We simply expect a company that makes millions of dollars to be capable of hiring 1 person who knows how to setup additional servers to handle the extra load. I bet they could pay at least 300 people on this forum to fly out there, PURCHASE AND INSTALL new servers within a week. But this has been ongoing since.......wait was there ever a time this wasnt an issue?
Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot more than just installing some new servers to solve this problem. |
|
|
|
They can afford to hire the right people and buy the right hardware. I am not saying it will be cheap. But guess what? I am (as the rest of the community is) funding it through our fees.
They can afford it. They can even afford to get it done [very] quickly.
I'm not so sure that they can "afford it". Revenue and profit are two different things and you're talking about a massive investment in infrastructure which has to be funded upfront. While I agree that they should have been looking at ways to fund this investment for a long time now, I don't think that it can be assumed they have enough unused capital sitting around to fund it themselves without borrowing/outside investment. |
|
|
|
Many decentralized exchanges would be even better as there is no single point of failure, but this industry in brand new and undeveloped yet.
Demanding that much is like going into a newly discovered forest and getting angry because there is no fast-food!!!
How much longer are we going to continue accepting "Bitcoin is new" and "these are start ups" as an excuse? Services launching today need to launch with a greater capacity and more resources than those which launched two years ago - that's a given. MtGox has been the dominant exchange for a long time now and this kind of surge was expected. It's one thing for an exchange which launched last year and which has a 5% market share to get blind-sided by this kind of surge (although I still maintain EVERY service needs the capacity to scale quickly baked in), it's an other entirely when an effective monopoly has no coherent plan for an anticipated situation. Again and again we've seen Bitcoin enterprises fail because they lack the infrastructure to handle rapid growth. When these enterprises are custodians of millions of dollars worth of user funds, such short-comings are simply unacceptable. You don't take the money and put the infrastructure in place when you feel like it or when you "can afford it". You limit how many customers you accept and the amount of funds for which you assume responsibility until you have in place the infrastructure to manage all of the risks such growth entails. |
|
|
|
MtGox was always PHP/mysql, including the trading engine. Do you know if it is still the same?
<shudder> The more I learn about mtgox, the more incompetent they seem. PHP/MySQL? For a billion dollar market? I'm revising my opinion. Negligence is a much more appropriate word than incompetence. It's pretty standard for Bitcoin services. They find themselves growing before they have the infrastructure in place to support that growth. MtGox has had two years to prepare for this, though, so it's pretty unforgivable. With Bitcoin prices so high, they're going to be a bigger target than ever so lets hope they've spent an enormous amount on hardening their security over the last two years because no-one's going to forgive any significant loss of user funds at this stage in the game and they don't have an unlimited capacity to absorb losses. |
|
|
|
Oh ok, people are still going to be pissed regardless.  People get pissed at Bitcoin services all the time. They don't get pissed enough to stop using them and take their business elsewhere until they lose money by continuing to use them (hell, even then people often continue using them to support them in "recovering" from the consequences of their own incompetence). |
|
|
|
BFL answer: End of April.
End of April seems to be their best case scenario date for shipping the first units to people other than developers. I've seen nothing which indicates that the second batch of wafers have even been completed yet, let alone bumped and packaged. I've definitely seen nothing which indicates that the fab is currently working on the bulk order for 63,000 chips - which I suspect are going to be needed to fill the majority of gen 1 pre-orders. |
|
|
|
I think they opened way too many accounts and can't handle the volume. Their tx engine keeps crashing/freezing.
They specifically admitted this is the case and are spinning it as being "victims of their own success". |
|
|
|
|
It would be funny as fuck if it's Trendon Shavers.
|
|
|
|
Based on the convo, it sounds like their trying to solder every chip by hand... Ouch. I was under the impression that for the first batch the assembly of the boards was being done by an assembly house and that the in-house assembly was just going to be a matter of BFL screwing components into the cases. Perhaps whatever is actually wrong with the units means this original plan needs to be revised. Has there been any word whatsoever on when the next 6 wafers will be ready or when the bulk order will be finished. These were each supposed to be completed only weeks after the Batch 1 chips were bumped and packaged. The Batch 1 chips obviously aren't going to fill very many orders given the power problems and the need to ship multiple units to meet advertised hash rates, so when in the hell can those who pre-ordered between August and January expect delivery? |
|
|
|
I quit reading that press release here: ...victim of our own success! Looks like Bruce Wagner is working for Mt. Gox. Or Josh. |
|
|
|
Given that Boussac refuses to give even his real name and position at Paymium, I think it is highly unlikely he will address this question here (it was asked in my original list of 12). Paymium's CTO will definitely have to address this in the soon to follow legal enquiry if they insist on not addressing it publicly here.
I still hope that they do address it here, as I personally want Paymium to prosper, and be a respected part of the Bitcoin community. Let's hope. Boussac has a couple of hours yet...
In my opinion this is giving us an indication of how they'd behave if one of the services they didn't operate for free suffered losses and it definitely doesn't inspire confidence. |
|
|
|
FTFY
Shut down trading NOW and DO NOT resume until your trade engine is made NYSE-grade DDOS, lag, and all other forms of bullshit, resistant.
That's directed at ALL exchanges, BTW.
STOP allowing Bitcoin's market value to be bent over and gang raped bloody OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
In the reddit thread, MtGox are blaming HFT. Of course it's totally within their control to set a minimum order limit and/or a minimum time between trades but instead of doing that until they have the infrastructure to actually handle HFT, they're going to keep accepting more customers (many of whom are new to Bitcoin and are going to get pissed off when they realise they wont be able to withdraw their profits without getting verified and who have no idea about the proposed CoinLab transition) and just throw on some more servers. Bitcoin services who have been in businesses for as long as MtGox have no excuse whatsoever for being unable to scale. The capacity to handle an explosion of new users should have been put in place long ago. If I had to guess, I suspect that MtGox doesn't have the capital to install the type of infrastructure which is needed right now to deal with the explosive growth in use. If you cannot scale, you will fail. Count on it. |
|
|
|
I would have more sympathy if this was not part of a long history of lackadaisical malfeasance on the part of MtGox. You have no incentive to fix your steaming pile of crap and I do not believe you will.
You are obviously no ideas of what you are talking about, come and work with us you will see how things are done and what we have to deal with on a daily basis. As I write this we have two concurrent DDoS attack with NO lags and still online. Things always seems easy at the other end of the keyboard. Alex, please don't do this. To date MtGox has refrained from insulting customers and I'd like to see it stay that way. At the end of the day "what you have to deal with" should not be your customers' problem. You need to explain what's happening without being defensive or aggressive. Can I also implore you to please be more communicative about other issues such as the cessation of non-BTC MtGox vouchers and the CoinLab transition? It's not enough to simply announce these things. As they come closer to being implemented you need to be actively reminding your customers that they're about to happen. |
|
|
|
But I'd stop there, the rest need a year or two to prove there stable and that people actually want them.
You realise that if those were the criteria there'd be no Bitcoin exchanges, either - Bitcoin itself is far from stable. |
|
|
|
|
usagi, theft is a criminal matter and the remedies to theft cannot be found in shareholder motions or trying to take control of a pretend company. Even if you start looking at breaches of contract and torts like conversion, you still have the problem that BAKEWELL is only a pretend company. In reality, Ian is operating as a sole trader and no amount of shareholder votes can change that or give you the legal authority to seize control of his assets (and they're his assets, not BAKEWELL's, unless BAKEWELL is a separate legal entity).
Unless BAKEWELL is a legitimate company which has a separate legal existence to Ian himself, then you're all just personal creditors of Ian and have no superior legal standing to any of his other creditors (and apparently he has quite a few). above all people, you should understand that as shareholders in SILVER:TU are effectively in the same situation.
Why should Ian's other creditors not try to block you from actions which would see BAKEWELL shareholders benefit at their expense when your legal claim to any of Ian's assets is not superior to theirs? If you take control of assets to which you have no valid legal claim, you're the ones who may find yourselves guilty of theft or conversion.
|
|
|
|
Apologies for another resurrection, but did ZT get away with it or did "Chen" actually exist? BB. He still claims that AurumXChange is holding his funds. Ask them what they did with the money. He claimed they were not his funds - that they resulted from a transaction he conducted on behalf of a friend. Then he strangely told AurumXChange that they could refund those coins to Bitcoinica. They pretty much can't do anything without being able to determine the true ownership of those funds. If Zhou maintains they aren't his, then he can't authorise their release to anyone - including Bitcoinica. If they are his own legitimate funds, then there's no reason he would authorise their release to anyone else - and he should have no problem proving to AurumXChange that they are his own legitimate funds. The extent to which Zhou has been protected throughout the whole Bitcoinica debacle is truly sickening. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
