5 ms·

When are we going to see a change in the rhetoric? This isn't Bitcoin's disaster, it's wholly Mt. Gox's.

by boon 13y ago

kerbs 13y ago
I wouldn't go that far. If people are comparing Bitcoin to ye old Dollar, then the lack of regulation that can lead to a disaster like this is something people need to be aware of.
- boon 13y ago
  I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing. But a lack of regulation still doesn't make this Bitcoin's disaster. You're doing a great injustice to those of us that did lose money to assign blame to any party other than Mt. Gox.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    > I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Do some reading on what financial life is like for most people in a pre-regulation world. Presumably the post-regulation one wouldn't be terribly different.
    - boon 13y ago
      No one is forgetting history. I think those of us pointing out that Bitcoin enables perhaps less regulation is because it provides new technologies for self-regulating and self-organizing. n of m wallets, self-executing contracts, autonomous organizations, etc. are all paradigms that we've never seen before and solve some of the efficiency/regulatory problems of the past. One could imagine a world where the government doesn't regulate, it only provides guidelines that all people can use as a framework or template for the self-contracting they do with potential risk.
  - kerbs 13y ago
    Fool me once... http://flexcoin.com http://flexcoin.com So what do people have to do to "be more cautious"? If both the biggest and smallest Bitcoin exchanges are getting ransacked, then what does cautious even mean?
nwh 13y ago
It's a disaster that affects all of Bitcoin really. The most recent compromise left a bunch of Russians with the passports, home addresses and full names of basically every large player in the Bitcoin community. Anonymity broken and locations disclosed means a lot of people could be in very real physical danger. A lot of bitcointalk users make mention of their wealth in general conversation, believing that their pseudonym protects them physically. It's not unreasonable to think that somebody who has lost a large amount of funds might act irrationally and decide that stealing from or threatening a prominent Bitcoin community member is a solution. I'm speculating of course, but I would be very scared if my more of my information than my email address had been in that leak.
mattzito 13y ago
I realize that in pure fact it's wholly Mt. Gox's disaster, but it feels a lot broader in terms of perception. As a theoretical parallel, imagine if a small island nation decided to reimagine themselves as a hub for international banking. They loosened regulations, provided incentives for banks to open up there, and generally tried to disrupt the world of money movement. A bunch of banks open up there, of varying levels of quality. One takes the lead, becomes the most visible brand among the worldwide public, and then gets robbed of all of their depositor's money. Not only does it get robbed, it turns out that their security was stupidly lax. Yes, that lead bank is the one that actually screwed up, but in what world isn't that going to reflect poorly on the entire island banking system? Or at least, how is it not going to inject an element of fear into the entire model?
bertil 13y ago
Just like Panama canal scandal was only its investor’s issue, it still changed significantly how Stock Exchanges are regulated. BitCoin appears unregulated and hard to make sense of: MtGox was an entry point for many newcomers , one whose obscurity proved damning. Those newcomers, attracted by business magazine covers (and drugs on Silk road) were the first wave that changed BitCoin from a crypto-geek game into a valuable currency. No body is challenging the fact that people have lost money, citing dollar figures -- a unit BitCoin was meant to avoid initially. You are right in saying it’s not a BitCoin disaster: it will trigger massive changes in the currency, just like Silk Road’s closing has triggered a legitimation of the tool. As for rhetoric: all publicity, even bad, is legitimation this is a worthy interest to look into; business magazines like blood, but their prefer victory in adversity. I promisse that you’ll have enough “How we step out of MtGox rumble and built a competitor to Visa” soon enough. Remember ‘Web 2.0’? that actually was the shortest version of that story, told by O’Reilly. You’ll have a similar catchy name for what BitCoin will become soon enough; my money is on an international payment system with lower fees. The tax-avoidance angle was as lame as only ultra-liberalitarian can be; the drug angle seemed to have missed both the decriminalisation trend, and the whole ‘Every transaction is recorded forever, publicly’ part of the protocol; the funky price chart is a sin of youth. It could become a (long-term) reserve for value, that has been the secondary angle through-out, but I don’t see it: I believe that should remained reserved for ventures, talent and fine wine.
lmkg 13y ago
Paraphrasing Clinton, that depends on what you mean by the suffix 's. It is wholly Mt. Gox's disaster, in the sense that they alone caused it and are responsible for the consequences. It is Bitcoin's disaster in the sense that these events impact the Bitcoin ecosystem, and are (could be) a disaster for Bitcoin adoption as a whole.
- boon 13y ago
  +1 purely for self-recognized Clinton-style grammar argument.
snorkel 13y ago
I don't have much confidence that the dozens of other starry eyed bitcoin startups out there are any better prepared than Mt. Gox was at operating a high stakes financial exchange. This phase in bitcoin history would be less painful if there wasn't so much hype driving the price up. There's going to be a lot of bugs, hacks, and developers learning how exchanges actually work in the real world, so it'd be better for bitcoin if that maturity phase happened under calmer circumstances where less money was at stake.

When are we going to see a change in the rhetoric? This isn't Bitcoin's disaster, it's wholly Mt. Gox's.

by boon 13y ago

When are we going to see a change in the rhetoric? This isn't Bitcoin's disaster, it's wholly Mt. Gox's.

kerbs 13y ago

I wouldn't go that far. If people are comparing Bitcoin to ye old Dollar, then the lack of regulation that can lead to a disaster like this is something people need to be aware of.

boon 13y ago
I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing. But a lack of regulation still doesn't make this Bitcoin's disaster. You're doing a great injustice to those of us that did lose money to assign blame to any party other than Mt. Gox.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  > I don't disagree that in a post-regulation world, people are going to have to be more cautious with their monies from a security and risk perspective. That's a good thing. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Do some reading on what financial life is like for most people in a pre-regulation world. Presumably the post-regulation one wouldn't be terribly different.
  - boon 13y ago
    No one is forgetting history. I think those of us pointing out that Bitcoin enables perhaps less regulation is because it provides new technologies for self-regulating and self-organizing. n of m wallets, self-executing contracts, autonomous organizations, etc. are all paradigms that we've never seen before and solve some of the efficiency/regulatory problems of the past. One could imagine a world where the government doesn't regulate, it only provides guidelines that all people can use as a framework or template for the self-contracting they do with potential risk.
- kerbs 13y ago
  Fool me once... http://flexcoin.com http://flexcoin.com So what do people have to do to "be more cautious"? If both the biggest and smallest Bitcoin exchanges are getting ransacked, then what does cautious even mean?

nwh 13y ago

It's a disaster that affects all of Bitcoin really. The most recent compromise left a bunch of Russians with the passports, home addresses and full names of basically every large player in the Bitcoin community. Anonymity broken and locations disclosed means a lot of people could be in very real physical danger. A lot of bitcointalk users make mention of their wealth in general conversation, believing that their pseudonym protects them physically. It's not unreasonable to think that somebody who has lost a large amount of funds might act irrationally and decide that stealing from or threatening a prominent Bitcoin community member is a solution. I'm speculating of course, but I would be very scared if my more of my information than my email address had been in that leak.

mattzito 13y ago

I realize that in pure fact it's wholly Mt. Gox's disaster, but it feels a lot broader in terms of perception. As a theoretical parallel, imagine if a small island nation decided to reimagine themselves as a hub for international banking. They loosened regulations, provided incentives for banks to open up there, and generally tried to disrupt the world of money movement. A bunch of banks open up there, of varying levels of quality. One takes the lead, becomes the most visible brand among the worldwide public, and then gets robbed of all of their depositor's money. Not only does it get robbed, it turns out that their security was stupidly lax. Yes, that lead bank is the one that actually screwed up, but in what world isn't that going to reflect poorly on the entire island banking system? Or at least, how is it not going to inject an element of fear into the entire model?

bertil 13y ago

Just like Panama canal scandal was only its investor’s issue, it still changed significantly how Stock Exchanges are regulated. BitCoin appears unregulated and hard to make sense of: MtGox was an entry point for many newcomers , one whose obscurity proved damning. Those newcomers, attracted by business magazine covers (and drugs on Silk road) were the first wave that changed BitCoin from a crypto-geek game into a valuable currency. No body is challenging the fact that people have lost money, citing dollar figures -- a unit BitCoin was meant to avoid initially. You are right in saying it’s not a BitCoin disaster: it will trigger massive changes in the currency, just like Silk Road’s closing has triggered a legitimation of the tool. As for rhetoric: all publicity, even bad, is legitimation this is a worthy interest to look into; business magazines like blood, but their prefer victory in adversity. I promisse that you’ll have enough “How we step out of MtGox rumble and built a competitor to Visa” soon enough. Remember ‘Web 2.0’? that actually was the shortest version of that story, told by O’Reilly. You’ll have a similar catchy name for what BitCoin will become soon enough; my money is on an international payment system with lower fees. The tax-avoidance angle was as lame as only ultra-liberalitarian can be; the drug angle seemed to have missed both the decriminalisation trend, and the whole ‘Every transaction is recorded forever, publicly’ part of the protocol; the funky price chart is a sin of youth. It could become a (long-term) reserve for value, that has been the secondary angle through-out, but I don’t see it: I believe that should remained reserved for ventures, talent and fine wine.

lmkg 13y ago

Paraphrasing Clinton, that depends on what you mean by the suffix 's. It is wholly Mt. Gox's disaster, in the sense that they alone caused it and are responsible for the consequences. It is Bitcoin's disaster in the sense that these events impact the Bitcoin ecosystem, and are (could be) a disaster for Bitcoin adoption as a whole.

boon 13y ago
+1 purely for self-recognized Clinton-style grammar argument.

snorkel 13y ago

I don't have much confidence that the dozens of other starry eyed bitcoin startups out there are any better prepared than Mt. Gox was at operating a high stakes financial exchange. This phase in bitcoin history would be less painful if there wasn't so much hype driving the price up. There's going to be a lot of bugs, hacks, and developers learning how exchanges actually work in the real world, so it'd be better for bitcoin if that maturity phase happened under calmer circumstances where less money was at stake.