even negotiating for a return of some of mutum sigillums seized funds in the US; he could have had a ruling years ago from a US proceeding if he had wanted it. He clearly did not want that.

We just want a ruling from an independent court on our 2012 contract, a contract made during an era of $10 bitcoin with a man who ended up committing US federal money laundering crimes, ‘lost’ 500k+ of the public’s bitcoin and has since been imprisoned.

Public tweets or essays speculating we want something else come from two places - either from those who have decided, a priori, that our contract must not have been valid and therefore doesn’t even deserve due process and ergo is just a form of petulant spoiling, or are funded by VERY large claim holders in a sort of PR based pressure process.

All that said, I would be very happy to continue to talk with you about this in person or on a live chat; my email is vessenes@gmail.com: feel free to reach out to me to continue this dialogue.

As to who has a right to be where online, I will say over the years I have left some of my own thoughts about my career here and benefited immensely from others doing the same. I’d like for there to be places like this that aren’t gate-kept even if people are fighting.

If you look back in my post history you will see one of my first posts/comments is about deciding not to go into business with Jed Mccaleb when he was running gox out of his bedroom in Costa Rica, long before either of us had heard of Mark Karpeles; I think that’s a cool bit of history!

I liked and appreciated the HN community 10 years ago, and hope to be appreciating it in another 10.

> We just believe we are owed a fair adjudication of our contract and have proceeded both in confidence on the merits of our case and with the fundamental confidence that a party harmed by breach of a contract has the right to have damages determined.

Yeah, only problem is your "we only want what's fair" narrative is sliiighly undermined by the fact that you started with a $75M claim, then went to $16B!!!! and now that the $16B claim got thoroughly rejected you changed it to $500M. You ran wild with the $16B claim because the assessment phase didn't require any court fees and you picked the biggest number you could think of, to block the process. Now for the appeal you actually need to pay court fees as a % of your claim and being well aware that the $16B figure is ridiculous, you changed it to a number that's still big enough ($500M) to block the process but you don't have to pay that much court fees.

Not to mention that your contract with Mark only stipulates $50M of liquidated damages and the rest of your claim is based on potential lost revenue if MtGox never went bankrupt. This is not a thing in Japan or anywhere in the world. You know that very well and your lawyers know it very well. The most you could hope for is the $50M and the rest of your claim is just there to block the process and extort the creditors. So, please, drop the "we only want what's fair" charade. You can only fool people not familiar with the case, which is probably what you're after.

It’s a pubic forum. If someone decides to be a shady scam artist, people have a right to point that out regardless of the thread context.

I’d sure agree that Satan is allowed to comment, but other commenters are certainly allowed to point out that the freaking devil showed up.

It’s a public forum with particular guidelines. Personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand are very explicitly against those guidelines.

Statements of fact about a person's previous behavior and actions are not personal attacks.

While the breach/fraud/mix of both/whatever happened was basically out of your control (though should've been considered as a risk; paper wallets have been around as a much more secure storage mechanism for a while), a similar scenario could've occurred if Bitcoin crashed and you sold low, or if it crashed and never recovered.

I don't understand why someone would put 100% of something into a highly volatile and risky investment. Even if this were the ordinary stock market and it was 100% of your savings invested into one or two companies, it'd seem just as absurd.

> And since I paid $11 thousand dollars to be in a position to reply to you, I think I will:

Is there a list of top HN quotes, because I would like to add this one!

I know people can do their own research but if you're posting about someone directly like this, maybe share a link so those of us who don't know can easily find out more about this case.

Taking my own advice, I found this:


No idea of the quality of Bitcoinomics as a source though.

Here's an article that was accurate at the time:


I'm part of the lawsuit that he's blocking, so you could take my word for it that that news article is correct. He has since lowered the claim amount to half a billion, which is still an insane amount that's too large for letting the bankruptcy just proceed.

>You should be ashamed of yourself, at least own it and make your comments under a pseudonym

I've found that this community will turn a blind eye to fraud and corruption, as long as it's done in the name of "disruption" and you're a "tech company".

Could it be changing? I used to be in that camp 10 years ago but in the past couple years my mind changed as these companies became much more nasty in their desperate quest for profitability; I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.

I've ovserved something very different. Lots of debate about the likes of Uber and AirBnB - with the bulk of comments leaning towards condemnation.

I don't think that has ever been true. What companies that are lauded in this community engage in fraud and corruption?

Some people side with the hotel's and the taxi drivers versus AirBnB and Uber, but I don't think circumventing rules and regulations to significantly improve these services is quite the same as fraud and corruption. Especially considering those industries are frequently associated with fraud and corruption themselves.

Not that I don't think Uber and AirBnB have manoeuvred themselves into positions of power that they are abusing or exploiting, but that just means they should be better regulated.

they didn't circumvent laws, they broke them with enough advertising that they got changed. the companies just ignore regulations and profit from it.

>at least own it and make your comments under a pseudonym.

Looks like he's owning it and making his comments under his real name.

Also if you invest your life savings on crypto you deserve whatever may happen to you.

I didn't do that, but I know many who did (like one commenter above) and they exposed their savings to a risk and they got hit. That could have been the end of it and it would have been a sad story, but maybe a good lesson.

That's irrelevant to Peter's unethical behavior though. If you trip because you didn't tie your laces running to the ice cream van, you don't "deserve" people kicking you while you're down. That doesn't make any sense.

> you deserve whatever may happen to you.

Nobody deserves to be ripped off. This comment is absurd and you need to evaluate your morals.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact