MtGox finds 200,000 lost bitcoins - Market Business News

Owner of failed Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange, who lost $500m of customers money, in line for over $700m of their funds, due to legal black-hole.

submitted by BareFuMo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

01-29 18:12 - 'Vitalik says bitcoin's "failure" to increase block size has resulted in more money lost to high TX fees than Mt Gox' (dashnews.org) by /u/DJ_Wristy removed from /r/Bitcoin within 6-16min

Vitalik says bitcoin's "failure" to increase block size has resulted in more money lost to high TX fees than Mt Gox
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: DJ_Wristy
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Owner of failed Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange, who lost $500m of customers money, in line for over $700m of their funds, due to legal black-hole.

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Canadian? Lost money on Mt.Gox? Participate in the Canadian class-action lawsuit here [x-post /r/bitcoin]

Canadian? Lost money on Mt.Gox? Participate in the Canadian class-action lawsuit here [x-post /bitcoin] submitted by -Mahn to mtgoxinsolvency [link] [comments]

Like other bitcoin evangelists, Ken Shishido is ready to write off the money he lost in the bankruptcy of Tokyo-based virtual currency exchange Mt. Gox as the price of revolutionizing global finance.

Like other bitcoin evangelists, Ken Shishido is ready to write off the money he lost in the bankruptcy of Tokyo-based virtual currency exchange Mt. Gox as the price of revolutionizing global finance. submitted by madazzahatter to japannews [link] [comments]

Bob The Magic Custodian



Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses.
Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes.

First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure:

Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:

But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are!

"On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid".
"Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since."

"As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!"
"Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?"

"Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party."
"Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!"

"What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven."
"Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!"

"We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies.
And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often".

How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen?
Just one.

Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so?
If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security.

The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle.

And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet?

Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds.
So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever.

Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see.
It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation.
A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.

History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance.
Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.)
Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive.

Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today.
Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well.
Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do.

Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):



Thoughts?
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

Is Cryptocurrency Really The Future?

Is Cryptocurrency Really The Future?
Over the past decade, cryptocurrency has become a breaker of old approaches in monetary policy, finance, economics, and e-commerce. The speed at which the crypto industry is growing today is very impressive. The global cryptocurrency market volume is predicted to reach $1,758 million by 2027 with a compound annual growth rate of 11.2%.
by StealthEX
More and more people are getting faced with the digital currency so the questions on the future of cryptocurrencies are becoming especially relevant today. So what is the future of cryptocurrency? In this article, we’ll try to figure this out.
Predicting the crypto world’s future is impossible without knowing the current situation on the cryptocurrencies market.

What trends can we observe today?

• Nowadays the crypto market is in its formation stage. We can see an increase in the number of areas where blockchain technology is getting involved. The COVID19 and panic that it caused in the markets are also accelerating cryptocurrency adoption.
• Any cryptocurrencies rate is rigidly tied to the situation in the crypto market.
• Bitcoin and Ethereum are the biggest influencers in the cryptocurrency market.
• Investors are paying attention to the crypto projects that are aimed to create platforms for launching decentralized applications (dApps).
• Significant growth of decentralized finance (DeFi).
• Decentralized Internet (Web 3.0) is actively increasing and creating the basis for the Internet of Things development.
The growth of digital currencies around the world allows making some predictions about the future of crypto market. Let’s look ahead to the future and try to forecast the prospective trends in the crypto world development.

Bitcoin’s reign will not end

The first thing that worries many crypto holders is “What will happen to Bitcoin”?
The ups and downs of Bitcoin’s rate, rumors about the next hard fork, legalization in some countries, and prohibition in others — all these kinds of news makes people guess what will come up with the most popular coin. Experts have different opinions from a complete drop in price to the status of the only currency in the world.
Most experts are leaning towards that Bitcoin will maintain its current positions and even strengthen them. For example, John McAfee, businessman and computer programmer, says:
“You can’t stop things like Bitcoin. It’s like trying to stop gunpowder.”
He also made a bet that if Bitcoin will not cost $500,000 by the end of December 2020 he will eat his own…well, you know.
James Altucher, American hedge-fund manager, author, podcaster and entrepreneur, is not sure that BTC price will reach 1 000 000 USD:
“Will it be a million dollars in 2020? Maybe. Will it be 2021? 2022? Who knows.”
He also predicted that:
“At least one country’s currency is likely to fail soon — likely Argentina or Venezuela. This will lead to mass adoption of Bitcoin among that populace. That will in turn lead to Bitcoin rising by more than $50,000 when it happens.”
And just a few days after this forecast, the Venezuelan President announced that they are planning to release national crypto called El Petro. Right now a lot of countries like China, Tunisia, Senegal, Sweden, Singapore, Uruguay, Thailand, Turkey, and Iran are also working on the creation of national cryptocurrency.
So what will happen to Bitcoin? No one knows. The only thing in which many experts agree is that Bitcoin will stay as a “gold standard” in the crypto world for a long time.

Cryptocurrencies will be mainstream

“Cryptocurrencies is a fashionable investment and a sign of belonging to the special community” — this idea is actively promoted by various sports organizations, popular performers, public figures that release their own altcoins.
According to CoinMarketCap, there are already more than six thousand cryptocurrencies, and their total capitalization is $353 billion. A couple of years ago, the digital currency was almost unknown to anyone except geek developers and crypto enthusiasts. However, things are changing: prospects for businesses, rising prices, and strong community support will step by step make cryptocurrencies mainstream around the world.

Market volatility will not disappear

Cryptocurrencies are unstable by their nature, and their volatility is one of the reasons why someone becomes a millionaire and the others lose fortunes.
The strong volatility of crypto is caused by the fact that they are still at an early stage of development. Cryptocurrencies have huge growth potential if they can enter the mass market.
But every news about cryptocurrencies either hints at the possibility of markets going down or rising up. The volatility in the cryptocurrency markets will continue to be felt as the news affects the market, and it is only at the stage of rapid development.

The future of trading — decentralized exchanges

In the near future, we will see a prime of decentralized exchanges. Many believe that DEXes is not yet ready for mass adoption. But there are factors for a favorable development of events.
First of all, centralized exchanges don’t fit the purpose of cryptocurrencies cause the key advantage of digital coins is decentralization. In decentralized exchanges, transactions can be made directly between users (peer-to-peer) without the need for a trusted intermediary, which means there are no transaction fees for users.
On top of this, decentralized exchanges are much more secure against hackers as there no single point of failure like in centralized exchanges. Everyone knows the cases with Mt.Gox, Bitfinex, Coincheck when people lost millions and millions. The need for more security will lead users to decentralized exchanges.

The rise of crypto loans

“Cryptocurrency is convenient to take on credit” — not long ago this idea seemed like a wild ride since the digital currency has high volatility. But today the popularity of lending in digital currencies is increasing and here are the main reasons:
• Low-interest rates.
• Increase in the number of traders and investors for whom receiving funds immediately in cryptocurrencies is convenient.
• A simplified system of requirements for borrowers, those who hadn’t been approved for bank loans could easily receive digital money.
Nowadays, the entire crypto loaning industry is estimated at $4.7 billion and the number of crypto loan platforms will continue growing.

Regulators gonna regulate

In the early days of cryptocurrencies history, traditional financial institutions sharply criticized crypto enthusiasts. The crypto market, however, has proven that it is sturdy against these kinds of attacks. Nowadays traditional institutions’ opinion regarding cryptocurrency is changing. In the future, stakeholders can have an increase in the flow of funds from Wall Street to cryptocurrencies.
There is no doubt that this will require more transparency and regulation in the crypto market. Today government and regulatory agencies around the world, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (and this is only within the US borders) are giving more and more attention to cryptocurrencies. The regulation of the crypto in different states is realizing in diverse ways: in some countries, it is legally recognized as a means of payment, in others its use is prohibited.
The G20 summit participants, following the discussions on cryptocurrencies, came to the conclusion that a complete prohibition of crypto will not solve anything as nowadays the digital currency plays a significant role in the economy. And if the digital currency cannot be prohibited, it must be regulated:
“Technological innovations can deliver significant benefits to the financial system and the broader economy. While crypto-assets do not pose a threat to global financial stability at this point, we are closely monitoring developments and remain vigilant to existing and emerging risks.”
As we can see the world is changing very quickly. The speed with which cryptocurrencies are integrating into the global financial system is a clear indicator that traditional financial institutions can no longer have a monopoly on the management of financial flows.
The year 2020 is the start of a new decade for the cryptocurrency industry. The next ten years will bring us key changes in traditional finance when blockchain and cryptocurrencies will become a daily thing in most countries of the world.
What are your thoughts on the future of cryptocurrencies? Tell us your ideas in the comments below.
And remember if you need to exchange your coins StealthEX is here for you. We provide a selection of more than 250 coins and constantly updating the list so that our customers will find a suitable option. Our service does not require registration and allows you to remain anonymous. Why don’t you check it out? Just go to StealthEX and follow these easy steps:
✔ Choose the pair and the amount for your exchange. For example BTC to ETH.
✔ Press the “Start exchange” button.
✔ Provide the recipient address to which the coins will be transferred.
✔ Move your cryptocurrency for the exchange.
✔ Receive your coins.
Follow us on Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get StealthEX.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us via [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Original article was posted on https://stealthex.io/blog/2020/09/15/is-cryptocurrency-really-the-future/
submitted by Stealthex_io to StealthEX [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Dangerous narrative taking over in this group? Do NOT advise newbies to keep funds on exchanges

I just saw the above idea (newbies = exchange keepers) get upvoted and
"Not your keys, not your coins"
get downvoted.
Let's get this straight folks.
My response:
-------------------
Ok, this space is ABSOLUTELY screwed up.You have "0" for saying Not your keys, n y c???
Fixing that with an upvote right now... and,
another example where people who don't know are telling people who don't know.
The worst advice you can give to a new person is to have them *trust* a third party to secure their crypto. This IS cryptocurrency. The basis is cryptography. Privacy. This is not Fiat 2.0 . Cryptopia, Coinexchange.io, Mt Gox... dozens of examples.
Crypto is not for people who shun responsibility. Unfortunately this is most alive today, especially in Western societies. Tons of snowflakes that will melt the moment anytime something doesn't go their way. They've been brought up being told that they can do no wrong, the world owes them everything-- and even Amazon has "frustraton-free" packaging.
Crypto is for responsible human beings, not petulant children. You lose it and it's lost--- this is how it is DESIGNED to work. This means we have to be proactive and protect our personal assets.
I'm not into "wrong" and "right" per se, however it is absolutely wrong to advise a new person to hold their and their family's future wealth with someone else because they could be careless and "lose" it. You want to drive a car? You learn. You want to hold a job position? You learn. You want to have a decent relationship? You keep screwing up until you eventually, hopefully learn. Let's not coddle new people and treat them like they're stupid or can't learn about personal security.
The WORST thing you can do is keep your funds on an exchange. What is happening to the Bitcoin community? This is madness. Heresy! Blasphemy!
(Rant over. Sitting down now.)
--------------------------------------------
(in response to)
People new to bitcoin who would otherwise store their coins on unsecured computers or be careless with or lose their recovery words would have less chance of losing their coins by storing them on coinbase or gemini. I'm not sure if that is an unpopular opinion around here, but it's true.
You can get hit by a vehicle crossing the street.
This is true.
We do not cover everyone in pillows and roll them across the intersection one at a time. We teach responsibility and safety--- look both ways before crossing the street.
Do not let your future wealth be crashed into by an oncoming exchange because there are those that think you'd be inept in keeping your "money"/crypto/treasure safe.
submitted by MineyMcMinerson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How To End The Cryptocurrency Exchange "Wild West" Without Crippling Innovation


In case you haven't noticed the consultation paper, staff notice, and report on Quadriga, regulators are now clamping down on Canadian cryptocurrency exchanges. The OSC and other regulatory bodies are still interested in industry feedback. They have not put forward any official regulation yet. Below are some ideas/insights and a proposed framework.



Many of you have limited time to read the full proposal, so here are the highlights:

Offline Multi-Signature

Effective standards to prevent both internal and external theft. Exchange operators are trained and certified, and have a legal responsibility to users.

Regular Transparent Audits

Provides visibility to Canadians that their funds are fully backed on the exchange, while protecting privacy and sensitive platform information.

Insurance Requirements

Establishment of basic insurance standards/strategy, to expand over time. Removing risk to exchange users of any hot wallet theft.


Background and Justifications


Cold Storage Custody/Management
After reviewing close to 100 cases, all thefts tend to break down into more or less the same set of problems:
• Funds stored online or in a smart contract,
• Access controlled by one person or one system,
• 51% attacks (rare),
• Funds sent to the wrong address (also rare), or
• Some combination of the above.
For the first two cases, practical solutions exist and are widely implemented on exchanges already. Offline multi-signature solutions are already industry standard. No cases studied found an external theft or exit scam involving an offline multi-signature wallet implementation. Security can be further improved through minimum numbers of signatories, background checks, providing autonomy and legal protections to each signatory, establishing best practices, and a training/certification program.
The last two transaction risks occur more rarely, and have never resulted in a loss affecting the actual users of the exchange. In all cases to date where operators made the mistake, they've been fully covered by the exchange platforms.
• 51% attacks generally only occur on blockchains with less security. The most prominent cases have been Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic. The simple solution is to enforce deposit limits and block delays such that a 51% attack is not cost-effective.
• The risk of transactions to incorrect addresses can be eliminated by a simple test transaction policy on large transactions. By sending a small amount of funds prior to any large withdrawals/transfers as a standard practice, the accuracy of the wallet address can be validated.
The proposal covers all loss cases and goes beyond, while avoiding significant additional costs, risks, and limitations which may be associated with other frameworks like SOC II.

On The Subject of Third Party Custodians
Many Canadian platforms are currently experimenting with third party custody. From the standpoint of the exchange operator, they can liberate themselves from some responsibility of custody, passing that off to someone else. For regulators, it puts crypto in similar categorization to oil, gold, and other commodities, with some common standards. Platform users would likely feel greater confidence if the custodian was a brand they recognized. If the custodian was knowledgeable and had a decent team that employed multi-sig, they could keep assets safe from internal theft. With the right protections in place, this could be a great solution for many exchanges, particularly those that lack the relevant experience or human resources for their own custody systems.
However, this system is vulnerable to anyone able to impersonate the exchange operators. You may have a situation where different employees who don't know each other that well are interacting between different companies (both the custodian and all their customers which presumably isn't just one exchange). A case study of what can go wrong in this type of environment might be Bitpay, where the CEO was tricked out of 5000 bitcoins over 3 separate payments by a series of emails sent legitimately from a breached computer of another company CEO. It's also still vulnerable to the platform being compromised, as in the really large $70M Bitfinex hack, where the third party Bitgo held one key in a multi-sig wallet. The hacker simply authorized the withdrawal using the same credentials as Bitfinex (requesting Bitgo to sign multiple withdrawal transactions). This succeeded even with the use of multi-sig and two heavily security-focused companies, due to the lack of human oversight (basically, hot wallet). Of course, you can learn from these cases and improve the security, but so can hackers improve their deception and at the end of the day, both of these would have been stopped by the much simpler solution of a qualified team who knew each other and employed multi-sig with properly protected keys. It's pretty hard to beat a human being who knows the business and the typical customer behaviour (or even knows their customers personally) at spotting fraud, and the proposed multi-sig means any hacker has to get through the scrutiny of 3 (or more) separate people, all of whom would have proper training including historical case studies.
There are strong arguments both for and against using use of third party custodians. The proposal sets mandatory minimum custody standards would apply regardless if the cold wallet signatories are exchange operators, independent custodians, or a mix of both.

On The Subject Of Insurance
ShakePay has taken the first steps into this new realm (congratulations). There is no question that crypto users could be better protected by the right insurance policies, and it certainly feels better to transact with insured platforms. The steps required to obtain insurance generally place attention in valuable security areas, and in this case included a review from CipherTrace. One of the key solutions in traditional finance comes from insurance from entities such as the CDIC.
However, historically, there wasn't found any actual insurance payout to any cryptocurrency exchange, and there are notable cases where insurance has not paid. With Bitpay, for example, the insurance agent refused because the issue happened to the third party CEO's computer instead of anything to do with Bitpay itself. With the Youbit exchange in South Korea, their insurance claim was denied, and the exchange ultimately ended up instead going bankrupt with all user's funds lost. To quote Matt Johnson in the original Lloyd's article: “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
ShakePay's insurance was only reported to cover their cold storage, and “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held”. Physical theft has never, in the history of cryptocurrency exchange cases reviewed, been reported as the cause of loss. From the limited information of the article, ShakePay made it clear their funds are in the hands of a single US custodian, and at least part of their security strategy is to "decline[] to confirm the custodian’s name on the record". While this prevents scrutiny of the custodian, it's pretty silly to speculate that a reasonably competent hacking group couldn't determine who the custodian is. A far more common infiltration strategy historically would be social engineering, which has succeeded repeatedly. A hacker could trick their way into ShakePay's systems and request a fraudulent withdrawal, impersonate ShakePay and request the custodian to move funds, or socially engineer their way into the custodian to initiate the withdrawal of multiple accounts (a payout much larger than ShakePay) exploiting the standard procedures (for example, fraudulently initiating or override the wallet addresses of a real transfer). In each case, nothing was physically stolen and the loss is therefore not covered by insurance.
In order for any insurance to be effective, clear policies have to be established about what needs to be covered. Anything short of that gives Canadians false confidence that they are protected when they aren't in any meaningful way. At this time, the third party insurance market does not appear to provide adequate options or coverage, and effort is necessary to standardize custody standards, which is a likely first step in ultimately setting up an insurance framework.
A better solution compared to third party insurance providers might be for Canadian exchange operators to create their own collective insurance fund, or a specific federal organization similar to the CDIC. Such an organization would have a greater interest or obligation in paying out actual cases, and that would be it's purpose rather than maximizing it's own profit. This would be similar to the SAFU which Binance has launched, except it would cover multiple exchanges. There is little question whether the SAFU would pay out given a breach of Binance, and a similar argument could be made for a insurance fund managed by a collective of exchange operators or a government organization. While a third party insurance provider has the strong market incentive to provide the absolute minimum coverage and no market incentive to payout, an entity managed by exchange operators would have incentive to protect the reputation of exchange operators/the industry, and the government should have the interest of protecting Canadians.

On The Subject of Fractional Reserve
There is a long history of fractional reserve failures, from the first banks in ancient times, through the great depression (where hundreds of fractional reserve banks failed), right through to the 2008 banking collapse referenced in the first bitcoin block. The fractional reserve system allows banks to multiply the money supply far beyond the actual cash (or other assets) in existence, backed only by a system of debt obligations of others. Safely supporting a fractional reserve system is a topic of far greater complexity than can be addressed by a simple policy, and when it comes to cryptocurrency, there is presently no entity reasonably able to bail anyone out in the event of failure. Therefore, this framework is addressed around entities that aim to maintain 100% backing of funds.
There may be some firms that desire but have failed to maintain 100% backing. In this case, there are multiple solutions, including outside investment, merging with other exchanges, or enforcing a gradual restoration plan. All of these solutions are typically far better than shutting down the exchange, and there are multiple cases where they've been used successfully in the past.

Proof of Reserves/Transparency/Accountability
Canadians need to have visibility into the backing on an ongoing basis.
The best solution for crypto-assets is a Proof of Reserve. Such ideas go back all the way to 2013, before even Mt. Gox. However, no Canadian exchange has yet implemented such a system, and only a few international exchanges (CoinFloor in the UK being an example) have. Many firms like Kraken, BitBuy, and now ShakePay use the Proof of Reserve term to refer to lesser proofs which do not actually cryptographically prove the full backing of all user assets on the blockchain. In order for a Proof of Reserve to be effective, it must actually be a complete proof, and it needs to be understood by the public that is expected to use it. Many firms have expressed reservations about the level of transparency required in a complete Proof of Reserve (for example Kraken here). While a complete Proof of Reserves should be encouraged, and there are some solutions in the works (ie TxQuick), this is unlikely to be suitable universally for all exchange operators and users.
Given the limitations, and that firms also manage fiat assets, a more traditional audit process makes more sense. Some Canadian exchanges (CoinSquare, CoinBerry) have already subjected themselves to annual audits. However, these results are not presently shared publicly, and there is no guarantee over the process including all user assets or the integrity and independence of the auditor. The auditor has been typically not known, and in some cases, the identity of the auditor is protected by a NDA. Only in one case (BitBuy) was an actual report generated and publicly shared. There has been no attempt made to validate that user accounts provided during these audits have been complete or accurate. A fraudulent fractional exchange, or one which had suffered a breach they were unwilling to publicly accept (see CoinBene), could easily maintain a second set of books for auditors or simply exclude key accounts to pass an individual audit.
The proposed solution would see a reporting standard which includes at a minimum - percentage of backing for each asset relative to account balances and the nature of how those assets are stored, with ownership proven by the auditor. The auditor would also publicly provide a "hash list", which they independently generate from the accounts provided by the exchange. Every exchange user can then check their information against this public "hash list". A hash is a one-way form of encryption, which fully protects the private information, yet allows anyone who knows that information already to validate that it was included. Less experienced users can take advantage of public tools to calculate the hash from their information (provided by the exchange), and thus have certainty that the auditor received their full balance information. Easy instructions can be provided.
Auditors should be impartial, their identities and process public, and they should be rotated so that the same auditor is never used twice in a row. Balancing the cost of auditing against the needs for regular updates, a 6 month cycle likely makes the most sense.

Hot Wallet Management
The best solution for hot wallets is not to use them. CoinBerry reportedly uses multi-sig on all withdrawals, and Bitmex is an international example known for their structure devoid of hot wallets.
However, many platforms and customers desire fast withdrawal processes, and human validation has a cost of time and delay in this process.
A model of self-insurance or separate funds for hot wallets may be used in these cases. Under this model, a platform still has 100% of their client balance in cold storage and holds additional funds in hot wallets for quick withdrawal. Thus, the risk of those hot wallets is 100% on exchange operators and not affecting the exchange users. Since most platforms typically only have 1%-5% in hot wallets at any given time, it shouldn't be unreasonable to build/maintain these additional reserves over time using exchange fees or additional investment. Larger withdrawals would still be handled at regular intervals from the cold storage.
Hot wallet risks have historically posed a large risk and there is no established standard to guarantee secure hot wallets. When the government of South Korea dispatched security inspections to multiple exchanges, the results were still that 3 of them got hacked after the inspections. If standards develop such that an organization in the market is willing to insure the hot wallets, this could provide an acceptable alternative. Another option may be for multiple exchange operators to pool funds aside for a hot wallet insurance fund. Comprehensive coverage standards must be established and maintained for all hot wallet balances to make sure Canadians are adequately protected.

Current Draft Proposal

(1) Proper multi-signature cold wallet storage.
(a) Each private key is the personal and legal responsibility of one person - the “signatory”. Signatories have special rights and responsibilities to protect user assets. Signatories are trained and certified through a course covering (1) past hacking and fraud cases, (2) proper and secure key generation, and (3) proper safekeeping of private keys. All private keys must be generated and stored 100% offline by the signatory. If even one private keys is ever breached or suspected to be breached, the wallet must be regenerated and all funds relocated to a new wallet.
(b) All signatories must be separate background-checked individuals free of past criminal conviction. Canadians should have a right to know who holds their funds. All signing of transactions must take place with all signatories on Canadian soil or on the soil of a country with a solid legal system which agrees to uphold and support these rules (from an established white-list of countries which expands over time).
(c) 3-5 independent signatures are required for any withdrawal. There must be 1-3 spare signatories, and a maximum of 7 total signatories. The following are all valid combinations: 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.
(d) A security audit should be conducted to validate the cold wallet is set up correctly and provide any additional pertinent information. The primary purpose is to ensure that all signatories are acting independently and using best practices for private key storage. A report summarizing all steps taken and who did the audit will be made public. Canadians must be able to validate the right measures are in place to protect their funds.
(e) There is a simple approval process if signatories wish to visit any country outside Canada, with a potential whitelist of exempt countries. At most 2 signatories can be outside of aligned jurisdiction at any given time. All exchanges would be required to keep a compliant cold wallet for Canadian funds and have a Canadian office if they wish to serve Canadian customers.
(2) Regular and transparent solvency audits.
(a) An audit must be conducted at founding, after 3 months of operation, and at least once every 6 months to compare customer balances against all stored cryptocurrency and fiat balances. The auditor must be known, independent, and never the same twice in a row.
(b) An audit report will be published featuring the steps conducted in a readable format. This should be made available to all Canadians on the exchange website and on a government website. The report must include what percentage of each customer asset is backed on the exchange, and how those funds are stored.
(c) The auditor will independently produce a hash of each customer's identifying information and balance as they perform the audit. This will be made publicly available on the exchange and government website, along with simplified instructions that each customer can use to verify that their balance was included in the audit process.
(d) The audit needs to include a proof of ownership for any cryptocurrency wallets included. A satoshi test (spending a small amount) or partially signed transaction both qualify.
(e) Any platform without 100% reserves should be assessed on a regular basis by a government or industry watchdog. This entity should work to prevent any further drop, support any private investor to come in, or facilitate a merger so that 100% backing can be obtained as soon as possible.
(3) Protections for hot wallets and transactions.
(a) A standardized list of approved coins and procedures will be established to constitute valid cold storage wallets. Where a multi-sig process is not natively available, efforts will be undertaken to establish a suitable and stable smart contract standard. This list will be expanded and improved over time. Coins and procedures not on the list are considered hot wallets.
(b) Hot wallets can be backed by additional funds in cold storage or an acceptable third-party insurance provider with a comprehensive coverage policy.
(c) Exchanges are required to cover the full balance of all user funds as denominated in the same currency, or double the balance as denominated in bitcoin or CAD using an established trading rate. If the balance is ever insufficient due to market movements, the firm must rectify this within 24 hours by moving assets to cold storage or increasing insurance coverage.
(d) Any large transactions (above a set threshold) from cold storage to any new wallet addresses (not previously transacted with) must be tested with a smaller transaction first. Deposits of cryptocurrency must be limited to prevent economic 51% attacks. Any issues are to be covered by the exchange.
(e) Exchange platforms must provide suitable authentication for users, including making available approved forms of two-factor authentication. SMS-based authentication is not to be supported. Withdrawals must be blocked for 48 hours in the event of any account password change. Disputes on the negligence of exchanges should be governed by case law.

Steps Forward

Continued review of existing OSC feedback is still underway. More feedback and opinions on the framework and ideas as presented here are extremely valuable. The above is a draft and not finalized.
The process of further developing and bringing a suitable framework to protect Canadians will require the support of exchange operators, legal experts, and many others in the community. The costs of not doing such are tremendous. A large and convoluted framework, one based on flawed ideas or implementation, or one which fails to properly safeguard Canadians is not just extremely expensive and risky for all Canadians, severely limiting to the credibility and reputation of the industry, but an existential risk to many exchanges.
The responsibility falls to all of us to provide our insight and make our opinions heard on this critical matter. Please take the time to give your thoughts.
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

A Deep Dive Into IRS Crypto Audits (Podcast & Highlights)

Hey all - the newest episode of The BitcoinTaxes Podcast is live. For anyone unfamiliar, it's a podcast where I interview experts in the crypto/blockchain/fintech spaces. In this episode I speak with a tax controversy lawyer about how to handle a CI agent showing up at your door about your crypto, and what to do to avoid getting to that point.
Full disclosure, I work for BitcoinTaxes and also host this podcast. I typically post my interviews to our own subreddit and one or two other subreddits (not trying to spam people). This subreddit's community seems to enjoy/engage with the episodes when I post them. If there's any issue with me posting here please let me know, otherwise I hope you guys enjoy this episode and gain some valuable knowledge. Feel free to hit me with any questions and I can relay them to Alex.
----
Links:
Podcast Page Link
Audio Only

Brief Summary:
This episode's guest is Alex Kugelman. Alex is a tax controversy lawyer with expertise in cryptocurrency and IRS audits. Alex is a frequent guest on this podcast - back in July 2019 he came on the show to discuss the IRS Educational Letters that were being sent out. Before that, in May, he shared some excellent information about IRS cryptocurrency audits. Today, he elaborates on these topics and goes in-depth about what could happen in a potential crypto audit.
Alex provides tips in the case of an IRS CI agent showing up at your door, revisits compliance post-2019 IRS FAQ update, and gives us his take on the effect of COVID-19 in taxes and crypto.

Some good quotes:
"In the past year, what I've seen, the single common element of all IRS criminal investigations relating to cryptocurrency is that there is evidence that there have been sales of cryptocurrency and it cannot be reconciled to the tax return." (07:10)
"I think it's very likely that exchanges are providing information to the government if it's requested, especially U S based exchanges that are trying to be in the good graces of regulators." (09:44)

EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS AND DISCUSSION

Don't Under-Estimate Over-Reporting (03:12)

Alex: I'm a big believer of over-reporting, which means give as much detail as you possibly can. I think a lot of people get into trouble. They go: “Oh, I reported my transactions”... and you look at the tax return and it's a single line that says “cryptocurrency” and the net number. You have to think through objectively. I've not seen an issue where the IRS has taken a really hard position on lost records as long as you're making reasonable assumptions and using fair market value data.

A CI Agent's M.O. (10:30)

Alex: CI's agents are fairly sophisticated. If they have some information, and they can see these different transfers to different exchanges or wallets - they can piece it together and there's nothing to stop them from going and getting that data at that point as well. That's why I think it's really important that people...try to do the most reasonable good faith effort because it's hard to make a criminal case out of an accounting error. It's much easier to make a criminal case when someone's sold hundreds of thousands of dollars of cryptocurrency and then transferred that fiat into a U S bank account.

Unmatched Trades and Missing Data (12:16)

Alex: The more transactions that you have...with missing information...could lead to more questions. The question becomes where or how did you obtain this cryptocurrency and why is it that you don't have records?
A very common example is Mt. Gox. The exchange goes down, the records go down. That's really common. If that's the story, I wouldn't be worried about it. But, if you were being paid in cryptocurrency for a couple of years, never reported it as income, and now you're selling it - that's more problematic. It could lead to issues down the line.

CI Agents Paying You A Visit (14:35)

Alex: A lot of times when a CI agent shows up it's meant to catch people off guard. If a CI agent is showing up at your door regarding cryptocurrency, it means they already have information that they believe there was a crime and that would lead to a conviction of a crime. So you're not going to explain that away in an hour long conversation in your living room. It's not going to happen. That's not the way it works.
There's always going to be two agents, because one is going to be a witness for this conversation. You just need to remember: decline the interview. There's nothing wrong with that. Get a card and: “my counsel will contact you”. That's it.
The other thing to keep in mind that's really important is that you don't want to start doing things that are new crimes. You don't want to go in and start destroying records or erasing emails. Taking those kinds of steps is only going to make it worse.

Coronavirus, Audits, and Amended Returns (31:05)

Alex: The IRS is, for the most part, shutdown. That means that they're not really issuing new audits right now. It also means that the forced collections, when you owe money to the IRS and they levy your bank account or issue liens - that’s not going on right now. So for clients or for taxpayers who owe the IRS money...if they are currently in an installment agreement with the IRS, then actually they can forego those monthly payments right now.
The IRS is already an underfunded agency, and it was affected by the government shutdown recently. There's really a big backlog to begin with. I mean it's hard to estimate how much this [virus] is going to affect the administration of tax compliance. I think it's a great time to amend a tax return or to get into compliance.
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Roger Ver on MTGOX Bitcoin exchange; for the uninitiated.

Roger Ver on MTGOX Bitcoin exchange; for the uninitiated. submitted by GalacticCannibalism to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What little Bitcoin Wright had he lost in MTGox, according to his ex-wife

Wright had 14.6 BTC in a MTGox account which he'd opened around April 2013.
Q. Okay. And did Craig tell you he had bitcoin at this time?
THE DEPONENT: Well, he intimated that he had lost a lot of bitcoin when that Japanese company - when that guy in Japan, I think the - the bitcoin - I don't know if it was a bank or what sort of outfit it was, but he, I guess, absconded with all the money, and Craig had kept some of his - had - well, "some of it", I think he kept all of his bitcoin there, and --
Q. And what's - and this is Mt. Gox? Is that what you're referring to?
submitted by nullc to bsv [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Roger Ver lies Lounge

Roger Ver is a liar with proof:

"Mt. Gox is totally fine." ... shortly thereafter Mt. Gox implodes ... "I am here to 'apologize'. Even though everything I said when I told you 'Mt. Gox is fine' was true, I am sorry that some of you lost money when it collapsed. Buy ether."
"I am banned from posting in /Bitcoin" ... accidentally posts to /Bitcoin ... "Oops. Now I'll pretend like I never claimed to be banned from /Bitcoin, and ignore anyone who asks me about that claim."
"I've dumped a few hundred BTC for BCH"... 2 weeks later: "I haven't sold a single Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash up until yesterday"
He lies about the subreddit he controls. He regularly lies about his holdings. He lied and scammed his way into the bitcoin.com domain, which he uses to push out FUD about Bitcoin and its developers. He lies on agreements he signs (e.g. "the bitcoin.com pool will mine with NYA/btc1/2x code... whoops just kidding, we're mining bch instead"). He even had the audacity to lie about what happened in court, when there is a public transcript available which disproves everything he said.
EDIT1:
This post's links (and the surrounding thread) shows Ver's history of promoting the bitclub ponzi, making excuses for its principles when they got arrested, and lying about his involvement: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/e94qxa/bitcoincom_exceo_and_convicted_felon_roger_vefaghpbm/
Please add to this list of LIES.
submitted by Where-is-my-BAB to BitcoinDotCON [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to Crypto_General [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to CryptoNews [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hacks & basic ways to protect your Crypto

Interest in Bitcoin is increasing globally. More and more people are willing to participate in Bitcoin trading and mining. However, Bitcoin history shows that it is not always as safe as we would like it to be. Let’s take a look at some major Bitcoin hacks.

Allinvain

Allinvain is a nickname of a user on BitcoinTalk forums. Basically, he was the first one to experience a major Bitcoin loss. He lost 25,000 bitcoins, all together it was worth around $500,000. The user believed that someone hacked into his computer to steal BTC.

Mt Gox

Shortly after Allinvain’s case, the next hack attempt happened. Mt Gox was one of the biggest exchanges that provided a trade between Bitcoin and fiat money. Hackers compromised its website and started to sell Bitcoins. Their actions made the price go down dramatically. However, attackers did not pay attention to the $1000 limit Mt Gox had. Nonetheless, that hack attack had an important influence on BTC.

Other exchanges

Exchanges are being attacked by hackers quite often.
In 2012 Bitfloor suffered a terrible attack and lost 24,000 BTC (around $250,000). Unfortunately, this exchange was not able to survive the attack and was closed in 2013.
In 2015 Bitstamp exchange was hacked. It lost approximately 19,000 BTC (around $5 million).
In 2016 Bitfinex also lost 120,000 BTC (around $77 million) to hackers.

Twitter hack

The last attack happened in one of the biggest social nets. Twitter became a part of the latest attackers’ actions. The most significant and world-famous accounts promoted Bitcoin scam for several hours.

Anti-hack protection

The most important question is how to protect your Bitcoin savings from upcoming attacks. Here are some basic things that may help you to be safe:
Even though there is no way to be a hundred percent safe, there are a lot of steps we can take to avoid unfortunate losses. Cryptocurrency services are improving their protection systems all the time, and we all should do what we can to make this network more secure.
submitted by SimpleSwapExchange to NewbieZone [link] [comments]

Gregory "Competent" Maxwell lost about 928BTC on gox

The mtgox claim pdf lists the converted value as 46 502 398 YEN (421 519USD) although I'm not sure how they did the calculation.
It seems he deposited the BTC to be sold for USD.
預けていたBTCの届出⾦額 Filed Amount concerning Deposited BTC
BTC 928.9681276
submitted by usrn to btc [link] [comments]

Will Mt. Gox's missing money prompt regulation on Bitcoin ... Mt Gox finds 200,000 lost bitcoins - economy Roger Ver on MTGOX Bankruptcy and Bitcoin Mt. Gox: Solving the Mystery of Bitcoin’s Biggest Disaster I Fortune Virtual Bitcoins worth $425 million disappear

Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community. Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Bitcoin . Home ; Questions ; Tags ; Users ; Jobs; Unanswered ; MtGox money completely lost? [duplicate] Ask Question Asked 6 years, 6 ... While creditors of the defunct Mt Gox bitcoin exchange wait for the Japanese courts to resolve the fate of their money, a Moscow-based law firm is proposing a different solution.. According to Mt ... The deadline for submission of a plan for the rehabilitation of defunct cryptocurrency exchange Mt. Gox has been extended again, leaving investors with a longer wait for details on proposals to return their money.. Trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi, who was appointed to oversee the administration of the plan, announced it would now be published on December 15, the latest of a number of pushbacks of ... 'I lost money with Mt.Gox' Here are stories from people who failed to heed the warnings about Bitcoin-trading website Mt.Gox -- and some who avoided the fiasco. 1 of 5 Others smaller bitcoin exchanges have lost money due to cyberattacks. Flexcoin closed its doors soon after MtGox after losing 896 bitcoins ($606,000). The exchange said it had neither the cash nor resources to carry on operating. Poloniex said it lost 10% of customers’ bitcoins that were stored online. Software developers aim to prevent another MtGox disaster . Software developers who ...

[index] [39471] [27229] [20564] [6933] [35150] [28873] [42196] [37934] [31578] [41612]

Will Mt. Gox's missing money prompt regulation on Bitcoin ...

Mt. Gox’s Mark Karpelès is dedicating his life to righting the wrongs of his company’s collapse in 2014. Subscribe to Fortune - http://www.youtube.com/subscr... For more WORLD NEWS "SUBSCRIBE" US Japanese police have arrested the CEO of the failed company MtGox, which was once the world's biggest exchange of the virtual currency, bitcoin. Mark Karpeles ... The founder of the Tokyo-based Mt. Gox website admitted his company lost 850,000 Bitcoins, valued at about $425 million. Hari Sreenivasan reports. Hari Sreenivasan reports. Category Mt. Gox, an early player in the virtual currency Bitcoins, became a major online exchange until the disappearance of a significant sum and the subsequent ban... Transcript: Hello, I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin proponent. About 7 months ago, purely as a favor to Mtgox, I made a video stating that their fiat withdrawal problems were not being caused by a ...

#