Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Bitcoin Exchange Vanishes, Taking £2.5m of Coins With It

An anonymous reader writes "A Chinese Bitcoin exchange has vanished without trace, taking more than $4 million of the virtual currency with it and leaving profit-hungry investors out of pocket. GBL, the Chinese Bitcoin exchange was launched in May 2013 and putatively based in Hong Kong, despite its servers being registered in Beijing. However GBL's Hong Kong offices do not exist. GBL mysteriously disappeared in early November taking an estimated $4.1m (£2.6m) of Bitcoins with it." (Beware the auto-playing ads, with sound.)

346 comments

  1. Sad Trombone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes. Sad Trombone.

    1. Re:Sad Trombone? by dale.furno · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Sad Trombone? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Best. FP. Ever. Very well played.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Sad Trombone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it'd be interesting to have a database of "story, first post" combos. Probably are some other epic ones out there.

    4. Re:Sad Trombone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly.. this is nothing compared to the big leagues, i.e. GFC. This is like the world's smallest sad trombone compared to that..

  2. Recurring theme? by jythie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am assuming it is only a minority of exchanges, but doesn't this seem to be a bit of a recurring problem?

    1. Re:Recurring theme? by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      Just a recursive one.

    2. Re:Recurring theme? by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who cares so long as it's only end users that suffer?

    3. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am assuming it is only a minority of exchanges, but doesn't this seem to be a bit of a recurring problem?

      In the matrix you get such deja vu when the code is altered.

    4. Re:Recurring theme? by janeuner · · Score: 0, Troll

      People keep building banks, and other people keep robbing them. So yes, recurring problem.

    5. Re:Recurring theme? by TWiTfan · · Score: 0

      It would seem the pyramid is collapsing.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    6. Re:Recurring theme? by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only pattern is stupid people losing their money. The last time it was sketchy investments that only a complete idiot would fall for. There's no stopping stupid people from being stupid. Without stupid people, the tiny exchange that is obviously Chinese run and thus obviously a scam would have zero customers.

    7. Re:Recurring theme? by Kardos · · Score: 1

      Fraud is nothing new. How different is this from a fly-by-night operation that takes orders and disappears with your cash?

    8. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, ooh, I know this one! The difference is that a fly-by-night website will be taking credit card orders, and you can get a chargeback through your credit card bank when they don't show up with the merchandise.

    9. Re:Recurring theme? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Banks are insured.

    10. Re:Recurring theme? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this case the "bank" is the robbers. This is very different from your typical heist.

    11. Re:Recurring theme? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sadly no, people seem to cling to bitcoins no matter how many times this happens. The kind of people drawn to anonymous decentralized currencies aren't the kind that are going to be deterred by measurable financial risk.

    12. Re:Recurring theme? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Because the rubes in this case should have been aware of the risks, getting involved in an untraceable currency. It's practically designed for illegal activity, so the news here is fly-by-night should be assumed to be the default.

    13. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not untraceable. Why are detractors so uninformed? After 4 years you have still failed to learn anything about it.

    14. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh the naivety.

      Perhaps you've heard of Barclays, USB, or Goldman Sachs.

    15. Re:Recurring theme? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. A lot of those only accept orders via western union or other similar methods.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    16. Re:Recurring theme? by gaelfx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You haven't read much news lately, have you?

    17. Re:Recurring theme? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The kind of people drawn to anonymous decentralized currencies aren't the kind that are going to be deterred by measurable financial risk.

      The kind of people who use an anonymous decentralized currency as an investment (and leave their investment sitting in the exchange) are not the typical users of bitcoins. Once you have BTC, why not transfer that directly to your wallet? Why keep it in the uninsured exchange at all?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    18. Re:Recurring theme? by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am assuming it is only a minority of exchanges, but doesn't this seem to be a bit of a recurring problem?

      It's the early days. The early days of banking had similar problems as well.

      A bigger issue though is a LOT of exchanges want a LOT of personal information in order to do the exchange.

      The real risk is not one of these exchanges disappearing, but getting broken in - tons of them ask so much personal information that you're at a real risk of identity theft or having your bank account drained.

      The others, well, can seem sketchy at times.

    19. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caveat Emptor. Yes, the authorities need to go after the fraudsters, but as a buyer you need to be confident that you're buying from a reliable seller. If you're trading on a bitcoin exchange outside the reach of your government, that's either an act of faith or an act of ignorance. That's why most of my online purchasing goes through either Newegg or Amazon and is done with a credit card (never a debit card).

    20. Re:Recurring theme? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Not illegal banks!

    21. Re:Recurring theme? by nogginthenog · · Score: 2

      So the US/UK bank bailouts never happened right?

    22. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case the "bank" is the robbers. This is very different from your typical heist.

      "What's breaking into a bank compared with founding a bank?" -- Bertolt Brecht

    23. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence "Insured".

      In US at least, the federal government is who insures the banks. A bank bailout instead of paying out to all the account holders is akin to a real insurance company spending money on safety programs for the insureds so they make a net gain on losses they have to pay.

    24. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to explain how you think a bank being insured touches on the subject of the bailouts?
       
      Granted, simply stating the "banks are insured" leaves out the details about the depositors being insured against fraud and theft but even so it has nothing to do with the bailouts either way.
       
      For as much meat as is in your post I'm very amazed to see you didn't throw in some quip about "free markets" at the same time. HERP!
       
      I swear, if I had a dime for every Slashtard who just throws crap like this out there hoping that it'll stick with the mods because it's nothing more than a thin attempt to hate on an institution that isn't popular... Seriously.

    25. Re:Recurring theme? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      It's functionally untraceable, or at least trivial of launder, because the envelope only includes encrypted information about previous owners.

    26. Re:Recurring theme? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Even doey eyed idealists like convenience.

    27. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks were insured, but only up to certain point.

      To make matters worse, they destroyed all of that and more by hyper-leveraging their debt (cash on hand + FDIC Insurance + faith in bank/banking system loans^leverage); hence the bailout.

    28. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The really stupid thing is that such an "exchange" does not offer "sketchy investments". The "sketchy investment" is the actual Bitcoin. I've seen no sites offer actual interest or anything: they just offer to keep your Bitcoins. And that's profoundly stupid since a Bitcoin wallet is just a private key, all the rest is the public bitcoin chain. There is no point in keeping your wallet anywhere but on your own computer. Or on external storage media. I don't get people who use web services to keep a Bitcoin wallet: that's totally missing the point of what Bitcoins are.

    29. Re:Recurring theme? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So the US/UK bank bailouts never happened right?

      In the US at least, who do you think insures the banks? "An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 ..."

    30. Re:Recurring theme? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. It's about as far from untracable as you can get - you can trace every bitcoin back through every transaction it has ever been involved in to the moment of its creation - try to do *that* with cash. In fact except for the minor fact that you don't have to attach your name to an account it's a surveillance currency buff's wet dream.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:Recurring theme? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      All bankers are robbers. The only difference between the two is scale.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    32. Re:Recurring theme? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      So what I don't get is why people would keep their bitcoins in one of these "banks" at all. Are they paying decent interest rates comensurate with the risk of trusting an unknown entity with your money? I don't see how they could be adding any actual security - if someone can steal my wallet credentials from my personal computer they can just as easily steal my "bank account" credentials.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    33. Re:Recurring theme? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The real risk is not one of these exchanges disappearing, but getting broken in - tons of them ask so much personal information that you're at a real risk of identity theft or having your bank account drained.

      Broken into? Don't be silly. The real threat is that one or more of these exchanges could be set up to act as information gathering machines by person or group intending to sell the information or drain bank accounts.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    34. Re:Recurring theme? by mbkennel · · Score: 2


      | So what I don't get is why people would keep their bitcoins in one of these "banks" at all.

      So they can trade bitcoins frequently.

    35. Re:Recurring theme? by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      I'm sure our various professional spy agencies would beg to differ. Don't be surprised if this is a government/corporate job. They have too much to lose if Bitcoin were to become truly successful. We are at war right now to protect the petro-dollar. You think we are going to let some pipsqueak operation like this get in the way?

      You have meddled with my affairs for the last time Mr. Bond

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you expand on that analogy? It doesn't make much sense to me.

    37. Re:Recurring theme? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The US/UK bank bailouts did happen, and they happened because they were insured.

    38. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm - there's the well-known saying "The best way to rob a bank is to own it".

    39. Re:Recurring theme? by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that the banks' "insurer" was AIG. And they insured total crap in huge amounts, essentially betting against a collapse of the housing market (collapse which was pretty much assured thanks to the banks' practices). Oh and they also let people "insure" other people's property, giving the banks additional incentive to make their practices worse and WANT a collapse.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    40. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. FDIC insures the depositors, not the banks.

      That's in the US. I can't comment on how the UK works.

    41. Re:Recurring theme? by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      bitcoins aren't money, bitcoin exchanges aren't banks, bitcoins "value" (assuming you either have a buyer or a place willing to take them) fluctuates.

      those that use them deserve what they get, even lower on the chain of that which can hold value than a central bank's fiat

    42. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the bank really a robber? We're not talking about a real currency. This exchange can't go anywhere and use all the bitcoins it held. It's vanishing certainly costs a lot of investors *their* money, but I can't see how the exchange actually could get any of that money.

    43. Re:Recurring theme? by jythie · · Score: 1

      If I understand correctly, the sketchy investment in this case was not just the bitcoins present on their servers, but the fiat currency put forward by various investors to get the exchange going and give it enough liquid assets to cover people converting.

    44. Re:Recurring theme? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      very much tied together, some banks were liquidated instead of being bailed out. Depositors paid from the insurance

    45. Re:Recurring theme? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      AIG and all those people "bet" that the government would rescue them if they messed up too badly.... which it did.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    46. Re:Recurring theme? by marcosdumay · · Score: 0

      The exchanges only add any value when converting the bitcoins into other kind of money, or the inverse. They add nothing for trading.

      Looks like a lot of people wanted a no-setup wallet where they wouldn't need to worry about backups and all that cloud stuff. Thus somebody offered it to them.

    47. Re:Recurring theme? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      assuming you either have a buyer or a place willing to take them

      If you have that, then you have money. That's the definition of "money".

      bitcoins "value" fluctuates.

      Another normal feature of money.

      bitcoin exchanges aren't banks

      Depends on your definition of 'bank'.

      For some it qualifies, for others it doesn't. It's certainly not anywhere near as well regulated or reliable as a typical first world bank... but it may not be far off from local banks 200 years ago, or banks in other less well regulated countries even today.

      those that use them deserve what they get

      Not sure anyone deserves to be robbed. But yes, they were taking a risk, and should have held assets there in proportion to the risk they were willing to take that this and various other things could happen to their assets.

    48. Re:Recurring theme? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I am assuming it is only a minority of exchanges, but doesn't this seem to be a bit of a recurring problem?

      Yes.

      Note to self-

      Don't keep all your crypto on the exchange.

      Oh. Wait. I already don't do that.

      But the thing is, if this was a popular enough exchange, even if every user just keep a minimal amount of coin on the exchange, if the operators skip town with the coin it still has a big payoff.

      But you know there were a lot of people with major amount of coin on there.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    49. Re:Recurring theme? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Or rather, correct, FDIC insures the depositors, not the banks, and the F in FDIC is for Federal, ie it is a federal government body. Hence the government bailout.

      In the UK, it is the FSCS that insures the depositors.

    50. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you don't understand how insurance works.

    51. Re:Recurring theme? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      No. bitcoins are accepted almost nowhere, they thus don't have the liquidity of money. "value" of bitcoins fluctuates *wildly*. those in less regulated countries use the U.S. dollar for anything important. bitcoins are like coupons if anything.

    52. Re:Recurring theme? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      FDIC is funded by the banks. Hence not a government bailout, rather a self funded insurance program administrated by the government.

      The investment bank/AIG bailouts on the other hand were pure government.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    53. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering you are making a blanket judgment on a whole lot of people without any evidence or context, id put you in that stupid catagory.

    54. Re:Recurring theme? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      No. bitcoins are accepted almost nowhere, they thus don't have the liquidity of money

      The Sao Tome and Principe Dobra is accepted nowhere but Sao Tome and Principe. With a population of less than 200,000 people, it has far fewer users than bitcoin.

      Its still money.

      "value" of bitcoins fluctuates *wildly*.

      That doesn't disqualify it as money.

      those in less regulated countries use the U.S. dollar for anything important.

      That doesn't disqualify the local currency from being money.

    55. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The exchanges only add any value when converting the bitcoins into other kind of money, or the inverse. They add nothing for trading.

      No, see, that's the only kind of trading people do with them.

    56. Re:Recurring theme? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That's why you don't store your funds you desire to be protected within a bank not insured by FDIC.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    57. Re:Recurring theme? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      It was successful to the tune of 4.5 mill.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    58. Re:Recurring theme? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      those local currencies are money because they are the circulating medium of exchange defined by the government

      the electronic coupon of limited utility known as "bitcoin" does not have that

    59. Re:Recurring theme? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      those local currencies are money because they are the circulating medium of exchange defined by the government

      "defined by the government" is not a necessary criterion for "money" anywhere.

      Bitcoin satisifies the only real requirement: that it be a "circulating medium of exchange".

      I agree its acceptance is not regionally localized, like a small national currency would be, but given the trivial ability of bit-coin users to transact over the internet, localization is not really a legitimate criticism. If you have bitcoins and an internet connection, then you can exchange or purchase things with bitcoins from a marketplace much larger than the sao tome and principe marketplace.

      Indeed, unless you happen to be standing on the tiny Islands of Sao Tome or Principe, bitcoin is much much easier to transact with.

    60. Re:Recurring theme? by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      I won't even use PayPal and you're saying there's still people that will do cash transfers over the internet? Really? Or is that some straw grasping going on?

    61. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, have a clue

    62. Re: Recurring theme? by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      You only need the keys to use the funds. Of course they'll be "spending" the bitcoins.

    63. Re: Recurring theme? by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      You're making up your own definition of money as you go along

    64. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have that, then you have money. That's the definition of "money".

      No that's the definition of exchange. To be money it has to be accepted by the government in settlement of your tax liabilities. At least that is one definition (among many) of money And yes most arguments about what money is turn out to be arguments by definition.

    65. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you don't store your funds you desire to be protected within a bank not insured by FDIC.

      Mine isn't and I'm perfectly fine with that.

      I'm also not living in the US.

    66. Re:Recurring theme? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      In this case it only seems to be libertarians and criminals suffering. So not a problem I'm going to lose much sleep over.

    67. Re: Recurring theme? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, the economists do that: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money.asp

    68. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The kind of people drawn to anonymous decentralized currencies aren't the kind that are going to be deterred by measurable financial risk.

      The kind of people who use an anonymous decentralized currency as an investment (and leave their investment sitting in the exchange) are not the typical users of bitcoins. Once you have BTC, why not transfer that directly to your wallet? Why keep it in the uninsured exchange at all?

      Well one reason might be a policy the exchange has about how fast you can turn around a bitcoin. For example, they may only allow you to cash out bitcoins equal to your average monthly balance, so that people don't make a "run" on the exchange, and so they can keep their liquid assets on hand for longer periods.
      The only ways for an exchange to be profitable (other than simply taking the bitcoins and running) are to charge maintenance/transaction fees, and to take the liquid assets and invest them in more traditional means.

    69. Re:Recurring theme? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >No. bitcoins are accepted almost nowhere, they thus don't have the liquidity of money

      I'm working on bringing my wife's yarn store up to speed accepting bitcoins. Why not? It's a hell of a lot easier than putting together code for PCI-DSS compliant credit card transactions, or paypal.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    70. Re:Recurring theme? by wooferhound · · Score: 2

      All bankers are robbers. The only difference between the two is scale.

      Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank , Give a man a bank and he can rob the world . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    71. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You try maintaining ill-gotten gains locally over Tor. It's a bitch. I'm glad online wallets exist even if there is risk to them. This is why you spread your ill-gotten gains over many wallets.

      * Note: I don't actually have any ill-gotten gains although my company does accept bitcoins. At the very least it has been a financially rewarding move for us. A not insignificant percentage of our sales are made from customers using them. And we are nothing more than a typical computer & parts company. We also pre-date bitcoins and only started accepting them in the past six months. The point is there is real money to be made here and its not from “investing in bitcoins”. Although I have to say we've done pretty well “investing in bitcoins” simply by holding coins when the value is low compared to the US dollar and pulling funds when its high (like it is now $400 USD per BTC). Just to give you an idea. We took in around 11 BTC for a computer a month ago. Today we refunded that same customer about 3.5 BTC. We made $2,850 USD and didn't even have to sell the computer! We now have zero BTC due to the increase in value. We'll have more BTC when the price goes back to something sane. Like maybe under $200 USD.

    72. Re:Recurring theme? by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 2

      Kind of depends what you're trying to trace. When people talk about traceable financial transactions they're generally interested in identifying the people involved in the transaction not the individual monetary units.

      eg the police could give a @!#% that the $100 bill with serial number 12345 was used to buy drugs. What they want to know is that Bill bought $100 worth of drugs.

      In that sense bitcoin is good for untraceable financial transactions since (as far as I understand such things) the best we can determine is that anonymous bitcoin user #2627577 transferred 100 BTC to anonymous bitcoin user #820998.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    73. Re:Recurring theme? by Linsaran · · Score: 1

      The really stupid thing is that such an "exchange" does not offer "sketchy investments". The "sketchy investment" is the actual Bitcoin. I've seen no sites offer actual interest or anything: they just offer to keep your Bitcoins.

      There are sites which offer interest (paid as a % of the exchange's revenue as a way to attract new members). As well as places that offer investments/loans.

      While I agree that the best way to safeguard your BTC is with an encrypted private wallet, there are valid reasons to consider storing them online. Granted you should certainly do your research first, and even if everything is on the up and up, accept that there is some risk involved if the site owner turns out to be a sleaze, or doesn't properly secure his servers against hackers etc. If you're adverse to that kind of risk then keep it in your private wallet.

      --
      In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
    74. Re:Recurring theme? by tsan357 · · Score: 1

      That which is accepted by government to pay taxes are a result of LEGAL TENDER and legal tender laws.

      Money existed before governments - the oldest forms of money were gold and silver (silver is probably an older form of money than gold).

      Governments want to control the flow of money (the ancient Romans debased their silver coins with base metals, and fiat currencies over time have been inflated away) - that's why many governments have capital controls. Governments are concerned about the movements of gold and silver (which are not defined as money according to Ben Bernanke). Isn't part of the rules for accepting IMF money - to not create a gold/silver based currency but one that uses the US Dollar as it's reserve?

      Is bitcoin money? Doesn't matter. (that becomes a tax, legal, and political question)

      If it is used as a medium of exchange, a store of value, fungible, and divisible, who really cares? If offline bitcoin wallets mean that your bitcoins cannot be stolen, doesn't that make safe storage of Bitcoins cheap (and even obviate the need for banks)?

    75. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can issue a new key for every transaction, actually that is preferrable for shops as it is the only safe way to know which customer paid you. Where'd you get this idea that bitcoins are perfectly traceable from?

    76. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must have some examples which failed (according to the rules) to keep up the public trust of the system.

    77. Re:Recurring theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if I was to start ANY business today, I would not trust banks or credit card institutions the slightest. They have blocked businesses based only on moral values. Sex toy / horror movie shop in southern Sweden denied card for electronic payments because someone thought it was not "moral" or "serious" enough.

    78. Re:Recurring theme? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Seems you haven't though this through. *Every* transaction with *every* account is permanently and publicly recorded. And systems to automatically find patterns in massive piles of data are getting very, very good. Unless you're a professional money launderer, or hire the services of one, the odds that you can hide which accounts belong to one person are essentially zero. So if there's any break in the anonymity of any one of your accounts they will all be exposed. Like say you have something shipped to you by someone with a compromised ordering system. Whether that information gets shared with people who might care to act against you is a completely separate question of course. As is whether the connections have already been made, or if they won't be made for years yet when the analysis tools have gotten far more sophisticated.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    79. Re:Recurring theme? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Certainly you can. And there will be a record that a new account has been used for the first time to receive N BC from account A and transfer them to account B. Do you really think that's going to confuse even the most trivial of analysis software? Use more sophisticated software and I'm betting that professional-grade money launderers are the only ones who have any chance of actually confusing things.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Mitsoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why not just follow the bitcoin trail? Perhaps call the local authorities and ask them for help?

    >.>

    Actually, I do feel sorry... Just had to say it.

    1. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Grantbridge · · Score: 2

      I agree, why don't people report bitcoins as stolen property. Then if anyone else tries to spend them they can be flagged as stolen and a court order made to force the current holder to turn them over to the legal owner, or pay damages if they refuse. Bitcoins are far more traceable than gold. If mining pools refused to add stolen bitcoins to blocks unless the transaction fee was >1BTC it would become infeasible to hide them by splitting them into many small transactions.

    2. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >why don't people report bitcoins as stolen property

      Because they are not property.

    3. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because they are not property.

      They're information, and as we all know, information wants to be free!

      I guess Bitcoins are as much property as anything else you have exclusive control over, but just try going to the police to report a "stolen password" or the like.

    4. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the exact property of bitcoin is having its trail un-followable.

      -- I noticed the funny rating, I just don't get it.

    5. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been discussed many times.
      http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1d9vz7/why_arent_hacked_bitcoins_blacklisted/

    6. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      If something has a tangible value attached to it, and is being deemed a form of currency, it's property in one form or another.
      Let's not try the hippy mentality with something like this. That ranks right up there with saying "pot wants to be free mannnn, give me some".

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    7. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crybaby, your mommie is calling.

    8. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9wjCuS__AU

    9. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >I thought the exact property of bitcoin is having its trail un-followable.

      Er. No.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    10. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your missing the reason why most of us like bitcoins... it's potentially pseudo anonymous. That isn't to say it's all that anonymous today. Its that it has the potential to be tomorrow and even now nobody controls it.

    11. Re:I don't see a problem.. Follow the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA they're recognized (and taxed) as a currency, which is a form of property.

  4. Don't worry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just another isolated incident. BTC is still safe and legit.

    1. Re:Don't worry guys by Bengie · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do people expect when they hand over money to someone, especially when the money isn't regulated and is being held by an unregulated company.

    2. Re:Don't worry guys by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wasnt the whole point that people wanted an unregulated currency with no government involvement?

      Whats that old saying? "Be careful what you wish for."

    3. Re:Don't worry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Government routinely confiscates your property through money printing, new taxes, and, well, outright confiscation like gold under Roosevelt.

    4. Re:Don't worry guys by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      They also routinely give you things "for free" like roads, healthcare, and a legal system. What's your point?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Don't worry guys by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1, Insightful

      His point is that he has a marginally different impression of the role of government than what appears to be the default in his country, therefor every act of that government is clearly tyranny.

    6. Re:Don't worry guys by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      I use bitcoin rather frequently and I've never run into this kind of problem.

      Of course, I also always keep my bitcoins in my own wallet and don't leave them sitting in random escrow pools. There is only one place I've done business with using bitcoins that has run off like this, however at the time they left I had zero in my account, and I never had amounts larger than a few mBTC for any period longer than a day either (just long enough to complete whatever transaction I was about to do) and once I was finished I would remove the remainder back into my own wallet.

      This isn't anything unique to bitcoins by the way, similar scams have happened with stock traders running off with people's money.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    7. Re:Don't worry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. People were giving their money (which happened to be in the form of bitcoins) to a stranger with a web site, trusting that this stranger would not run away with their money. Which is what he just did.

      Imagine I'd rent a shop, write "bank" on it and take your dollars, promising to keep them well, and then one day I'd just close the shop and walk away with the money, would you then also say it proves that the dollar is unsafe or not legit?

      BTC is safe against forging. It is not safe against the stupidity or gullibility of the owner. Neither is the dollar.

    8. Re:Don't worry guys by Poorcku · · Score: 1

      I logged in just to answer this knee-jerk reaction that i see so often pretty much where I am: at the workplace, with friends etc. Assuming we are not talking Anarchism (which we are hopefully not):

      1. A regulated currency does not protect from theft.

      2. You are implying that because of Free-Market ideas or rules and regulations, we as a society should not follow and punish theft. This idea is so false I really hope I don't have to underline the obvious, or do i?

      The customer should be free and invest in whatever place and idea he chooses to. Being the Wild West in currency terms as it is, Bitcoin exchanges are notoriously unsafe. This fact is and the associated risks/rewards are also known. Why do you want to interfere?

      And to your point - The Government in a Liberal (European perspective) - Libertarian (American one) has the RIGHT and is EXPECTED TO provide courts of LAW in which corporation /entities that deliberately conceal information may be sued for fraud. Individuals are NOT exempt from this obligation of a FREE society.

      May I ask you, in this big government orgy that protects us from theft, how much time has the HSBC management have done? Than at least i will take the small government, thank you.And why do some people always leave out the part where the desired small government is not a weak government?

      And yes, that is as a Liberal (as I live in Europe) what I wish for.

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    9. Re:Don't worry guys by pantaril · · Score: 1

      Wasnt the whole point that people wanted an unregulated currency with no government involvement?

      Bitcoin has many points (see bitcoin.org) and this was never one of them. One of the many purposes of bitcoin is to have currency without central authority which could cause monetary inflation at will, but that in no way means that bitcoin should stay completely outside of any government influence and bitcoins thefts should be ignored by law enforcement.

    10. Re:Don't worry guys by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      What do people expect when they hand over money to someone, especially when the money isn't regulated and is being held by an unregulated company.

      Paypal?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    11. Re:Don't worry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why you're absolutely right. No one would ever dream of stealing a quantity of currency that is regulated. Thank goodness for the unstealable US dollar.

    12. Re:Don't worry guys by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      bitcoins aren't money, at best they are coupons taken by some stores. you can only sell them as long as their is a buyer

    13. Re:Don't worry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your government is fascist. Yes, a currency without fascist involvement is worth having.

    14. Re:Don't worry guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want the benefits of government without the costs?

    15. Re:Don't worry guys by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So the same as euros and US dollars then?

    16. Re:Don't worry guys by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      not at all, government in the pocket of banking cartel thugs say you have to play their game. its even in the small print on the bill "legal tender for all debts, public and private".

    17. Re:Don't worry guys by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      It's not the costs we're trying to dodge, we'll pay tax on the bitcoin we earn, we just don't like the fed having such complete control over the supply of money.

    18. Re:Don't worry guys by fisted · · Score: 1

      as long as their is a buyer

      You can't be serious.

    19. Re:Don't worry guys by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I can be a serious mispeller

    20. Re:Don't worry guys by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      May I ask you, in this big government orgy that protects us from theft, how much time has the HSBC management have done? Than at least i will take the small government, thank you.And why do some people always leave out the part where the desired small government is not a weak government?

      HSBC were the best fucking bank I ever used. And I wasn't even laundering money.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    21. Re:Don't worry guys by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      But a store doesn't have to take them for anything but a debt, just like they don't have to take bitcoins. And most transactions don't involve a debt.

      For example, the local government run buses over here refuse to take "large notes" - if you try to pay the $1.50 fare with a $20 note you won't be catching that bus. So there's the government not accepting "legal tender" - as you are allowed to do for any non-debt transaction.

  5. Government(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stockpiling for black ops funding.

    1. Re:Government(s) by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Since I'm entertaining myself with conspiracy theories today, here's one I just completely made up: what if government funds illicit operations by just changing a figure in a bank database to give itself more money to spend? Like QE (i.e. that money-printing thing everyone hates), but only for itself, and on a smaller scale.

    2. Re:Government(s) by somersault · · Score: 2

      Then I doubt the US government would be in billions/trillions/whatever of debt.. they already have more than enough money from taxes - they just use it poorly.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Government(s) by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      This has been tried before. IIRC debasement of money goes back at least to 1,000 B.C.E. Few have pulled it off successfully.

      This creates money which if in excess for demand of money causes inflation. There is a casual link between demand for money and GNP.

      The second reason is that the international bond market fears it will be paid with worthless currency in the future. The country’s currency is devalued. Interest rates on new debt go up. Bondholders demand payment is a sound currency. Etc.

      Generally the long run consequences are worse than the immediate gain. You can take a look at what Argentina’s government has been doing for the past 30 years for a full spectrum of choices and results. This is why, generally speaking, a independent central bank handles money creation instead of the politicians – they are tempted by the short term gain.

    4. Re:Government(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is a casual link between demand for money and GNP

      Good. If it were a formal link I'd have to wear a tie, tails and cummerbund.

    5. Re:Government(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been tried before. IIRC debasement of money goes back at least to 1,000 B.C.E.

      The oldest coins were made between 650 and 600 BCE in Lydia (present-day: Turkey).

    6. Re:Government(s) by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is about the age of the oldest physical coin. However, the Code of Hammurabi, which dates back to 1750 BCE, includes sections on money, loans, and debt forgiveness. So debasement could have occurred back then.

      I have limited time and my books are at home so I can’t dig up the example that I am thinking about, but it was during accident Babylonian, Sumerian, or somewhere in that time era. The king needed more money so he recalled all of the coinage in his empire, made possession of the old currency illegal and reissued debased currency.

    7. Re:Government(s) by mbkennel · · Score: 1


      Actually it's possible. The Federal Reserve is the checking account for the US Government (I mean in a literal sense, the Fed provides cash management & accounts for US Departments). The 'black budget' is not disclosed and it's not clear anybody in the Fed has the clearance to know about it. A man in sunglasses could order some clerk at the Fed to insert a certain number in a certain account and that's it. The Fed doesn't report the deficit, the Treasury department does and it works for the President.

      At a minimum, CIA regularly gets substantial amount of physical US currency for its overseas operations. What's the bank for that?

    8. Re:Government(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress gets to see it, though, so your theory would require both houses to be cooperating with the executive, which doesn't currently pass the smell test.

    9. Re:Government(s) by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > what if government funds illicit operations by just changing a figure in a bank database to give itself more money to spend?

      Why bother with that, when they literally own the printing presses for US currency? Just run the presses a little extra, and divert the cash to whatever illicit operation you want.

      In practice, they don't even have to do that. Just have the CIA set up a "civilian contractor" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(airline) ) who overcharges for services as a way to launder the funds, and the leftovers after actual expenses goes to illicit operations. Secretly owning an airline also makes it easy to deliver agents wherever you want.

    10. Re:Government(s) by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      These techniques are all more complex than changing a number in a database and require greater complicity, but yeah, why not them too, I guess.

    11. Re:Government(s) by yy1 · · Score: 1

      Or they could trade cocaine for guns to secretly overthrow a government they don't like... and if they get caught, have some low level patsy take the blame. He'll be ok, he'll just go into talk radio.

      -yy1

      --
      Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
      -YY1
  6. Who can you trust now? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another exchange bites the dust, millions lost!

    BitCoin has some *serious* problems, mostly caused by not being officially sanctioned currency that is regulated... But then, that's it's strong point too. But, being a pirate has it's down days. So, if you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas (or in this case, w/o your BitCoin. ..

    Oh the humanity... Yawn.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Who can you trust now? by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Pick your poison.

      If you want a decentralized, unregulated currency, then you don't get a FDIC promise when your bank vanishes overnight.

      I understand why some currency is transitory on these sites, but why are people using online wallets beyond coins in motion (escrow or pending transaction, etc.)?

    2. Re:Who can you trust now? by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin is like a little gold coin that you can magically transpose over the internet. If it's in your hands, it's as safe as any other valuable you own, with the perk that you can readily transact with it over the intertubes. However like any other valuable, if you send it halfway across the world to a complete stranger for safekeeping, then you're going to have a bad time.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Who can you trust now? by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's like my grandpa used to say: "Kid,if you want security, go with U.S. government savings bonds. If you want pussy and meth on the Silk Road, go with Bitcoin." This also explains why my inheritance was mostly in Bitcoins.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    4. Re:Who can you trust now? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      > but why are people using online wallets beyond coins in motion...?

      Do you really need to ask why people are behaving foolishly? Most people just don't think about security.

    5. Re:Who can you trust now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. I use online exchanges for BTC->$Fiat and vice versa all the time, but my exposure is limited to amounts that won't bankrupt me and the duration I have any amount of either currency in these exchanges is a mere minutes. Transfer money to exchange holding account, buy $0.10 BTC, immediately transfer BTC to my own wallet, pay my overseas web hosting provider his monthly fee, done. It works extremely well for me, and saves me quite a bit of money in service fees and currency exchange fees. It's not that difficult to grasp...

    6. Re:Who can you trust now? by freeze128 · · Score: 3

      Dread Grandpa Roberts?

    7. Re:Who can you trust now? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Actually, the real problem is that people trust unknown third parties with all their bitcoins.
      If banks were unregulated, unsafe and even maybe anonymous, would you still trust them with all your money?

    8. Re:Who can you trust now? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      This problem has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoins as a currency - it is entirely dependent on people trusting their money to groups which have no oversight or accountability. If I put up a "BANK" sign and started collecting money from people on the street, and then disappeared with the vault one night, you wouldn't blame the dollar would you? No, you'd blame the asshole who ran a fake bank, and maybe the idiots who trusted some guy who's only claim to reliability was a hand-painted sign.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Who can you trust now? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      "that it can be stolen" is not a "problem" unique to bitcoins. That it is not officially sanctioned does not mean this was not theft. If I had $1,000,000 worth of paintings it would be theft even though the paintings are not currency. Why isn't it the same with BTC?

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

      - Charles Darwin
    10. Re:Who can you trust now? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Never said it wasn't the same for BitCoin. Problem is, law enforcement is a local thing for the most part. Your paintings get stolen from your house, you call the local police. But who do you call if all your BitCoin disappeared in China and you live in North America? Who's going to care?

      Your local police will take your report, but they are not going to investigate. You could possibly call a national law enforcement organization, but they are not likely to even want to take your report. You could call law enforcement in China, but you have nearly zero chance getting them interested in looking into the crime even if you spoke their language.

      Nobody is going to do anything about some monetary crime committed overseas or committed against someone overseas. It's either out of their jurisdiction or the victim is nobody they care about.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Who can you trust now? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      No I wouldn't, but PT Barnum is right "There's a sucker born every minute" so somebody will.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Who can you trust now? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The problem is that banks and exchanges exist for a reason. You can only get so far on "everybody should hide them in their mattress, DUH!"

    13. Re:Who can you trust now? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      > Do you really need to ask why people are behaving foolishly?

      says the guy with a google plus profile.

    14. Re:Who can you trust now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who do you call if all your BitCoin disappeared in China and you live in North America?

      Who you gonna call?

      Ghostbusters!

    15. Re:Who can you trust now? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Barnum was conservative. Given world birth rates, there are ~250 suckers born every minute, plus ~4.5 thieves who will take their money.

  7. I swear! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

    It wasn't me!

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    1. Re:I swear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't me!

      Well, prior to this post, I didn't suspect that it was you ...

  8. Distributed security HEIST? by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bitcoin was advertized as the virtual currency NOT stored in one place with NO detrimental reliances upon any ONE server, person or gov't. WTF?

    1. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but if you're using "exchanges" to handle exchanges of ANY currency that's a pretty obvious point of failure. That's a trust error.

    2. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You need to use exchanges to trade the bitcoins for real money, and these represent a handful of large points of failure.

    3. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin was advertized as the virtual currency NOT stored in one place with NO detrimental reliances upon any ONE server, person or gov't. WTF?

      I don't know about this exchange, but there are a few Bitcoin management services, where they keep the wallet for you and you don't have to worry about running bitcoin yourself.

      It's almost exactly like how a bank will hold cash for you, except these banks are typically uninsured.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's almost exactly like how a bank will hold cash for you, except these banks are typically uninsured.

      That's, uh, quite a large "almost" in that sentence there.

      "Hey, I'll take your inflamed appendix out. I'm almost exactly like a surgeon, except I don't have a medical degree."

    5. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin was advertized as the virtual currency NOT stored in one place with NO detrimental reliances upon any ONE server, person or gov't. WTF?

      Not sure if sarcastic but heres this anyway.
      Again, this is the failure of a COMPANY not BITCOIN. The Bitcoin network is oblivious to a company which may have lost/stolen its customers bitcoins. I feel sorry for the customers but it was they that took the risk of allowing someone else to hold their funds.

    6. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin was advertized as the virtual currency NOT stored in one place with NO detrimental reliances upon any ONE server, person or gov't. WTF?

      Turned out the Real World (you know, that scary scary place outside the libertarian echo chambers where people don't agree with libertarians and un-libertarian reality makes libertarian talking points rather embarrassingly inconvenient) didn't really think it was wise to stuff all their money in their mattresses — even virtual, cryptographic mattresses! Oooooo, technologicalriffic! — and decided they wanted some modicum of convenience that the modern world should afford them, as opposed to living in constant unproductive paranoia that everybody and every thing was out to get them. So all it took was someone or some group endlessly bleating on and on about how awesome and secure and safe and cryptographic and buzzword and buzzword and buzzword this new eCurrency was, and hey presto, they think it's safe to store New Beenz anywhere they want!

    7. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin management services, where they keep the wallet for you and you don't have to worry about running bitcoin yourself.

      And people fall for this? Well, if you are speculating in BitCoin you are into high risk or a sucker... PT Barnum was right.

      Hey, anybody out there who doesn't like holding your own BitCoin wallet, I'll take care of that for you. Just let me hold *your* money...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, maybe you missed the bit a few years ago where the banks lost all our money so we, er, gave it back to them.

    9. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It has no inherent dependencies of the types you describe, but there's no barrier to people adding them in because they simply don't understand what was supposed to be so advantageous about it in the first place.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    10. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      didn't really think it was wise to stuff all their money in their mattresses â" even virtual, cryptographic mattresses

      So they elected to use a shady HK exchange instead?

      I think you're a bit too generous with your use of the word "wise" :)

    11. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out that having full control of your wallet via a private key stored exclusively on your computer only works as long as you don't mind waiting an hour for transactions to clear.

      Since pretty much the entire bitcoin trade these days consists of arbitrage and speculation, where trades need to be executed at a moment's notice, that's not feasible. So instead, we still have banks and exchanges who keep your money for you, only now there's nobody who watches them and makes sure they don't take it and run.

    12. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing happened in the early 1900s. Yes, the dollar may be sound, but if Foobar National Bank has a run on it, Barbaz National Bank down the road has concern because people get nervous in general.

      Now, banks have traded having to deal with regulations in return for bailout money.

      With BitCoin, I have zero assurances of anything. Someone hacks an exchange, and large sums of money are now gone. My BitCoin wallet is vulnerable to anyone and everyone who can get malware on a machine via ad servers.

      There is the fact that every blockchain is public, so there is less privacy than spending dollars (as Joe Sixpack can't call up PayPal and ask for what Jane Lorazapam spent in the past 30 days.)

      Yes, Bitcoin has its uses, but with people hiding behind a mask who made it, the fact that early adopters got coins for free, while people later on have to exchange real value for coins, and the fact that no transaction is anonymous doesn't give me a good feeling.

    13. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      an hour for transactions to clear

      The people on the various Bitcoin forums, reddits, et cetera all refer to this timespan as "instantaneously". I assume that Bitcoin must have caught on big with geologists.

    14. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      We gave more blood, sweat and tears in exchange for more worthless paper money (if at all). So what's the difference between "real money" and bitcoin again? In the realness department, that is?

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    15. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the difference between "real money" and bitcoin again? In the realness department, that is?

      I can use it to pay the rent and buy groceries and beer.

      That's the best part about using the phrase "real money" in the comments for a Bitcoin article: everyone knows what you're talking about, even the people who pretend to be offended.

    16. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by khallow · · Score: 2

      For stock market high frequency trade opponents, note this please. Here, we have a currency where it is physically impossible to trade at high frequency, yet speculators got around that obstacle.

    17. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitcoin was advertized as the virtual currency NOT stored in one place with NO detrimental reliances upon any ONE server, person or gov't. WTF?

      Not sure if sarcastic but heres this anyway.
      Again, this is the failure of a COMPANY not BITCOIN. The Bitcoin network is oblivious to a company which may have lost/stolen its customers bitcoins. I feel sorry for the customers but it was they that took the risk of allowing someone else to hold their funds.

      The actual failure of Bitcoin in this case is not that one exchange turned out to be a fraud. The Failure is that there was demand for a centralized Bitcoin exchange.

      The entire point of Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency. However it seems that in practice you have to use a centralized exchange to actually do business in Bitcoin (if they provided no value people would not use them and we would not have these successful fauds crop of every several months). At that point you may as well juts use PaPal, and forget about the oddball currency.

    18. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      What is the real difference between "real money" and bitcoins? Well real money has the force of law behind it. Bitcoins do not. There is a note on all US notes, "This is legal tender for both private and public debts" or something like that. I use a debit card, I can't remember when I've actually last carried a US dollar. But the point is merchants will take US dollar and almost none will take bitcoins.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    19. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      It's almost exactly like how a bank will hold cash for you, except these banks are typically uninsured, unregulated, run by person or persons unknown, possibly in an unknown location, and probably in one or more different countries creating a jurisdictional nightmare if he/they disappear with your bitcoins

      FTFY

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    20. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      BTC is a lot like cash. If you choose to hand over a giant wad of cash to someone to hold for you (like these people did), you are at as much risk as would be expected.

      You can always hold onto your own coins if you want to realize the promise. Of course, then you need to handle your own security and backups.

    21. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I think you're underestimating human potential. We're often wise enough to realize when something is a bad idea, and downright *ingenious* at coming up with alternatives that are even worse.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand for people?

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

      - Charles Darwin
    23. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I have never heard anyone mention instantaneous Bitcoin transactions except for people deriding the supposed claims. I've even had a few people try to deride my own posts on the subject despite the fact that I am fully aware of the inherent delays in the system and never made *any* claims to the contrary. If you've actually seen such claims on the BC forums etc. then I can only assume that either the people actually dealing with bitcoin are prone to extended blackouts after financial transactions, or are utterly incompetent and presume that the transaction is complete as soon as they hit the confirm button. In fairness I think most people assume the same thing about credit card purchases, and those sometimes don't get posted for days.

      Well, either that or you're full of it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    24. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      No, this is not like what happened in the early 1900s. This is not a bank that had a run on it. In fact, this was not a run at all. A run involves people trying to withdraw their money from the bank and the bank not having enough cash reserves on hand to pay the customers.

      This is the equivalent of the executives of a small bank emptying out the safe in the dead of night and disappearing then the customers finding out that the bank was actually in a different country and no one actually met or saw the executives or employees of the bank and there is no record of any of them ever actually existing.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    25. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Good point. /tallymark

    26. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. All it would take is a Bitcoin exchange geared towards financial institutions. Seeing as the customers of the exchange are quite capable of creating their own exchange and that said exchange would almost be guaranteed to only be for said financial institutions and/or high frequency traders, there would be zero risk of what happened in the article happening with the exchange I described.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    27. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wasn't speaking of the fraud associated with this particular operation, but rather creating the ability to conduct high frequency trades on a commodity where it is physically impossible to achieve that frequency of trading on the underlying market.

    28. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. It is only impossible WITHOUT an exchange. If an exchange exists, then it is quite possible.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    29. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And people fall for this?

      Yep, pretty much like how most of the people I know keep their wealth in USD in US banks.

      Nobody said most people were bright.
       

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    30. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like a reality conversion layer. It has to be stored in one place to be a tangible currency to be traded with another tangible currency.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    31. Re:Distributed security HEIST? by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      That nobody accepts it does not mean it's not as real. Most merchants in the US also don't accept Japanese Yens, for that matter.

      I was arguing that paper money (or virtual money stored in a bank) does not have any inherent value, which is also the case with Bitcoin. It all merely "works" because everybody accepts it.

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
  9. Beware by Kardos · · Score: 2

    Autoplaying ads with sound? No thanks, the summary will have to do.

    This disappearing-with-all-the-funds is becoming SOP for exchanges.

    1. Re:Beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autoplaying ads with sound? No thanks, the summary will have to do.

      I didn't mind the autoplaying ads, it was the voiceover screeching "HEY EVERYBODY! I'M LOOKING AT DONKEY PORN!" I found disconcerting at work.

    2. Re:Beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This disappearing-with-all-the-funds is becoming SOP for exchanges."

      Just as the government wants it--unstable, insecure and untrusted (or even better, a roller-coaster of trust/distrust)--so they can both mine it for wealth and destabilize it. Do not forget that Bitcoin is a threat to all existing government-issued currencies--they'd all rather see Bitcoin go away (but not before they bleed it of all value).

    3. Re:Beware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.
      If you have to put that kind of warning in the summary just leave the link out.

  10. BitCoins aren't incompatible w/ reg. but... by sirwired · · Score: 2

    BitCoins are not incompatible with a normal regulatory and law enforcement apparatus that might prevent some of this. That said, due to their extreme utility for money laundering, tax avoidance, etc. I'm pretty sure they'd rather the things disappear and therefore may direct law-enforcement resources elsewhere in the case of a BitCoin theft.

  11. Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by petteyg359 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What idiot stores their cash in somebody else's wallet with no guarantee of that somebody's legitimacy and no insurance? Maybe these morons will have finally learned their lesson, and will keep their cash in their own wallets in their own pockets.

    1. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly this.

      I constantly hear complaints about Paypal. Same problem.

    2. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everybody who trades at the stock exchange through an intermediary, for example.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You. By opening a bank account you have become an uninsured lender to the bank itself. Sucks to be part of the system doesn't it? What, you forgot to read the laws on the books? That's what people don't understand, it's already been written into law, that you will forfeit all of your money in the event of a crisis. Cyprus was just the beginning.

    4. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, cypriots got up to 100k EUR of their money back, which is about +Inf% more than what you can expect from a typical BTC joint going belly up.

    5. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody who trades at the stock exchange through an intermediary, for example.

      That's generally insured by the SIPC.

    6. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the stock exchanges are a prime example of trading bodies with no established legitimacy, overseeing authorities, investigative commities, or insurance mechanisms.

      Are you for real?

    7. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those (legitimate) intermediaries are all heavily regulated and monitored. Having 2.5m GBP stolen/disappear like this sounds bad but thats NOTHING compared to the billions/trillions of dollars if a major intermediary broker like HSBC or UBS suddenly disappeared.

    8. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

      Dude, ever heard of FDIC?

    9. Re:Here, random stranger, hold my wallet for me by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Keeping your life savings in your back pocket is also a bad idea. Nothing about personal computing is really set up with the idea of computer files worth tens of thousands of dollars.

      Please go ahead and reply with "Just do X!" But I'm not buying it unless it's at least far safer than treating a stack of $100 bills the same way, because that is NOT how I protect my savings.

  12. Current Market Capitalization by janeuner · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those curious, there are currently 12 million bitcoin in existence, with a net value of about $4.3 billion.

    Source: http://coinmarketcap.com/

    1. Re:Current Market Capitalization by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Funny
    2. Re:Current Market Capitalization by janeuner · · Score: 1

      [aol.com] Sounds like a phishing scam.

    3. Re:Current Market Capitalization by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

      For many years they did give away promotional bird scarers and tea coasters, but I don't think they ever branched out to fishing equipment.

    4. Re:Current Market Capitalization by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I sat through a 30 second ad to watch that video... and that it was totally worth it.

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:Current Market Capitalization by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      If you use Chrome or Firefox, just spend a couple minutes installing the Adblock Plus extension. You'll rarely have to sit through those ads and it'll save your sanity.

    6. Re:Current Market Capitalization by Ryanrule · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Current Market Capitalization by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      great day on slashdot, views for vids and fluff that scatters

  13. Why we need regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the 1% who spoil it for the rest of the honest people.

    And actually, it goes deeper than that. A capitlaist system requires trust. Rules and regulations build trust into the system. Without these rules and regulations you don't have capitalism, you have a Wild West financial system that no one would invest a dime in except suckers.

    1. Re:Why we need regulations by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Regulations are bad, mmmkay?

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Why we need regulations by tom229 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to regulate the production and control of the currency. The problem here is the banks holding the bitcoins in trust can't be... well... trusted. Do they need to be regulated? Probably. However, if your bitcoin wallet was at home hidden under your virtual mattress you're still fine. This is the same problem we currently have with traditional banks and traditional money. The only difference is federal governments, and private banks themselves, don't have the ability to manipulate bitcoins like they do with nationally backed fiat currencies.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    3. Re:Why we need regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that was a guy in a back alley - but MtGox is a neatly dressed up shady guy on the corner.

      All that keeps your money from disappearing from MtGox is the reputation and trust they maintain. I guess, they find it more prefitable in long term to get their cut from trading, especially with all those conveniently timed "DDoSes" when the exchange rates crash.

      Serious questions - what are actual legal obligations of MtGox before a user and what is your recourse if they disappear/get hacked and lose your money/"get hacked" and totally did not steal your money?

    4. Re:Why we need regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BitCoin is also suffering the same problem eGold had. When the bad guys (CryptoLocker [1]) want money, they want it in BitCoin.

      So, BitCoin has a bad rep about it. Just like eGold, it is only a matter of time before FinCEN comes after them, following the public blockchains which makes a nice list of whose doors to kick down. If cities can snap the back of Occupy in one night, think about what the bankers will sic onto people who are impinging on their profit margins... and BitCoin is unwanted competition.

      [1]: Ironically, Cryptolocker and other malware are far better written than any other software these days. Imagine if the guys who made the ransomware were able to write mundane stuff like device drivers and office suites with that quality of code. IT professionals would be lining up to fellate them.

    5. Re:Why we need regulations by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      A "Wild West financial system" might be okay - in the Wild West. If somebody cheated you, you could track him down and shoot him. That doesn't work so well when the person cheating you is somewhere in Russia/China/Nigeria.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    6. Re:Why we need regulations by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 0

      To whomever modded me down: this was sarcasm, mmmkay?

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    7. Re:Why we need regulations by Immerman · · Score: 1

      One step above? Are you sure you don't mean one step below? The guy in the back alley at least has to worry that his less reputable clients might come looking for him if he disappeared. Do you suppose anybody has any idea of who actually ran this exchange?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Why we need regulations by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

      Sorry, sometimes it's hard to tell...

    9. Re:Why we need regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the 1% who spoil it for the rest of the honest people.

      And actually, it goes deeper than that. A capitlaist system requires trust. Rules and regulations build trust into the system. Without these rules and regulations you don't have capitalism, you have a Wild West financial system that no one would invest a dime in except suckers.

      They sure didn't spoil it for me, and I'd like to think I'm honest (I worked to earn my coins). That 1% just spoiled things for a subset of currency speculators but not the rest of the population, and that's exactly how it SHOULD work.

    10. Re:Why we need regulations by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Noted. Next time I'll use tags to denote sarcasm. :p

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    11. Re:Why we need regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can sue them in Japan, they're a legal corporation.

  14. look at the BIG Picture by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    who stands to lose the most in the long run if Bitcoin takes hold and really gets a large strong userbase, the established central banks that print state currency like the Federal Reserve, i am sure the People's Republic of China has their own central bank too, these central banks are more than likely wanting to kill Bitcoin more than some gang of criminals

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:look at the BIG Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, contrary to this trope that has been going on, central banks have very little to lose. Although BTC is advertised from anonymous/decentralized, it is FAR from that when you actually want to use it.

      Banks will not turn down another opportunity to make money. If cryptocurrencies obtain critical mass in adoption, regulations will be pushed and banks will enter the game for their own piece of the pie.

  15. Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...your chicks for free.

    I really don't get all you people who think a currency based on internet vapors is worth a bucket of warm spit.

    1. Re:Money for nuthin'... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      ...your chicks for free.

      I really don't get all you people who think a currency based on internet vapors is worth a bucket of warm spit.

      Swap "internet vapors" with "vague promises by lying bureaucrats" and you've aptly described the US Dollar.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Money for nuthin'... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Should be the same for any fiat currency, not just the Dollar. How many world currencies are backed by anything with intrinsic value?

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    3. Re:Money for nuthin'... by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Informative

      My dollar isn't just backed by lying bureaucrats. It's backed up by people with guns--big guns. And don't you forget it!

    4. Re:Money for nuthin'... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Shsssss.... Be quiet! It's all about perceived value and you are causing a problem here!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically my currency is backed by the work in put in to earn it. Its an advanced and more abstract form of bartering. Rather than having to perform some type of work in exchange for some chickens to trade for a pig to trade for some rice to trade for some hops to trade for some beer, I can simply perform the work in exchange for an abstract promise worth the value of the work I put in that I can trade directly for the beer.

    6. Re:Money for nuthin'... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      But work is not something that has intrinsic value, like, say, gold or silver. U.S. currency was backed by precious metals up until the Nixon administration when we were taken off the gold standard... Once upon a time, you could take your paper money to a bank and demand the equivalent amount in gold and/or silver. Once the instrument is backed by faith, it becomes a fiat currency.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    7. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so we have someone who believes in the quasi-religious concept of "intrinsic value" but thinks that work doesn't have it and specific shiny metals do?

    8. Re:Money for nuthin'... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Eh? There's nothing religious about it. It just is. Can you store work in your safe when the shit hits the you-know-what?

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    9. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value of a thing is based solely on how much people want it. So if people didn't want precious metals, they would have no value.

      Usually the reason they want gold/silver money is to motivate other people to give them goods and services. Again, if they didn't want those things then they'd have no "intrinsic" value.

    10. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Swap "internet vapors" with "vague promises by lying bureaucrats" and you've aptly described the US Dollar.

      And yet billions of people successfully use the US Dollar every day to complete transactions, and it remains the world's most popular and useful currency. Inexplicable!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:Money for nuthin'... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Swap "internet vapors" with "vague promises by lying bureaucrats" and you've aptly described the US Dollar.

      And yet billions of people successfully use the US Dollar every day to complete transactions, and it remains the world's most popular and useful currency. Inexplicable!

      You can thank the largest military force the world has ever seen (and the handful of powerful oligarchs who use said military to maintain global monopolies on banking and oil sales) for that.

      So, less inexplicable, and more despicable.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But work is not something that has intrinsic value, like, say, gold or silver. U.S. currency was backed by precious metals up until the Nixon administration when we were taken off the gold standard... Once upon a time, you could take your paper money to a bank and demand the equivalent amount in gold and/or silver. Once the instrument is backed by faith, it becomes a fiat currency.

      Precious metals have almost no intrinsic value. The vast majority of their value comes from demand for them as a store of value.

    13. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think the people with the guns are going to back up the currency they're paid in when it's worthless?

    14. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly will your guns prevent anyone from printing an endless stream of new dollars, making your dollars worthless ?

    15. Re:Money for nuthin'... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Except that the U.S. Government has lots of assets to back up those "vague promise" including but not limited to guns, ships, planes, tanks, bombs, oil, land, vehicles, gold, platinum, diamonds, uranium, plutonium, research installations, etc. On top of those assets, it also has the ability to collect taxes from the populace.

      What does bitcoin have to back it up? Oh, yeah, "internet vapors".

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    16. Re:Money for nuthin'... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So... if US debtors call in what we owe, they can be paid in missiles and tanks?

      Just kidding, I know what you're getting at; see my earlier reply to another poster who said basically the same thing you just did.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Money for nuthin'... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, yes, they could. They could also sell the tanks and missiles to the highest bidder. Or, say, "Come and get it, if you can." Just think about what the U.S. could get for the strategic oil reserve or the various national parks. The U.S. government could possibly even sell U.S. territories in various parts of the world to other countries. The U.S. government has many assets and resources with which to back up the dollar.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    18. Re:Money for nuthin'... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And how does that work you have backing the currency prevent the government from say increasing the money supply by a factor of 10,000 without a corresponding increase in "work"?

      Hint: it doesn't and hence that work is not backing up the currency.

      A currency backed by gold (or some other commodity) has the same "backed by the work" feature. Almost nobody cares about the actual gold, they care about a medium of exchange (your "abstract form of bartering"). But that gold backing prevents the government from expanding the money supply without a corresponding expansion of their gold stores.

      Whether that is a good thing or bad thing depends on whether you trust the government to manage the money supply in a way that benefits the economy and whether you think the amount of gold (or whatever) will be a good match to the size of the economy, but the pros and cons are irrelevant to what "backed by" means when talking about a currency.

    19. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they'll be *very* motivated to keep it from becoming worthless.

    20. Re:Money for nuthin'... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      That's *precisely* what intrinsic value is. Something is rare, so it has intrinsic value. What, am I taking crazy pills?

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    21. Re:Money for nuthin'... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      I think you just made my argument for me.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    22. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Easy. By busting down the door and confiscating the printing press.

      He's not talking about his personal guns. He's talking about the fact that the US government has been using the US military to force the preeminence of dollars globally for over a hundred years. Oil is valued and traded in dollars internationally because of US government guns.

    23. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet responsible for more wealth creation than any other currency in history.

    24. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's only because sociopolitical factors in macroeconomic theory predict the universal tendency toward-- Ooo, shiny!!

      (Captcha: cheapen)

    25. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How so? You're arguing that there's such a thing as "intrinsic value," without defining what that means. I would assume it means something everybody automatically wants, but I would hesitate to put anything in that category beyond air, food, warmth, sleep, and sex.

    26. Re:Money for nuthin'... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The floor in the demand for certain goods (food, shelter, heat, healthcare) means there is a corresponding minimum possible price, which is what you would call that good's intrinsic value. People need it.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  16. bitcoin not like the real world by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

    In a real market, no matter how dysfunctional, people want to make money - so stuff like this causes the value of whatever is being traded to go down.

    But the biggest bitcoin enthusiasts are just a little religious, so they'll go frantically buying bitcoins to raise the value to prove this isn't really a big deal.

    Almost like it's all a scam trying to pretend that TANSTAAFL doesn't apply and that you can really generate wealth with only speculation and no production.

    1. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wealth isn't in the currency; wealth is in the exchanges, i.e. the power to motivate the exchange of goods and services.

      The value of Bitcoin is in securing those exchanges electronically.

    2. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The purpose - the very designed-in function - of Bitcoin is not to create wealth but to be an ephemeral unit of transaction, which is why investors get eaten alive but also why it's not a flaw. It's like the difference between investing in US treasury bonds and investing in big piles of ones.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      What is an ephemeral unit of transaction? Apart from one that has a habit of going missing.

    4. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      You're supposed to buy it, use it as payment, and never think about that particular bitcoin again. Not hoard them like Scrooge McDuck in the mistaken belief that they're a thriving growth industry as almost every Bitcoin user seems to want to do.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so they'll go frantically buying bitcoins to raise the value to prove this isn't really a big deal.

      Nice conspiracy theory you've got there. You think a few enthusiasts can move a market that has a $4bn cap? Goldrush/bubble or not, 0.1% of market cap vanishing just isn't that big a deal. The Dow dropped 0.4% today, by comparison (it dropped more than 10% on two days in 2008, now that was news).

    6. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there's a free lunch; you just need to take that lunch away from some other sucker. That's how zero-sum games like this work.

    7. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

      So, like a prepaid single usage Visa/Mastercard number? Or cash in an envelope?

    8. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      That's what I'm trying to convey, yes. (Whether that's an accurate picture, well...) You can see from this analogy why buying thousands of dollars worth of those and giving them to some random organisation in China might not be the savviest business move, while having one or two around for when you need them might be useful.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      No, I think a few major players can. $4 billion isn't a lot of money.

    10. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the rub:

      With how unstable BitCoin is, one has to move their value into it, do their purchase, then the seller has to take the BitCoins they received and move them to a more established currency on the double, or else they may end up losing out big time. With the entire BitCoin ecosystem taking dents every time an Exchange gets compromised, for anything but an immediate conversion to or from is very risky. Yes, one can hold BitCoins and speculate on them, but there are no tax breaks for losses on the BitCoin exchange.

      The exception is for the anonymous people who made BitCoin... the other people have to move actual value into the currency. The early adopters just sit back and have people put value into their system for them. Ponzi would be proud.

    11. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > $4 billion isn't a lot of money.

      It is if you're broke!

      Seriously, though - for an individual, a billion dollars is a HUGE amount of money. It's a stack of $100 bills a kilometer high. You could spend $1000 a day for 1000 years and not get halfway through your stack.

    12. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      Especially if those few major players are drug czars wanting to launder said money.

    13. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Yes, but for 100 people, it's only $40 million, and so on. And even that's not the right way of looking at it, since the value of your bitcoins are going to collapse way before everyone manages to sell them in the event of crash.

    14. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, like a prepaid single usage Visa/Mastercard number? Or cash in an envelope?

      More like a piece of gold. Gold is easy to validate. Gold is hard to replicate or imitate. New gold in discovered, not manufactured. Gold is fungible and highly divisible. Gold is available worldwide. The properties of gold are well studied and well understood. Gold maintains these properties without the existence a central authority.

      Bitcoin was designed to include most of the intrinsic properties of gold, the properties that made it useful as a currency throughout history. Bitcoin can also be send electronically, which is very convenient.

      What Bitcoin does not have, however, is the advantages that a central authority can provide.

    15. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Sockatume was arguing use for making one-off hard-to-trace payments - given bitcoin's volatility, this makes more sense than as tool for speculation.

      Gold would be an awful way of making one-off hard-to-trace payments. You're arguing for the "other" use, i.e. wealth storage and speculation.

    16. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      And gold has some practical uses, not including those really expensive and awesome hifi cables.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    17. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Alioth · · Score: 1

      In which case BitCoin is fatally flawed. Its basic design means it's deflationary, therefore it rewards those who hoard it like Scrooge McDuck, therefore that sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of behaviour that is inevitable.

    18. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case BitCoin is fatally flawed. Its basic design means it's deflationary, therefore it rewards those who hoard it like Scrooge McDuck, therefore that sort of behaviour is exactly the sort of behaviour that is inevitable.

      Have you LOOKED at the income and wealth demographics for modern American-dollar-based capitalism?

      The the basic design of our system of lending and credit is inflationary, creating "wealth" out of thin air by lending it into existence. The lending game siphons the money to the top. Those at the top buy the assets which command big returns, thus building a thunderhead of money at the top of the heap. Scrooge McDuck is alive and well on Wall Street-- only he doesn't HAVE to save, because the dividends keep pouring in!

    19. Re:bitcoin not like the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The the basic design of our system of lending and credit is inflationary, creating "wealth" out of thin air by lending it into existence.

      That design is neither inherently inflationary nor inherently deflationary. It merely permits a control mechanism. "The Fed" can tweak money supply to set the rate of inflation or deflation. If it thought deflation was desirable, it could simply restrict money supply.

      If you actually understand what money is and what it does for an economy, it is no longer a crazy and frightening thing that it can be created out of thin air (and, later, in effect destroyed when the loan is paid back to the Fed, the part you guys always don't bother thinking about). You see, real wealth isn't the money being created and destroyed. One of my favorite SF authors, Lois McMaster Bujold, put a line in a character's mouth which has always stuck with me: "All true wealth is biological".

      What she (and the character) meant by that is that real wealth is yourself, your family, your friends, your community, your nation: people. After wealth in the form of humanity, the next tier of real wealth is the food and water we all need to survive, the clothing and shelter, the fuel and transport we need to move food and water around, etc. All the stuff we need to keep ourselves alive. Then comes things we need to entertain ourselves, and so on. Look up Maszlow's hierarchy of needs.

      Money is just a token we use to track these secondary forms of true wealth so that we can efficiently trade them with one another. We do this because it permits economic specialization and greater generation of true wealth than we'd be able to manage if we all had to barter. Whenever the economy grows (perhaps because standards of living are growing, or because, being humans, we've made more humans), we need more money to track the corresponding increases in real wealth. If we can't create new money, then the sum total of all existing money has to represent more stuff, so each unit of it grows in real value. That's deflation. If we make more new money than is needed, all existing money declines in value. That's inflation. If we make exactly enough new money then neither inflation nor deflation occur.

      In more general pseudo-calculus terms, dMoney > dWealth is inflation, and dMoney < dWealth is deflation. How exactly you quantize Wealth so you can calculate dWealth is an Interesting Problem. Real economists tend to measure inflation and deflation based on consumer price indexes of goods as close to the base of the needs hierarchy as possible rather than attempting to figure out how to calculate it from first principles.

      Your key misunderstanding lies in your apparent belief that the existing system invents "wealth" out of thin air. Nope. We're making tokens out of thin air. The real wealth the tokens represent isn't made out of thin air at all. (Except in the sense that clean air to breathe is of course a form of real wealth.)

      The lending game siphons the money to the top.

      If you loan me $10,000 today and I pay it off over 5 years, inflation works in my favor. My yearly raises are tied not just to job performance, but are a recognition of inflation, so by the end of 5 years I should be making more dollars. They're worth less than they used to be, but the principal on that loan doesn't get adjusted up over time: I'm only on the hook for $10K plus whatever interest rate was agreed upon. Inflation works in favor of the receivers of loans, who can expect the value of principal and payments to decline relative to their income as they pay off the loan.

      In a deflationary economy, however I'd usually be earning less each year, not more. Employers would justifiably be able to tell me "well $9000 buys more this year than $10000 did last year, so even though there are fewer dollars on your paycheck you're still technically getting a raise". If I have to take out a loan in that environment, that means i

  17. Ow ow, my brain hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title quotes GBP, The Exchange is Chinese, and the summary gives USD/GBP.

    Shouldn't it be RMB for the title and then a USD translation in the summary?

  18. what advertisments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I clicked the link to the article but I didn't see any flash advertisements that play sounds? oh well

  19. Beware the what? by dkf · · Score: 0

    I don't need to beware the ads, since I don't bother to RTFA! Or the summary all that much.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  20. Eve Online by martijnd · · Score: 2

    All the ISK scams that went on in EVE Online are now here in "real" world Bitcoins. In fact, you can probably predict the next scandal from what dirty deeds were done before.

    But it it just me wondering if those involved think the punishment in the real world will be the same (none) ? I can imagine people being a little bit more upset after losing millions in real cash as opposed to losing some in-game fantasy currency.

    1. Re:Eve Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the count of people actually getting caught for bitcoin heists so far is about one.

  21. bitcoin, the pyramid scheme of the new decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and people wonder why I call it shitcoin.

    1. Re:bitcoin, the pyramid scheme of the new decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't. They know exactly why you call it that. It just isn't the reason you think.

  22. jerkface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the TFA's talking about Bitcoin it should be using values denoted in BTC (or XBT?...) and providing current conversions into the local currency of WTF the intended audience is.

  23. History Presages Regulation by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 2

    It was not that long ago that banks generally were subject to little or no regulation. Banks would fail, investors would lose all, only for the process to repeat itself again, and again. Eventually, in an effort to protect their economies, governments stepped to limit the risks that banks could take with their investors' money and, often, to insure the investors against loss, thereby engendering confidence.

    Bitcoin has made its stock in trade the fact that it is unregulated by anything but a few algorithms. Like Adam Smith'e "invisible hand", we are to trust to these algorithms to provide a certain Deus ex Machina for providing security.

    The reality is that until Bitcoin exchanges are regulated by credible authorities, security will be a fantasm.

    1. Re:History Presages Regulation by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin has made its stock in trade the fact that it is unregulated by anything but a few algorithms. Like Adam Smith'e "invisible hand", we are to trust to these algorithms to provide a certain Deus ex Machina for providing security.

      The algorithms provide quite a bit of security. It's not Bitcoin's security that is an issue, it's websites, people's computers, and people's trust. In this case, it was the latter. People trusted a 3rd party with their Bitcoin, and that 3rd party proved that trust to be misplaced. That does not reflect poorly on the algorithms involved with Bitcoin in any way; It's about as ludicrous as saying that keepass is horribly insecure because there's no 'credible authority' who can magically give you back access to all your sites after somebody grabbed your keepass master password off the post-it on your monitor and logged into all those sites changing your passwords for teh lulz (or do worse).

    2. Re:History Presages Regulation by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 2

      You make a credible point, but then take it too far. The exchanges are the problem and the algorithms, which are the only security provided in the process, cannot address that. Therefore to assume the algorithms can provide the necessary level of security to the entire process, is fallacy.

  24. Another Technocratic Circlejerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Economy! End of Brick-and-Mortar!

  25. Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If a bitcoin (or fractional BC) whose last known legitimate transaction's block-chain information is known, can it be blacklisted so any attempt to spend it will raise alarms?

    This feature not be in the current Bitcoin software but it seems like something that could be added to a future version of the software if those who use BC demand it.

    The devil will of course be in the details - would theft reports be authenticated by One True Central Authority, or would it be up to each BitCoin user to decide what theft-report-authenticating services it trusts (much like how email server owners decide what spam-blackhole-list providers to trust)? What about libel/slander if someone maliciously reports theft of a BC he legitimately spent or if a theft-report-authenticating service erroneously reports a BC as stolen?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bigger problem is how you decide if a transaction should be considered on the blacklist or not. Okay, so this shady exchange's Bitcoin address (let's call it X) is publicly known. All transactions coming from address X should be marked as shady. What happens if X transfers 10000 bitcoins to address Y? Should address Y now be considered shady too? What if there are 2 or 3 or 10 or 50000 degrees of separation? How far do you follow the chain while still marking the money as dirty? Bitcoin addresses are free to make and anonymous. There are Bitcoin money laundering services that, for a fee, will take a bunch of your money, pass it through their "cloud" of dummy accounts with a bunch of transactions, and supposedly confuse you on the other end as to where the money originally came from or where it's going. With enough computational power, you can decode what the money laundering cloud was doing (there was an attack on this that was published last year), but it's probably not reasonable to put the burden on every single Bitcoin client to keep track of shady Bitcoin addresses and all the attempts at money laundering they're doing.

    2. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by davidwr · · Score: 1

      The idea would be that the person claiming to be robbed would make the initial claim of theft. Whether that would require authentication by a real-world trusted party such as a law enforcement would be the issue.

      Let's say I deposited 1BC in ShadyBCBank last week. ShadyBCBank tells me specifically that MY coin was stolen. Then either I or ShadyBCBank can report the recent transactions to the authorities, to the public, and to any stolen-BC-reporting agency.

      On the other hand, let's say I deposited 1BC in ShadyBCBank last week. ShadyBCBank mixed up the coins with other customers and basically gave me an "IOU" for one BC. They get robbed. I have no way to report the theft, after all, "my" BC may have been withdrawn by another customer or customers before the theft. ShadyBCBank does, if they choose to do so.

      As for the "chain of infection" goes, if the coins were co-mingled that could be a major problem. We may wind up with a case where some coins are "more valuable" than others.

      Let's say the thief stole 1BC from me today, deposited in in a bank that "mixed up" the coins tomorrow, and a few minutes later withdrew 1BC. Let's say I reported it a few minutes after he made his withdrawal.

      If the coin was "mixed" equally with 9 other BC in an irreversible manner, then those 9 BC would be forever "devalued" by 10%, the crook would be ahead by either 1BC or 0.9BC depending on whether he got "clean" coin or not, and I would be out 1BC. The net amount of BC in circulation would be permanently reduced by 1BC.

      The idea is to put an incentive on banks and other clearinghouses to delay "mixing" money up by 1-2 business days to allow time for reporting of thefts, so that if a theft is reported immediately the stolen coin can either be destroyed without affecting other coins or it can be returned to its rightful owner. In either case, the thief who deposited it or the poor sucker who he used it to buy something with quickly will be left holding the entire bag.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    3. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I had a similar thought, though I was thinking more of a voluntary blacklist, possibly even recorded in the block chain as a "null op" transaction of the form "user XYZ has reported these bitcoins stolen", or perhaps just for large-scale situations like this where x% of the bitcoin network operators accept that these coins were stolen. Then from that point forward, until the flag is removed, sending or receiving those coins will prompt a "stolen coin" warning to the parties involved. If enough businesses were unwilling to accept stolen coins as payment the incentive for theft could be drastically reduced.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      What is to stop someone from giving you bitcoin then filing a theft report and getting it blacklisted?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by davidwr · · Score: 1

      The presumption is that the person reporting the crime would need to give their real-world information to someone that everyone trusts in order to report the theft.

      In my country, filing a false police report is a crime.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    6. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by davidwr · · Score: 1

      My original thoughts were of a voluntary list similar to the anti-spam blackhole lists.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    7. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      How do you prove it was a false report?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    8. Re:Stolen-bitcoin blacklist by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So basically, centralise the decentralised currency?

  26. Perhaps a better idea: Long-term freeze by davidwr · · Score: 1

    For individuals who hold BC "on deposit" for long periods of time, a "freeze list" can be developed.

    1) I have a BC in a wallet I control that I don't plan on spending any time soon. I place its last transaction on a "freeze list." This tells the world "don't accept the coin until I take it off the list."

    2) I have an BC that I am about to deposit with a particular online "bank". I place its last pre-deposit transaction on a "freeze after 1 transaction" list and include the address that I am transferring it to along with a reasonable timeout (say, 1 hour). This tells the world "if you aren't this address, don't accept the BC." If the transaction doesn't happen by the timeout, it reverts to a user-specified fallback action, such as "cancel request" or "covert to a #1-type freeze" or "email me and extend deadline by 1 hour" etc.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Perhaps a better idea: Long-term freeze by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      1) I have a BC in a wallet I control that I don't plan on spending any time soon. I place its last transaction on a "freeze list." This tells the world "don't accept the coin until I take it off the list."

      You would need to somehow authenticate yourself as the owner of the bitcoins. This can be done by signing the message with the private key matching the Bitcoin address, but the result is no different from what the network would do anyway. The bitcoins will stay at their current address ("frozen") until a new transaction is signed with the corresponding private key (until you "take it off the list").

      2) I have an BC that I am about to deposit with a particular online "bank". I place its last pre-deposit transaction on a "freeze after 1 transaction" list and include the address that I am transferring it to along with a reasonable timeout (say, 1 hour). This tells the world "if you aren't this address, don't accept the BC."

      There is only one reason to deposit BTC with a bank, and that is to earn interest. In terms of "safekeeping", you're better off keeping the bitcoins at an address you control. However, no bank is going to pay interest on funds they can't access. They need to be able to invest the money, so they wouldn't accept "frozen" funds.

      If you wanted some kind of insured storage, a better system which can be implemented right now would be to use a two-part address, where you control one private key and the insurer controls the other. Either or both of the keys could be kept offline for "cold storage". Once you send your funds to that address, both keys would be required to move it anywhere else. It's normal for addresses to have only a single key, but the system is actually rather flexible. You could also use a 2-of-3 address scheme where a third-party arbiter holds the extra key, in case any one party becomes unavailable or tries to defect.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  27. Waiting for Baseball cards and Tulips to rebound by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    I just know they will recover. There might be 'Billions' of dollars worth of bitcoins out there, but truly believe they will become worth almost zero in the long run.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  28. I fucking love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lately, there has been a lot of chatter on the interwebs from Nerdcoin advocates and zealots like, "Oh, the Chinese are getting involved with Bitcoin now. That proves it's to be taken serious." Ha ha ha. Stupid motherfuckers. (Shitcoin worshipers, not the Chinese)

    1. Re:I fucking love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you go to the trouble of stealing something you consider worthless?

    2. Re:I fucking love it! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the thief considers it worthless. It only matters if the thief knows other people will pay money for it.

      If you steal something the most stupid thing you can do is hold on to it.
      It's like stabbing someone them walking around with the blood stained knife hanging around your neck.

    3. Re:I fucking love it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if the thief considers it worthless. It only matters if the thief knows other people will pay money for it.

      If someone wants to pay money for it, it's by definition not worthless.

  29. Non Banking Entity by Demonantis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is like all the people that get mad when paypal jerks them around. Don't use a non banking entity as a bank. There is huge history reinforced reasons why the industry is regulated.

    1. Re:Non Banking Entity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Paypal has been a bank for about 6 years.

  30. And what did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you put MILLIONS of dollars of value into a computer program which is explicitly OUTSIDE of government control, regulation, inspection, validation and explicitly run by completely anonymous (and hidden) individuals - and then you're surprised when the anonymous people holding your money disappear with it?

    Seriously ... what did you think was going to happen? You thought that somehow bitcoin was run by magical, philanthropic leprechauns who were going to provide these services just because they like to see people smile?

    Why do you think that every government in the history of man has had rules and oversight over currencies? Because when you don't you might as well throw your money into the toilet and flush. People asked for, and wanted, oversight to provide some degree of protection for their money. Sure - the governments are not saints either, but there is at least some recourse and transparency (and hence, accountability). It is a heck of a lot better than throwing my money into the street and waiting for a black van with tinted windows to "hold" it for me...

    1. Re:And what did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously ... what did you think was going to happen? You thought that somehow bitcoin was run by magical, philanthropic leprechauns who were going to provide these services just because they like to see people smile?

      You, like many other critics, seem to have trouble distinguishing between Bitcoin and a Bitcoin exchange.

      Nobody "runs" Bitcoin.

  31. incorrect. pussy sold in $, or roses by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Grandpa was incorrect. If you wish to purchase pussy, $20 bills are the preferred form of payment. Though, I did notice some backpage ads listing 290 roses / hour.

    1. Re:incorrect. pussy sold in $, or roses by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1
    2. Re:incorrect. pussy sold in $, or roses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blimey. Methylated roses?

  32. Now there's a surprise by H0p313ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm shocked, *SHOCKED* to find criminal activity happening in this unregulated currency exchange!

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    1. Re:Now there's a surprise by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      "Your winnings, sir..."

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Now there's a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are your winnings, sir.

    3. Re:Now there's a surprise by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No shortage of examples in gambling houses either, but in that case the house is generally making bank even after paying out the winnings, and the promise of long-term sustained profits typically outweighs a one-time windfall. To the point where the house will often swallow the loss if some individual in its ranks absconds with a windfall - better to loste $X million today than lose the trust of the customers and with it $Y million/month in profits. Besides you can always pay someone to try to hunt down the thieving bastard and retrieve at least some of what was stolen. And/or make an example out of them.

      Which makes this whole thing even more unbelievable - why would *anyone* trust an anonymous person on the internet not to cut and run with the money once the trade volume stabilized? Even that small-time back alley "banker" has more built-in accountability.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Now there's a surprise by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      I was simply making another reference to "Casablanca". It's a great movie. You should see it.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    5. Re:Now there's a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not at surprised that Chinese did it; they make Americans look like the honest Finns in comparison.

    6. Re:Now there's a surprise by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah. Been meaning to for years actually.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  33. Just Like the Real World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much do you think Bernard Madoff made vanished?

    Scams in the Real Word (TM) happens everyday.

  34. Bitcoins, ISK, same idea by Kobold+Curry+Chef · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has played EVE Online could have told you this was going to happen.

    1. Re:Bitcoins, ISK, same idea by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has played EVE Online could have told you this was going to happen.

      What we learn from EVE Online is: "never trust anyone you can't hunt down and kill." (In EVEs case, kill repeatedly, over and over again).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  35. Re:Waiting for Baseball cards and Tulips to reboun by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    For shame, any self respecting geek has their money in comic books and Pokemon cards. Hizzah!

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  36. Re:Waiting for Baseball cards and Tulips to reboun by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    I'm over 40 so it's real estate.... just not in the U.S.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  37. the BiteCon continues by swschrad · · Score: 0

    now that there is a pile to steal, we see exchanges disappearing. I detect a pattern. the Con part of BiteCon is underway.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  38. What the hell did you expect? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    It's unregulated and anonymous- a perfect set-up to steal with impunity. Why would a sane/intelligent person have anything to do with bitcoin?

    1. Re:What the hell did you expect? by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

      Returns. Bitcoins are up about 100% over the past month. Even smart people start to lose their minds when they see returns like that.

    2. Re:What the hell did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, credit card companies are centrally controlled by privately owned companies and can block out anyone. Why would anyone have anything to do with them? As a businessman, it is much higher risk that I have to trust some intermediary guy to perform payments for me. If they think I'm smutty they could just block me out - without having to state any (legal) reason.

      This has already happened to sex and horror shops for instance - being denied credit cards. Some prudent banking lady thought it wasn't a "clean" or "moral" enough business, I guess.

  39. No FDIC doesn't insure banks by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FDIC insures bank's depositors against malefesance by the bank.

    Congress & the Treasury Secretary insures banks, but only if you're part of the in crowd like Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan, and not Bear Stearns/Lehman Bros or thousands of less cool banks. And you don't even have to pay large premiums upfront---dinners, jobs and lobbying is so much cheaper than premiums.

    The commissioner of the FDIC during the crisis was pretty strenuously against insuring banks and look what it got her.

    1. Re:No FDIC doesn't insure banks by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      And [favored banking companies] don't even have to pay large premiums upfront---dinners, jobs and lobbying is so much cheaper than premiums.

      Don't forget major campaign contributions - to candidates and the party - and helping the campaign operations in other ways.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:No FDIC doesn't insure banks by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      FDIC insures bank's depositors against malefesance by the bank.

      You mean something like "A Chinese Bitcoin exchange has vanished without trace, taking more than $4 million of the virtual currency with it ..."

    3. Re:No FDIC doesn't insure banks by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were far less entangled in the larger economy than the bigger players. Their collapse did not cause a massive chain reaction of other businesses closing. If AIG had gone bankrupt, the global economy would have tanked ten times worse than it did.

    4. Re:No FDIC doesn't insure banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goldman Sachs has great hospitality. They even have loaner knee pads.

  40. "Technically" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically my currency is backed by the work in put in to earn it. Its an advanced and more abstract form of bartering.

    Technically?! No, you're being very sloppy with terms (and that's very bad if you're going to say "technically"), which will invariably lead to errors, such as talking about your car's speed in grams per lumen, or getting seats with centimeter-colored apolstery, or buying fuel at a price of 3 pixels per ampere.

    A unit of currency is valued as or representative of the work someone puts in.

    A currency is used as a form of bartering.

    And how (or if) the currency is "backed" is a whole other thing. The backing of the currency has to do with your estimate of what forces are used to keep the value of its units from changing (or in the modern era, to keep its units from changing at "too high" of a rate), and what forces exist to make the currency be accepted by others.

    Those forces can take a variety of forms. One really simple force that most people understand, is anti-counterfeiting law.

    Another force that almost everyone knows about, but perhaps not really consciously, is the social agreement that we'll take the currency. (If you're in the US, someone who doesn't take dollars would be viewed as a weirdo, and shunned.) Related to that, there might even be further laws (e.g. the government declaring "this is legal tender") and agreeing (not just socially, but legally) that they will accept the currency for payment of debts to them, probably even exclusively. (e.g. you can (and must) use dollars to pay your US taxes.)

    Bitcoin is backed completely by a social agreement (the current blockchain policy, because it's believed to be very hard to counterfeit) and has no government yet providing additional forceful backing.

  41. No honor amongst crooks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect when the main reason for Bitcoin is to be able to perform illegal acts?

    Duh? No sympathy for fools, horses, criminals, and soon-to-be criminals.

  42. Re:Waiting for Baseball cards and Tulips to reboun by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Well sure, what good will Bitcoins do you after the heat-death of the universe? At least you can eat tulip bulbs and baseball cards, though opinions are mixed as to which tastes worse.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  43. Hi Ponzi by srstites · · Score: 1

    If I put up a "BANK" sign and started collecting money from people on the street, and then disappeared with the vault one night,

    Then your name is Ponzi.

    Steve Stites

  44. Who you going to call??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you don't want a currency with a government supporting it, so don't expect any
    government to cry for you. Losers.

  45. Not the main Chinese exchange by monk · · Score: 2

    I've never heard of GBL.

    The big Chinese exchange is BTC China.

    --
    [-- Trust the Monkey --]
  46. Normal behavior for Bitcoin exchanges by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Take the money and disappear" is normal behavior for Bitcoin exchanges. Sometimes they just disappear, sometimes they get broken into and robbed, and sometimes you're not sure whether the robbery was an inside job.

    The list of failed Bitcoin exchanges is long. Bitcash.cz just closed yesterday. There's an academic paper with a list. 18 of the 40 exchanges on the list had failed. But that was last January. Since then, Bitfloor and Bitme shut down, and Intersango and Mt. Gox stopped paying out customer funds on demand.

    Not one Bitcoin exchange is a bank or a registered broker/dealer in its home jurisdiction. That's part of the problem.

    This is why anarchy sucks. What anarchy looks like is Somalia, not L. Neil Smith fiction.

  47. Uh huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(Beware the auto-playing ads, with sound.)"

    Learn to use Firefox and Adblock plus to kill ads like that.

  48. Civil courts by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If the guy who you bought the BC from is accusing you of stealing it, you can sue him for slander. That's a preponderence-of-the-evidence case, so you don't need "proof" you just need a stronger case that you didn't steal it than he has that you did.

    Now, if the prosecution wants to go after him for filing a false police report, they will have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Civil courts by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have that you didn't steal it?
      How to you prove that the person you got it from was the person who reported it stolen?
      If you personally know the person, what is to prevent him from claiming that you stole it because he was negligent in securing his "wallet" while you were over and you made an unauthorized transfer?

      Finally, by reporting a bitcoin as "stolen", the value of the bitcoin would be destroyed. If there is a finite number of bitcoins, it would be theoretically possible to do a kind of DoS by reporting many random bitcoins stolen. That would destroy the not only the value of the bitcoins reported but it would make all bitcoins questionable. This would be easy for a government to do, especially one that seizes a large number of bitcoins. They transfer the coins to a straw man, spend the bitcoins, then weeks or months later report use the strawman to report the bitcoins as stolen.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  49. Noob BitCoin Question by jhumkey · · Score: 1

    I never invested in / used Bitcoins, because its either "value generated out of nothing" or . . . "some giant scheme by the NSA to convince us to crack encryption keys for them". Paranoia=Off

    But to my noob question . . . if one of the benefits of Bitcoin is that . . . there is a complete transaction list for every Bitcoin, distributed everywhere . . . then why should I care if my Bitcoin bank went out of business . . . doesn't every other Bitcoin holder in the universe already have the proof that I own . . . what I own?

    If I can cough up the Private Key (excuse my poor understanding of the concepts here) to match the records "everyone else" already has . . . how did the bank "take" anything from me?

    For that matter . . . why are there even banks?
    Bitcoin always sounded like "everyone has a copy of everyone else's balanced checkbook" . . . so, why can't I just continue to use my private key to make purchases?

    --
    No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    1. Re:Noob BitCoin Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you transfer the coins to the bank's accounts when you hand it over. After that, you no longer control it. You can check the blockchain to see that you did, in fact, once control it, but also that you no longer do. It's theirs to do whatever they want with now.

    2. Re:Noob BitCoin Question by jhumkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification.

      Then . . . "we're doing it wrong."
      There should never exist a "Bitcoin Bank" . . . there should only exist "Bitcoin Exchanges" that never "hold" anything, they only (atomically) exchange the singular small amount of Bitcoin you wish to covert to/from Fiat/Physical currency (or in/out of a real bank checking account).

      Since (as I understand it) transfers of Bitcoin value/wealth could happen peer to peer to buy or sell goods and services directly between the two involved parties, . . . I see no advantage to "giving all our Bitcoin" to a bank. . . if you had 1000 Bitcoins, and wanted to exchange 2 for US$CashInCheckingAcct, then (atomically) transfer ONLY 2 Bitcoin in and get CashOut immediately.

      The poster far above is correct . . . if your "giving" all your Bitcoin to a bank to hold for you . . . its just like ISK in a volunteer-player run "bank" in EVE Online . . . you're doomed.

      Yes, I may ask the local Citizens Federal Bank of Amerika to hold my millions in cash for me . . . but only because in the real world, I can't provide physical security of the stacks and stacks of bills. Its just not the same in Bitcoin. If I can protect only the "private key" . . . there is no need to have a "Bank" "protect the physical bits and bytes" of the Bitcoin value.

      I don't see why we couldn't just have a transaction that said . . . . User1234 agrees (using his private key), AND ExchangeBroker agrees (using their private key), to take 2Bitcoin from User1234, and deposit 2BitcoinOfCashValue in User1234's Checking account 12345678, with ExchangeBroker receiving .1% exchange value as fee. . . .in one atomic transaction. Heck, Visa (or Paypal) should sign up to provide this as a per transaction service.
      But at no point need they "hold" all my Bitcoin value.

      And there are so many "unexplained" points . . . (If I with my rack of GPU Bitcoin generators running in my basement discover the next key . . . while you (with your rack of GPU Bitcoin generators running in your basement discover the SAME key) . . . who wins? The first to report and propagate it to the "world-wide database")?

      It just all seems too . . . (can't quite find the word . . . "shystery", "unavoidably fradulent", "unwittingly / inherently dangerous") to me . . . I'll stick to stuffing cash in my mattress.

      Thanks for the clarification though.

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    3. Re:Noob BitCoin Question by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      On the paranoya bit.

      I'd actually go as far as saying you're wrong, its not value generated out of /nothing/.

      Currency, any curency - whether US Dollars, frequent flyer points, or world of warcraft gold, require a mechanism that puts the trust of a large group of people in the currency. The more trust, the more useable.

      The thing people have nailed their stubborn heads to is that there is only one possible source of trust - a big organisation (US Government, American Airlines, Blizzard) saying "TRUST THIS" (fiat currency), or "TRUST THIS, because we'll replace it with gold and silver when you want us to" (gold standard).

      Obviously, the US government makes more trust than blizzard, becaues Blizzard needs a relevant MMO for their currency to matter, something nobody knows if they'll have five years from now, but the US government just needs taxpayers and an economy.

      What digital currencies like bitcoin offer is an ALTERNATIVE source of trust. This comes from a combination of the following factors:
      [a] An algorithm designed to have one big, known weakness.
      [b] The weakness being "mitigated" by pitting the computational power of a would-be thief versus the combined grunt of a very large peer-to-peer network.
      [c] Every geek on the planet who understands scale and orders of magnitude understanding who wins that one and how that story ends.
      This in its own right creates a substantial amount of trust in the currency.

      But wait, there's more.

      You have a certain level of trust in your government's currency. Even if you picketed at Occupy Wall St, you still have US dollars in your pocket and have some confidence they'll be adequate to pay for your next month's rent.

      There are MANY people in the world whose governments and economies are so dysfunctional that the trust barrier they need to pass to trust bitcoin more than they trust their governments currency is much, much lower. Not just Libya and Iran, but also quite a few countries in South America, Asia and Africa. These people often do not have access to alternative government-supported currencies (other than their own pretty messed-up one), or where access to these is legally riskier, or they're being made a killing on by predatory traders on their local neighbourhood US dollar black market.
      That's a huge vaccum for bitcoin to fill, so long as its built-in trust-manufacturing and anti-inflation mechanisms work to spec, which they so far have done.

      As it becomes more exposed accessible (know-how and technology in the hands of those who prefer it), expect it to grow WAY more.
      Hence DEMAND for bitcoin. And demand for a currency is the same as TRUST.

      The important thing to understand here is that TRUSTWORTHINESS is a cost component of *any* currency, and "manufacturing" it requires real-world effort.
      If the currency itself is a desired product and makes the universe better for someone (and I believe it is and it does), then that real-world effort has value.

      As a US citizen you pay the Fed Reserve's costs of "manufacturing the trustworthiness" of your currency (say, using hi-tech paper and hyper-expensive printing techniques etc).

      Participating in the mining peer-to-peer network similarly "manufactures the trustworthiness" by making the peer-to-peer network that a thief would need to out-compute to cheat ever so bigger, and the thief ever so less likely to succeed. Bitcoin mining is basically a distributed federal reserve. And just like the Fed Reserve takes a cut and pays its employees (and owners, it's a for-profit), so do bitcoin miners. The trust they make has value, and the coins they "make" compensate them for it.

      In their absence, bitcoin wouldn't warrant trust, and people wouldn't use it.

      --
      -
  50. Real Money by Philotomy · · Score: 1

    If you don't have your money in your possession, and it isn't a tangible commodity currency, it isn't really your money.

    1. Re:Real Money by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It literally isn't your money in this case: part of putting your money in a Bitcoin exchange involves performing a crytographic transaction that makes the exchange its rightful owner (as far as the Bitcoin network is concerned) and you've basically got their word that they'll then let you have it back, or use it to pay for something, or exchange it for cash.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Real Money by Philotomy · · Score: 1

      Not much different than putting your money into an account at a bank, then. Those "demand deposits" aren't legally your money, either, they're the bank's (which is essentially why the bank can do things with "your money" -- like loaning it out or investing it -- without being accused of theft or fraud). They've just agreed that they'll pay you back on demand.

  51. Definition of Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money is that which is accepted at government pay offices.
    -- Georg Friedrich Knapp

  52. So, Chinese gold farmers a for real then. by ntime60 · · Score: 1

    So they are turning to another type of bit farm. They've been farming MMO's for years, not much of a difference I can see here.

  53. You bought in! by CHIT2ME · · Score: 0

    So you bought in to bitcoin. Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! Idiots.

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!