3 ms·

bitstamp are professional while mtgox were amateur cowboys with no support. This is all so clear now, it seems. Further, Bitstamp was bitten by exactly the sam

bitstamp are professional while mtgox were amateur cowboys with no support. This is all so clear now, it seems. Further, Bitstamp was bitten by exactly the same bug (the malleability bug which was apparently what demonstrated Gox's purported cluelessness, and which I highly doubt was the cause of MtGox's apparent failure). Unless there was an independent audit by a third party, why should you trust that they won't fall victim to exactly the same issue?

nullc 13y ago
> Bitstamp was bitten by exactly the same bug (the malleability bug This is not factually correct. Bitstamp and MTGox's issues were unrelated, and the transactions that caused problems for Bitstamp were never seen on the network prior to a couple hours before MTGox's press release (and in volume, until after it).
- corresation 13y ago
  Bitstamp and MTGox's issues were unrelated In both cases there was an issue with the service having transaction issues due to the malleability issue. Bitstamp suspended operations to fix the issue. How can you possibly say they are unrelated? Now supposedly Gox was robbed (over months) using this exploit, but that simply makes no sense at all, and is people grasping, in the absence of anything else. It seems more likely that someone got the private keys on holdings wallets, whether insider or hacker.
  - nullc 13y ago
    > Bitstamp suspended operations to fix the issue. How can you possibly say they are unrelated? Because they were unrelated. Bitstamp was spending its own unconfirmed change, and those spends got hung when the change was mutated by the attacker— with an attack that didn't exist while MTGox was processing withdraws. MTGox happened to never spend any coins that weren't at least 6 deep in the blockchain, even it's own change. > and is people grasping, in the absence of anything else It's actually MTGox's own claims. Their actual issues in this space were because they reissued payments without conflicting the original payment— allowing both to go through. No one else, as far as I can find, was performing reissues at all— much less in such an unsafe manner.
    - corresation 13y ago
      It's actually MTGox's own claims. Their actual issues in this space were because they reissued payments without conflicting the original payment Where did they claim this? They did claim that they were suspending withdrawals due to that issue, but in actuality they had not done any withdrawals for months. It was a convenient cover at a convenient time, which they tried to extend out with the "until this problem is fixed in the protocol" nonsense.
      - nullc 13y ago
        See, for example, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579388483531937144 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230489970... They certainly had made withdraws within months. Here is a random address receiving payments from MTGox (the ones with the 0.001 fees) https://blockchain.info/address/1AacEsKeXqnUqtYQWKDHJV3JtpJkUVFxGj?sort=0 https://blockchain.info/address/1AacEsKeXqnUqtYQWKDHJV3JtpJk... if the API were still up I'd show you how to query the vin scrippubkeys to have mtgox themselves identify the txn as theirs— but it's not up now.

nullc 13y ago

> Bitstamp was bitten by exactly the same bug (the malleability bug This is not factually correct. Bitstamp and MTGox's issues were unrelated, and the transactions that caused problems for Bitstamp were never seen on the network prior to a couple hours before MTGox's press release (and in volume, until after it).

corresation 13y ago
Bitstamp and MTGox's issues were unrelated In both cases there was an issue with the service having transaction issues due to the malleability issue. Bitstamp suspended operations to fix the issue. How can you possibly say they are unrelated? Now supposedly Gox was robbed (over months) using this exploit, but that simply makes no sense at all, and is people grasping, in the absence of anything else. It seems more likely that someone got the private keys on holdings wallets, whether insider or hacker.
- nullc 13y ago
  > Bitstamp suspended operations to fix the issue. How can you possibly say they are unrelated? Because they were unrelated. Bitstamp was spending its own unconfirmed change, and those spends got hung when the change was mutated by the attacker— with an attack that didn't exist while MTGox was processing withdraws. MTGox happened to never spend any coins that weren't at least 6 deep in the blockchain, even it's own change. > and is people grasping, in the absence of anything else It's actually MTGox's own claims. Their actual issues in this space were because they reissued payments without conflicting the original payment— allowing both to go through. No one else, as far as I can find, was performing reissues at all— much less in such an unsafe manner.
  - corresation 13y ago
    It's actually MTGox's own claims. Their actual issues in this space were because they reissued payments without conflicting the original payment Where did they claim this? They did claim that they were suspending withdrawals due to that issue, but in actuality they had not done any withdrawals for months. It was a convenient cover at a convenient time, which they tried to extend out with the "until this problem is fixed in the protocol" nonsense.
    - nullc 13y ago
      See, for example, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579388483531937144 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230489970... They certainly had made withdraws within months. Here is a random address receiving payments from MTGox (the ones with the 0.001 fees) https://blockchain.info/address/1AacEsKeXqnUqtYQWKDHJV3JtpJkUVFxGj?sort=0 https://blockchain.info/address/1AacEsKeXqnUqtYQWKDHJV3JtpJk... if the API were still up I'd show you how to query the vin scrippubkeys to have mtgox themselves identify the txn as theirs— but it's not up now.