Live data from Hacker News

Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

bitcointalk.org

21–30 of 125 posts

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#21
What I like about this story is how consistent it is with decades of stories from financial fraud. E.g., the downfall of Nick Leeson and Barings Bank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson

Poor internal controls, greed, arrogance, and snowballing losses that lead to greater and greater risks. And then disaster, at least in the cases we hear about.

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#24
post #14

Well, 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 i…

It also shows what happens in an environment without insurance. If Mt.Gox was insured, this catastrophe would have been avoided for the customer by either the insurance company paying out or by Mt.Gox never getting hacked due to the security controls that the insurance company would have demanded. This, of course, raises the questions of "who insures the Bitcoin insurance company" and "how do the insurance companies…

Which is why government insuring bank deposits isn't such a crazy idea. If the government collapses and can't stand behind the policies, then you have some really big problems on your hands and it is likely that private insurers wouldn't have fared much better. If the government doesn't collapse, everyone gets made (more or less) whole again. Basically, when the government is your insurer, there is no "Who insures the insurer?" problem, or at least the problem becomes moot.

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#25

I did notice that the owner of a large mining pool was receiving error notifications from Mt. Gox. This mining pool has tampered with mined blocks to include religious messages, so they'd definitely be in a position to do transaction malleability attacks to provide Gox with plausible deniability. /r/bitcoin thread with sources: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zifxf/why_is_the_a...

I recall hearing Mt. Gox had some sort of deal with Eligius where they'd include Mt. Gox's transactions for free. I don't know what Eligius got in return, if anything.

The religious messages thing is a strawman. Miners are allowed to include whatever they want in the coinbase. It's common among pools, and hardly considered "tampering". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38007.0

Edit: more info: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zifxf/why_is_the_a...

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#26

Well, 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 i…

Couldn't a bitcoin exchange publish a list of accounts that they use to hold coins for customers, and similarly, request that their bank confirm that the sum of customer funds is greater than X?

I mean, we might not see exactly the number of things we expect, but if it's holding over 95% of the value expected (through those mechanisms), and shows a successful trend of having increases when it claims and decreases when it claims, then it seems relatively trustworthy.

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#27
i'm just (still) glad i didn't buy into the latest fad because of common sense.

all stories aside i believe that bitcoin is unsafe - and that this has been /blatantly/ obvious since i first encountered it as a suggested method to launder money and fund criminal activity.

don't buy unregulated 'currencies' with a strong history and incentive for money laundering and facilitating the black market. its violates the spirit of the law of pretty much every nation on earth.

whilst i genuinely believe that cryptocurrency is possibly the way forward - certainly a global currency which is independent of such whimsical things as nation states, politics and commodoties - i also think that it took a spectacular lack of common sense or 'street smarts' to actually spend money on bitcoins.

nice story... but i am indifferent to its truth - it doesn't negate the obvious risk of investing in bitcoin. but then many will say 'the greater the risk the greater the reward' and they are precisely correct.

NB: i barely trust the bank - i have a bank account 'under duress' as most of you probably have - that i would like to see my earnings from employment. how did that happen? why should banks have any involvement in my remuneration for work. /i would very much rather cash in hand that you can't fuck up for me because you are gambling it on the stock market under the pretense of running a business/. its not like we have self inflicted financial crises as a result or anything at all... :/

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#28
post #14

Well, 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 i…

It also shows what happens in an environment without insurance. If Mt.Gox was insured, this catastrophe would have been avoided for the customer by either the insurance company paying out or by Mt.Gox never getting hacked due to the security controls that the insurance company would have demanded. This, of course, raises the questions of "who insures the Bitcoin insurance company" and "how do the insurance companies…

Mt. Gox tried to secure insurance of customer deposits. Japanese insurance companies asked them about the specifics of their business and then said, to paraphrase, "Oh HELL no." One of the issues was that they were awaiting guidance from the Financial Services Authority, because insurance companies hate uncontrolled regulatory risk. The other issues were the sort of thing which will get your Errors and Omissions insurance application circular filed regardless of whether you're running an exchange or running a web development shop.

E&O insurance is surprisingly simple to understand. You fill out a 5ish page application, which asks you about the character of your business, your tech infrastructure, and your procedures/policies/etc regarding particular risks. The underwriter reads your application then asks some drilldown questions. The two I got were "Confirm Mr. McKenzie has 5+ years of professional experience in system administration" and "Confirm that the use of Appointment Reminder in a hospital is for the hospital's business administration or the convenience of patients, rather than for treatment/diagnosis/etc of a medical condition." (Translation: If it breaks, does anyone die? If so, we will probably not write this policy.)

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#29
post #24
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also shows what happens in an environment without insurance. If Mt.Gox was insured, this catastrophe would have been avoided for the customer by either the insurance company paying out or by Mt.Gox never getting hacked due to the security controls that the insurance company would have demanded. This, of course, raises the questions of "who insures the Bitcoin insurance company" and "how do the insurance companies…

Which is why government insuring bank deposits isn't such a crazy idea. If the government collapses and can't stand behind the policies, then you have some really big problems on your hands and it is likely that private insurers wouldn't have fared much better. If the government doesn't collapse, everyone gets made (more or less) whole again. Basically, when the government is your insurer, there is no "Who insures th…

Right, because if government does not collapse there is nothing stopping them from printing all the money they need to cover their obligations.

Re: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox

#30
post #27

i'm just (still) glad i didn't buy into the latest fad because of common sense. all stories aside i believe that bitcoin is unsafe - and that this has been /blatantly/ obvious since i first encountered it as a suggested method to launder money and fund criminal activity. don't buy unregulated 'currencies' with a strong history and incentive for money laundering and facilitating the black market. its violates the spir…

some people, which probably use tin hats, thinks that bitcoin was made by the government because it makes the flow of money more traceable, since all the operations are public. The government will never use bitcoin or bitcoin-based currencies because then they couldn't cover their own traces.
Post reply on HN