I predict: <_matthew_> Oh look, another genius has a question about my bet. What's it going to be this time-- how do you feel about your bet now? Do you really have the money? How come you didn't use escrow? Do you have insider information? Does knowing how to stick my foot up your ass count as insider information? A week from 9/5 would be 9/12... 3 days after the bet ends. Hopefully we know the answers to the majority of those questions by then. |
|
|
|
42.5kBTC now.
It's funny that this is getting up to be a significant percentage of the estimated Pirate debt at the time of collapse. Pirate being Matthew's backer would be quite a funny twist; if Pirate has enough BTC left and could afford to buy back enough of his debt at a really distressed rate, he could still make out handsomely on this without being as open to getting in trouble with the law.
It's a chicken-and-egg problem though... Pirate can't pay back all of his debt until Matthew receives the winning funds from winning his bet, but Matthew can't receive the winning funds from winning his bet until Pirate pays back all of his debt. Unless one of them can happen upon a $5M loan, I doubt that it's even a reasonable plan to think about. Matthew - up me to 82 BTC please... 18TKNbSLTrd3a2W8mtoH5uNzFhWRWNcuHU |
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/6oZVa.jpgTo be honest, I'm sure all kinds of blackmail threats are made towards candidates every election year. What's notable about this one - hoax or not - is that it became public. where'd you get that? No, but seriously, where'd you get that? |
|
|
|
Hi QuantumKiwi, Most of the Bitcoin-based "hosting companies" that have come prior to you have been crap startups, probably resellers posing as real hosts. Either terrible customer support or terrible hosting services (slow, unreliable, etc). Or both. So, I think your #1 selling point would be simply pointing at your track record of happy customers (which you hopefully already have), and showing people that you ARE a reliable, trustworthy, customer-oriented host. Users looking to host financial services on your platform would also be very interested in your security practices. Are the disks encrypted? Does anyone have local access to the server in a logged-in state, or would they have to restart the server and enter a different username/password to gain access? There have been Bitcoin thefts by workers at datacenters, so creating a bulletproof configuration where no one besides the person renting the machine can gain access to the system while it is logged in is important. And of course, disk encryption is equally important as well. Publishing a lot of information regarding your security practices could go a long way in securing trust among the Bitcoin community. Just my two bitcents.  |
|
|
|
Sorry, but that's flawed reasoning. You are saying you trust people more because they have proved they are not trustworthy. By that reasoning you should trust bitcoinica with everything you have.
+1, unfortunately. My life experience suggests that people actually don't learn lessons and instead repeat prior behavior if they can get away with it. (This is not a personal judgment about any particular person.) The operators of Bitfloor should have learned their lesson from the hacks of all the other Bitcoin exchanges. That they did not points to either gross negligence or criminal intent, neither of which should instill confidence in anyone. Tis a valid point, but not everyone learns well secondhand. Many people learn best by failure. I don't think failure implies purposeful negligence in all cases. No, I am saying I trust people more who have "learned their lesson" already vs people who haven't. I trust someone who has been through the hell of losing $200k of customer funds more than someone who hasn't, because they're going to do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen again. They will have better security practices, procedures, and knowledge the second time around.
There are two different qualities at issue here - the first is a person's diligence/competence, the second is their honesty. A painful mistake is likely to help a person learn to be more diligent/careful in the future, because they do not want to experience the consequences again. A painful mistake won't make a dishonest person into an honest person. I don't know the man personally but my impression is that Roman is an honest person who was insufficiently diligent/competent in the operation of his business. His behavior post-event seems to be that of a person owning up to and trying to fix the error in the best way possible. Absolutely agree. I believe Roman to be honest, and I wasn't trying to say that I would trust a dishonest person more after they stole people's money. I trust an honest person more if they make a mistake, own up to it, and learn from it. |
|
|
|
+1 to this. If Bitfloor comes back, I would trust it a lot more than any new exchange that might come to take its place, because I know Bitfloor has learned its lesson the hard way already, and hopefully won't have to learn it again. A new guy will probably fall into the same "oh, it won't happen to ME" trap that Roman did.
Sorry, but that's flawed reasoning. You are saying you trust people more because they have proved they are not trustworthy. By that reasoning you should trust bitcoinica with everything you have. No, I am saying I trust people more who have "learned their lesson" already vs people who haven't. I trust someone who has been through the hell of losing $200k of customer funds more than someone who hasn't, because they're going to do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen again. They will have better security practices, procedures, and knowledge the second time around. Of course, that's not a statement that stands entirely on its own. Obviously, I will do my own due diligence to make sure that they actually have implemented better security measures, and that I am satisfied with the way they have resolved the prior security breach, etc. It's like riding a bike up a hill. Some people may try to ride straight up the hill, but it is too steep to do it - they will fail. Others will take the longer path that winds around the hill. Now, I don't know who is taking the path and who is trying to ride straight up, but I know that if someone DOES try to ride straight up, and fails, they're unlikely to try it again. Therefore, anyone who fails is more likely to take the longer path that winds around than anyone who hasn't failed yet. |
|
|
|
Also, I trust MtGox because it was previously hacked, and was forced to review its security procedures. Someone new may not care until they got hurt badly. Should it come back, I would trust Bitfloor more than other new exchanges (assuming their security policies we're also publicly scrutinized), because, like MtGox, they were forced to learn from mistakes and the owner knows just now much stupid oversights can cost him.
+1 to this. If Bitfloor comes back, I would trust it a lot more than any new exchange that might come to take its place, because I know Bitfloor has learned its lesson the hard way already, and hopefully won't have to learn it again. A new guy will probably fall into the same "oh, it won't happen to ME" trap that Roman did. |
|
|
|
the stupid feature of exchanges are instant withdrawals....why not keep everything in cold wallets and process btc withdrawls once a day...manually...
That's kind of what I was thinking... I'd much rather have secured funds at this point than the ability to instantly withdraw them. |
|
|
|
|
He'll pay out if he loses. I have the utmost confidence of that.
|
|
|
|
I have put the website back online for users who have USD to request a withdrawal via ACH. If you choose to leave your USD funds in the account they will be available for trading once it resumes. I hope to resume trading later in the week.
If you had outstanding orders they have all been cancelled.
Once trading resumes, I hope to be able to start repaying BTC losses using the proceeds from fees. More information about this will be provided later.
So basically, BTC withdrawals will be delayed until you have the funds to pay for them? Or both BTC and USD withdrawals (after you allow whoever wants to withdraw via ACH to do so)? What if I trade for USD (once you re-enable trading), then request an ACH withdrawal? |
|
|
|
|
shtylman, what does "currently evaluating" mean? Do you have the ability to pay for 24k BTC out of your own pocket, or are you looking for outside investments? I appreciate you being upfront about the attack, but do I have any hope of seeing any of my deposited BTC again?
Also, to those saying that USD should be paid out - no, it should not. If Bitfloor does indeed default on its obligations, then a court ruling would have it pay out equally to remaining creditors. Not 100% to USD creditors, and 2% to BTC creditors. Therefore, shtylman should hold on to any USD he has until he has decided what course of action to take, and use it to pay out on claims on a bankruptcy liquidation, should it come to that.
|
|
|
|
^^^ This is a really good thought. Having replaceable chips would at least provide a modicum of protection against any unforeseen changes in the protocol later on. Also, shipping would be so much simpler for BFL as well without having to produce another device, just send out the chips.
It'd be a terrible idea for BFL. They have plenty of orders WITHOUT adding extra complications, why would they need to or choose to do something like this? They have an effective monopoly on the market. Once there's some actual competition in the market, one of the vendors might give something like this a try to get a competitive edge against the others in the market. |
|
|
|
|
In general, not knowing the circumstances, I'd say yes. But there are obvious exceptions to the rule, as Snapman points out.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, an investment rating service wouldn't be all that useful for this community. Rating services are typically targeted at the masses to give them a "quick and dirty" of potential investments. Some people here might be interested in that, but what would be much more useful is...
A proper auditing service. A service that verifies the names, social security numbers, tax identification numbers, addresses, phone numbers, domain whois, IP addresses, relatives, etc of anyone who wishes to conduct business with the auditing service's stamp of approval. A service that verifies that the business actually holds the number of Bitcoins it claims it holds. A service that verifies that the business's accounting practices are at least in as much accordance with GAAP as is possible with Bitcoin. A service that ensures the owner isn't just going to up-and-run without being extremely traceable. A service that will, literally, fly to meet business people face to face for these auditing services, and make notes of EVERYTHING noticed.
Now THAT would be a service worth paying for, both on a subscription basis from the investor point of view, and on a fee basis from the business point of view of anyone who wishes to conduct a verifiably legitimate Bitcoin business.
Is it worth setting up a new auditing service focused solely on Bitcoin-based businesses, instead of using existing auditing resources? Perhaps, as existing auditing services likely wouldn't know the first thing about how to check for proper Bitcoin accountability. But that's not to say they can't learn, and maybe one of them will see the potential market, and make the effort to do so.
ANYWAY, go for it. A rating service certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.
Auditing wouldn't be a bad idea, the problem is getting the company to co-operate with an auditor. I would put "independently audited financials" as one of the major "objective" criteria. It's requirement to go public anyways. Well, that's exactly it. Having the auditing service's "seal of approval" would be a major competitive advantage in this world of scams and trickery. No Bitcoin business can currently be 100% trusted, because none of them are independently audited. As soon as one business jumped onboard the audit train, people would flock to them just because they are then much more trustable than any of their competition. Thus, businesses would have incentive to cooperate with the auditors, so that they may draw customers towards their services. |
|
|
|
|
How did I miss being in on THIS thread for so long?
Subscribe to ALL the BFL threads!
|
|
|
|
|
You were still wrong. It took 33 minutes. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
[...], or stay out of those pots until it's just the more reasonable people left in the game.
Trouble is by then everyone's got twice as many chips as me. This is true.  |
|
|
|
|
Then no, I haven't been told anything other than that they'll start shipping them in October.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
