Slashdot Mirror


Mt. Gox CEO Returns To Twitter, Enrages Burned Investors

An anonymous reader writes Mark Karpeles doesn't seem to understand how much anger and trouble the $400 million Mt. Gox fiasco caused his customers. According to Wired: "After a long absence, the Mt Gox CEO has returned to Twitter with a bizarre string of tone-deaf tweets that were either written by a Turing test chat bot, or by a man completely oblivious to the economic chaos he has wrought. His first message after losing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins? 'What would we do without busybox?'—a reference to a slimmed-down Linux operating system used on devices such as routers. He's also Tweeted about a noodle dish called yakisoba and Japanese transportation systems." Andreas Antonopoulos, the CSO with Blockchain says, "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

281 comments

  1. He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by BlueKitties · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We all know after any wrong doing, a person must offer up at least three goats to the Social Justice Warrior spirits in order to quench their bloodlust.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually surprised he's still alive. Losing that much money is bound to piss off the wrong person.

    2. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      He's in Japan. Surely there's nobody over there who would possibly want to use a completely anonymous and untraceable monetary system that would ever dream of causing any discomfort to another human being...

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      If he'd lost Yakuza money presumably he'd already be dead. On the other hand if he is Yakuza...

    4. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'd have been compelled to or otherwise coerced into killing himself.

    5. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this flamebait? Bitcoins were practically MADE for shady deals and businesses and these people threw their "property" into the hands of a guy who anybody with even a teeny tiny bit of due diligence would have been able to find out he knows less about financial exchanges and Internet security than my southern ass knows about snowblowers so they lost their e-gambling money...and? Why should he give a fuck? I'm sure HE made out like a bandit, HE got paid, should why should he care about those that threw their e-money on the table and lost?

      Frankly this whole thing reminds me of those "only in FLA" stories where somebody goes bitching to the cops that their coke was cut with baby powder. If you use Bitcoins you are dealing with a currency that has ZERO safety nets, hell the reason why it became popular was places like Silk Road where you could buy anything and everything from drugs and CP to hitmen, and you trusted your BC to some yahoo that ran a fricking Magic:The Gathering trading club...really? And we are supposed to feel bad you got buttfucked after doing something so incredibly fucking stupid?

      I'm sorry but I can't feel any more sorry for these geniuses than I can the stupid bitch that sent her life savings to a Nigerian prince...you threw it away on a scam, learn from your stupidity and move on. this guy isn't gonna care anymore than the 419 guys care about who they scammed, so why go on about it?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      if he was yakuza, why would you assume he "lost" it?

    7. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Wait a sec. He had a Magic: the Gathering club? That's cool. I loved playing Magic back in the day. Never got too deep into it, but it was fun if you ignored the greedy bastards in it.

      So he migrated from one overpriced product that made it easy to scam someone, to another.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Knuckx · · Score: 5, Informative

      MTGOX
      Magic The Gathering Online eXchange

      He couldn't even be bothered to get a new domain name...

    9. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidently, the Yakuza are too smart to lose their money on a silly gamble like Bitcoin.

    10. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      MtGOX stood for Magic the Gathering Online eXchange...see what I mean about due diligence? You are trusting millions of dollars in virtual property to a guy whose ONLY previous experience of note was running a trading club for a card game...really? NO experience in financial markets, NO experience in Internet Security or crypto, and THIS is whom you are gonna trust with a truckload of untraceable cash?

      I'm sorry if this hurts somebody's feelings or is too rough of a wake up call but there is stupid, fucking stupid, and pants on head "WTF ARE YOU DOING DUMBASS???" levels of stupid and this whole thing? Firmly in the latter. It would be like saying that because I have run a little PC shop for years that qualifies me to be the head of the IMF...hell I've handled money, made change, not THAT much different...right?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe he bought it as a Bitcoin exchange and never actually ran it as a card exchange. There are rumors of a dodgy history in France before he moved to Japan also.

    12. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct. The mtgox domain was registered by Jed McCaleb (who created eDonkey) to use as a trading card site in 2007. He reused the domain in when he created the bitcoin exchange. Then he sold the whole operation to Mark Karpeles, who is the person this article is about.

    13. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you use Bitcoins you are dealing with a currency that has ZERO safety nets

      Not so. It's not treated as investment or cash, sure, so you don't get any protections like you do with banks. But insofar as it's good available for sale, if you pay and the seller does not deliver, you can certainly sue him, and the state will prosecute and will force him to part with cash - if he has any.

    14. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what on earth does this have to do with social justice? why would they care about bitcoin?

    15. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by coaxial · · Score: 1

      you trusted your BC to some yahoo that ran a fricking Magic:The Gathering trading club...really?

      What? You don't do all your banking at the comic book shop?

    16. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that at inception it was the ONLY public exchange for those wishing to exchange their Bitcoins, and at the time of its fall it was thus naturally the exchange with longest experience in running Bitcoin exchange. If going by your "due diligence" and "prior experience", it's the people who WEREN'T using MtGox you should be calling dumbasses. But hindsight is 20/20 - until the last months of MtGox's earthly existence, pretty much every Bitcoin advocate and site were directing people to MtGox, until it was indeed too late to get anything out anymore.

      On the other hand, majority of Bitcoin exchanges have folded under suspicious circumstances - thus far, many more will still do in future, but as long as more services pop up than go under, people can go frothing at the mouth about "You retarded imbeciles just chose the wrong exchange". The truth is that it's inherently risky anyway, but if you have Bitcoins you will eventually have to use some kind of an exchange, even if only to cash out. But the one you consider safe today may be closed tomorrow, and it's always easier to point out the failures after the fact.

    17. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

      until the last months of MtGox's earthly existence, pretty much every Bitcoin advocate and site were directing people to MtGox, until it was indeed too late to get anything out anymore.

      Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    18. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Mondor · · Score: 2

      Furthermore, why would you assume he "lost" it, whether or not he is Yakuza?

    19. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Surely there's nobody over there who would possibly want to use a completely anonymous and untraceable monetary system that would ever dream of causing any discomfort to another human being...

      It's not a problem... those people have the $$$ now

      Also.... Karpeles is portrayed to the world as weasel and an self-centered arrogant moronic arsehole.

      It's not clear whether he is too stupid to understand the real dangers and how his tweets will be interpreted, or if it's intentional self-deprecation possibly advised by PR/lawyers in attempt to help evade accountability.

    20. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'Social Justice Warrior' is a code word. It's used by guys who have no real skills to compete with in the world, but who think that just having a penis entitles them to something.

    21. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >NO experience in Internet Security or crypto
      Hey!
      He totally made an ssh server in php! That counts as expirience! It's bad expirience. Like saying my expirience with firearm safety is shooting everyone I see is the face, but it *is* expirience.

    22. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      you trusted your BC to some yahoo that ran a fricking Magic:The Gathering trading club...really?

      What? You don't do all your banking at the comic book shop?

      might be safer to put your money into comic books rather than bitcoin, ha ha.

      the thing is, the coins have fluctuated in dollar value but actually haven't crashed or disappeared.

      MTGOX was just one exchange, and a goofy one at that IMO, there are many others and more will come.

      BTC isn't going anywhere. Both as an idea and a currency.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    23. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. It's almost like you couldn't find anything worse about the guy other than his website name.

    24. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      He'd have been compelled to or otherwise coerced into killing himself.

      Well, don't you get to give up a pinky finger for your first offense? Bonus points if you do it by yourself? Extra bonus for a dull knife.

    25. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even more almost like he was asked a question and then answered it. Crazy, I know.

    26. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of an idiot?

    27. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! An expirienced one.

    28. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      places like Silk Road where you could buy anything and everything from drugs and CP to hitmen

      There was never any CP or hitmen on the Silk Road, although its founder allegedly hired a hit man outside the site. I just wouldn't want to conflate the good people who just want privacy and drugs with terrible people who abuse children and murder.

    29. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not correct.

    30. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. I've been thinking that this whole time. Utterly amazed he is still alive.

      Probably something to do with my own low regard for human life and willingness to take it if I had to or even if I just really wanted to. I just always assume someone like him is a huge target with a short expiration date.

      Then I realize in order to understand human events, I need to try to relate to the vast masses of people for whom murder would never even occur as a potential solution.

      "Oh yeah.. people don't just kill each other."

      In the end, it supposedly means I'm a bad person for wishing he was dead just because I lost $48k which isn't that huge of a loss to me but still enough to kind of piss me off when I'm reminded.

    31. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't the same be said about the stock market? So I guess its ok to just let people fuck others over with no repercussions? Lets just take it back to the 1929 since you think its so great.

    32. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      bitcoin isn't money, so you didn't pay him.

      The money in question is the dollars (or any other local currency) that was paid for bitcoins.

      Bitcoins aren't even property (depending on jurisdiction) so he didn't even steal anything.

      They sure are in any place that taxes capital gains on them. This includes US.

    33. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      If he'd lost Yakuza money presumably he'd already be dead. On the other hand if he is Yakuza...

      Yakuza or no Yakuza, you DO NOT want to lose Yakuza money. Jokes aside, some people think the Yakuza are just some film-generated form of fiction. Been in Japan a few times, I've seen them. They are real, and you can just tell you don't want to mess with them, their property or their money.

    34. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry but I can't feel any more sorry for these geniuses than I can the stupid bitch that sent her life savings to a Nigerian prince...you threw it away on a scam, learn from your stupidity and move on. this guy isn't gonna care anymore than the 419 guys care about who they scammed, so why go on about it?

      So scams are okay because only stupid people fall for them? Got it. But I have to wonder: why limit this to just intellectual weaknesses? Surely the same principle works just as well for people who fail to have a horde of bloodthirsty Viking warriors guard their house (and thus deserve to have it looted), fail to drive a tank (and thus deserve to have a road-raging truck driver smash them to pulp) or fail to wear a chain mail all the time (and thus deserve to be stabbed by a mugger).

      Or perhaps you meant it's okay to prey on weaknesses you don't think you have? In other words, it's okay to prey on people other than you, but not you? Which is fine, but other people aren't identical so their list of acceptable targets will leave you vulnerable. The way people have historically solved this is develop the concept of ethics where it's not okay to prey on anyone. Any deviation from this norm has tended to cause unnecessary strife.

      So no, no one's asking you to feel anything for anyone. Just understand that if you approve of victimizing other people for any reason, even a "stupid bitch", you are weakening your own armor. Even a sociopath should be able to comprehend the concept of self-interest.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy who originally owned the name was Jed McCaleb. He's a web developer with a lot of small pet projects, basically, Mt. Gox being among them. It never actually served the role it was named for as a card exchange; he worked on it for a bit and then got tired of it or something and used it for promotions instead. Later he used the domain for a bitcoin exchange. He sold the site to Mark Karpelès when it got too big and was too much work for his level of interest in it.

      There's more to it than that but that's the gist of it.

    36. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      All they can do is kill you...just like any other human being. Well, torture.....shut up!

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    37. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

      The Yakuza always get paid.

    38. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the new category: Put real money into e-money into Offshore hole stupid.

    39. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Given that lots of criminals lost money, if I had been the CEO I'd still be in hiding instead of twittering, even if it wasn't my fault.

    40. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No experience was what some of these bitcoin holders wanted! Otherwise they'd have used a real bank with real currency.

      Face it, it was a web site, giving valuable money to a web site as an investment seriously deserves a ton of due diligence, whether or not bitcoin was used.

    41. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    42. Re:He didn't sacrifice a goat to the SJWs. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't.

      Karpalas bought a company called MtGox from an early Bitcoin pioneer, who'd originally intended to start a Magic: The Gathering exchange product, and registered the name Mt Gox with the intention of doing this. Said person then decided to go into Bitcoins instead, long before Karpalas entered the scene.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man who quite obviously ran an elaborate scam and legally (as far as I'm concerned) stole money from a bunch of morons and suckers is a narcissist and sociopath. Are we supposed to be surprised?
    This guy is like people who rob little old ladies and see nothing wrong with it.

    1. Re:This just in. by sexconker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Man who quite obviously ran an elaborate scam and legally (as far as I'm concerned) stole money from a bunch of morons and suckers is a narcissist and sociopath. Are we supposed to be surprised?
      This guy is like people who rob little old ladies and see nothing wrong with it.

      How was it legal? He stole people's property.

    2. Re:This just in. by khallow · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't against the law in Japan, then it's legal. He's still walking around so I guess it probably wasn't obviously illegal.

    3. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bitcoins are property? Some people think so, but I don't. Even if they are, they have no intrinsic value. Only fake delusional value.

    4. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, "You cannot cheat an honest man."

      posting AC because I modded parent "insightful".

    5. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's already a CEO but he's definitely cut out to be a politician. He just needs to work on his re-direction, and learn how to hide his wrong-doings.

    6. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't against the law in Japan, then it's legal. He's still walking around so I guess it probably wasn't obviously illegal.

      "Illegal" does not necessarily mean "moral".

    7. Re:This just in. by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively, whatever he did *was* illegal in Japan, but law enforcement was not able to prove what he did. I don;t know anything about Japanese law, but I do know that the fact that someone has not been imprisoned does not mean that they haven't committed any crimes, it just means they haven't been caught if they did.

    8. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correction: "Legal" does not necessarily mean " moral". Big difference.

    9. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Morals. Bitcoin. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha good one.

    10. Re:This just in. by khallow · · Score: 1

      We are all quite aware that losing $400 million of your customers' money due to slapdash incompetence or outright fraud is immoral even when it is legal to do so.

    11. Re:This just in. by youngone · · Score: 1, Funny

      But there are some Unicorns and Rainbows, right?

    12. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But nothing physical was taken. How is that loss different from pirated videos or music?

    13. Re:This just in. by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Virtual property.

    14. Re:This just in. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Because, "You cannot cheat an honest man."

      Of course you can. Haven't you ever been shortchanged? You can't hustle an honest man.
      Hustling is making the victim think he's cheating you.

    15. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet no one is willing to kill him. What a bunch of pussies.

    16. Re:This just in. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      most countries do not recognise virtual goods as property (though that is changing) and they certainly don't recognise bitcoin as currency. As such even if it could be proved he stole them I doubt there is much that could be done in most countries, regulations have upsides as well as downsides, many with their heads in the sand didn't seem to realise this.

    17. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know. I've been rolling on the floor watching these bitcoin reports go by. Someone creates an anonymous, untraceable and intentionally unregulated way of exchanging money. That should be your first clue to run the other way as quickly as possible. But instead, a bunch of people start shouting "hurray! this is wonderful! those damn governments and their rules! No we can put it to "the man" and not be burdened by their silly rules! Being anti-establishment makes us so cool!" somehow thinking that anonymous people on the internet are somehow more trustworthy. Then when the blind sheep are fleeced, the first thing that happens is a great hue and cry for "Call the police! I've been robbed! They've broken the law! Justice! I demand justice!" - going right back to the same governments they had decried before, back to the same rules and regulations that they had scoffed at before - all for the very same reasons that those rules and regulations and agencies had been setup in the first place - because anonymous people will rob you blind if you give them a chance. A lesson learned by most people ages ago - but something that is apparently news to the new generation of ever-so-wise, anti-establishment, internet geeks who somehow thing that basic human behavior is now different because they have a computer...

      Sadly, no lesson was learned, no wisdom won. I've yet to see a post saying "oh, well, I guess there is a reason for those laws and regulations. I guess that thinking that a trick of technology could fix human behavior was naive. I guess this is what I should have expected all along." Alas, this also fails to surprise - it is also human nature to close one's eyes and fervently believe that the reason that one's pants are on fire couldn't possibly have anything to do with one's decision to walk through puddles of gasoline while smoking a cigarette...

    18. Re:This just in. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      What did he steal? It's not a currency, the whole point of bitcoin is that it doesn't have any of the usual financial protections. Now people find out that there's a downside.

    19. Re:This just in. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      He stole people's property.

      Did he? They gave him bitcoins to hold onto for them, now the bitcoins are gone. That's about all we know. If he stole them then where are they? Or where are the proceeds of them?

    20. Re:This just in. by khallow · · Score: 1

      But nothing physical was taken. How is that loss different from pirated videos or music?

      The value of pirated videos or music has no demonstrated value. There's no evidence that the provider of music or video actually suffered a loss. The bitcoins in question had a monetary value of $400 million. That is, they could be exchanged for that much at the time. $400 million buys you a lot of physical stuff.

    21. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of "us" are 'aware' of what's moral. And that's kind of the big problem with "us".

    22. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never trust fat people. Disgusting fucks can't even keep their hunger under control.

    23. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can "fool" an honest man, but you cannot cheat him.

    24. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, if you try to hustle an honest man, you are only cheating yourself.

    25. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I'm confused. He absconded with strings of bits. Normally, on Slashdot, it is scoffed at that strings of bits can be "property" and can be "stolen."

    26. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, "You cannot cheat an honest man."

      Of course you can. Haven't you ever been shortchanged? You can't hustle an honest man.
      Hustling is making the victim think he's cheating you.

      An honest man can be both fooled and hustled, of course. That's easy for a hustler. Being honest doesn't mean or equal ignorance. An honest man chooses not to do what a dishonest mqn would do to him.

    27. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did he steal? It's not a currency, the whole point of bitcoin is that it doesn't have any of the usual financial protections. Now people find out that there's a downside.

      Yep, and yup, it is stealing. Perceived value, perhaps, none the less, has value to some. Theft is theft. A rapist or murderer does not value his victim's body or life as having worth. That does not in any way mean the victimized has not worth, it only means the victimizer believes the victim has no worth.

    28. Re:This just in. by schnell · · Score: 0

      There's no evidence that the provider of music or video actually suffered a loss.

      Okay, here's some evidence for you. I will freely admit that if I could not have downloaded Season 3 of Game of Thrones, I would have shelled out $40 to get it on BluRay. HBO and/or the makers of the show and/or whatever retailer I would have bought the set from lost $40. I liked the shows enough to watch them but I really don't feel like paying $40 after having watched them all just to ease my commercial equivalent of a conscience. True fact and actual value lost.

      So what now? Can we be done with the "nobody lost anything because of downloading" argument once and for all and move on to something more substantial as a reason for both copyright reform and ethical Internet usage?

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    29. Re:This just in. by khallow · · Score: 1

      So what now? Can we be done with the "nobody lost anything because of downloading" argument once and for all and move on to something more substantial as a reason for both copyright reform and ethical Internet usage?

      Of course not. You aren't the only alleged pirate out there. And your behavior may be typical of the breed, but that hasn't been shown.

    30. Re:This just in. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      An interesting and dangerous reminder of the nature of bitcoins. I am sure there were many bitcoin users who expressly intended to cheat on taxes and hide other criminal financial transactions. I'd bet a lot of them wont be laughing until, well, Mark Karpeles, 'er', twitters no more. Likely safest place for him right now is prison. Bitcoin is a seriously dangerous currency to play with.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    31. Re: This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're right. We should only use approved credit cards because it is better to have all your transactions traced. Middlemen are great! Bonus for you is that *you* get to pay *them* to track you. Oh, and they can decline your card without any reason if it suits them. Digital currencies are coming and one day we will use them every day and say "Meh. What was the big commotion about?"

    32. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value of pirated videos or music has no demonstrated value.

      Really? How interesting.

      The bitcoins in question had a monetary value of $400 million.

      Yeah. Sorry. Your idea is terrible, and you should feel terrible.

      I've seen more people hawking pirate DVDs on the corner than I ever have seen businesses accepting bitcoin.

      If pirated content has no demonstrated value, then bitcoin has no demonstrated value.

    33. Re:This just in. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      How was it legal? He stole people's property.

      So, bitcoins are now property that you can steal?

      Please show me a law that shows bitcoins are any more real or worth any more than virtual gold in World of Warcraft.

    34. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 0

      This here is what's known as a straw-man. There are very few people who actually think the way you are painting a huge number of people. Oh wait, an AC troll. Wasting my time.

    35. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Not all the bitcoins have been lost. Killing him might make those still under his control become inaccessible.

      This is purely conjecture, I never had an account on Gox.

    36. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Just like a comment from an AC.

    37. Re: This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that piece of paper in your wallet with a "20" on it has some intrinsic value...

    38. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Your bank account is just virtual property.

    39. Re:This just in. by Camael · · Score: 1

      Okay, here's some evidence for you. I will freely admit that if I could not have downloaded Season 3 of Game of Thrones, I would have shelled out $40 to get it on BluRay. HBO and/or the makers of the show and/or whatever retailer I would have bought the set from lost $40. I liked the shows enough to watch them but I really don't feel like paying $40 after having watched them all just to ease my commercial equivalent of a conscience. True fact and actual value lost. So what now? Can we be done with the "nobody lost anything because of downloading" argument once and for all and move on to something more substantial as a reason for both copyright reform and ethical Internet usage?

      Your mistake is in assuming you speak for everyone else. Not everyone who downloads would have bought the set if the downloads were not available for various reasons (eg set not available locally, lack of interest, lack of funds). Hence, no direct link of cause and effect evidencing actual loss insofar as other cases of infringement are concerned.

      In your case however, given your own admission which can be used against you, there is a direct link hence actual evidence of loss. Be happy you're not sued in court.

    40. Re: This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want untraceable and transactions not being tracked, send good old US cash. It is better than using electronic currency because there is no chain of the transaction at all (can't say that for bitcoin that naturally has a record of the transaction floating around). You can do that now and any time up to now. There is a a lot of good reason why the average person is not dumb enough to do that though but oddly people think because it is a bitcoin, there is a difference? For untracability, there is little to no difference between cash and bitcoin.

      Now... there are disadvantages to sending cash. It takes a long time for it to get there but that is a different issue aside from being untraceable and anonymous. Until some form of electronic cash gets some type of protection for the average consumer, it is NOT going to catch on. The average person is far more worried about being ripped off sending a form cash then they are about someone tracking their purchase. I bet you are too. So.. Bitcoin has ZERO protection for the purchaser.

      I pay with a credit card. I get double my warranty protection, 90 days of loss/theft protection for the stuff I buy, points and or cash back, zero liability if something fraudulent happens, accidental death insurance, free rental car insurance and the list goes on.

      To sum it up..
      Bitcoin is not more anonymous than cash. Bitcoin is FAR less safer for a person to use than anything but cash. Why are the bulk mass of people going to start using it again and why?

    41. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the classic Slashdot "straw man": what one says when one cannot come up with a counter-argument and they want to end discussion.

    42. Re: This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your saying entertainment has no demonstrated value? I think the rest of the world may disagree with you. Bitcoin has no demonstrated value , hence its wild fluctuations.

    43. Re:This just in. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Stolen doesn't just apply to the physical world. It means that you've been deprived of something you previously possessed.

      If your physical thing is stolen, you no long possess it.
      If your asset is stolen, you no longer possess it. Most people have digital assets in the form of cash in a bank or stocks in an account; there is nothing physical for either. Bit coins fall in this category.
      If your trade secret is stolen, you no longer have a secret.

      If your copyright is infringed upon, you still hold the copyright.
      If your patent is infringed upon, you still hold the patent.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    44. Re:This just in. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If your copyright is infringed upon, you still hold the copyright.

      So if infringe on your privacy rights that's ok because you still have privacy rights?

    45. Re:This just in. by KramberryKoncerto · · Score: 1

      Transferring a Bitcoin does not transfer the access to data. You can access exactly the same string of bits (wallet) before and after you make a transaction. Anyway, if someone takes money from your bank account without your consent, by your way of thinking he won't be stealing your money.

    46. Re:This just in. by coaxial · · Score: 3, Insightful
    47. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike bitcoin, banking is heavily regulated.

    48. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If pirated movies or music had no demonstrated value, then nobody would be uploading or downloading them. The fact that there is a demand for them proves that they DO have a value for the people downloading them. Pirates simply don't want to pay the producers of the content and opt to take instead simply because they can. A pirated media is indeed a lost sale in most circumstances because once they have the pirated good, they will no longer need to obtain the media via legitimate means. Don't give me the "I was never going to buy it to begin with, so it isn't a loss" argument either. You perfectly well know that if it wasn't available for download for free and you wanted it bad enough you would have gotten your ass to Redbox, bought the disc or streamed it from Amazon.

    49. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cite lack of interest as a legitimate excuse for piracy!?! If people weren't interested in what they pirated they would have never downloaded it to begin with. Since when is lack of money a legitimate excuse. You don't need game of thrones or episodes of honey boo boo to stay alive. Its not like you taking a loaf of bread to feed your family. We'd all like things we can't afford, but that's life. LIfe ain't fair. Deal with it.

      What evidence do you require to establish a direct link of cause? I'd really like to know, otherwise you'll just keep on shifting the goalposts. You are pretending that the above poster is just an isolated incident is intellectually dishonest. You know perfectly well that most pirates are living in first world countries where the content is available via legitimate means and can afford to buy the products they take. They simply choose not to because they don't want to and feel they don't have to.

    50. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he would have got away with with it except for those damn Libertarians.

      Oh wait he did guess the magic hand of the market was busy that day and having no police force and no regulations already in place and paid for wasnt optimal in this case.

    51. Re:This just in. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      This here is what's known as a straw-man.

      It could be a strawman, if he were debating you. However, I'm inclined to believe he's just mocking those outraged libertarians who are reaping what they've sown.

      Not everything is a debate.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    52. Re:This just in. by tritorch · · Score: 1

      Uh, if the government were trustworthy you might have a point worth making here, but as it stands the government is not and no one would accuse them of being so. The regulation you speak so reverently of is indeed great... until the regulators get captured and congress gets bought, then regulation becomes a tool of the corporations and special interests to block out competition and form monopolies. Regulation starts out as government controlling corporations and soon morphs into corporations controlling the government with the government becoming a feral dog they unleash on anyone who challenges them.

      Let the bitcoin exchanges crash and burn due to corruption. It is a good thing. Lessons will be learned anew and better, stronger, more trustworthy exchanges will rise from the ashes. Bitcoin is a reset button in more ways than one and lessons will need to be learned again, but in the end a trustworthy system will emerge from the ashes of failure.

      Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

      --
      You will never get what you deserve You've got to take what you want Let the idiots burn.
    53. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Illegal" does not necessarily mean "moral".

      I realize you corrected yourself to say "'Legal' does not necessarily mean 'moral'", but I wanted to respond to the older post, and did not want someone to accuse me of a misquote.

      Anyway... you are the first person in this thread to bring up morals. So while you are technically true, your comment contributes nothing to the conversation. Because the police can only arrest someone based on legal/illegal, not moral/immoral.

    54. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Section 9 should investigate.

    55. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You miss the point.

    56. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      I run with libertarians. There are only a small proportion that don't believe that there is a small role for the state, mostly in enforcing contracts but also other law & order functions.

      It could be argued that these people reaped what they sowed but on the other hand, they would also say that they have been denied the system they would have used to address their grievances by government interference.

      So if "straw man" was incorrect, I'm happy to accept "misinformed" or "willfully ignorant"

    57. Re:This just in. by tbannist · · Score: 1

      So if "straw man" was incorrect, I'm happy to accept "misinformed" or "willfully ignorant"

      Those charges are reasonable, though I'm not sure that I'd agree. I seem to remember quite a few self-proclaimed libertarians talking about the glorious benefits of an absence of regulation... This episode seems to indicate some of the often overlooked benefits of regulation...

      On the other hand, I do not know what contracts they had, or thought they had with Mt. Gox, or what the "system they would have used to address their grievances" would actually be.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    58. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it's literally the same people who both
      1) hate all government rules
      2) want existing government rules enforced

      You don't need to be (1) to use BTC, since it's legally recognized property in the USA (2). Most of the time our percieved hypocrisy of other political groups is because it's actually people with different views who are lumped together. When you zoom in on individual people, any group has much less hypocrisy.

    59. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if "straw man" was incorrect, I'm happy to accept "misinformed" or "willfully ignorant"

      A self-righteous prick and a libertarian in the same body. Shocker.

    60. Re: This just in. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Your saying entertainment has no demonstrated value?

      No, I didn't say that.

    61. Re:This just in. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      You don't need game of thrones or episodes of honey boo boo to stay alive.

      Somedays I think Honey Boo Boo needs episodes of Honey Boo Boo to stay alive. Without that income I'm sure she and he mother would be dead by now. I'm not saying this is a good thing.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    62. Re:This just in. by khallow · · Score: 1

      If pirated movies or music had no demonstrated value, then nobody would be uploading or downloading them.

      Downloading for free. That's the whole point of software piracy. And that deflates your argument.

    63. Re:This just in. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Infringing copyright deprives the copyright holders right to dictate distribution.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    64. Re:This just in. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      How was it legal? He stole people's property.

      People gave him software bits that isn't stealing somebody's property. More over for all the crowing about how fantastic an unregulated and untraceable currency is there seems to a lot of idiots regretting the choice to store that data with some random corporation under no legal obligations to keep it safe or secure it against regulated assets.

      You wanted unregulated and untraceable well now you see that has its pitfalls too, it's not all unicorns and rainbows.

      The money in your bank account is nothing more than "software bits". If I took them and moved them to my account, would you be fine with that?
      No, you wouldn't, you fucking dipshit.

    65. Re:This just in. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      How was it legal? He stole people's property.

      So, bitcoins are now property that you can steal?

      Please show me a law that shows bitcoins are any more real or worth any more than virtual gold in World of Warcraft.

      How about you show me a law that says bits are NOT property?
      Start with the balance of your checking account.

    66. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "reason that one's pants are on fire couldn't possibly have anything to do with one's decision to walk through puddles of gasoline while smoking a cigarette..."

      Gasoline fumes are heavier than air, so while it would not be SMART to walk through the puddles with a cig going, it might be not as unsafe as you imply. At least not until the footsteps stir up the air.

      Walking through puddles of kerosene or diesel fuel would be safe. The flashpoint is much higher.

    67. Re:This just in. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No we can put it to "the man" and not be burdened by their silly rules! Being anti-establishment makes us so cool!

      Bitcoin is simply digital cash. It allows two parties to engage in a transaction without requiring a permission from a third party. Does that count as "anti-establishment" in your book? Do you also "roll on the floor" when someone gets their wallet stolen, since obviously they were some kind of anarchist to carry cash with them in the first place?

      All kinds of idiots...

      anonymous people will rob you blind if you give them a chance

      And keeping everyone under constant surveillance means your every action is subject to other people's approval, whether it actually concerns them in any way or not. East Germany was not a nice place to live. No panopticon ever is.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:This just in. by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      How was it legal? He stole people's property.

      So, bitcoins are now property that you can steal?

      Please show me a law that shows bitcoins are any more real or worth any more than virtual gold in World of Warcraft.

      The IRS says Bitcoin is legally property, if you think that doesn't hold the force of law go ahead and try to defy them on that.

      --

      Enigma

    69. Re:This just in. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A bitcoin is property, in a reasonable sense of the word. It's no more fanciful than copyrights, or for that matter dollars. There's lots of things that really don't exist that are traded anyway (commodities options, for example). The US has at least de facto recognized them as property by auctioning off confiscated bitcoins, and has at least de facto recognized bitcoin exchanges as operations by saying they need to obey certain reporting laws. There is nothing inherently shady about bitcoin exchanges.

      So, what the people who are complaining are really saying is that somebody stole their money and their bitcoins. It's not like they were appealing to the law because anything illegal was stolen from them. It's not like the same thing couldn't happen with actual internationally recognized money. The idea that bitcoins can't be traced easily doesn't mean that people dealing with them are beyond the law.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    70. Re:This just in. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's not the whole point.

      Some people simply can't get a legitimate copy of something (more often video or audio rather than software). They'd be perfectly willing to pay. I'm not saying this is necessarily moral, but they're not doing it to avoid payment.

      I once legitimately bought a game, and couldn't play it because of the DRM. I downloaded a version from Pirate Bay, and then I could play the game I had spent actual money on. (If the copyright owners call, tell 'em I'm calling it fair use.) Again, this would be considered software piracy, but it wasn't motivated by a desire to avoid payment.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    71. Re:This just in. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The FBI thought bitcoins were real enough to auction them off. I don't think they do that with WoW gold.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    72. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Regulation is one thing, low & order another. Regulation didn't prevent Bernie Madoff but he is currently warming a cell.

      As to the systems to address grievances. I'm only passing familiar with a few and not going to enumerate the few I do know but the information is out there. Rest assured that absence of state based regulation and laws does not mean "We sit around and let people do what they want to us".

    73. Re:This just in. by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Begone, troll.

    74. Re: This just in. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But it will retain a perceived value very well. It may fluctuate, decline over time, but it is not nearly so volatile as some like to claim.

      For example with the big wall street crash, the day after that one million in stock was worth not much at all, but if you had one million worth of actual dollars, you still owned a lot of value. Sure the value of the dollar went down in the crash but it did not fall nearly so precipitously as most of the stock did. Those dollars were still the major unit of exchange on the street. A nickel could get you a loaf of bread but a stock certificate would get you a laugh.

    75. Re:This just in. by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      People keep using the term "Fair Use" in a legal context as though it means what it would mean in an ordinary conversation. It does not mean that your 'use' is 'fair', but rather that it complies with the specific exceptions to Copyright law that are granted under that title. Call it whatever you like; as you say, it's still infringing copyright (and also the DMCA, due to that handy little anti-circumvention section, since you mention DRM), and the courts would find against you as such.

      Not directing this at david_thornley, it's just a clarification that I feel should be made more often; particularly on Slashdot.

    76. Re:This just in. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Call it whatever you like; as you say, it's still infringing copyright

      Not according to a ruling by david_thornley. I think I'll side with him. I want my free stuff.

    77. Re:This just in. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In one of the big smash-the-small-time-noncommercial-copier cases, the judge said that he'd consider an argument for fair use as applied to torrents of stuff the defendant had already paid for, which is what the situation is here. I'm claiming here that one judge has suggested that may be fair use, and I haven't heard of any case law against it. (I do know the legal meaning of fair use, and that it's a legal excuse for copyright infringement - in other words, if defenses had to be rational, you could either claim you didn't violate copyright or that you had fair use privileges.) I don't know that a given court would agree, but I don't know that it would find against me.

      As far as the DRM goes, I'm not familiar with the DMCA, but if what I was doing is really DRM circumvention it was for the exact use that the DRM was intended to allow.

      Again, as always, if you're going to expose yourself to serious risk, consult a real lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, and should for legal purposes be considered as an opinionated kook with net access.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    78. Re:This just in. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Free stuff? The opinion I expressed on the law was explicitly about using stuff I had legitimately paid for for a legitimate purpose. I also explained that some people will pirate what they can't legitimately get, which is a grayer area that I described but not defended.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    79. Re:This just in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen more people hawking pirate DVDs on the corner than I ever have seen businesses accepting bitcoin.

      That's the kind of piracy that has *actual* damages associated with it. I would venture a guess that most people view that to be a bad thing, including everyday pirates frequenting Slashdot.

      For example, the Swedish Pirate Party does *not* condone that kind of piracy, since it's done explicitly for monetary gain that *does* derive *real* income from the copyright holder.

      Downloading stuff, for free, over the 'net is a different beast, for many - sometimes subtle, sometimes not - reasons, beaten to death many times over. They probably need repeating many times more, but I'm not going to do it here at this time.

      The point remains:

      Selling pirated DVDs is *bad* piracy. Ask any (non-DVD-selling) pirate and he/she will agree.

      Don't conflate different kinds of piracy. They really *are* different.

  3. Busybox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not an operating system.

    1. Re:Busybox by basecastula+ · · Score: 2

      Thank you for some sanity

    2. Re:Busybox by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its GNU/Busybox, thank you very much.

    3. Re:Busybox by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Busy box...equals successful hooker? *snork*

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

      Busybox isn't GNU.

    5. Re:Busybox by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Wait, that would make it BIG

    6. Re:Busybox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thatsthejoke.jpg

    7. Re:Busybox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not an operating system.

      Unlike emacs.

  4. Most Important by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    What did he say about yakisoba? Does he like? Hate it? Get some on his shirt?

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Most Important by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      What did he say about yakisoba? Does he like? Hate it? Get some on his shirt?

      In Japanese, "yaki" mean fried, and "soba" means noodles. So "yakisoba" is just fried noodles. There is a wide variety of yakisoba, with various additional ingredients and sauces. Unless you have celiac disease, you should be able to find some type of yakisoba that you like.

    2. Re:Most Important by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's where the money went. Yakisoba. A fuck-ton of it.

    3. Re:Most Important by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      That and frappuccinos.

    4. Re:Most Important by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      A fuck-ton, equivalent to sixteen 125-lb prostitutes.

    5. Re:Most Important by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Soon to be opened in Japan, Yakisoba Land! Come swim in pools of Yakisoba! Climb the squishy Yakisoba mountain! Sleep on Yakisoba beds! Snort it up one nostril and blow it out the other! Stick some down your pants! See the bitcoin that started it all!

  5. How do we know he's real? by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, first thing I would have though is "that's not actually him".

    1. Re:How do we know he's real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a simple test someone could perform to find out if he is real. It also may ease tensions about feeling "ripped off" afterwards. http://www.anony.ws/image/D2GA

    2. Re:How do we know he's real? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Karpeles: I want you to go to the press conference and pretend to be me.
      Lookalike: Why, is the yakuza after you?
      Karpeles: No, don't be silly. I'm just playing a big joke, we'll all have a laugh afterwords.
      Lookalike: So how come you're the only one who gets to wear the bullet proof vest?

  6. LOL by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have to say, the responses to his tweets are the funniest thing I've read all week.

    Jon Eaton @sketchy1poker 20m
    @MagicalTux die you fat fuck

    Angry Mofo @angrymofo Jun 18
    @MagicalTux Where's my Bitcoins you cunt ?

    Icecream @Bird8880 Jun 15
    @MagicalTux I hope you die in the next earthquake fat ass :)

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

      o_o What the fuck did I just read. You need help.

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

      Help in making a movie?

      I sense talent.

    3. Re:LOL by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      They used a :) not a >:( ?
      I'd use a smiley if I was making a cheeky remark to a cherished friend.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karpele stole 1.2 million $ in BTC from me. I only paid about $1,300 for those btc in 2010...

  7. An alternate explanatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OR.....the Twitter account could be compromised, and the attacker is trolling you. I mean, they don't exactly have a stellar security record.

    1. Re:An alternate explanatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some pretty lame trolling, then:

      PHP 5.6.0RC1 released, hello better variadic functions and unified encoding setting for all encoding aware PHP functions.

    2. Re:An alternate explanatio by black3d · · Score: 1

      Their security record is generally pretty good. In most cases where a celebrity claims their account was "hacked" after a ridiculously stupid or insensitive tweet is posted is just PR covering their ass.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    3. Re:An alternate explanatio by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Their security record is rubbish - I've had two occasions on which my Twitter account was compromised, both times an unknown (to me) device was added to my Twitter account without my knowledge and spam tweets were made. My Twitter password is unique to twitter, and I have only ever used it to log in from my mobile devices, so the likelihood of the breach being due to something my end is exceedingly small. Have a quick search around, this is a known issue - there is an unacknowledged problem with Twitters auth system for adding devices.

  8. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like perfect large enterprise CEO material!

  9. many levels of ridicule in this article by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quoting a guy named "The Arbitrageur (@FiatMoneyEnd)", complaining about how he had lost his money, was a particularly dry touch.

    1. Re:many levels of ridicule in this article by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The sweet, sweet, smell of somebody who thought he had it all figured out learning what 'counterparty risk' is...

  10. "...he is a self-absorbed narcissist..." by robocord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

    So you're saying he has what it takes to be a Fortune 100 CEO?

    1. Re:"...he is a self-absorbed narcissist..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the President.

    2. Re:"...he is a self-absorbed narcissist..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, sounds like a typical libertarian (so no coincidence he was a bitcoin guy)

    3. Re:"...he is a self-absorbed narcissist..." by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Naw, just a typical Twitter user.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:"...he is a self-absorbed narcissist..." by dkman · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking.

      They could just as easily be describing Larry Ellison or Bill Gates.

      --
      I refuse to sign
  11. Not surprising by grepninja7 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure any sane lawyer in the world would absolutely forbid him from talking publicly about Mt. Gox or anything that happened during the meltdown. Is there not legal action pending? Perhaps we should let the discovery process do work as intended. This article seems to accomplish nothing and I don't think it qualifies as news.

  12. In other news, fools and their money soon part. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse"

    I can see why he was attracted to Bittcoins

  13. here is what I would do to Karpeles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would force him to drink a desert coffee beverage brewed with the tears of his own children as I burn their hands with a blow torch. Then I would get _really_ cruel on 'ol Fattums himself.... it would take him many days to finally expire, as his burned children watch his slow, slow torture.

    1. Re:here is what I would do to Karpeles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmmmmm........ delicious desert coffee beverage.....

    2. Re:here is what I would do to Karpeles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cup full of sand?

    3. Re:here is what I would do to Karpeles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sand heated to 900 degrees....

  14. ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it is just a guy who thought enough time had passed? He DID originally specialise inan exchange for magic cards. Either he is the best criminal master mind or just an average lucky joe.

  15. Really? by mark_reh · · Score: 0, Troll

    "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

    Either that or his head is firmly planted in reality and he, unlike many of the Mt Gox users, recognizes that bitcoins are worthless. No one lost a dime. People lost bitcoins ferchrissakes.

    1. Re:Really? by Garfong · · Score: 2

      Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
              -- Publilius Syrus

    2. Re:Really? by exomondo · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Give me your bitcoins, I'll hold onto them for you. They aren't regulated as a currency by the government (and you love that) also they are untraceable (you love that too), they are just data so if I lose them ... well I'll try not to lose them."

      Who would have thought anybody with half a brain would actually fall for that, but they did, to the tune of like $400 million worth of the damn things!

    3. Re:Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Either that or his head is firmly planted in reality and he, unlike many of the Mt Gox users, recognizes that bitcoins are worthless. No one lost a dime. People lost bitcoins ferchrissakes.

      As long as bitcoins can be exchanged for money, they have value and people who were planning to turn them into cash but lost them effectively lost money. People who planned to sit on them until they hatched are the only ones who lost nothing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Really? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is absolutely adorable is the (perennial, for some reason) crop of people who are attracted to bitcoins' interesting mathematical properties; but assume that these properties somehow magically transfer to mere paper that is merely denominated in bitcoins rather than in USD, bushels of wheat, Euros, or whatever.

      You put a bitcoin in an account at one of these 'exchanges'? Well kid, I'm afraid I have some bad news: from the perspective of the bitcoin system, the exchange now owns the bitcoin. You just gave it to them. You now own some flavor of promissory note that's probably roughly on par with really shit commercial paper, except that it probably doesn't even offer interest to compensate you for the risk and time value. Good work on that.

      If you want to enjoy the properties of bitcoins, You. Must. Hold. Bitcoins. IOUs, however you dress them up, do not have the properties of the currency or commodity in which they are denominated. If you want to bank, try a bank. Yes, they are abhuman scumweasels that enjoy massive regulatory capture in most markets; but unfortunately you don't really have better options.

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as bitcoins can be exchanged for money, they have value and people who were planning to turn them into cash but lost them effectively lost money.

      They didn't "lose" anything, all they conceivably lost was exclusivity on access to a bitcoin address and exclusivity on deciding who it may be disseminated to. Same sort of thing with movie and music studios "losing" exclusivity on copyrights.

    6. Re:Really? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Or when some number in a database at your bank get changed and your balance becomes 0 because your credit card got skimmed.

    7. Re:Really? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      You put a bitcoin in an account at one of these 'exchanges'? Well kid, I'm afraid I have some bad news: from the perspective of the bitcoin system, the exchange now owns the bitcoin. You just gave it to them. You now own some flavor of promissory note that's probably roughly on par with really shit commercial paper, except that it probably doesn't even offer interest to compensate you for the risk and time value. Good work on that.

      So, pretty much the same thing as if you put gold or cash in a bank?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    8. Re:Really? by exomondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, pretty much the same thing as if you put gold or cash in a bank?

      No, I'm not quite sure how this isn't obvious to you but banks are regulated and insured by the government.

    9. Re:Really? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes and no.

      Yes in that putting something in a bank turns it into a promise from the bank, whatever it is, assuming the bank will take it.

      No in two main senses:

      One, purely pragmatically, most countries that issue fiat currencies recognize that banks are de-facto extensions of ordinary currency circulation and regulate accordingly. This is probably all kinds of moral hazard; but it does mean that the IOU you get from a bank deposit has almost exactly the same backing as cash, up to whatever the FDIC's account threshold is. A bitcoin exchange, or any other generic commercial debt is in a distinctly different regulatory category, usually one that involves getting less of your money out when things go south.

      The other, architectural, is that bitcoins derive much of their charm (for many, not all, users) from possessing certain interesting inherent properties: no central issuer, known supply, no double-spending or transaction reversal, etc. All enforced either by the protocol or by the cryptography. Very nice, invariant across jurisdictions, apparently well regarded in terms of design. Someone's IOU, whatever it's denominated in, has none of those properties. The fact that they tend to be downright dodgy as well is just a bonus.

      I'd hazard a guess that there are plenty of unhappy Mt. Gox accountholders who would have looked at me like I was crazy if I'd asked "Would you like to make a non-diversified, unsecured, investment in a speculative-grade Japanese security?"; but blithly did exactly that, because bitcoins, missing the minor detail that all the bitcoiny goodness disappeared the moment they handed them over.

    10. Re:Really? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares if a credit card is skimmed. That's oney belonging the credit card company that's been stolen; You're not liable. They either reclaim the money from the vendor, or they get it covered by insurance.

      This is why you should always use a credit card for large purchases, even in part, and when purchasing online. Not only do you have whatever protections you receive from local legislation, you also have the extra protection of the credit card company. It's UK law, but check out Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 There are other protections for fraudulent transactions.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Really? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      No. The people who lost bitcoins lost nothing. The people who exchanged bitcoins for actual money took advantage of the other type who thought bitcoins had some value.

      Bitcoin is like a check. It represents a transfer of things that have value- i.e. physical products or services and money. The check itself has no value. The people who were piling up bitcoins made the mistake of thinking the "checks" were worth something.

    12. Re:Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is like a check. It represents a transfer of things that have value

      The U.S. government officially, legally, and in all other ways disagrees with you. Bitcoin thus has every bit as much value as any fiat currency.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree that it is a currency. It is just a work of art: see the nice flow of the numbers of the private key intertwinning with the public address?

    14. Re:Really? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I disagree that it is a currency.

      Who are you disagreeing with? Certainly not me.

      It is just a work of art:

      Works of art have value. Thanks for agreeing with me. You may retire in cowardly shame at this time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Really? by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      Is this "half a brain" shared by all individuals that lost their BitCoins in the Mt Gox fiasco? Could explain something...

    16. Re:Really? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      One, purely pragmatically, most countries that issue fiat currencies recognize that banks are de-facto extensions of ordinary currency circulation and regulate accordingly. This is probably all kinds of moral hazard; but it does mean that the IOU you get from a bank deposit has almost exactly the same backing as cash, up to whatever the FDIC's account threshold is.

      True, but only in the country that issues the currency.

      US Dollars are pretty dependable as fiat currencies go. The FDIC is about as good as it gets as far as personal deposit insurance goes. If you deposit your US Dollars in a US Bank you get both.

      However, if you deposit your US Dollars into the First Bank of Basra, then you might want to take a look at the headlines, because while those US Dollars are pretty hard to counterfeit, they're pretty easy to haul off in a truck after blowing the door off the vault.

    17. Re:Really? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      This is quite true; it's also analogous to what I find so baffling about the behavior of some bitcoin-holders.

      If you had USD, you'd be nuts to deposit them in First Bank of Basra (without some very compelling reason); and you'd be an idiot if you thought that the good reputation of USD somehow made your account there safer.

      If you have bitcoins, putting them in an 'exchange' or 'cloud wallet' is a fairly risky behavior(even if the operation is 100% on the level and based somewhere with rule of law that might be available to you when needed, you've still put the security of those private keys entirely in the hands of a class of entity that gets the door blown off its vault quite frequently, and will have ~0 assets thereafter; and if the operators are shady and/or beyond your legal reach, you are extra screwed); yet people still do it under the impression that bitcoin's structural properties will somehow help them once they've done so.

      You have limited options if you are looking to get into, or out of, bitcoin holdings and to or from some currency; but anyone who doesn't treat that operation rather like using PayPal (sometimes you need to; but you put in no more than you must, and get out, everything you can, as fast as you can, before they freeze your account for some spurious reason), baffles me.

  16. self-absorbed narcissist by Nos9 · · Score: 1

    So... He's pretty much like everyone else on Twitter?

    1. Re:Self-absorbed Narcissist by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      Got yakisoba?

  17. bright future by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

    "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse." The only question is with qualifications like these does he pursue Wall Street or sub-prime lending?

  18. Grub rescue console by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's no operating system!

    1. Re:Grub rescue console by vandelais · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. Chewie, turn the ship around!

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  19. So? by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's also Tweeted about a noodle dish called yakisoba and Japanese transportation systems. Andreas Antonopoulos, the CSO with Blockchain says, "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

    Sounds to me like he's just using Twitter the same way everyone else uses Twitter. Why does tweeting about yakisoba make him a remorseless narcissist? He may be that, but regardless Twitter isn't the best venue for heartfelt apologies. I bet he also failed to take responsibility for Mt Gox last time he sent a text or wrote a sticky note.

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I'm not sure how writing inane microposts on a service designed for writing inane microposts is significant in any way. Now if he were to post, "All your coin are belong to me" we'd have a story.

    2. Re:So? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Twitter shaming has always felt wrong to me. There is a whole story of a person's day, and life, that went into whatever that tweet was.

      And Wired just assumes that everything somehow is in the context of MTGOX, and should be interpreted that way.

      Karpeles seems to think the internet will happily retweet his thoughts on the weather, and that speaks to the strangely disassociated character of the man who build the worldâ(TM)s most successful bitcoin exchange, and then lost it all.

      Nope, not buying it. Your magical ability to decide what people are thinking is stupid and doesn't work right.

      To be fair, Karpeles has answered some investors, telling them that thereâ(TM)s an inquiry going on and to check with the companyâ(TM)s website for updates.

      That's not being fair. Does every post have to have a "PS Sorry for losing your money" appended to it?

      I don't read replies to my tweets. Celebrities don't. Sponsors of tweets don't. People who have their friends on twitter do. Which camp is this guy in? Hint: he's not just tweeting to his buddy. That's pretty obvious.

      He couldnâ(TM)t be reached for this story.

      Did you try twitter? Did he just ignore you like he ignores most of the responses? Oh, I'm guessing this isn't really a two-way communication system for him like you use it. In fact, it may be possible that people use communication platforms in entirely different ways compared to how one reporter at Wired does.

      Fuckhats.

      Sure this guy's a major douche canoe. That doesn't mean we can read intent into every inane unrelated tweet he sends into the void.

    3. Re:So? by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      /agree

      The profile for the twitter account doesn't look (to my uneducated glance) to be a corporate account, but rather his personal account.

      And so people who feel harmed by the MtGox collapse are complaining that he isn't showing them contrition?

      Isn't that ... self-centered? So who is the wired story really about? The MtGox personage, or the Entitled Masses seeking opportunties to excoriate him?

  20. there's a place to talk about what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's called your own damn twitter feed

  21. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Miners steal electricity from their gullible idiot employers, schools, universities, parents, municipalities to generate bitcoins. It's fine because if they didn't want me using their power for PURE PROFIT, they should have turned it off.

    Magic The Gathering Online eXchange overlord steals Chuck-e-cheese Tokens from gullible idiots. It's not fine because they totally said we could trust them.

    Bitcoin.

  22. He's enjoying his $400M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be happy enough to tweet about busybox too if I had $400M in the bank.

  23. What is he supposed to do? by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm evil incarnate and I'm about to punish myself on behalf of the Twitterverse

    Ok... I'm cutting. I'm slicing my wrists right now

    That was pretty deep. Blood everywhere. Hard to type

    I'm so sorry. Your virtual money went to virtual money heaven and it's all my fault.

    Getting dizzy now. cant..... focus

    keyboard so sticky

    i dndt thk that woold hepeen we tried too stipthem and it

    i'm sorry

    Bitcoin is not a place one goes to enjoy the protections of traditional state issued currency and state regulated banking. Twitter is not a place one goes to find sincerity. Slashdot is not the place to indulge your fake outrage.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:What is he supposed to do? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is not the place to indulge your fake outrage.

      Are you new here?

    2. Re:What is he supposed to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a wonderful life reboot?

    3. Re:What is he supposed to do? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do you people keep summoning me??

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:What is he supposed to do? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Maybe he should just shut up, and not try to "speak to the Internet" (which is basically what Twitter is)?

    5. Re:What is he supposed to do? by nu1x · · Score: 1

      > traditional state issued currency and state regulated banking

      Where in the World do you get THAT ?

      Syria ? Iceland ? Iran ?

      Truly not US if that is what you are implying ?

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  24. Isn't this saying the same thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CEO == "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

  25. Nothing he did was illegal or immoral. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    riojqwoieh38923hr9823hrj - I declare this sequence of characters to be worth $400 million, as long as nobody else uses it. Is it worth $400 million? What if at least one other person agrees with me? Is it worth $400 million now? If you take it and use it, do you owe me $400 million?

    Copying bitcoins is no different from copying any other non-creative work - not protected at all by anything. At worst, he breached contract. Since only ponzi speculators invest in bitcoins, I'm not too bothered if their contract rights aren't protected - primacy of contract is overrated.

    1. Re:Nothing he did was illegal or immoral. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse is how I would describe every bitcoin fanboy. Karpeles was just better at it.

  26. Odd parallels by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse.

    So basically he's just a Wall Street bankster, but with Bitcoins.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Odd parallels by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      No because even junk bonds actually represent something of actual value.

    2. Re:Odd parallels by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      No because even junk bonds actually represent something of actual value.

      Yeah, junk. The stuff you pay people to take away.

  27. Welcome to investing in unregulated markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarian hipsters

  28. Man uses Twitter for original purpose... by Anguirel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This reads like it should be an Onion article. He's using Twitter for what it is typically used for -- self-absorbed useless posts. Why is anyone surprised? If they were all about how awesome his new $400 million yacht is, then I could see the issues. This is just that he came back to Twitter, and started using it normally.

    --
    ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
    QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    1. Re:Man uses Twitter for original purpose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really thought they were gonna be tweets about securing investment for some new venture or something. Disappointing this is a story in the first place and that this one was not panning it.

    2. Re:Man uses Twitter for original purpose... by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      He used his work related twitter account for posting personal messages and opinions to tons of people who only follow him for his work.

      Of course they're going to yell at him.

  29. Ah well no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little old ladies, in civilized countries, typically have a revenue stream that will sustain them until their death. Meaning, unlike many other classes of people, they can afford to be robbed. Many young people, due to the wealth gap, need the money far more than the ladies do (they cannot afford not to rob). Furthermore, precisely since they are old and near death, they don't really need the money anyway (whereas the young people have long lives ahead of them and hence need the money more). Lastly, little old ladies tend to spend the money on stupid stuff like cute outfits for their pets, whereas young people are far more likely to spend the money either on necessities or (if they have enough) in some kind of investment that might yield a better future income.

    So, really, it is in society's best interest that little old ladies be robbed by the youth.

    Robbing investors, as Gox did, is an entirely different story, as the money he stole was from people who were trying to engage in the economy in a mutually-beneficial way, and who were depending on the returns for their livelihood, and who would (in most cases) have put the returns to good use. This is a moral outrage by comparison.

    1. Re: Ah well no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should be modded down for suggesting that little old ladies deserved to be robbed.

      Young people spend money smarter than elderly people? Have you been around young people today? Youre insane.

  30. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

    Or in other words, perfect executive management material.

  31. Re-hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't believe twitter re-hired him.

  32. Slashdot is the home of hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bitcoins want to be free.

    Bitcoin libre!

    Down with U$D!

  33. Andreas was commenting about who???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Andreas Antonopoulos, the CSO with Blockchain says, "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

    Ironic comment is ironic.

    1. Re:Andreas was commenting about who???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch Andreas Antonopoulos on JRE, the dude is delusional about buttcoins.

  34. Sooo. . . whats next? by dresgarcia · · Score: 1

    "Guy runs company in the ground. Seen spending money at the supermarket enraging people."

  35. He's all those nasty things and more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet here he is, on the front page, exactly where he wants to be. Why do you people give so much attention to sociopaths? Talk about feeding trolls...! He's there because you reward him. What makes him any different from the average politicians you vote for? You're all weird...

  36. Denial of use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legally speaking, theft requires denial of use. When someone copies a movie or song, they are not denying the owner use, so it isn't stealing (but it is copyright infringement, which is still illegal). With this bit coin fiasco, people who had acquired exclusive use rights over virtual property (the bitcoin) were denied that use (they cannot now exchange the bitcoins for which they paid).

    So, it is stealing for bitcoin, but not stealing (only copyright infringement, which is different) for movies/videos.

    This should not be difficult to understand.

    1. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      When someone copies a movie or song, they are not denying the owner use, so it isn't stealing

      Suppose copying and using intellectual property is not stealing. Therefore it is okay and legal to pay $0 for intellectual property. Then you should be able to walk into an auto dealership and take possession of a new car for say, $5,000, where the actual retail price is $25,000. This should be legal because the physical raw materials used to build the car cost only $1,000 to $2,000 and the remainder is spent on machinery and labor required to process and form the raw materials into a car.

      Since you've paid for the labor + machinery rent + raw materials of the car and since IP price = $0, you've legally paid the duplication cost of the car. And legally, the car manufacturer should give you the car for that price. This analogy can be applied to all physical goods you purchase at a store.

      So, please tell us where we can buy all goods for duplication cost only, without considering any kind of design and invention costs? If you can't find such a place, that means all goods carry an IP premium and therefore people who create IP are fully within their rights to charge what they charge right now.

    2. Re:Denial of use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this is quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen on slashdot and I've been here for years. The GP expressly mentioned infringement is still illegal so your whole basis of "Therefore it is okay and legal to pay $0 for intellectual property." is completely fabricated. Digital object and physical objects are different so stop conflating them through analogies.

      The only thing more shocking is that you actually believe it's logically sound.

    3. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Digital object and physical objects are different so stop conflating them through analogies.

      This is quite possibly the worst cop out I've heard from piracy supporters. Before music was digitized on CDs, you had to purchase/borrow vinyl records or cassettes to listen to music. Making copies (pirating) of these analog mediums was very lossy, so copying was not worth it because of the huge loss of audio quality. However, once music was digitized on CDs (and later MP3), copies were perfect, with no loss of music quality in the copy.

      Similarly, almost all products can be digitized and the design can be fed into a 3D printer of some sort to create the final product just like digital music bits + duplication machine + 10 cent plastic disc = $10 music CD. Car bodies, interiors, engines, transmissions etc. are all derived from digital designs (CAD + simulation) so yes, a car design is very much digital like a music CD / video blu-ray. And like music CDs, just about any product can be digitized.

      The only thing more shocking is that you actually believe it's logically sound.

      It is, unless you prove it to be unsound. Just saying "it is logically unsound," doesn't make it so.

    4. Re:Denial of use by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Suppose copying and using intellectual property is not stealing.

      That would be good, because it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. That's why we call it copyright infringement, because unauthorized copying infriges on the copyright owner's right to restrict who can make copies of the copyrighted work.

      Therefore it is okay and legal to pay $0 for intellectual property.

      No more than murder not being called "life theft" makes it legal to murder someone.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    5. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      That would be good, because it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

      Whether I call it copying without permission or you call it copyright infringement (which, by the way, is far worse than stealing, because it is stealing and optionally redistributing), it does not matter. In any case, you pay $0 for a digital product where the owner of the product is selling it for a price greater than $0. So you get something for nothing, which is usually a crime when related to commercial products.

      And my original post was about paying $0 for intellectual property, not what term you call that: theft or copyright infringement.

      Therefore it is okay and legal to pay $0 for intellectual property.

      No more than murder not being called "life theft" makes it legal to murder someone.

      Let's not play with words, then. Copyright infringement is "IP theft," by definition, with worse-than-theft penalties if you redistribute it to others.
      Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.

      So, according to you, copyright infringement is a lesser crime than theft, or is not a crime at all? Either way, without using the word theft, according to you and your buddy, not paying for IP is okay, since the owner is not being deprived anything he originally had.

      Here's what the uspto has to say about it:

      Indeed, according to the World Customs Organization, more than $600 billion in pirated and counterfeited goods will flood the world market in 2005. Making sure that your publicationâ(TM)s property is not among these counterfeit goods is critical. ...
      In order to protect yourself from IP theft, itâ(TM)s important to know the basics about your rights. For writers, editors and publishers, this means taking a look at the basics of copyright: what it is, what it protects, and how to secure it. ...
      Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to the authors of "original works of authorship" fixed in any tangible medium of expression. ...
        If the copyright owner prevails in an infringement claim, the available remedies include preliminary and permanent injunctions (court orders to stop current or prevent future infringements), impounding, and destroying the infringing articles.

    6. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      That would be good, because it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. That's why we call it copyright infringement, because unauthorized copying infriges on the copyright owner's right to restrict who can make copies of the copyrighted work.

      LOL, and why does the owner want to restrict who can make copies? Because he/she wants to get paid if someone gains access to a copy his work. Unauthorized copying means, the copier very likely won't pay for his copy -- same as stealing, but not according to you and your word games.

    7. Re:Denial of use by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is quite possibly the worst cop out I've heard from piracy supporters.

      You must be new to the debate then. I wouldn't have pushed that particular rebuttal because I don't think physical versus virtual is all that different. I still would characterize your original argument as remarkably stupid simply for two reasons. First, you aren't stealing any resources from the owner of the music or intellectual property. There is no analogy to the resources put into making a car. The owner doesn't lose CDs, bits, etc by the act of pirating their property. They lose potential opportunity.

      Second, the obvious analogy you should have put forth is pirating the design of the car and making a knock-off. That's something that actually happens in the real world.

    8. Re:Denial of use by khallow · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.

      Whoa, let's not jump to conclusions here. The whole point of my original argument was that this was wholly unsubstantiated. I gather, for example, that Microsoft extended its market share (and as a result the network effect value of having more people using their product) due to piracy.

    9. Re:Denial of use by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.

      "Loss of revenue" is not a recognized crime and for good reason, if it were, you could charge a reviewer with "theft" if he didn't give you a "good enough" review. You could charge your competitors for "stealing" your customers with their lower prices. You could charge window shoppers with "theft" for not buying what they're looking at... I could go on, but if you've got half a brain you should already understand the problem.

      Either way, without using the word theft, according to you and your buddy, not paying for IP is okay, since the owner is not being deprived anything he originally had.

      Neither of us said anything of the sort. You are creating strawmen. What we said is that copyright infringement is not theft, because nothing has been taken. Copyright infringement is violating the copyright holder's right to restrict who can make copies of the protected work. Notably, in most juridisction, copyright applies regardless of whether you are selling copies of the work or not. So for instance, a diary is no less protected simply because the author had no intention of publishing it, and copyright can be infringed in other ways that just copying. For instance, the copyright owner's moral rights prevent unathorized modifications to the work.

      The original point was that the loss of bitcoins at Mt. Gox could actually theft because the bitcoins have been taken from the owner without permission, as long as we consider bitcoins to actually be property. Adn yes, theft is a more serious crime than copyright infringement because in theft the owner has been deprived of their actual property, where as copyright infringement may potentially deprive the copyright owner of hypothetical profits that they might have otherwise earned.

      Neither of us have said anything about whether "not paying for IP is okay" because that is a completely different and multi-faceted issue. Effectively you're like the guy who's yelling that his computer doesn't work because "the CPU is full of RAMs and Gigs", you have very effectively demonstrated that you know next to nothing about what you're writing about.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    10. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      First, you aren't stealing any resources from the owner of the music or intellectual property.

      You are reducing potential profit by pirating -- pirating in mass quantities has the same effect as stealing.

      There is no analogy to the resources put into making a car.

      If it's okay to pay nothing to duplicate intellectual property in a movie or a song, then it must be okay to pay nothing to duplicate intellectual property in a car. After all,

      car IP (design/engineering) + car raw materials + car manufacturing = car

      I just don't want to pay for the car IP.

      The owner doesn't lose CDs, bits, etc by the act of pirating their property.

      Ahh, but the CDs cost nothing compared to the final price. And you benefited from a commercial product without benefiting its owner. That's considered theft.

    11. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is violating the copyright holder's right to restrict who can make copies of the protected work.

      And why do they want to restrict copying? Don't intentionally act like an idiot.

    12. Re:Denial of use by khallow · · Score: 1

      pirating in mass quantities has the same effect as stealing.

      Unless one consequence is that it increases demand for the legitimate product. That actually can happen such as when the product can take advantage of the network effect (increased value from more widespread adoption by pirates).

    13. Re:Denial of use by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Let's not play with words, then. Copyright infringement is "IP theft," by definition, with worse-than-theft penalties if you redistribute it to others.

      If you don't want to play with words, stop doing so. Copyright infringement is not "IP theft", since no one's losing anything. Constant copyright extensions, however, are robbing the public domain of IP that should had long since fallen to it. They are also a cautionary demonstration of what happens when law becomes for sale to the highest bidder: it loses all respectability, thus all respect, and becomes utterly irrelevant.

      Pity about those authors who become collateral damage in the copyright wars. But they should blame Disney for its Mickey Mouse Protection Acts, not the public for refusing to surrender the very concept of culture to the altar of corporate profit.

      Copyright infringement leads to loss of revenue to the content owner, therefore it is a form of theft.

      Opening a retail store leads to loss of revenue to other nearby retail stores, therefore it's a form of theft in your world.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Denial of use by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are other ways to reduce potential product. Somebody might produce a better digital good, drawing market share away. Somebody else might give the music a bad review. A third person might come up with something unsavory about the musicians, causing fewer people to buy the music. All of these are legal.

      Nor am I particularly bothered by copying the car's IP. If you bring your own duplicator, materials, and power supply, and simply duplicate the car at the dealership, that's effectively the same as making an unauthorized copy of a song.

      And, no, theft is depriving somebody of something. Benefiting from a commercial product is not theft.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Denial of use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS... You're a fucking intellectual retard who's manipulating the conversation for your own intellectually bankrupt purposes...

      Copying/downloading movies/tv-shows/music IS NOT THEFT and IT NEVER HAS BEEN. It IS Copyright Infringement. PERIOD. There are laws pertaining to this, and they have their own penalties and ramifications, but they NEVER refer to the acts as THEFT. SO PLEASE STFU with your BULLSHIT rationalisations that have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in law!

      BY DEFINITION, theft NECESSARILY deprives the owner of their PROPERTY. Again, PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE.

      In the case of music/movie/tv piracy, the owner is NEVER left without their PROPERTY (Intellectual or otherwise). You keep dodging this argument (obviously because it's the GIANT GAPING LOGIC HOLE in your fucking position), but it's nevertheless absolutely true. Piracy MIGHT, I repeat, MIGHT deprive the owner of some revenue (and even that is BY NO MEANS a certainty!) but, in any case, it NEVER deprives them of the POSSESSION or ACCESS to their property AND THEREFORE IT IS NEVER THEFT ....

      Just because someone downloads a movie, or music, or a tv show, DOES NOT EVER indicate, in any way, that they would be willing to pay a single red penny for that content. There are LOTS of movies that are complete shit that I would NEVER pay anything for, but which I would watch for free. Again, this is an issue that you skirt/minimise because it also weakens your absolutist, Manichean supposition that EVERY download represents a lost sale...

    16. Re:Denial of use by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is not "IP theft", since no one's losing anything.

      But if you take a bus or train ride without paying for a ticket, you can get fined hundreds of dollars even though the owners of the bus/train are not losing anything by some occasional freeloader -- same as an IP pirate.

      Also, try looking it another way: a man enters a grocery store and shoplifts a $1 candy bar. The man gained something without spending anything, which is theft, just like a pirate, who gained enjoyment from his pirated movie/song without paying anything to the owners of the content, so that also is theft.

      So, it's theft if someone gains benefits of a paid product/service without paying, regardless of what it costs the owner to create it or whether he lost nothing by some unauthorized user. That's the correct definition.

    17. Re:Denial of use by ultranova · · Score: 1

      But if you take a bus or train ride without paying for a ticket, you can get fined hundreds of dollars even though the owners of the bus/train are not losing anything by some occasional freeloader -- same as an IP pirate.

      Gasoline and space in the vehicle. Operating a fleet is an ongoing cost, unlike production of cultural items, which, ones produced, can last pretty much forever.

      Also, try looking it another way: a man enters a grocery store and shoplifts a $1 candy bar. The man gained something without spending anything, which is theft, just like a pirate, who gained enjoyment from his pirated movie/song without paying anything to the owners of the content, so that also is theft.

      So breathing is theft, since I gain oxygen without paying anyone anything? And unlike "intellectual property", an oxygen molecule consumed by me is actually unavailable to anyone else.

      However, your example certainly demonstrates the worldview of copyright supporters: a world of permanent scarcity, propped up by artificial means if necessary, is the goal. What the heck is wrong with you?

      So, it's theft if someone gains benefits of a paid product/service without paying, regardless of what it costs the owner to create it or whether he lost nothing by some unauthorized user. That's the correct definition.

      "Gaining a benefit without paying" is not the definition of theft. It is not even remotely like the definition of theft, which is "taking someone else's property without permission". Your attempt to redefine the word simply shows that the real meaning does not cover copyright infringmenet, even in your eyes.

      Just because you want me to pay, does not mean I have an obligation to do so.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Denial of use by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      Maybe I can get in with this before the entire debate falls apart... hah, yeah right. Anyway, here goes:

      The Copyright equivalent of stealing a candy bar (or a car from a dealership, to use your earlier analogy) from a grocery store is actually:

      1. Man enters a grocery store and sees a $1 candy bar
      2. He goes home and produces his own candy bar just like it, with the resources he has available; with his own time, energy, and equipment (stove, mixer, trays and moulds), and ingredients (chocolate, nougat, peanuts, whatever)
      3. He could eat this bar, give it away, or sell it without having *stolen* anything.

      The original candy bar is still available for purchase for $1 to the next customer. If the Man in the example were selling his candy bars for profit, he would have effectively created a competing business to the grocery store. If he sells them wholesale to the store, he's competing with their other distributors.

      If they are confusingly similar to the original brand, he may be infringing the manufacturer's protected trade marks. If he uses their patented process to put bubbles in chocolate or something, he may be infringing their patent; but legal competition for manufactured goods is specifically not covered by Copyright law.

      Back to the car example, manufactured goods may contain Copyright-protected work, i.e. microcode in the car's engine management unit; but if you build a functional equivalent of your own without infringing patented methods, you're good to go.

      Keep in mind that a car manufacturer will have registered 'trade marks' like "the distinctive tail light arrangement" that you won't be allowed to produce competing goods 'confusingly similar to', but you can (YMMV, consult a lawyer) build one for your own use.

      And yes, for the sake of argument a physical work *can* be subject to protection by Copyright, but would generally need to show substantial creative effort and merit to be enforced; such as a carved statue. In the case of the car example, the Copyright would apply to the manufacturer's plans, CAD/CAM files, and maybe physical prototypes; but almost certainly not the result of the process (again, YMMV, consult a laywer)

  37. Interesting? Dangerous? compared to? by Camael · · Score: 0

    An interesting and dangerous reminder of the nature of bitcoins. I am sure there were many bitcoin users who expressly intended to cheat on taxes and hide other criminal financial transactions.

    I'm sure that users of cash and other forms of currency do not get scammed, do not get tricked, do not suffer fraud and do not lose the value of their currency of choice. Nope, perfectly safe.

    And I'm sure that there are no users of cash and other forms of currency who expressly intended to cheat on taxes and hide other criminal financial transactions. Nope, all perfectly law abiding.

    Oh, wait...

    Lets not go overboard with the hyperbole here. All forms of convertible currency is exposed to risk.

    1. Re:Interesting? Dangerous? compared to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that users of cash and other forms of currency do not get scammed, do not get tricked, do not suffer fraud and do not lose the value of their currency of choice. Nope, perfectly safe.

      Strawman. Bitcoin has all those problems and more: you cannot reverse the transactions, it is untraceable, it is unregulated and it is not backed by governments.

    2. Re:Interesting? Dangerous? compared to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cannot reverse the transactions

      Transactions are just as reversible as with cash. If you want your cash back, you have to go to the person to whom you gave your cash and ask; if they agree, then you perform another transaction to reverse the original one.

      it is untraceable

      BTC is certainly more traceable than cash. Or are you unaware that every single bitcoin transaction is publicly available for scrutiny?

      it is unregulated

      Private financial transactions using cash are just as unregulated. You don't need a government-authorised middle-man to buy a bike from your neighbour.

      it is not backed by governments

      This much is true, but I'm not sure how it's such a fatal flaw that it's not controlled by any government. People have been making non-government-backed transactions for millennia, and governments have been mis-managing their finances for almost as long.
      Mathematics has been rather more reliable over that time period. Between government and mathematics, I know which I trust more.

  38. News just in - twitter is full of shallow comments by dbIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The news that not every tweet is an insightful font of wisdom is old news.

  39. True value by Camael · · Score: 1

    The bitcoins in question had a monetary value of $400 million. That is, they could be exchanged for that much at the time. $400 million buys you a lot of physical stuff.

    Not true. I seriously doubt you can find anyone who is/was willing to buy all those bitcoins for $400 million. I also doubt anyone is/was willing to accept all those bitcoins in exchange for $400 million worth of physical goods.

    Lets say for example I take a slug of tin and stamp it into many coins of my own making. Nobody is willing to give me anything for the coins except for my best friend, who is willing to pay me $1 for 1 coin. The true value of my coins would still be zero. You can't argue that based on that one exception, the coins I made is each worth $1.

    1. Re:True value by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Yes they are. If you can receive $1 for one coin, the coins are worth $1 each. If someone else offers you 70c per coin, and your friend doesn't want to buy any more, they're now worth 70c. Congratulations; You've just discovered commodity trading!

      The difference between your coin and the dollar, though, is that the government accepts dollars as a means of paying your taxes, making it fiat money If the governemtn started accepting your tin coin as payment, it would be assigned a value by the government, backed by the treasury. You would then have created money, instead of tradeable goods.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:True value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still not valid to price a significant portion of a "commodity" at the marginal rate. Sure people do it all the time, but it is a fake number.

    3. Re:True value by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's still not valid to price a significant portion of a "commodity" at the marginal rate.

      Like the price that the pirated digital goods currently sell for in the legitimate markets? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    4. Re:True value by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You may have 400 million of those coins, and sell the first one for $1 each, but for the whole batch sold one at a time or as a batch you never get more than $15.37 ever.

      The reason people price stocks like this is because most individual stock holders do not own enough to significantly affect the market when they sell it off (and those who do will usually sell it off piecemeal over time). Whereas having $400 million worth of bitcoin meant you held a significant percentage of all bitcoin in existence. Trying to dump it quickly would cause the price to plummet.

  40. surprising? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

    "He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."

    Breaking news....
    CEO acts like a CEO

    Stay tuned for more updates to this continuing story...

  41. Well, it is a property offence by Camael · · Score: 1

    Strictly speaking, it is embezzlement

    Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly withholding assets for the purpose of conversion (theft) of such assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted, to be held and/or used for other purposes.

    In other jurisdictions, this may be known as misappropriation.

    Usually the burden of proof lies on the person you entrusted the property to (especially if it is a paid service) to explain what happened to it. If he can't/won't, you can invite the court to draw an adverse inference against him. Proving where it went is his problem.

    1. Re:Well, it is a property offence by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking it may be embezzlement.

  42. Andreas Antonopoulos calling anyone out? by GPF(BSOD) · · Score: 1

    This is a riot. Andy Popatopolis, the charred black pot, pointing violently at the kettle? It is to laugh.

    --
    Linux is not a religion. It is a collection of logic. Stop being stupid.
  43. wtf... by sjwt · · Score: 1

    It is Twitter, not the international apology bulletin board.

    If you are following this guy hoping he will say sorry and wire you part payments of bitcoins, then you have sadly misunderstood what Twitter is used for.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  44. BusyBox OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For fuck's sake, BusyBox is not an operating system. It's a collection of command-line utilities linked together in one big executable.

  45. he must die by baronemarsetti · · Score: 1

    time to kill Karpeless and his relatives/family

  46. I don't really see what the big deal is by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    He didn't actually do anything different to what every OTHER banker does every day...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  47. system by Tom · · Score: 1

    It's kind of the purpose of the whole corporate system that companies can keel over and the people behind it can continue living their lives.

    If you don't like it, tough luck, it's the world we live in, we wanted it this way.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  48. What did you expect? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    An apology footer in each tweet?

    --
    bickerdyke
  49. I'm sure he learned nothing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The funny, though rather predictable, thing about the bitcoin faithful is that this did nothing to shake their faith in it. The problem, according to them, wasn't the lack of tracking, regulation, oversight, or any of that, no it was clearly that MtGox "did it wrong" and that this "makes bitcoin stronger" and so on.

    They see this an as anomaly, not an inherent risk of their chosen currency. They have a poor understanding of economics. Same reason why they think BTC's built in deflation is a GOOD thing.

    1. Re:I'm sure he learned nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. MtGox was an EXCHANGE. How does the failure of an exchange make BITCOIN bad? Are you saying that MtGox DIDN'T "do it wrong"?

    2. Re:I'm sure he learned nothing by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If some bank in the middle of Africa lost the US Dollars that you deposited with them, does that mean that there is something wrong with the US Dollar?

      No, it just means that you were an idiot to deposit your money with a bank that didn't have some kind of backing from a trusted government.

      The same is true of ANY bank in which you deposit Bitcoins right now. Don't deposit Bitcoins in banks, at least not without some kind of insurance from a reputable company behind it.

    3. Re:I'm sure he learned nothing by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If you invest dollars in a bank in Africa, you're going out of your way to stay out of the system. By comparison, MtGox was a mainstream Bitcoin institution, and was even recommended (LONG AFTER THE THING COLLAPSED) by outfits like Blockchain.info.

      Not a reasonable comparison. By every measure MtGox was a central pillar of the Bitcoin system and establishment. A bank that's obviously and intentionally outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve? No.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:I'm sure he learned nothing by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So, the problems you cite with Bitcoin are a bit like the problems we have with most forms of encrypted email/etc. Lots of companies get into the game of making things easy so that the people who use the system don't need to know how things work. The problem is that they take short-cuts to make things easier, which break all the security.

      If you want to own bitcoin without running a bitcoin client, then you're really trusting somebody else with your wallet.

      Likewise, if you want to send gpg-encrypted email without installing a copy of gpg anywhere and managing your keys, then you're basically trusting whoever does have a copy of your key to not go reading your email.

      Security and convenience rarely go hand-in-hand, and it applies as much to money as anything else.

  50. The angry people really crack me up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You hand some stranger your money, and he says I'll pay you back.
    Then you get all pissed off when he doesn't.
    Why were you giving thousands of dollars to some stranger?

  51. Enrages Burned Investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think!?..

    Luckily for me I never kept many coins on Mt. Gox, so I only end up loosing a few grand, but all my coins were bought at extremely low prices back in the day so really, it was like losing about tree fiddy. I shouldn't make light of it like that but if you're going to play the game prepare to be burned a little or a lot, but that all depends on you. Sure, it's more convenient to store them on Mt. Gox, but it's also fucking stupid considering their track record.

    1. Don't store on exchange sites.
    2. Keep your wallet backed up with multiple copies on clean devices.
    3. A completely clean locked down device when accessing your wallet and there's no reason not to, you can buy a pc dirt cheap these days.
    4. Use a man in the middle wallet. "No not an actual person lol" For example - I'd get on my clean device send my coins to my other wallet turn off my clean, go back to my pc and log on a virtual machine and sell my coins, if receiving I do it in reverse.
    5. My clean device is on a separate connection with no router and has no wireless hardware.

    Everything I do is done is to mitigate damage if faced with a worst case scenario. There is a lot of malware out there that specifically targets btc only to help it stay hidden. They attack on popular sites using hit and run ad services which makes them extremely hard to detect and more often than not by the time you find out it's too late.

    I feel bad for the people that lost so much, but I do not feel bad for anyone who knew about their track record and still decided to store them there. Seriously, you'd have to be fucking insane.

    Here is a list of BTC heist over the years, take note of how many times Mt. Gox was involved.
    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83794.0#post_toc_21

  52. Wah wah wah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People gambled and lost... What's the issue?

  53. Remorse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For who? The Sheeple who farmed pretend money that other people will trade real money for and when they put it in the Mt. Gox (unregulated in any way) bank, and it disappeared, they got upset?

    'Tards - all of em.

  54. Heh by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    "Oh man, you're still going on about that? I said I'm sorry, okay? Now let's drop it and move on."

    (More seriously, though, my sympathy with the people who put their life savings into Bitcoin approaches zero.)

  55. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hous that greed powered "society" going guys?

    Having nice things already?

  56. Enough with the stupid name. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you idiots stop calling it "Mt. Gox" like it's some digital equivalent of Ft. Knox? It's MAGIC THE GATHERING ONLINE EXCHANGE. And always will be. That should have been everyone's first clue that bitcon was a scam, but true to slashdot form everyone ran around with their hands in the air proclaiming an end to the Fed and how anyone pointing out that bitcon was a CON "just didn't get it." And even AFTER the big scam collapsed the same people ran around telling everyone that "bitcon is great and fine, you're all just doing it wrong."

    Boom crash you lose.

  57. LOL ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse.

    In my experience, that's what it means to be a CEO.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  58. That's one possibility by gmclapp · · Score: 1

    Another is that he's just moving on with his life...

    --
    Common Sense (+1)
  59. busybox is not an operating system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much confusion around that term these days, "operating system".

    This is like saying, what OS do you use? bash, ksh, zsh, csh, or busybox?

  60. Investors?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever, there are no bitcoin investors. only speculators.
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/?_r=1

  61. Self-absorbed Narcissist by PPH · · Score: 1

    Personally, I welcome a new editor overlord to Slashdot.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  62. You're all sheep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one lambasted the heads of ANY of the banks that lead to the economic collapse in 2008-2009, those people actually GOT BONUSES. Yet you get one nerd who loses 400mil and you lambaste him? Because he lost the money of people dumb enough to invest in bitcoin? Its called market risk. you lost.

  63. He won't live to old age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was living in Tokyo, I heard a coworker complain about Chinese immigrants who, in Japan, have a reputation for tending toward criminal activity. He said that for the equivalent of a few thousand dollars you could pay one of the Chinese to kill someone.

    Hyperbole or not, even in Japan, with its low murder rate, someone this careless with that much of other people's money is not bound for a happy ending.

  64. well, geez now....Bitcoin people got BURNED? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any idiot who dabbles in Bitcoins, loses their shirt & then whines about it is obviously a moron.