4 ms·

Your mode of thought, trying to divide the world into 'fanatics' and 'sane people', is not a helpful way to analyze these issues. >Has there ever been any real

Your mode of thought, trying to divide the world into 'fanatics' and 'sane people', is not a helpful way to analyze these issues. >Has there ever been any real or serious evidence to demonstrate that any of these seemingly numerous Bitcoin 'hacks' have been legit and not inside jobs, which is exactly what they all look like? You're asking people to prove a negative[1]. It's a common logical fallacy. >nobody seems to actually go to jail for it or even face any serious legal investigations into it. Really? This claim is trivially disprovable. Numerous people have been arrested, including Mark Karpeles of Mt Gox. You've never heard of that case? $500 million allegedly stolen https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+exchange+arrested https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+exchange+arrested http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-police-arrest-mark-karpeles-of-collapsed-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox-1438393669 http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-police-arrest-mark-karp... http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/02/23/mintpal-scammer-ryan-kennedy-arrested-in-u-k-over-theft-of-3700-bitcoins/ http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/02/23/mintpal-scammer-ryan... [1]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

menzoic 11y ago
Whats wrong with proving a negative? There is no fallacy in that first comment you quoted. datapat isn't claiming that what he's saying is true, he's asking for a proof.
- eli 11y ago
  The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out?
  - datapat 11y ago
    >The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. >For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out? If only there was an organization whose remit was to investigate and establish the facts behind fraud, robbery, hacking and other crimes.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Well, at a minimum they should file a complaint with the authorities, hand over evidence that they did find, and so on. Too many times these 'hacks' have a weird smell and the companies for some reason do not want to get the authorities involved. Imagine how strange it would be if you had a breach at your home, a very large amount of value would be stolen and you'd not make any effort to alert the authorities and if the only thing that would prove that it was an outsider was your say-so. Of course, you could make it look like a burglary when it really was you but the various agencies would most likely be able to tell the difference, or in fact may be able to conclusively prove that you were the one doing it in the first place. Lots of real-life fraudsters get caught this way, I don't see why on-line fraudsters should get a free pass on having to at least meet the same level of proof before they are believed.
    - eli 11y ago
      I agree, but I don't think failing to do so necessarily means there's more to the story. The simple explanation of greed and incompetence seems pretty plausible.
colanderman 11y ago
> You're asking people to prove a negative[1]. It's a common logical fallacy. No, he's asking for proof that there has been a non-internal Bitcoin hack. That's a simple existence proof. If he were asking one to prove a negative, he'd have to ask something like "prove that there have been no internal Bitcoin hacks" (which is likely easily refuted but beside the point). (He may be implicitly claiming a negative proof, by implying that there isn't any evidence that these are non-internal hacks, and therefore they must be inside jobs. But that's merely asking others to disprove a negative, which is trivial with evidence.)
- FatalLogic 11y ago
  >he's asking for proof that there has been a non-internal Bitcoin hack. That's a simple existence proof. In reality it's not simple. How would you prove it? However you define this, a very serious problem with the OPs request for proof is the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin, combined with the difficulty of definitively connecting a real life identity to an online action. The Cryptsy 'hack' is a neat example of this. The money was moved once, 18 months ago, and for observers, that transfer of money did not appear suspicious at the time. It looked just the same as an internal movement of funds for security or accounting purposes. The money even remains where it was moved. But now Cryptsy's owner has announced that the money was not moved by him. How can we prove or disprove his claim? We can say that he dishonestly hid the theft, but it seems impossible to prove that he stole it. Even if his ISP is ordered by a court to release logs that show his home IP address did the theft, he could claim that his computer was hacked. But for someone doing an inside job, anyway there are so many ways to hide their identity and IP address. Edit: So, should anyone offer evidence of a non-internal Bitcoin hack, the OP can simply make these arguments, to plausibly suggest that it may really have been an internal hack, disguised as an external hack
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Such deception is not that easy, to do this consistently after the fact is going to be an extremely dangerous thing to pull off. You not only will be facing a charge for the initial theft but another one for obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence and possibly a whole pile of others. Personally I'd be already more inclined to believe it was an outsider if they filed this breach with the authorities and if they turned over all their evidence. You'd have to be fairly cocky to do that if you were the one that made off with the loot (not that it wouldn't happen, but it would happen a lot less frequently).
datapat 11y ago
>You're asking people to prove a negative[1]. It's a common logical fallacy. No, I'm asking for examples of investigations where authorities have concluded that so-called 'hacks' at Bitcoin exchanges were indeed hacks and not simply thefts by scammers running the services. >Really? This claim is trivially disprovable. Numerous people have been arrested, including Mark Karpeles of Mt Gox. You've never heard of that case? $500 million allegedly stolen Karpeles has not been arrested over "$500 million allegedly stolen", which is perhaps why you linked to a story about something else, behind a paywall. As for Moolah guy, if you have 'proof' that he was arrested over the hacked Mintpal coins that amounts to more than Chinese whispers on Bitcoin forums/blogs, let's see it. All your link does is link to another site that claims he was arrested, almost a year ago, and doesn't even state why. Even if we assume he might be one day charged with the theft of the coins, that's one person involved in a Bitcoin inside job facing prosecution over it. I'm sure I can find more than one person involved in an inside job at a bank (involving dollar amounts considerably smaller than we're talking about with Bitcoin 'hacks') doing actual time for it.

menzoic 11y ago

Whats wrong with proving a negative? There is no fallacy in that first comment you quoted. datapat isn't claiming that what he's saying is true, he's asking for a proof.

eli 11y ago
The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out?
- datapat 11y ago
  >The nature of this sort of conspiracy theory makes it impossible to disprove. >For example an identified backdoor and logs pointing to an external hack is exactly what you'd expect to see planted if this were a halfway clever inside job, right? So how do you possibly rule that out? If only there was an organization whose remit was to investigate and establish the facts behind fraud, robbery, hacking and other crimes.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Well, at a minimum they should file a complaint with the authorities, hand over evidence that they did find, and so on. Too many times these 'hacks' have a weird smell and the companies for some reason do not want to get the authorities involved. Imagine how strange it would be if you had a breach at your home, a very large amount of value would be stolen and you'd not make any effort to alert the authorities and if the only thing that would prove that it was an outsider was your say-so. Of course, you could make it look like a burglary when it really was you but the various agencies would most likely be able to tell the difference, or in fact may be able to conclusively prove that you were the one doing it in the first place. Lots of real-life fraudsters get caught this way, I don't see why on-line fraudsters should get a free pass on having to at least meet the same level of proof before they are believed.
  - eli 11y ago
    I agree, but I don't think failing to do so necessarily means there's more to the story. The simple explanation of greed and incompetence seems pretty plausible.

colanderman 11y ago

> You're asking people to prove a negative[1]. It's a common logical fallacy. No, he's asking for proof that there has been a non-internal Bitcoin hack. That's a simple existence proof. If he were asking one to prove a negative, he'd have to ask something like "prove that there have been no internal Bitcoin hacks" (which is likely easily refuted but beside the point). (He may be implicitly claiming a negative proof, by implying that there isn't any evidence that these are non-internal hacks, and therefore they must be inside jobs. But that's merely asking others to disprove a negative, which is trivial with evidence.)

FatalLogic 11y ago
>he's asking for proof that there has been a non-internal Bitcoin hack. That's a simple existence proof. In reality it's not simple. How would you prove it? However you define this, a very serious problem with the OPs request for proof is the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin, combined with the difficulty of definitively connecting a real life identity to an online action. The Cryptsy 'hack' is a neat example of this. The money was moved once, 18 months ago, and for observers, that transfer of money did not appear suspicious at the time. It looked just the same as an internal movement of funds for security or accounting purposes. The money even remains where it was moved. But now Cryptsy's owner has announced that the money was not moved by him. How can we prove or disprove his claim? We can say that he dishonestly hid the theft, but it seems impossible to prove that he stole it. Even if his ISP is ordered by a court to release logs that show his home IP address did the theft, he could claim that his computer was hacked. But for someone doing an inside job, anyway there are so many ways to hide their identity and IP address. Edit: So, should anyone offer evidence of a non-internal Bitcoin hack, the OP can simply make these arguments, to plausibly suggest that it may really have been an internal hack, disguised as an external hack
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Such deception is not that easy, to do this consistently after the fact is going to be an extremely dangerous thing to pull off. You not only will be facing a charge for the initial theft but another one for obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence and possibly a whole pile of others. Personally I'd be already more inclined to believe it was an outsider if they filed this breach with the authorities and if they turned over all their evidence. You'd have to be fairly cocky to do that if you were the one that made off with the loot (not that it wouldn't happen, but it would happen a lot less frequently).

datapat 11y ago

>You're asking people to prove a negative[1]. It's a common logical fallacy. No, I'm asking for examples of investigations where authorities have concluded that so-called 'hacks' at Bitcoin exchanges were indeed hacks and not simply thefts by scammers running the services. >Really? This claim is trivially disprovable. Numerous people have been arrested, including Mark Karpeles of Mt Gox. You've never heard of that case? $500 million allegedly stolen Karpeles has not been arrested over "$500 million allegedly stolen", which is perhaps why you linked to a story about something else, behind a paywall. As for Moolah guy, if you have 'proof' that he was arrested over the hacked Mintpal coins that amounts to more than Chinese whispers on Bitcoin forums/blogs, let's see it. All your link does is link to another site that claims he was arrested, almost a year ago, and doesn't even state why. Even if we assume he might be one day charged with the theft of the coins, that's one person involved in a Bitcoin inside job facing prosecution over it. I'm sure I can find more than one person involved in an inside job at a bank (involving dollar amounts considerably smaller than we're talking about with Bitcoin 'hacks') doing actual time for it.