bitstamp 18,000 bitcoins stolen? -confirmed

[batou]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

There is none, also look my posts in this thread.

[tarmi]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

timestamps of the transactions match perfectly with the attack

huge and non standard miner fees

[N12]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

Real question is, where's the proof that Bitstamp holds them? We can't get the hacker to sign addresses, but Bitstamp could do it.

[Damelon]

https://twitter.com/nejc_kodric/status/552091195795845120

[batou]

There is no proof either way, but last transactions on that address correspond to this:

"Customer deposits made prior to January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC are fully covered by Bitstamp’s reserves. Deposits made to newly issued addresses provided after January 5th, 2015 9:00 UTC can be honored."

This could mean that transactions before Jan 5th 9:00 UTC are safe (this also explains high fees, they had to transfer from hot wallets to cold quickly).

But those after are lost and will be paid for by Bitstamp.

[Miz4r]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

timestamps of the transactions match perfectly with the attack

huge and non standard miner fees

That's not proof. Stamp could have set high fees also to move those coins as quickly as possible after they discovered the breach.

[N12]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

timestamps of the transactions match perfectly with the attack

huge and non standard miner fees

That's not proof. Stamp could have set high fees also to move those coins as quickly as possible after they discovered the breach.

So there's two possibilities:

1) Bitstamp are being stupid
2) Bitstamp were hacked by someone stupid

Well, that's encouraging.

[p4n]

twitter from Bitstamp's CEO

[N12]

Still all talk and no proof. We have address signing, time to make use of it.

[tarmi]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

timestamps of the transactions match perfectly with the attack

huge and non standard miner fees

That's not proof. Stamp could have set high fees also to move those coins as quickly as possible after they discovered the breach.

no. coins will not move any faster if you put 1 btc fee.

someone was generous with the fees.

[Miz4r]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

timestamps of the transactions match perfectly with the attack

huge and non standard miner fees

That's not proof. Stamp could have set high fees also to move those coins as quickly as possible after they discovered the breach.

So there's two possibilities:

1) Bitstamp are being stupid
2) Bitstamp were hacked by someone stupid

Well, that's encouraging.

Well people generally act stupid in a state of panic. A wallet breach sure must have sent Stamp owners' heart rates to new all time highs.

[tarmi]

That 18k BTC wallet could also be Bitstamp moving coins around or to safety, where's the proof those coins are in the hands of the supposed hacker?

timestamps of the transactions match perfectly with the attack

huge and non standard miner fees

That's not proof. Stamp could have set high fees also to move those coins as quickly as possible after they discovered the breach.

So there's two possibilities:

1) Bitstamp are being stupid
2) Bitstamp were hacked by someone stupid

Well, that's encouraging.

Well people generally act stupid in a state of panic. A wallet breach sure must have sent Stamp owners' heart rates to new all time highs.

no panic dude, that address was collecting bitcoins from compromised bitstamp addresses for 24 h.

[infobel]

Someone posted this address in a comment on some article. He said that was the address where his bitcoins were sent to. from his bitstamp address. (something like that).

1L2JsXHPMYuAa9ugvHGLwkdstCPUDemNCf

So thief as 18,000 bitcoins from the alleged theft of bitcoins from bitstamp?

Is this true or not?

Article:
http://www.coindesk.com/bitstamp-reports-hot-wallet-issue-tells-customers-not-deposit-bitcoin/

That's a cold storage address of bitstamp.
They started to move coins as soon as they found the hack.
They moved the last coins as soon as they closed the website.

[tonygal]

Still all talk and no proof. We have address signing, time to make use of it.

Unless it's 100% clear what happened and what parts of the system were compromised, I don't think
it's a particularly good idea to load the cold private keys onto any electronical system (and, so, make
them hot) just to sign a message and calm people down. That the cold private keys remain private
is the most important thing now.

[Miz4r]

no panic dude, that address was collecting bitcoins from compromised bitstamp addresses for 24 h.

Maybe a typo then or just generosity, either way it says nothing about who the wallet's owner is.

[tarmi]

no panic dude, that address was collecting bitcoins from compromised bitstamp addresses for 24 h.

Maybe a typo then or just generosity, either way it says nothing about who the wallet's owner is.

well, we do know that stamp uses standard fees 0.0001 when moving coins.

here we have some transactions with 0.55, 1 BTC, 0.1 BTC fees.

[infobel]

no panic dude, that address was collecting bitcoins from compromised bitstamp addresses for 24 h.

Maybe a typo then or just generosity, either way it says nothing about who the wallet's owner is.

well, we do know that stamp uses standard fees 0.0001 when moving coins.

here we have some transactions with 0.55, 1 BTC, 0.1 BTC fees.

You can't use standard fees when moving that many coins from that many addresses in one go
Gonna take too much time to confirm

[tonygal]

You can't use standard fees when moving that many coins from that many addresses in one go

But no way you need 1 BTC. There's only one reasonable explanation: Someone was in a rush.

[tarmi]

no panic dude, that address was collecting bitcoins from compromised bitstamp addresses for 24 h.

Maybe a typo then or just generosity, either way it says nothing about who the wallet's owner is.

well, we do know that stamp uses standard fees 0.0001 when moving coins.

here we have some transactions with 0.55, 1 BTC, 0.1 BTC fees.

You can't use standard fees when moving that many coins from that many addresses in one go
Gonna take too much time to confirm

not true.

the fees have nothing to do with the number of coins.

[batou]

not true.

the fees have nothing to do with the number of coins.

With size of transaction, many addresses -> large size.