5 ms·

The hacker wasn't trying to get money. He was trying to undermine the system. And it's working. The $1000 was a bonus on top of all the doubt he has now inst

The hacker wasn't trying to get money. He was trying to undermine the system. And it's working. The $1000 was a bonus on top of all the doubt he has now instilled in anyone who has bitcoins.

mcantelon 15y ago
Mt. Gox's security concerns are definitely troubling, but my guess is the effect on the market won't be huge as the Bitcoin community seems fairly committed to the long term.
- xfs 15y ago
  The market is indeed small. From the leaked database of Mt Gox, there are 40k registered mailbox.
  - palish 15y ago
    62k actually.
hugh3 15y ago
The hacker wasn't trying to get money. He was trying to undermine the system. What makes you think that? Heck, I've been undermining bitcoin for weeks just for fun, but I'd much rather have a thousand dollars.
- bobwebb 15y ago
  Not to sound paranoid, but if the hacker had a vested interest in bitcoin being undermined (government agent?) then money wouldn't be his main motive.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Not to sound paranoid... (government agent?) Uh, sorry, that's pretty much textbook paranoia.
    - mcantelon 15y ago
      It's a possibility. States do work to undermine things that threaten them. The Liberty Dollar project, for example, was recently shut down by the US government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar . Bitcoin is a potential threat to the state because it provides an ideal instrument for tax avoidance and competition in the drug/force trade.
      - hugh3 15y ago
        It's a possibility. States do work to undermine things that threaten them. The Liberty Dollar project, for example, was recently shut down by the US government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar Sure, and they shut it down openly using the hammer and anvil of the FBI and the judicial system. If and when the US Government decides to act against bitcoin, they'll do it loudly and openly... not by some complicated, difficult and illegal scheme that doesn't really achieve anything. Currency issues fall into the jurisdiction of the US Secret Service, an agency not known for subtlety.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        mcantelon 15y ago
        Yeah, if legal and open is more cost effective, they'll likely go that route. Otherwise, they may revert to skullduggery (as they have in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO).
        tedunangst 15y ago
        I think it's a big leap to go from illegal wiretaps to hacking and stealing.
        mcantelon 15y ago
drivebyacct2 15y ago
This isn't a weakness in BTC. This was a weakness with MtGox. They're only related because the attacked tried to get out of BTC into USD. It's not really BTC's fault.
- ugh 15y ago
  It’s not Bitcoin’s fault but it’s Bitcoin’s problem. Life isn’t fair and Bitcoin needs trust (like every other currency) if it wants to succeed.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    No, no they don't. BTC can never be trusted like other currencies. It was designed that way intentionally. Frankly, I kinda surprise I'm still having to repeat this even with the huge volume of BTC posts here and even with a post specifically talking about this yesterday (entitled "BTC's value is decentralization" or something). The value in BTC isn't that it's a rival to USD/GBP/CAD. It's that it's decentralized and untraceable. You can't offer guarantees. You can't offer FDIC. You can't offer protection and you can't give someone their money back if it's stolen. That's intentional and it's by design. It is Bitcoin's problem, but only because people are too dumb to realize that BTC != Mt.Gox. EDIT: I misspoke. BTC itself can be trusted, but it can't be insured or surveilled and controlled like other traditional currencies. Saying "BTC can never be trusted like other currencies" was sloppy and erroneous on my part.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Bitcoin doesn’t need to be trusted? People will use it despite not trusting it? I have trouble believing that. This looks like a PR problem to me, the best infrastructure won’t help you with that.
      - drivebyacct2 15y ago
        People that don't trust BTC, don't trust it because they don't understand it. Bitcoin isn't trying to compete with USD. It's a niche market for people interseted in trading anonymously and buying goods that they can't otherwise. Eventually it may grow, and that's fine. What do you propose? A big PR push that BTC is safe? What if another exchange screws up? How are you going to explain that BTC itself is safe, but that third parties that interact with it require a seperate layer of trust? I trust BTC. I use BTC. I don't trust Mt.Gox, so I'll go use another exchange. Again, none of this was the result of ANY flaw in BTC. I mean, I guess bitcoin.org can run a banner "Mt.Gox's problems were unassociate with the safety of Bitcoin", but that's not going to help anything... and besides, there is still literally nothing that can ever be done about securing the currency of uninformed users. If people want insured, centrally-authorized currencies, they need to go elsewhere. There's nothing to trust in BTC except the cryptographic soundness of SHA-whatever.

The hacker wasn't trying to get money. He was trying to undermine the system. And it's working. The $1000 was a bonus on top of all the doubt he has now instilled in anyone who has bitcoins.

mcantelon 15y ago

Mt. Gox's security concerns are definitely troubling, but my guess is the effect on the market won't be huge as the Bitcoin community seems fairly committed to the long term.

xfs 15y ago
The market is indeed small. From the leaked database of Mt Gox, there are 40k registered mailbox.
- palish 15y ago
  62k actually.

hugh3 15y ago

The hacker wasn't trying to get money. He was trying to undermine the system. What makes you think that? Heck, I've been undermining bitcoin for weeks just for fun, but I'd much rather have a thousand dollars.

bobwebb 15y ago
Not to sound paranoid, but if the hacker had a vested interest in bitcoin being undermined (government agent?) then money wouldn't be his main motive.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Not to sound paranoid... (government agent?) Uh, sorry, that's pretty much textbook paranoia.
  - mcantelon 15y ago
    It's a possibility. States do work to undermine things that threaten them. The Liberty Dollar project, for example, was recently shut down by the US government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar . Bitcoin is a potential threat to the state because it provides an ideal instrument for tax avoidance and competition in the drug/force trade.
    - hugh3 15y ago
      It's a possibility. States do work to undermine things that threaten them. The Liberty Dollar project, for example, was recently shut down by the US government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar Sure, and they shut it down openly using the hammer and anvil of the FBI and the judicial system. If and when the US Government decides to act against bitcoin, they'll do it loudly and openly... not by some complicated, difficult and illegal scheme that doesn't really achieve anything. Currency issues fall into the jurisdiction of the US Secret Service, an agency not known for subtlety.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - mcantelon 15y ago
        Yeah, if legal and open is more cost effective, they'll likely go that route. Otherwise, they may revert to skullduggery (as they have in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO).
        tedunangst 15y ago
        I think it's a big leap to go from illegal wiretaps to hacking and stealing.
        mcantelon 15y ago

drivebyacct2 15y ago

This isn't a weakness in BTC. This was a weakness with MtGox. They're only related because the attacked tried to get out of BTC into USD. It's not really BTC's fault.

ugh 15y ago
It’s not Bitcoin’s fault but it’s Bitcoin’s problem. Life isn’t fair and Bitcoin needs trust (like every other currency) if it wants to succeed.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  No, no they don't. BTC can never be trusted like other currencies. It was designed that way intentionally. Frankly, I kinda surprise I'm still having to repeat this even with the huge volume of BTC posts here and even with a post specifically talking about this yesterday (entitled "BTC's value is decentralization" or something). The value in BTC isn't that it's a rival to USD/GBP/CAD. It's that it's decentralized and untraceable. You can't offer guarantees. You can't offer FDIC. You can't offer protection and you can't give someone their money back if it's stolen. That's intentional and it's by design. It is Bitcoin's problem, but only because people are too dumb to realize that BTC != Mt.Gox. EDIT: I misspoke. BTC itself can be trusted, but it can't be insured or surveilled and controlled like other traditional currencies. Saying "BTC can never be trusted like other currencies" was sloppy and erroneous on my part.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Bitcoin doesn’t need to be trusted? People will use it despite not trusting it? I have trouble believing that. This looks like a PR problem to me, the best infrastructure won’t help you with that.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      People that don't trust BTC, don't trust it because they don't understand it. Bitcoin isn't trying to compete with USD. It's a niche market for people interseted in trading anonymously and buying goods that they can't otherwise. Eventually it may grow, and that's fine. What do you propose? A big PR push that BTC is safe? What if another exchange screws up? How are you going to explain that BTC itself is safe, but that third parties that interact with it require a seperate layer of trust? I trust BTC. I use BTC. I don't trust Mt.Gox, so I'll go use another exchange. Again, none of this was the result of ANY flaw in BTC. I mean, I guess bitcoin.org can run a banner "Mt.Gox's problems were unassociate with the safety of Bitcoin", but that's not going to help anything... and besides, there is still literally nothing that can ever be done about securing the currency of uninformed users. If people want insured, centrally-authorized currencies, they need to go elsewhere. There's nothing to trust in BTC except the cryptographic soundness of SHA-whatever.