As far as I understand, that work is legit.  His lie detection, however doesn't seem to be.

You're right.  That was my bad.  But my point still stands.  He shouldn't be making accusations like he did about Mt. Gox with a "science" that is hardly universally accepted coming from a Scientist who doesn't publish his research for public review out of some "national security" concern.  Smells mighty fishy to me, as does the fact that nobody else seems to be able to replicate his results (except thru their own confirmation bias).

night all.

Fact I can't find much of anything written by Eckman on jstor.  Way to "research" there, Mr. 100%.  I'm done with you.  It's past my bedtime.

No results.  Still waiting for that evidence of real world results with eckman's "Science".

Wow. Looks Legit.

"METT Original-Online
This license allows you train with METT original and take the pre and post tests to see how much you have improved

Most people complete METT original training in under one hour. There is no certificate with this training

$20.00"

Sorry, but the burden is on you to prove it actually works.  Show me a peer reviewed study under real world conditions showing Eckman's "science" works.  Until peers can confirm Eckman's "science", your "analysis" is worth about as one lone self declared "expert" says it is, which given the number of self declared experts out there, isn't a whole lot.

You mentioned the METT.  As I understand it, the METT basically shows you flashes of random expressions.  You identify correctly and you get a higher score.  This supposedly will allow to to read and identify microexpressions IRL, allowing you to be a better lie detector...  But what if it's BS?  What if all you're doing is learning to take a test better?  What if all you're doing is inflating your ego?  Whoo... it's a standardized test.. i'm "better".

All this would be fine if you were just deluding yourself but people believe this stuff (thanks in part to Lie To Me). You have accused Mt. Gox publicly of lying and that causes real harm.  It's irresponsible to present "evidence" such as yours when it hasn't been scientifically verified. (at least without some sort of very clear disclaimer).

Or you've convinced yourself (and others) that you do.  Seems to me it's a pseudoscience-du-jour that can't bear any real scrutiny.  A TV driven fad backed by a quack.  A psychological con so people can feel like they have some superpower.  Who else wouldn't want to be 100% right on everything.  Word to the wise: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, and you're probably fooling yourself.  Eckman's stuff isn't even peer reviewed.  He's a Guru, not a scientist.

Who cares.  Either way he should pay the money back.

this^

Op should have known this is good practice.  Because it was reasonable to foresee that a hack was possible (anybody read the news), OP can't claim it's all the hacker's fault.

No more than with any other financial system.  All this all will do is encourage better security and strengthen the system in the long run.  Trial by fire.


And you're responsible for that.  Unfortunate, but that's the way it goes.


And they could be "sneaky" and break into your house when you're not home and take that ~7000 usd from under your bed...  You kept all your eggs in one basket, in one wallet file (as opposed to a "savings account"), and you got compromised.

Bitcoins, like cash, can be stored safely offline, away from the clutches of the hackers.  You neglected to do that and were careless with the money of others.  You are responsible as much as any hacker.  You should own up to those whose money you lost and offer to pay the money back over time.

Hi.  Name's Mike

I've been waiting for something like Bitcoin to come along for a long time.  I believe it has a bright future despite initial hiccups and a seemingly rabid media.    I believe it has the potential to overthrow and remake our current way life.

To me it seems like it's a guy trying to do something good (warning users) and make a few bucks off referral fees on the side (is it wrong to make money?). People don't have to keep the referral code (which he informed people of) and they don't have to donate to his bitcoin address.  When my MtGox account comes back up, I will be donating a small amount to thank him.  Nobody else sent me an email.  Why didn't Mt Gox?

Had I not been paying attention, I might have missed the crisis.  I can see many users out there who might not have changed their passwords, might use them elsewhere, and might have had a lot of things compromised.  The guy did what needed to be done and I don't think he should be punished for asking for a referral.  Maybe filling out the referral field by default was crossing a line for some people, but I just don't see it's that bad.  He wasn't deceptive.  He wrote "(Note: You can remove the Referral Code when registering if you want!)"

Hi.  Could I please be whitelisted. I'd very much like to discuss the recent hack of Mt. Gox and it's potential ramifications on people's faith in Bitcoin.  You can see from my very old Slashdot account that I am not a troll and that there is high likelihood that I understand what bit-coin is and how the technology works.