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."

6 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 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?

    3. 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."
    4. 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

  2. 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.