"Dollar averaging" is not a rational thing to do, it is only a psychological pacifier, right?

If one bought 100 coins at 800$, buying 100 more at 400$ does not compensate or alleviate the loss of the first buy.  It only mixes a vexing mistake with a minor mistake to make a double dose of a medium-strength mistake.  The loss from the first buy is still there.  Right?

Sorry, I have to go now. @LFC_Bitcoin back on un-ignore, play again later.

I have ignored @LFC_Bitcoin once more!  Now let me try alternating with @ShroomsKit, perhaps it is even better!

And now I have un-ignored @LF_Bitcoin.  Whoa, you folks are right, this is fun!!!

I have put @LFC_Bitcoin on ignore, again.

I have removed @LFC_Bitcoin from my ignore list.

I have added @LFC_Bitcoin to my ignore list.

I understand it the other way around: he is bidding as a client of the Mirror syndicate, which is meant for small clients who cannot afford and/or do not wish to buy one full lot (2000 or 3000 BTC).

He may be also bidding for full lots on his own, though.


Well, as I wrote before, my guess is that he bid under market price, because:

* It doesn't make financial sense to bid at a price higher than one could get elsewhere, including OTC. Note that he was in no hurry to buy, so he could have shopped around at leisure; whereas auction forces people to bid and buy at a fixed date.

* If he had paid above market, he would have said so, to help the price.

Confused about what part is sarcasm... Anyway, the daily trading volume on all exchanges has been higher than ever for the last two months, and has not abated over the last few days.  The price has not been particularly stable either; compare to Aug 01--10, Sep 5--15, ...

What "all this" specifically are you referring to?

Maybe, but there have been so many bankruptcies since WWII that surely there are cases that are similar enough to establish a precedent.  A lawyer would know whether there are precedents that can be used to support your preferred viewpoint, whatever it is.

It is totally useless to discuss what you or I think would be the "right" way to do it without knowing the laws and precedents.


I don't understand what you are trying to say.  By their own books, MtGOX owed their clients more than 800'000 BTC, worth more than 500 million USD then, more than 300 million USD today; not counting the USD balances.  Even after "finding" those 220'000 BTC, it still had only 1/4 of the bitcoins and money that it owed, and had no hope of earning enough fees in a reasonable time to cover the difference.  That is what "insolvent" means.  

When a company is insolvent, by definition it is unable to pay all its creditors.  If the concept of bankruptcy did not exist, when news get out that a company is insolvent, every creditor would sue it in order to get his money; the first ones may succeed, many would go empty-handed.  The purpose of the bankruptcy laws is, first, to prevent that flood of separate lawsuits; then, let an impartial judge evaluate whether there is any chance of the company becoming solvent again in a reasonable time; and, if not, guarantee that the remaining assets are distributed to the creditors as fairly as possible.


There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding.  The trustee is not the new manager of MtGOX, who is supposed to answer to the clients and try to make their wishes.  MtGOX is no more, there is only a messy pile of assets that the court must try to untangle and dispose according to the law.  The trustee works for the judge, not for the former clients, and is obliged to answer to him only.  

What the hellium is that?

Well, here is your first surprise.  It is NOT the creditors who decide the way claims are to be computed and how the spoils are returned.  There are laws and precedents; the trustee will propose suitable formulas and methods to the judge, and then the judge will decide.  I repeat, in case I was not suffirciently clear: the judge decides how the liquidation will happen, within the limits of laws and precedents, not the creditors.

The creditors may (politely and humbly) offer their preferences and suggestions to the trustee, but the trustee is not required to pay attention to them: the only person he must satisfy is the judge.  Yes, the trustee may, and probably will, disappoint the creditors (especially if the creditors insist in believing that they can tell him what to do).  He  will not "drown in lawsuits and counter-measures", because his work will be approved by the judge, step by step, until the funds are distributed -- and you cannot sue a judge just because you did not like his decisions.  

Understand that the trustee is not a servant of the creditors; he is an "employee" of the judge, and was charged by the judge with the task of gathering the assets and claims, and drawing a distribution plan that will satisfy the judge.

That is why you should ASK your lawyer what the laws say about such liquidations, and ASK the trustee what he plans to do.  ASK, and after that maybe SUGGEST; not TELL.  And you had better let a lawyer write up your suggestions, if you want the trustee and the judge to pay attention to them.  

(You don't tell the surgeon how he should proceed with your liver transplant.  If you really think you must, you should tell your concerns to your doctor, and let him talk to the surgeon, in the proper terms.)


And that is one of the reasons that may force the truestee to ignore the account balances, and use some other formula to compute the amount owed to each client.

Isn't it this one, DirectTV vs Puccinelli? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_03-cv-02287/content-detail.html

I did not recall saying that.  What I said is that I do not see risk in interrogating Mark, as long as the drives are in the hands of the receiver. 

I am not happy either with erasing the disks, since advanced forensics could recover files from them that were deleted prior to the receiver taking control.  Any such deleted files probably were not copied when  Fujitsu (or whoever) made the full-image copies.  Perhaps you should point that out  to the receiver.

Actually, I do not see why Kraken would want those disks. 

Actually, I see some risk in involving Kraken. At this stage, every bitcoin entrepreneur is in principle suspect of involvement in the disappearance of the coins, IMHO.

The winning bidders must make sure that the money is in the USMS bank account "by 2:00pm EST, on Monday, December 8, 2014." If a bidder fails to do so, the next one in line is notified and given a similar deadline to do the same.  Defaulting bidders lose their deposit, so there should be no defaults and the outcome will be defined by Monday afternoon.

Last time the auction was on a Friday, and the USMS revealed that "single buyer got it all" on the next Monday.

However, the announcement for this auction says "The USMS will not release any information to the general public pertaining to the auction process or results."  I don recall seeing this explicit statement in the previous announcement.  So perhaps they will not even tell us how many winning bidders there were, and whether all lots were sold.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/?m=1

Indeed, blockchain gawkers noticed the movement of the coins shortly before the USMS announced the opening of the auction.  But the USMS announcement came out on June 11, and the Bitstamp price dropped by 25$ on that same day.  The announcement was all over the news the next day, June 12, and the price dropped another 25$.

The auction took place on June 27, and the fact that it had a single winner (but not his identity) was revealed on June 30; the price recovered on that same day.

I don't think the market cares about that number.  News of VC investments in this or that firm did not seem to have any effect on the price.

Last time, the price had a sudden drop right after the auction was announced (June 12) then recovered when it was known that a single bidder won all the lots (June 30).

This time there was no drop when the auction was announced. Has the outcome been posted yet?

IIRC the plan is to collect the claims by May 2015, and validate them by September 2015.  But Kobayashi still doesn't know how the claims will be filed.  Instructions on how to file your claim will be posted on that site, once he figures it out.   

The victims seem to be assuming that what they are owed is their final balance as stated in MtGOX's database.  That is not the rule in such cases: the balance is ignored, claim is defined as deposits minus withdrawals.  But, again, wishful thinking dominates...