[Emergency ANN] Bitcoinica site is taken offline for security investigation

[evoorhees]

I haven't been a great fan of Bitcoinica in the past.  The service introduced, at times, great volatility into bitcoin's price and I felt bitcoin itself was too immature to sustain a leveraged short selling system.

Speculation in general and Bitcoinica in particular reduce volatility. Bitcoinica going away will not make things more stable, but will have the opposite effect. Thankfully Kronos.io arrives just in time.

[bbit]

Why can't they just "disable" stolen bitcoins. I mean we are in the 21st century we should use the digital aspect of this to our advantage yes?

this would also raise the value of bitcoins if we can say "stolen proof" also  

And who decides what coins should be disabled? And who makes sure that those people in charge aren't corrupted or influenced? And how do they enforce it, and how could others be prevented from exploiting it?

how would they go to zero?? There has never been a currency that can claim being "stolen proof" that would only raise the value of using bitcoin not make it zero. More reason to get in = more value..

[JusticeForYou]

Why can't they just "disable" stolen bitcoins. I mean we are in the 21st century we should use the digital aspect of this to our advantage yes?

this would also raise the value of bitcoins if we can say "stolen proof" also 

I thought this was already possible with escrow? If a transaction doesn't go to plan, just don't unlock the coins.

An analogy: thieves may steal your vault of coins and put it inside their vault, but they can never access it because the vault is unbreakable and you have the key. There's the small question of quasi-deflation if the technique gets too popular, and a question of execution.

The hole principle of escrow is that no one loses anything. If a deal doesn't go as plan, the person gets his BTC back.

If you are suggesting that the escrow agent hold 'tainted' BTC and not give them back, it would be a very bad idea. Not to mention as soon as this is done once or twice, no one would use that person as an escrow. A 'good' escrow agent wouldn't even be concerned about the BTC or Fiat Currency. He would just facilitate a trade in confidence.

This line of thinking on how to get coins back is getting me concerned. You will essential become thieves to get money back from thieves and destroy the concept of bitcoin.

[S3052]

I haven't been a great fan of Bitcoinica in the past.  The service introduced, at times, great volatility into bitcoin's price and I felt bitcoin itself was too immature to sustain a leveraged short selling system.

Speculation in general and Bitcoinica in particular reduce volatility. Bitcoinica going away will not make things more stable, but will have the opposite effect. Thankfully Kronos.io arrives just in time.

what is kronos.io

[bbit]

I haven't been a great fan of Bitcoinica in the past.  The service introduced, at times, great volatility into bitcoin's price and I felt bitcoin itself was too immature to sustain a leveraged short selling system.

Speculation in general and Bitcoinica in particular reduce volatility. Bitcoinica going away will not make things more stable, but will have the opposite effect. Thankfully Kronos.io arrives just in time.

what is kronos.io

http://www.thebitcointrader.com/

[naima53]

Of course, I support Bitcoinica and the concept of leveraged speculating/hedging. We need more of them (regulated and unregulated so you can pick your flavour). You may not see it but large entities are planning on entering the bitcoin economy in a major way; margin exchanges allow them to hedge their currency exposure without having to sell out of their BTC positions.

A regulated entity does not always inspire trust. Just look at the poor MF Global customers.

+1 Of course, I support Bitkoinika. Zhou, does not close site! We need you! Move server - on a private (own personal) server. This is the problem with hacking - the problem is not in you, the problem of people whom you trust. A message left by hackers - a hint that it was Anonymus. I have not checked information for internal use that Anonymus - a political force behind them is the patron (sponsor), very high in power. At the highest level. Higher than the president of any country. Hosting will continue to "pour" information. Just under pressure from the authorities.

[terrytibbs]

Bitkoinika

Bitcoinica - Soviet Union edition

[JusticeForYou]

Why can't they just "disable" stolen bitcoins. I mean we are in the 21st century we should use the digital aspect of this to our advantage yes?

this would also raise the value of bitcoins if we can say "stolen proof" also  

And who decides what coins should be disabled? And who makes sure that those people in charge aren't corrupted or influenced? And how do they enforce it, and how could others be prevented from exploiting it?

how would they go to zero?? There has never been a currency that can claim being "stolen proof" that would only raise the value of using bitcoin not make it zero. More reason to get in = more value..

I assume you meant to quote me. Well, start 'disabling' coins if you can. BTC is a fiat currency. Its sole value is what people believe they are worth. If they can be 'disabled', they are pretty worthless. Imagine going to a store and handing a dollar to a clerk who tells you: "Sorry your dollar has been disabled." Do you have another? Oh, that one is disabled too.

But meh... go ahead and disable them. Oh, damn wait, I can't short at Bitcoinica.

[niko]

I cannot afford to read through 27 pages of posts, and obviously there is much more going on than what is in Zhoutong's original post. Zhoutong, would you please edit OP to add relevant updates?

[bitcoinBull]

I thank zhou for the updates, even though it comes across as less than professional for him to finger-point at the Bitcoin Consultancy.

But so far I can't find a single statement from Bitcoin Consultancy other than genjix's post (which turned out to be wrong if zhou is right - it was their fault if it was a bitcoin consultancy mail server that was compromised). To be honest, I've always been a little uneasy about the bitcoin consultancy because they claim to be core bitcoin developers (but I can't find any evidence of that).

[bbit]

I assume you meant to quote me. Well, start 'disabling' coins if you can. BTC is a fiat currency. Its sole value is what people believe they are worth. If they can be 'disabled', they are pretty worthless. Imagine going to a store and handing a dollar to a clerk who tells you: "Sorry your dollar has been disabled." Do you have another? Oh, that one is disabled too.

But meh... go ahead and disable them. Oh, damn wait, I can't short at Bitcoinica.

yes, it was for you.  I believe more people would be willing to get into if you were to tell them that hackers and thiefs don't bother with bitcoin because if you "steal" them they become worthless . This mindset has value and I would be more willing to put more money into bitcoins knowing that its worthless for a hackers to even bother with bitcoin ? just my 2 cents.

[Raoul Duke]

One important question I don't think has been addressed here yet:

What about verification documents that were emailed to Bitcoinica? Were those compromised?

He said they weren't. That they were stored encrypted at some other server. Now I'm not sure if that was on this thread or on the statement they had at blogspot which is no longer there and nobody knows if was real or fake.

EDIT: Just checked and it was not in this thread.

[JusticeForYou]

I assume you meant to quote me. Well, start 'disabling' coins if you can. BTC is a fiat currency. Its sole value is what people believe they are worth. If they can be 'disabled', they are pretty worthless. Imagine going to a store and handing a dollar to a clerk who tells you: "Sorry your dollar has been disabled." Do you have another? Oh, that one is disabled too.

But meh... go ahead and disable them. Oh, damn wait, I can't short at Bitcoinica.

yes, it was for you.  I believe more people would be willing to get into if you were to tell them that hackers and thiefs don't bother with bitcoin because if you "steal" them they become worthless . This mindset has value and I would be more willing to put more money into bitcoins knowing that its worthless for a hackers to even bother with bitcoin ? just my 2 cents.

Ok, I'll respect your position. Although I completely disagree with it.

So you would put more money into BTC if 'Someone?' could disable them if they are 'stolen'.

Who determines if they are to be disabled? What are the standards to determine if they are stolen?

It would become one big cluster @#*$ really soon with false claims of coins being stolen. And then people not trusting the people that can 'disable' the coins.

I understand your fear. Fear the fear tho...

[bbit]

I assume you meant to quote me. Well, start 'disabling' coins if you can. BTC is a fiat currency. Its sole value is what people believe they are worth. If they can be 'disabled', they are pretty worthless. Imagine going to a store and handing a dollar to a clerk who tells you: "Sorry your dollar has been disabled." Do you have another? Oh, that one is disabled too.

But meh... go ahead and disable them. Oh, damn wait, I can't short at Bitcoinica.

yes, it was for you.  I believe more people would be willing to get into if you were to tell them that hackers and thiefs don't bother with bitcoin because if you "steal" them they become worthless . This mindset has value and I would be more willing to put more money into bitcoins knowing that its worthless for a hackers to even bother with bitcoin ? just my 2 cents.

Ok, I'll respect your position. Although I completely disagree with it.

So you would put more money into BTC if 'Someone?' could disable them if they are 'stolen'.

Who determines if they are to be disabled? What are the standards to determine if they are stolen?

It would become one big cluster @#*$ really soon with false claims of coins being stolen. And then people not trusting the people that can 'disable' the coins.

I understand your fear. Fear the fear tho...

Thanks I respect yours also.  No, I'm just saying for big thefts like the one's that have been happening I think there would be a big consensus in favor of disabling $87,000 worth of bitcoin.  Yes, I don't know all the logistics of how it would play out but I'm pretty sure we are all smart enough to figure it out.

edit: keep in mind if we had this mindset early on we wouldn't even be talking about $87,000 worth of bitcoin being stolen they most likely would be where they were before being stolen if we made it clear bitcoins couldn't be stolen and sold for their value to the would-be-thief. Also, the way it now its a big #@#@ .  I'd rather have the would-be-thief get burned then to enjoy his or her bitcoins.

[imsaguy]

One important question I don't think has been addressed here yet:

What about verification documents that were emailed to Bitcoinica? Were those compromised?

He said they weren't. That they were stored encrypted at some other server. Now I'm not sure if that was on this thread or on the statement they had at blogspot which is no longer there and nobody knows if was real or fake.

EDIT: Just checked and it was not in this thread.

I remember reading that as well.  I thought it was in this thread.  Perhaps the post has been edited/deleted.

[BadBear]

One important question I don't think has been addressed here yet:

What about verification documents that were emailed to Bitcoinica? Were those compromised?

He said they weren't. That they were stored encrypted at some other server. Now I'm not sure if that was on this thread or on the statement they had at blogspot which is no longer there and nobody knows if was real or fake.

EDIT: Just checked and it was not in this thread.

I remember reading that as well.  I thought it was in this thread.  Perhaps the post has been edited/deleted.

I remember something like that from the Linoide debacle, but not this thread.

[Raoul Duke]

One important question I don't think has been addressed here yet:

What about verification documents that were emailed to Bitcoinica? Were those compromised?

He said they weren't. That they were stored encrypted at some other server. Now I'm not sure if that was on this thread or on the statement they had at blogspot which is no longer there and nobody knows if was real or fake.

EDIT: Just checked and it was not in this thread.

I remember reading that as well.  I thought it was in this thread.  Perhaps the post has been edited/deleted.

I checked Z's latest posts, until I reached the OP in this thread and there was no such thing mentioned. Nor edited posts, and I really doubt he would delete posts.
It was on the bitcoinica.blogspot.com statement for sure. Now it's not there and redirects to bitcoinica.com, so maybe it was a fake.

[rjk]

One important question I don't think has been addressed here yet:

What about verification documents that were emailed to Bitcoinica? Were those compromised?

He said they weren't. That they were stored encrypted at some other server. Now I'm not sure if that was on this thread or on the statement they had at blogspot which is no longer there and nobody knows if was real or fake.

EDIT: Just checked and it was not in this thread.

I remember reading that as well.  I thought it was in this thread.  Perhaps the post has been edited/deleted.

I remember something like that from the Linoide debacle, but not this thread.

It was in this thread but appears to have been removed.

[JusticeForYou]

Why can't they just "disable" stolen bitcoins....

I thought this was already possible with escrow? If a transaction doesn't go to plan, just don't unlock the coins....

The hole principle of escrow is that no one loses anything. If a deal doesn't go as plan, the person gets his BTC back.

If you are suggesting that the escrow agent hold 'tainted' BTC and not give them back, it would be a very bad idea. Not to mention as soon as this is done once or twice, no one would use that person as an escrow. A 'good' escrow agent wouldn't even be concerned about the BTC or Fiat Currency. He would just facilitate a trade in confidence.

This line of thinking on how to get coins back is getting me concerned. You will essential become thieves to get money back from thieves and destroy the concept of bitcoin.

My thoughts were based on this old thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=750.0
In one type of escrow, if the "buyer" (bitcoinica) gets scammed, they could use some special multi-signature feature of Bitcoin to basically burn the coins (hence my quasi-deflation remark). This would prevent the seller (the thief in this case) from spending them. The buyer would not be able to get them back.

ah... MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Not a bad idea, but there will be asshats doing it for fun and/or destruction of competition. Rather than buy out a competing service that is taking market share, it might be better to lock up his funds until he goes out of business.

The MAD principle could work though if both parties are of equal stature. It worked with US and Russia, not so sure it would work with Russia and Tongo if you see my point.

[BadBear]

It was in this thread but appears to have been removed.

Well that doesn't bode well.