Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

forum.bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 319 posts

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#91

Post by Sapient »

rick888 wrote: post #60
gte910h wrote: post #27

A thief can't pass good title on stolen goods: If you buy a stolen item, it is not yours, it is still the original owner's. Doesn't matter if it's a bitcoin, a car, or a quarter. The sale was not legit, it should not stand. The rest of the rollback is fuzzier, but on this gentlemans coins, a seizure should occur. http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec/blogs/bus-law-an...

Bitcoins are just bits on a computer and aren't physically taken away like a car or a quarter...so I don't think you can call it "stealing"

The RIAA and MPAA would disagree with you.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#92

Post by andypants »

cpeterso wrote: post #80

> Two months ago we migrated from MD5 hashing to freeBSD MD5 salted hashing. The unsalted user accounts in the wild are ones that haven't been accessed in over 2 months and are considered idle. Once we are back up we will have implemented SHA-512 multi-iteration salted hashing and all users will be required to update to a new strong password. I'm quite surprised that a service with accounts holding millions of dollar…

This is why mtgox is a joke (a very unfunny joke too).

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#93

Post by bradleyland »

kelnos wrote: post #38
zbanks wrote: post #13

Although I can completely understand why this guy (the sumbitter?) disagrees with MtGox's solution, I thought it seemed perfectly reasonable. Even though MtGox never stated they'd interfere, being hacked is unexpected enough to allow some leeway with follow-up. If the flashcrash happened organically, I doubt MtGox would revert the trades.

It's not that they never stated they'd interfere, it's that they explicitly stated they would never interfere by publicly disclaiming any role as a counter-party. If they were hacked, it's their responsibility to make things right with the party that was hacked, and not interfere with anyone else's accounts/trades. Anything less does severe damage to faith in the exchange, which tends to lead people to only keep mone…

"If they were hacked, it's their responsibility to make things right with the party that was hacked, and not interfere with anyone else's accounts/trades."

Exactly. Trust and consistency are the foundations of a usable exchange. Without those two things, there is no confidence, and the house of cards falls down. Mt. Gox is acting in their own interest. They're changing the rules of the game as they go.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#94

Post by jacques_chester »

nomurrcy wrote: post #85
sunchild wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? There is a perfectly legitimate argument for letting him keep the funds. They were put up for sale, and he bought them. It was MtGox's systems that executed the trade. If the sell order was invalid, it was MtGox's fault, or the seller account holder's, not the buyer's.

I'm not really sure I agree with this. The right to sell something is predicated on owning the item in question. A buyer of stolen goods is unable to take legal ownership, it doesn't matter if he doesn't know the item is stolen. (i.e. I steal a car, and sell it to you, you don't own the car even though you gave me money and you didn't know the car was stolen) It does matter that the coins were not put up for sale by…

> A buyer of stolen goods is unable to take legal ownership, it doesn't matter if he doesn't know the item is stolen.

This is (subject to numerous exceptions) not correct. While in common law you are correct, in equity, if the buyer is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, he or she can get title.

(IANAL, TINLA)

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#95

Post by cookiecaper »

cpeterso wrote: post #80

> Two months ago we migrated from MD5 hashing to freeBSD MD5 salted hashing. The unsalted user accounts in the wild are ones that haven't been accessed in over 2 months and are considered idle. Once we are back up we will have implemented SHA-512 multi-iteration salted hashing and all users will be required to update to a new strong password. I'm quite surprised that a service with accounts holding millions of dollar…

Heh. Do you think your banking institution is better?

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#96

Post by cloudwalking »

cantbecool wrote: post #68
lubos wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you see, majority of bitcoin forum audience are traders themselves. they are in for money and they are jealous.

The poster does not seem like a malevolent person at all, but he was clever enough to post the $0.0101 bid order before other buyers in line knew what happened, and the commenters on the Bitcoin forum are clearly jealous. Well played, toasty.

He didn't place the $0.0101 order. "I also decided against this, when I realized that whoever placed the gigantic sell order was probably doing so for the exact same reasons and I knew how that would make me look."

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#97

Post by dangero »

romland wrote: post #42
wiredfool wrote: post #3

So, There's something like 21 million bitcoin possible, and 6 million 'in circulation' now. A sell order comes in for 1/12 of total amount of outstanding bitcoin. And the system processes it, flashcrashes, and. 3) Profit, I guess. or 4) rollback. That's something like what would happen if someone dumped 1 trillion USD onto a bond exchange. There are only a couple entities who could do this. So how did 1/12 of the val…

Or it could, again, be stupidity by MtGox: This was a "test account" that had no real user attached to it. After all, if the trade is internal on MtGox, it's just a double in a database. If that is the case, then hell yes, I can see why MtGox would want this rollback.

That's a really good point. Who says that there really was anyone with that many bitcoins in their account? Maybe someone just hacked the database, put 500,000 btc into an account, and then sold them on the market? We know the user database was dumped, so why shouldn't we think that someone edited the account balances too?

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#98

Post by vessenes »

johnzabroski wrote: post #77

Very good synopsis by Kevin. However, he has two technical mistakes in his post from a security perspective: 1) We don't know the attack vector. For example: If Mt Gox has a SQL injection vulnerability, then a sophisticated attacker will not waste their time doing a rainbow attack on a random user. Instead, if the account balance is not encrypted and the key kept secret, then the attacker simply needs to do a SQL inj…

Unless this was changed in the last six months, the administrators did not amass bitcoins in their own accounts; each account had its own balance.

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#99

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Tichy wrote: post #40

I don't see the problem with a rollback. Couldn't the legal users just redo all their transactions? It sounds to me, as the first commentator on bitcoin.org says, that someone would like to keep their fat booty.

>I don't see the problem with a rollback.

Suppose I gamble my life savings, buy Kleenex shares. Tomorrow a report comes out showing that using paper tissues causes allergies and prolongs colds. The shares tank ... I'd like a rollback please!

Strangely enough the guy that saw the report first and shorted those shares making millions doesn't want a rollback.

Of course he wants to keep the money, he traded correctly on what was apparently a correctly operating exchange and won. That's how this sort of gambling works.

MtGox screwed up. Why would they allow a transaction that crashed the exchange so easily?

Re: I'm the guy who bought 259684 Bitcoins for under $3000 yesterday

#100

Post by wmf »

jacques_chester wrote: post #36
gte910h wrote: post #27

A thief can't pass good title on stolen goods: If you buy a stolen item, it is not yours, it is still the original owner's. Doesn't matter if it's a bitcoin, a car, or a quarter. The sale was not legit, it should not stand. The rest of the rollback is fuzzier, but on this gentlemans coins, a seizure should occur. http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/corpsec/blogs/bus-law-an...

The exception to this rule is a "bona fide purchaser for value without notice". If someone has no reason to believe that property is stolen and buys it, then it's their property now. So sorry. I'm still confused about whether or not bitcoin transactions are traceable. If they have deniability, it might be impossible to prove/disprove that you knew the goods were stolen. Of course, I am neither a lawyer nor a crypto s…

Bitcoin transactions are all public, but on Mt.Gox you can't see who the other side of a trade is.
Post reply on HN