Kipcoin lost 3000 btc and shutdown

[ChuckBuck]

The bright side is that all these poorly managed incompetent exchanges get washed away. There really need to be a stronger regulation on exchanges, then i bet 80% of these exchanges wouldn't pass the test.

Exactly this, no regulation, no framework, no recourse.

It's one of the reasons, I'm actually fine with the Bitlicense and AML/KYC rules being applied to exchanges and services of the like.

Without regulation, you get the wild wild west, and bad operators just up and leave when they'd make their dime, and claim it was "hacked".

[1714224160]

1714224160

[1714224160]

1714224160

[redsn0w]

The bright side is that all these poorly managed incompetent exchanges get washed away. There really need to be a stronger regulation on exchanges, then i bet 80% of these exchanges wouldn't pass the test.

Exactly this, no regulation, no framework, no recourse.

It's one of the reasons, I'm actually fine with the Bitlicense and AML/KYC rules being applied to exchanges and services of the like.

Without regulation, you get the wild wild west, and bad operators just up and leave when they'd make their dime, and claim it was "hacked".

I think it is so difficult to "regulate" a crypto currency exchange, because the government should first regulate bitcoin (as cryptocurrency) and this is impossible. Because it is decentralized and not compatible with this economy system.

The unique rule I can give is : don't keep your coins on an exchange (in this case a sort of web wallet).

[ChuckBuck]

The bright side is that all these poorly managed incompetent exchanges get washed away. There really need to be a stronger regulation on exchanges, then i bet 80% of these exchanges wouldn't pass the test.

Exactly this, no regulation, no framework, no recourse.

It's one of the reasons, I'm actually fine with the Bitlicense and AML/KYC rules being applied to exchanges and services of the like.

Without regulation, you get the wild wild west, and bad operators just up and leave when they'd make their dime, and claim it was "hacked".

I think it is so difficult to "regulate" a crypto currency exchange, because the government should first regulate bitcoin (as cryptocurrency) and this is impossible. Because it is decentralized and not compatible with this economy system.

The unique rule I can give is : don't keep your coins on an exchange (in this case a sort of web wallet).

Actually it's not so difficult:

https://blog.gemini.com/welcome-to-gemini/

There has to be some give and take, unfortunately, and we need more exchanges like Gemini to prove to the masses that Bitcoin can be safe medium of exchange and trading.

[Borisz]

Happened to this site as well?

Man this year is starting BAD!

[Lauda]

That's what happens when your everyday random person with a Word certificate works as your Security Engineer.

[leopard2]

Looks like 2015 is going to be the year of hacks...

no

Year of Ponzi

it is not in Chinese calendar but maybe it should?

This was NOT an exchange either

[GigaBit]

The bright side is that all these poorly managed incompetent exchanges get washed away. There really need to be a stronger regulation on exchanges, then i bet 80% of these exchanges wouldn't pass the test.

Exactly this, no regulation, no framework, no recourse.

It's one of the reasons, I'm actually fine with the Bitlicense and AML/KYC rules being applied to exchanges and services of the like.

Without regulation, you get the wild wild west, and bad operators just up and leave when they'd make their dime, and claim it was "hacked".

Hey old friend

I agree, in most cases, exchanges fall and have no accountability; they should be insured against heists and such, just like banks.

Even for mining, in many jurisdictions you need a prospector license for like $25 a year; slight money grab.

Only a few have exchanges actual backing... people want to genuinely trust exchanges.

New ones come up with big promises of interest and what not... they always all fail.

Alas, it will never work as long as they don't have banking-level insurance and/or backing in case of heists.

Exchanges and online wallets are the only weak spot in the entire Bitcoin infrastructure.

However, people are ultimately responsible if the exchanges or online wallet loses their coins.

No reason to leave your coin purse at the craps table at the end of the night, right?

If you do, you deserve to lose it; exchanges are not banks, they are casinos.

I can't stand having any coins of any type in an exchange and when I do send some it's not all my cache and WD as soon as my trades are done.

Knowing the wild wild west is a good way to make a killing today and protecting your coin yesterday!

It's always a good idea is also using a reputable exchange.

[pereira4]

Remember guys keep your coins with you and do not store them anywhere else.

[ChuckBuck]

The bright side is that all these poorly managed incompetent exchanges get washed away. There really need to be a stronger regulation on exchanges, then i bet 80% of these exchanges wouldn't pass the test.

Exactly this, no regulation, no framework, no recourse.

It's one of the reasons, I'm actually fine with the Bitlicense and AML/KYC rules being applied to exchanges and services of the like.

Without regulation, you get the wild wild west, and bad operators just up and leave when they'd make their dime, and claim it was "hacked".

Hey old friend

I agree, in most cases, exchanges fall and have no accountability; they should be insured against heists and such, just like banks.

Even for mining, in many jurisdictions you need a prospector license for like $25 a year; slight money grab.

Only a few have exchanges actual backing... people want to genuinely trust exchanges.

New ones come up with big promises of interest and what not... they always all fail.

Alas, it will never work as long as they don't have banking-level insurance and/or backing in case of heists.

Exchanges and online wallets are the only weak spot in the entire Bitcoin infrastructure.

However, people are ultimately responsible if the exchanges or online wallet loses their coins.

No reason to leave your coin purse at the craps table at the end of the night, right?

If you do, you deserve to lose it; exchanges are not banks, they are casinos.

I can't stand having any coins of any type in an exchange and when I do send some it's not all my cache and WD as soon as my trades are done.

Knowing the wild wild west is a good way to make a killing today and protecting your coin yesterday!

It's always a good idea is also using a reputable exchange.

Agreed, Gigabuddy!  

Trust is HUGE part of it when it comes money exchangers or money services.  Right now, there really isn't a trust system in place where an average Bitcoiner can leave their funds online.  

Like if I leave my funds online in say BitStamp for a couple minutes, make a couple of trades, and then before I click Withdraw, the website's down.  I check back in 5 minutes, and it's still down.  I check back in an hour, try to email Support, and it ricochets back with a Undeliverable, now I'm panicking.  There's simply no entity or authority that can insure, or refund you, or go to bat for  you.

That's why I'm most excited about Gemini launching.  Ticks all the checkboxes for me.

[ebliever]

Probably too soon to be able to reach firm conclusions, but as time passes I'd like to see someone research all the reported "hacked exchanges/online wallets/etc." and identify the root causes of the hacks. Is it malware/remote intrusion? Or inside jobs by employees? Or the owner of the exchange/business taking the funds and running? I suspect the 2nd cause (inside jobs by non-owners) may be the principal cause of theft.

Bitcoin businesses need to develop very robust security protocols before they even think about crafting their systems and opening for business. If they have any flaws or loopholes they WILL be found and exploited. Count on it. And that includes by insiders as well as outsiders to the organization.

Of course, traditional fiat businesses are facing the same situation, but there is a lot less transparency about their losses and failures.

1% ++ monthly returns is a pretty obvious ponzi if you ask me.

Yeah, I missed that detail when I made my first post. Anyone promising returns, particularly returns over 3-5% annually, is pretty much a guaranteed crook.

[SirChiko]

Well hackers have aways been here and even shitload cards with fiat get stolen every year.

[BCwinning]

Well hackers have aways been here and even shitload cards with fiat get stolen every year.

Very good point and if you think about it.
Major multinational banks with tons more money to throw at security can't even keep their networks free of hackers.

[ElectricMucus]

Another day another scam.

[moriartybitcoin]

Doh. They're paying interest, so OF COURSE its a ponzi!

[moriartybitcoin]

Only an IDIOTIC exchange would store bitcoin the server where hackers can get to it. So either this exchange was:

A. Extremely stupid or
B. Scam

What do you think?

[Borisz]

Doh. They're paying interest, so OF COURSE its a ponzi!

Banks are also paying interest.

If some of the profit is given out to attract more customers, it makes more profit. But yea it might be a ponzi, regardless.
Let's wait for the news.

[darkangel11]

It's just coins changing hands. I bet they kipt it all in a hot wallet. Now there's no 3000 bitcoin and no kipcoin

[teukon]

The bright side is that all these poorly managed incompetent exchanges get washed away. There really need to be a stronger regulation on exchanges, then i bet 80% of these exchanges wouldn't pass the test.

Exactly this, no regulation, no framework, no recourse.

It's one of the reasons, I'm actually fine with the Bitlicense and AML/KYC rules being applied to exchanges and services of the like.

Without regulation, you get the wild wild west, and bad operators just up and leave when they'd make their dime, and claim it was "hacked".

It's one of the reasons I'm not too hard on exchanges like Gemini which actively seek regulations for themselves and hope to use state approval to advertise and bring in customers fed up with losing money in the wild west.

However, this is no reason to back Bitlicense or AML/KYC rules.  As far as I understand it, the Bitlicense is not optional, a significant loss in freedom of choice and potential efficiency (the market is cut out of the process of determining efficient regulations) for no real gain in safety (I'd argue indeed a long-term loss in safety).  Furthermore, AML/KYC rules wouldn't have prevented the loss of these 3000 BTC.  All AML/KYC would have done here is cause hassle for Kipcoins customers, put a bunch of passport scans in the hands of potential fraudsters, and cost taxpayers money paying the salaries of bureaucrats to make this all happen.

[tss]

when will people ever learn.. greedy greedy.  keep your coin and you wont lose it. 

[cozk]

Ah yes. The "hack".

I made a dream last night.
In that dream exchange operators all over the web were stealing BTC from their exchange wallets and blaming all of this on a ''hacker''.
Everybody believed it. Life is good.

Then again that is just a "dream"