|
Trying to download the windows wallet and it appears corrupted. Can this please be checked.
|
|
|
|
Final post of the day for the devs, if you are working on stuff, i think it's at least worth taking a look at how VTC handled the fork once it started getting attention and miners: -Fork to Kimoto Gravity Well difficulty adjustment at block 26754 (Around midday UTC on 1st February 2014)
-Implement new N-factor schedule Maybe the Kimoto put them over the top, i dunno. KGW or a like innovation is something I look for in all new coins. |
|
|
|
|
Buying DRK with BTC or LTC. PM me your offer.
|
|
|
|
I think we are a bit too early on in the experiment that is bitcoin to start casting out in new directions. However, there is nothing stopping your plan. You could conceivably have your own blockchain and client.
Can you elaborate on this please? Thank you. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, bitcoin 1.0 will fail. Yes, I may be wrong, this thread is not to debate that. This thread is for my idea for Bitcoin 2.0 which I am not ambitious enough to head myself as I want to focus on my family. I realize some of you feel bitcoin is backed. However, too many people want a currency backed by something tangible. Enter " junk silver". The junk silver I would recommend having back Bitcoin 2.0 would be pre 1932-1964 quarters and 1946-1964 dimes as they have the same metal makeup. This solves the problem of a tangible backing. In addition, this all of a sudden makes every coin shop in the world a distributed exchange which we all understand the need for. However, this idea WOULD likely require a central repository to hold the junk silver dimes and quarters UNLESS some specific ironclad deal was worked out with coin dealers. Deposit or buy a pre 1965 dime and get 1 bitcoin 2.0 from the central exchange or the coin dealer who has bitcoin. Buy or deposit a 1964 or older quarter and get 2.50 bitcoin 2.0. They can then be traded, purchased, and sold anonymously just like bitcoin 1.0. Your junk silver becomes digitized. But at any time you can withdraw it for junk silver. It will ALWAYS have value, be reasonably stable, and have distributed exchanges yet still have most of the benefits of bitcoin 1.0. I hope someone proceeds with this or a like idea. |
|
|
|
|
1. How much does it cost to borrow BTC for shorting?
2. Who are the BTC borrowed from?
3. How are you going to enforce margin calls should the need arise?
|
|
|
|
|
Once they make their way to Mt Gox and are sold, ask them to roll back all the trades then work with their liaison at the FBI to recover the bitcoin for you. Word is they're going to set that precedent so no worries.
P.S. Sorry man, that sucks.
|
|
|
|
Especially since it looks as if MtGox admitted that the compromised account was their main distributed one, meaning Kevin isn't holding stolen property from some single poor sap, but from everyone.
Where did you read this? |
|
|
|
|
What about THESE possibilities since I still don't believe someone with 500k coins had them in a single, stolen account on Mt Gox.
1. The person who had 500k bitcoin had those in a personal wallet on his own machine at home. That machine was compromised. All the BTC were sent to Mt Gox for sale by the hacker and was a REAL TRADE but of stolen goods. Do we roll back every trade of someone's coins who had their PERSONAL computer hacked? Because there are a shitload out there. Or only the rich people?
2. The 500k bitcoin was from the person who released the virus that steals the bitcoin wallet of hundreds of traders such as Allinvain (the guy who got $500k of BTC stolen). Those 500k bitcoin are from hundreds of people the hacker stole from. He dumps them on Mt Gox when he smells the authorities starting to track him down and decides to crash the market and run. A LEGIT trade again, just of stolen goods of hundreds of people.
If THOSE were legit trades but of stolen coins, should the market be rolled back? If so, it sets a precedent that ALL SUCH FUTURE stolen trades cause a rollback no matter the size.
|
|
|
|
Kevin, after what Mt Gox did in the "their side" thread to try and CONNECT YOU with the hacker, I sure as hell hope you file that injunction.
I sure hope too, will make it easier for us. L O L This is the team holding millions of dollars worth of our capital? God I love Bitcoin. We should have our own reality show. |
|
|
|
There is no proof other than Mt Gox saying there was a theft. I suspect there was never any hacker. I suspect there was a bug in their code or someone at their company screwed up big time. WHO with 500k bitcoins makes it easy for their account to be compromised? Until PROOF of a hacking is provided, he has NOT accepted stolen goods.
I feel pretty neutral about this whole thing, but am I right that you're saying if this whole thing was the result of a bug or employee error and the huge trade that crashed the market was never even entered by a market participant that that somehow makes it MORE necessary for Mark to pay out the 260k or 500k or whatever? Like, if you ever have a computer glitch there's no do overs and the exchange or broker should be instantly liable for the entirety of the bugged trades? Doesn't that sound just a weee bit unrealistic to you? I fat fingered a trade at one point and bought 20 coins at 111 instead of 111 at 20 (numbers somewhere along those lines, I forget the exact numbers). Should I get those back? With that said, I'm not saying that he should get the coins because I don't know the answer to that. That's one for the law to figure out once they have all the evidence. There's just way too much fishiness going on. I plain don't believe for a second that some unnamed person with 500k bitcoins had an easily hackable account that some hacker happened upon. A lot just doesn't add up. And that Mt Gox is now trying to connect Kevin to the hacker just puts it over the top. |
|
|
|
|
Kevin, after what Mt Gox did in the "their side" thread to try and CONNECT YOU with the hacker, I sure as hell hope you file that injunction.
|
|
|
|
He logged in 3 minutes before the whole thing unfold.
Well I'm sure convinced! Off to prison with Kevin! /sarcasm Good grief. You're just terrible to make such connections. |
|
|
|
its quite odd that Kevin could login when the rest of us couldn't. i watched the whole thing unfold and i certainly couldn't get in.
the other thing MT might be implying is that Kevin logged into the hacked acct? now that would be damning. please clarify?
Plenty of us could login, I did. Some people even got in buy and sell orders. Just because you didn't doesn't mean plenty of others did. And those of us who did are now SUSPECTS under the logic Mt Gox is using. |
|
|
|
Whether or not Kevin was at all involved with the hacker is irrelevant. He has taken possession of stolen goods. At the time he probably didn't know they were stolen. Now he does. Now it's a crime if he keeps them.
There is no proof other than Mt Gox saying there was a theft. I suspect there was never any hacker. I suspect there was a bug in their code or someone at their company screwed up big time. WHO with 500k bitcoins makes it easy for their account to be compromised? Until PROOF of a hacking is provided, he has NOT accepted stolen goods. |
|
|
|
he logged in, and placed a 0.01 order 12 minutes BEFORE the hacker started the selloff.
No, all it shows is a login. Where does it show the placed order? It doesn't. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is what Kevin logging in around the same time the hacker did, what about everyone else? EVERYONE was logging in around that time, so it seems to me like he is trying to make Kevin look like hes working with the hacker, but yet doesn't post logs of all the others who logged in, and if you can recall everyone was.
Exactly. That they would use that information to try to turn the tides against Kevin shows what kind of company this is. Based upon their "proof" they're going to be reporting a shitload of us to the FBI as suspects. I know I'm on that list because I saw the market crashing and wanted to jump in. |
|
|
|
|
Are you REALLY trying to imply Kevin was involved with the hacker? WOW! Just wow. I too logged in minutes after the hacker because I saw the market crashing and tried to get in a buy order. I unfortunately could not but could just as easily been Kevin. Am I going to be investigated by the FBI now, too?
I don't believe there was ever a hacker. Let's see proof that this wasn't a bug in your code or someone at your company screwing up big time. I also think the bitcoin account was YOURS. HOW someone with 500k BTC could let their account be compromised needs to be answered as well.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm the OP I file the injunction and subpoena every bit of server info from them because:
1. It's obvious this account was Mt. Gox, not some users.
2. How do we know there was a theft? Maybe someone at Mt. Gox fat fingered the trade or there was a bug in their code. Do fat fingered trades get reversed?
I think there's a decent chance this was never even theft. I think someone at Mt. Gox screwed the pooch BIG time. And if it wasn't theft, then the trade should absolutely NOT be rolled back. How many others here put in a buy order for 20 bitcoins at 111 instead of 111 bitcoins at 20? I know I have! Maybe someone at Mt. Gox did something similar with their account or their was a bug in their automated software that converts BTC from their .65% fee to USD and crashed the market.
As the OP said, the likelihood that an account with 500,000 BTC could be easily brute forced is minute. We'd all have HUGE passwords. Something is VERY fishy here.
Kevin, lawyer up. Make them PROVE this was a hack.
|
|
|
|
3) The precedent they're setting here cannot be maintained.
Exactly what happened here may never be fully known, but according to Mt Gox an unauthorized user accessed someone's account and placed a sell order. Passwords get guessed/leaked all the time, and any exchange that attempts to undo that in every case will undoubtably fail.
If I'm careless with my password and someone places orders on my behalf in my account without my permission, will Mt Gox revert an hour's worth of trading to fix it? What if I only had 2 bitcoins? Or 20? or 200? There is no way rolling back trades to handle a compromised password in any way that will scale to the size of bitcoin's current economy. Unless Mt Gox is wiling to explicitly say they'll give this same treatment to any user who has their account compromised, it's blatantly unfair to everyone else.
This also opens the door to allowing anyone to request equal treatment if they made some trades they later regret. Log in through a proxy to make it seem like someone from a distant country was using your account, make your trades, then later scream about how your account was compromised and you want a do-over.
This is the key right here. Make no mistake, if they do a roll back and if my account gets hacked in the future I will be demanding a roll back no matter how many BTC are traded. And I rather like the proxy idea you stated. I might just have to go for a super risky trade and demand a rollback if it doesn't work and claim hacking. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
