Slashdot Mirror


One Year Later, We're No Closer To Finding MtGox's Missing Millions

itwbennett writes: When Mt. Gox collapsed on Feb. 28, 2014, with liabilities of some ¥6.5 billion ($63.6 million), it said it was unable to account for some 850,000 bitcoins. Some 200,000 of them turned up in an old-format bitcoin wallet last March, bringing the tally of missing bitcoins to 650,000 (now worth about $180 million). In January, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, citing sources close to a Tokyo police probe of the MtGox collapse, reported that only 7,000 of the coins appear to have been taken by hackers, with the remainder stolen through a series of fraudulent transactions. But there's still no explanation of what happened to them, and no clear record of what happened on the exchange.

26 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somebody buried it in Second Life.

  2. Yes, and? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wasn't that the whole point behind Bitcoin? That you could fleece investors without leaving a paper trail?

    1. Re:Yes, and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bitcoins are 100% traceable, but wallets are not, and it wouldn't take much shell game playing for enough plausible deniability to be entered into the system, especially if the coins are taken off the board for several years while the currency rises to quad or five digit values per dollar. (BitCoins are too much in use to ever really go down in value for any length of time now that China is in the game.)

      Say a wallet has a hundred coins in it, all "dirty". For example, the blockchain traces show they were all in an exchange's possession/wallet, then stolen. Realistically, the coins could be spent by them being put into wallets (perhaps even printed out on paper currency), and distributed/laundered via that method. A few years later, when the wallets are opened and the coins spent, the coins are owned by completely different people, and tracing the gap from when the coins vanished to when they were put back into the ecosystem becomes almost impossible... like trying to trace a dollar bill.

      If tainted coins hit an exchange or other service that trades BTC for other goods (even if they just trade BTC for their own currency and back again), unless that exchange has complete records of every transaction, the trail of stolen coins will stop with them, as it takes only one single broken link in the chain to have a trail be impossible to pursue by normal means.

      BTC made a lot of money for the early adopters, but it still has not yet lost momentum as a currency, and only will gain in value over time.

    2. Re:Yes, and? by kaizendojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the worst part is seeing some anonymous idiot trying to turn every discussion into a political scat fight.

    3. Re:Yes, and? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like it was an overwhelming success, then.

      Every time I see stories like this, I think ... gee, so you entrusted millions of dollars with an entity which isn't a bank, isn't regulated as a bank, and who more or less mostly just promised they wouldn't steal your money ... and somehow people are surprised by this.

      On what basis, exactly, does handing strangers your money make sense when you have no legal basis to get it back?

      It's hard not to see this as a self inflicted problem, and people handed sacks full of money to some guy in an alley with no receipt thinking they were investing.

      Sorry, but I'm afraid this was people believing that Bitcoin was somehow magic, and that nobody would ever be a crook.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Yes, and? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bitcoin != exchanges.
      You needn't and shouldn't keep your money in exchanges.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    5. Re:Yes, and? by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      It's so anyone of any age or location could send money without billionaires and the world bank fucking with it. There are more illegal transactions with paper cash than bitcoins so take your stupid stereotypes and inaccurate info somewhere else.

    6. Re:Yes, and? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a free society, one where government has no rights to invade privacy and personal lives of the people, using money is not a crime. The fact that the coins are nearly untraceable is the desired effect, similar to actual cash money. Yes, the side effect is one where people buy illegal contraband (oxymoronic in a free society) using nearly untraceable currency. But the same could be said for CASH, which has nearly all the same risks in a free society.

      However, if you want to give up your rights to avoid some messy possibilities, you're going to find that you're not really avoiding anything, and having given up your rights ... are worse off.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Yes, and? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I am a Libertarian and you won't find me making those whines. The only people I hear actually whining are those that didn't do their due diligence and put all their eggs in one insecure basket. The ones whining are those that are now calling for government interference where none is really needed, and people like yourself who don't understand libertarian principles and yet feel entitled to mock them.

      Trust me, you look like a fool to libertarians like me.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Yes, and? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      You're simply wrong because:

      1) Legal tender can be refused if the debt didn't exist at the time of the payment (aka the purchasing of a car).
      2) The US has something called "invitation to bargain" which allows a shopkeeper to refuse cash. This is backed up by case law that is nearly 150 years old.

      So, no, that wasn't the original intent and isn't backed up by any US case law.

    9. Re:Yes, and? by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Is it the government's business what I'm doing with 100 $100 bills? Fuck no. I should make it very clear that I don't approve of reporting requirements. And the idea of civil forfeiture is entirely ridiculous.

      You'll brook no argument from me on civil forfeiture. The reporting requirements are trickier; they were put in place because ongoing criminal enterprises were using cash to launder the proceeds of their ill gotten gains. There's a history there and if you want to drill down deeper into Constitutional Law the reporting requirements pass a strict scrutiny test. The State has a compelling interest in preventing criminals from laundering money and the policy is narrowly tailored. It does not represent a significant burden on or intrusion into your daily life.

      I can see the philosophical objection, but in the hierarchy of infringements (real and imagined) on my personal liberty this ranks pretty damned close to the bottom. Such are the tradeoffs you make for being a member of civilization and I doubt that there are many people in the political mainstream (or even within Libertarianism) that think we should make it easier for criminal enterprises to launder money.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Yes, and? by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      Unless you own a pawn shop. Florida (and I'm guessing other states too) effectively makes them immune to action for trading in stolen property, and makes you jump through ridiculous legal hoops to get your stuff back even if you can prove it's yours.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    11. Re:Yes, and? by rioki · · Score: 2

      The fact that the coins are nearly untraceable is the desired effect

      This shows you have NO idea how BT works. The coins are super traceable and that is a feature of BT. Each and every transaction is noted in the public ledger (block chain). You wallet is just a private key (with some meta data). The actual amount in "your possession" is determined by the aggregate of transaction towards your "wallet" (public key). Where pseudonymity comes in to play is associating identities (keys) with real persons, but that has proven time and again to only be relatively thing veil. (Like pseudonyms on the internet in the 90s...)

  3. Re:What about the "old wallet"? by gurps_npc · · Score: 2

    RTFS. Note the S, not the A. If you had read the SUMMARY, let alone the article, you would see that 850,000 were missing, 200,000 were found in the wallet, leaving 650,000 unaccounted for.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  4. One year later, I'm not closer to caring. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An anonymous currency, that allows you to set up an exchange in any country, and without any oversight whatsoever. The whole thing is trust based. Would you leave your cash with any random stranger in some Thai web cafe for safekeeping? Even if you see others do the same, seemingly without worry? Because leaving any significant amount of BTC in an exchange amounts to the same thing.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Thats a lot of cards by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    $180M is a lot of Magic the Gathering cards.

    Haven't they gone down significantly in value in recent years. That's probably enough to own all of them.

  6. Anybody actually looking? by jandrese · · Score: 2

    Is there anybody with real authority actually looking for this? As far as the government is concerned someone might as well have stolen all of the WoW Gold or Eve ISK. Pretty much everybody else doesn't have the means or expertise to actually do the real world search. Somebody has a huge fat wallet that they're going to tumble over the months and eventually cash out and unless they screw something up there's not much chance of being caught.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Anybody actually looking? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's bigger than some countries' entire currency, Amazon and Newegg both take it as a form of payment,

      No, they don't. They point you to an exchange because they only take real money. They absolutely will not let a single BTC touch their system. They do not accept it as a form of payment. They do, however, point you to an exchange at time of sale.

      it's approved as a security backing now by the SEC and FINRA,

      So are CDS, houses, stocks, commodities, etc. That don't make any of them a currency, or money.

      and all serious investors take it seriously.

      Name three.

      So come back out of 2010 and join us in 2015 please and stop calling it a pretend currency.

      On this you're absolutely correct. It is not even a pretend currency.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  7. and you never will find the money by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    people who seek to get a currency away from "evil" government control get exactly what they want: worse. no government, no accountability. no accountability, you get screwed, and the only answer you will ever get is "oh well"

    you can't run from government regulation in hatred of it as a great evil, and then expect government to come to rescue you when you inevitably get fucked. you got fucked, because there's no regulations... which you *asked for* and were enthusiastic about, moron

    all this episode boils down to is some economically clueless fanboys needed to learn the hard way what the rest of us already know: that a currency backed by a government is obviously better than "free" alternatives

    all the evil shit a government can pull (and they do, i'm not defending government, i'm just noting there is far worse out there) is nothing compared to the evil that exists without a government backed currency and government oversight, accountability, and regulations of finance and banking. i'm not in love with government, i just recognize it as the *least worse* evil when it comes to currency mechanisms

    you can petition and redress your grievances to government, and get a hearing, and maybe justice (if you actually understand right and wrong and you aren't some deranged crackpot out for "justice")

    you can't do that against random assholes whom you trusted with your deposits for some ignorant reason that just basically boils down to uneducated enthusiasm

    it's like the people who rant and complain about how evil the police are. and then their car gets broken into... and... drum roll please... they call the police. you want to reform the police, fix the police, fight corruption. not fight their existence. you need the police. without the police, civilization quickly falls. of course there are crooked cops and bad cops. so fight that, the bad apples in the system, rather than fight the entire system. which you need, and want, despite the fact you aren't educated enough to see or understand that far worse problems exist without them. the same with government regulation of finance and banking. it is warped and corrupt and crooked. so fight the corruption. don't fight the whole system. because without the system, far worse shit will befall you

    people need to be educated enough on economics and history to know what kind of abuses exist out there without government oversight of banking

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:and you never will find the money by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      look at the article we are commenting under. there is your answer

      without protections, you get fucked

      it's kind of like antivaxxers: they have no fucking clue how horrible a world of constant deadly diseases was. so in this bubble of ignorance, created by progress, they only see the tiny "evil" in what we have to do to maintain the advance: get injections. they react to that as the evil that needs to be defeated. as if that's the only evil possible. and when enough of them allow enough attack vectors for a deadly disease to proliferate, people die. so here we have the real evil at work: ignorance

      the world is not a choice between unicorns and rainbows versus shit and broken bones

      the world is often a choice between various shades of bad situations

      wisdom is picking the least bad situation, and comparing it versus the other bad options. rather than ignorantly comparing the least worse bad situation against uneducated perfection fantasy. so government regulations, with all of the corruption and rent seeking and regulatory capture, etc., is better than no government, or weaker government

      people need to fight corruption, not government itself. in fact, those who corrupt government are often the ones loudly proclaiming government to be the enemy, rather than the corruption they create. and uneducated fools fall for their lies

      another example: the FDC

      like antivaxxers, certain paranoid economically illterate wackjobs see great evil in the FDC. and in their abject economic and historical ignorance, they have no clue of the historical suffering that led to the FDC. no, in their mind these controls exist because of vast conspiracies and assorted nutbag fantasy rantings about efforts to control us all, because reality is apparently an episode of scooby doo

      why does the FDC actually fucking exist in the first place? study your economics and your history. don't trust the low iq herp derp hysterics of alex jones types to "educate" you

      the reasons are mundane and sensible for the FDC. not dark and creepy. a world without them, the world before the FDC, is far, far worse:

      every dozen years, there would be a banking panic, and people would lose their life savings

      simple history. simple economic fact

      that's the real reason why we have the FDC (cue paranoid historically and economically illiterate whining about "freedom")

      and here we have bitcoin enthusiasts losing their deposits by entrusting them to random assholes without any government oversight, and guess what?

      "oh well"

      that's what life is like without "evil" government regulations in finance

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:and you never will find the money by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      without protections, you get fucked

      Right, and with government "protection", you also get fucked. They take our money and then spend it oppressing us. I don't know that getting secure banking out of it is all that great a trade.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re: and you never will find the money by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You didn't even read what I wrote

      Here, I've excerpted for you. Educate yourself, try again:

      >the world is not a choice between unicorns and rainbows versus shit and broken bones

      >the world is often a choice between various shades of bad situations

      >wisdom is picking the least bad situation, and comparing it versus the other bad options. rather than ignorantly comparing the least worse bad situation against uneducated perfection fantasy. so government regulations, with all of the corruption and rent seeking and regulatory capture, etc., is better than no government, or weak government

      You don't want to be oppressed? Ever try living in a place with no government or weak government?

      FIX it, don't destroy it.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re: and you never will find the money by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Good People doing nothing allows evil to prosper. Be it Somalia or Nazi Germany.

      There were plenty of "Good People" (tm) in Nazi Germany. Many of them did a lot more than nothing; resistance ranged from non-violent underground protests (White Rose) to violent attempts at assassination. "Good People" (tm) are no guarantee against tyranny and this entire topic is irrelevant in a discussion about the proper bounds of Government.

      Since time immortal Governments have claimed the right to coin and regulate the currency. This is not a new concept that started with the Federal Reserve Act. If you're going to upend a few thousand years of precedent why don't you explain to us why your desired cryptocurrency solution is better than the system you're railing against? Particularly since the Government (or anyone with enough guns really) can still compel you to participate in the system if push comes to shove.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  8. It's Silk Road, Duh.. by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has no one noticed that the coins disappeared at almost the same time the FBI seized Silk Road's Assets?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  9. more than bitcoins are missing by lee+n.+field · · Score: 2

    More than bitcoins are missing. If you sold bitcoins through Mt. Gox, back when they peaked at US$1200, Mt. Gox delayed depositing them into your bank account. And delayed. And delayed. And delayed. And eventually went belly up without every paying.

    I had to deal with some of this, with an estate I was at the time administrator of.

  10. The Goldfinger Gambit by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

    I wonder if the point wasn't to steal the Mt. Gox Bitcoins, but just to delete them, forever removing them from the system, like the several million dollars worth on that hard drive buried in a landfill somewhere. By removing a bunch from the system, it reduces the supply and raises the price for those who are holding lots of them.

    (Fans of 1960s James Bond movies might recall that this was Auric Goldfinger's reason for setting off a nuke in Fort Knox.)