Phinnaeus Gage (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
 |
August 22, 2011, 08:52:46 PM
Last edit: August 22, 2011, 09:17:44 PM by Phinnaeus Gage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be very wary of relying on JavaScript for security on crypto sites. The site can change the JavaScript at any time unless you take unusual precautions, and browsers are not generally known for their airtight security.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
N.Olmos
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:05:17 PM |
|
So it start now!  This is a great service; you no longer need to make back ally trades with shady dealers. Scammers will be out of business soon. |
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:09:52 PM |
|
Holy shit misleading thread title...
|
^_^
|
|
|
Serge
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:11:05 PM |
|
Holy shit misleading thread title...
which may cause a lot or some ripples |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:14:19 PM
Last edit: August 23, 2011, 12:31:58 AM by Phinnaeus Gage |
|
Holy shit misleading thread title...
Please forgive me. I didn't do this on purpose. Allow me to fix it. Thank you, elggawf, for bringing this to my attention. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:16:57 PM |
|
why is WFC and Chase allowing this?
do they even know they are allowing the purchase of BTC's?
|
|
|
|
|
mute20
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 265
Merit: 250
21
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:22:28 PM |
|
Wow big step looks like a bright future ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mousepotato
|
|
August 22, 2011, 09:27:33 PM |
|
I remember reading about this a few days ago in this forum. Repost?
|
Mousepotato
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Swami
|
|
August 22, 2011, 10:04:42 PM |
|
why is WFC and Chase allowing this?
do they even know they are allowing the purchase of BTC's?
Probably not, to them its probably just another bank account. |
|
|
|
|
|
geek-trader
|
|
August 22, 2011, 10:09:20 PM |
|
I remember reading about this a few days ago in this forum. Repost?
It's posted again because there is now a news article to link. And/or the OP missed the original announcement several days ago. |
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 22, 2011, 10:14:14 PM |
|
why is WFC and Chase allowing this?
do they even know they are allowing the purchase of BTC's?
Probably not, to them its probably just another bank account. if thats true then one would expect this to be a short lived phenomenon? |
|
|
|
|
|
Trader Steve
|
|
August 22, 2011, 10:29:17 PM |
|
I agree, this will probably be a short-lived phenomenon. The bankers do control the world after all. It might be wise to keep those back-alley connections in place  |
|
|
|
|
|
AngelusWebDesign
|
|
August 22, 2011, 10:29:34 PM |
|
Bitcoin has been recovering its value over the last few weeks after a hacker attacked another exchange, MT Gox last month using phoney Bitcoins to flood the market and drive down prices from $17.5 to pennies. How can a news article be so FULL OF IT? There were not, nor have there ever been, "phoney Bitcoins". That is the stupidest accusation I've ever heard of. A hacker would have to have more power than the entire Bitcoin network (13+ Terahashes) to "counterfeit" Bitcoins. Not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jazkal
|
|
August 22, 2011, 11:06:28 PM |
|
I agree, this will probably be a short-lived phenomenon.
They would have to prevent you from being able to deposit money into your own bank accounts. Not that I don't agree with you, it will just be really obvious when then put their majority customers through more hoops and hurdles, just to prevent coiners from depositing money into exchange bank accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Phinnaeus Gage (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1570
Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending
|
|
August 23, 2011, 12:36:47 AM |
|
I remember reading about this a few days ago in this forum. Repost?
It's posted again because there is now a news article to link. And/or the OP missed the original announcement several days ago. You are correct, geek-trader. This time there is an article to link to. I didn't miss it last time. I even did a quick search to make sure I wasn't reposting the same article twice today. Let's see how this pans out and if it changes the playing (no pun intended) field for Bitcoin. Bruno |
|
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
August 23, 2011, 01:13:54 AM |
|
How can a news article be so FULL OF IT?
There were not, nor have there ever been, "phoney Bitcoins". That is the stupidest accusation I've ever heard of.
A hacker would have to have more power than the entire Bitcoin network (13+ Terahashes) to "counterfeit" Bitcoins. Not gonna happen. Depends on how you define "phony" bitcoins... one could argue that the article isn't completely incorrect in a way. It's my understanding the MtGox attacker broke into Jed's account, awarded himself a bunch of Bitcoins that didn't exist and then proceeded to sell them all off. Were there counterfeit Bitcoins on the live Bitcoin network? No. Were "phony" Bitcoins sold to crash the price? Technically, yes. |
^_^
|
|
|
evoorhees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
|
|
August 23, 2011, 02:07:32 AM |
|
Were there counterfeit Bitcoins on the live Bitcoin network? No. Were "phony" Bitcoins sold to crash the price? Technically, yes.
Actually, no. No "phony" Bitcoins were sold in any way. REAL coins were sold, but from a hacked account. Big difference. One could say the sale was phony, but not the coins. |
|
|
|
|
julz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
|
|
August 23, 2011, 02:34:31 AM |
|
How can a news article be so FULL OF IT?
There were not, nor have there ever been, "phoney Bitcoins". That is the stupidest accusation I've ever heard of.
A hacker would have to have more power than the entire Bitcoin network (13+ Terahashes) to "counterfeit" Bitcoins. Not gonna happen. Depends on how you define "phony" bitcoins... one could argue that the article isn't completely incorrect in a way. It's my understanding the MtGox attacker broke into Jed's account, awarded himself a bunch of Bitcoins that didn't exist and then proceeded to sell them all off. Were there counterfeit Bitcoins on the live Bitcoin network? No. Were "phony" Bitcoins sold to crash the price? Technically, yes. In an analogous situation on a foreign exchange system - I don't believe it would be reported as "phony" USD being sold for Euros for example. It's a completely inappropriate use of the term. |
@electricwings BM-GtyD5exuDJ2kvEbr41XchkC8x9hPxdFd
|
|
|
|
helloworld
|
|
August 23, 2011, 03:26:30 AM |
|
Were there counterfeit Bitcoins on the live Bitcoin network? No. Were "phony" Bitcoins sold to crash the price? Technically, yes.
Actually, no. No "phony" Bitcoins were sold in any way. REAL coins were sold, but from a hacked account. Big difference. One could say the sale was phony, but not the coins. That's not what I read. I read what elggawf suggests, that the hacker simply added a row to the mtgox database that says "me, +1,000,000 BTC" and then started selling them. Phony within mtgox's database, but no counterfeit coins on the network. |
|
|
|
|
|
