Slashdot Mirror


BitFloor Joins List of Compromised BitCoin Exchanges

hypnosec writes "An attacker managed to access an unencrypted backup of wallet keys and steal 24,000 BTC (worth more than a quarter million USD), following which Bitcoin exchange Bitfloor has been shut down while the investigation of the theft is going on. The attack was carried out sometime last night. In a forum post, Shtylman pleads with Bitcoin users that BitFloor needs their help."

232 comments

  1. Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    BitFloor Operator: Good morning sir welcome to BitFloor how can I help you today?
    Customer: Well, I had heard a lot about this new currency called BitCoin and I was hoping to transfer this $100 in my account to ...
    BitFloor Operator: Oh I completely understand, sir, in today's economy one can't rely solely on the faulty fiat currencies backed by governments like the United States dollar AAAAAAND IT'S GONE! Please log out of this site sir, this is for customers with a positive balance in their accounts.
    Customer: What?!
    BitFloor Operator: It's gone, it's all gone, sir, our system's been compromised, you now have zero dollars in your account please log off or deposit more money, thank you!

    Bitcoinica Operator: Good afternoon sir, welcome to Bitcoinica! How can I help you today?
    Customer: Well, uh, I don't know how to, uh, say this but ... this is all anonymous, right?
    Bitcoinica Operator: Oh completely sir, we don't have any logs or even backups for that matter!
    Customer: Good, good, well, uh, you see I have this "sickness" and I need to transfer this $5,500 for this stuff from this silk road retailer and I ...
    Bitcoinica Operator: Woah woah woah, that's more than enough information to get us started here. So let's see you now have $5,500 in BitCoin balance on your account and the wallet is being updated and written to our single hard drive on a Windows 98 computer connected to the internet with no firewall AAAAAAND IT'S GONE! Please leave this site sir, your account has no balance in it!
    Customer: ??? Um, what?
    Bitcoinica Operator: It's gone, it's all gone. All of it, something happened, we were hacked or that 8 year old spinning disk crashed or something but it's all gone, thank you sir, thank you for using Bitcoinica now please leave this site or put more money into your account.
    Customer: But you don't understand ... I ... I've already received the "product" and they're GOING TO TAKE MY THUMBS if I don't get this money to them now.
    Bitcoinica Operator: That's wonderful sir, we here at Bitcoinica like to keep our transactions anonymous so please stop relaying me identifying details of this account. Now you have a nice day, sir!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of my friends had similar experiences with their 401K plans. Seems like it's just a matter of who you want to screw you out of your money. Even if you buy gold at the ridiculously inflated prices and get gold in your hands, someone's going to find out you have $50000 worth of gold under your mattresses and rob your house. That's why I'm here today pitching my revolutionary new "Canned Bean and Shotgun Shell" investment plan! These assets can only appreciate in value after the economy collapses and hockey-masked villains roam the land in go-carts! Just be sure to also have a can opener and a shotgun.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by vlm · · Score: 1

      These assets can only appreciate in value after the economy collapses

      Toilet paper, aka the alpha plan. You can survive without ammo, without beans (I hate beans) but one way or another you're buying TP. And due to inflation prices only go up. So store as much guaranteed consumables as physically possible purchased as early as possible.

      Even if you buy gold at the ridiculously inflated prices and get gold in your hands, someone's going to find out you have $50000 worth of gold under your mattresses and rob your house.

      Unless its in the $9/month safe deposit box at the bank, or you bought GLD ETF aka "paper gold" which has all kinds of annoying income tax implications BTW.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      one way or another you're buying TP.

      You've obviously not spent much time with the 50% of humanity who don't use it. Left hand, jug of water, attention to handwashing, job done, and more money to spend on frivolous stuff like your staple diet. Most of the world is already living the Zombie Plan lifestyle.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reminds me of a friend who was of a similar mind. He stored hundreds of rolls of toilet paper in a storage area cleverly located in the ceiling of his covered deck. Basically wasted space until he decided it would be a perfect place for that bulky but absolutely essential aspect of modern life.

      His plan worked fine until a windstorm tore the roof off said deck and scattered the hundreds of rolls of toilet paper over a huge swath of scrub pine and chaparral downwind to the cabin. You know, it's damn hard to pick up hundreds of rolls of TP stuck in the brush. Would have made a great little picture on Google Earth, had it existed back then.

      Moral of the story: Although TP is important to modern sensibilities, it's not something most people can safely store for extended periods of time. Leaves, OTOH just grow on trees although winter tends to be a bit harder concept to deal with.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly never gone camping in the winter. Winter is much easier to deal with; just grab a snowball. Cleaner than toilet paper.

    6. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I invest in ammo. Ammo is cheaper than gold, more useful that anything and is a limited resource so it's value will improve over time.

      I can use ammo to 'buy' food, tp, water, more ammo, etc. And by buy I mean take by force by using said ammo.

    7. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      I once went on a tour of Wind Cave in South Carolina, which is unusually dry for a cave - so much so that they only allow in a few people at a time because they found that the water vapor in people's breaths affected the caves. In one of the caverns there were pallets filled with toilet paper, rations and other stuff that had clearly been there for some times. The guide said that the supplies were put there by the U.S. Government in the 1950's. The cave was deep enough and far enough away from population centers to provide shelter in case of atomic bomb attack and dry enough to allow paper goods and other perishables to be stored practically forever.

      So, you see, it's all about *where* you store it...

    8. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Left hand, jug of water, attention to handwashing

      It's the Roman wet-sponge-on-a-stick or nothing, for me.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget your morphine, hatchet, hunting knife, and a box of matches. ...Matches...Always those !@#$ matches...

    10. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      A chemistry manual and an ammo press would be worth more in the long run.

    11. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by deroby · · Score: 1

      Doesn't ammo expire and/or become 'less trustworthy' over time ?

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    12. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by aynoknman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've clearly never gone camping in the winter. Winter is much easier to deal with; just grab a snowball. Cleaner than toilet paper.

      I don't think you know what "easier to deal with" means.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    13. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Preferable, although I'm not all that sure about the communal-wet-sponge-on-a-stick idea.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    14. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but we're talking quite a lot of time here - more than he could reasonably expect to stay alive. Especially if he plans to make his living by force - sooner or later someone shoots back.

    15. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Havenwar · · Score: 1

      Nope. Cheap lighters, take up less room per lit fire, lights more fires than a box of matches, and works when wet. Much more efficient. And as a backup, regardless of what you choose, a firesteel.

    16. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by tibman · · Score: 1

      You have to survive a trip to the grocery store first : /

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    17. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I sure my paranoid friend would have just loved a dry, limestone cave in which to store his survival supplies. Unfortunately, the idea doesn't scale well.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      OTOH, few things wake you up faster than sticking a bunch of ice up your ass in the AM.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    19. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless its in the $9/month safe deposit box at the bank, or you bought GLD ETF aka "paper gold" which has all kinds of annoying income tax implications BTW.

      I wouldn't count on anyone's safe deposit box being safe during a global economic collapse. You need a safe, decently hidden, with a time to breech rating exceeding the maximum time you would ever spend away from it.

    20. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      You've obviously not spent much time with the 50% of humanity who don't use it. Left hand, jug of water, attention to handwashing, job done, and more money to spend on frivolous stuff like your staple diet.

      That is soooo disgusting. Scraping the poop off your ass with a wad of paper and then getting up and walking away like nothing happened is so much more hygenic.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    21. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Doesn't ammo expire and/or become 'less trustworthy' over time ?

      Sure. But let me ask you this. . .are you feelin' lucky?

    22. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      You've clearly not been anywhere near Himalayan base camps recently! It's cold and dry enough that the paper doesn't biodegrade easily, the locals call it "white men's prayer flags", it's everywhere. Not pleasant.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    23. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Preferable, although I'm not all that sure about the communal-wet-sponge-on-a-stick idea."

      It wasn't communal. Each Roman soldier had his own sponge on a stick, carried in a leather holster.

      The public latrines had troughs of running water. After you did your business, you rinsed off your sponge in the trough. Of course, somebody upstream might be washing off HIS sponge, too... presumably they knew enough to watch out for this, but maybe not.

      As primitive as it may seem, it was a breakthrough in sanitation and hygiene.

    24. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Entropius · · Score: 0

      Leaves, OTOH just grow on trees although winter tends to be a bit harder concept to deal with.

      I live in Arizona, you insensitive clod. Ow!

    25. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      IANAH, but I'm pretty sure the communal toilet facilities (which were also uni-sex) in Roman baths had a shared sponge-on-a-stick. It's been mooted as an etymology for "getting the wrong end of the stick."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    26. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "IANAH, but I'm pretty sure the communal toilet facilities (which were also uni-sex) in Roman baths had a shared sponge-on-a-stick."

      Could be that the commoners used a shared sponge. I had only read about the Legionnaires. I know that they were each issued one of their own. I imagine it was probably pretty embarrassing to lose your sponge and have to borrow one.

    27. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>> Left hand, jug of water, attention to handwashing, job done, and more money to spend on frivolous stuff

      I suspect a few pieces of toilet paper is cheaper than the water.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    28. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Ammo is cheaper than gold,

      But it takes-up more space. I can store $100,000 of gold in a shoebox or two. How much space would $100,000 of ammo take-up? Plus there's the danger the ammo might ignite and cause major damage to your home. Gold does not have that problem.

      Storing your wealth as ammo is very impractical.... you simply don't have enough room.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    29. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by deroby · · Score: 1

      It would be rather funny if he then pulled the trigger and the pistol would go "...Poink!" =P

      But anyway, from browsing around a bit, it seems that when properly stored (sealed, cool) gun powder has a pretty long shelf-life.

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    30. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you can survive without ammo until a guy with a firearm decides he wants to be inside your wife and daughter. Oh and he shoots you before he does it. Whoops.

    31. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Some of us are poor, and can easily store our net worth in the form of ammo in just three shoeboxes.

    32. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh noes! I mustn't allow anybody else's shit to touch my ass! Only my shit can touch my ass because my shit is so much better than everybody else's shit".
      You snobby little shit. Your shit is no better than anybody else's shit. You will use the communal-wet-sponge-on-a-stick and you will like it.

    33. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      So what do they do? I can't imagine the pitcher-of-water solution is all that pleasant up there.

    34. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then you go right ahead and store that $100,000 worth of gold in your house. Meanwhile, I only need to store a fraction of that in ammo in order to take your gold when society collapses. ;)

    35. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by ducman · · Score: 1

      Have you bought any recently? I'm not sure about the "cheaper than gold," part, but I agree it will only increase in value in the future!

      --
      "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
    36. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like you think your shit don't stink

    37. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sulfuric Acid, It'll take the shit, the hairs, and the ass clean off :)

    38. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Water falls from the sky dude, quite regularly.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    39. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      It's still left hand and water. I wouldn't say "pleasant", it's more like "bracing"! You can buy toilet paper, but it's astoundingly expensive as it all has to be carried in by foot. I stayed outside Kathmandu for a few months and it was always a dug latrine and the left hand method. It's probably more hygienic than toilet paper as you pay a ridiculous amount of attention to your handwashing. It's also an extremely good way to remember that the locals don't touch each other or food with the left hand, I still check myself if I reach for food with my left hand.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    40. Re:Aaaaaand It's Gone!!! by jfengel · · Score: 1

      No kidding. The things I learn around here. Thanks!

  2. Another week Another ... by Dave+Whiteside · · Score: 2, Insightful

    post about bitcoin service being hacked ,
    raspberry Pi's not being delivered

    --
    who where what when now?
    1. Re:Another week Another ... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Had my RPi for a month now... what you talkin bout, Willis?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    2. Re:Another week Another ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      post about bitcoin service being hacked

      Seriously. It's like it's not even news anymore. It's more like just an accepted risk^H^H^H^Hinevitability of using Bitcoin.

      But don't worry, by the time they've got the whole system secured, we'll be able to purchase things for 4.9e-57 Bitcoins, which makes it better than real money!

    3. Re:Another week Another ... by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      My SECOND Raspberry Pi arrives today, I ordered it 10 days ago. The first one i received in 13 days, both from Element14

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Another week Another ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Another post about bitcoin service being hacked..."

      But have you noticed? Just like with the banks and finance companies, the big data breaches haven't been due to "hacking" accounts... they have almost invariably been related to gaining access to unencrypted data... which is a failure of the "victim" institution. I would not even be surprised if most of them were inside jobs.

      Similar example: a bank some years ago "lost" some hard drives containing an unencrypted backup, while they were being transported to off-site storage. They didn't even claim it was stolen... just somehow "lost". Well, what the hell, eh? Any money that got stolen as a result is guaranteed by the government.

      Bitcoin is a secure protocol. The recent "hacks" had to do with other data that was not adequately protected by the holders of the bitcoins. Those people are fully responsible. It is not a failure on the part of Bitcoins themselves.

      Human failure is where this so-called "web of trust" breaks down. Stuff sent over the internet is (or can be, anyway), pretty darned secure. What happens to it once it gets there is where the big point of failure has been.

      A "web of trust" means nothing if the people you are ultimately supposed to trust are careless with your data once they get it.

    5. Re:Another week Another ... by TrentC · · Score: 0

      I would not even be surprised if most of them were inside jobs.

      So you're saying that the problem isn't that Bitcoins aren't secure, it's just more likely that the people running the exchanges are thieves.

      That's supposed to make us feel better? Talk about a distinction without a difference...

    6. Re:Another week Another ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "That's supposed to make us feel better? Talk about a distinction without a difference..."

      No, I wasn't trying to make anybody feel better... just to point out where the real vulnerability is. These "hacks" of Bitcoin sites don't reflect on Bitcoin itself. The real issues have nothing to do with Bitcoin, other than it's the thing being stolen.

      When someone robs a bank, people don't go around screaming "Cash! It's all cash's fault!" No, they talk about failure of bank security.

    7. Re:Another week Another ... by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

      The very idea of an anonymous country-less virtual currency screams 'rob me'. And, apparently those screams are being heard. Security can only go so far, the reality is without government protection, no amount of security will suffice.

      --


      (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    8. Re:Another week Another ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The very idea of an anonymous country-less virtual currency screams 'rob me'."

      Please explain to me how it screams "rob me" any more than cash or other valuables.

      The "country-less" nature of it is completely irrelevant. Platinum and other trade goods are country-less too, yet they have demonstrable value.

  3. Not surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not really surprised by this. Someone had the idea to create a purely virtual currency, and someone else has found it to be an attractive target.

    The fact that it is vulnerable to this kind of attack probably indicates there's some real flaws in how this currency is supposed to work -- or at least a few places where someone can get through the cracks.

    I remember when I first started hearing about this, and thinking "gee, I hope they've thought through all of the security issues". It's like security in operating systems ... there's tons of things you could overlook which can let someone in, and until it starts happening, you likely haven't even thought of all of them.

    I feel bad for anybody has lost their money on this, but I've been treating this like an experiment which has the potential to go really wrong. It's just so massively complex to try to design your own currency system that someone isn't going to try to exploit without going through a lot of growing pains.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The actual Bitcoin protocol looks quite secure, it's just that every website using it seems to be run by the kind of people I wouldn't trust with a toaster oven.

      For God's sake, the largest Bitcoin exchange is MTGox. That's the site formerly known as "Magic The Gathering Online Exchange".

    2. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "run by the kind of people I wouldn't trust with a toaster oven"

      Joe Biden has a new career then does he?

    3. Re:Not surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The actual Bitcoin protocol looks quite secure, it's just that every website using it seems to be run by the kind of people I wouldn't trust with a toaster oven.

      But, that's kind of the core of the problem.

      In the real world, the banking and trading system is monitored by people with the power to enforce, have long histories and memories of what can go wrong, and is generally policed by governments cooperating.

      But the internet equivalent makes it sound like a bunch of shady, back alley people doing financial transactions outside of the normal system.

      So for me, there's simply no basis to trust "Bob's online brokerage and clearing house for virtual currency", or the entire BitCoin system.

      Much like PayPal isn't a bank, but does many bank-like things -- it isn't regulated like a bank, and doesn't offer you the same legal protections. It's hard not to see this as more of the same -- but since the currency still has real world value, people will treat it as such. The tendency to lie, cheat and steal doesn't go away because it's virtual currency.

      For God's sake, the largest Bitcoin exchange is MTGox. That's the site formerly known as "Magic The Gathering Online Exchange".

      LOL, like I said, "Bob's online brokerage" ... why should I trust them? They're completely unregulated, outside of the normal banking system, and not really accountable to anybody. What could possibly go wrong?

      I view this as being pretty close to walking up to someone running a lemon-aid stand who claims to be a bank, and depositing a bunch of money. When the guy with the lemon-aid stand proves to have little or no security, or is completely dishonest ... well, good luck getting your money back.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Not surprised ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If PayPal isn't regulated like a bank in your country, then thats a failing of your country - in the UK, PayPal is regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and is registered as a bank within the European Economic Area.

    5. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PayPal has a banking license in Luxembourg. I'm not sure how this affects their non-Luxembourg entities though. I know that my PayPal account is administered by their Singapore office which specifically communicates not being a bank.

    6. Re:Not surprised ... by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except... it isn't anymore, since 2007 it's been a Luxemborg bank outside UK regulation.

      http://tamebay.com/2007/05/paypal-becomes-a-bank-no-longer-under-fsa.html

    7. Re:Not surprised ... by vlm · · Score: 1

      In the real world, the banking and trading system is monitored by people with the power to enforce, have long histories and memories of what can go wrong, and is generally policed by governments cooperating.

      But the internet equivalent makes it sound like a bunch of shady, back alley people doing financial transactions outside of the normal system.

      The mistake is thinking that because the "real" economy needs a "bank" or a "exchange" then a virtual one just naturally of course without thinking needs to replicate the real world.

      Kind of like shopping at Barnes and Noble means I wait in line and the teenage cashier takes forever to give me change while she checks her SMS and FB on her smartphone, therefore "naturally" amazon should try to replicate those parts of the experience using "3d virtual reality" or something idiotic like that.

      I'm not seeing the point of keeping $$$$$$ worth of BTC in some goofballs BTC "psuedo-exchange" or "psuedo-bank". And I'm not some noob talking out of ignorance, I mined BTC in software back when the difficulty level was a small two digit number (aka a very long time ago in BTC land).

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:Not surprised ... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Does an uneducated whelp have to be the first to post in all of these? BitCoin isn't insecure - the site holding them was. FFS. MUST we cover this in EVERY article posted here???

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    9. Re:Not surprised ... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      uhh.. it's not so much about securing the money itself - that it can be stolen demonstrates that it's pretty secure in concept - in what's it' supposed to be anyways. it's supposed to work like "online cash".

      " It's like security in operating systems ... there's tons of things you could overlook which can let someone in, and until it starts happening, you likely haven't even thought of all of them." well, hacking these exchanges is more like security in operating systems because that's how these exchanges get hacked.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    10. Re:Not surprised ... by Desler · · Score: 2

      And what does it matter if bitcoin itself is secure when the places that allow you to extract any value for your play money have joke level security? That's like saying that credit cards aren't insecure it's just the payment processors. It's a farcical excuse.

    11. Re:Not surprised ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that article is incorrect - because its registered within the European Economic Area, it is still FSA registered and falls under the FSAs regulatory umbrella.

      PayPal (Europe) Sarl et Cie SCA is registered with the FSA under the registration number 226056.

      The fact that it moved to Luxembourg doesn't change the fact that it is regulated within the UK.

    12. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      bug tag changed from WORKSFORME to WONTFIX

    13. Re:Not surprised ... by Desler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the difference is meaningless to the users of it? If all the places that you can use to exchange bitcoin are insecure it really doesn't make a difference whether or not the protocol is secure. If bitcoin is only secure as long as you don't use an exchange then it becomes worthless as a currency for... exchanging money.

    14. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People might want to exchange their Bitcoin for goods and services. You know, the task that humanity invented currency to do. However, much of the general goods-and-services-providing public are not aware of (or have no trust in) Bitcoin. So people holding Bitcoin will want to exchange it for a real currency. (I'm defining "real currency" here as "a currency readily exchangeable for beer". You may substitute in your own definition at will, but don't pretend that you don't know why I'm making a distinction between Bitcoin and real currencies.)

      Eventually, it gets easier to just keep the majority of your Bitcoin balance in an exchange, especially if you frequently need to convert it into dollars because you just sold some "goods" for Bitcoin and need to pay your supplier of "goods", who generally prefers cash dollars. Or if you need to buy Bitcoin with dollars so that you can make an untraceable purchase of recreational "goods" over the Internet. You may well not have a whole lot of Bitcoins at any one time in the exchange, because you keep the majority of your net worth in real currency (or, if you've got a serious "goods" problem, maybe your net worth is insignificant) but the exchange will have many such accounts so when it gets compromised the total loss is quite significant.

    15. Re:Not surprised ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I view this as being pretty close to walking up to someone running a lemon-aid stand who claims to be a bank...

      I doubt that we need to be concerned about some lemonade stand.. To bad the authorities don't have the same desire to protect us from the banks. Bitcoin just needs to become too big to fail.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Not surprised ... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      And what does it matter if bitcoin itself is secure when the places that allow you to extract any value for your play money have joke level security?

      Depends on what you mean by "value"... I keep my bitcoins in my personal wallet, never on an exchange. I use exchanges to BUY bitcoins, but never store any there. I also never sell bitcoins for Euro/Dollars/etc - I simply spend them. So for me, the "extracting value" is the spending of them on things I wish to have*

      * (yes, feel free to read that as "buy drugs on Silk Road"... that IS my main use of them)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    17. Re:Not surprised ... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      LOL, like I said, "Bob's online brokerage" ... why should I trust them? They're completely unregulated, outside of the normal banking system, and not really accountable to anybody. What could possibly go wrong?

      Did you forget what happened in 2008? The normal banking system is completely unaccountable to anybody.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Not surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Does an uneducated whelp have to be the first to post in all of these? BitCoin isn't insecure - the site holding them was.

      Ergo, the whole landscape in which BitCoin operates is insecure. Ergo, BitCoin is essentially insecure.

      Sure, the BitCoin itself might be theoretically safe. But if untrusted sites can get into the game, the whole damned thing becomes a joke. Because, clearly this awesome security you're so excited about doesn't work worth a fucking damn when it comes down to it.

      Or are you somehow putting forward the idea that something secure passed around in horribly insecure ways somehow still remains as secure? Because I don't follow the logic. The whole system is only as strong as its weakest link, and it sounds like it's pretty damned easy to put in weak links.

      This isn't a "real" banking system. It's something else. And, as a result and given the number of these virtual heists ... I wouldn't put my money into BitCoin because I don't see a basis for trust, and I'm betting you've not sunk your life savings into it either.

      So, big deal, they didn't break the cryptography used in BitCoin -- they just went around it and made it irrelevant.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    19. Re:Not surprised ... by jythie · · Score: 2

      I suspect these sites that think of themselves as the banks of the future are slowly discovering how difficult being a bank is.. and customers are discovering just what being FDIC backed means.

    20. Re:Not surprised ... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Wow, Silk Road is still functioning? I would have through with all the publicity it has gotten it wouldn't be trustworthy anymore....

    21. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dollars aren't insecure, it's your wallet.

    22. Re:Not surprised ... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the exchanges are to convert currency to btc, you don't need one to mine and spend btc and you don't need one to sell goods for btc

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    23. Re:Not surprised ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I'm not really surprised by this. Someone had the idea to create a purely virtual currency, and someone else has found it to be an attractive target.

      The fact that it is vulnerable to this kind of attack probably indicates there's some real flaws in how this currency is supposed to work -- or at least a few places where someone can get through the cracks.

      I remember when I first started hearing about this, and thinking "gee, I hope they've thought through all of the security issues". It's like security in operating systems ... there's tons of things you could overlook which can let someone in, and until it starts happening, you likely haven't even thought of all of them.

      I feel bad for anybody has lost their money on this, but I've been treating this like an experiment which has the potential to go really wrong. It's just so massively complex to try to design your own currency system that someone isn't going to try to exploit without going through a lot of growing pains.

      And it's going to have the same problems as real money has.

      You know, the things that caused us to be in the financial mess we're in right now.

      Basically we have something we deem valuable, Bitcoins. We also have a bunch of people who have no experience running a bank, running banks. (Sorry to say it - but the reason real life banks have tons of regulations to deal with is because it's already happened. History repeats itself. And even then we still have problems).

      It's only a matter of time before things get strengthened enough to be trustworthy, then we'll enter the next stage of problems. Bitcoin isn't immune from HFT, speculation, derivatives and all sorts of other fun stuff that happens in real life. In fact, the second stage may happen much sooner due to its volatility and deflationary issues (which cause even more volatility because they suppress transactions).

      Now, what speculator or financial investment institution won't look at Bitcoin's volatility and find a way to exploit it? Do it right and cause enough swings to make many bucks much quicker and more easily than in real life (lack of regulations help).

    24. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You hit the nail on the head. Bitcoin just isn't trustworthy for a lot of reasons:

      1: It isn't anonymous. Anyone who thinks it is is deluded. There are anonymous currencies (look up Chaum or Tim May's items on this) that actually are truly anonymous, using RSA blinding factors or other items.

      2: The system was rigged from the ground up to give lots of coins to people hopping on first, then shaft people later on. This reeks of a classic Ponzi scheme.

      3: The lack of interest in security of BitCoin clearing houses. No PCI-DSS regulations, no money spent in watching accountholder stuff. To boot, if the the whole institution gets cleaned out, there is no way to recoup losses.

      4: The lack of open source clients.

      5: The fact that BitCoin can deflate in a matter of hours.

      6: BitCoin is not backed by a single thing. Even the dollar is backed by a relatively stable government.

      7: There is no honor among thieves. The problem of doing business in the shadows is that the unregulated clearinghouses have little to no interest in protecting their customers. This is why you don't see crack dealers using other crack dealers as places for stashing their ill-gotten gains.

      8: Governments get really interested, really fast, with people using BitCoins. Especially entities like FinCEN. Since BitCoins are not anonymous, someone being stupid can bring the IRS down on them in a heartbeat. Someone who thinks they can use BitCoins for laundering money will find some guys with suits and handcuffs waiting for them.

      There is just no point to using BitCoins:

      They are not anonymous.
      No regulation means that one can lose all their holdings in an instant.
      They were created to line the pockets of the original people with ease of creating coins.
      They have zero value, even less than a fiat currency.

    25. Re:Not surprised ... by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      For God's sake, the largest Bitcoin exchange is MTGox. That's the site formerly known as "Magic The Gathering Online Exchange".
      And they aren't secure either. I had left 10 bitcoin in there that I had tried to sell a few months ago, and I was waiting for the price to go up (which it has now). But then I got a message saying that 10 bitcoin had been transferred out of my account and click here if you didn't order this. Well, clicking here starts a customer service ticket in which they say to contact the police and they will cooperate fully with the police. Well, that's all well and good, but the police aren't going to do anything about $70 worth of virtual currency disappearing. Heck, they don't do anything when several thousand dollars worth of automobile is stolen even if they have a match on fingerprints in the database.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    26. Re:Not surprised ... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, Silk Road is still functioning? I would have through with all the publicity it has gotten it wouldn't be trustworthy anymore....

      Very trustworthy still. It's basically a service where some people want to buy drugs; and other people want to sell drugs. Add to that the idea that a user rates their purchase (eBay-like) and it's pretty easy to distinguish a legitimate seller from a fake one (theoretically, someone COULD set up a seller account; a bunch of other accounts and then rate themselves on transactions; but so far that doesn't seem to be common, and is usually quite easy to spot).

      Publicity only seems to have improved things in general.

      Right now, there is a problem with high prices, since a lot of sellers haven't changed their prices since bitcoins were worth half to 3/4 of what they are now; but I suspect that will level out once business starts dropping and they realise they'll make more by lowering their prices somewhat.

      Disclaimer: I am only an infrequent purchaser, since I tend to only buy LSD and in lots of 25 tabs for personal use (which means one purchase lasts me a LONG time (my last purchase was around Christmas last year)). I have a friend who also uses it more frequently though, and his experiences are also good (other than the recent price issues).

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    27. Re:Not surprised ... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Informative

      LOL, like I said, "Bob's online brokerage" ... why should I trust them? They're completely unregulated, outside of the normal banking system, and not really accountable to anybody. What could possibly go wrong?

      That's actually not correct at all.

      Firstly, Bitcoin exchanges are regulated, that's why Mt Gox requires you to do ID verification and other such things. Not that regulations are a magic wand - US banks routinely get pillaged due to their pathetically weak (often single factor!) security systems. And whilst many European banks at least use dedicated 2-factor calculators, that hasn't stopped massive bank runs in Spain and Greece as people fear different kinds of failure mode.

      Secondly, they are not outside the normal banking system. The whole point of a centralized exchange like Mt Gox is to interface with the banking system. They have bank accounts, accept and send bank wires, etc.

      Thirdly, they are accountable in the same way any company is accountable. But they go further, publishing transparency reports that detail exactly how their business is operating. You'll note that Mt Gox is very different to Bitfloor. It is a real company (albiet a small one), not a one-man operation anymore. They have staff processing support tickets. They have redundant datacenters and the ability to withstand 100Gbps DoS attacks. Most crucially 90%+ of their Bitcoins on deposit are stored in offline wallets in various places that can only be accessed physically. Bitfloor (with a whopping 2% of the market) was a one-man job that ran on Linode, a provider that has been completely rooted in the past! That right there should have been an indication that maybe he wasn't really serious.

      Let me be clear, anything Bitcoin related is risky right now. That's not because of some inherent flaw of Bitcoin, it's because it's very new and so the ecosystem is immature. In particular the fact that it's an open system with open APIs means a lot of programmers just jump right in and start creating services without fully thinking things through. If you're going to run an exchange you need to have your shit together and there are just way too many people who don't. Now is that their fault, the fault of people who then hand them money, or both?

    28. Re:Not surprised ... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't generalize too much if I were you. MtGox allows you to configure various levels of security (up to and including a YubiKey second factor) for different kinds of actions. That's a better standard than what many US banks provide. Just because Bitfloor wasn't up to speed on this stuff doesn't mean all exchanges suck - MtGox has 90%+ market share for a reason!

    29. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you realize that domain names can be bought, sold, and transferred, right?
      For your consideration.

    30. Re:Not surprised ... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      And yet you continue to conflate "the system" with "the currency." Cash is broken in almost exactly the same way as bitcoin. Though one could say it's harder to forge bitcoin than cash.

      That's *all* bitcoin promises. If you give $10,000 cash to a "Nigerian prince" it doesn't mean that cash itself is any more or less secure. It means you're an idiot. Same thing with bitcoin. If you give your coins to somebody who is not careful with them then it's not the fault of the currency. You always have the option of storing them yourself - or even printing them out and stuffing them under your mattress.

      It's an insecure landscape to be sure - but would you expect anything less from a young and revolutionary idea?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    31. Re:Not surprised ... by lgw · · Score: 2

      Not one checking account was lost in the "crisis". Not one savings account was lost in the "crisis". Early on a (completely not insured investment) money market security "broke the buck", that is, returned less than was invested, and that was considered an emergency requiring immediate government attention.

      The system is very stable and robust when it comes to dollars put in the bank. Dollars invested in bank stock may vanish, but that's only appropriate.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:Not surprised ... by Desler · · Score: 1

      People accept btc as a form of exchange currency meaning they want to exchange in and out of it. If those access points are insecure the security if the BTC protocol is meaningless.

    33. Re:Not surprised ... by Desler · · Score: 1

      MtGox has been breached before. Using it as an example of a secure exchange is a joke.

    34. Re:Not surprised ... by jythie · · Score: 1

      I was more thinking that the buyer part would be easy to seed, since I assume at some point someone needs to make a delivery, but that would not impact buyers all that much I guess.

    35. Re:Not surprised ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      It's an insecure landscape to be sure - but would you expect anything less from a young and revolutionary idea?

      No, it's exactly what I'd expect from a young and revolutionary idea -- not yet fully fleshed out, missing a lot of things it really needs, and nowhere ready to be trusted with anything which has real value. In other words, something I'd steer clear of, which is all I'm saying.

      It sounds more like a proof of concept than something I'd entrust money to.

      And, being on the internet, people either don't think critically of it, or don't understand that you've more or less handed a bag full of money to someone you don't really know and have no business trusting in the first place.

      The difference between the real world analogy and the internet one, is I don't walk into a store in a strip mall with a hand-painted sign which says "Bob's Happy Fun Bank" and hand them my money. Apparently, on the internet, that's exactly what we do -- even if Bob didn't rip you off directly, he left the money sitting around in a big heap in the back room and didn't lock the door.

      If I have my cash in a bank, well, it's insured and covered under a lot of legal regulations. Since these guys aren't doing any of that, you're asking an entity to hold onto your cash for you, without any safeguards.

      I've no doubt that BitCoint is cryptographically sexy and secure. But that's kind of moot from a practical measure if this is something which keeps happening.

      I'm sorry, but "the system" is so ad-hoc as to make trading in "the currency" insecure by design. It could be made more secure, but it hasn't yet. And since it's not covered under any regulations nor is it being monitored for shady stuff ... I fail to see how people can act like it's "secure", and that if it's not secure, it's the fault of "the system". There's just too many gaps that you need to leave up to someone to get it right.

      But you seem insistent on discussing this as if it takes place in a vacuum from the method of exchange, which it clearly doesn't.

      I really do think BitCoin is a cool idea. But, like so many cool ideas, it has a little growing to do before I'd assign any level of trust to it and actually use it for my own stuff. In fact, it would have to be as robust and secure as the actual banking system itself for that to happen. I'm just not hearing that it's anywhere near there.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    36. Re:Not surprised ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The mistake is thinking that because the "real" economy needs a "bank" or a "exchange" then a virtual one just naturally of course without thinking needs to replicate the real world."

      Even the "real" economy does not need them... but that's another issue. Your point is exactly the same one I was going to make.

      Since Bitcoin is a secure protocol, and technically a bitcoin "belongs" to whoever holds the hash, then "banking" them is just plain stupid. There isn't a single reason in the world to do so. As long as you keep your own data protected, your own hard drive is just as good a "bank" as any other.

    37. Re:Not surprised ... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      We're mostly in agreement. What I'm "insistent on" is not saying the old cliche "bitcoin is insecure!" when it's really "bitcoin exchanges are insecure!" There's a world of difference in that phrasing. If your scammed on eBay it's not the fault of the US Dollar - it's the fault of the person who scammed you.

      Bitcoin itself *works* (or at least has so far). I really rather hope it becomes very popular. And these exchanges need to get their shit in gear for that to happen.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    38. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, PayPal is regulated by the SEC as a "Broker"

      It is not regulated as a bank

    39. Re:Not surprised ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regulated? [Citation Needed]

      Are they under FDIC/FSLIC/NCUA insurance so if they go under, accountholders get something back? Nope.

      Do they have any regulations to deal with, even something as "easy" as Sarbanes-Oxley? Nope.

      Are they accountable? They can go bankrupt just like any other corporations, while the officers cash out and enjoy their Caymen Island retreat, paid for by people lower down on the pyramid.

      Are they potentially liable for actions? Any court will laugh out of court a plaintiff talking about a valueless currency, especially when one brings in graphics of how much BitCoins vary in value. To boot, a judge will be smelling unclean hands every step of the way when someone uses a currency viewed as shady, similar to how eGold was viewed until FinCEN stepped in and squashed them.

      As for 2%, 2% of ANY currency is a big deal when it comes to the financial market.

      Oh well... guess the shills of the people who were in when coins were easy to make have to defend the currency so the first in can cash out and move to something else.

    40. Re:Not surprised ... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Go research it yourself. MtGox is run by Tibanne, Co, a Japanese company and thus falls under Japanese regulations. You can read up on what they entail. Are deposits ensured? I doubt it. MtGox is not a bank and you should not use it as one. The point of Bitcoin is you don't need banks, just withdraw your own money and insure it yourself if you like.

      eGold got into trouble because they knew exactly which accounts were engaged in criminal activity (to the extent of having notes against those accounts detailing the type), but did not shut them down. MtGox doesn't make such mistakes, as far as I know, but if they do get into trouble it won't affect me much because *drumroll* I don't use them as a bank, so I have no money to lose there.

    41. Re:Not surprised ... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Seems bitcoins are valuable enough to steal.

      That makes them real enough for me.

    42. Re:Not surprised ... by Troed · · Score: 1

      2: The system was rigged from the ground up to give lots of coins to people hopping on first

      You mean just like stocks in any startup?

      4: The lack of open source clients.

      All of the ones I know of are open source.

      The "official" one for desktops can be found here: https://github.com/bitcoin

      A Java implementation used by the most popular mobile client is here: http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/

      The rest of your points were opinions - I just wanted to point out the verifiable falsehoods.

  4. Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    What need did it fill that was not satisfied by other online payment systems?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You haven't heard of SilkRoad have you?

    2. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by nogginthenog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Buying drugs & stolen goods over the internet. Donating to Wikileaks. That's about it really..

    3. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hello. Welcome to the 2010s. The "other online payment systems" are not just service providers anymore, they are also Boy Scouts, and a Neighborhood Watch. They take it upon themselves to determine who you can give money to, and to who you can not. Wikileaks is just one such example. There are also many outside of the US that are somehow considered to be in violation of US laws that of course don't apply to them.

      Therefore we need the equivalent of cash.

    4. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by localman57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People in places that Americans frequently view as backward and primative have had this figured out for a long time

      Obviously, there's lots of ways things could go wrong, but I'd give them my money before I'd put it in a bitcoin exchange...

    5. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It filled the need for an anti-corporate moral superiority.

      BitCoin was developed from the start to screw over large companies, who invariably require a trail of some kind for significant transactions. It's promoted as the digital equivalent of cash, and just like cash, the only way to trust a transaction is when you implicitly trust the other party. That kind of trust is only feasible for a small business dealing with a small client base, where the natural urge for social behavior still trumps the natural human urge for antisocial greed.

      Sure, maybe BitCoin could eventually work... but it'll first evolve a traceable "BitCoin Certificate" that will be exchangeable for BitCoins at a particular place, and those certificates will have a booming economy grow around their trade, because they're easier to secure than actual BitCoins. Then certificates will be created for BitCoins that don't actually exist, but they'll be paired with certificates for BitCoin debt, and BitCoins will be loaned. Eventually, the BitCoins will just be a meaningless wallet locked away on a server, and the certificates will be the real money, and the demand for certificates will fluctuate in relation to the actual value of the BitCoins. Then someone will gripe about how these certificates are no longer fixed to the BitCoin standard, and they're traceable, and we should make a new currency to solve the problems, that's not controlled by Big BitCoin...

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't actually, what is it?

    7. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, stealing money. Pretty sure that is the biggest sector of the bitcoin economy.

    8. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Infernal+Device · · Score: 2

      Hawala works because it occurs inside a cultural and religious system that has strong penalties for not following thru. Bitcoin exchanges don't work because it's mainly run by a bunch of people who are completely against any oversight. They expect their word and their technical expertise to be the bond, without an ovarching cultural/religious framework to validate it.

      Enron would have been very different if the perpetrators could have lost appendages for their malfeasance.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    9. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by IAmR007 · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins != Bitcoin wallets. The breakage wasn't with bitcoin, but people deciding to store PRIVATE KEYS online. There's a big difference between a protocol being broken and people being stupid with private keys.

    10. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off with your noble savage bullshit. Being from a third world country doesn't automatically make people sages.

      Their religion forbids them to charge each other interest, so they mince words until everyone is happy about it and then they charge each other interest.

    11. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by harks · · Score: 1

      The difference is that most of the reasons that people have for accepting silver/gold certificates instead of actual gold/silver coins do not apply to Bitcoin. Bitcoin can be carried anywhere (and sent anywhere in the world) without a weight or volume problem. You don't have to physically travel to a Treasury office to redeem Bitcoin certificates for real Bitcoins. You don't have to worry about counterfeit Bitcoins as you might with gold/silver coins. With a moderate amount of encryption and backup you don't have to worry about them being stolen from your computer.

    12. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by slew · · Score: 1

      .. and then there will be this shift to "fiat" BitCoin Certificates that look very much like BitCoin Certificates, but can be created out of thin air by certain entities that wish to control the economy where only some decreasing fraction of them are backed by real BitCoin...

      So someone explain to me how these BitCoin Certificates will somehow be different from current money?

    13. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Proper encryption and backup are hard (for the average uneducated schmuck), though, just like securing a briefcase with your life's savings in it. To avoid that hardship, people will dump their savings into the BitCoin banks, get the certificates, and so on. The reasons for wanting certificates change, but there are still ample reasons.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    14. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      *slow applause*

      Well done, sir. Your reading comprehension is astounding.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    15. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by harks · · Score: 1

      A stolen briefcase can be broken into, a stolen encrypted Bitcoin wallet file with a secure password cannot. Additionally, Bitcoin is supposed to be introducing two-factor authentication soon, which would, for example, require keys from both a smartphone and a PC to decrypt a wallet and send Bitcoin payments. While it's possible and feasible to make and distribute a trojan that could infect a computer and both copy the wallet.dat file and log keystrokes to determine the wallet password, it would be incredibly harder to do so on both of a single person's computer and smartphone. Whether that is easy enough and safe enough for the masses remains to be seen.

    16. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      just like cash, the only way to trust a transaction is when you implicitly trust the other party.

      Wait, that's not right. Most forms of payment today (credit cards, paypal, even ACH) are quite reversible. That means that if you are trying to sell something you have to trust the buyer not to take their money back. If you're a buyer it means you need less trust in the seller. However, this is a problem because typically sellers are well known and have developed a trusted brand, whereas buyers have not, so it's much easier for a buyer to judge the trustworthyness of a seller than the other way around. This fact is the foundation of an entire industry of risk analysis firms which simply aren't needed if you sell for cash. And it's not theoretical. My brother had a laptop stolen from him because he didn't understand how reversible PayPal is, and there are professional scammers who exploit that.

      With Bitcoin, if you sell you don't need trust in the buyer. OK, so what about buyers? Well, if you trust the seller, you can just send them the money. For big, trusted brands that's nice and cheap - everyone wins. If you don't trust the seller then you can use escrow - except that as we've seen, big online wallets tend to become targets for hacking. The Bitcoin system anticipated this problem years ago and the protocol supports dispute mediation techniques that prevent the mediator from stealing the money, which obviously also means you don't have to worry about them being hacked either. It's not fully implemented today (no GUI), which is unfortunate, but these things will come with time.

    17. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by harks · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin enables a person, anywhere on Earth, to receive computer-based services from anyone anywhere on Earth, very quickly and with very little charged in transaction fees. Additionally you can send large amounts of money anywhere on Earth without incurring what banks charge for international wire transfer fees. I think it will also be good for micropayments - a website that wants to charge its visitors 15 cents doesn't have any good way of doing this presently without being destroyed by credit card fees.

    18. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      By the same flawed logic, a briefcase that's locked inside a welded-shut titanium room with constant surveillance cannot be stolen. A BitCoin wallet kept on an always-connected disk with a strong password that's the same password as used on an insecure social network which tells what bar the victim (and his smartphone) frequents, can be easily stolen.

      The problem isn't that the cash mechanism itself is somehow flawed... Dollars don't magically leap to pickpockets' hands, and BitCoin wallets don't magically lose their encryption. The problem is that the security burden is put on the user. There are idiots who carry fat wallets in too-small pockets, and there are idiots who won't bother to encrypt their BitCoin wallets.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    19. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just like cash, the only way to trust a transaction is when you implicitly trust the other party.

      That is the problem with bitcoin right there, it is pushed by people who don't even understand the very basic aspects of the system they find so lacking.

      The thing about cash, I don't need to trust the other party at all. The other party probably is not trustworthy. But I can trust the money they give me, because they know I can hold it up to the light and check for a watermark that they can't replicate, and I'll swipe a magic pen over it that disappears if the money is real, and marks it in a bright color if it is fake. Even a person I *know* I can't trust can engage in a cash transaction with me, and I can have full confidence that if I take normal, standard precautions my risk is very low. There is simply no reason at all to trust them. An untrustworthy person in the store is a bigger risk to fake-fall and make an insurance claim, raising my rates, than they are when it comes to the cash.

      And as a buyer if I don't trust the other party, cash is perfect. My risk is related to any portion of the goods or services to be delivered after payment, which would be the risk and the same negotiation with bitcoin.

      And if the cash itself loses value, so will bitcoin which requires not only working computers, but reachable exchanges. In the corporate dystopia where everybody adopts bitcoin, you've got a deflating currency so that as long as the corps don't spend money have a growing pot. And as more and more of the limited money supply aggregates with them, they can simply choose which exchange you have to use and now they have all the tracking and record keeping their accountants and actuaries love, and no pesky regulations to follow.

    20. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What need did it fill that was not satisfied by other online payment systems?

      Micropayments. The idea was really popular in the late 1990s, but they never really happened (mostly because we couldn't get the transaction fees low enough) and people gave up on the idea. Now, we have the technology to make micropayments themselves happen, but we haven't yet done a good job of securing people's computers well enough to make micropayments reliable. Once we solve that, I suspect we'll see increased use of Bitcoin or one of its successors.

    21. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Most forms of payment today (credit cards, paypal, even ACH) are quite reversible.

      First, note that PayPal is only slightly more secure than cash, and that's only because Paypal can choose to side with whomever it wants. It is not a bank, and not regulated like a bank. Apart from PR, PayPal doesn't really care what happens to any money you willingly put in its possession. A wise user will keep only money they can afford to lose in PayPal for convenience, and put the rest somewhere safer.

      Bank transfers and credit cards are regulated, and the banks have a clear interest in not letting their customers lose money (since that's directly behind their profit). It's common knowledge that any fraud through a bank can be disputed, and the bank will usually be on the complainant's side through the process (because they want the profit from having that money back).

      And it's not theoretical. My brother had a laptop stolen from him because he didn't understand how reversible PayPal is, and there are professional scammers who exploit that.

      I have been scammed by sellers who charged for items and never sent anything, but my analogy proves nothing more than yours does.

      With Bitcoin, if you sell you don't need trust in the buyer. OK, so what about buyers? Well, if you trust the seller, you can just send them the money. For big, trusted brands that's nice and cheap - everyone wins.

      Except for the person whose BitCoins were stolen, and used to make the purchase. Since it's untraceable, those big businesses, who have to comply with those silly laws about not laundering money and the like, either can't use BitCoins, or they run the risk of being caught in a laundering (or other fraud) scheme.

      The Bitcoin system anticipated this problem years ago and the protocol supports dispute mediation techniques that prevent the mediator from stealing the money [bitcoin.it], which obviously also means you don't have to worry about them being hacked either. It's not fully implemented today (no GUI), which is unfortunate, but these things will come with time.

      And until that's used, fools and their money are soon parted. Once it is in widespread use, BitCoin is no better off than PayPal or any other reversible service, because a scammer can simply dispute every transaction, taking the chance that they'll get their money back. Then of course there's the case where a mediator may not actually be neutral, but rather is itself part of the scam.

      So honest buyers get screwed when the seller doesn't uphold the deal, honest sellers get screwed when buyers don't uphold the deal, and companies who are big enough to be under constant regulatory watch are saddled with a huge risk. It's cash, with cryptography buzzwords added for flavor.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    22. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this it totally unavoidable. How do you propose a bitcoin exchange should work? For bitcoins to be useful, there needs to be a way for them to be transferred, therefore the keys need to be available, therefore they can be compromised. Any defense that prevents hackers from stealing them from a compromised machine, also stops them being useful.

      So the problem is definitely inherent to bitcoin.

      And this is why bitcoin will forever remain a niche. The vast majority of people would much rather have a system that is traceable, and allows transactions to be reversed. This is because the vast majority of people are more likely to have their money stolen, than they are to receive stolen money for goods, simply because more people are consumers than they are vendors.

    23. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to compromise both the phone and the PC, you just compromise the software that is managing the wallet.

      Even with 2-factor authentication, there has to be some system somewhere where those two-factors are combined and the wallet decrypted. If it's the user's PC, then the second factor is essentially useless - assuming you could trojan the computer with a keylogger, you could also trojan the wallet/crypto software.

      If the "bank" (or some other organisation that is going to be acting very much like one) is the one holding the wallet, then the 2-factor authentication does secure the user from his own PC being compromised. But the bank could still be compromised and the money stolen at the point where the bank has the password and code from the smartphne. And you have lost the benefits of bitcoin - some third party is now holding your money. They could go bust, or comply with a court order to hand over your money or transaction records.

    24. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never ever leave money in the account associated with paypal. As soon as the money is in your account you transfer it into another. That way if paypal decides to reverse the transaction they can fuck themselves.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:Why ever use Bitcoin in the first place? by harks · · Score: 1

      The way I think it is going to work - I'm not 100% sure - is that the Bitcoin network will not process transactions from two-factor addresses without having two ECDSA signatures from two separate keys. So there is no single point that a trojan could compromise to send payments.

  5. About time. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 0

    It's better that the stupid bitcoin experiment dies now than when average people with something to lose are duped into the scam.

    If it's not well regulated, open and the result of mutually beneficial agreement then expect someone smarter than you to take it from you: this rule applies to money, commerce and war.

    1. Re:About time. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If it's not well regulated, open and the result of mutually beneficial agreement then expect someone smarter than you to take it from you: this rule applies to money, commerce and war.

      Seems to me bitcoin is of mutual benefit - there are people who want to pay with bitcoins and people who want to be paid with bitcoins. That there are a lot of other people who'd like to rob us blind doesn't change that, any more than burglars and bank robbers and shoplifters do in the real world. It's just back to the days of the wild wild west when the sheriff was nowhere to be found and you have to protect your own assets.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:About time. by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      If it's not well regulated, open and the result of mutually beneficial agreement then expect someone smarter than you to take it from you: this rule applies to money, commerce and war.

      I thought the whole point of war was such that at least one party was going to conclude that the agreement was not to their benefit.

      --
      -
    3. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just start using even basic security measures, no, no your right just stop altogether, it's stupid. its a scam. Not like like the dollar gets printed everytime the US doesn't want to pay the full value of its foreign debt, no (oh how they bitch about nations that pin to the dollar stopping than trick from working) and investments in say facebook, they do well, better the stupid share and currency experiments die now than when average people... oh wait, every area of the financial system is designed to part the average person from everything that they possess by the time they die. Your dreaming if you think its anything else. Regulation isn't what you think it is, even when it's well regulated you can expect even people dimmer than you to take 'it' away from you, and even if they don't get you they bypass you and get it directly from your government.

    4. Re:About time. by localman57 · · Score: 2

      It's better that the stupid bitcoin experiment dies now than when average people with something to lose are duped into the scam.

      If it's not well regulated, open and the result of mutually beneficial agreement then expect someone smarter than you to take it from you: this rule applies to money, commerce and war.

      By that argument, we should probably also ban hedge funds, ponzi schemes, derivatives trading, that entire 31 multi-level marketing thing, PayPal, Secured Debt Obligations, Beanie Babies, Exchange Traded Funds, house-flipping, Thomas Kinkade paintings, and investment in what China calls a stock market. Wait. What?

    5. Re:About time. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Excellent.

    6. Re:About time. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Unless you want war to continue, you must be prepared to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement of well-regulated, open terms.

      And if you really want war to continue but just fancy catching your breath (or winning an election), make sure you leave out one of those ingredients.

    7. Re:About time. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      And we moved on from that because a lot of people got robbed blind or shot, and few big endeavours were worth the risk so education and infrastructure was poor.

    8. Re:About time. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      War will continue in any case you dreamer. The only thing that stops it is weapons so destructive that nobody wins. Even there it just stops total war, proxy wars get worse if anything.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:About time. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      Printing money is an aggressive act towards any nation that pinned its currency to yours. We cause inflation in China when we print dollars. This forces them to move the pin. This is how economic war is fought.

      The pin is a simpleminded economic measure devised by engineers that run China. Their metric is industrial utilization. Their target is 100%. Their tool is the exchange rate. The downside is becoming more obvious every day.

      It will be totally dysfunctional soon. Look for arbitrage opportunities.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:About time. by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone seem to assume that "regulation" or even "good regulation" means a damn thing? Is nobody looking at the rest of the worlds' economic situation? Now, I'll grant you that novice code monkeys shouldn't be building the equivalent of a bank - but seriously, the only real difference between this and a "real" bank is that it doesn't have Federal backing. Anonymity will go straight out the window as soon as they do (thereby eliminating one of the bigger benefits of BC), so what are you left with? The same fucking thing we're left with in the "real world": Trust someone with your money because nobody takes "cash" anymore and hope like hell that they don't fuck it up. If they do fuck up, then you hope that they'll be willing to make it "right". Dumping Bitcoin isn't the answer - resolving the problems with Bitcoin is.

    11. Re:About time. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Who said that no-one wants war to continue?

    12. Re:About time. by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone seem to assume that "regulation" or even "good regulation" means a damn thing? Is nobody looking at the rest of the worlds' economic situation?

      Yes, and that's why some people regret getting rid of the good regulation through the '90s.

      Now, I'll grant you that novice code monkeys shouldn't be building the equivalent of a bank

      Because otherwise things like in the TFA might happen.

      the only real difference between this and a "real" bank is that it doesn't have Federal backing.

      That and the fact that a bunch of kids don't hack into real banks every fortnight and steal the money.

      And a token doesn't correspond to any individual's money.

      Anonymity will go straight out the window as soon as they do (thereby eliminating one of the bigger benefits of BC),

      Bitcoin isn't any more anonymous than a numbered bank account, love.

      Trust someone with your money because nobody takes "cash" anymore

      Buy more than iPhones. Lots of people take cash.

      and hope like hell that they don't fuck it up. If they do fuck up, then you hope that they'll be willing to make it "right".

      Sounds like you have chosen shitty banks/etc. Mine very rarely fuck up and right their mistakes quickly. Never lost a penny through individual bank error.

    13. Re:About time. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You constructed a scenario that you claim is an alternative. It isn't.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. i think these places steal their own bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Easy way to make money, set up a bitcoin exchange, run it long enough to get a couple 100 grand of bitcoins then steal them all from yourself, since bitcoin is untraceable there's really no way to get caught.

    1. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by alphax45 · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't surprise me at all. Good scam if you think about it!

      --
      K Man
    2. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that it is always exchanges getting "hacked", never retailers. And why is that? Because the first thing anyone does when they get a bitcoin is try to convert it to a fiat currency... Says a lot about the viability of this "currency", doesn't it?

    3. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by localman57 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that it is always exchanges getting "hacked", never retailers. And why is that? Because the first thing anyone does when they get a bitcoin is try to convert it to a fiat currency... Says a lot about the viability of this "currency", doesn't it?

      Not really, because for this conversion to happen, there has to be another person willing to take the bitcoins in exchange for fiat currency. This of the essence of currency. If you keep them forever once you get them, then they're a collectable, not a currency.

    4. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you keep them forever once you get them, then they're a collectable, not a currency.

      Same AC that you responded to. This brings up the most fundamental flaw in bitcoin. You are rewarded for keeping them forever, since there is an upper limit to the amount of bitcoins that exist. As the creation of bitcoins slows down, every one created prior to that new iteration becomes worth more. Therefore, why would you ever spend it? Look at the guy that spent 10k bitcoins (or something like that) for a pizza. Think he feels like a dumbass since now that pizza has a nominal worth of $100k? More realistically, you could probably assume $50k since it appears you have a 50% chance of losing any coins you try to convert, but my point still stands.

      For your other point, "there has to be another person willing to take the bitcoins in exchange for fiat currency", you're right. There is. And that person is probably a scammer or, more charitably, a grifter. Except for the legit businesses selling drugs and child porn. Oh, slim jims and burritos (VERY MISLEADING), too.

    5. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are starting to suspect the recent hackers to be mythical. The basic security precautions needed to prevent this kind of thing have been well-known since last year.

    6. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is why deflationary currency policies like the gold standard are terrible. If you can make a profit simply by hording cash under your mattress then why would anyone 1) invest and take on risk when they are guaranteed sure returns for nothing or 2) buy anything since it will always be cheaper tomorrow?

      This is why any modern economy NEEDS a certainly level of inflation. As the economy grows the money supply needs to expand to match the growth otherwise you get deflation which then kills the growth.

      The gold nuts are living in a synthetic fantasy of 18th century economics textbooks and History Channel documentaries about the Wiemar Republic.

    7. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't surprise me at all. Good scam if you think about it!

      in this case the money that disappeared was roughly 140 weeks profits of the exchange. that's quite a lot.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      The deflationary argument is simple, neat and wrong. But you don't have to believe me. Read what economists at the Minneapolis Fed found when they studied it.

      Are deation and depression empirically linked? No, concludes a broad historical study of ination and real output growth rates. Deation and depression do seem to have been linked during the 1930s. But in the rest of the data for 17 countries and more than 100 years, there is virtually no evidence of such a link.

    9. Re:i think these places steal their own bitcoins by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      That's right. That's why no one did either "invest and take on risk" or "buy anything" during the industrial revolution. An economic dead time if there ever was one!

  7. Useless by puddingebola · · Score: 0

    So I go to the 7-11 with my smartphone with all 250K worth of bitcoins to get some coffee and a newspaper and the clerk says that will be $2.48 and I hold up my smartphone and he says what's that and I say that's $250 million worth of bitcoins and he says do you want to trade the phone for the paper and coffee and I say no, I want you to use NFC to deduct $2.76 from my magical bitcoins and he says, Sorry dude, I don't have the other half of the encryption key... Just use paper money dude.

    1. Re:Useless by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to people in Zimbabwe where that newspaper and coffee will run you an entire wheelbarrow full of money. Or at least it did a year or so ago. The US media kind of lost interest in it a while ago, so I don't know what's going on now.

    2. Re:Useless by Desler · · Score: 1

      They've long since re-denominated their money.

    3. Re:Useless by puddingebola · · Score: 1

      So they can use Silver dude. There's always a barter economy. In seriousness, wasn't this caused in some small part due to Robert Mugabe's land reform policies? Or is the hyperinflation it's own animal altogether. Or maybe the west is trying to 86 a socialist.

    4. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zimbabwe abandoned their dollar and now everyone there does business in USD or Euros or whatever.

      It's not that big a deal for a small country to use a foreign currency for everything; Ecuador has been doing it for years.

    5. Re:Useless by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Zimbabwe is using US dollars for all exchanges except those with the government. The people made this change.

      I expect when you owe the government money you ether just don't pay or you convert your dollars to toilet paper and run from the bank to the government office before it loses too much value.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Useless by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Gold bug Austrians have been predicting hyper-inflation in the dollar for ages now. It is still a prediction that is ahead of its time.

  8. Inexperienced exchange providers by martok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not the fault of the currency. It is a fault of the exchange provider and the users of the currency really need to be careful in who they put their trust.
    I'm sorry but noone without a great deal of development experience should be writing a Bitcoin exchange or any other type of financial exchange exposed to the internet. The attackers got hold of the unencrypted wallet? Why would an exchange wallet ever be unencrypted? Why is there a single wallet in the first place? Why not have seperate wallets per user account encrypted with their own passphrase such that the site operator doesn't even have access? Maybe a master password override to decrypt but never stored online etc.
    Why is the wallet stored on the webserver in the first place? Why aren't funds transfered to offline storage on a regular basis? I could go on.

    1. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not the fault of the currency. It is a fault of the exchange provider and the users of the currency really need to be careful in who they put their trust.

      But, that's the problem.

      In the real world, banks are regulated, covered under some oversight, and insured.

      If this parallel banking system doesn't have any of these controls, then there's simply no way you can trust the system as a whole.

      So, me, I'll stick to having my money backed by real banks, with an actual transaction processing backed by major players, and which all of the players understand the risks and their own liability.

      Trusting the internet with my money is like trusting a crackhead to guard my house. What you're describing is that any idiot can come along and try to get into the game. No thanks.

      This may not be a specific issue with the currency, but the entire "banking" ecosystem around it sounds like something I'd fundamentally have zero trust in.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it is. The unregulated nature is what allows these exchanges to set up with lax security and incur no liability for loss. "But officer he stole my virtual monopoly money! Do something!!!"

    3. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by shentino · · Score: 1

      Money isn't safe, period.

      If you hide it under your mattress, someone can break into your house and rob you.
      If you put it in the bank, the bank can fail and take your deposits with it...or the feds can simply accuse you of being a druggie or terrorist and flat out seize it.
      If you put it in bitcoins, someone can hack your wallet out from under your nose.

      Face it, there is no way to keep money safe in this world except to spend it.

      Best defense to being robbed is, sadly, not to have anything worth stealing in the first place. If you have something someone else wants and they're big and bad enough to take it from you, they will, and there's usually not a damn thing you can do about it.

    4. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Face it, there is no way to keep money safe in this world except to spend it.

      Maybe not absolutely 100% safe, sure.

      But treating random internet sites as if they're proper banks with all of the built in safeguards isn't really a step in the right direction.

      As the poster I replied to said, this is about who you trust in the exchange. In this case, it sounds like there's no reason to actually put any trust in them.

      In this case, I'd have to say the "real" banking system is far more trustworthy. Some guy who knocked up a web site and thinks he's an "exchange"? Well, that's just asking for troubles.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by kumanopuusan · · Score: 2

      It seems you're ignoring the fact that different payment methods and currencies are used for different purposes. Putting your savings in BitCoin is idiotic, but if you need to transfer funds, there's no need to hold BitCoin for an appreciable amount of time. Your exposure to this sort of hack is pretty low in that case.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    6. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you put it in the bank, the bank can fail and take your deposits with it

      No, it can't, at least not in the United States. Under the FDIC, depositors are protected by the federal government for up to $250,000 even if the bank goes bust. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which established the FDIC, was passed specifically to prevent this kind of scenario from happening, which it previously had done with some regularity. (Glass-Steagall also banned some dangerous practices like commingling retail and investment banking; unfortunately, by the 1990s, people had forgotten why these regulations were a good idea, and they were repealed, setting the stage for the financial crisis of 2008.)

    7. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      "But officer he stole my virtual monopoly money! Do something!!!"
      And what does the officer do when the fatcats invest your banking dollars in unsafe real estate investments and destroy your 401k? The answer is, borrow more money from you to bail out the people who mishandled your money so they won't go bankrupt.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto in the EU. All countries in the EU have to provide either insurance or an equivalent "last man standing" scheme so that failure of a single bank or group of banks doesn't leave ordinary savers out of pocket. Some of Iceland's banks failed during the recent crisis, and everybody got their money back although it did fuck Iceland pretty badly in the process.

      The "last man standing" schemes mean that every bank in that country agrees to be jointly responsible. If one bank (say, "Bob Smith's bank" a small private bank which turns out to have been run badly) fails, every bank in that country has to help pay the savers. In some cases that could cause them to fail. Too bad, the remaining banks have to keep paying until everyone gets their money back or the last bank goes bankrupt, hence "last man standing". This scheme strongly encourages banks to start screaming and shouting if they see another bank doing something that might cause it to fail, because they're on the hook to pay for that.

      So ordinary EU banks are "safe as houses". It _does_ mean that people shouldn't put a lot of money in a subsidiary bank on a small independent crappy island (e.g. various islands off Britain that are technically independent). Because if those banks fail, too bad. The law on the island might promise savers will be paid back but who is going to enforce the law and pay out the money? The handful of permanent inhabitants of the island? No chance, if they had money they'd fucking leave. The big parent corporatons of the failed banks? Nope, the law doesn't apply to them, just to their little subsidiaries. Nobody will pay. The banks on the island will all fail and nothing else happens because it's just a crappy little island and there's no-one to care. Too bad for the savers who thought it was a good place to "hide" money from the mainland authorities (hint: No it isn't)

    9. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you put it in the bank, the bank can fail and take your deposits with it...or the feds can simply accuse you of being a druggie or terrorist and flat out seize it."

      That is an insanely retarded and incorrect statement.

    10. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by Applekid · · Score: 1

      If you put it in the bank, the bank can fail and take your deposits with it

      No, it can't, at least not in the United States. Under the FDIC, depositors are protected by the federal government for up to $250,000 even if the bank goes bust. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which established the FDIC, was passed specifically to prevent this kind of scenario from happening, which it previously had done with some regularity. (Glass-Steagall also banned some dangerous practices like commingling retail and investment banking; unfortunately, by the 1990s, people had forgotten why these regulations were a good idea, and they were repealed, setting the stage for the financial crisis of 2008.)

      Well, sure, it's the law. Until it's repealed and no longer the case. As you noted, Glass-Steagall had been continually weakened. You'd bet your bottom [fiat] dollar that if global economic collapse were ever to become imminent these, and all sorts of other laws, would be tossed out to make sure those on the top stay there so that those on the bottom stay where they are.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    11. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Alas, the FDIC is one of the very reasons we have mega banks and by extension the financial crisis in the first place. Think about it. If there was not FDIC how would you protect yourself?

      You would 1) select institutions that could demonstrate they were secure in the physical and financial sense. 2) You would diversify, put no more money than you could tolerate the loss of at anyone one bank.

      Left alone the market would have required many rather than a handful of nation wide financials. None of which could have been bigger than our current big banks as the total deposit would not be expected to increase; and because depositors would have looked on a bank with greater leverage as inferior to its peers.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, of course. That's why, before the FDIC existed, there were no large banks, and so nobody was significantly harmed when some banks started to collapse in 1929. In fact, why did anyone get the idea to start the FDIC in the first place, anyway?

      Oh, wait, that's not what happened, and reality disagrees with your overly simplistic economic model.

    13. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      by the 1990s, people had forgotten why these regulations were a good idea

      If you believe that, I've a valuable bridge to sell you... Citigroup and other large banks had been trying for decades to get GS repealed, they knew very well what they were doing.

    14. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by shentino · · Score: 1

      The fact that anyone with possession of the hashes can whisk the bitcoins away to his own personal wallet and then disappear means bitcoins are inherently prone to theft.

      With real money you don't make someone get all the dollar bills back that he stole, you take it out of his bank account.

      With bitcoins, there's no way to get the money back once it's been sent into oblivion.

      Some guy working at an exchange could just dump everyone's coins into his wallet and bounce it through so many addresses that it cannot be easily traced, and by the time anyone finds out the guy may already be halfway to tahiti.

    15. Re:Inexperienced exchange providers by shentino · · Score: 1

      See US v. $124,700

      The feds confiscated six figures from someone just because it smelled like drugs.

  9. You need help alright by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why the fuck was your backup of keys stored umencrypred? It costs only a vew cpu cycles.
    This smacks of an inside job, which given the nature of bitcoin, is far to easy.
    Set up exchange, collect keys, lose keys in 'compromise', profit. No ???? Needed.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  10. Better known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the exit strategy for a con.

  11. OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by nweaver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its not anonymous, but pseudonomous. Its actually the opposite of anonymous, as EVERY transaction is recorded in public.

    It can't scale.

    The major use beyond geek things is buying drugs (Silk Road etc). Heck, even illegal arms sales weren't profitable in BitCoin land!

    The believers seem to have a huge amount of "goldbug variation", obsessing about a fixed currency supply.

    Hardly any exchange or similar service has remained unhacked.

    And 5% of ALL bitcoins ended up in a 6 month, blatenly obvious pyramid scheme run by an anonymous individual named PIRATE!!!!

    The only saving grace is bitcoin is remarkably small: with only ~10M bitcoins in existence, the delusionary notional value is small.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the perfect combination for people that dont understand economics or crypto.

    2. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin indeed seems to attract the same sort of nutters that gold standard advocacy does.

      Anyone who advocates a fixed supply currency where massive deflation is inevitable needs to have their head checked.

    3. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by localman57 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bitcoin indeed seems to attract the same sort of nutters that gold standard advocacy does.

      Anyone who advocates a fixed supply currency where massive deflation is inevitable needs to have their head checked.

      They go to this one doctor from Texas for the exam. According to him, they're thinking perfectly rationally.

    4. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only saving grace is bitcoin is remarkably small: with only ~10M bitcoins in existence, the delusionary notional value is small.

      It doesn't even have THAT saving grace. With the True Believers(tm) also bragging about how you can subdivide Bitcoins down when the supply is inevitably fucked up, what you've actually got are ~10T one-millionth Bitcoins in existence. Or worse.

    5. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The title of your post is spot on: you really don't get it.

      The amount of black money in the EU is well over 1000 billion euro. Try to picture that much money. Now imagine the corrupt Chinese official who was caught stacking piles of money inside his walls at home because he didn't know how to spend it. Understand that the communist party in China has over 70 million members, many of them an official of some sort. Now think about all the other corrupt places in the world.

      I think you get the idea. There's a ton of people who want to do business outside of official channels. Occasionally losing some money in an exchange that gets hacked is better than having your money rot inside a wall.

    6. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Why can't it scale? There are about 10T microBTC in existence.
      And having a lot of money ending up in a pyramid scheme is hardly the fault of the currency.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Financial institutions will be all over this next week...

    8. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by gox · · Score: 1

      Below is my honest personal point of view. Whether I'm misguided is up to you.

      I was pondering about and hoping for something like Bitcoin for the last 15 years, since I realized that cash would go away one day and with it most of my freedoms. It's not about what I do with cash. As long as cash exists as an option, no one actually needs to even use it, it will still serve as a restraint for foci of power.

      By "like Bitcoin", I don't mean a fixed supply, proof-of-work based P2P Internet currency. What I mean is, a way to transfer value between two remote parties without involving any intermediary authority. I wasn't thinking a new currency would even be necessary. I liked the Ripple concept very much, but it will never work on a global scale, at least in the current state of the world.

      Therefore in my humble mind, my central concern is so important, and a solution like Bitcoin is so brilliant that your list of immediate concerns seem like little wrinkles to me. I'll try to address them one by one.

      Anonymity: There is this thing called "provably untraceable transactions", and I think it is somehow seen as an alternative to Bitcoin's model, but actually it isn't (for one, it is also susceptible to traffic analysis, etc. and requires central authority). Total transparency and proof of work is the only proven way of doing this thing without central authority, and in practice it provides *more* reliable privacy than provably untraceable transactions with central authority. I think Bitcoin, as a currency, need not support anonymity by itself; the system is flexible enough that this is actually not a very important concern. You can use any one of the systems built on top of Bitcoin that will provide the untraceability that you require anyway. You must realize that what I'm saying fully conforms with the reality that none of the numerous Bitcoin heists have ever led the investigators to any suspect.

      Scalability: This is an argument from lack of imagination. Even now there are several proposed solutions to the foreseen scalability issues. Maybe they won't work. Maybe better solutions will be available soon. Who knows? I don't know of any facts that would make it impossible or even implausible to scale. It just doesn't scale if you leave the protocol as it is.

      Geek drug thing: It's hardly surprising that Bitcoin is mostly used in ways it provides more utility. This resembles a lot of the arguments against Linux when it first became widely used in geek circles.

      Goldbug people: Yeah, I guess it's not surprising that they're attracted either. I think that's an American thing, and Americans seem to be the earliest to adopt marginal stuff. Also, those people are very vocal (almost only in English platform though), and I doubt they even form a majority of the English-speaking Bitcoin community.

      Exchanges hacked: Because they aren't run by professionals. If you could remotely access a bank's all databases, you could mess it up just the same. But you can't. It's not about Bitcoin as a currency, but a problem with Bitcoin as a movement. It will be a "wild west" thing until enough resources are allocated to these services. Why not help Bitcoin reach that point instead of complaining?

      Pirate: Maddoff. Not a Bitcoin thing at all.

      Delusionary value: Money is such a thing, mate.

    9. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Cash isn't going away anytime soon.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent's point wasn't the number of units, but that each transaction is distributed to each client.
      At this point Bitcoin doesn't scale. It could be improved by introducing trusted nodes ("Banks") that clients connect to that don't have the entire transaction history, but who's going to implement that, and who will run the trusted nodes?

      So "Bitcoin doesn't scale" is a fair assessment.

    11. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by tokul · · Score: 1

      Heck, even illegal arms sales weren't profitable in BitCoin land!

      Well, at least you tried.

    12. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by nweaver · · Score: 1

      I think those who tried running the Armory found out its hard to compete as a black market when the LEGAL sales are from companies with names like "Cheaper Than Dirt"

      --
      Test your net with Netalyzr
    13. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin can scale actually. Take a look at some of the latest calculations here.

    14. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by gox · · Score: 1

      Yes, I admit that it will likely take more time to go away than I thought back in the day. However, in the new state of affairs, it's also non-existent in many aspects of life and business, and it seems likely to me that it will be made disappear right after we reach its supposed irrelevancy. It has already been de jure disabled for some purposes. It's illegal to carry cash physically through borders. In my home country, it's illegal to transact some forms of payments (like rent for instance) by cash.

      To keep it brief, I think it's in our best interest to have a decentralized alternative, where a centralized solution exists. It doesn't have to take over, but it's our duty to support its existence.

    15. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deflation is great for people earn money.

      I earn money. I store that value in dollars which lose their value. Or I speculate in commodities or bonds, which can implode overnight. This is great for enormous government spending programs.

      I earn money. I store that value in gold dollars which gain value (deflation). When it is time to spend the value, I actually get more value. This is great for savers, because they can live off their savings without going into speculative investments.

    16. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1
      Madoff is in jail. Pirate is enjoying the loot.

      The problem with private currencies is that they have the same temptations as public ones, and none of the restraints.

      Not limited to bit coin, air miles have had the same devaluation problem.

    17. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I earn money.

      No, you don't. With a deflationary currency there's no incentive to invest, and so no jobs.

      Jobs don't come from the Jobs Fairy, they come from investment. Many invesments fail, which is why investors expect a nice profit. These 2 basic facts about the economy are seemingly unknown by have of /.'s posters. I blame the schools.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:OK, I really don't get BitCoin... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Vote with your feet or do something about it. Quit complaining.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

    I've been following this bitcoin phenom for awhile, wondering what it was all about and if it really could replace "normal" currency. All these recent thefts makes me say "no." At least with dollars the private central bank only steals your money ~5% per year (via supply inflation & dollar devaluation) rather than all at once. And also it's insured from losses (FDIC).

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Also find it UNassuring that he tries to dive-away from taking responsibility (typical of how large corporations act; inveigle, evade, and dodge).

      QUOTE USER: "unencrypted backup?"

      CEO/manager/whatever: "Yes. It was made when I manually did an upgrade and was put in the unencrypted area on disk. I realize the details of the failure and attack are interesting, but I am currently focused on user accounts and exchange status going forward."

      No.
      Precisely HOW you fucked up is the most interesting bit of the sotry. You weasly-mouthed osn of a bitch! You COPIED UNECRYPTED KEYS on your drive. You stupid fuck.

      But no.
      Instead he tries to pretend that it doesn't matter that he fucked up and lost people's labor (represented by money). He should be in a holding cell right next to Bernie Madoff for his incompetence. A shorter timespan of course since the crime is smaller, but still he deserves to be punished, instead of pretendign he didnntohign wrong. Typical megacorp managerial ass.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by Desler · · Score: 1

      Why should he be in a cell? He lost some virtual play money and nothing of actual value.

    3. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      By any reasonable definition, they have value. Someone is willing to pay for them, as evidenced by the exchange houses existing in the first place.

    4. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Inflation is past discounting, not theft. In fact, hoarding money is theft.

    5. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      If I have $500 which can buy a new suit today, but several years into the future $500 can only buy half a suit, then it's caused by the private central bank inflating the money supply (and devaluing my individual dollars). It really is that simple. IF THE MONEY SUPPLY WAS HELD CONSTANT, then inflation would be 0% and the dollar/my savings would not lose value.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Golden face palm award for that one. If you put the money under the mattress, then it should buy less in some years time, because you haven't done anything with it other than store fleas.

    7. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by lennier · · Score: 1

      By any reasonable definition, they have value. Someone is willing to pay for them, as evidenced by the exchange houses existing in the first place.

      Then they obviously won't mind paying out of their private BitCoin profits for private security contractors to catch the thief and private justice contractors to make sure he's the right guy and private enforcement contractors to apply the appropriate penalty.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    8. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by lennier · · Score: 1

      If I have $500 which can buy a new suit today, but several years into the future $500 can only buy half a suit, then it's caused by the private central bank

      Or, you know, by there being a lesser supply or a greater demand for suits in the future. Why do you think the cost of all goods should be a constant over time?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    9. Re:I'll stick with gold, silver, and dollars by Troed · · Score: 1

      "The suspect's lawyer had argued the amulet and mask "were neither tangible nor material and, unlike for example electricity, had no economic value."
      But the Netherlands' highest court said the virtual objects had an intrinsic value to the 13-year-old gamer because of "the time and energy he invested" in winning them while playing the game."

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46207779/ns/technology_and_science-games/#.UEipPKTmrw6

  13. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of negative comments coming from the people here. Considering your governments (by 'your' I'm assuming you are from the US or UK) determination to stamp all over your rights, rob you blind and give what you have to the banksters I'm surprised there is not a little more support for bitcon on /.

    I wouldn't use Bitcon as a store of value but as a means of exchange it is great. Just remember that at some point what you do with your money will be deemed to be either subversive or illegal (donate to wikileaks et al?) and you will be on the receiving end of the boot.

    History is filled with people sleepwalking into these traps.

    1. Re:Wow by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's great as a means of exchange... for the people who are stealing bitcoins. The exchanges all seem to have a joke level of security.

  14. Why all the Schadenfreude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why people see these Bitcoin sites being hacked as a counter argument to Bitcoin. Do they assume that cash is not being stolen or that credit card fraud does not exist, just because such stories don't make it to /.?

    1. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because bitcoin is a pure pump and dump scam. The faster it dies the better.

    2. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Maybe because when you are the victim of credit card fraud that you don't assume the liability and instead that is the card issuer's problem? Or if someone robs you of your cash that they will face criminal charges? On the other hand, the people losing virtual play money assume no liability and will face no prosecution.

    3. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Actually it's the merchants problem. If you ever tried to accept credit card payments for something you'd know that. And what makes you think cash thefts are resolved with a 100% prosecution rate?

    4. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think cash thefts are resolved with a 100% prosecution rate?

      Actually, we think that bitcoin thefts are resolved with a 0% prosecution rate. Are we wrong?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Do you want BitCoin to be an anonymous currency with no involvement from major governments, or do you want government law enforcement to regulate the loss and track down who stole the money?

      If you make a currency that is a parallel to major government currencies, they will not help you secure it and develop it.

    6. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      I believe in one of the Bitcoinica hacks they did in fact figure out who did it and recovered quite a large amount of the money. I don't know the details, I didn't follow that story much. I don't think it involved prosecution. But at any rate, you have switched the argument mid-discussion: the point I made is that you can't say "if somebody robs you of your cash they will face criminal charges". That's just false. I did not claim the prosecution rate for Bitcoin was higher than cash.

    7. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by petit_robert · · Score: 1

      "Because bitcoin is a pure pump and dump scam."

      I wonder why so many hackers are interested in it then?

      " The faster it dies the better."

      If it doesn't die, I would guess it will come out stronger

    8. Re:Why all the Schadenfreude? by lennier · · Score: 1

      "Because bitcoin is a pure pump and dump scam."

      I wonder why so many hackers are interested in it then?

      Because hackers aren't nearly as smart as they think they are, and are in fact extremely susceptible to dangerous fads if wrapped in crypto-libertarian trappings?

      Nah, couldn't be that.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  15. The Difference by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of my friends had similar experiences with their 401K plans.

    401k Operator: Hello there welcome to your 401k how can I help you today?
    Customer: Well, I was calling about my Vanguard mutual funds that I had a diversified portfolio in but with the recent housing and financial crisis I ...
    401k Operator: AAAAAAND IT'S GONE!
    Customer: What? No, actually, I mean the worth is very low at this point -- not even a third of what it was before the crisis but I'm logged into your site right now and I still have the same number of stocks in this mutual fund.
    401k Operator: There must be something wrong, sir, all of your money is supposed to be gone.
    Customer: Well, I mean actually I was thinking about taking another $10,000 I have of liquid assets and investing in a post tax fund of these same stocks since they're so low right now.
    401k Operator: Why on Earth would you do that? These are worthless and your money is all gone.
    Customer: No, I mean, I haven't realized these losses yet, the number of shares is still the same and I'd like to buy more of them with some of my savings. I mean, if these things are truly worthless -- they represent huge cross sections of the biggest companies and industries in America. If these things are worthless, this $10,000 isn't going to be of any value to me anyway. Price anarchy will take hold and the economy will grind to a halt. The only people this is really bad for are those that are retiring between now and when/if the price rebounds.
    401k Operator: Listen sir, if you're not going to let me say AAAAAAND IT'S GONE, I'm going to use your address here to find you and ...
    Customer: Okay okay, jeez, um, oh, I just drank the last of my coffee and ... and ...
    401k Operator: *long sigh* It's not the same. I need to be alone now, goodbye.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, the old days, when nerds were good with numbers, and could handle a supposed crisis with rational detachment.

  16. HEY! by arisvega · · Score: 1

    That was MY scoop! How will I claim mod points now to fight the Trolls?

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  17. Would anyone be surprised? by erroneus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have heard from a source I cannot disclose that these attacks *might be* government sponsored.

    The notion here is that if governments actively attempted to outlaw, ban or block the use of this alternative currency, people would backlash and buckle down even tighter. (You can see how well the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs" has been working out.) Making this currency illegal will only create more criminals.

    Instead, it has been said that there is an extremely active initiative to discredit the risk and reliability of the currency.

    Personally, I am not sure whether this will work or not, but the purpose and the methods seem reasonable.

    1. Re:Would anyone be surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard from a source I cannot disclose that these attacks *might be* government sponsored.

      You've heard nothing of any great interest. It goes without saying they "might be" government sponsered.

      Instead, it has been said that there is an extremely active initiative to discredit the risk and reliability of the currency.

      Personally, I am not sure whether this will work or not, but the purpose and the methods seem reasonable.

      A great many things have been said, a lot of them wrong.

      Got any evidence, beyond hearsay and rumour?

  18. Insurance by sourcerror · · Score: 1

    With the normal banking system your account is insured to about $40k-80k depending on laws of the country you live in.

  19. News flash by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    Untraceable currency is untraceable! Bitcoins are cash, but your wallet may be laying out on the street with notes hanging out, is it a surprise that some of them get stolen?

    1. Re:News flash by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This is the crux of the bitcoin problem. Its cash, but in the wrong domain. Only one of the advantages of cash, none of the advantages of other electronic financial instruments, but all of the downsides of both.

      Online, credit cards are king. In the CC system, the credit card company fronts the consumer the money for the transaction with the intent of settling up the balance later on. All the liability on a given transaction is on the merchants end, which the merchant gladly accepts because CC's are how consumers WANT to do online business.

      In this model, the CC company is the primary enforcer of consumer protection, and because the merchant is the one on the hook they have incentive to both accurately factor in the cost of fraud into their prices as well as reduce fraud in general.

      For its role as both front man and enforcer, the CC company takes a percentage of the action. The CC company also has some liability associated with the consumer, because the consumer may not settle up when the time comes. For this, the CC company charges what are essentially loan-shark rates for any late payments.

      There is probably a better model, but bitcoin sure as fuck isnt it. The middle man is an important intermediary, someone that benefits most when things go smoothly.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  20. Mt GOX! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mt GOX DID IT!!!!

  21. Read the last link in the article for amazement by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    I took a look at the first and last pages (as I write this) of the link in the article called "BitFloor needs their help". Wow. What a delusional bunch of people. There are discussions of ways for suckers (cough cough), sorry, I mean "investors" to pump more money into BitFloor. On page 17 (last page now, but won't be for long) one guy proudly proclaims that he now has even more faith in Mt. Gox and BitFloor (assuming BitFloor ever comes back online) because since they've already been hacked, then surely they must have secured those problems and they are now apparently impervious to any future attack. It seems to me that BitCoin exchanges have security policies founded on the idea that people will simply leave them alone and not look for ways to steal what they have. That hasn't worked so far.

  22. just food for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think before anyone goes spouting off nonsense (this is to no one in particular, I just know people will) on how bitcoin is insecure you should stop and read up on it. All that has ever been hacked are 3rd party websites. Exchanges are no different, they are NOT bitcoin, they are 3rd party sites acting as exchanges and of course if the users are unable to actually use decent passwords for their accounts or as this case maybe the exchange operators are not able to properly secure their site, then yeah this stuff happens. Worth mentioning that a lot of these exchanges are not always run by experts, it could be just some guy or girl in a apartment running it for a hobby and ended up getting bigger than they can handle. happens quite a bit, but bitcoin itself has never been compromised/hacked...etc it's still secure.

    Kinda wonder who keeps attacking bitcoin sites. *cough* Governments? *cough* (my paranoid 2cents lol).

    Looking over the big picture though, Bitcoin is by FAR safer than any other financial institution or bank on the planet. Bitcoin has had 3rd party sites hacked and what? in total how many coins have been lost? 50,000? 500,000? 1 million? that's peanuts. Go google all the major security breaches that have happened in the last 5 years at both giant corporations, Banks, even the credit card companies and their payment processors.

        In most of these cases something like 30-100+ MILLION personal accounts and all the information inside of them have been stolen. Look at the major breach Sony had with it's PS3 network (wasn't that shutdown for a while afterwards?) Adding up the number of stolen accounts, which contain credit card numbers or bank numbers, personal information, social security numbers probably... addresses phone numbers... all of it, you can probably get up to or maybe even past 1 billion+ in stolen accounts which are all then easily drained of money if someone wanted to or any other number of frauds.

    Really the weak link is the bank/credit/cash system as that is where the hackers attack... the exchanges and online "wallets". As bitcoin becomes more spread out and adopted by merchants (and it is being adopted, slowly, but it is) it removes the need to expose your coins to the weak link of the exchanges. Once you start paying and making transactions in just bitcoins, your security goes up tremendously.

      Honestly I'd personally rather use bitcoins for payments if I could than anything else I've seen, especially something like Paypal(ughh). It's faster, more secure, gives much more anonymity (Especially if used correctly, or minor security measures are taken), doesn't care about holidays or weekends or time of day to process transactions, Doesn't matter where they are located on the planet - which means no idiotic priced fees or LONG wait times for sending money to another country and having it converted or just sending the money period, International wire transfers can end up costing a small fortune. It's also a payment system that is very easy for this era of smartphones and other devices. Digital payment for digital systems =)

    1. Re:just food for thought by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Governments can shut down bit coin any time they really want to. The laws taxing private currencies are still on the books, and anything of value can be declared "income" at any time and taxed. Trade credits, for example, are taxable.

  23. Risks of non-trackable currency by davidwr · · Score: 2

    There are risks when you deal with non-trackable currencies. Theft and loss to destruction are two obvious ones.

    Whether its gold stashed in a bank vault that gets broken into, bitcoins or something similar, or dollar bills in your wallet, you are vulnerable to theft. Gold isn't easily destroyed but paper currency is. So are files that only exist as bits on a typical storage medium.

    Traceable, cancel-able mediums of exchange, such as travelers checks, credit or debit cards, bank-to-bank transactions, dollar bills that you know the serial numbers of, etc. are at least in theory cancel-able and replace-able if they haven't been used already. I say "in theory" because without an efficient means of checking to see if a piece of currency has been canceled, it's not cancel-able in practice.

    Risk of theft without recourse is the price we pay for anonymity. For small transactions and for transactions that I don't want records of, it's worth the price.

    For BitCoin to really take off, "bitcoin banks" will need to have auditable, accredited security measures and they will need to insure against loss from theft.

    I don't know if BitCoin has a repudiation/cancellation mechanism, but if they do not, such a mechanism should be built into any future system. While cancellation won't necessarily allow a victim to recover his losses, it will deter theft because once stolen, money will be "hot" and have an unknown but likely very short shelf-life.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Risks of non-trackable currency by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

      Let me introduce you to the concept of High Frequency Trading and the ability to move money in milliseconds.

  24. I would... by nweaver · · Score: 1

    BitCoin is frankly too small and too loony and too easy to trace!

    The insane self-destructive tendencies of the BitCoin community ensure that governments don't need to do anything about BitCoin. Any "Currency" where 5%!!!! end up in a single Ponzi scheme, where +/- 200% swings in "value" are taken as, ehh, whatever, etc, is going to implode just fine on its own.

    Heck, if I was the US Treasury I'd instead (quietly) buy out Magic the Gathering Online Exchange, so that they can trace the USD -\> BTC -\> USD flow in detail, since once things are in BitCoin land, the traceability is easy. Not because BTC will get big, but so they can quietly say "yeah, we have a handle on it" when some congresscritter gets a bee in his bonnet.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:I would... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing its properties with some of the cause and effect going on around here.

      The US Treasury doesn't have any treasure. What we have is debt. When the government wants money, it asks the Federal Reserve bank to extend more credit.

  25. The interesting thing is, that by someones · · Score: 1

    The interesting thing is, that someone is actually willing to accept bitcoins (a virtual not value backed currency) and give in return real stuff. E.g: There is a $ value for bitcoins.
    OK trade porn for bitcoins, but anything else makes me just shake my head...

  26. Why hawala works by Animats · · Score: 2

    Hawala works because it occurs inside a cultural and religious system that has strong penalties for not following thru.

    That's why it works between the hawaladars, the people who exchange money. Traditionally, the people at both ends of the transaction were from the same family. The reason it works for their customers is that it's only a money transfer system. If you send a remittance to someone through hawaladars, and it doesn't show up quickly, you'll never use them again, and neither will your friends. Retail users don't keep balances inside the hawala systems. They don't try to act as banks. So, at least at the lower levels, there are no big stored reserves to embezzle.

    The trouble with Bitcoin is that it's a transfer system, a storage medium, and a speculative investment. Most of the trouble comes from the last two features.

  27. If someone promises something for nothing by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 1

    It is your something and their nothing that is going to be exchanged.

  28. Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have thought the currency of choice for drug addicts and pedophiles was untrustworthy!

    I'm glad the scumbags of society lost their money.

  29. No Police! by mlawrence · · Score: 1

    Again, much like Bitcoinica, there will be no police involvement or even a report filed. And again, like Bitcoinica, this will eventually be revealed as an inside job. I don't understand what the entire bitcoin community keeps falling for these obvious scams.