|
The money was allegedly stolen from MtGox and MtGox accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
I picked "other" because while I trust strongly that mtgox will not screw me or other honest traders on his own I worry that he will be willing in the future to comply with third parties concerning our accounts. So far there is not much evidence for this, he hasn't tried any KYC stuff which is a good sign. He does have a $1000/day restriction which I believe is based on his understanding of some regulation from some government. I don't have a problem with the rule; I can see already how it has saved some money from fraud. But I'm concerned about what will happen if a government that he considers himself subject to writes down that bitcoins must be destroyed or some nonsense like that.
Maybe he does have more loyalty to justice than to governments, but that isn't clear to me.
Concerning Baron's case, well done imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you manually turn the fee on? Right now no fee is usually required.
Like Neereus said it goes to the person who was able to include your transaction in a valid block.
|
|
|
|
We are left having to assume that baron is in fact person B. baron’s account on mtgox holds less than the sum of theft by person B.
I'm pretty sure he means that he is retaking funds stolen from himself and from people who's funds he was holding. I guess it could be a tad more clear. |
|
|
|
|
So it is necessary to have war because if there isn't war then there will be war anyway? Is that a fair summation?
|
|
|
|
Also, i don't like the "judge, jury and executioner" approach shown by mtgox.
In what way has mtgox acted as judge, jury or executioner? He came over a heap of stolen money, and blocked the account while the investigation goes on. Would there be any other sensible thing to do? Any other legal options? If mtgox do something illegal here, like releasing the account with stolen funds before the matter is completely resolved, we are all at risk of loosing everything we have on mtgox. If he has strong , I repeat very strong proof that I am that "thief", so he must go to police and provide that proof to them, and only with police permission he can block money You can read the proof in this thread. It is damning evidence, and mtgox doesn't need more than that to block your account. In most jurisdictions a bank or exchange has to block the account when stolen money get transferred to it. VISA, MasterCard, PayPal and your bank would do the exact same thing without waiting for the police. They are not allowed to let the thief run away with the stolen money. You claim to have lawyers, but I doubt it. Still, what MTGOX did is far from lawful/good/just. You see, on mtgox.com page, there are no terms of service, no anti-scam policy, nothing. When users register, they do not agree to anything ! So mtgox had no damn right to do anythyng, *INCLUDING* any freezing funds ! And not only that, mtgox is not even a fucking bank. So if Baron is really innocent, and sues mtgox, this will end very badly for mtgox (and possibly Bitcoin's reputation may suffer because of that a little). Time to look for another exchange i guess ? Are you telling me you wouldn't take back your own money if you hadn't previously stated that it was your policy to take back your own money? |
|
|
|
Governments goto war like no company ever did. Not saying war is good, but sometimes it is a necessary evil.
This is an assertion, and a disgusting one, with no support at all. What awful thing would happen if governments stopped killing millions of people? Why do you think war is necessary? And if it is necessary then stop calling it evil. Nothing that is necessary makes the world worse than it could otherwise be. |
|
|
|
Would it help if you restructured that way payments were sent so that it wouldn't always be new coins from the change of the last transaction? Like maybe break your stash into a bunch of .05 addresses and let them age and then you can send them out with no change?
No. The only way to "break your stash" is to create transactions that are broadcast; splitting your wallet into lots of small transactions makes the problem worse for you and everybody else (it is more 'expensive' to handle fistfulls of nickels and pennies, even in the bitcoin world). Okay, I was thinking that since the splitting was going to be done anyway you could just do it early to give the coins age and therefore priority. But if that's no good would it at least help a little to not put donations all in one address so that the entire faucet balance doesn't get sent as change every time? Maybe I'm confused or maybe that isn't even happening anymore, thanks for humoring me. |
|
|
|
Afaik it won't really speed it up in the current situation, but as soon as bitcoin becomes more popular it will help proceeding transactions faster.
Actually, I'm considering turning on transaction fees for the Bitcoin Faucet because small transactions with "new" coins are given very low priority, and recently new users are noticing that their Faucet coins are not arriving promptly. Would it help if you restructured that way payments were sent so that it wouldn't always be new coins from the change of the last transaction? Like maybe break your stash into a bunch of .05 addresses and let them age and then you can send them out with no change? |
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't mean most, just that there must be some. I've had transactions not get in the next block. And when that happens it usually takes a few blocks to get. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'm wrong. The delayed transactions may only have happened when I sent ~10 and usually all but one would get in which means there aren't miners who only take fees. Maybe miners that usually take zero fee, but delay with some probability? Seems unlikely. I also thought I'd seen others having the same issue, but I didn't look carefully.
This was over a month ago, but I assumed it still happened and I just wasn't seeing it because I'm sending less often now.
At present, fees are nothing compared to the block reward. It makes no economic sense for a miner to avoid fee-free blocks. Yeah, I wouldn't do it. But I could see people thinking "I'm going to be doing this for a long time and the sooner people get in the habit of paying fees the better for me". Like I said though I'm probably wrong. It was probably just low priority payments not fitting in that part because I was doing a bunch and they were small and probably new since I had been receiving lots of small amounts around that time. |
|
|
|
Ok some examples.
Organised internet crime gangs trojan your laptop and get access to your online banking. They buy hundreds of coins from themselves with YOUR money. When you discover and tell your bank, can the bank look and see where the money went?
Columbian drug gangs deposit huge bags of hundred dollar bills in a St Maarten bank account. That bank has a USD account on Wall St. They convert the dollar bills to credit in their Chase Manhattan account and buy hundreds of coins from their Barclays account in the UK. American officials then raid the St Maarten bank. Are they able to notify Barclays?
An arms company in Germany wants to take a contract from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to supply 5000 machine rifles. They know that while this kind of arms sales are legitimate business in Germany, it is illegal to trade with the Iranian regime. Can they use bitcoin to collect on the contract?
I'm sorry my answers didn't help. There is no magic here. If you use the standard banking system to buy coins then the trade in the standard system can be seen like always. And yes, bad people can do bad things with bitcoin. This has nothing to do with bitcoin whatsoever. Bad people can do bad things with forks too. That has nothing to do with forks. |
|
|
|
|
If there even is anyone who could be called an "administrator of Bitcoin" then the answer is no. Nobody is in any special position to track who is using bitcoin. This doesn't mean that no one can at all. For example you could keep track of which of your friends are using Bitcoin by asking them and writing it down. Or you could search the web for people who say that they use it. No one ever needs permission to use bitcoin nor is there anyone who could grant that permission.
The money used to buy coins goes to the person who sold them. Sometimes that is a person who found the coin by doing computational work and sometimes it is someone who previously bought the coin or received it in return for goods or services. There is no guarantee that you can get anything for them; there is only the fact that you can. This might sound odd, but think about your dollar, what is promised for that? A fresh new dollar? A dollar has value if people take them, same as a bitcoin.
Bitcoin does not stop fraud or theft, neither does my refrigerator or the dollar.
|
|
|
|
Is there any incentive at all to pay transaction fees if the block size is less than its maximum size? If the block is less than the maximum size, won't all transactions be included in the block regardless of fees paid?
Some miners are not putting transactions in if there is no fee. I presume this is to incentivise fees. Evidence? I see plenty of blocks with zero fees. Oh, I didn't mean most, just that there must be some. I've had transactions not get in the next block. And when that happens it usually takes a few blocks to get. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'm wrong. The delayed transactions may only have happened when I sent ~10 and usually all but one would get in which means there aren't miners who only take fees. Maybe miners that usually take zero fee, but delay with some probability? Seems unlikely. I also thought I'd seen others having the same issue, but I didn't look carefully. This was over a month ago, but I assumed it still happened and I just wasn't seeing it because I'm sending less often now. I'm probably totally wrong. |
|
|
|
Very nice observation. In theory it's true, but I don't fully agree. Most sellers currently are miners. And when selling they set price that they think is profitable for them.
Considers: 300 bitcoin per hours. In a 24 hours period, 7,200 BTC are generated. That mean that the market must move 7,200 BTC a day. I don't think it must. I mine, but I don't sell. Btw, I think I just found a chain that was missing in my head. Here it is: If you want to have bitcoins, you can buy them, or you can mine them.That's basically it. Verbose version: Having this choice, you could also hire somebody to mine it for you. But either way, you have to spend money on mining or on buying. If mining gets more expensive, then less people will go for the second option. So that creates more demand, and as you noticed supply is constant, therefore it should push price up. Even if a miner keeps them "the market" is still absorbing them because the miner is part of the market. And you aren't going to keep them for ever anyway (I assume), so there will be a day with more new coins offered than average in the future. |
|
|
|
Just like there aren't enough speculators in the gold market to stabilise the gold price?
Bitcoin probably fluctuate more than gold price fluctuate. The point is, there's a lack of volume. If you buy 10,000 dollars worth of bitcoin, it's going to change rapidly. Yeah, it would move the price by about 10%, this is temporary though. Six months ago it would have bought all coins on offer several times over. |
|
|
|
Is there any incentive at all to pay transaction fees if the block size is less than its maximum size? If the block is less than the maximum size, won't all transactions be included in the block regardless of fees paid?
Some miners are not putting transactions in if there is no fee. I presume this is to incentivise fees. |
|
|
|
Afaik it won't really speed it up in the current situation, but as soon as bitcoin becomes more popular it will help proceeding transactions faster.
Actually, I'm considering turning on transaction fees for the Bitcoin Faucet because small transactions with "new" coins are given very low priority, and recently new users are noticing that their Faucet coins are not arriving promptly. Ouch, gotta worry about word getting out that "Bitcoin charges 20% on microtransactions". But of course slow transactions look bad too. |
|
|
|
I think this Bitcoin thing is starting to catch on. |
|
|
|
It is a misconception is that difficulty drives price. Price is as always determined by supply and demand.
And difficulty doesn't effect the supply of coins since the rate of new coins is unrelated to the difficulty. So it isn't a factor in price
Very nice observation. In theory it's true, but I don't fully agree. Most sellers currently are miners. And when selling they set price that they think is profitable for them. The can set whatever price they want, but only prices that people are willing to pay become the actual price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
