21–30 of 108 posts
This might explain the unusual rise of BTC vs. USD. The thief might have just traded those dollars to bitcoins which makes them harder to trace.
If that offer is really enough to make the price rise, this might be exactly what this guy is speculating on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've lost count of how many times they have been breached. Why don't they get independent pen testers and get them to test their system? Surely paying a pen tester $5k is much better than the amount of negative publicity you get when you lose $350K
Three times apparently (from the forum): Feb ~ 200k USD May ~ 91k USD Today ~ 300k USD
Hate to say this but if this sort of sloppiness continues, the bitcoin brand will be trampled so badly it will never get off the ground.
And Bitcoin does not have a "brand." You could say, and probably meant, "reputation."
I would've thought that no one would keep using Bitconica after their first major breach but here I am, shocked by the fact that people still kept trusting them with their Bitcoins
Nobody is using bitcoinica. Everyone is seeking refunds. Edit: Bitcoinica is still in the process of refunding everyone from the last breach when this happens.
The site has been offline for months, lots of people are simply caught waiting for a refund.
So basically there's nothing they can do now, if Bitcoinica's operation gets hacked again (their MtGox account this time).
It comes back to the most difficult problem: you inevitably need to trust someone, so how do you minimize your risk in that trust? I always thought the Bitcoin trust issues would revolve around the inability to trust that a service would be delivered once the provider is paid -- something that could theoretically be worked out with their reputation over the long run in a free market.
But it's unsettling to see that breaches like this don't evidently leave the impression with the Bitcoin community that a believer in the free market might hope they would, that providers in this market might not be driven to produce quality and reliability because somehow there isn't the demand for it.
Hate to say this but if this sort of sloppiness continues, the bitcoin brand will be trampled so badly it will never get off the ground.
Too late, I'm afraid. Who, today, uses Bitcoin, except for criminals and speculants?
And one thing I've noticed it increasingly being used for is basic (small-scale) financial services - for example, loans.
I don't get how you can simply "Loose" a few hundred grand without a horse head winding up at the food of your bed.
This is starting to prove -- the hard way -- why regulations, certifications, and all that other stuff that feels like meaningless overhead the majority of the time has become a grudgingly accepted part of our lives. It comes back to the most difficult problem: you inevitably need to trust someone, so how do you minimize your risk in that trust? I always thought the Bitcoin trust issues would revolve around the inabi…
Seriously. Knock that shit off. It's a red herring.
You can't abstract away the personal process of choosing trust anchors and metrics, no matter how hard you try.
Changing your trust anchor to "the government" just means you end up getting fucked on a larger scale, over a larger timeline.
Password is stored on your iOS device and securely transported to the site you're login into when you scan a QR code. No more excused for duplicate/easy to remember passwords!