5 ms·

that's only half the truth, here's the story of the so called "fraudster": http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20207.0 http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?t

by wurf 15y ago

that's only half the truth, here's the story of the so called "fraudster": http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20207.0 http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20207.0

perfunctory 15y ago
BBC story seem to differ from the one offered by toasty. We might never learn what actually happened.
- personalcompute 15y ago
  BBC has no story, they are parroting MT Gox's reports.
sltkr 15y ago
Note that there are at least two people involved (excluding Mt Gox): a hacker that managed to gain access to a large amount of bitcoins and started selling them all, and a person that profited of the low price by placing a large buy order at 1.01¢ per coin (so as to outbid sellers at 1¢ but still pay a very low price). Kevin/toasty admitted to be the buyer, but he is not the hacker (at least, he claims he isn't and Mt Gox seems to agree). The article suggests that these two parties were either the same person or were at least in collusion, but there is no proof of that whatsoever.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >but there is no proof of that whatsoever There is no independent proof of Mt.Gox's claim either is there?
  - pyre 15y ago
    Well, if there's no proof either way, then it makes sense for the BBC to 'take sides' and try to pick a winner, right?
    - maaku 15y ago
      Doesn't it make more sense for them to tell both sides and not take a stance? They're journalists--it's not their business to take sides if there is true cause for controversy.
      - cube13 15y ago
        How good of a source is a random forum post, though? Compared to an official line from a company or government, it's pretty shaky.
        pyre 15y ago
        Although it's a 'random forum post' it's hardly anonymous. The guy's full name (and I think address) turned up in the thread. The idea that something is 'just a random forum post' is usually because the poster is at least pseudo-anonymous if not fully anonymous.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by wurf 15y ago

that's only half the truth, here's the story of the so called "fraudster": http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20207.0 http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=20207.0

perfunctory 15y ago

BBC story seem to differ from the one offered by toasty. We might never learn what actually happened.

personalcompute 15y ago
BBC has no story, they are parroting MT Gox's reports.

sltkr 15y ago

Note that there are at least two people involved (excluding Mt Gox): a hacker that managed to gain access to a large amount of bitcoins and started selling them all, and a person that profited of the low price by placing a large buy order at 1.01¢ per coin (so as to outbid sellers at 1¢ but still pay a very low price). Kevin/toasty admitted to be the buyer, but he is not the hacker (at least, he claims he isn't and Mt Gox seems to agree). The article suggests that these two parties were either the same person or were at least in collusion, but there is no proof of that whatsoever.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>but there is no proof of that whatsoever There is no independent proof of Mt.Gox's claim either is there?
- pyre 15y ago
  Well, if there's no proof either way, then it makes sense for the BBC to 'take sides' and try to pick a winner, right?
  - maaku 15y ago
    Doesn't it make more sense for them to tell both sides and not take a stance? They're journalists--it's not their business to take sides if there is true cause for controversy.
    - cube13 15y ago
      How good of a source is a random forum post, though? Compared to an official line from a company or government, it's pretty shaky.
      - pyre 15y ago
        Although it's a 'random forum post' it's hardly anonymous. The guy's full name (and I think address) turned up in the thread. The idea that something is 'just a random forum post' is usually because the poster is at least pseudo-anonymous if not fully anonymous.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]