|
As claimed in the Crisis plan, they have:
Assets: 32,430,000 USD + 2,000 BTC
Liabilities: 55,000,000 USD + 744,408 BTC
Now they say they have assets of 3.84B JPY = 37.71M USD and liabilities of 6.5B JPY = 63.84M USD
So solving the equations:
32430000 + 2000 A = 37710000
A = 2640 (USD/BTC)
55000000 + 744408 B = 63840000
B = 11.87 (USD/BTC)
So there must be something wrong with the crisis plan figures
|
|
|
|
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Outstanding Debt Y6.5B
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Filed For Bankruptcy Protection
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Accepted By Tokyo District Court
So around $ 60 mln outstanding debt
Only $60mln? The BS out of gox continues. I have no doubt the actual filings will be made public by the media soon. If they've lost access to their cold wallets - as some have theorised - that could explain why the nominal debt is only $60 million. The cold wallets would still technically count as an asset. I'm pretty surprised to learn that's only $60 million. In this case many people can bail it out. Just not sure how they calculate the value of bitcoin. I guess $130/BTC? I guess they haven't even considered lost bitcoins. Best regards, ilpirata79 for the sake of filing for bankruptcy protection they will have had to count coins in hand as an assett. I would guess at 130 USD / BTC as that was closing price. This would make sense as to why they let out no info, closed withdrawals and let the price tank. It was in their interest. The lower the price of each coin on their balance sheet, the lower their debt would be when filing for protection. But I think an action like this is illegal and the court will calculate with the "real" fair price when they are closed, which is about 500 |
|
|
|
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Outstanding Debt Y6.5B
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Filed For Bankruptcy Protection
*DJ Mt. Gox Lawyer: Accepted By Tokyo District Court
So around $ 60 mln outstanding debt
Only $60mln? The BS out of gox continues. I have no doubt the actual filings will be made public by the media soon. If they've lost access to their cold wallets - as some have theorised - that could explain why the nominal debt is only $60 million. The cold wallets would still technically count as an asset. I'm pretty surprised to learn that's only $60 million. In this case many people can bail it out. Just not sure how they calculate the value of bitcoin. I guess $130/BTC? |
|
|
|
What is Bankruptcy Protection?
"Bankruptcy protection" is the process by which a debtor is "protected" by a court while they reorganize their finances.
Protected from what? Protected from excessively hasty or harassing creditor actions, such as foreclosures, repossessions, law suits, harassing telephone calls, and the like. A more accurate lay-terminology for filing for "bankruptcy protection" would be filing for "financial reorganization" or "financial restructuring" under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13.
Starting when the US law is applicable in Japan?  |
|
|
|
Holy shit! If I lost both $ and BTC on gox by trading, can I file a claim if it was certified as a scam?  |
|
|
|
1030XBT bought yesterday
Thats quite substansial, Obviously Barry does not have concers about the gox situation. Barry is buying for his customers, not for himself. Yes I know, but i assume Barry weights in for timing a 1k+ buy order? I guess they may have something like a limit order. |
|
|
|
The current value on the exchanges may be considered the market value as it is being sustained for now, but it is not the real market value. It is fake, referenced by a Mt. Gox fiction.
Mt. Gox had most of the transactions, value was defined by supposed offer and demand over there.
However Mt. Gox was a fraud, a ponzi and due to the previous two characteristics: a fictional market.
We don't have any idea of the real market value.
You had your account in 2012 and obviously you are still thinking in a 2012-style. If gox has collapsed in 2012, then yes you may be correct. However, the trading volume of gox has became insignificant for several months. Major bitcoin payment processors like Bitpay took the price of bitstamp and btc-e as reference since last July. |
|
|
|
Instead of redefining an OP_NOP one might just introduce a new type of P2SH where the script popped from the stack is evaluated by an new engine.
The way that BIP16 implemented is not ideal as it created a special case in script interpretation. Also, as mentioned above, I think we should have more options than just HASH160. For example, we may allow the use of shorter hash and public key as micro-payment and short term storage doesn't require the full security level. That would help the scalability a lot |
|
|
|
It's becoming more and more clear that the coins haven't been stolen, they've just lost the keys lol. Once this is confirmed, should be very bullish.
I don't think that the loss of those coins, per se, would have any effect. Think of the exchanges as water tanks where water represents bitcoins in the market, and the water level is the inverse price (how many BTC one can buy with one dollar). The tanks are connected by pipes at the bottom (coin withdrawals and deposits) so the hydrostatic principle (arbitrage) keeps the water level about the same in all tanks. If one pours more water into any tank (brings more coins to the market) the level in all tanks goes up (meaning the price goes down). The opposite happens if one takes water out of one tank (buys coins and puts them in cold storage). If the MtGOX theft did happen, then at some point in the past, someone siphoned most of the water out of the MtGOX tank to a private barrel. I the keys were lost, most of the water in that tank leaked out and was permanetly lost. In either case, Mark put some bricks into the tank (hid the theft) so that people would not notice the loss, and the water level was not affected. Then a few days ago the pipes out of that tank were closed (withdrawals were blocked), and the tank was disconnected and removed it from the system. That would not affect the water level in the other tanks either. If the theft happened, and the thief then dumped the water in other tanks (sold the coins in other markets), then there was indeed a net rise in the water level (a fall in market price); but that is past history. We may expect an effect only if the coins were stolen but have not been not sold yet EDIT: and are sold now. (This analogy is imperfect because it does not model the money flows, but hopefully it is enough to argue the point.) I am talking about a case in which the private keys have been lost, in which case 750k BTC has been taken out of the total money supply. If they have been stolen (but the keys are still known) it shouldn't have much of an affect. If the keys are lost, it brings up an argument to fork the block chain, and change the code to manually recover the money. To a new address. A lot of people would support it. (and many would be against)... talk about polarising the Bitcoin community. It won't work. Without the private key, how Mark could prove those are really gox's coins? Not just that. You'd try to open pandora's box. I highly doubt the devs would ever put that into a protocol update. And even if they did at least a majority of miners would then have to move to that change. Even attempting this would destroy bitcoin Can you expand on this? I dont understand how it would damage anything. I mean, assuming we KNOW these 500k lost coins were Gox, why cant they be restored if the community supports it? How do you KNOW? Who will JUDGE? Please leave the bitcoin world and go back to your local bank. It's much "safer". |
|
|
|
It's becoming more and more clear that the coins haven't been stolen, they've just lost the keys lol. Once this is confirmed, should be very bullish.
I don't think that the loss of those coins, per se, would have any effect. Think of the exchanges as water tanks where water represents bitcoins in the market, and the water level is the inverse price (how many BTC one can buy with one dollar). The tanks are connected by pipes at the bottom (coin withdrawals and deposits) so the hydrostatic principle (arbitrage) keeps the water level about the same in all tanks. If one pours more water into any tank (brings more coins to the market) the level in all tanks goes up (meaning the price goes down). The opposite happens if one takes water out of one tank (buys coins and puts them in cold storage). If the MtGOX theft did happen, then at some point in the past, someone siphoned most of the water out of the MtGOX tank to a private barrel. I the keys were lost, most of the water in that tank leaked out and was permanetly lost. In either case, Mark put some bricks into the tank (hid the theft) so that people would not notice the loss, and the water level was not affected. Then a few days ago the pipes out of that tank were closed (withdrawals were blocked), and the tank was disconnected and removed it from the system. That would not affect the water level in the other tanks either. If the theft happened, and the thief then dumped the water in other tanks (sold the coins in other markets), then there was indeed a net rise in the water level (a fall in market price); but that is past history. We may expect an effect only if the coins were stolen but have not been not sold yet EDIT: and are sold now. (This analogy is imperfect because it does not model the money flows, but hopefully it is enough to argue the point.) I am talking about a case in which the private keys have been lost, in which case 750k BTC has been taken out of the total money supply. If they have been stolen (but the keys are still known) it shouldn't have much of an affect. If the keys are lost, it brings up an argument to fork the block chain, and change the code to manually recover the money. To a new address. A lot of people would support it. (and many would be against)... talk about polarising the Bitcoin community. It won't work. Without the private key, how Mark could prove those are really gox's coins? |
|
|
|
Just an extension of this discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486133.0Script is one of the most important elements in bitcoin, but it is far from perfect. Several codes were disabled due to bugs. OP_CHECKSIG is not upgradable. Do we even have a chance to have Script 2.0? This is the Script 2.0 in my mind: 1. It has to be backward compatible, aka soft fork. Thanks to Satoshi, this existing Script will allow us to do so by redefining one of the OP_NOP as something like OP_SCRIPT2EVAL 2. It has to be fully upgradable: it should retain enough room for future upgrade, in case we want Script 3.0, 4.0, 5.0. This is simple 3. Support merklized abstract syntax tree (MAST). This will allow very complex redemption conditions and embedding secret messages, while saving a lot of space. 4. Support multiple public key algorithms, allowing n-of-n multisig with n different public key algorithms. Since it is extremely unlikely for breaking different algorithms at the same time, funds are safe forever. 5. Support more hashing algorithms. Same as 4 6. OP_CHECKSIG should be broken down into several codes. It should allow the signer to specify the value of the input so lightweight wallet can calculate the fee without knowing the details of the previous tx. It should have enough flexibility to let people decide the way to sign. I had other preliminary ideas here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258931.07. The new OP_CHECKSIG has to take tx malleability in mind. It should allow people not to specify the txid of input (signing any UTXO of the same address), or sign the normalized txid. With normalized txid supported, however, it means full nodes have to keep an index of the normalized txid of all UTXO 8. It may allow pushing the block height and block hash to the stake. Pushing block height may allow something not doable with nLockTime (I'm not very sure). Pushing block hash will allow users to specify the fork which they want their tx being mined (something like POS. not sure if this is really useful) EDIT: 9. It should allow the use of shorter hash and public key. This will be very useful for micro-payment and short-term storage. The problem is, having a Script 2.0 like this could be risky. We may need to create a new alt-coin to test it for a long time before it could be merge to bitcoin. Any comments? |
|
|
|
 That could be a way to move the market. You want to move the market? Its not on the site yet..hoax maybe!! Edit: Hoax surely Seems that they removed it fast! Maybe it wasn't meant to be published today. Removed it fast? That's a hoax, you are fooling nobody. Ignored. |
|
|
|
I hope you do not open e-mail from people in Africa.
Based on his previous (mostly Chinese) and current posts, he simply doesn't understand bitcoin, even he started in 2011. Bitcoin is just like a get-rich-quick black box for him, backed by Bitcoin Foundation and "Satoshi of MtGox". He was lucky enough to discover this once-in-several-generations opportunity and earn a few hundred early adopter coins, but he never tried to figure out why Bitcoin makes him rich. Anyway, if he is lucky enough to have a few coins left in his local wallet, he should now learn how to keep them safe. You are a early adopter too. Did bitcoin makes you rich too? Did you sell bitcoin on 1000 dollars? Did you earn a few hundred early adopter coins? I do not know why could you give these words, you know nothing. THIS IS MY FAULT. I AM A IDIOT, OK? Sorry if you find I'm rude but this is not a good place to look for sympathy. The point is not whether bitcoin makes me rich. This is not a get-rich-quick scheme to me. I heard about it, learnt its mechanism, found it as a brilliant idea, and am now trying to contribute to it. So you know it is not the point? It's not the point for me. It's the point for you. You witnessed its raise from $2 to $1200, and it makes you rich, but you never learnt why it is so successful. Bitcoin is successful because you can trust your money with no one. You don't need to trust MtGox, don't need to trust Bitcoin Foundation, don't need to trust core developers, don't even need to trust Satoshi Nakamoto. Yes, you don't even need to trust Satoshi Nakamoto because the whole thing is open source.Although you never learnt this before, I hope you learn this TODAY, in a hard way. If you really can't understand this, go back to your local bank, it's way much safer than ANY existing bitcoin exchange. |
|
|
|
I hope you do not open e-mail from people in Africa.
Based on his previous (mostly Chinese) and current posts, he simply doesn't understand bitcoin, even he started in 2011. Bitcoin is just like a get-rich-quick black box for him, backed by Bitcoin Foundation and "Satoshi of MtGox". He was lucky enough to discover this once-in-several-generations opportunity and earn a few hundred early adopter coins, but he never tried to figure out why Bitcoin makes him rich. Anyway, if he is lucky enough to have a few coins left in his local wallet, he should now learn how to keep them safe. You are a early adopter too. Did bitcoin makes you rich too? Did you sell bitcoin on 1000 dollars? Did you earn a few hundred early adopter coins? I do not know why could you give these words, you know nothing. THIS IS MY FAULT. I AM A IDIOT, OK? Sorry if you find I'm rude but this is not a good place to look for sympathy. The point is not whether bitcoin makes me rich. This is not a get-rich-quick scheme to me. I heard about it, learnt its mechanism, found it as a brilliant idea, and am now trying to contribute to it. |
|
|
|
....I do not trust MTGOX, I do not trust my ability to store BTC safely and ability to listen hundreds of warnings about situation around MTGOX again .  FTFY It is not fault of Bitcoin... Please let me know why Bitcoin foundation did not give us the warnings. Should we trust Bitcoin foundation? Should we trust the developers of Bitcoin? Should we trust Bitcoin? I am sorry that some people more informed than you are making a fool of you. Bitcoin is a very robust and safe technology, and there is nothing broken about it. The problem is that it still requires some basic training before you start to use them. I would say it requires about 1-2 hours of reading, you may start with the Bitcoin Wiki, for example. Unless you are willing to take that basic training, you are putting yourself at risk when you are dealing with Bitcoin. That 1-2 hours basic training includes the following teachings, with all due respect (I'll be bold and use boldface) - Bitcoin has been designed so you can actually OWN them. Owning Bitcoin means that 1) you own the private keys for your addresses, 2) no one else does. In other words, it is OK to use a wallet like Bitcoin-Qt, Multibit, Electrum or even Blockchain.info. It is NOT OK to use third parties like MtGox, Bitstamp, inputs.io, etc. as your wallet. You will get burned.
- By trusting third parties to keep "your" Bitcoin, you are actually giving them your coins in exchange for a promise from them to give them back (IOU). This is VERY dangerous and there is absolutely no reason to take that risk until a very strong financial insurance and external auditing is backing that promise. Even if you are daytrading, it's worth withdrawing all your coins at the end of the day
- The Bitcoin Foundation is absolutely not Bitcoin's regulatory body, they are absolutely not monitoring, auditing or responsible for exchanges and services in any way,
- The Bitcoin developers cannot "force" you to understand what you are doing with your coins before allowing you to download and use their software. They can only urge you to do it. In other words, they cannot protect yourself from your own lack of knowledge
Now it is up to you to put the blame on Bitcoin if you want. But if Bitcoin succeeds and becomes what many here believe it will become (i.e. a huge success), you might end up "double-regretting" it in the future: not only your coins were stolen as an early, misinformed adopter, but you didn't take the chance to learn from it and "get rich again" before the masses wake up and everyone wants some Bitcoin So Bitcoin foundation are not monitoring itself too?? Mtgox is one of only two Bitcoin Foundation Gold Members. How could Bitcoin foundation "protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide"? Who found the Bitcoin Foundation? If you donot trust the developer, how could you trust bitcoin? Bitcoin Foundation CLAIMS it "protects and promotes the use of Bitcoin cryptographic money for the benefit of users worldwide". No more, no less. You need to make your own judgement. Bitcoin is a opensource project. You don't need to trust the developer. You can learn and review the source code. Bitcoin is about freedom, but freedom is not free. With the more freedom, you have more responsibility to take care of your money. If you simply can't handle it, or you are not care to learn it, please go back to the traditional banking system which is (supposedly) backed by the government. |
|
|
|
and Mark said this: I would like to use this opportunity to reassure everyone that I am still in Japan, and working very hard with the support of different parties to find a solution to our recent issues.
Welcome to yesterday |
|
|
|
You put your savings in bitcoin MtGox. Why would you do that? Like it hasn't been repeated here a 1000000 times not to invest what you can't afford to lose. It's a gamble like any other. Still I'm sorry you lost. Hope you will manage to get at least part of it back.
FTFY. There's nothing wrong with Bitcoin here. |
|
|
|
I hope you do not open e-mail from people in Africa.
Based on his previous (mostly Chinese) and current posts, he simply doesn't understand bitcoin, even he started in 2011. Bitcoin is just like a get-rich-quick black box for him, backed by Bitcoin Foundation and "Satoshi of MtGox". He was lucky enough to discover this once-in-several-generations opportunity and earn a few hundred early adopter coins, but he never tried to figure out why Bitcoin makes him rich. Anyway, if he is lucky enough to have a few coins left in his local wallet, he should now learn how to keep them safe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
