 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
This aquent makes false chat with magicaltux all the time. Just another attention freak.
attention whore... not freak. (remark: it is no insult, it just fits better) |
|
|
|
|
Fake-trash...
MK would no longer speak to that person, I guess... He is purpodedtly publishing any single dialogue.
|
|
|
|
Spot on. Like I said before this is about using whatever legal options are available to us to pursue the coins and get to the truth of the matter. If she had remained in Japan by his side then there would be no need for this. But I'm sorry, the timing of her move out of the country is too convenient given the facts we do know and does warrant further investigation on that front.
The fact is if she is innocent in all this then she should have nothing to fear from an official investigation.
So, what are you personally going to do about it? Are you just about to do some "official steps" against her? Or are you just spreading chevy here? |
|
|
|
|
Which if from which to which date?
|
|
|
|
I think at least 1257 BTC, and probably not much more, were lost through the malleability bug. Based on the fact that there were 1257 BTC in double spent inputs in the last full bitcoin_tx.php I could get hold of before they shut down. MtGox wouldn't detect the fact that the inputs were spent when the transaction got a new txid, and try to spend them again in another transaction.
You seem to have separate data, which are suitable for similar scans? |
|
|
|
Looks good, I hope this result can be verified!
It has already been shown to be wrong. They were only looking at broadcasted transactions which were broadcasted through the network, i.e. accepted by and relayed by standard bitcoin clients. MtGox's vulnerable transactions weren't accepted by bitcoin clients after version 0.8, and not relayed. The transactions were only published through MtGox's API, and the researchers didn't look there. The transactions published in their API included a signature which could be changed into a valid one by a simple modification, and this is (probably) how the theft happened. Can you explain that? How can transactions be made "invisible"? Because the transactions will not be accepted by bitcoin nodes. Invalid transactions are discarded and not relayed to other clients, just as when someone send your client some random data. It may even disconnect the other node and blacklist it. (The MtGox transactions were not invalid enough to warrant a blacklist, just non-standard so normal bitcoin nodes won't accept or relay them, but will accept them if mined in a block by someone else.) I can only barely understand the technical details of the paper, I must admit that. But if what your are saying is correct, how could thexy detect the TM after the media impact, if their algorithms were based on rejecting nodes? That i do not understand. However, when it should turn out, that the paper is plain wrong, there is still a huge doubt about the purpordedtly loss of ALL BITCOINS by means of this "bug". The simple difference is, that we do not a have a proof yet. Still there is one thing to check, in my opinion. The authors claimed that they could fit their recorded data to the database-data from Mt.Gox. That should be done before rejecting their work as "wrong", shouldnt it? |
|
|
|
Looks good, I hope this result can be verified!
It has already been shown to be wrong. They were only looking at broadcasted transactions which were broadcasted through the network, i.e. accepted by and relayed by standard bitcoin clients. MtGox's vulnerable transactions weren't accepted by bitcoin clients after version 0.8, and not relayed. The transactions were only published through MtGox's API, and the researchers didn't look there. The transactions published in their API included a signature which could be changed into a valid one by a simple modification, and this is (probably) how the theft happened. Can you explain that? How can transactions be made "invisible"? Of course the API would have been a better source, but still they also must have appeared in the public history... that is why they had the data. |
|
|
|
|
Well, you are just putting the words on a pair of gold scales.
Of course he does not represent the cummunity... in the first place it is his own damage which he is representing.
But the fact is: He is making it much more public and factual (e.g. communication with the court) than most of the people (including me) in this forum, who are just spreading FUD in this forum for about 2 months now. Still the advantage is, that you have the opportunity (it is optinal for everyone) to join a possible class-action or not. Additionally, you can follw his efforts on a public site, which is way more useful, than any other egoistic suit.
@anarchy: I am a follower of yours. Please keep it up and do not show drawback. We all have this feeling, that we are getting closer to the truth!!
|
|
|
|
This wall of text is completely useless for us. anarchy is asking open questions here. There is nothing wrong about it. I would highly recommend you to either censore your spammy post or just capture the main points in it....  |
|
|
|
I hope we get at the end of all our money (especially our Bitcoins) and no one have to go to prison.
No one to prison? Why would you hope such a thing? There should be defenetly punishment against fraudulent behavior, since it already did a lot of damage, even if BTCs are fully recovered. |
|
|
|
I would like to bring this to you attention: http://blog.mtgoxrecovery.com/post/80896471394/reply-from-mtgox(I do not know, whether it has been posted somewhere here already, but imo it really has to occur in this section) The letter from Olivier (anarchy) has been answered on two different dates (the Mt.Gox-date clearly corresponds to the announcment from 20th or March). Especially the answer from the court is VERY interesting, since it reveals doubts into the reported troubles from Mt.Gox. Sadly, it does not announce any further investigation methods... What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer!
Have you already tried to ask for all wallet-ID-data from Mt.Gox? That would be an awesome stop to factual investigation methods.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Olivier,
didnt you promise an update for monday concerning the last post on mtgoxrecovery.com?
|
|
|
|
|
This is deep shit. Thanks for the post.
BTW: Are you the aquent from the MK&aquent irc-log, which has been posted a few days ago?
|
|
|
|
Indeed this is just ridicilous and one should really warn the investigators about paying trust into the MT-Gox-Statements. I have written him an eMail today and would highly recommend you to do the same. The whole community was aware of that fact long before they even recognized it? That is simply not possible... Please send your warnings concerning the MT.Gox fraud to this guy: http://www.noandt.com/en/lawyers/nbk.php |
|
|
|
|
Why does it belong to gox? Can you prove that?
|
|
|
|
|
I would also like to see that proof, please...
|
|
|
|
|
How is this a matter of time instead of a matter of interest?
|
|
|
|
|
