4 ms·

I agree. Bitcoin exchanges should be free to lose and/or steal all the bitcoins they hold at any time with no repercussions. As a non-participant in bitcoin,

I agree. Bitcoin exchanges should be free to lose and/or steal all the bitcoins they hold at any time with no repercussions. As a non-participant in bitcoin, lack of regulation makes the whole bitcoin economy so much more interesting to read about.

sp332 13y ago
It's already illegal to steal bitcoins. And if an exchange represents that it takes certain measures to secure wallets when it really doesn't, that's fraud. Other than that, what is there to regulate?
- sillysaurus3 13y ago
  Well, I lost all of my Mt. Gox bitcoins, and it seems to me there were no repercussions for the founders. They could have stolen the coins and nobody would be the wiser. It's already become clear that there was much more to the story than Gox has revealed, e.g. that they knew about malleability since 2011 and then were reminded again in November.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Why hasn't anyone gone after the founders? Why haven't you?
    - sillysaurus3 13y ago
      Heh. Because I no longer have the money to.
  - crazy1van 13y ago
    Sorry for your losses. The silver lining is next time, you and others will probably be much more critical of an institution before trusting them with your valuables (even virtual ones). You'll be more apt to demand more transparency and evidence of solvency. That's the piece missing in the feedback loop for so many other parts of the financial system.
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  The great thing about bitcoin being unregulated is that governments haven't yet gone after mixers, so it's trivial to launder bitcoins. If you want to steal and not get caught, bitcoin is the place to be.
- alex_c 13y ago
  Curious what you think about PCI Compliance and whether it should exist. After all, stealing credit card numbers is already illegal.
  - sp332 13y ago
    That's a lot different. Credit card holders aren't even responsible for fraudulent charges. That's one advantage, but it takes a ton of infrastructure and cooperation to make that happen. There's plenty of room for a money transfer option that doesn't have those downsides, even if it gives up some upsides too.
  - pjc50 13y ago
    PCI Compliance is entirely private/free market, isn't it?
    - forgottenpass 13y ago
      Yeah. But is this a conversation about "if you want to participate in system X, follow rules Y" or specifically anti-government sentiment? As the Wired article talks about the cost of coming into compliance, I think it is reasonable for the parent poster to ignore the source of the rules. Unless you wanted to make a point about the source of rules impacting compliance costs or voice your other reason for such a government/private distinction. But now that I've already started arguing with myself I'm not going to go any further.
  - tlrobinson 13y ago
    I don't know much about PCI Compliance, but it appears to be an industry-imposed standard, and Nevada is the only state that mandates it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard#Mandated_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Sec...
- czr80 13y ago
  I'm sure this is a silly question, but... under what law is it illegal to steal bitcoins, exactly?
  - loganfrederick 13y ago
    Presumably under any theft law in any state?
    - DrStalker 13y ago
      Nothing was "stolen", the state of the blockchain was altered in a way you did not want to occur. Now everyone using bitcoin agrees that any transactions you issue are invalid because you don't have any funds on the address you'd like to pay from. Convincing a judge there was an actual theft is going to be your first challenge; unless laws are updated the theft of bitcoins doesn't obviously fit into existing rules that were designed around physical goods or fiat currency.
      - sp332 13y ago
        It's not that hard. Moving a few numbers around in a bank's mainframe could be described the same way.
        czr80 13y ago
        Yes, but we have laws that specifically recognise existing currency. Is their applicability to bitcoin entirely clear?
        georgemcbay 13y ago
        Yes, but looting the corpse of a fallen enemy on an MMO could be described the same way, as well. Should that now be considered a crime? The line gets very blurry especially when you start accounting for MMOs with official real-world economic links like EVE. I'm not saying I think theft of bitcoins shouldn't be illegal, just that the situation is a lot blurrier than some people seem to think, and until someone is convicted for (or at the very least charged with) stealing bitcoins there's really no point in debating the matter.
- bertil 13y ago
  Define relevant measures for protection: too many exchanges (three so far) have gotten away with the equivalent of bacon advertising as “without any added sugar”. I find it amusing when it’s about stupid-mocking the content of my breakfast, it's a lot less enjoyable when the security protocols being explosively undermined by jerks also protect and ensure trust in non-BitCoin economy. You are not alone. Stop arguing that is your libertarian right to lick plague-ridden rags.
smtddr 13y ago
Article says: >>Not because protecting consumers isn’t important — it is — it’s just that regulators should balance their goal of protecting consumers with the equally important goal of fostering a climate that welcomes entrepreneurs and innovation. Of course nobody wants random mass-bitcoin-holding businesses imploding with robberies and scams, but I don't think I want it to be like Banks/WesternUnion/etc either. One issue in particular; I don't want this[1] to be possible with bitcoin. 1. http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/20/europarliament-scolds-visa-mastercard-paypal-for-killing-wikileaks-donations-initiates-regulation/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/20/europarliament-scolds-visa-m...

sp332 13y ago

It's already illegal to steal bitcoins. And if an exchange represents that it takes certain measures to secure wallets when it really doesn't, that's fraud. Other than that, what is there to regulate?

sillysaurus3 13y ago
Well, I lost all of my Mt. Gox bitcoins, and it seems to me there were no repercussions for the founders. They could have stolen the coins and nobody would be the wiser. It's already become clear that there was much more to the story than Gox has revealed, e.g. that they knew about malleability since 2011 and then were reminded again in November.
- sp332 13y ago
  Why hasn't anyone gone after the founders? Why haven't you?
  - sillysaurus3 13y ago
    Heh. Because I no longer have the money to.
- crazy1van 13y ago
  Sorry for your losses. The silver lining is next time, you and others will probably be much more critical of an institution before trusting them with your valuables (even virtual ones). You'll be more apt to demand more transparency and evidence of solvency. That's the piece missing in the feedback loop for so many other parts of the financial system.
lern_too_spel 13y ago
The great thing about bitcoin being unregulated is that governments haven't yet gone after mixers, so it's trivial to launder bitcoins. If you want to steal and not get caught, bitcoin is the place to be.
alex_c 13y ago
Curious what you think about PCI Compliance and whether it should exist. After all, stealing credit card numbers is already illegal.
- sp332 13y ago
  That's a lot different. Credit card holders aren't even responsible for fraudulent charges. That's one advantage, but it takes a ton of infrastructure and cooperation to make that happen. There's plenty of room for a money transfer option that doesn't have those downsides, even if it gives up some upsides too.
- pjc50 13y ago
  PCI Compliance is entirely private/free market, isn't it?
  - forgottenpass 13y ago
    Yeah. But is this a conversation about "if you want to participate in system X, follow rules Y" or specifically anti-government sentiment? As the Wired article talks about the cost of coming into compliance, I think it is reasonable for the parent poster to ignore the source of the rules. Unless you wanted to make a point about the source of rules impacting compliance costs or voice your other reason for such a government/private distinction. But now that I've already started arguing with myself I'm not going to go any further.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  I don't know much about PCI Compliance, but it appears to be an industry-imposed standard, and Nevada is the only state that mandates it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Security_Standard#Mandated_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Sec...
czr80 13y ago
I'm sure this is a silly question, but... under what law is it illegal to steal bitcoins, exactly?
- loganfrederick 13y ago
  Presumably under any theft law in any state?
  - DrStalker 13y ago
    Nothing was "stolen", the state of the blockchain was altered in a way you did not want to occur. Now everyone using bitcoin agrees that any transactions you issue are invalid because you don't have any funds on the address you'd like to pay from. Convincing a judge there was an actual theft is going to be your first challenge; unless laws are updated the theft of bitcoins doesn't obviously fit into existing rules that were designed around physical goods or fiat currency.
    - sp332 13y ago
      It's not that hard. Moving a few numbers around in a bank's mainframe could be described the same way.
      - czr80 13y ago
        Yes, but we have laws that specifically recognise existing currency. Is their applicability to bitcoin entirely clear?
      - georgemcbay 13y ago
        Yes, but looting the corpse of a fallen enemy on an MMO could be described the same way, as well. Should that now be considered a crime? The line gets very blurry especially when you start accounting for MMOs with official real-world economic links like EVE. I'm not saying I think theft of bitcoins shouldn't be illegal, just that the situation is a lot blurrier than some people seem to think, and until someone is convicted for (or at the very least charged with) stealing bitcoins there's really no point in debating the matter.
bertil 13y ago
Define relevant measures for protection: too many exchanges (three so far) have gotten away with the equivalent of bacon advertising as “without any added sugar”. I find it amusing when it’s about stupid-mocking the content of my breakfast, it's a lot less enjoyable when the security protocols being explosively undermined by jerks also protect and ensure trust in non-BitCoin economy. You are not alone. Stop arguing that is your libertarian right to lick plague-ridden rags.

smtddr 13y ago

Article says: >>Not because protecting consumers isn’t important — it is — it’s just that regulators should balance their goal of protecting consumers with the equally important goal of fostering a climate that welcomes entrepreneurs and innovation. Of course nobody wants random mass-bitcoin-holding businesses imploding with robberies and scams, but I don't think I want it to be like Banks/WesternUnion/etc either. One issue in particular; I don't want this[1] to be possible with bitcoin. 1. http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/20/europarliament-scolds-visa-mastercard-paypal-for-killing-wikileaks-donations-initiates-regulation/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/20/europarliament-scolds-visa-m...