There's no real evidence that they did anything. Lots of speculation and circumstantial stuff, a lot of which is hearsay.

Besides, now that the lawyers are involved, there's likely to be court proceedings, so maybe best to wait and see if they say they are guilty before the forum declares them guilty. They'll have access to all the facts at least.  

Yeah - sorry - i just can't buy into the story that they got owned multiple times, and are the security gurus they claim to be. One of the two is false.

Take your pick, negligent morons, of plain old thieves. Either way, to run the business knowing that you're either, is a SCAM. Thus, they are scammers in my book.

They have repeatedly been less than truthful, if not outright dishonest. They have repaid their friends before others, and then suffered more losses due to thier delays, negligence and or theft.

I've suspected criminal behavior because of the mounting numbers of red flags in the whole process from the time zhou tong started cashing out, and having slow withdrawals during major market moves. I suspected then, and noted it, that they were bordering on insolvency. I continue to suspect that they hid the majority of insolvency, and the thefts were perpetrated to hide this fact. The timings were all too very convenient. With this final one, I don't think the series of crimes is any longer plausible.

Given the behavior I've noted for the past few months, I am pretty sure that Zhoutong knew there was something up (thus he was cashing out, and "leaving bitcoin" -- I'm also pretty sure Patrick knew what was going on, and has carefully spoken so as to not "lie" to anyone, while completely failing to tell much , if any, truth. How much did any one in the fund know? hmm. Hard to say - that's why - I'm not sure who the criminal is here, but I'm sure it's an insider.

I've talked with Patrick enough on IRC to come to the conclusion that he isn't an operations or security expert, no matter his own opinion. I've also come to the conclusion he's a pretty sharp guy nonetheless. It just seems to me very hard to swallow that they've just been guilty of incompetence and stupidity. They have not shown enough of either to make that plausible. There must be an additional factor. If that additional factor is not criminal, I cannot imagine what it must be.

MD said in another thread, that it  was quite convienet for them to get hacked again, when he and 2 others began to sue them...
of cource its circumstantial, but i think that its way more possible that they are skewing us over and over again, then that they are trying to pay there customers... just saying.

Violence is never a solution to any problem other than self defense. Ever.

I had all of one bitcoin at bitcoinica. I never trusted those bitcoinica guys because they're statists and promote regulating bitcoin. Statists are never that competent - be sure of that.

I think we need a new tag for them, like "FELONS"

Finally someone with a working brain.
And what about that other PR stunt about the "I'm leaving Bitcoin" ?

Hazek, I'm happy to see that your ignore label is less than orange now.

I vote no, because a scammer tag would serve no purpose other than as a slap in the face.

Says the person suggesting we should pick up bats and solve this problem like they use to do back when we lived in a cave..  

And how exactly does that make it a good solution or a solution at all? For someone telling people they have a low IQ you seem to be have a lot of problems with thinking correctly yourself.

+1

They still owe me 225 BTC, but this is my thought exactly - certainly something looks a bit fishy here, but I'm not rushing to judgement.