Wow those are some LARGE transactions!

[foggyb]

Good point EhVedadoOAnonima. Nerds and violence a weak link.

Yeah you got it right EvadhoovsaEnema

[1715019155]

1715019155

[1715019155]

1715019155

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Someone might go shake him down and find out that this is nothing more than the MtGox hot wallet.

Actually, you raise quite a good point: operators of large e-Wallets like MtGox have a strong interest in implementing something like multiple signatures, for their own personal safety.
If attackers know that Mark (it's his name, right?) cannot cash out his entire wallet without his clients' signatures, there's no point in trying to force him to.

I don't know what to do with coins "locked" in the order book though. If you make a sell order that doesn't get filled immediately, the exchange must have access to the coins yet to be sold in order to transfer them whenever a buy order gets them. So basically all coins on the ask side should not require their owners signature to be transferred, since the sellers might not be connected when the order gets executed... but perhaps there's a way to require the signature of the buyer as well? The buyer is definitely connect at the moment the order gets executed. Or just put the deal on "stand-buy", email the seller and request him to login in order to confirm.
Anyway, even if there isn't a perfect solution for the coins in the ask wall, the other coins at least could be protected by multisig. I don't know what's the proportion.

[DoomDumas]

jesus, guys. it's CHANGE. someone has 10K on a single address. jgarzic explained it above.

If that's the case, it shows the importance of correctly understanding how anonymous Bitcoin actually is.

If this guy is using these payments to pay for banal services or products, he might not have a clue on the honesty/character of the person he's transacting with. The other party might be someone capable of hurting people for money. And this potential criminal will be able to see that the guy he just transacted something banal with actually controls 10K BTC. If the criminal in question knows where the 10K BTC owner lives (what could be the case if something was physically delivered), things might get dangerous for the stash owner.

In this particular example, we have a situation where Bitcoin is even less private than traditional electronic means of payments. If I use a CC, paypal or a bank transfer to buy something from someone, this someone doesn't get to know how much money I have left on my account.

People should be wary of this. Currently Bitcoin is perhaps too "geek" for these potentially violent criminals to show interest in. But that might not remain the case forever.

This is true and keeping 10K at one address is something I wouldn't do. Keeping 10K in a day-to-day wallet is pretty risky, too. The guy needs to put some of that into secure offline storage if you ask me: the merchant receiving the 1 BTC and seeing the guy has 10K could launch an attack on this guys windoze-box quite easily (maybe even try stupid attack like sending him a disguised walletstealer.exe or something). Assuming the guy runs a node storing his 10K, his IP could be captured.

Maybe 10k btc is only 3% of his total BTC, so for this user, having only 3% on a live wallet seems an acceptable risk

[teston25]

Assuming people who're using btc, with a large amount of btc, are using windows..

Since most of us know the lack of security about a simple file over a windows architecture could be risky.

[J-Norm]

I wonder if this guy wants to buy some silver?