why does mt gox care about one user

[bitbot]

if I read the report right, one account was compromised and the selling of those coins was what cause the crash
why should mtgox revert everything because one guy was dumb enough to get his account stolen? or is there another story behind all of this. is this going to happen every time some hoarder gets taken advantage of-everyone else having to throw away a hard days work of bit-trading? isn't the action that mtgox is taking essentially the opposite of what bitcoin stands for? I understand there is concern for the overall security of the exchange but they can't just bend over every time a hacker sells some coins

[DamienBlack]

The market crashed to $.01. This is a little bit more than "one person getting hacked". It cause chaos and confusion for many traders and bots trying to follow the moment that was effectively a glitch in the system. 

[dana.powers]

the entire mtgox user database was compromised.  it is very likely that the attackers had their choice of accounts and found the one with the largest balance.

[bitbot]

I thought it was fun and from what I understand only one account was selling off a huge amount

[unk]

The market crashed to $.01. This is a little bit more than "one person getting hacked". It cause chaos and confusion for many traders and bots trying to follow the moment that was effectively a glitch in the system. 

that could all have happened if the legitimate owner of the account that was allegedly hacked decided to sell everything at once. would you advocate for a 'rollback' then?

[DamienBlack]

The market crashed to $.01. This is a little bit more than "one person getting hacked". It cause chaos and confusion for many traders and bots trying to follow the moment that was effectively a glitch in the system. 

that could all have happened if the legitimate owner of the account that was allegedly hacked decided to sell everything at once. would you advocate for a 'rollback' then?

No. Would you advocate a rollback if it was a system glitch, or a typo?

[Bit_Happy]

if I read the report right, one account was compromised and the selling of those coins was what cause the crash
why should mtgox revert everything because one guy was dumb enough to get his account stolen? or is there another story behind all of this. is this going to happen every time some hoarder gets taken advantage of-everyone else having to throw away a hard days work of bit-trading? isn't the action that mtgox is taking essentially the opposite of what bitcoin stands for? I understand there is concern for the overall security of the exchange but they can't just bend over every time a hacker sells some coins

I started out supporting the rollback and almost changed my mind; Want to try to help me answer any of these?

...why should mtgox revert everything...

1) Buyers were not able to place new bids during the meltdown, so it was unfair to all of those people. The whole thing could be called a computer glitch, and in those cases sometimes "real exchanges" do roll-back trades.

2) The big account smells very fishy. Why would anyone have such a huge amount of coins in an online account. You obviously cannot sell them all at once, unless you are setting up to intentionally crash the market, correct?

3) (Not an accusation, just a question) Maybe MtGox is really run by enemies of BTC?

What do you think?

[JTaBitCoinKing]

The owner sold his/her Bitcoin for $0.01 a peace. Obviously it wasn't a legitimate transaction.

[DamienBlack]

if I read the report right, one account was compromised and the selling of those coins was what cause the crash
why should mtgox revert everything because one guy was dumb enough to get his account stolen? or is there another story behind all of this. is this going to happen every time some hoarder gets taken advantage of-everyone else having to throw away a hard days work of bit-trading? isn't the action that mtgox is taking essentially the opposite of what bitcoin stands for? I understand there is concern for the overall security of the exchange but they can't just bend over every time a hacker sells some coins

I started out supporting the rollback and almost changed my mind; Want to try to help me answer any of these?

...why should mtgox revert everything...

1) Buyers were not able to place new bids during the meltdown, so it was unfair to all of those people. The whole thing could be called a computer glitch, and in those cases sometimes "real exchanges" do roll-back trades.

2) The big account smells very fishy. Why would anyone have such a huge amount of coins in an online account. You obviously cannot sell them all at once, unless you are setting up to intentionally crash the market, correct?

3) (Not an accusation, just a question) Maybe MtGox is really run by enemies of BTC?

What do you think?

1) Some buyers report that they were. I'm not sure if I believe them since I could not, but indeed, it seems that the whole system locked up with such an unusual request.

2) I don't think the account was as big as it seems. I think a lot of panic sellers and bots joined the selling frenzy as they hit stop-loss amounts. But there was the 260K+ bitcoins at the end for .01, that must have been from the hacked account. Still a lot. It is very curious.

3) No, quit being silly

[unk]

The market crashed to $.01. This is a little bit more than "one person getting hacked". It cause chaos and confusion for many traders and bots trying to follow the moment that was effectively a glitch in the system.  

that could all have happened if the legitimate owner of the account that was allegedly hacked decided to sell everything at once. would you advocate for a 'rollback' then?

No. Would you advocate a rollback if it was a system glitch, or a typo?

a typo made by a user? no

a glitch in the mechanics of the exchange? yes

this wasn't a problem in the mechanics of the exchange. it was theft, followed by the thief doing something naughty in an exchange. the exchange functioned perfectly; mt. gox failed only as a fiduciary or broker.

mt. gox is doing something here that's primarily self-motivated, and i feel like they ought to be called on that. a rollback is for them, not for anyone else, except perhaps their customer from whom funds were stolen.

The owner sold his/her Bitcoin for $0.01 a peace. Obviously it wasn't a legitimate transaction.

if someone wanted to cash out entirely from bitcoin and placed an order to sell everything, and that person owned several hundred thousand coins, that's exactly what would happen. presumably that possibility is what motivated people to put in long-term buy orders at $0.01 per bitcoin.

[DamienBlack]

THERE'S MORE TO THE MTGOX STORY! Bitcoin World Exclusive: MORE Breaking News Revealed, LIVE 2pm ET Monday. http://t.co/i7sgc7C

If you want anyone to click you should not use address shorteners.

[DamienBlack]

The market crashed to $.01. This is a little bit more than "one person getting hacked". It cause chaos and confusion for many traders and bots trying to follow the moment that was effectively a glitch in the system.  

that could all have happened if the legitimate owner of the account that was allegedly hacked decided to sell everything at once. would you advocate for a 'rollback' then?

No. Would you advocate a rollback if it was a system glitch, or a typo?

a typo made by a user? no

a glitch in the mechanics of the exchange? yes

I don't see the distinction between this and a glitch. This is behavior that was not supposed to happen. I was a very complicated glitch the used some actual people on the way, but a glitch none the less.

[Bit_Happy]

if I read the report right, one account was compromised and the selling of those coins was what cause the crash
why should mtgox revert everything because one guy was dumb enough to get his account stolen? or is there another story behind all of this. is this going to happen every time some hoarder gets taken advantage of-everyone else having to throw away a hard days work of bit-trading? isn't the action that mtgox is taking essentially the opposite of what bitcoin stands for? I understand there is concern for the overall security of the exchange but they can't just bend over every time a hacker sells some coins

I started out supporting the rollback and almost changed my mind; Want to try to help me answer any of these?

...why should mtgox revert everything...

1) Buyers were not able to place new bids during the meltdown, so it was unfair to all of those people. The whole thing could be called a computer glitch, and in those cases sometimes "real exchanges" do roll-back trades.

2) The big account smells very fishy. Why would anyone have such a huge amount of coins in an online account. You obviously cannot sell them all at once, unless you are setting up to intentionally crash the market, correct?

3) (Not an accusation, just a question) Maybe MtGox is really run by enemies of BTC?

What do you think?

...
2) I don't think the account was as big as it seems. I think a lot of panic sellers and bots joined the selling frenzy as they hit stop-loss amounts. But there was the 260K+ bitcoins at the end for .01, that must have been from the hacked account. Still a lot. It is very curious.
...

#2 makes a great discussion. Can you think of any reason to have so many coins at MtGox other than setting up to intentionally crash the market?

[xanatos]

With so much money you can probably control the market. If it's true that the 400k transaction is the money that MtGox moved in a secure place, it's probable that it's nearly all the BTC money of MtGox, so 230k is more than half. What can you do with more than half the BTC of a pool? You can make the market "stable" and gain from its micro-movements, stopping the macro-movements. So the "stableness" of the last week could have been enginereed with this money.

[unk]

I don't see the distinction between this and a glitch. This is behavior that was not supposed to happen. I was a very complicated glitch the used some actual people on the way, but a glitch none the less.

i agree that that's the right kind of question to be asking, but all that happened here (reportedly) is that funds were stolen and then dumped. breaking trades isn't an appropriate (or possibly even legal) response either to theft or to dumping. it's a fine response to a glitch in the actual mechanism of exchange (if, for example, every order placed for 2.50 bitcoins was treated by the system incorrectly as if it was for 250 bitcoins).

suppose someone stole 500,000 bitcoins outside of mt. gox and then made these trades. suppose mt. gox then said to everyone who happened to buy at $4, 'sorry, we're not going to honour that trade. we'll give you your $400 back instead of the 100 btc you bought'. nobody would accept that, correct?
then what difference does it make that the theft happened to occur inside a mt. gox account rather than just before being transferred to mt. gox?

as this analogy suggests, there's a very good argument that what mt. gox is doing is entirely unjustified and amounts to anti-contractual theft from its own paying customers. it's one thing if it wanted to make up the loss; it's another to deny customers the benefit of a trade merely because they, as broker, permitted a theft to occur.

[Bit_Happy]

I don't see the distinction between this and a glitch. This is behavior that was not supposed to happen. I was a very complicated glitch the used some actual people on the way, but a glitch none the less.

i agree that that's the right kind of question to be asking, but all that happened here (reportedly) is that funds were stolen and then dumped. breaking trades isn't an appropriate (or possibly even legal) response...
...

A possibly legal (or illegal) response?
You (we) are dealing with an unregulated exchange, and most of the members know about that status, so talking about a legal response is a bit odd, IMO.
MtGox can do whatever they want, and their customers can ether stay (like I am) or leave.

[unk]

A possibly legal (or illegal) response?
You (we) are dealing with an unregulated exchange, and most of the members know about that status, so talking about a legal response is a bit odd, IMO.
MtGox can do whatever they want, and their customers can ether stay (like I am) or leave.

no matter how many times people repeat that, it's just untrue. mt. gox might wish to exist in an unregulated anarchist utopia, but it's subject at least to the laws of japan and very likely to other laws that apply under treaty obligations. at the very minimum, customers of mt. gox have contractual rights against it, and contractual rights very definitely exist even in the absence of express contractual terms; usually gaps in contracts are filled in with implied terms based on trade usage and practice.

you're right that one option a dissatisfied customer has is to leave. but if the customer is not just dissatisfied but wronged, another option is to sue. i'm not an expert on japanese contract law, but if the exchange existed in the united kingdom or the united states (two legal systems with which i have experience, even though not a lawyer), a legal claim by someone whose profits were disgorged as part of a 'rollback' would, in a situation like this, very likely be weighty. at a minimum, it would not easily be dismissed as frivolous or obviously wrongful.

again, in case it's not clear, a 'rollback' here would be identical to the following situation:  someone steals 500,000 btc and transfers it into mt. gox. they sell at low prices, and someone buys a number of bitcoins at $4. subsequently, the exchange rate rises to $13. mt. gox decides, however, that the trades are illegitimate, reverses them, and keeps the spread for itself. or, it turns over the money voluntarily to the authorities, or to the party it believes was the 'rightful' owner of the 500,000, in its own legal or ethical judgement.

in all those cases, what mt. gox would have done is very literally 'theft', and users would almost certainly have legal claims against it. i cannot distinguish that case from this one, substantively. surely mt. gox's position is no better merely because it, or one of its customers, was the party that was stolen from. its response is equally wrongful and self-serving in this case as in the ones above; it just happens to be allocating its portion of the illicitly recovered 'profit' from other people's trades back to one of its chosen customers.

[ahtremblay]

Its simply really. MTGOX should roll it back because they are responsible for the security breach

[unk]

Its simply really. MTGOX should roll it back because they are responsible for the security breach

if so, that explains why they should find a way to reimburse their customer whose funds were stolen. it doesn't mean they should roll back trades an impersonator of that customer made with others.

i suspect they'll go through with the rollback as they've threatened, but again, to imagine they're doing this out of a duty to their customers would be completely wrongheaded. they're presumably doing it to cover themselves because it seems to them to be the easiest way out of a mess they negligently created. that's very different from 'responsibility' or 'professionalism', and it helps only (1) them and (2) their one customer from whom funds were stolen.

[bitbot]

when a hacker steals my 20 bitcoins I want the entire market frozen and every order to be reversed until I am satisfied