I think you can confirm from blockexplorer that MtGox didn't loose a large amount of bitcoins.

This seems to be their offline address: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1KLahQtqDNAXvrjNyfvgSBtAhwco5ZxLp4

There was a transfer at 18:17, at the time MtGox noticed the attack according to this timeline: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=55

There were no transactions in that address before that!
Some on this board claim the hacker sold and bought a large amount of coins at 0.01 to be able to withdraw 1000$ worth of coins at 0.01.
if any of these 400k were affected, this would show up on this address.
of course, noone knows how many coins were at MtGox above that 400k, but these 400k seem to be safe.

they were transferred to multiple other addresses at aprox 22:00 in 50k chunks and are now sitting there.

unless the hacker got hold of the private key of MtGox's offline deposit address, the large recorded transactions were MtGox's.

you are changing your argument with each post you make.

you aren't. you are bound by a function over time/algorithm, and by the fact that everyone agrees to that function by downloading the same bitcoin client.
there are no resources involved in bitcoin creation, aka out of thin air.

by employing resources, you can only make it so that YOU get a bitcoin, instead of someone else.

says who? your guess?


if so, security at MtGox was even worse.
500k should not be online but deposited in an offline address from the beginning.

then why dont you know that the robber - if successful - can launder his bitcoins without MtGox?

just sell and buy on another exchange. exchange one BTC for another. go back to MtGox for withdrawal.

can anyone verify that?

that's kind of important to the story claimed by MtGox.

there now is basically a list of people out there who have wallet.dat's on their computers.
have fun.

has anyone here denied bitcoin could become money? I didn't.

it's just very unlikely, and if so, several government bans are ahead which have to be overturned by the people.

that's not true either.
bitcoins are created by a predetermined function over time.

the whole hashing exercise is just a way to determine their distribution (and to verify transactions) but bitcoins aren't really created by hashing power. the rate of creation stays the same, no matter how much "shit-hot graphics cards" are online.

one lawn-mower could mow the whole world.

sounds to me like they already have a public relations person.

hard work to obtain something doesnt make it valueable.
this guy worked hard with his lawn mower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIaCHqxdSXc&feature=feedf

and he's funny, too, which got to be worth something.

why Huh?, especially on a bitcoin forum?

it has been suggest before they each MtGox user should get their own certificate when signing up so even when someone steals your password he cant login.

but yeah, this should not be sent by mail.

the war FOREX is set up is that each bank is an exchange itself but they also trade with each other.
the existing exchanges should develop an interface that allows them to exchange quotes and trade with each other - which increases liquidity and makes it easier to start many exchanges - anyone, like your local bank could start one then, just by feeding you the quotes of MtGox but your money is actually with them.

FOREX "kind of" is distributed. not as distributed as bitcoin obviously but I don't think that's possible.

but with forex there is no central authority, you trade with your bank and banks trade with each other.
I think the closed thing to a distributed exchange could be that the existing exchanges start to exchange quotes and it gets very easy to set up an exchange so there are many of them.

I didnt watch the video, but bitcoin has parts of a ponzi scheme, namely the graph of money creation.

why the rate of money creation would be the biggest at the beginning, when it was obvious there would be no demand, is beyond me. money creation should have started slowly, then picked up when wider adoption was expected for a couple of years and then decline.
when other monetary systems were started they didnt distribute 10 mil each to 100 people.
the money supply was increased when the currency got more widely used (for example: more countries were added to the eurozone).

now I understand you can't manage this in the same way with bitcoin because there is no central authority, but the graph should have been shaped differently.

this IS satoshi

there is very little market depth right now.
you can make the same jump back by selling 1000 BTC

...and there is your logical fallacy.
it doesnt add to the bitcoin economy if you buy a bond without risk generated by the monetary system.

a paper ("bond") without any risk and with no interest is known as cash, or BTC holdings in this case. why dont you just hold BTC for 2 years?
if you want to convert your cash into capital by buying a bond, there is risk involved, and that is the way it is supposed to be.
riskless bonds is certainly not a goal of a viable monetary system, neither is endless "capital".

the latter point is the main fallacy of our current monetary policy: the assumption that the injection of money creates capital and grows the economy.

that was just the justification for the bill. even gold coins that are legal tender (with a face value) were affected.

Maybe you are making shit up?

IDK.

I guess so, because after I uploaded my wallet.dat all my coins where gone...