PC World Claims Counterfeit Bitcoins

[Jaime Frontero]

"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."

In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".

So he takes the time to get the facts right and not be libel, but none the less uses the word counterfeit as the article headline.

Nice hack job.

you're right - nice hack job.

but you're wrong - there's no libel (slander, actually).  nobody has legal standing where Bitcoin are concerned.  it isn't a currency; so you haven't been injured.  there is no company which owns the Bitcoin name... etc.

nobody's been libeled.  nobody's been hurt.

we're kinda screwed where the media is concerned.  they can say whatever they like.

[adaman]

[...]

there are three possibilities:

1) bitcoins were counterfeited

Not possibel, as far as we know at the moment.

2) the author is intentionally misleading readers with the headline

I agree. The headline also made me think this article is just another crap but i changed my mind after reading it.

3) the author is stupid

Not after carefully reading and understanding the article. I read much worse articles in the last days about bitcoin. Beside the facts claimed about what happens it seems the author know the technology he is writing about. And therefor i still can't call him an idiot.

[twobits]

If you have realy a little understanding how databases and bitcoins are working and assuming you read this article carefully and understand it you shouldn´t come to the conclusion the author is an idiot.
I am not an expert but in the database are no bitcoins stored. Only numbers that represents an accounts amount of bitcoin. If you "fake" or "counterfeight" this number you just change a number inside a database. The bitcoin block chain was never affected. So sure you can create an "counterfeit" amount of any item/number inside a database. And nothing else was mentioned by the author.

"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."

In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".

If you have little understanding, it should be a hint to do more research and fact checking before writing about it as a reporter.  

Changing the number in the database no more counterfeits bitcoins then a bank printing out an erroneous statement of your account showing more in it counterfeits euros.

You opinion is wrong.   The title is claiming a false fact and is wrong.   The fact you hold this opinion does not change the fact it is wrong nor make the author any more correct,  it just means you are both wrong.   

In this case though,  it may just be the author of the headline,  if could be someone else comes up with the headline then the author, I know that is often the case for newspapers.

[airdata]

Thanks to all of the posters helping to better explain this.

Twobits : exactly... people should know what they're writing about before putting an article out in the wild.

[BGL]

I found this article annoying after the first ~3 paragraphs and then didn't bother.

[Hans0]

Have mercy with them. They don't know better.

[Vladimir]

I have a database which lists all shuttles US launched into the space to date. I've just added a few records to that database. Opps, this was the biggest counterfeiting operation in history of mankind! I've just counterfeighted  a few "space shuttles". While I am at it I perhaps shall put a (counterfeit) man on the Moon too...

[finnthecelt]

I have a database which lists all shuttles US launched into the space to date. I've just added a few records to that database. Opps, this was the biggest counterfeiting operation in history of mankind! I've just counterfeighted  a few "space shuttles". While I am at it I perhaps shall put a (counterfeited) man on the Moon too...

Can you send me that so I can update the text books I'm writing? Whew! Just in the knick of time....what if we went to print!!   

[RodeoX]

I have a database which lists all shuttles US launched into the space to date. I've just added a few records to that database. Opps, this was the biggest counterfeiting operation in history of mankind! I've just counterfeighted  a few "space shuttles". While I am at it I perhaps shall put a (counterfeit) man on the Moon too...

There. I just counterfeited Vladimir's post.

[error]

Here's a dirty little secret for you.

The person who writes headlines is not always the person who writes the stories. (But they get the flak anyway.) There will usually be a few people who write the headlines for every story after skimming them to see what they're about.

[minerX]

"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."

In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".

So he takes the time to get the facts right and not be libel, but none the less uses the word counterfeit as the article headline.

Nice hack job.

you're right - nice hack job.

but you're wrong - there's no libel (slander, actually).  nobody has legal standing where Bitcoin are concerned.  it isn't a currency; so you haven't been injured.  there is no company which owns the Bitcoin name... etc.

nobody's been libeled.  nobody's been hurt.

we're kinda screwed where the media is concerned.  they can say whatever they like.

Actually, you are completely wrong.

This could very well be slander.  Changing a database to say someone has 2million bitcoins versus "creating 2 million via block chain" are COMPLETELY different.  If the author did not do his research that is his fault.

Anyone has legal standing to sue.  One simply has to prove 1) They were injured 2) Causation.     I definitely think it has merit.

It doesn't really matter if BTC is a currency or not.  It's property, it has value.  If the slander(purposeful or not) lowers the value of our property, that's an injury.

As a recap, they can say whatever they want as long as no one challenges them.

[TiagoTiago]

Didn't he also wrote "counterfeit" inside the article body itself?

[DonnyCMU]

So.... by his logic... if a hacker break into a social security database, and added non-existing SSN & info. Did he just counterfeit a human being???...  
HUMAN CLONING IS HERE!!!

Creating sensational & eye-catching title at the expense of the truth. He should be ashame.

[adaman]

If you have realy a little understanding how databases and bitcoins are working and assuming you read this article carefully and understand it you shouldn´t come to the conclusion the author is an idiot.
I am not an expert but in the database are no bitcoins stored. Only numbers that represents an accounts amount of bitcoin. If you "fake" or "counterfeight" this number you just change a number inside a database. The bitcoin block chain was never affected. So sure you can create an "counterfeit" amount of any item/number inside a database. And nothing else was mentioned by the author.

"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."

In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".

[...]

Changing the number in the database no more counterfeits bitcoins then a bank printing out an erroneous statement of your account showing more in it counterfeits euros.

I simply can agree. And nothing else i claimed. I didn't say that real bitcoins where "counterfeited" inside the block chain.

[...]
The title is claiming a false fact and is wrong.
[...]  

As i pointed out already in my last post thats also my opinion.

In this case though,  it may just be the author of the headline,  if could be someone else comes up with the headline then the author, I know that is often the case for newspapers.

I still stand to my opinion the article is not as bad as you think if you just read the headline and is technical correct (maybe except the term "counterfeit"). Now i am leaving this threat because it seems we only discuss about different meanings of the term "counterfeit".

[boaz2020]

Right, those "counterfeit" coins could never have made it out of the Mt Gox system.

But other peoples coins could have been pilfered from Mt Gox wallets through the erroneous row..

[marcus_of_augustus]

PC World is a cheap lightweight rag .... nuff said.

Bitcoin surely is flushing out the haters ... lotsa bad karma getting stored up, we gots the new money, they got hate.

[Trader Steve]

An obvious smear campaign which I actually don't mind because it buys me more time to acquire more bitcoin at these prices.

[Jaime Frontero]

"The hacker was able to create 2 million counterfeit BTC by manipulating the company's trading database ..."

In my opinion from an technical point of view this article claims no false facts and is correct.
The question for me is if it realy was happen in this way. But that makes me not calling the author an "idiot".

So he takes the time to get the facts right and not be libel, but none the less uses the word counterfeit as the article headline.

Nice hack job.

you're right - nice hack job.

but you're wrong - there's no libel (slander, actually).  nobody has legal standing where Bitcoin are concerned.  it isn't a currency; so you haven't been injured.  there is no company which owns the Bitcoin name... etc.

nobody's been libeled.  nobody's been hurt.

we're kinda screwed where the media is concerned.  they can say whatever they like.

Actually, you are completely wrong.

This could very well be slander.  Changing a database to say someone has 2million bitcoins versus "creating 2 million via block chain" are COMPLETELY different.  If the author did not do his research that is his fault.

Anyone has legal standing to sue.  One simply has to prove 1) They were injured 2) Causation.     I definitely think it has merit.

It doesn't really matter if BTC is a currency or not.  It's property, it has value.  If the slander(purposeful or not) lowers the value of our property, that's an injury.

As a recap, they can say whatever they want as long as no one challenges them.

perhaps i am wrong.  it would depend on how a court determined the central question of what - if any - value Bitcoin have.

i don't know how that would play out - do you?

i'll tell you what though - it wouldn't be decided on the merits.  i have to think that politics (which always devolves into money: i.e., what does the financial community [i.e.2., those who own the political process] want) would be the deciding factor.

hey!  has anybody figured out how to polarize the political community in re Bitcoin?  it'll happen pretty soon, so we should probably think about that.  which political side of the aisle would be the most advantageous to pursue?  the left or the right?

thoughts?

[DonnyCMU]

The author responded.... and agreed to change the term 'counterfeit bitcoins' to ..........  'fake bitcoins'!!!!

I understand there's been some exception to my use of the term counterfeit. First off, let me clarify that Mt.Gox agreed with me when I asked if the hacker was using fake currency, in other words the Bitcoins were phony or, as I said, counterfeit.

For all intents and purposes the hacker was circulating currency on Mt.Gox as if it were real BTC, it was being traded, it was affecting the currency price and nobody knew what has going on until it was too late. The only problem was the fake money couldn't be taken out of the exchange because the BTC couldn't be authenticated.

This was not just the simple act of changing numbers in a database, as some have suggested, since the hacker pushed the supposed currency into the market where it did real damage and appeared, at least for a short time, to be the real thing.

That said, I can understand how some people could misunderstand what I reported based on the headline. So I have asked the editors to change the term "counterfeit" to "fake." My apologies if you took issue with the title, it was not my intention to offend or mislead.

Hm..... So there are no such thing as Counterfeit bitcoins, but there are fake bitcoins.... Doesn't sound that much better!

[minerX]

The author responded.... and agreed to change the term 'counterfeit bitcoins' to ..........  'fake bitcoins'!!!!

I understand there's been some exception to my use of the term counterfeit. First off, let me clarify that Mt.Gox agreed with me when I asked if the hacker was using fake currency, in other words the Bitcoins were phony or, as I said, counterfeit.

For all intents and purposes the hacker was circulating currency on Mt.Gox as if it were real BTC, it was being traded, it was affecting the currency price and nobody knew what has going on until it was too late. The only problem was the fake money couldn't be taken out of the exchange because the BTC couldn't be authenticated.

This was not just the simple act of changing numbers in a database, as some have suggested, since the hacker pushed the supposed currency into the market where it did real damage and appeared, at least for a short time, to be the real thing.

That said, I can understand how some people could misunderstand what I reported based on the headline. So I have asked the editors to change the term "counterfeit" to "fake." My apologies if you took issue with the title, it was not my intention to offend or mislead.

Hm..... So there are no such thing as Counterfeit bitcoins, but there are fake bitcoins.... Doesn't sound that much better!

Nah, I wouldn't even go that far.  Since the bitcoins don't even have a fakechain block they can't be fake.  All they are is someone saying they have more then they do.  When it comes time to deliver all they have is air.  They don't exist.  Nada, nothing.