Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
bitcointalk.org
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
1–10 of 125 posts
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#2This is as plausible as anything else I've heard so far.
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#3I very much need a ;TLDR. Not through laziness but through hatred of the patronising prosaic style which stopped me reading.
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#4I very much need a ;TLDR. Not through laziness but through hatred of the patronising prosaic style which stopped me reading.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it was laziness.
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#5I very much need a ;TLDR. Not through laziness but through hatred of the patronising prosaic style which stopped me reading.
TLDR; In this hypothetical, thieves robbed MtGox in 2011 and the operator has been desperately trying to cover for it and delay since.
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#6The question for me after all this is simple:
Is it that 'Everything is a Ponzi scheme until it isn't' or is it that 'Nothing is a Ponzi scheme until it is'?
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#7Well,
Regardless of how exactly it happened, I think the big thing is that anything that operates as "just an exchange" has the potential to operate as a fractional reserve bank instead (IE, just operate with enough money to cover day-to-day transactions and not-have/use-for-something the remaining funds people think you have in your vault).
So basically, trusting any unregulated entity that claims to have stuff in its vaults is an inherently dangerous thing since such entities inherently tend to fail all at once when they fail (because they can mask either a series of small failures or a failure large enough to bankrupt the company but still not large enough to clean out the customers - yet).
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#8Assuming that MtGox (let's say MtGox, not Mark) did indeed introduce transaction malleability as a feature, that should be very easy to prove with source control commit logs. But if the malleability vulnerability was already there to begin with, it would be very hard to prove indeed that MtGox was taking advantage of it.
Edit: I should also add that Mark in particular has not proven himself smart enough in my eyes to pull something like this off. In terms of technical skill, yes, but this requires a very human approach to deception which I, based on the conversations I've seen him have, do not think he possesses.
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#9Assuming that MtGox (let's say MtGox, not Mark) did indeed introduce transaction malleability as a feature, that should be very easy to prove with source control commit logs. But if the malleability vulnerability was already there to begin with, it would be very hard to prove indeed that MtGox was taking advantage of it. Edit: I should also add that Mark in particular has not proven himself smart enough in my eyes to…
MtGox didn't use source code control.
Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
#10Assuming that MtGox (let's say MtGox, not Mark) did indeed introduce transaction malleability as a feature, that should be very easy to prove with source control commit logs. But if the malleability vulnerability was already there to begin with, it would be very hard to prove indeed that MtGox was taking advantage of it. Edit: I should also add that Mark in particular has not proven himself smart enough in my eyes to…
Do we even know if they used version control? Given the hectic organisation of the code I've seen so far, wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't controlled.