A Major Coinbase Milestone: 1 Million Consumer Wallets

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 10:29 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #49

ceejayoz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure anyone interested in heisting Bitcoin had Coinbase on their radar already.

True. So let's go with the hubris angle, then. Like others have said below, we trusted that Gox was secure as well.

Post by gnaritas » Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 10:52 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #65

gnaritas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law doesn't prevent you from committing crimes. That wasn't the question, the question was what's to stop them and the answer I objected to was "Nothing"; that's false, the law is not nothing. What's to stop most bad behavior... the law.

The law is fairly obviously not an answer though, given the context. The original question specifically asked what stops Coinbase from shutting down and taking everyone's money like MtGox did. It was just as illegal when MtGox did it, yet it happened anyway. (Actually, most of the other answers have the exact same problem.)

Post by wmf » Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 10:56 PM UTC

panabee wrote: post #69

how are they able to guarantee an exchange rate? aren't they exposing themselves to the huge fluctuations in bitcoin price (though the price seems to have stabilized recently)? for instance, there were some days this month where the price fluctuated by more than 40%. somehow the price and volume must work out where this is a calculated risk to cultivate the broader bitcoin ecosystem. would love to see some numbers if…

Post by baddox » Thu, Feb 27, 2014, 11:57 PM UTC

diego wrote: post #42

baddox wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people in this thread seem to think that there is either no incentive for Coinbase to conduct their business legitimately, or that the law is the only incentive. That ignores the much more obvious and presumably stronger incentive: they should be able to make a lot more money as a legitimate business than if they just ran away with one lump sum.

That relies on the assumption that they will not suffer a tremendous loss due to a rogue employee, a software bug or a malicious hack. If they found themselves in a situation in which they are certain to go out of business as soon as people find out that they are in trouble, that motivation would cease to exist. It would come down to ethics, reputation, pressure from investors, etc.

Post by smtddr » Fri, Feb 28, 2014, 12:58 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #71

smtddr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>What's to stop most bad behavior... the law No... what stops most bad behavior is _consequences_ . The law applies to everyone, but the consequences for breaking them don't. We will see what(if any) consequences are placed upon MtGox. Personally, I still can't see how MtGox will be found liable of anything. Bitcoins aren't protected under any law and nobody said it was okay to trade your hard-earned government-back…

The law is what defines the consequences, your pedantry is pointless. > Bitcoins aren't protected under any law False. Just because something is new doesn't mean existing laws don't apply to it. Bitcoins are property and property is protected by law regardless of when said item was invented. We don't have to create new law to cover every new invention man decides to own.