Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   MtGox seems to have found $116m of their lost bitcoins. Maybe they should check under the cushions of their sofa next?   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Amusing, bitcoins  
•       •       •

3766 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 9:25 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-21 09:12:08 AM  
Sure they have.
 
2014-03-21 09:27:31 AM  
That's probably enough to put most of their investors back to where they were in October or whenever it was before bitcoin soared in price.  They may have been screwed out of their gains, but maybe most of them will not be completely boned.
 
2014-03-21 09:28:17 AM  
So now they are also grossly incompetent at backups and servers as well as networking and security? Good to know.
 
2014-03-21 09:30:08 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: That's probably enough to put most of their investors back to where they were in October or whenever it was before bitcoin soared in price.  They may have been screwed out of their gains, but maybe most of them will not be completely boned.


They "lost" a total of 409 Million dollars worth of bitcoins, and are being sued by multiple people in the US, Canada, and the UK. 119 million is not going to put "most of their investors" back to where they were. The only reason he's backtracking now is because more than one person caught on to the shady, pyramid nature of MtGOX,and are calling him out over this.
 
2014-03-21 09:30:54 AM  
I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"
 
2014-03-21 09:30:56 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: That's probably enough to put most of their investors back to where they were in October or whenever it was before bitcoin soared in price.  They may have been screwed out of their gains, but maybe most of them will not be completely boned.


did you read the article?  They found 200,000 coins that only existed in 2011, so they've only lost 650,000 coins.

They've still screwed people, but it turns out a bit of spittle was used as lube... or maybe a pillow was available for a few customers to bite on.
 
2014-03-21 09:34:17 AM  
I'm sorry; but, why didn't they give each coin a unique serial number; so they could track it? That's like the first thing you'd do when creating a new currency. The second? HASH ALL THE THINGS!
 
2014-03-21 09:35:08 AM  
Put the bastards to work in the mines until they can pay their debts, I say.
 
2014-03-21 09:36:36 AM  

Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"


I didn't realize that the police had found the $7.5 million in bit coins...
 
2014-03-21 09:37:23 AM  
When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".
 
2014-03-21 09:39:01 AM  
How do you "Find" something that doesn't exist??

Oh, yeah, I "found" "Jesus".


/he was out pulling weeds in my garden.
 
2014-03-21 09:41:34 AM  

iheartscotch: I'm sorry; but, why didn't they give each coin a unique serial number; so they could track it? That's like the first thing you'd do when creating a new currency. The second? HASH ALL THE THINGS!


They do, and it's actually a hash.   The biatchain is used not only to identify the bitcoin but to track every transaction it's ever used in.   For anonymous currency, it's not really that anonymous.
 
2014-03-21 09:42:04 AM  

MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".


Most people who are into BitCoins as more than a side hobby are die-hard libertarians who believe it's going to be the BIG THING as soon as the Dollar, Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling, Franc, Deusche Mark, Ruble, and Lira completely collapse on the international market.
 
2014-03-21 09:43:12 AM  

MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".


MtGox failed.
 
2014-03-21 09:45:35 AM  
They put a BitCoin ATM machine (for lack of a better term) at South Station in Boston last month.  The first few weeks, there were teams of young guys flagging people down and trying to sell them on the benefits and trying to get them to stop and check out the machine.

I walked past it yesterday and the thing wasnt on.  I dont really know anything about BitCoins but I did not take that as a good sign.
 
2014-03-21 09:47:09 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: iheartscotch: I'm sorry; but, why didn't they give each coin a unique serial number; so they could track it? That's like the first thing you'd do when creating a new currency. The second? HASH ALL THE THINGS!

They do, and it's actually a hash.   The biatchain is used not only to identify the bitcoin but to track every transaction it's ever used in.   For anonymous currency, it's not really that anonymous.


If it's hashed and it has a serial number; there's no way to use the stolen ones. Just depreciate the missing serial numbers and issue new coins in the place of the old.

/ or, would that be too easy?
 
2014-03-21 09:47:38 AM  
That's why I use 'letstradepogs.org' for all of my space dollar banking.
 
2014-03-21 09:49:34 AM  

iheartscotch: If it's hashed and it has a serial number; there's no way to use the stolen ones. Just depreciate the missing serial numbers and issue new coins in the place of the old.

/ or, would that be too easy?


As I understand the BitCoin system, you can't actually duplicate those coins. Anyone can still trade those coins as long as the person receiving it would be willing to accept them. The only way to ensure they would not be used would be to block every single hash code from all 850,000 stolen coins from the BitCoin system and transactions.
 
2014-03-21 09:50:01 AM  

iheartscotch: If it's hashed and it has a serial number; there's no way to use the stolen ones. Just depreciate the missing serial numbers and issue new coins in the place of the old.


government-like typing detected
 
2014-03-21 09:54:01 AM  

Gunny Highway: They put a BitCoin ATM machine (for lack of a better term) at South Station in Boston last month.  The first few weeks, there were teams of young guys flagging people down and trying to sell them on the benefits and trying to get them to stop and check out the machine.

I walked past it yesterday and the thing wasnt on.  I dont really know anything about BitCoins but I did not take that as a good sign.



The public ledger, the block chain,  that keeps bitcoin working, and records every transaction is now upwards of 30gb, and the only thing people are using it for is a speculative investment.  The idea this is going to scale for every cup of coffee bought and sold on a daily basis all over the world as a currency is a bit insane.
 
2014-03-21 09:55:19 AM  

hardinparamedic: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: That's probably enough to put most of their investors back to where they were in October or whenever it was before bitcoin soared in price.  They may have been screwed out of their gains, but maybe most of them will not be completely boned.

They "lost" a total of 409 Million dollars worth of bitcoins, and are being sued by multiple people in the US, Canada, and the UK. 119 million is not going to put "most of their investors" back to where they were. The only reason he's backtracking now is because more than one person caught on to the shady, pyramid nature of MtGOX  BITCOINS,and are calling him out over this.

 
2014-03-21 09:55:37 AM  

hardinparamedic: The only reason he's backtracking now is because more than one person caught on to the shady, pyramid nature of MtGOX,and are calling him out over this


Not really a pyramid, just good ol fashioned fractional reserve banking.
 
2014-03-21 09:55:47 AM  

hardinparamedic: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Most people who are into BitCoins as more than a side hobby are die-hard libertarians who believe it's going to be the BIG THING as soon as the Dollar, Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling, Franc, Deusche Mark, Ruble, and Lira completely collapse on the international market.


I'll stick with ammo in various calibers as a backup currency.
 
2014-03-21 09:59:54 AM  
Wow, so they just misplaced 200,000 BitCoins? No wonder they went under when you can just misplace $100 million.
 
2014-03-21 10:03:54 AM  

iheartscotch: Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"

I didn't realize that the police had found the $7.5 million in bit coins...


img.fark.net

I found you a dollar.
 
2014-03-21 10:04:51 AM  

Publikwerks: Wow, so they just misplaced 200,000 BitCoins? No wonder they went under when you can just misplace $100 million.


More accurately, I think they "misplaced" it, as in "I hope nobody thinks to check for them after I steal them so I can keep them when it all blows over."
 
GBB
2014-03-21 10:07:59 AM  

Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"


Not sure if this is the Everybody-Takes-A-Cut meme, or a narrative at the diminishing value of Bitcoin over time.
 
2014-03-21 10:08:52 AM  

incendi: Put the bastards to work in the mines until they can pay their debts, I say.


They actually make dedicated bitcoin mining computer hardware (which generates a hell of a lot of heat).
Toiling in the bitcoin mines sound like a hot and expensive hobby.
 
2014-03-21 10:13:06 AM  

Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"


This wasn't a regulated bank, or a storage service where you get back the same bitcoins you deposited. Gox distinguished bitcoins that were theirs versus their customers, not which coins belonged to which customers.

Gox is in bankruptcy in Japan and abroad, and assets will probably be distributed to creditors by the courts after a few years of international lawsuits (less than 1% of creditors are in Japan). I'll be curious what they do with bitcoins that Gox was holding in escrow from another failed Bitcoin exchange, pending US court rulings deciding who should get what. It seems kind of insane that a court would have given them to another exchange for safe keeping, when half of them wind up with a pseudonymous owner saying "got hacked, coins gone, kthxbye!".
 
2014-03-21 10:13:48 AM  

hardinparamedic: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: That's probably enough to put most of their investors back to where they were in October or whenever it was before bitcoin soared in price.  They may have been screwed out of their gains, but maybe most of them will not be completely boned.

They "lost" a total of 409 Million dollars worth of bitcoins, and are being sued by multiple people in the US, Canada, and the UK. 119 million is not going to put "most of their investors" back to where they were. The only reason he's backtracking now is because more than one person caught on to the shady, pyramid nature of MtGOX,and are calling him out over this.


I'd be hesitant to call MtGOX a pyramid scam...could get you into legal trouble, no?  Incompetent, sure, based on what we know...but that's a far cry from "actively fraudulent"...unless I've missed something.

Computer security guy I know said the MtGox thing was probably an inside job; ie, someone walked out with a thumbdrive full of bitcoin info.  Hacking was possible, but unlikely, he thought.

It must be the future, since the GDP of a small country can fit on a thumbdrive...
 
2014-03-21 10:16:06 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: iheartscotch: I'm sorry; but, why didn't they give each coin a unique serial number; so they could track it? That's like the first thing you'd do when creating a new currency. The second? HASH ALL THE THINGS!

They do, and it's actually a hash.   The biatchain is used not only to identify the bitcoin but to track every transaction it's ever used in.   For anonymous currency, it's not really that anonymous.


The biatchain is the chain MtGox investors will beat him with if he doesn't "find" the rest of their bitcoins.
 
2014-03-21 10:17:02 AM  

MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".


When are people like you going to give up?
 
2014-03-21 10:18:21 AM  
MtGox,  We lost a hundred million bitcoins.  Officials, that kind of fraud will lead to a jail sentence.  MtGox,  Oh look here are 116 million bitcoins we left in a old wallet.
 
2014-03-21 10:20:07 AM  

GBB: Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"

Not sure if this is the Everybody-Takes-A-Cut meme, or a narrative at the diminishing value of Bitcoin over time.


Both - I was using one to show the other.
 
2014-03-21 10:24:05 AM  

spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

When are people like you going to give up?


As soon as people like you grow up and stop living in your techno-fantasyland.
 
2014-03-21 10:24:59 AM  
Did it say "Bad Motherfarker" on it?
 
2014-03-21 10:25:14 AM  

PunGent: I'd be hesitant to call MtGOX a pyramid scam...could get you into legal trouble, no


i.imgur.com

That would not be a good idea. Because for them to get me into "legal trouble", they would have to objectively demonstrate I was libeling them. Which would open their business practices and finances up to a discovery. Which would, more than likely, indicate Mark Karples is a damn thief.
 
2014-03-21 10:27:27 AM  

hardinparamedic: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Most people who are into BitCoins as more than a side hobby are die-hard libertarians who believe it's going to be the BIG THING as soon as the Dollar, Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling, Franc, Deusche Mark, Ruble, and Lira completely collapse on the international market.


It's been hilarious watching the drama, particularly on r/bitcoin, as all these libertarians and anarcho-capitalists start screaming that some authority needs to step in and police the entities that scammed them.  It's like they're learning how financial regulations work, one mistake at a time.
 
2014-03-21 10:30:44 AM  

UNC_Samurai: .  It's like they're learning how financial regulations work, one mistake at a time.


And fortunately, doing it in their own little sandbox where it has blessedly little effect on the rest of the world.

There are probably some really pissed off drug and gun dealers out there, though.
 
2014-03-21 10:32:13 AM  

hardinparamedic: PunGent: I'd be hesitant to call MtGOX a pyramid scam...could get you into legal trouble, no

[i.imgur.com image 500x432]

That would not be a good idea. Because for them to get me into "legal trouble", they would have to objectively demonstrate I was libeling them. Which would open their business practices and finances up to a discovery. Which would, more than likely, indicate Mark Karples is a damn thief.


Hey, he might well be.  I'm just saying, there are cases now on the books of internet comments getting people's asses sued off...just because it's online, doesn't mean you're immune to slander/libel law.

An additional problem is, even if MtGox WAS a Ponzi scheme...proving the truth of that is an affirmative defense.

Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
 
2014-03-21 10:35:13 AM  
MtGox seems to have found $116m of their lost bitcoins. Maybe they should virtually check under the virtual cushions of their virtual sofa next?

/ fixing that headline for you.
 
2014-03-21 10:37:06 AM  
www.tickld.com
 
2014-03-21 10:38:01 AM  

iheartscotch: If it's hashed and it has a serial number; there's no way to use the stolen ones. Just depreciate the missing serial numbers and issue new coins in the place of the old.

/ or, would that be too easy?


My guess would be that if there's really a thief (as opposed to the owner making it up - this is a big if), they laundered it and cashed out as they stole it, and are sitting on roughly a billion dollars in real money.

When Sheep Marketplace's anonymous owner said someone stole $100 million of peoples' bitcoins, Redditors traced the coins through transaction ledgers day and night, as they were shuffled and reshuffled to different wallets. It took about a week for them to realize the coins were laundered into a Bitcoin exchange (BTC-E) before they even started looking for them, and what they took to be a thief trying to launder the coins was simply the normal internal workings of a large bitcoin exchange.
 
2014-03-21 10:38:24 AM  

PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.


About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.
 
2014-03-21 10:38:31 AM  

UNC_Samurai: hardinparamedic: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Most people who are into BitCoins as more than a side hobby are die-hard libertarians who believe it's going to be the BIG THING as soon as the Dollar, Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling, Franc, Deusche Mark, Ruble, and Lira completely collapse on the international market.

It's been hilarious watching the drama, particularly on r/bitcoin, as all these libertarians and anarcho-capitalists start screaming that some authority needs to step in and police the entities that scammed them.  It's like they're learning how financial regulations work, one mistake at a time.


Which is funny considering how many of them love BitCoin because it's not backed by any authority.  And (somehow) it will bring down feminism.  Seriously.
 
2014-03-21 10:41:04 AM  

packman_jon: Which is funny considering how many of them love BitCoin because it's not backed by any authority.  And (somehow) it will bring down feminism.  Seriously.


There is absolutely nothing mentally unstable or irrational about someone who holds that opinion. No siree bob.
 
2014-03-21 10:42:50 AM  

MelGoesOnTour: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

When are people like you going to give up?

As soon as people like you grow up and stop living in your techno-fantasyland.


I don't think its a fantasy that Bitcoin is an exellent way to make online payments or transferring money.

Though of course, it might be that particular aspect you're objecting too.
 
2014-03-21 10:45:53 AM  

T Baggins: Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"

This wasn't a regulated bank, or a storage service where you get back the same bitcoins you deposited. Gox distinguished bitcoins that were theirs versus their customers, not which coins belonged to which customers.

Gox is in bankruptcy in Japan and abroad, and assets will probably be distributed to creditors by the courts after a few years of international lawsuits (less than 1% of creditors are in Japan). I'll be curious what they do with bitcoins that Gox was holding in escrow from another failed Bitcoin exchange, pending US court rulings deciding who should get what. It seems kind of insane that a court would have given them to another exchange for safe keeping, when half of them wind up with a pseudonymous owner saying "got hacked, coins gone, kthxbye!".


Can somebody explain why people gave their fake money to somebody else?  Was it too hard to hold all that digital currency in a digital wallet?  What did Gox promise?

None of this makes any sense to me at all.
 
2014-03-21 10:45:59 AM  
Yup.  Because they say so.  This is the most Fiat-Y currency this side of Italy.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
Pictured: Bitcoins.
 
2014-03-21 10:46:54 AM  

hardinparamedic: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Most people who are into BitCoins as more than a side hobby are die-hard libertarians who believe it's going to be the BIG THING as soon as the Dollar, Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling, Franc, Deusche Mark, Ruble, and Lira completely collapse on the international market.


I'm going to miss the cold, antiseptic sting of the Swiss Franc, and the sunburnt splendor of the Australian Dollar.
 
2014-03-21 10:47:14 AM  

iheartscotch: I'm sorry; but, why didn't they give each coin a unique serial number; so they could track it? That's like the first thing you'd do when creating a new currency. The second? HASH ALL THE THINGS!


They didn't WANT bitcoins tracked, that was the entire point.

That said, truly this is the currency of the future.
 
2014-03-21 10:47:25 AM  
There are going to be a lot of upset and broke nerds when this ultimately fails spectacularly.

/works with a lot of miners
//no rage like nerd rage
 
2014-03-21 10:49:31 AM  

spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

When are people like you going to give up?

As soon as people like you grow up and stop living in your techno-fantasyland.

I don't think its a fantasy that Bitcoin is an exellent way to make online payments or transferring money.

Though of course, it might be that particular aspect you're objecting too.


Why is it better than, say, money?
 
2014-03-21 10:50:53 AM  

UNC_Samurai: It's been hilarious watching the drama, particularly on r/bitcoin, as all these libertarians and anarcho-capitalists start screaming that some authority needs to step in and police the entities that scammed them. It's like they're learning how financial regulations work, one mistake at a time.



Then there's, Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto, a slightly paranoid shut-in who created bit coin over government paranoia. . outed by a pirate organization just trying to make a buck off exploiting him.  The ironies never seem to end.
 
2014-03-21 10:51:33 AM  

iheartscotch: Just depreciate the missing serial numbers and issue new coins in the place of the old.

/ or, would that be too easy?


There is no concept of an individual "Bitcoin" in the bitcoin system, other than a value in a ledger. There are no Bitcoin serial numbers.  Bitcoin addresses gather their value from transactions sent to them.  Long story short, there will be no deprecation. Even if it were possible, that would be one hell of a slippery slope.

Now, what we can do is watch the "stolen" Bitcoin value move through the network from address to address. If at any point the thieves slip up and tie a Bitcoin address to a physical identifier (even an IP address, in the right circumstance), then they can be found and prosecuted.

Thus far there's no evidence anything has been stolen from outside of MtGox.
 
2014-03-21 10:52:59 AM  

BeesNuts: Why is it better than, say, money?


It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.
 
2014-03-21 10:55:58 AM  

BeesNuts: I don't think its a fantasy that Bitcoin is an exellent way to make online payments or transferring money.

Though of course, it might be that particular aspect you're objecting too.


Why is it better than, say, money?


Because it's INTERNET MONEY. The internet makes everything better - like pets.com.

Oh, and it saves merchants (not buyers) about 2 to 3% on transactions vs credit cards. Credit cards that protect buyers from fraudulent transactions.

Yet bitcoiners are surprised people don't scream "sign me up" after hearing this.
 
2014-03-21 10:56:41 AM  

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: Why is it better than, say, money?

It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.


Which cannot be done with existing money transfer mechanisms? With the added bonus of legal regulation and recourse?
 
2014-03-21 10:57:29 AM  

LasersHurt: and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.


Then how were hundreds of thousands of these things "lost"?

Is it faster than using Paypal?  This whole idea struck me as strange when I first heard about it.  The huge explosion in value made even less sense, and the idea that these things are "anonymous" but that they are "tracked publicly" just throws me for a damned loop.  Maybe some reading is in order.  Reading that wasn't written by someone who has spent the last 4 years mining, living, and breathing the system and who talks a completely different language.
 
2014-03-21 10:58:09 AM  

LasersHurt: It's faster and less expensive to transact,


It's actually slower than credit card payments.
 
2014-03-21 10:59:18 AM  
cdn.avsforum.com
 
2014-03-21 11:00:13 AM  

hardinparamedic: Which cannot be done with existing money transfer mechanisms? With the added bonus of legal regulation and recourse?


Because that insurance for recourse costs money, which mostly comes from the fees that make credit card transactions cost 2 to 3% more.

Innovation!
 
2014-03-21 11:00:41 AM  

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.

Then how were hundreds of thousands of these things "lost"?

Is it faster than using Paypal?  This whole idea struck me as strange when I first heard about it.  The huge explosion in value made even less sense, and the idea that these things are "anonymous" but that they are "tracked publicly" just throws me for a damned loop.  Maybe some reading is in order.  Reading that wasn't written by someone who has spent the last 4 years mining, living, and breathing the system and who talks a completely different language.


Not sure it's really worth your time, honestly. BitCoin holds no value to regular folk.
 
2014-03-21 11:01:58 AM  

hardinparamedic: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Most people who are into BitCoins as more than a side hobby are die-hard libertarians who believe it's going to be the BIG THING as soon as the Dollar, Yen, Euro, Pound Sterling, Franc, Deusche Mark, Ruble, and Lira completely collapse on the international market.


Wow are you out of touch.  The Mark, Lira, Belgium and French Franc have not existed in fourteen years.   Plus the fed currently has 1.3 trillion in currency outstanding.  They are not unfounded fears.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/coin_data.htm
 
2014-03-21 11:03:07 AM  

BeesNuts: T Baggins: Khellendros: I wonder what they're going to do with their "found" $100M in bitcoins?  I mean, $85M in bitcoins is a lot of money.  I think they should return their found $60M in bitcoins to their rightful owner.  I'm sure they'll be quite happy when you say "here you go, I found your $15M in lost bitcoins!"

This wasn't a regulated bank, or a storage service where you get back the same bitcoins you deposited. Gox distinguished bitcoins that were theirs versus their customers, not which coins belonged to which customers.

Gox is in bankruptcy in Japan and abroad, and assets will probably be distributed to creditors by the courts after a few years of international lawsuits (less than 1% of creditors are in Japan). I'll be curious what they do with bitcoins that Gox was holding in escrow from another failed Bitcoin exchange, pending US court rulings deciding who should get what. It seems kind of insane that a court would have given them to another exchange for safe keeping, when half of them wind up with a pseudonymous owner saying "got hacked, coins gone, kthxbye!".

Can somebody explain why people gave their fake money to somebody else?  Was it too hard to hold all that digital currency in a digital wallet?  What did Gox promise?

None of this makes any sense to me at all.


Two main reasons: (1) Some people feel giving their bitcoins to third-party website (even if it's anonymously-run) is more secure/convenient than safely storing bitcoin info on their own, where hackers, malware, a hard drive crash, a housefire, or other accidents may cause it to be lost. (2) Some people leave bitcoins with an exchange as a matter of convenience, so they can trade them immediately when they want, like a stock trader selling stock but leaving the proceeds in a money market fund in their investment account, until they reinvest in something else. They may even have standing stop-loss orders with an exchange, which requires leaving the bitcoins with them.

In the case of Gox, it wasn't all voluntary; many people had been unsuccessfully trying to withdraw their money for half a year prior to its meltdown. More money would keep pouring in, from wanna-be arbitrage traders who didn't realize it was a one-way money trap. The extent of those withdrawal difficulties weren't publicized until Gox's closure and meltdown were well underway.
 
2014-03-21 11:03:31 AM  
Ah, bitcoin. Where internet libertarians go to re-learn why we have financial regulations in the real world.
 
2014-03-21 11:04:45 AM  

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: Why is it better than, say, money?

It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.


How is it faster? The couple of times I played with it it took hours for the required 6 confirmations per transaction. Fine for transferring money, but useless from a store's perspective. Or is this a "pay more for useful speed" deal?
 
2014-03-21 11:06:17 AM  

hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.


Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.  I'd have to do more research to check it out, but, iirc, generally, the more you stray from generalities ("that guy's a sleazy asshole") to specifics ("that guy runs cocaine for the Cali cartel") the more likely you are to get hammered for slander/libel, rather than simply stating your opinion.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

If they'd said "Does she have a drinking problem?  Turn to page 3 to learn more!!!!" they'd have probably been fine.

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.
//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on the net, in hopes they had some assets I could reach.  They're in a pretty deep hole by all reports, and that can make people desperate.
 
2014-03-21 11:08:08 AM  

Quinzy: Wow are you out of touch.  The Mark, Lira, Belgium and French Franc have not existed in fourteen years.   Plus the fed currently has 1.3 trillion in currency outstanding.  They are not unfounded fears.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/coin_data.htm


Wikipedia entries for all state they have a fixed exchange rate with the Euro since 2002. So yes, they still exist. However, this doesn't invalidate my point.

And it's not a fear founded in reality. Unless you honestly believe that the US is on the verge of total collapse soon(TM).

So, the funny thing is, bitcoin is a currency completely dependent on a functioning, high-tech society to use. The kind of society not found in a country where power and stability of communications are questionable - you know, a society in economic collapse?

That wallet file isn't much use if you don't have the power to turn on your computer, is it?
 
2014-03-21 11:08:59 AM  

PunGent: Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.


No, no. I get what you're saying. I don't think any malice is intended.
 
2014-03-21 11:09:23 AM  

BeesNuts: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

When are people like you going to give up?

As soon as people like you grow up and stop living in your techno-fantasyland.

I don't think its a fantasy that Bitcoin is an exellent way to make online payments or transferring money.

Though of course, it might be that particular aspect you're objecting too.

Why is it better than, say, money?


You mean other forms of currency.

Bitcoin is better than for example USDollars because you can transfer them instantly from end of the world to another without incurring a fee, aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal.
 
2014-03-21 11:10:21 AM  

PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.  I'd have to do more research to check it out, but, iirc, generally, the more you stray from generalities ("that guy's a sleazy asshole") to specifics ("that guy runs cocaine for the Cali cartel") the more likely you are to get hammered for slander/libel, rather than simply stating your opinion.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

If they'd said "Does she have a drinking problem?  Turn to page 3 to learn more!!!!" they'd have probably been fine.

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.
//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on the net, in hopes they had some assets I could reach.  They're in a pretty deep hole by all r ...


Did you ever make it to law school, by the way, or are you still in "pre-law"?
 
2014-03-21 11:10:51 AM  

spawn73: aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal


Said honestly in a thread about MtGox.
 
2014-03-21 11:12:32 AM  

spawn73: Bitcoin is better than for example USDollars because you can transfer them instantly from end of the world to another without incurring a fee, aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal.


Of course there's a fee. Most transactions on the bitcoin network include a processing fee and as mining becomes less profitable over time, these will most likely start to have to rise if you want your transaction processed.
 
2014-03-21 11:12:55 AM  

hardinparamedic: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: Why is it better than, say, money?

It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.

Which cannot be done with existing money transfer mechanisms? With the added bonus of legal regulation and recourse?


Can it? I dunno. Is it currently? No.

BeesNuts: Then how were hundreds of thousands of these things "lost"?


You need to remain in control of the Private Key (crypto key) which controls access to the wallet. They claimed that someone managed to somehow "hack" around it, but there is no evidence. Clearly, a lot of their issue was just bad accounting and negligence, which is how you "find" BTC you forgot about.

impaler: LasersHurt: It's faster and less expensive to transact,

It's actually slower than credit card payments.


No it's not. Credit card payments are not fully transacted on initial run - they go into a system where they are later verified and processed. It appears instant because of the various systems built around it to say "seems good" right away, but final verification comes later. Issues found then can be rectified because of various backups/protections in place.

trialpha: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: Why is it better than, say, money?

It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.

How is it faster? The couple of times I played with it it took hours for the required 6 confirmations per transaction. Fine for transferring money, but useless from a store's perspective. Or is this a "pay more for useful speed" deal?


It's faster in terms of final confirmed transaction. With a minimum fee this takes a few minutes; if a sender ups the fee, it can happen much faster. Credit offers an initial "confirmation" that is preliminary, but the back end confirmation happens later.
 
2014-03-21 11:15:10 AM  

LasersHurt: It's faster in terms of final confirmed transaction. With a minimum fee this takes a few minutes; if a sender ups the fee, it can happen much faster. Credit offers an initial "confirmation" that is preliminary, but the back end confirmation happens later.


It's a full authorisation and does reserve the funds though, pretty much instantly. This is not the case with bitcoin.
 
2014-03-21 11:15:43 AM  

PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.  I'd have to do more research to check it out, but, iirc, generally, the more you stray from generalities ("that guy's a sleazy asshole") to specifics ("that guy runs cocaine for the Cali cartel") the more likely you are to get hammered for slander/libel, rather than simply stating your opinion.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

If they'd said "Does she have a drinking problem?  Turn to page 3 to learn more!!!!" they'd have probably been fine.

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.
//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on the net, in hopes they had some assets I could reach.  They're in a pretty deep hole by all r ...


i18.photobucket.com
Thanks, dude. That woke me up with a smile.
 
2014-03-21 11:19:04 AM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: It's faster in terms of final confirmed transaction. With a minimum fee this takes a few minutes; if a sender ups the fee, it can happen much faster. Credit offers an initial "confirmation" that is preliminary, but the back end confirmation happens later.

It's a full authorisation and does reserve the funds though, pretty much instantly. This is not the case with bitcoin.


What do you mean? Most bitcoin merchants rely on the initial confirmation, because it's fine, but the final takes a few minutes. Credit does a similar thing, but the final confirmation takes hours to days.

The merchant does not "receive" the funds from a credit purchase instantly, they only receive a promise for them until it's fully processed later. Check your bank account after using your card, see how things list as "pending" transactions.
 
2014-03-21 11:19:15 AM  

spawn73: BeesNuts: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

When are people like you going to give up?

As soon as people like you grow up and stop living in your techno-fantasyland.

I don't think its a fantasy that Bitcoin is an exellent way to make online payments or transferring money.

Though of course, it might be that particular aspect you're objecting too.

Why is it better than, say, money?

You mean other forms of currency.

Bitcoin is better than for example USDollars because you can transfer them instantly from end of the world to another without incurring a fee, aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal.


That last sentence broke my irony meter. Please withdraw some bitcoins from Mt. Gox so I can buy a new one.
 
2014-03-21 11:21:03 AM  

LasersHurt: What do you mean? Most bitcoin merchants rely on the initial confirmation, because it's fine, but the final takes a few minutes. Credit does a similar thing, but the final confirmation takes hours to days.


Nope. The actual transfer may happen later, but the authorisation is immediate. There is no confirmation aspect to the settlement process.
 
2014-03-21 11:23:07 AM  

LasersHurt: It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.


I just 1-click ordered a 5 ton car jack from Amazon.  It will be here tomorrow morning.  Are you telling me that converting my real money into fake money and then searching for a dealer that accepts said fake money is faster and less expensive than what I just accomplished in literally 4 seconds?

...?
 
2014-03-21 11:23:28 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: iheartscotch: I'm sorry; but, why didn't they give each coin a unique serial number; so they could track it? That's like the first thing you'd do when creating a new currency. The second? HASH ALL THE THINGS!

They do, and it's actually a hash.   The biatchain is used not only to identify the bitcoin but to track every transaction it's ever used in.   For anonymous currency, it's not really that anonymous.


Beyond that, isn't the whole point of 'mining' for bitcoins doing a brute force search for numbers that meet a certain criteria.  Once one is found, that number basically IS the bitcoin that was just mined.

How much more unique number per bitcoin do you need?
 
2014-03-21 11:23:29 AM  

Gothnet: Ah, bitcoin. Where internet libertarians go to re-learn why we have financial regulations in the real world.


What's really going to be fun is when bitcoin reaches its limit (there are a finite number of bitcoins that can be generated), and they learn the value of having a flexible money supply.
 
2014-03-21 11:26:40 AM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: What do you mean? Most bitcoin merchants rely on the initial confirmation, because it's fine, but the final takes a few minutes. Credit does a similar thing, but the final confirmation takes hours to days.

Nope. The actual transfer may happen later, but the authorisation is immediate. There is no confirmation aspect to the settlement process.


The authorization is based on nothing but the very first confirmation, which can be done with Bitcoin as well. Then the final happens much faster. Ergo, it's faster to actually receive and own the currency.

m1ke: LasersHurt: It's faster and less expensive to transact, and the public ledger allows the network to verify any given transactions.

I just 1-click ordered a 5 ton car jack from Amazon.  It will be here tomorrow morning.  Are you telling me that converting my real money into fake money and then searching for a dealer that accepts said fake money is faster and less expensive than what I just accomplished in literally 4 seconds?

...?


No, I am not saying that at all. I am referring to the nature of Bitcoin as a direct transactional method, NOT when converting in and out of other currencies.
 
2014-03-21 11:29:13 AM  

NateAsbestos: That said, truly this is the currency of the future.


Obviously NOT!

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-21 11:29:15 AM  

trialpha: How is it faster? The couple of times I played with it it took hours for the required 6 confirmations per transaction.


There is no "requirement" of 6 confirmations. There's a recommendation that exchangers wait for 6 confirmations when dealing with very large values.  So if you're buying a car, expect to wait an hour.  For everyday transactions, there's no need to wait for even a single confirmation.

Look, this isn't hypothetical.  There are many physical stores accepting Bitcoin right now, today. They don't make you wait "hours" to buy a cup of coffee. They make you wait the time it takes your transaction to be propagated through the Bitcoin node network.  This is not hours. This is not minutes. This is seconds. In practical use, it's about 3-10 seconds.
 
2014-03-21 11:31:29 AM  

Quinzy: The Mark, Lira, Belgium and French Franc have not existed in fourteen years


The franc is still used (just not in france)
 
2014-03-21 11:32:55 AM  

LasersHurt: The authorization is based on nothing but the very first confirmation, which can be done with Bitcoin as well. Then the final happens much faster. Ergo, it's faster to actually receive and own the currency.



It's not faster to transact safely though, which is the point. You're not waiting on the settlement to know that the transaction is good.
I know with BTC it's not an easy thing to (for instance) double-spend, but you need a few blocks processed to be sure. With credit cards you're sure immediately.

It's not a great payment method for consumers anyway - they have no rights and no capability for chargeback. I'm well aware that internet libertarians (TM) think that chargeback is evil, but it's a very consumer-friendly feature of traditional payment methods. It's basically what enables e-commerce. Without chargeback I have to trust the people I'm transacting with absolutely, and we've seen over and over in the bitcoin world that this is not possible.
 
2014-03-21 11:36:22 AM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: The authorization is based on nothing but the very first confirmation, which can be done with Bitcoin as well. Then the final happens much faster. Ergo, it's faster to actually receive and own the currency.


It's not faster to transact safely though, which is the point. You're not waiting on the settlement to know that the transaction is good.
I know with BTC it's not an easy thing to (for instance) double-spend, but you need a few blocks processed to be sure. With credit cards you're sure immediately.

It's not a great payment method for consumers anyway - they have no rights and no capability for chargeback. I'm well aware that internet libertarians (TM) think that chargeback is evil, but it's a very consumer-friendly feature of traditional payment methods. It's basically what enables e-commerce. Without chargeback I have to trust the people I'm transacting with absolutely, and we've seen over and over in the bitcoin world that this is not possible.


Not currently. You'll note that such protections did not exist for US dollars a few decades ago. Now they do. Bitcoin will need that level of backup to make consumers happy, yes. Or whatever takes Bitcoin's place if it fails.

You're wrong about credit cards though, it's no more verified. It just has those protections when things go wrong. It's still slower, just with more protections for the problems that might cause.

As someone else pointed out though, this isn't theoretical. There are many merchants accepting Bitcoin right now. I bought hair clippers from Overstock, worked fine.
 
2014-03-21 11:38:31 AM  

LasersHurt: There are many merchants accepting Bitcoin right now. I bought hair clippers from Overstock, worked fine.


The clippers you could have used Euros, US Dollars, and so on for?
 
2014-03-21 11:39:59 AM  

LasersHurt: Not currently. You'll note that such protections did not exist for US dollars a few decades ago. Now they do. Bitcoin will need that level of backup to make consumers happy, yes. Or whatever takes Bitcoin's place if it fails.


The bitcoin community is very much against any sort of chargeback facility. It will never be put into the protocol. What is always suggested are third party escrow companies. These then begin layering on fees and inconvenience again.

LasersHurt: You're wrong about credit cards though, it's no more verified. It just has those protections when things go wrong. It's still slower, just with more protections for the problems that might cause.


I work in credit cards. I make the computer systems they run on. I'm not wrong here.


LasersHurt: As someone else pointed out though, this isn't theoretical. There are many merchants accepting Bitcoin right now. I bought hair clippers from Overstock, worked fine.


I'm sure it did. And if they hadn't sent you any hair clippers and blanked you on customer service then you would have had to try taking them to court to get the money back. It's not a good system for most people.
 
2014-03-21 11:41:43 AM  

hardinparamedic: LasersHurt: There are many merchants accepting Bitcoin right now. I bought hair clippers from Overstock, worked fine.

The clippers you could have used Euros, US Dollars, and so on for?


Yes, and which Overstock could have paid larger fees for. But I mined the Bitcoin, I didn't buy it. I turned maybe 5 dollars worth of electricity into a 40 dollar kit. The transaction took seconds.
 
2014-03-21 11:42:20 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Gothnet: Ah, bitcoin. Where internet libertarians go to re-learn why we have financial regulations in the real world.

What's really going to be fun is when bitcoin reaches its limit (there are a finite number of bitcoins that can be generated), and they learn the value of having a flexible money supply.


Yeah, with a fixed number of coins, and inflation, won't a car cost about ,0005 BTC pretty shortly?
 
2014-03-21 11:43:34 AM  

LasersHurt: Yes, and which Overstock could have paid larger fees for. But I mined the Bitcoin, I didn't buy it. I turned maybe 5 dollars worth of electricity into a 40 dollar kit. The transaction took seconds.


You realise mining is no longer practical or profitable for many people, right?
 
2014-03-21 11:45:15 AM  

Gothnet: And if they hadn't sent you any hair clippers and blanked you on customer service then you would have had to try taking them to court to get the money back.


They gladly offer customer support and refunds, should that happen, because Overstock is an established company with a reputation to maintain.

I do not disagree that consumer protections are key to Bitcoin ever becoming a big thing, you'll get no argument there. My point, however, was that you are simply wrong about how long it takes for Merchants to use Bitcoin for transactions.

Don't mistake me for the weird Internet Libertarians who want zero regulation and believe each Bitcoin will be worth $6000 and crush other economies. I think that's absurd, and contrary to the success of Bitcoin. But the decentralized, public transaction system at the core is valuable, novel, and growing.
 
2014-03-21 11:46:15 AM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: Yes, and which Overstock could have paid larger fees for. But I mined the Bitcoin, I didn't buy it. I turned maybe 5 dollars worth of electricity into a 40 dollar kit. The transaction took seconds.

You realise mining is no longer practical or profitable for many people, right?


I don't know why you think that's a relevant comment. But yes I know that. Most people don't do most things. I just happened to already have hardware available that I use for other things, and could leverage.
 
2014-03-21 11:46:31 AM  

CruJones: There are going to be a lot of upset and broke nerds when this ultimately fails spectacularly.

/works with a lot of miners
//no rage like nerd rage


Bitcoin Schadenfreude? Sounds delicious
 
2014-03-21 11:49:09 AM  

LasersHurt: They gladly offer customer support and refunds, should that happen, because Overstock is an established company with a reputation to maintain.


Yes, but this is a new barrier that entrants into the market have to overcome, something that other payment methods already have a fix for. Well anyway, it doesn't seem like we disagree - it's not a good consumer payment method.


LasersHurt: My point, however, was that you are simply wrong about how long it takes for Merchants to use Bitcoin for transactions.


If they want to be as sure as they are with a credit card then they have to wait. That's all.


LasersHurt: But the decentralized, public transaction system at the core is valuable, novel, and growing.


It's novel. I don't really think it's valuable in its current incarnation though. Too much incentive to hoard and create deflation. Obviously a lot of people disagree with me or BTC wouldn't be worth anything though.
 
2014-03-21 11:53:22 AM  

LasersHurt: I don't know why you think that's a relevant comment. But yes I know that. Most people don't do most things. I just happened to already have hardware available that I use for other things, and could leverage.


And for everyone else, it's just a grand+ buy-in for an entry level miner - and that's a jumble of graphics cards running Application Specific software, not a true ASIC, and a nice jump in their monthly electric bill for all the convenience of an unregulated, not-as-anonymous-as-promised unprotected currency which is not even recognized by national laws in almost every country.

What convenience. What innovation. I'm sold.
 
2014-03-21 11:54:41 AM  

hardinparamedic: LasersHurt: I don't know why you think that's a relevant comment. But yes I know that. Most people don't do most things. I just happened to already have hardware available that I use for other things, and could leverage.

And for everyone else, it's just a grand+ buy-in for an entry level miner - and that's a jumble of graphics cards running Application Specific software, not a true ASIC, and a nice jump in their monthly electric bill for all the convenience of an unregulated, not-as-anonymous-as-promised unprotected currency which is not even recognized by national laws in almost every country.

What convenience. What innovation. I'm sold.


Nobody is trying to sell you anything, whatsoever. You're flailing at ghosts of your own making.
 
2014-03-21 11:55:07 AM  

LasersHurt: I don't know why you think that's a relevant comment. But yes I know that. Most people don't do most things. I just happened to already have hardware available that I use for other things, and could leverage.


You said you mined and turned 5 bucks worth of electricity into a $40 buck item. This is no longer possible due to the amount of hardware investment needed to make mining a net positive activity. It's not that most people don't do it, it's that you no longer *can* do that. I'm just saying it's not exactly a selling point for people who don't currently hold bitcoin.
 
2014-03-21 11:55:16 AM  

BeesNuts: T Baggins: [...]

Can somebody explain why people gave their fake money to somebody else?  Was it too hard to hold all that digital currency in a digital wallet?  What did Gox promise?

None of this makes any sense to me at all.


Because so far much of what is actually done with Bitcoin is speculation. That can be as simple as keeping your Bitcoin under your digital mattress and waiting. Others actively buy and sell Bitcoin for normal currencies. That's precisely the service that MtGox was offering. There was no need to give them all your Bitcoin instead of just enough to cover your next few trades, but people are lazy.
 
2014-03-21 11:56:59 AM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: I don't know why you think that's a relevant comment. But yes I know that. Most people don't do most things. I just happened to already have hardware available that I use for other things, and could leverage.

You said you mined and turned 5 bucks worth of electricity into a $40 buck item. This is no longer possible due to the amount of hardware investment needed to make mining a net positive activity. It's not that most people don't do it, it's that you no longer *can* do that. I'm just saying it's not exactly a selling point for people who don't currently hold bitcoin.


I'm doing it literally right now.
 
2014-03-21 11:59:01 AM  

impaler: spawn73: aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal

Said honestly in a thread about MtGox.

 MtGox isn't involved in exchanging Bitcoins from person to person, that was kinda my point in the advantage over currencies that require something like MtGox, ie. Paypal.
 
2014-03-21 12:01:14 PM  

LasersHurt: Nobody is trying to sell you anything, whatsoever. You're flailing at ghosts of your own making


No, I'm being cynical of your talking points about BitCoin.

LasersHurt: I'm doing it literally right now.


Yeah. Funny thing about the not having to pay for equipment thing. Heat and intensive use of the GPUs on your computer tend to cause them to fail prematurely. Hope you spent some of those bitcoins on a water rig.

And BTC mining equipment manufacturers are already being taken to court over false claims on their hardware.
 
2014-03-21 12:01:22 PM  

Gothnet: spawn73: Bitcoin is better than for example USDollars because you can transfer them instantly from end of the world to another without incurring a fee, aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal.

Of course there's a fee. Most transactions on the bitcoin network include a processing fee and as mining becomes less profitable over time, these will most likely start to have to rise if you want your transaction processed.


https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

As I said.
 
2014-03-21 12:02:47 PM  

hardinparamedic: LasersHurt: Nobody is trying to sell you anything, whatsoever. You're flailing at ghosts of your own making


No, I'm being cynical of your talking points about BitCoin.

LasersHurt: I'm doing it literally right now.


Yeah. Funny thing about the not having to pay for equipment thing. Heat and intensive use of the GPUs on your computer tend to cause them to fail prematurely. Hope you spent some of those bitcoins on a water rig.


I don't have talking points, I'm answering question when people ask them. If you're not interested in Bitcoin, feel free to not care, instead of shiatting up threads.

And oddly enough, I know how to take care of my own hardware.
 
2014-03-21 12:06:08 PM  

DaAlien: spawn73: BeesNuts: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: spawn73: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

When are people like you going to give up?

As soon as people like you grow up and stop living in your techno-fantasyland.

I don't think its a fantasy that Bitcoin is an exellent way to make online payments or transferring money.

Though of course, it might be that particular aspect you're objecting too.

Why is it better than, say, money?

You mean other forms of currency.

Bitcoin is better than for example USDollars because you can transfer them instantly from end of the world to another without incurring a fee, aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal.

That last sentence broke my irony meter. Please withdraw some bitcoins from Mt. Gox so I can buy a new one.


That's fair enough, you don't know how Bitcoin works.

But you don't use an intermediary like MtGox to transfer Bitcoins from person to person. People used sites like MtGox primarely to speculate in that market that was the MtGox currency exchange.

While normal people could jump through hoops to get an MtGox account, and indeed use it to exchange their Bitcoins to another currency, doing so would be similar to opening a stockbrokering account for exchanging your currency left over from vacation. Its possible, but not practical.
 
2014-03-21 12:07:15 PM  

LasersHurt: I'm doing it literally right now.


Profitably? Unless you have an ASIC or access to free electricity I doubt that.

spawn73: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

As I said.


You said no fees. There are voluntary fees and I would expect these to rise in future, miners are under no obligation to include your transaction and may filter based on fees.
 
2014-03-21 12:07:42 PM  

LasersHurt: If you're not interested in Bitcoin, feel free to not care, instead of shiatting up threads.


On the contrary, I'm very interested in bitcoins. The idea of a digital, universal currency I find very intriguing.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a novel idea - but not that. I'm sorry you feel me pointing that out is "shiatting on the thread"
 
2014-03-21 12:10:00 PM  

impaler: spawn73: aswell as risking having your money arbritarely seized ie. as is the case with Paypal

Said honestly in a thread about MtGox.


There is literally nothing that Bitcoin does as a currency that every other type of currency can't do. And, as evidenced by the exchange collapses, has all of the same downsides as any other type of currency (plus no fraud protection like a credit card has or FDIC insurance like your bank has).

Aside from saving small amounts on transaction costs (and that savings gets eaten by the amount of work you have to do), The only reason to use Bitcoin is to hang out with other technolibertarians who sneer at people who don't use Bitcoin.
 
2014-03-21 12:11:14 PM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: I'm doing it literally right now.

Profitably? Unless you have an ASIC or access to free electricity I doubt that.


I have only the GPUs mining that I have available, and mine altcoins based on exchange rate. At current market conditions I make about $6 dollars a day after power costs (which are low here).

It's nothing more than a hobby, I'll never get rich doing it, and don't intend to. But for now it's a slightly profitable hobby which has already paid back the Video Cards I am using and gotten me some clippers. It's exposed me to a lot of fascinating technology (like namecoin, for example).

I suppose I should have mentioned I was mining altcoins on exchange rate, not Bitcoin directly, earlier. Mea culpa.
 
2014-03-21 12:12:19 PM  

hardinparamedic: LasersHurt: If you're not interested in Bitcoin, feel free to not care, instead of shiatting up threads.

On the contrary, I'm very interested in bitcoins. The idea of a digital, universal currency I find very intriguing.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is a novel idea - but not that. I'm sorry you feel me pointing that out is "shiatting on the thread"


The wild-ass snark about mining rigs is "shiatting" on the thread, because you absolutely were aware that you were flying off at something nobody was suggesting.
 
2014-03-21 12:14:28 PM  

Gothnet: spawn73: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees

As I said.

You said no fees. There are voluntary fees and I would expect these to rise in future, miners are under no obligation to include your transaction and may filter based on fees.


OK, fees exist, but you don't have to pay them, and most don't.

That's not comparable to using a credit card, Paypal, Western Union etc. where fees aren't optional. And certaintly, any fee you do include to expedite the transfer isn't in the order of what you'd pay at these places, and doesn't incur as a percentage of the money you transfer.
 
2014-03-21 12:19:04 PM  

spawn73: OK, fees exist, but you don't have to pay them, and most don't.

That's not comparable to using a credit card, Paypal, Western Union etc. where fees aren't optional. And certaintly, any fee you do include to expedite the transfer isn't in the order of what you'd pay at these places, and doesn't incur as a percentage of the money you transfer.


For now. That's all I'm saying.


LasersHurt: I suppose I should have mentioned I was mining altcoins on exchange rate, not Bitcoin directly, earlier. Mea culpa.


Ah right, OK. Some of the altcoins are indeed still worthwhile.
 
2014-03-21 12:24:32 PM  

Gothnet: LasersHurt: I suppose I should have mentioned I was mining altcoins on exchange rate, not Bitcoin directly, earlier. Mea culpa.


Ah right, OK. Some of the altcoins are indeed still worthwhile.


I'm following closely some altcoins that are attempting to introduce other proof-of-work methods or tie in other behaviors. CureCoin will use Folding@Home work for GPU users, while ASIC miners can mine the coin itself (80% of which goes to folders, the other 20% to miners). There are a few others that tie into BOINC. NameCoin, which I mentioned elsewhere, is designed to be decentralized name/identity management (for DNS, identity verification, etc).

Those seem like the next step in evolution for cryptos who aren't trying to be "one world currencies."
 
2014-03-21 12:30:03 PM  
How does someone cause that much money to go missing and not end up dead? Someone shady must be involved in this if there people are still breathing.
 
2014-03-21 12:31:24 PM  

PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.


It's wrong.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You're wrong.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.


Malice isn't what's important here.  "ACTUAL MALICE" is.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

And this is because Actual Malice in California law is slightly different and requires "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice."

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.

It shows.

//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on the net, in hopes they had some assets I could reach.

That would be exceedingly dumb, since it would REQUIRE an actual investigation.

Think about it.  If what you said and think were true, nobody would be allowed to even make an accusation about a public figure.  It would functionally hamstring the first amendment.

/FWIW, Carol Burnett proved "actual malice" by proving that the Enquirer had received the report from a paid informant.  Who had stated specifically that she was NOT drunk and never spoke to Kissinger... which is why they could be proven to have published the story with ill intent and with a regless disregard for the truth.
//Subsequently, they WOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED ANYWAY because they issued a retraction, but under CA law the tabloid wasn't considered a newspaper.

///You're wrong.
 
2014-03-21 02:01:51 PM  
Think I know why they went tits up.
 
2014-03-21 02:19:15 PM  
Yes, they found THEIR bitcoins, not YOUR bitcoins.
 
2014-03-21 02:33:00 PM  
Now that judges & etc are getting the right to examine & control the coins, sources, history, transactions & etc, it aint so private anymore, eh?
A virtual treasure trove of liabilities is being mined.
 
2014-03-21 03:43:03 PM  

BeesNuts: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

It's wrong.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You're wrong.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.

Malice isn't what's important here.  "ACTUAL MALICE" is.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

And this is because Actual Malice in California law is slightly different and requires "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice."

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.

It shows.

//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on ...


Shrug.  I'd advise a hypothetical client to take a much more cautious approach than you would, apparently.  If the answer were straightforward, all us attorneys would be out of business  :)

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1366&conte xt =wmborj
 
2014-03-21 03:47:50 PM  

MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".


Hej!  Kial vi volas feki sur Esperanto?
 
2014-03-21 03:49:24 PM  

MelGoesOnTour: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.  I'd have to do more research to check it out, but, iirc, generally, the more you stray from generalities ("that guy's a sleazy asshole") to specifics ("that guy runs cocaine for the Cali cartel") the more likely you are to get hammered for slander/libel, rather than simply stating your opinion.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

If they'd said "Does she have a drinking problem?  Turn to page 3 to learn more!!!!" they'd have probably been fine.

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.
//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on the net, in hopes they had some assets I could reach.  They're in a pretty deep hole ...


No, I'm gradumacated, I do real estate law...and grade bar exams :)
 
2014-03-21 03:58:00 PM  

hardinparamedic: PunGent: Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

No, no. I get what you're saying. I don't think any malice is intended.


Despite what some others are saying here, I think malice can be inferred, in some jurisdictions anyway, by reckless disregard for the truth.  You can also stray into per se slander in some jurisdictions, which lowers the bar for plaintiffs.  At a minimum, you can win in the end...and have spent an awful lot of money doing so.

Scroll down to part II, for four 'per se' examples in NY state, including accusing someone of a serious crime.  Not sure if running a Ponzi scheme counts, but I'd either be damn sure of my facts before I said someone WAS running one, or I'd at least hedge my words:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I92_0226.htm
 
2014-03-21 04:05:17 PM  

PunGent: BeesNuts: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

It's wrong.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You're wrong.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.

Malice isn't what's important here.  "ACTUAL MALICE" is.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

And this is because Actual Malice in California law is slightly different and requires "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice."

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.

It shows.

//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random st ...


Libel's pretty straightforward.  Lie in writing about a public figure when it can be proven that you knew the truth, and that you did it for malicious reasons?  Libel.  Lie in writing about a non-public figure when it can be proven that you knew the truth?  Also Libel.

Anything else.  Not libel.

Can you or anyone else prove that hardin knows, for a fact, that Gox wasn't running a ponzi scheme?

You're as guilty of libel as you're claiming he is, by suggesting that he's potentially guilty in libel!  gasp!  You should get a lawyer!
 
2014-03-21 04:11:54 PM  

BeesNuts: PunGent: BeesNuts: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

It's wrong.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You're wrong.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.

Malice isn't what's important here.  "ACTUAL MALICE" is.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

And this is because Actual Malice in California law is slightly different and requires "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice."

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.

It shows.

//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing ...


Sigh.  Again...depends on the jurisdiction.  I hope you're not of those lawyers who's willing to spend every last dime of their client's money proving he's right.  There's the black-letter law...and then there's real life:

https://blogs.unb.ca/newsroom/2012/09/18/law-prof-weighs-in-on-a-com pa nys-right-to-sue/
 
2014-03-21 04:13:06 PM  
PunGent:

read that decision again,
 
2014-03-21 04:14:32 PM  

PunGent: BeesNuts: PunGent: BeesNuts: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

It's wrong.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You're wrong.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.

Malice isn't what's important here.  "ACTUAL MALICE" is.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

And this is because Actual Malice in California law is slightly different and requires "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice."

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.

It shows.

//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, includ ...


I'm not the one trying to provide legal advice.  I'm just saying you don't understand defamation law.

Which is fine, cause you're a real estate lawyer.
 
2014-03-21 04:23:17 PM  

BeesNuts: PunGent: BeesNuts: PunGent: BeesNuts: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

It's wrong.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You're wrong.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.

Malice isn't what's important here.  "ACTUAL MALICE" is.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

And this is because Actual Malice in California law is slightly different and requires "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice."

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.

It shows.

//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straw ...


Look how long it took Forbes to defend itself from an identical claim...from a company that called ITSELF a Ponzi scheme:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2011/09/16/how-social-se cu rity-is-a-ponzi-helped-forbes-win-libel-case/
 
2014-03-21 04:35:03 PM  

PunGent: Look how long it took Forbes to defend itself from an identical claim...from a company that called ITSELF a Ponzi scheme:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2011/09/16/how-social-se cu rity-is-a-ponzi-helped-forbes-win-libel-case/

----------------------
From your link
"In February 1989, the magazine published a story about the biggest-ever Chapter 11 bankruptcy in that state's history...
...
the case came to trial in 1991...
...
The jury readily ruled for the Forbes defendants, holding that the average reader would not find the published material defamatory. The panel also cleared Kareiva of all liability for slander. (He was not quoted by name in the magazine.) The plaintiffs walked away empty-handed."
----------------------

What do you mean?  It took one trial.  Took two years to go to trial in the first place, but sounds like it ended up pretty open and shut.
 
2014-03-21 04:42:14 PM  

PunGent: MelGoesOnTour: PunGent: hardinparamedic: PunGent: Which means the defendant (ie, you, in this hypothetical case) has the burden of proving it...and proving stuff can be HUGELY expensive in a lawsuit against an international corporation.  I'd charge at least U.S. $50k just to start looking at the suit, frankly.

About that:  A public figure must show "actual malice"-that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.From your link.

Whether Mark Karples likes it or not, Mark Karples is a public figure because of the exposure of his exchange, and the events occurring at this present time. I'm simply stating my opinion of the whole situation without any malice intended.

Hardin, fyi, I like your posts in general, I'm not trying to be a dick here, or scare you, or shut you up.  I'm certainly not trying to defend MtGox.  I'm just giving you what I think is the state of the law.

You may not INTEND malice, but I believe it can be legally inferred if you say some guy's running a Ponzi scheme when he isn't.  I'd have to do more research to check it out, but, iirc, generally, the more you stray from generalities ("that guy's a sleazy asshole") to specifics ("that guy runs cocaine for the Cali cartel") the more likely you are to get hammered for slander/libel, rather than simply stating your opinion.

The old case of Carol Burnett vs the National Enquirer comes to mind.  Just because she was a public figure, she didn't lose her reputation rights, and NE's specific allegation that she was an alcoholic cost them big bucks.

If they'd said "Does she have a drinking problem?  Turn to page 3 to learn more!!!!" they'd have probably been fine.

/been ages since I looked at the case law, admittedly.
//if I were in MtGox's shoes, I'd be looking around REAL hard for any conceivable straws, including suing random strangers on the net, in hopes they had some assets I could reach.  They're in a p ...


I was trying to be amusing but in retrospect saw I came off as snarky. Sorry 'bout that.
 
2014-03-21 04:44:29 PM  

Ultraviolet Catastrophe: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Hej!  Kial vi volas feki sur Esperanto?


I wasn't shiatting on English, my dear Esperantoian.
 
2014-03-21 04:45:19 PM  

MelGoesOnTour: Ultraviolet Catastrophe: MelGoesOnTour: When are fans of bitcoins finally going to give it up and agree that the test failed. Bitcoin enthusiasts probably still speak Esperanto, too, and are trying to get everyone else "on board".

Hej!  Kial vi volas feki sur Esperanto?

I wasn't shiatting on English, my dear Esperantoian.


Er---ment to say "on Esperanto".  *cough*
 
2014-03-21 05:19:28 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: That's probably enough to put most of their investors back to where they were in October or whenever it was before bitcoin soared in price.  They may have been screwed out of their gains, but maybe most of them will not be completely boned.


They own bit-coins....they are already boned.
 
Displayed 135 of 135 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report