I've been waiting for someone to say this, because price usually starts moving soon after.  |
|
|
|
I have a hunch that coinexchanger were in fact the people behind this whole hacking business.
Really, based on what? His claim that they received stolen coins, backed by absolutely zero evidence? If it was true that he had stolen coins, they'd be selling for cheaper than MtGox. They're not! Asking price at coinexchanger ridiculously high (not even counting the withdrawal fee). Conclusion: coinexchanger = troll. I mentioned this in another thread, but basically, the fees don't matter to someone looking for an anonymous, easy and shady place to unload for quick and easy cash. To be honest, CoinExchanger is starting to look like the only place the hacker could go if he wanted to avoid the wrath of the community (since CoinExchanger is full on douchebag). But the fees matter to the buyer. That's why we have reports of a couple of folks who bought possibly stolen coins from cryptoXchange - because they were the cheaper than mtgox. Until coinExchanger can be confirmed to be selling coins below mtgox price, anyone investigating him is wasting their energy on an obvious troll who should just be ignored. |
|
|
|
I have a hunch that coinexchanger were in fact the people behind this whole hacking business.
Really, based on what? His claim that they received stolen coins, backed by absolutely zero evidence? If it was true that he had stolen coins, they'd be selling for cheaper than MtGox. They're not! Asking price at coinexchanger ridiculously high (not even counting the withdrawal fee). Conclusion: coinexchanger = troll. |
|
|
|
His words aren't evidence. They are a troll's lies. There's zero reason to believe CoinExchange has received stolen coins - their asking price is way higher than MtGox! On the other hand, there is evidence that some of the stolen coins were sold on CryptoXchange below the MtGox price. see thread. Until there is some evidence to the contrary, CoinExchange is nothing but a distraction. |
|
|
|
OK, I see now that you're the sole writer of the options. And I also see that you're the only who sets the prices. The spreads are way too large. I'd prefer to make my own bid to a market, not buy from you at whatever price you set. It's not an exchange bitcoinBull. You get 100% liquidity at the quoted rates.
You call it an exchange on your site. And its not 100% liquidity if you refuse orders that are "too large". The system is designed to allow anonymous use of the exchange.
...
I reserve the right to refuse any transactions for any reason (including excess risk load on the book, order too large to effectively hedge etc)
|
|
|
|
that boat has sailed and won't be coming back for a long time
I agree. Not this year. I think $7.20 will be the 2012 high. Most recent sell-off is a barely noticable blip, and yet the incident that triggered it was far worse than Tradehill closing its doors IMO. Your attempt at triple-reverse psychology will troll me no longer. Of course it was just a coincidence that the hack happened while I was trolling for a drop. And in the interest of full disclosure, I was actually long on bitcoinica and just wanted to improve my base price. Things were looking fairly bullish to me. I closed the bitcoinica position about 30 minutes before I sold everything on MtGox.
|
|
|
|
He IS the first person to receive the stolen coins and within seconds of receiving was posting that he received them and their spot value. That's highly unlikely for an unconnected party, no?
You're claiming this with absolutely zero evidence. Anyone can link to blockchain.info (it wasn't even CoinExchanger who posted the link, but Jonathan Ryan Owens - and is meaningless in any case). There is no reason to believe that there is any connection whatsoever between CoinExchanger and bitcoinica's stolen bitcoins. For you to assert that there is, is both confusing and counterproductive. Your activism/leadership may be well-intentioned, but its beginning to look overzealous and borderline irresponsible. It is not what one would expect from a professional (director of bitcoin magazine), and to be honest I'm growing a bit uncomfortable having trusted you with my pre-order for the magazine. |
|
|
|
|
An improved UI might attract more buyers (which in turn could attract more sellers).
|
|
|
|
|
Where's your evidence? You need more than a large font size to support this accusation.
|
|
|
|
Probably shouldn't of posted that.. But then again i would love to find out where they came from to.
I was paid this morning in BTC for USD from a vendor from a online market. Like a USD for BTC exchange.
I am trying to find more info on this person...
How did you send the USD? Liberty Reserve, moneyPak? |
|
|
|
Hi,
We have noticed you have deposited recently 7 BTC and have a reason to believe those coins may have come from the coins stolen from Bitcoinica (see the bitcointalk forum for more details).
We'd like to know where you transferred those coins from in order to help with the current ongoing investigation. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much,
XXXX,XXXXX
MtGox Co. Ltd. WHat the F is going on here... I was paid BTC in exchange for money and now i get this??!! what the fuck Well now we're all very curious to know. Where / from who did you buy the BTC? |
|
|
|
I cant help but know some Linode employee wont be at work tomorrow.
This all is way way way to convenient, seems like an inside job planned overtime with the knowledge of who runs worthwhile bitcoin services and on which VPS accounts.
This is alot of money, please for all of us make its your top priority to get compensation out of Linode otherwise any future losses less than this would be seen acceptable by these crappy hosting companies or other services.
Indeed. It seems rather odd that a random hacker would systematically probe linode for security flaws, and then magically find 8 customers related to bitcoin, and methodically empty their wallets. This is clearly somebody from the inside. They could have been observing bitcoin node ip addresses and found that 8 of them belonged to linode. Could have observed that the transaction broadcasts of bitcoinica withdrawals were originating from one of those 8. Then concluded that bitcoinica's hot wallet was on a linode VPS. |
|
|
|
Operator of Silk Road?
Coincidently with this incident I went to check the road, and guess what... The Silk Road is down for maintenance. We will get the site back up asap. Thank you for your patience. Now this would be interesting. Wild speculation here.. but SR could've been hosting their online-wallet at linode and may have been one of the other 5 linode accounts accessed. |
|
|
|
Right. So this thread has gone from straight up FUD to tin foil hatting.
Guys from SomethingAwful would do something like this and delete the wallets just for shits and giggles. Get over yourselves.
Hah. Guys from SA would never because they could never. Linode compromise was leet indeed. |
|
|
|
remember the buy/cover target I set forth subscribers
Hopefully you take multi-thousand BTC hacking dumps into account for market analysis =] Hah. Here I was waiting for a mundane market movement, and then Linode is compromised for the bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Let just hope you don't store 40K bitcoin of your customer's money on your red hot wallet next time.
It's not customers' money anymore, but his loss. There's plenty of blame to go around (starting with Linode), but I have enough confidence that zhou can eat the loss, and then make it back. |
|
|
|
|
Guy can't sell those coins on MtGox yet, they'd be too easily traced back and MtGox would seize them in cooperation with bitcoinica.
The selling going on isn't stolen coins. Will take weeks or months to get enough confirmations and transactions for the stolen coins to be sufficiently mixed that the thief can sell them.
|
|
|
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it. Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode. In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot. |
|
|
|
I can't believe the hacker!
Don't even let off 5 Bitcoins...  If you think about it that is pretty low - attack the free bitcoin faucent wtf?  It was just for confirming he had access to all of Linode. They said only 8 accounts were accessed (presumably those running bitcoind), so one question is, who were the other 5 and did they have any coins in their wallet? Also, why 25k BTC? That's the exact same number allinvain lost. allinvain had a bit more than 25k in his wallet, but the thief only stole 25k even and let him keep the rest. |
|
|
|
|
I think an additional measure would be for services to broadcast transactions from their hot wallets strictly behind proxies (as simple as connecting it to a single, separate bitcoind without a wallet hosted somewhere else?), wherever they are hosted. That way attackers can't figure out the ip address of your hot wallet just by lurking in #bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
