Finn, you're missing the point. Bitcoin7 is assuming a facade of innocence and offering excuses and apologies for all the mistakes they made, yet mysteriously skipping over this one. We're just asking for an official response, maybe an apology or perhaps some explanation.

From your first post, I thought you were actually saying they had provided this, although now I see you were simply saying that the point had been discussed? Of course it's been discussed, to no end, but that doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin7 hasn't yet provided a statement as they have for all other mishaps.

oh u.

Midnight EST in New York, but if people have funds frozen that they really care about and want to trade or whatever, I'm sure they can stay up the extra few hours. Still weird that Mt. Gox is making it only one hour, because of course there are time zones where it's hugely inconvenient.

In following with the original poster, I have done some research and found out who I think may very well be the leader of LulzSec.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/june-10-2011-mugs?page=0

Does that guy look like the sort of nerd who would run LulzSec or what? Plus, drunk driving! Exactly the kind of irresponsible activity that a LulzSec leader would partake in.

Now, I'm not saying anything. I just posted a link. You either connect the dots or not. You decide. There is more here than meets the eye.  

Edit: Just read that guardian article, Veldy... It just had a cool looking title, the actual article made a brief reference that it was possible that a former LulzSec associate who had gone rogue had done the hacking, and then never provided any reasoning for this and forgot about the point completely.

I completely forget where I heard about it, but I had heard about it, I think when it was around 2 bucks, and I thought it was a cool idea. Skip forward to June 2011, when I am finally actually getting involved.

That's a great point, OP, I hadn't thought of that.

That alongside how it's less likely that accounts are stolen the longer Mt. Gox stays down just shows all this rage and panic is ridiculous.

They could ask for ID, but if you got a money order you would presumably be sending it to BitcoinMorpheus, known in real life as Matthew Courtney, this guy:



He rightly makes some personal information public, given that he regularly handles large sums of cash that people send him and needs to be trusted. He doesn't worry about privacy as much, I presume.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not sure about that, you might be right. Call up your local post office, I guess.

Less volume typically means more fluctuation, doesn't it? Because individual trades have more of an effect.

Getting a money order is fairly simple, you go into the post office and pay for it. They didn't ask for any ID. I used cash. Debit cards are allowed to pay for money orders, not credit cards though for obvious reasons, so my guess would be that a visa gift card would have no trouble since it's prepaid debit.

They could have some policy against this for security's sake, but like i said, I just waltzed into my nearest post office, paid for a blank money order of a certain value, and left, so security and ID doesn't seem to be a big priority.

I looked through both Bitcoin7's post history and Chris's, but unfortunately I couldn't find any addressing of the subject. They may have addressed it while using different accounts, but there are literally thousands of posts about Bitcoin7, so instead of just making this claim could you link to some of these posts where the matter was resolved to at least some degree?

7 minutes ago!

You could get a US postal money order with the card and send it to BitcoinMorpheus aka Matthew Courtney who was very professional and a pleasure to work with when I sent my money order. Then he'll give you credit for Mt. Gox.

He gave me Dwolla credit instead that I could then proceed to use on TradeHill, but that may have been a one-time deal, since I sent my money order prior to the Gox shutdown, and then it shut down before he had given me my credit, so he offered to give me the held funds in a different way.

You could send him an email asking if Dwolla is possible, you might want to make it short and to the point though since I'm sure he's being flooded with email right now and from what I can tell it's a one-man operation.

Alternatively you could just get Mt. Gox credit, which you may be more averse to because of the whole database fiasco, but I personally am just going to trust them more now that they've ramped up security in response to it.

Just remember never to keep all your eggs in one basket. Something you can do for free and with virtually no credentials needed is create a Dwolla account. It'll say stuff about verifying with a bank account, but this is only necessary if you want to transfer funds to a bank account or vice versa, you can transfer funds from the trading sites easily.

Even if you don't trust Mt. Gox, TradeHill could easily have the same thing happen to it at any time. Whichever service you use, keep some of your USD funds in Dwolla and some of your bitcoin funds in your wallet.

I do however advise trying a little harder to get the card sold, as it'd probably be easier than everything I said above.

This is my theory on why it's completely valid for them to be taking so long, please read: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21676.msg273585#msg273585

Or tl;dr version: The longer it takes before an account is verified, the bigger the chance that the real user will file a claim for an account in the event that a scammer has access to enough info to claim an account. More than one claim will delay things, especially if both have valid info, and then the real person would hopefully get their account.

Super tl;dr: The longer it takes the less likely people are to get scammed and have all their stuff stolen.

But it's the Hoff!

Try just posting on the "Selling" forum, saying you're selling a visa gift card. You might have some luck. If not, there are still ways, selling it is the easiest though.

Yeah, all that nonsense was just sensationalist reporting. They spelled Ryan Cleary's name wrong, and failed to mention that the police never said anything about him being involved in Lulzsec, and in fact later released further info that helped disprove that theory even further. Any supposed connection aside from Cleary running a fansite chat for lulzsec was solely reporters extrapolating.

And even further, there is literally no reason to connect.

I lol'd. What kind of reporter puts a sentence outlining the major flaw in the article at the end of the article?

Cool down, my friend. What does it matter when you get your account reactivated? Even if you had it reactivated a day ago, you still won't be able to do anything until Mt. Gox reopens.


There are actually potential reasons for what Mt. Gox is doing here. It is beneficial to security for them to wait until the last second to send out emails, to ensure that no one gets their account stolen.

Think about it. What if a scammer files a claim for an account that the legit user does not file a claim for until later? Any accounts with only one claim are much more likely to be claimed, but if an account gets multiple claims it will be scrutinized more closely by Mt. Gox's team.

It is unlikely that any new legit claims are going to come through this late in the game, but Mt. Gox presumably wants to be as secure and helpful as possible after their huge fuckup, and in the end this will make all of our accounts safer.

This sucks, but honestly Mt. Gox has handled this horribly bad situation as best as they could have as far as I can see, provided we don't take into consideration the very possible theories that Mt. Gox is using this delay time to run away from something they can't fix.

Although, considering they have proven they are still in control of the 500k~ bitcoins, this also seems unlikely.

Note: They did a bad job of handling it before the crash, clearly, when I say they've handled it as best as they could have I refer to after the shit hit the fan, aside from making deadlines they aren't meeting, which is pretty aggravating.

You also make a great point, and it's certainly possible. I was a little hyperbolic saying "no one".

However, I still believe that sticking with shorter top-levels would be a good idea simply for ease of typing in the URL. In a best case scenario IMO, .com would just be .c or .co, although at this stage in the Internet I'm sure most of the people versed in the Internet have muscle memory to type ".com" in at lightning speed.

This is all well and fine, and you're doing a great job of responding, with one exception:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17043.msg220972#msg220972 [jgarzik is a moderator and part of the bitcoin dev team]

This is a pretty bad thing, I would think, and at best a very embarrassing lapse in good judgement.

I would like an official response, considering your professional response to all the other unfortunate happenings.

Disregarding the very fine points other people have come up with, it shouldn't be .bitcoin. It would be .btc, no one would use a top-level domain 7 characters long.

Haven't either.