Potentially held in less liquid forms? So it could be difficult to get the money out fast enough.
If so, why not just point to the wallets and say “the money is here but it’s just gonna be slow to access”?
Yeah, it’s naive when people readily believe things that could easily be verified but aren’t. That’s why I’m a proponent of what this Lw user calls adversarial epistemology.
That’s a fractional reserve scheme—they said they were carrying it all in untouched accounts.
Is there any way that could possibly be true, given the events of the last few days?
I assume not, no.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Potentially held in less liquid forms? So it could be difficult to get the money out fast enough.
If so, why not just point to the wallets and say “the money is here but it’s just gonna be slow to access”?
Yeah, it’s naive when people readily believe things that could easily be verified but aren’t. That’s why I’m a proponent of what this Lw user calls adversarial epistemology.
That’s a fractional reserve scheme—they said they were carrying it all in untouched accounts.
Is there any way that could possibly be true, given the events of the last few days?
I assume not, no.