Slashdot Mirror


Mt. Gox CEO Charged With Stealing $2.7 Million

An anonymous reader writes: After being arrested six weeks ago in Japan, Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles has now been formally charged with the theft of $2.66 million worth of clients' money. "Tokyo-based MtGox shuttered last year after admitting 850,000 coins — worth around $480 million at the time, or $387 million at current exchange rates — had disappeared from its digital vaults. The exchange, which once said it handled around 80 percent of global Bitcoin transactions, filed for bankruptcy protection soon after the cyber-money went missing, leaving a trail of angry investors calling for answers." Karpeles still denies doing anything illegal. The case is proving difficult for Japanese authorities to unravel, and they're taking it as slowly as they legally can.

99 comments

  1. just copy the bitcoins by known_coward_69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    they are digital, you can't steal them

    1. Re:just copy the bitcoins by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      He's going to jail. In Japan, the prosecutor decides if you are guilty, and then the court just rubber-stamps the decision. The conviction rate is over 99%.

    2. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't copy a car, would you?

    3. Re:just copy the bitcoins by SScorpio · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like he didn't have the Wright defense attorney.

    4. Re:just copy the bitcoins by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Japan there are at least two courts you go through, kind of like a grands jury in the States first. But if you're found guilty in the "grand jury" you're definitely going to be found guilty in the regular court.

    5. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you are quite bitcoin savvy!

    6. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this because of rubber stamping as you say, or because they only try cases they are nearly certain to win? A bit of googling suggests the latter, but I am not in any way familiar with the subject.

    7. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the courts will rubber stamp, the threshold for "cases they are nearly certain to win" is much lower than it might otherwise be.

    8. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wright brothers flew planes you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Wright brothers flew planes you insensitive clod!

      Maybe, but did those planes ever rise from the ashes, like an Ace Phoenix!

    10. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is going to miss a car. Its a victimless crime.

      [Interestingly, the captcha word for this is CARving]

    11. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They do tend to bring only cases they think they'll win - there aren't any plea bargains (which is a huge improvement over the current US justice system). That said, they also have a big problem with police/prosecutors relying on (often coerced) confessions to win convictions.

      Also, there has been something of a tradition that many judges are inclined to trust the prosecutors/police, that's only more recently been whittled away at with some of the evidence that's come to light in old cases with DNA evidence brought in. Consider Hakamada Iwao, who was found guilty of murder, only to be exonerated 45 years later when DNA testing proved his innocence. One of the original judges reportedly considered committing suicide out of shame over it:

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...

    12. Re:just copy the bitcoins by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Consider Hakamada Iwao, who was found guilty of murder, only to be exonerated 45 years later when DNA testing proved his innocence. One of the original judges reportedly considered committing suicide out of shame over it:

      Yeah, he should have committed suicide. If you are prepared to take away 45 years (more, actually) of someones life you had better be pretty certain that they are guilty.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    13. Re:just copy the bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only takes cases to court if they are a slam dunk - legally a confession alone isn't enough, but a confession and even the slightest bit of evidence is usually all it takes. They still need to have sufficient legal grounds to push a case through the courts, even if the bar for what is sufficient is really, really low.

      There was a high-profile case of this just this year when someone was infecting computers and sending threatening messages from the infected computers. Police were able to get 4 innocent people to confess to making the threats, despite them having no involvement except owning the computers used to send the messages.

      They were released after the hacker revealed details of the hack via USB memory attached to a cat (not. even. joking.)

      http://www.securityweek.com/japan-hacker-jailed-after-cat-and-mouse-game-police

  2. First comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is good comment

  3. You mean Bitcoin Jesus is a fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like we've been saying all along..

  4. Terminology problems by TWX · · Score: 2

    "...had disappeared from its digital vaults." the very terminology is misleading. It's just data on disk arrays, and if there's encryption it's decryptable by the owner of the disk array.

    The term vault shouldn't be used anyway, unless the "vault" computer is literally air-gapped. We have a vault for storing data for legal purposes, it's a literal interal concrete structure within the building with a reinforced steel door, and only a few people have keys that open it. The only wiring going in there is for lights and fire alarm/smoke detectors. No outlets, no data, no phone. It's not a bank vault, but it would require a degree of commitment to get in there.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Terminology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless the "vault" computer is literally air-gapped

      wifi.

    2. Re:Terminology problems by Severus+Snape · · Score: 1

      There is splashes of little ironies through out the comedy that this incident has caused. Most of the bitcoin wallets were indeed held off line, so had the attack been an outside intruder only so much currency would have been there to steal. Following the physical layout of a 'real' bank is wise, as long as nobody lets the bank manager run off with the contents of the vault in an armored truck.

    3. Re:Terminology problems by pla · · Score: 3, Informative

      The term vault shouldn't be used anyway, unless the "vault" computer is literally air-gapped.

      Most vendors who really take BTC (as opposed to just using an instant-exchange payment processor to convert it to USD) do exactly that (though they use the term "cold storage").

      They have a live (hot) wallet and an offline (cold storage) wallet (and usually a "watch" wallet, which allows verifying transactions to the hot wallet without any risk of compromise); the hot wallet regularly sends its balance (over a certain amount you want on hand) into cold storage, leaving only what you can bear to lose in the hot wallet.

      The cold storage never even needs to power up unless you want to withdraw from it (which takes a few extra steps to do securely - Basically you need to make a new cold storage wallet and spend the entire old one between your hot wallet and your new cold storage wallet); but when talking about having a few million dollars on hand, only a moron would try to save themselves the extra five minutes it takes to do it right, once a month or so.

    4. Re:Terminology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=airgapped

    5. Re:Terminology problems by mlts · · Score: 2

      I have seen the term "vault" used quite loosely. To me, a true "vault" is something as described above -- has secure HVAC, fire, and electric routing, and has a door that is at least 15-30 minutes resistant to heavy duty power tools (TL-15/TL30.)

      However, this word is used in computing. In Netbackup the term "vaulting" is used for copying data from one set of media to another, so if a restore comes in, and a disk doesn't have it, it will know to go fetch a tape out of a silo.

      I've also seen the term "digital vaults" to point to devices like Isilons or Avamars... NAS models that have some faculty for tamper resistance, even if an attacker gets root. It isn't as secure as a silo using WORM media [1], but it passes muster for HIPAA and other regulations.

      [1]: Of course, HDDs and SSDs have zero archival warranty, while tapes have 30+ years guaranteed archival life, but having data online is more important than having the ability to retrieve the data in most businesses, so deduplication appliances like Avamars wind up being used.

    6. Re:Terminology problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BitCoins have a lot of flexibility in securing them. This can be good or bad. Put coins in the wrong wallet, and they are gone, no matter what. However, put coins in a wallet that only you know where it is, and those coins will remain yours no matter what (barring xkcd.com/538, of course.)

      Right now, I don't have many BitCoins, but if I wound up with enough that it would make someone want to go out of their way to grab my smartphone or PC, I'd probably go with a printed paper wallet which is stashed in a secure location or be stashed on a secure device [2].

      [2]: An iPod Touch with an app on it stashed in an ammo can, for example.

    7. Re:Terminology problems by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      That the individual in question has not been disappeared, based upon the nature of the criminal activities associated with the currency, is a pretty solid indication that, local to Mount Gox, organised crime was involved in the major theft and paid the commission and provide the protection.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  5. But what about the MTG cards? by mrthoughtful · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happened with all the MTG cards?! They've got to be worth something!

    --
    This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
    1. Re:But what about the MTG cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much bitcoin butthurt on this site. #sadoldmen

  6. If he stole 1 billion worth by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    he could have applied for a gov bailout and used that to pay himself a bonus.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:If he stole 1 billion worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bail out the banks loan art to the churches
      Satanic Reverses
      Bail out the banks loan art to the churches
      Satanic Reverses

    2. Re:If he stole 1 billion worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which gov bails out BitCoin?

      Seriously, that is the issue here. Bailouts are a part of regulation. A bad part, because it means the proper steps have failed, but a step nonetheless. And such regulation happens within a legal context, for recognized currencies. BitCoin intentionally operates outside this sphere. It even operates outside the legal sphere, where payments can be reversed. A legally acceptable Digitial Currency will have a cryptographic "backdoor": a second pair of keys to each wallet, owned by the financial regulator. This would be used to reverse transactions voided by legal process. I put quotes around backdoor because this reversal would still be as visible in the blockchain as the original transaction, so the regulator cannot abuse the power.

  7. Justice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He spent those bitcoins trying to get laid on Ashley Madison.

  8. They should just ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The freedom loving butt coin investors loathe government involvement; until of course somebody steal from them at which time they go crying for help.

    The Japanese government should just wash its hands of the matter and ignore it as being of no concern.

    1. Re:They should just ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. "Butt Coin". You have a biting wit.

    2. Re:They should just ignore it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital ass pennies.

  9. So glad I never dabbled in bitcoins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without a strong governmental entity to oversee and protect them, they are basically worthless in my book. US dollars are backed by the US Military....

  10. Mr. Fancy Drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully someone stabs Mr. Fancy Drink in prison and he bleeds to death slowly.

    Yes, I'm still rather mad about the small sum of BTC I lost because of that shitbag.

    1. Re:Mr. Fancy Drink by Megol · · Score: 0

      And I hope* you have a serious stroke and a long (otherwise) healthy life - having locked-in syndrome for 50 years may help you realize that judging another person without proof may not be so smart...

      (* not really even if your death wish almost get me there)

    2. Re:Mr. Fancy Drink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have him rot in prison for the rest of his life...

  11. Caveot Emptor by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hard to have any sympathy for the situation. If you sign up for an currency that is designed to be outside of the world governments, don't come crying to the government that dumb ass idea blew up in your face.

    1. Re:Caveot Emptor by Dagger2 · · Score: 2

      But in this case the government did do something about it -- and I think it's quite possible that jail time like this will be a far more effective deterrent than the giant bailouts the banks got in the US.

    2. Re:Caveot Emptor by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Hard to have any sympathy for the situation. If you sign up for an currency that is designed to be outside of the world governments, don't come crying to the government that dumb ass idea blew up in your face.

      If it were just that the bitcoins crashed and became worth nothing, that's one thing. Theft is another.

      If you steal baseball cards that the market says are worth 100,000 - that's the amount that you're going to be tagged for.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


        If you sign up for an currency that is designed to be outside of the world governments, don't come crying to the government that dumb ass idea blew up in your face.

      It's not really a currency, it's far more like an easily trade-able commodity. Also, governments already regulate bitcoin as a trade-able commodity. The IRS treats bitcoin profits as capital gains, and you're required to report them as income when they're converted into something tangible. It's really not all that different from Gold, just more portable.

    4. Re:Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you 7 years old? 7 and a half?

      No one "signed up" for a currency. They bought bitcoins. Which *should be* a very easy to verify and technologically tangible thing. He then pretended to be properly storing them and instead lost them and used them himself (well seems that way).

      If I paid a company to host my photos and they lost most of them and sold the others without my permission and pocketed the money, they would be liable to criminal charges. That's nothing to do with currency either.

    5. Re:Caveot Emptor by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 2

      The difference is that deposits in a US bank are insured by the federal government up to some amount. (I'm not sure how it works in other countries but I would be surprised if they didn't have similar arrangements.) Bitcoins are not insured by a government. Yes, the government is going after the individual responsible for committing the theft, but there's no guarantee that those people will get their money back - unlike with a government-issued, government-insured currency.

    6. Re:Caveot Emptor by vux984 · · Score: 2

      If I paid a company to host my photos and they lost most of them and sold the others without my permission and pocketed the money, they would be liable to criminal charges.

      Ah so bit coins are intellectual property? And you have copyright on them? So we can charge him with copyright infringement with respect to your bitcoins for selling them without your permission?

      And for losing some? Do you have a contract with them that shows they have to compensate you in any way if they 'lose' any of your 'bitcoins'? That would certainly be unusual in any hosting agreement I've ever seen - I know dropbox and facebook and spideroak and crashplan make no such promises, but maybe you have such an agreement?

      If drop box loses the only copies of my photos I have, then that's on me not them. That's not criminal. If dropbox resells any photos i have stored... well that's copyright infringement.

      You really think that's appropriate here? No?... maybe its nothing like photos after all!

    7. Re:Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These aren't songs or movies which can duplicate without taking the original. These are cryptographically secured, unique pieces of data that can not be replaced.

      This is real theft of digital goods and must be investigated.

    8. Re:Caveot Emptor by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, "this is good news for Bitcoin"?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Caveot Emptor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Hard to have any sympathy for the situation. If you sign up for an currency that is designed to be outside of the world governments, don't come crying to the government that dumb ass idea blew up in your face.

      No, it's even worse than that.... The folks that lost their money here put their BitCoin in another person's hands for safe keeping instead of keeping their OWN wallets locally. They took a basically untraceable currency, put it in an unregulated bank overseas (for most of them) and then where surprised when their accounts got raided because somebody figured out how to steal the currency electronically..

      It's like they had the local pan handler on the street corner hold their stack of Jefferson's because it was too dangerous to stuff it in the mattress or leave it in their wallet because they might get robbed.. Wonder why the panhandler is missing now and where the money went?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Caveot Emptor by njnnja · · Score: 4, Informative

      Although your conclusion

      there's no guarantee that those people will get their money back - unlike with a government-issued, government-insured currency.

      is sound, it's actually a little more subtle than that. The reason that people who lost money in Mt Gox can't get their money back isn't because it was in Bitcoin. In theory, the US government could decide to insure Bitcoin deposits in FDIC-regulated banks (of course they don't currently), even though the US government can't print Bitcoin (of course, the value of that guarantee is only as good as the US government's ability to get its hands on Bitcoin if a bank goes under). The reason people won't get their money back from Mt Gox is because Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank. Even if people just deposited US Dollars in Mt Gox, they would have lost everything when it was stolen because there is no "deposit insurance" for a company that isn't FDIC-insured.

      While it may seem like I am being pedantic for the sake of a silly "gotcha," that is not my intent. Instead, the very important point that this illustrates is that there is a big difference between Bitcoin as a currency, versus "Bitcoin" as a financial system. As strong as Bitcoin as a currency may be, the Bitcoin financial system is barely embryonic and needs to do a lot to develop the kind of institutional heft that the current financial system has. Note that this does not have to be centralized (and certainly doesn't have to be done through a government), but it's much more likely that large numbers of ordinary Joes will use Bitcoin only if the larger system is more robust.

    11. Re:Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to point out though, that even with an FDIC insured bank there is still no absolute guarantee that depositors will get the full *insured* value of their deposits bank. FDIC is, at the end of the day, a fund, that may or may not have sufficient monies to cover payouts in the event of a member default. In fact, it is likely, that in any situation where more than one or two member banks go under simultaneously, that the FDIC will not, in fact, have sufficient funds to make depositors whole up to their insured limits.

    12. Re:Caveot Emptor by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 2

      The reason that people who lost money in Mt Gox can't get their money back isn't because it was in Bitcoin. ... The reason people won't get their money back from Mt Gox is because Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank.

      Your point is sound (deposit insurance is different from who or what issues a currency), but in practice that distinction doesn't help anyone looking to replace their wealth storage in dollars with something else. The reason Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank is because their deposits are in bitcoin, and FDIC doesn't insure anything that isn't in dollars.

      I seriously doubt the US government will start insuring bitcoin deposits because 1) it doesn't control the currency, and 2) because it wants to encourage people to use dollars, not bitcoin. Lack of FDIC insurance on bitcoin is a (major) downside to using bitcoin as a wealth storage replacement.

      Note that I'm talking about wealth storage, not short-term transactions. Transactions can be done in whatever currency the two parties agree upon (dollars, bitcoin, Ferraris, head of cattle, whatever). That's been possible since the dawn of trading between two parties and bitcoin is perhaps useful there.

    13. Re:Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you're saying we shouldn't prosecute the theft of anything but legal tender. Moron.

    14. Re:Caveot Emptor by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Stealing is still illegal, even if the thing being stolen is not currency backed by a world government. Hell, someone can steal US$ from you, and if it wasn't in an FDIC insured account, the US government won't reimburse you either.

      There are plenty of dumb things done by the people who had their bitcoins stolen. Investing in a currency that is not controlled by a world government isn't one of them. Look at all the people who had held Yugoslavian dinars or Zimbabwe dollars.

    15. Re: Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the entire point of bitcoin that you do not need a bank? Dumbasses for giving away their bitcoins to some stranger on the internet.

    16. Re:Caveot Emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone had bitcoin in MtGox, some had dollars.

    17. Re:Caveot Emptor by carnivore302 · · Score: 1

      The remaining bitcoins in mtgox will be given to the creditors, pro rata. And I know of nobody who has invested in bitcoins to be crying. We knew this could happen and take it on the chin. For me, it was 40K.

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    18. Re:Caveot Emptor by njnnja · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt the US government will start insuring bitcoin deposits

      It's actually not as strange as it seems. The government insures any and all kinds of securities under SIPC as long as the institution that is holding those assets is insured. I just used FDIC because that is what people are more familiar with. But FDIC is to insure a deposit in a bank, which as we all know isn't actually held in the vault, it gets lent out to some guy buying a house or a car so if the bank has trouble, your money isn't there. But Bitcoin at Mt Gox wasn't a "deposit" where they could then lend those Bitcoin out willy nilly. Financial intermediaries who are simply holding *your* assets are different - if they get into trouble, your assets should still be there unless someone inside stole it (for various definitions of "stole"). So you don't need FDIC insurance for what happened to Mt Gox.

      For example, if people could hold their Bitcoin in Charles Schwab, and the CEO of Charles Schwab stole all the Bitcoin, the US government (under SIPC) would insure them and reimburse investors for their losses (up to $500,000).

      The non-recoverability of funds is *entirely* due to the fact that the assets were held in Mt Gox and not because they were Bitcoin (with the caveat that, as pointed out above, the financial system around Bitcoin is too immature to currently have any SIPC insured broker dealers AFAIK).

  12. Off with the head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The case is proving difficult for Japanese authorities to unravel, and they're taking it as slowly as they legally can.

    You got it backwards. The japanese authorities just want to give him more time to decide and do what is honourable: buy a tatami, a wakizashi and you know the rest...

  13. A different approach by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin conflates two unrelated ideas: a new, non-governmental currency and confidential transfer of digital cash. Why can't we have one without the other - use blockchain technology to anonymously transfer real currencies?

    1. Re: A different approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The underlying technology is decentralized book-keeping. To do that with real currencies you need someone to recognize the books. None of the required recognition can be offered by non-governmental entities. If a private company steps up to do that - by offering to redeem tokens as real money - you could get nothing when the company just bails like this MtGox guy did.

      A start-up called Tether offers the aforementioned kind of USD-redeemable tokens where the book-keeping is done on the Bitcoin blockchain. NuBits and BitUSD try to decentralize this process, by setting rules and providing incentive, so that the market decides to buy and sell their tokens at close to $1, so it doesn't matter so much if their founders suddenly disappear.

    2. Re:A different approach by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what Bitcoin does: it's a way to transfer real money around. It doesn't attempt to be a proper currency itself.

      Although that doesn't stop people from thinking that it is, and then going around telling everybody that it sucks for not working well as one...

    3. Re: A different approach by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      But anonymizing transfers of real currencies could bring large, trusted players into the field, such as Swiss banks. American money laundering laws would preevnt any US-based companies from getting into this field, but who's to know the identity of the patrons?

    4. Re:A different approach by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Why can't we have one without the other - use blockchain technology to anonymously transfer real currencies?

      IBM is working on it, and some big US banks say they're interested.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/us-bitcoin-ibm-idUSKBN0M82KB20150312

    5. Re:A different approach by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      I see a couple of practical problems with taking the bitcoin blockchain concept and attempting to apply it to balances denominated in government currency (or any other extenal asset)

      1: the bitcoin blockchain gains it's security against modification of history from having lots of computing power behind it. That computing power is currently "paid for" by issuing new bitcoins*. The beauty of this system is that as the userbase grows and the value of a bitcoin grows the effective reward and hence the ammount of computing power devoted to keeping the system secure grows with it. A system where the balances are exchangable at a fixed rate for "governement currency" has to be far more careful about creating balances out of thin air if it doesn't want to go bankrupt in short order.
      2: For a blockchain balance demoninated in "government currency" to be anything more than a fiction there has to be an entity that can actually make the exchanges both taking "government currency" and exchanging it for a balance in the blockchain (which means they need the ability to create balances in the blockchain out of thin air) and taking a balance in the blockchain and exchanging it for government money. That means you have a central entity for government regulators who don't like anonymous transfers to attack.

      *Bitcoin does eventually intend to transition for a scheme where the "miners" are paid through transaction fees but it remains to be seen if that transaction will be a success or if mining power will drop off to the point where a 51% attack becomes accessible to a far wider range of adversatories.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:A different approach by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The problem is that existing governmental currencies are printed by those governments. Bitcoin is "mined" (meaning it can't simple be printed through very little effort). A government could decide to adopt and sanction a crypto-currency like bitcoin if it wanted, but it would have no direct control over the creation of that currency.

      Bitcoin is basically like gold that is easier to store and transfer. No government gets to decide to make more gold simply by typing a sequence of keys on a keyboard. Mining gold comes at a cost, and this cost of mining gold is what prevents the price of gold from falling below some reasonable minimum.

      If the Federal Reserve wanted to, they could hyper-inflate the USD to being worth not even the paper it's printed on (by simply creating as muhc of it as they want). Obviously they don't want to, but other governments have done exactly that. The Federal Reserve would not be able to as easily effect the price of gold with so little effort. The worst they could do is try to mine as much gold as possible and flood the market, but the effect would be limited to the amount of gold they could actually mine.

    7. Re: A different approach by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      US money laundering laws also apply to bitcoin. If you operate a bitcoin exchange in the US, you need to keep records on large cash transactions, and turn them over to the government. ("Large" here means $10K or more, or any batch of transactions that looks like it's intended to transfer $10K or more without triggering the reporting requirements.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation by Chewbacon · · Score: 2

    it's called a bonus.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  15. Difficult investigation, or difficult charges? by timrod · · Score: 1

    What I'm wondering is whether this is actually a difficult investigation, or whether it's actually that the Japanese courts are having trouble deciding what to charge Karpeles with. I don't think there's a single government that has decided what Bitcoin actually is - a currency or personal property. If it's a currency, and it turns out that Karpeles was taking money from his business, that's embezzlement. If it's not, it's theft. There could also be fraud charges thrown in if, as some people suggest, the stolen coins never actually existed and were basically a large-scale accounting error. It seems like the courts would have to first define what Bitcoin is in order to actually charge someone for stealing them.

    1. Re:Difficult investigation, or difficult charges? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      > I don't think there's a single government that has decided what Bitcoin actually is - a currency or personal property.

      It's a scarce digital commodity. Word documents or mp3 files are easily copied. Control of a bitcoin address, and whatever balance it holds, cannot. The control comes from a private 256 bit key, which is required to transfer control of the balance to another address. The balance can't be copied because you can trace it back through previous transactions to the point where the coins were first generated, and that history (the blockchain) can't be altered, but *can* be verified by anyone who wants to check it. Inability to copy it, and a limited supply ( no more than 21 million units, ever) makes it a scarce good in the economics sense.

      Digital means it is easy to transfer, scarcity means it is in limited supply, and other technical features make it useful to people, creating a demand. Supply and demand establish a market value, like for other commodities. It's a commodity because one bitcoin is pretty much like any other bitcoin, in the way barrels of oil or bars of gold are pretty much the same. So most people don't care *which* bitcoin they get, just *how many* they get. That makes them easily traded, unlike, say, houses. Houses are all different sizes and shapes, and every one of them has a different physical location. People care very much *which* house they get, so they are not easily traded for other ones.

  16. Cloudflare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karpelés may be bumbling and careless, from what we've read about how the systems were run at MtGox, but he doesn't strike me as a thief.

    Cloudflare is effectively a man-in-the-middle, and had effectively full access to MtGox's systems at the time because they employed their services to the fullest to mitigate DDoS attacks, and with the U.S government's hostility towards BitCoin just a couple of years ago, and their effort to "own" Internet services and remove "threats", I think Cloudflare were simply forced to cooperate in going after the biggest fish. Rapid-Share, Mega-Upload etc. have also had to give way for U.S based services, and more stories like this will come.

  17. We'll never know - Japan's investigators are bad by Sarusa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Japan's criminal justice system is terrible, just terrible.

    Crime is very low to start with so police are mostly helpful cop on the corner type or worst case dealing with drunks, gropers, or teen prostitution (but they usually don't bother with that one). There are a very few 'elites' who handle the nasty stuff, and they have an extremely high conviction rate because once they finger you you're going to jail whether you did it or not. Prosecution, defense, and judge all go with that (the detective said so!), so the only thing up for debate, really, is the sentence. There's a grand jury for a few things but they're mostly go along go along too.

    And they know nothing at all about technology. There was a thing two (?) years ago where some mother's apartment dwelling otaku freak was cancelling Kurko's Basketball (a popular manga/anime) events left and right for over a year and they couldn't do a damn thing about it. Eventually the freak got so cocky he got careless and did things like using messenger cats. My memory's a little hazy, but it went on seemingly forever and the cops were completely helpless. And they're terrible with corporate crime like this (the handling of the Olympus affair was a disgrace) since usually it's all a matter of what Japanese politicians you have in your pocket - but apparently Mt. Gox didn't have any. Whoops.

    I think Karpeles did it, or at least someone close to him at Mt. Gox did it, because it's just entirely too fishy, but I don't think this will prove it.

  18. embezzlement: taking for your own use ANYTHING en by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    embezzlement:
    The fraudulent appropriation to his own use or benefit of property or money in trusted to him by another
    -Black's Law Dictionary

    One can embezzle any type of property, including horses, currency, and chocolate. The distinguishing feature of embezzlement is that the culprit as been entrusted with the property. Theft would be if he took the thing from you without your permission. Embezzlement is when you hand him the thing, expecting him to hold it for you, but he uses it for himself.

    Embezzlement applies to Mt Gox because people sent their stuff to Mt Gox willingly.

  19. Welcome to the free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's paradise. For crooks.

  20. Re:just copy the Revolt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A violent revolution is needed there.

  21. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by leathered · · Score: 1

    I recall that Japan has a >99% conviction rate, which is pretty unhealthy for a democracy and is comparable to many totalitarian regimes. This probably means that for Karpeles his conviction will be a formality and it's just a question of how many years he's going to get.

    --
    For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
  22. Re:just copy the Revolt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A violent revolution is needed there.

    Well, get started then. If you need any advice, there's a helpful article on it in the latest issue of your favourite magazine!

  23. Here's a question by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    A rhetorical one, but one you should find out the answer to none the less: What was the repayment rate of the bailout loans?

    See it turns out the money wasn't a gift. The government didn't say "here's free money," rather they made loans, acting as the lender of last resort (which is something governments do to stabilize financial systems) but as with any loan, repayment was expected when possible. So go have a look and see what the repayment rate was, I'm not going to ask you to take my word for it, and let us know.

    Also, can you point out what law the companies that got bailed out broke?

    1. Re:Here's a question by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      they broke the laws of morality and ethics -- but pretty much everything they did (that I know of anyway) is technically legal according to US law.

      I think what GP was referring to with the "pay themselves bonuses" is that the bailout enabled banks to pay high performance bonuses to managers that had contributed to the disaster. That is pretty directly rewarding the unethical scum via government intervention.

    2. Re:Here's a question by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      See it turns out the money wasn't a gift. The government didn't say "here's free money," rather they made loans, acting as the lender of last resort

      The problem wasn't really the loan itself. The problem was that the interest rates on the loans did not reflect the fact that the borrowers were typically insolvent before the loan. The low interest rates constituted a gift.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re: Here's a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The companies should have been allowed to fail as a free market demands. Not allowing companies to fail means we do NOT have a free market. The question to you is, what kind of system do we have?

  24. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by dj245 · · Score: 2

    I recall that Japan has a >99% conviction rate, which is pretty unhealthy for a democracy and is comparable to many totalitarian regimes. This probably means that for Karpeles his conviction will be a formality and it's just a question of how many years he's going to get.

    Well, you have to ask *why* the conviction rate is so high before rushing to any judgement. I'm not an expert, but Plea bargaining is not allowed under Japanese law. So they can't use lower level criminals to help obtain evidence for higher level ones. There's no incentive for the low level criminal to cooperate, his sentence is the same no matter what. So they don't cooperate. Weak cases that rely on this sort of criminal cooperation just don't go forward due to lack of evidence.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  25. I hope the guy goes free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So first you whine about guberment regulations, and how the free market will solve all the problems, now you go crying that somebody ripped you off and there's nothing you can do about it.

    I hope the guy goes free because it will be a good lesson in the unregulated markets.

  26. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Japan's criminal justice system is terrible, just terrible.

    Crime is very low to start with

    Okay, one of us doesn't understand the point of the justice system. If crime is so low the cops rarely deal with serious crime I'd say that it's working EXACTLY as intended and that you have a silly idea of the purpose of any given criminal justice system.

    I realize as an American you think the goal is for the cops to put everyone in jail, but that in fact is not the case. The justice system is intended to make crime unappealing so that it is rare. Meaning that they are probably better cops than you're use to.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  27. The free market sorting it out? by ressolute · · Score: 1

    The free market has taken care of it!

  28. Wait what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean people used a currency designed to make law enforcement difficult gave their money to someone and it got stolen? I for one am SHOCKED. Just SHOCKED.

  29. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And they know nothing at all about technology. There was a thing two (?) years ago where some mother's apartment dwelling otaku freak was cancelling Kurko's Basketball (a popular manga/anime) events left and right for over a year and they couldn't do a damn thing about it. Eventually the freak got so cocky he got careless and did things like using messenger cats. My memory's a little hazy, but it went on seemingly forever and the cops were completely helpless. And they're terrible with corporate crime like this (the handling of the Olympus affair was a disgrace) since usually it's all a matter of what Japanese politicians you have in your pocket - but apparently Mt. Gox didn't have any. Whoops.

    I was intrigued by this, so I did a little research. It's a shame you really did not do a very good job here with explaining what happened as your post was interesting and on topic, but yeah, this paragraph could have been a lot better. The "otaku freak" as you call him did not personally cancel anything as your writing seems to claim. What he did was send threatening letters, sometimes with suspicious liquids or powders, to various places that were associated with the anime or its writer in some way and those places canceled many events related to Kuroko's Basketball. As to why he apparently had it in for this particular anime, it gets into sub-genres of anime that I'm not really qualified to talk about it and it seems that maybe he had a problem with the people who were interested in it and focused his rage at the creators and supporters. Apparently popular anime series have "events" of some kind in various places, but I have no idea what goes on there.

    Anyway, Japan sounds better to me than some countries I could name where not only is it impossible to lock up anybody for the rest of their life no matter how many people they kill, they actually start to feel sorry for the criminal because he's been locked up.

  30. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're assuming that crime is low BECAUSE of the criminal justice system though. I think that is an unwarranted and erroneous assumption.

  31. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    I realize as an American you think the goal is for the cops to put everyone *else* in jail, but that in fact is not the case.

    FTFY

  32. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan's criminal justice system is terrible, just terrible.

    Crime is very low to start with

    Okay, one of us doesn't understand the point of the justice system. If crime is so low the cops rarely deal with serious crime I'd say that it's working EXACTLY as intended and that you have a silly idea of the purpose of any given criminal justice system.

    I realize as an American you think the goal is for the cops to put everyone in jail, but that in fact is not the case. The justice system is intended to make crime unappealing so that it is rare. Meaning that they are probably better cops than you're use to.

    Actually the justice system is set up to make a profit for the private prison industry, just don't get caught. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=0

  33. Security Model Sounds Wrong by Samhain138 · · Score: 2

    I'm not a cryptocurrency expert, so pardon my ignorance, but...
    Am I seriously expected to transfer bitcoins from some "hot" wallet to a "cold" wallet and store that in a fucking safe???
    I don't have a safe. I don't want to print/tattoo/OCR a wallet. I don't trust them to exist 50 years from now.

    I do want to be able to keep as many copies as possible.
    You know, like my bank has backups (they do, they're not going to forget anyone's debt, e-v-e-r).
    I want a copy on my phone, all laptops, on an RFID card, wearables, on S3 for all I care.

    A digital currency where I can't keep digital copies of my wallet?
    A cryptocurrency that clearly didn't figure out how to properly encrypt wallets?
    Expecting some federal reserve to back this shit up with, e.g., gold is just a hackaround the fact that bitcoin's security model simply does NOT work.

    1. Re:Security Model Sounds Wrong by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The "wallet" in the article is really just your private key to be able to decrypt a set of bitcoin addresses which have had coins associated with it. It's not really a great analogy. The actual "wallet" is the blockchain, which is spread everywhere in the world. You just can't make a withdrawal (you _can_ make a deposit) from it without your private key to prove it's really you requesting the transfer.

      Like any other sort of encryption, if you have the private key and passphrase, you can read it (and spend the coins), if you don't, you can't. You don't want your private key sitting out there everywhere, you want it securely stashed. Hence using two different set of private keys, one on the public server handling transactions and another in a more secure location associated with the address of your long-term storage. It's more like having both a checking and savings account. If you're making money, you want to periodically transfer it out of checking and into savings and you don't typically withdraw from your savings all day long like you do your checking account. So you're ok with having to jump through an extra hoop or two in order to ensure your savings can't get phished out of your account.

      TLS cert chains work in a similar fashion. The private keys for the internet facing services are out on servers everywhere. The Certificate Authority is setup on a hopefully secured server to issue new ones. The root private certificate which can be used to manage the CAs is ideally on an air-gapped machine where you have to have specific permission to access it.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:Security Model Sounds Wrong by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One difference is that I can get my money out of a bank with pretty much any means to prove it's me, while I can get value out of a bitcoin wallet only by maintaining access to a 256-bit key that has to be kept secret. The bank system is much easier to deal with and understand.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:Security Model Sounds Wrong by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You can lose your real life wallet and thus lose access to your bank and credit accounts, but those methods have a backup authentication system in place which people end up using all the time.

      Someone with any serious amounts of bitcoins would be well advised to rent a bank safety deposit box (or two) and store an off-line backup of the key data required to reclaim their bitcoin addresses if they lost them.

      Neither one helps you if someone robs your account by stealing your CC info or your encryption keys, so you still want to consider a more secure system of preventing "spending" out of an account with a balance over whatever amount you find devastating to lose.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  34. Ofcource they are taking it slowly... by KreAture · · Score: 1

    It's the only way to suck whatever value is there into lawyers bank accounts.

  35. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

    Consider then that in the US, 90-95% of all criminal cases (state and federal) end up with the defendant pleading guilty, and never even go to trial in the first place. This is in part because of the propensity of prosecutors to threaten to load up the list of charges with a ridiculous number of things, unless you enter a guilty plea, meaning that it's either plead guilty to maybe 1-2 things, or run the risk that you'll end up going to jail for decades or more if you lose.

    This is exactly the sort of thing they pulled on Aaron Swartz, and it's ridiculous. (Which isn't to say that a system like Japan's is necessarily better, just that we have our own share of problems here)

  37. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall that Japan has a >99% conviction rate, which is pretty unhealthy for a democracy

    Japan is more or less a one party system with an apathetic population.
    It's a democracy in name only.

  38. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    Japan's criminal justice system is terrible, just terrible.

    Crime is very low

    Funny - I'd call very low crime rates a roaring success of the criminal justice system.

    And how the hell did you get modded up so high by asserting both "CJS is terrible" and "crime is very low"?

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  39. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by soramimicake · · Score: 1

    He mixed up 2 different cases. One is the one you described, and the other is the 'cat' person using a "remote control virus" to taunt the police and got them to arrest the wrong person (whose PC is infected and used to send email remotely). He got caught and confessed eventually I think.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
    http://www.japancrush.com/2012...

  40. Re:We'll never know - Japan's investigators are ba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I think the OP is engaging in unnecessary hyperbole, the low crime rate in Japan is not really related to the criminal justice system.

    To give you a good example, I live in Japan and I once forgot to take my change from a drink machine. I noticed it was still there the next day (I often buy coffee from the same drink machine :-) ). For fun, I decided to see how long it would stay there. It was there for 2 weeks. This is a drink machine that was next to the local high school and in heavy daily use. I think the only reason someone took the money was just to help people sort out their correct change from the machine. I ride a bike worth about $1000 every where I go (I don't have a car). I don't even own a bike lock. I haven't locked my front door in 6 years, except when I went on vacation for weeks on end.

    It's a different culture. Even if they could easily get away with breaking the rules, people still follow them. Personally, I think it has to do with the education system and the way children are raised. A super mono-culture has advantages in some ways. When I was working as a teacher, we used to go to the parents' house. If the parents were not doing a good job of raising their children, they would get a lecture. If they didn't improve, they would be required to come to the school for special parenting lessons. If they still didn't improve, sometimes the children would be sent to a special school where they could get extra attention. Imagine what would happen if a school did that in your culture ;-)

    There are some obvious problems with the justice system here. If you watch the news and look at the police mug shots of people who have been arrested, an alarming number of them have considerable facial bruising. Beatings during interrogation are said to be common and it appears to be true. The vast majority of convictions are done on the back of confessions. The police admit that sometimes confessions are the result of beatings. You do not have the right to have an attourney present during questioning. In the expat community it is recommended that if you ever need to be questioned by the police, you should ask for a translator (no matter how good your Japanese is). This will give you witness in case anything untoward happens. It is also important to note that you do not have the right to remain silent. It is against the law not to aid the police in their investigations. This includes ratting out your friends. For drug offences, you can actually be charged with the same offence if the police determine that you were witnessed the drug use and did nothing about it (seriously scary).

    The English language newspapers in Japan often portray the Japanese police as being corrupt and incompetent. This has led many expats (who follow the English language newspapers) to follow suit. I do not think it is actually true (or at least no more true than in most other countries), but the rules here are starkly different than the rules in most western countries.

    Having said that, it is very, very nice to live in a peaceful country where people follow the rules. Personally, it suits me. I'm careful to follow the rules too. The police here are friendly and will go out of their way to help you out with just about anything. I once had an American colleague who punched a police officer. I had to help deal with the situation. Even though the police could easily beat the guy up, lock him up for a few weeks (and charge him for it!) and then deport him, they were actually quite restrained and helpful. I wouldn't recommend trying it yourself, though ;-)