5 ms·
We shouldn't be surprised by this. This monetary have no authority behind it.
by aquarin 15y ago
We shouldn't be surprised by this. This monetary have no authority behind it.
- aquarin 15y agoWhat is the point of down votes without explanation?
- vessenes 15y agoYou're being downvoted because you neither understand the Bitcoin system nor the mechanics of how Mt. Gox works, as evidenced by your post.
- aquarin 15y agoSure, i don't understand it, neither the people who brought bitcoins.
- weavejester 15y agoAnd you're basing this statement on what evidence?
- blackbeltjones 15y agoYour post ran counter to internet-libertarian dogma.
- aquarin 15y agoProbably. I regret each time i comment here, but I attribute this to the cultural differences between California based NH-users and the rest of the world.
- weavejester 15y agoIt's not cultural differences between California and the rest of the world. It's simply that your statements indicate you're commenting without an understanding the subject matter. This incident occurred because (a) people with large amounts of bitcoin do not always store them securely, and (b) the bitcoin market is very small, and therefore can be destabilised by relatively small amounts of money (a few million dollars, for instance).
- aquarin 15y agoI should say it again: This monetary system have no authority behind it and as such is going to nowhere. Disclaimer: I work as financial analytic and at least have some knowledge of how money work.
- aquarin 15y agoLet me explain what I mean: "Real" money are just a tokens, transferring the "Trust" between one market participant to authority and other market participant to authority. By "trust" I mean that every participants believe that Rules in the market will be followed. When you have N market participants you have N*(N-1)/2 ways to exchange "trust". If I understand correctly Bitcoin is N to N system. When you have Authority there are only N ways to exchange it - Each participant to Authority. N^2 is not scalable at least. And N^2 monetary system might work in theory only when there are no problems like this security problem.
- etherael 15y agoTrust that the participants in the market will behave in accordance with established rules on penalty of punishment of human administered centralised authority is one thing, trust that mathematical truths governing how cryptography works is completely another. If the latter does not hold, the financial institutions which you claim to be employed by are in a lot more hot water than they would be if it does and bitcoin flourishes because of it. It will take a long time for normal people to understand the implications of the cryptographic backing of bitcoins. Even quite a few people here don't "get it"
- ximeng 15y agoI suspect the downvotes come from around the world, not just California. http://www.hackrtrackr.com/ http://www.hackrtrackr.com/ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=752262 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=752262 (shame can't see the vote counts on this one any more)
- vrotaru 15y agoYou're both wrong and arrogant. Or, at least, perceived as such.
- lutorm 15y agoThat this was Bitcoin was of no consequence. The hack was of a web site that happens to provide an exchange for Bitcoin, not the Bitcoin network. It could have been an exchange for anything.