New message from Mt. Gox • Hacker News Board

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#131

Post by GigabyteCoin » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:30 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #82

Udo wrote: post #42

I'm one of those who lost a good amount on MtGox. It wasn't in there because I thought they are a bank, I put it there because I like to speculate from time to time. As such I was prepared to lose most if not all of it anyway. I didn't expect things to go wrong so thoroughly, but still that was the premise of my deposits there. So from that perspective, I'm not really mad about them losing the money. It's unfortunate…

It's not even as simple as a failure to communicate. It's hard not to conclude that they outright lied. First it was malleability, then it was "we're waiting on bitcoin developers," then it was "we've moved due to protesters and security problems," and now it's "we've closed our site due to recent news reports." I wonder when precisely they realized that >700,000btc were missing.

If I'm not mistaken, mtgox has not publicly stated that >700k BTC are indeed missing.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#132

Post by sonoffett » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:31 PM UTC

TophWells wrote: post #115

TophWells wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything like that. Here's the page source for me: MtGox.com Dear MtGox Customers, In the event of recent news reports and the potential repercussions on MtGox's operations and the market, a decision was taken to close all transactions for the time being in order to protect the site and our users. We will be closely monitoring the situation and will react accordingly. Best regards, MtGox Team

Wait, I refreshed the page a few times, and once, I got: MtGox.com var AKSB=AKSB||{};AKSB.q=[];AKSB.mark=function(b,a){AKSB.q.push(["mark",b,a||(new Date).getTime()])};AKSB.measure=function(b,a,c){AKSB.q.push(["measure",b,a,c||(new Date).getTime()])};AKSB.done=function(b){AKSB.q.push(["done",b])};AKSB.mark("firstbyte",(new Date).getTime()); AKSB.prof={custid:"223233",ustr:"",originlat:0,clientrtt:19,ghostip:"23.51.24…

Someone already mentioned in a previous thread that this is an anti-dos method.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#133

Post by astrodust » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:31 PM UTC

TophWells wrote: post #95

alexchamberlain wrote: post #12

So I have n bitcoins and $x in MtGox; will I get this back? Will there be a haircut? Is MtGox winding down? So many questions...

Probably not. But don't give up hope yet.

Give up hope. This thing is toast.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#134

Post by jorisw » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:38 PM UTC

TophWells wrote: post #91

jorisw wrote: post #57

What are they doing in the page source there? Storing a message in a cookie then refreshing the page to display it? The second time you visit the page, you'll get your cookie-stored statement. Almost seems like they want to be able to change their statement without previous visitors seeing the changes.

I don't see anything like that. Here's the page source for me: MtGox.com Dear MtGox Customers, In the event of recent news reports and the potential repercussions on MtGox's operations and the market, a decision was taken to close all transactions for the time being in order to protect the site and our users. We will be closely monitoring the situation and will react accordingly. Best regards, MtGox Team

That's the result DOM source. Try doing a lynx or curl on the site. The entire statement is served through filling a cookie with JavaScript and reloading the site.

Or so it was when I posted my earlier comment.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#135

Post by laichzeit0 » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:40 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #29

fennecfoxen wrote: post #28

CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME. What if Mt. Gox didn't really lose a post-Panamax boatload of Bitcoin (just a small amount)? They're just manufacturing a panic so they can buy Bitcoins at fire-sale prices, declare "We have all the BitCoin we need after all, we fixed our bug, everything's fiiiine" and maybe even turn a cash profit on the upside?

If there was any evidence of that they'd go to jail for a long time - even if bitcoin is not directly regulated, I'm sure there are still some anti-fraud regulations that would kick in...

I sure hope there's no such law. Let those who panicked and sold cry, because they were speculators to begin with.

Should there be the same laws kick in if they drive the price up, by say, adding fake orders on their exchange? I don't even think that should be illegal.

The market should move as it moves, through whichever means: fairness, deceit or ruse. I wouldn't want BTC any other way.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#136

Post by maaku » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:45 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #51

ekianjo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, nobody said that MtGox's CEO won't go in prison. There will be a lawsuit following the losses. The Law still applies when you start taking money for a service.

You can't sue someone into jail

Debtor's prison?

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#137

Post by nav1 » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:47 PM UTC

jorisw wrote: post #57

What are they doing in the page source there? Storing a message in a cookie then refreshing the page to display it? The second time you visit the page, you'll get your cookie-stored statement. Almost seems like they want to be able to change their statement without previous visitors seeing the changes.

The script is for a DDoS protection service (http://www.prolexic.com/). It only shows up the first time you load the page.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#138

Post by SilasX » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:52 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #101

amvp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but shouldn't they try to pay people back before they spend what's likely tens of thousands of dollars on what amounts to superficial marketing? I mean, it's not even much of a re-brand!

> Yeah, but shouldn't they try to pay people back before they spend what's likely tens of thousands of dollars on what amounts to superficial marketing? "Should" based on the assumption that they are profit-maximizing entity, or "should" based on the assumption that they are a moral actor? Because, you know, the answers are quite different.

I think that "should" is based on "wanting to avoid prosecution for operating while insolvent".

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#139

Post by kyberias » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 5:58 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #93

3rd3 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much did you lose on it?

Enough to feel uncomfortable telling people the amount ;)

Bro-hug. :) Seriously.

Re: New message from Mt. Gox

#140

Post by fredgrott » Tue, Feb 25, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #66

Udo wrote: post #42

I'm one of those who lost a good amount on MtGox. It wasn't in there because I thought they are a bank, I put it there because I like to speculate from time to time. As such I was prepared to lose most if not all of it anyway. I didn't expect things to go wrong so thoroughly, but still that was the premise of my deposits there. So from that perspective, I'm not really mad about them losing the money. It's unfortunate…

> or at the very least they don't give a crap about anything at all They were the market leader, with substantial revenue and lots of cash flow. Why they didn't prioritize hiring some people and securing their platform is still beyond my understanding. It's up there with the $100+ billion in cash Apple is evidently not using to hire enough code reviewers or implement adequate security processes for their most importa…

NO, in the Apple case its not hiring enough code reviewers..its even worse not using the coding talent they have to code a simple code scanner that detects brazen shit like a goto statement...

Apple's mes sup is pure management goof based on culture same as MTGX