Slashdot Mirror


Mt. Gox Knew It Was Selling Phantom Bitcoin 2 Weeks Before Collapse

An anonymous reader writes "Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles wrote in a sworn declaration in the company's U.S. bankruptcy filing he suspected hundreds of thousands of bitcoins were missing on Feb. 7, more than two weeks before it finally halted trading. That means Mt. Gox allowed its customers to continue trading, knowing that its bitcoin stash was wiped out and collecting as much as US$900,000 in trading fees. Since Mt. Gox said it was also missing $27.3 million in cash from customer deposits, it raises the possibility that customers — despite seeing a cash balance displayed in their account — might have actually been buying bitcoins that did not exist, with cash that was already long gone."

52 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Bitcoin by roninmagus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for what bitcoin is trying to achieve. But this is just a news story about an exchange which didn't know what it was doing, trading in a currency that hasn't been fully proven, operating in an unknown capacity from somewhere in Japan, and without any oversight at all. That's like millions of people asking my buddy Joe who lives in a trailer to hang onto their money for them. Oh no, bad decisions were made?

    1. Re:Bitcoin by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, those fools should have definitely given their money to the pros.

      You know what, that's too much sarcasm for me to fart out at once. This sounds essentially like the subprime mortgage crisis. And a lot of other banking crises. It doesn't seem totally insane to me to trust your friend Joe in a trailer over the banking industry: when he runs off with my money, at least he might go to jail rather than getting millions in rewards.

    2. Re:Bitcoin by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for what bitcoin is trying to achieve.

      I'm not. Actually I do not know what it is trying to achieve, but "unregulated" and "not backed up by anything" are certainly not what I am after.

      But this is just a news story about an exchange which didn't know what it was doing, trading in a currency that hasn't been fully proven, operating in an unknown capacity from somewhere in Japan, and without any oversight at all.

      I think they knew what they were doing. I think the currency is proven - to be faulty. I think the "achieve" part means "no oversight at all" so you are already contradicting yourself.

      That's like millions of people asking my buddy Joe who lives in a trailer to hang onto their money for them. Oh no, bad decisions were made?

      What you "bitcoin people" seem to want is anymous (i.e. can buy drugs without getting caught) which can be easily transferred (i.e. no exchange can steal or stop you) backed up (i.e. you cannot lose your money - just win with it) non-government (i.e. not backed up ...), non-fiat (i.e. er, I have no clue) money.

      Then someone makes "cryptographic mathematically proven" - and you expect that to mean it holds all above. You fail to understand that money has just one necessary condition: majority of people trust it - mostly because the country they live in would collapse without it, and the persons backing it up knows this and you know they know.

    3. Re:Bitcoin by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ^^ This what all the "see you do need regulations, I told you so" crowd does not get.

      A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they will cheat you using unregulated BitCoins, just the same way they will cheat you using regulated dollars.

      It isn't as if regulations create some magical inviolate barrier. Madoff ran a ponsi scheme masquerading as a hedge fund with SEC reporting requirements and everything. Much of the monies were never recovered. The subprime crisis is another example the brokers just faked all the paperwork and wrote the liar loans.

      The only differences in the end is possibly if someone goes to jail or not. FRAUD however is still a crime even if there are no specific securities statues that apply to BitCoin. So these guys certainly could be charged as criminals too. This has NOTHING to do with regulations.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Bitcoin by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, those fools should have definitely given their money to the pros.
      You know what, that's too much sarcasm for me to fart out at once. This sounds essentially like the subprime mortgage crisis. And a lot of other banking crises. It doesn't seem totally insane to me to trust your friend Joe in a trailer over the banking industry: when he runs off with my money, at least he might go to jail rather than getting millions in rewards.

      As much as people (including me) like to hate on banks, when was the last time you actually lost money? When was the last time you put money in a bank and they "lost" all or part of it? When was the last time you put money in a bank and lost all or part of it because the bank was robbed?

    5. Re:Bitcoin by evilbessie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is fraud not specifically doing things against regulations? Without any form of regulation at all it wouldn't be fraud. The SEC are the police but they are paid by the people they police, if not actually being the same people. Bad policing of regulation isn't a problem with the regulations and to draw such comparisons hides the nature of the problem.

    6. Re:Bitcoin by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Madoff ran a ponsi scheme masquerading as a hedge fund with SEC reporting requirements and everything.

      Hedge funds are a notoriously unregulated part of the finance industry. The reporting requirements are minimal.

    7. Re:Bitcoin by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Hedge funds are a notoriously unregulated part of the finance industry. The reporting requirements are minimal.

      Bitcoin is a notoriously unregulated part of the finance industry. The reporting requirements are minimal.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:Bitcoin by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Thanks so much for the very interesting chart. It's most interesting feature is the remission from banking crises during the time of the Bretton Woods system.

      Turns out that the way to avoid banking crises is to have fixed exchange rates, and more regulation.

      The recent banking crisis was caused by a long standing trend towards less regulation. And worse the stupidity of the belief that they could regulate themselves.

    9. Re:Bitcoin by necro81 · · Score: 2

      Yes, but every since the Great Depression, when the FDIC was instituted, you could always have confidence that the dollar you deposited at the bank would still be there tomorrow (up to the fairly generous deposit limits). Similar insurance programs exist for stocks - so long as you use a recognized brokerage, who in turn uses a clearing house to execute trades, your ownership of the shares and your cash is never in question. The stocks may fail, totally wiping you out, but your ownership of them is never in doubt.

      And such safeguards exist because of...wait for it...regulation.

    10. Re:Bitcoin by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pedantry of that nature indicates you already know you have no real argument.

    11. Re:Bitcoin by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      Hint to you: Don't kite checks.

    12. Re:Bitcoin by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Complete bullshit. As a depositor in a bank you are NOT an 'unsecured creditor'. Where does this nonsense come from? Thousands of banks have failed since FDIC was formed 80 years ago, and no depositor has lost any insured money.

    13. Re:Bitcoin by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My point is that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of regulation and the instances of massive fraud. Don't point to Bernie Madoff and assume that he was operating under the same rules as a commercial bank.

    14. Re:Bitcoin by sstamps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm part of the "regulations crowd", and I most assuredly DO get it.

      You point to a number of things in your propaganda which are patently false or misleading.

      The first thing is that regulations are not intended to "create some magical inviolate barrier" to fraud and other shenanigans. They are designed to lessen such things, and bring them to light sooner than without. That's all that regulation can really do -- to foster an environment where such things are minimalized, even if they can't be totally eliminated.

      The second thing is that the financial sector has been massively DE-regulated over the last two decades (and even farther back than that, if you want to include the removal of usury ceilings in the 70s). The prime reasons why the recent massive financial meltdown occurred aren't due to a failure of regulation, but of a failure TO regulate.

      As it relates to BitCoin, REAL regulation would provide that their accounting and security methods were audited regularly, and that they maintain proper reserves of money to meet the payment demands of their clients.

      While regulation wouldn't prevent the exchange from failing, it likely would have been caught sooner, and less people would have been impacted for less money.

      At the very least, I would never assent to put any significant amount of money in any BitCoin exchange unless it submitted to some kind of third-party auditing and financial standards, absent real regulation. To do otherwise is simply throwing your money down a drain.

      --
      -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    15. Re:Bitcoin by m.dillon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What regulations surrounding the dollar? Perhaps you mean regulations on banks and brokerages. Unfortunately, MtGox was neither a bank nor a brokerage. Plus they are run out of Japan, so they are hardly going to be subject to U.S. law.

      Customers who got creamed by MtGox were idiots. I feel sorry for them, but sometimes it takes a hard lesson to punch through blind idealism.

      -Matt

    16. Re:Bitcoin by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know what, that's too much sarcasm for me to fart out at once. This sounds essentially like the subprime mortgage crisis. And a lot of other banking crises. It doesn't seem totally insane to me to trust your friend Joe in a trailer over the banking industry: when he runs off with my money, at least he might go to jail rather than getting millions in rewards.

      You know, in 2008, Washington Mutual (aka WaMu) failed. Dead, A lot of people used them, too.

      And yet, they're all happily going about their lives - having lost none of their money that was stored at WaMu.

      Another bank took over the remains and all of WaMu's customers were automatically integrated in.

      For all intents and purposes, the only thing that changed was the name on the envelope and on the card - the money that was deposited was still there, all the other assets were still there, etc.

      So for all the banking crises, regulation does help, because instead of bank failures hurting regular joes by losing all their hard earned savings, life pretty much continued on as no one lost their deposits. You put your money in, you can be reasonably assured you will get it out.

    17. Re:Bitcoin by m.dillon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite true. Nobody has lost any insured money in a bank failure. Up to the FDIC limit. Plenty of people have lost money due to bank failures who had more than the insured amount in their account.

      Strangely enough, very few people with balances over the FDIC limit actually lost any money due to the larger bank failures which occurred in 2008 and 2009, because the U.S. government brokered agreements with other large banks to buy their assets whole in exchange for some big tax breaks. Wells Fargo's purchase of Wachovia, for example.

      Wells Fargo took on almost $30B in liabilities which would normally have made the purchase impossible, but the U.S. government relaxed some laws and allowed Wells to declare those liabilities against future profits to reduce their tax bill. Essentially, the U.S. government bailed out the bank customers of Wachovia.

      However, a good chunk of the bank failures since 2008 were liquidations and any customer with a balance greater than the FDIC limit will have lost the difference.

      -Matt

    18. Re:Bitcoin by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When was the last time that a customer of a US bank requested a withdraw and was refused because the bank didn't have the funds available?

    19. Re:Bitcoin by bws111 · · Score: 2

      What exactly is your point? What are your options? You can keep your money 'under your mattress' at higher risk and even less returns, or you can invest it with higher risk and/or lower liquidity. For most people 'in the bank' is still the best bet.

    20. Re:Bitcoin by seebs · · Score: 2

      Fraud is not "against regulations", it's "misrepresenting what you offer or offering a thing you aren't going to do". Not all laws are "regulations" in the same sense that, say, the banking industry is "regulated".

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    21. Re:Bitcoin by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      sticking the money in your shorts or mattress makes one immune to inflation?

    22. Re:Bitcoin by Tranvisor · · Score: 2

      Lol 5-13% inflation? Um, try the vast majority of the last 20 years inflation as been somewhere between 1-4%. Source ( http://inflationdata.com/Infla... ) 1-4% is a healthy range for an economy, if it is below or above bad things will happen (Deflation on the low side, runaway inflation on the other end). Deflation causes people to sit on their money, not invest in new tech, not invest in the future and not expand their businesses (who wants to expand when the money used to do so would be worth more then the investment made?).

      A zero percent inflation rate is unattainable (population growth, a million other factors) so keeping it around and low in the 1-4 range is good for everybody.

    23. Re:Bitcoin by codebonobo · · Score: 2

      The CPI was juked in the 80's to remove variables like Fuel and Food which are somewhat essential to determining true inflation.

      http://business.time.com/2013/03/12/if-theres-no-inflation-why-are-prices-up-so-much/

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/perianneboring/2014/02/03/if-you-want-to-know-the-real-rate-of-inflation-dont-bother-with-the-cpi/

      http://www.policymic.com/articles/4952/is-america-hiding-its-true-inflation-rate-and-could-the-u-s-be-as-insolvent-as-greece

    24. Re:Bitcoin by m.dillon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words, you have this insane idea that since a few people have made out like bandits from Bitcoins extreme volatility, that it is somehow this magical deflationary entity that is a better investment than any of the thousands of securities one can purchase on the regulated stock market. That, somehow, magically, is a store of value that can beat inflation and, somehow, will magically be able to beat all the other umpteen crypto currencies out there that anyone can create with a flick of a finger (literally).

      You also seem to believe that bitcoin exchanges are somehow magically governed by banking and securities laws that allow people to 'invest' and 'trade' safely, and that one can be insured against theft by putting their trust in unknown third parties running piss-ant little companies who happen to be able to set up a web site and throw some glitter on it.

      I will tell you what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is worthless as a currency (too volatile and too illiquid), meaningless as a commodity (because anyone can create their own crypto currency with a flick of a finger), not even remotely deflationary except in the minds of the true believers, and unusable as any sort of store of value except by idiots who think that quoted numbers on an exchange lend it credibility and back-of-the-hand calculations that someone, somewhere has gotten filthy rich trading it (ignoring the thousands of people who have gone broke trying to do the same).

      There are always a few people with crazy views. It doesn't mean the views are any less crazy just because the internet lends them a voice. You actually believe that the stock market is some kind of scam and that bitcoin is somehow magically better? The level of stupidity required to form your opinion is beyond my comprehension.

      -Matt

    25. Re:Bitcoin by cusco · · Score: 2

      So the simple fact that widespread fraud didn't happen during the 60+ years when the regulations were in place, but suddenly bloomed into existence a few months after they had been removed is just coincidence? Really? You believe in crop circles and Sasquatch too?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  2. Interesting... by Agares · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do not see why there are still people out there who keep saying Bitcoin is a good investment. We keep seeing these exchanges fold up and run off with all this money. I know they claimed they were hacked, but how do we know for sure. To me the whole Bitcoin thing is just a way for a few to get rich by ripping off so many others. Also no one should be surprised that they were sold phantom Bitcoins. You have no way of knowing what you actually have on a site like that since you can’t directly access the wallet. It seems like common sense to me, but I guess I will never understand this kind of thing.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Curious you think this is isolated to BitCoin. Look up MF Global.

    2. Re:Interesting... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      I do not see why there are still people out there who keep saying Bitcoin is a good investment.

      Mencken's Law: "No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

      Pretty much sums it up.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Trouble is that the only safe place to hold bitcoins is on your own media accessed by a computer which is unconnected to the internet. The number of bitcoin owners and users that do this is anyone's guess, but unlikely to be more than a tiny fraction.

      In fact it's pretty hard to do anything in a secure way with bitcoin, unless you have an appreciation for how bitcoin works. And that's an extremely complex thing to understand - far beyond the grasp of most people.

      (Of course many here on Slashdot understand, but we're a self selecting group of nerds, most of whom have probably been CS students, and the rest have mostly self-educated to a similar level. We are big outliers on the bell curve of understanding stuff like this)

  3. Change in name expected by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's official. The name is now changed to MtGotchya.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  4. The nature of the Ponzi by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only people who make money in a pyramid scheme are the people at the very top. Everyone else is a sucker.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  5. I'm thinking of a word - by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm thinking of a word for a kind of system where, I don't know, someone makes rules for how large chunks of assets are managed, traded, stored. This word would mean that some PEOPLE, some kind of official-sounding types of PEOPLE, would "check up" on these places, these places that handle and store and manage other people's money, or assets, stuff. They would be checking up to make sure that the people who run those places, those people, wouldn't be, knowingly or unknowingly, doing things with other people's money that they shouldn't be doing. Maybe there could be a kind of system, say, where those people doing those things, are encouraged or made to do some things, to prove, that they have the money and things that they are supposed to have, and doing the things, those things that they are supposed to do, and not doing those things that they are not supposed to be doing, to those other people's money, and assets and stuff. And that they're honest, about what they say that they're doing, and that they're not doing. Who would be doing all that checking, and what would that process be, and who would be subject to it. If only there were one simple word for all of that.

  6. Re:Stick to GOLD by compro01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gold is not hard currency. That term really should really only apply to diamonds.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  7. buying nonexisting bitcoins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't the bitcoin protocol expected to prevent exactly this? Assuming that the cryptographic part wasn't broken, the existence of a 6-block chain telling you the coins are there means they *are* there. Something tells me that a lot of people blindly trusted some random guy on the internet with their money instead of simply validating the fckn block chain, which would have told them immediately that they were screwed over.

    1. Re:buying nonexisting bitcoins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It had absolutely nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. The attackers abused a flaw in Mt. Gox's code, not Bitcoin's, to cause them to initiate transactions where it should have failed.

  8. Re:The Free Market by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Neoliberals? I'm under the impression that Libertarians with the minds of teenagers are the ones so in love with Bitcoin, and opposed to regulation that would normally keep their money safe.

  9. Pyramid or pump and dump? by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do not see why there are still people out there who keep saying Bitcoin is a good investment

    For those at the top of the pyramid scheme it probably is. For everyone else? Yeah, not so much. Bitcoin has all the hallmarks of a pump and dump scheme. Thinly traded asset of dubious future value? Check. Marketing campaign to recruit investors? Check. Early large purchases at discounted rate? Check. Absurdly fast rise in "value"? Check. Early investors selling out or disappearing and leaving the new investors holding the bag? Check.

    Unregulated bitcoin exchanges are basically pyramid schemes waiting to happen. The bitcoin currency itself looks shockingly like a pump and dump scheme and should be treated as radioactive (i.e. very carefully) until proven otherwise.

  10. Re:Buying a Pig in a Poke ... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

    You aren't looking back far enough. The "with-it" trendy people as you call them, mined bitcoins or bought them when they were worth ~$1 or less. If the world comes crashing down and they end up back there, they lost nothing. I believe you are thinking of the people that only cared about bitcoin when it began to have some exchangeable value, where bitcoin was an investment, or a scheme to get rich. These will be the people who suffer. These are the ones who "fell for the scam"

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  11. Re:The Free Market by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That all depends on how one prefers to be robbed. The transparent, libertarian way is to have your money stolen in front of you. The opaque, governmental way is to have it stolen in 3% to 5% increments every year via government-mandated inflation.

  12. Reply to Comment - Beta, why no default subject li by pla · · Score: 2

    If you hold your own Bitcoins in a local wallet, then yes, a handful of confirmations adequately proves you really do have those coins.

    As soon as you entrust them to someone else to store in a pooled account, bam, confirmability lost.

    A key philosophy behind the BTC protocol assumes direct person-to-person transactions. If you adhere to that, you don't get screwed by a failed exchange; for that matter, you don't even care about the existence of an exchange... Except insofar as they help define the "worth" of a Bitcoin as a medium of trade. Though, with the likes of Overstock accepting BTC now, the marketplace itself might soon serve that function without needing an external point of reference.

  13. Re: No Symapthy for BETA SUCKING by pla · · Score: 2

    The only reason people were into this was to either trade in illegal goods and services or be cutting edge with something that only really served to facilitate illegal activity.

    Fuck you very much, sir.

    I, and the vast majority of Bitcoin users, engage in entirely legitimate commerce with BTC as the medium of exchange. Heck, I even declared my BTC gains on my taxes last year, fer chrissakes.

    Now, when I want to score a quarter of weed - You ever actually try to buy anything with BTC, or just mindlessly parroting the FUD about Silk Road? My dealer takes USD only, thanks.

  14. Re:Reply to Comment - Beta, why no default subject by devman · · Score: 2
    Overstock is only accepting bitcoin via an exchange so the items are not truly priced in BTC.

    Overstock doesn't hold BTC, they convert it via CoinBase. Coinbase sets Overstock's BTC prices for them by using the current exchange rate. When you go to checkout with BTC you get a quote for the price that is only good short amount of time, if you don't pay the invoice within that window you have to start over and get a new price quote.

  15. Re:Fractional Reserve by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except banks have multiple layers of safety nets to cover depositors and investors if things go bad.

    Climbing a mountain with and without a rope are identical most of the time, but the difference is very important under certain conditions.

  16. Re:The Free Market by akirapill · · Score: 2

    You have anarchy wrong. Anarchists are not against government regulation. They are against power. If a small amount of government regulation results in a large reduction in corporate power, some anarchists (such as this one) would support that.

  17. Re:dark matters render onto series continues.. by davester666 · · Score: 2

    sorry, you are only allowed to do this sort of thing with impunity if you work on wallstreet.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  18. When you asked for it and they couldn't provide by sirwired · · Score: 2

    Well, when this happens to an actual bank, you have $5k up until the day the bank stops paying withdrawals, at which point you have some amount less than $5k. How much less is determined by value of the assets that remain on the books, which is usually much higher than $0. When an FDIC-insured bank fails, usually depositors eventually recover some amount over 90% of their uninsured assets as the government "winds down" the bank by selling off the loans at market value and distributing the proceeds.

    Without regulation? I suppose how much in the way of assets they have left to portion out to depositors just depends on how long their cash or credit reserves last... All Mt. Gox had was what a banker would call "reserves", and they ran those down to $0 before shutting the doors. In that case, you have $5k up until the point they couldn't pay out withdrawals, at which point it instantly went from $5k to $0.

  19. Not dollars by phorm · · Score: 2

    No, bitcoins have been stolen. They're not recognised as currency or really as property in Tokyo, so essentially nothing was stolen. Perhaps with this revelation there might be a case for fraud, but not as likely for theft.

  20. Re:The Free Market by codebonobo · · Score: 2

    That all depends on how one prefers to be robbed. The transparent, libertarian way is to have your money stolen in front of you. The opaque, governmental way is to have it stolen in 3% to 5% increments every year via government-mandated inflation.

    You are being far too kind sir, the CPI was juked in the 80s by removing "fuel" and "Food". 2 variables that everyone somewhat depends upon. Most are losing 5-13% a year in the most stable Fiat worldwide; other national currencies are much worse.

  21. Not a bitcoin failure by sjames · · Score: 2

    This is not a bitcoin failure. Nothing about bitcoin failed here.

    This is MtGox, a sorta-kinda but not really bank like entity (relax, trust us) that failed in a big way. Either it really got hacked and lost the bitcoin, or it was a giant fraud an it stole the bitcoin itself.

  22. Re:Currencies aren't sentient by Dagger2 · · Score: 2

    Yep. It's a payment network. It doesn't need to satisfy the requirements for real money, it just needs to satisfy the requirements for making payments.

  23. Re:Reply to Comment - Beta, why no default subject by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Though, with the likes of Overstock accepting BTC now, the marketplace itself might soon serve that function without needing an external point of reference.

    Why is this lie perpetually getting repeated? Hell, some moron even modded it up. Overstock (and Tigerdirect, etc) do not accept bitcoins as payment.

    Once again for those of you too stupid to read carefully - No major retailer accepts bitcoins as tender!. Some of them allow you to pay via an exchange such as coinbase, but note that even though the customer is parting with bitcoins, the seller is only ever receiving dollars (AKA real currency).

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.