.................................................................. - page 2.

richmke

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: justusranvier on February 25, 2014, 02:17:15 PM

You want sound exchanges that can't lose or steal customer funds? Find a way to do it with cryptography. If you think the problem of losing money because the people you trusted to do the right thing didn't can be solved by trusting different people to do the right things you're a fool or a liar.

Good luck. As soon as you transfer BTC to the exchange, you are at their mercy.

One possible way is to have your own wallet that they control. Kind of like the on-line wallets. They are the only ones with the withdrawal key. Then they could pay for your transactions out of your wallet, and you could keep a watch on the balance.

Problems:

1) Risk of any on-line wallet: Someone there steals your money. They go broke, and the withdrawal key is lost. Or, they somehow loose the withdrawal key. Maybe some type of key bank that you can access with a private key. Once you use the keybank, the account can no longer be used for trading (since they do not exclusively control it anymore). Maybe a 24 hour delay to give them time to stop trading on our account and close out any open positions.

2) It may take time to clear trades, but if they control the wallets, then they would not need to wait for confirms.

A segregated real wallet that you can watch could solve a lot of trust problems. You still have the counter party, and the risk of them manipulating the exchange. You also have the problem with fiat money balances. Would you accept regulations to cover that?

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: darkmule on February 25, 2014, 02:36:03 PM

They also appear to have (if their claims are accurate), a reasonably good protocol for securing coins and keeping them in cold storage.

Gox claimed to have cold storage, but I don't see how that claim can possibly be consistent with losing the vast majority of customer funds.

So Gox claims can't possibly be consistent, and you you accept Coinbase claims at face value?

Perhaps what would be better would be an independent financial AND security audit performed by a trusted third party? Partnership with a major global insurance underwriter to insure the security of deposits would be helpful as well.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: bananas on February 25, 2014, 01:31:46 PM

I foun him, his name is Andreas M. Antonopoulos

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1yauc9/andreas_antonopoulos_gox_was_warned_and_had_funds/

"So they got taken for a bit of a ride, and lost some money, but not much. And now they're fixing their systems and I expect, eventually, they're going to get it right again."

There are other statements like that from him. Negative statements truth be told, but some are followed by "it will be fine in the end".

That link is from February 13. Mr. Antonopoulos was not at that time involved in assisting MtGox with fixing their problems and was talking based on recent reports at that time. Furthermore, Mr. Antonopoulos is not a staff member of MtGox, is not one of the signatories of the "joint statement", and is not a board member at The Bitcoin Foundation. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Antonopoulos has any additional information at that time than what he was reporting. Even if he did, he's just some popular speaker (as you already mentioned), and anything that he said shouldn't be used to cast a shadow over the organizations that he isn't a part of.

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: richmke on February 25, 2014, 02:06:40 PM

1) Segregation of Customer Assets from Company Assets
2) Rules to ensure solvency of counterparties (margin requirements for trading)
3) Rules for timely crediting of deposits and processing of withdrawals
4) Rules to prevent insider trading and self dealing (manipulating the order book)
5) Regular audits to ensure safe keeping of Customer Assets

If there were an SEC regulated exchange for BTC, BTC Futures, and BTC options, I would be the first to sign up and trade there. As they say, "Return of my principal is more important than return on my principal". Right now, how do you know which exchange you can trust? You don't, and that is a transaction barrier.

The closest to regulatory compliance I can see is Coinbase, which is at least registered with FinCEN and working toward figuring out the regulations in any states where it might be necessary. They also appear to have (if their claims are accurate), a reasonably good protocol for securing coins and keeping them in cold storage.

Gox claimed to have cold storage, but I don't see how that claim can possibly be consistent with losing the vast majority of customer funds.

GodfatherBond

sr. member

Activity: 264

Merit: 250

Quote from: justusranvier on February 25, 2014, 02:17:15 PM

Quote from: richmke on February 25, 2014, 02:06:40 PM

Actually, you want Heavy Regulations for exchanges. The types of regulations you want are:

1) Segregation of Customer Assets from Company Assets
2) Rules to ensure solvency of counterparties (margin requirements for trading)
3) Rules for timely crediting of deposits and processing of withdrawals
4) Rules to prevent insider trading and self dealing (manipulating the order book)
5) Regular audits to ensure safe keeping of Customer Assets

If there were an SEC regulated exchange for BTC, BTC Futures, and BTC options, I would be the first to sign up and trade there. As they say, "Return of my principal is more important than return on my principal". Right now, how do you know which exchange you can trust? You don't, and that is a transaction barrier. Drop the barriers, and more people would be willing to participate.

The SEC con artists and scammers. They claim to ensure those five things you mention, and when they ignore repeated warnings or just watch porn instead of doing their job they have no accountability for their failure.

Anybody who pushes regulation as a solution to the problem of exchanges is being disingenuous. Regulation is a power grab, not a solution to a problem.

You want sound exchanges that can't lose or steal customer funds? Find a way to do it with cryptography. If you think the problem of losing money because the people you trusted to do the right thing didn't can be solved by trusting different people to do the right things you're a fool or a liar.

+10

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1009

Quote from: richmke on February 25, 2014, 02:06:40 PM

Actually, you want Heavy Regulations for exchanges. The types of regulations you want are:

1) Segregation of Customer Assets from Company Assets
2) Rules to ensure solvency of counterparties (margin requirements for trading)
3) Rules for timely crediting of deposits and processing of withdrawals
4) Rules to prevent insider trading and self dealing (manipulating the order book)
5) Regular audits to ensure safe keeping of Customer Assets

If there were an SEC regulated exchange for BTC, BTC Futures, and BTC options, I would be the first to sign up and trade there. As they say, "Return of my principal is more important than return on my principal". Right now, how do you know which exchange you can trust? You don't, and that is a transaction barrier. Drop the barriers, and more people would be willing to participate.

The SEC con artists and scammers. They claim to ensure those five things you mention, and when they ignore repeated warnings or just watch porn instead of doing their job they have no accountability for their failure.

Anybody who pushes regulation as a solution to the problem of exchanges is being disingenuous. Regulation is a power grab, not a solution to a problem.

You want sound exchanges that can't lose or steal customer funds? Find a way to do it with cryptography. If you think the problem of losing money because the people you trusted to do the right thing didn't can be solved by trusting different people to do the right things you're a fool or a liar.

richmke

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Ikinoki on February 24, 2014, 11:49:16 PM

- Now that Gox will be gone EXPECT HEAVY REGULATORY RISK.
The first exchanges to go down will be probably Bitstamp and Btc-e as they are located in Europe and Europe will heavily regulate exchanges as they promised, especially off-shored ones.

Actually, you want Heavy Regulations for exchanges. The types of regulations you want are:

1) Segregation of Customer Assets from Company Assets
2) Rules to ensure solvency of counterparties (margin requirements for trading)
3) Rules for timely crediting of deposits and processing of withdrawals
4) Rules to prevent insider trading and self dealing (manipulating the order book)
5) Regular audits to ensure safe keeping of Customer Assets

If there were an SEC regulated exchange for BTC, BTC Futures, and BTC options, I would be the first to sign up and trade there. As they say, "Return of my principal is more important than return on my principal". Right now, how do you know which exchange you can trust? You don't, and that is a transaction barrier. Drop the barriers, and more people would be willing to participate. Imagine if you did not know where it was safe to deposit your fiat money. The heavy regulation makes it easy for you to deposit money at a bank without a second thought.

Warren

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 12:49:51 PM

Quote from: bananas on February 25, 2014, 12:45:19 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 12:34:10 PM

Quote from: bananas on February 25, 2014, 12:03:19 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 11:34:37 AM

Quote from: bomb7 on February 25, 2014, 06:30:57 AM

- snip -
during those few days all these well-known Bitcoin figures were saying they were convinced Gox would be fine.
- snip -

I didn't see that at all? Can you provide a link to even one instance in the past few days of someone from the Bitcoin Foundation (or any well-informed member of the bitcoin community) saying they were convinced Gox would be fine?

I don't have links, but i also read several of them saying that on the news, twitter etc, they were the ones who signed the contradictory statement.

If anyone has a single link to any of the following people saying they were convinced Gox would be fine during the past few days, I'd really like to see it. I suspect that the people saying such things were not the people whose names are on the "join statement":

That popular guy with a big strange east european name...find his twitter and you read several statements of this kind. I think he is from blockchain.info, i don't remember.
Everything else i read over the news, a research will have to be done.

The foundation message board is full of liars too.

I don't see any strange east European names on the "joint statement". This is exactly what I'm talking about. You heard some guy say something you don't like, and you automatically attribute it to a group you don't like.

I'm not saying that the signatories on the "joint statement" didn't make claims that "they were convinced Gox would be fine", I'm just saying that I haven't seen it, and I won't make judgements based on rumors and false accusations. Show me a reliable link and I'll back you up. I'll tell everyone to avoid any service they are associated with.

That goes for any of the board members of The Bitcoin Foundation as well. I'd like to see just one reliable link from the past few days of any of the following people making claims that "they were convinced Gox would be fine":

Gavin Andresen
Micky Malka
Jon Matonis
Elizabeth T. Ploshay
Peter Vessenes
Patrick Murck

If such links don't exist, then you're just as bad as you are accusing them of being. You are making false statements based on rumors or false knowledge to try and destroy the reputations of people that aren't proven to have done the things you are accusing them of.

If you don't like someone, or an organization, go ahead and say that you don't like them, but there is no need to be throwing around unsubstantiated accusations.

Let me first say that I don't believe in the OP's conspiracy theories for a second.

However, if someone can tell me the date MtGox was removed as a recommended exchange from the Bitcoing.org website, (which is run by several of the people on your list), that might help to clarify when the core development team had actually lost confidence in MtGox?

I feel it is very sad that an exchange that has been involved in so many mistakes and so much controversy for so many years were listed as a recommended exchange (the top of the list I believe, perhaps based on volume?), up until relatively recently.

It is sad because people that only recently discovered Bitcoin will not have been following the forums, and trusted that recommendation, which is in fact what it is, and deposited fresh fiat into a doomed exchange. Some of these people might now have lost trust in Bitcoin forever due to this situation. Sad

bananas

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 257

I foun him, his name is Andreas M. Antonopoulos

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1yauc9/andreas_antonopoulos_gox_was_warned_and_had_funds/

"So they got taken for a bit of a ride, and lost some money, but not much. And now they're fixing their systems and I expect, eventually, they're going to get it right again."

There are other statements like that from him. Negative statements truth be told, but some are followed by "it will be fine in the end".

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 12:06:20 AM

Quote from: Ikinoki on February 24, 2014, 11:49:16 PM

Guys, don't want to spread FUD.

Just facts:

Well that would be good, but typically when someone starts by saying that, 99% of the time, they follow it up with FUD, and not facts. We'll see.

It's sort of like "I'm not a racist, but. . ." is invariably followed by something racist, and anything that comes before "no homo" is the gayest thing you ever heard (not that there's anything wrong with that).

bananas

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 257

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 01:00:07 PM

Quote from: bananas on February 25, 2014, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 12:49:51 PM

Quote from: bananas on February 25, 2014, 12:45:19 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 12:34:10 PM

Quote from: bananas on February 25, 2014, 12:03:19 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 11:34:37 AM

Quote from: bomb7 on February 25, 2014, 06:30:57 AM

- snip -
during those few days all these well-known Bitcoin figures were saying they were convinced Gox would be fine.
- snip -

I didn't see that at all? Can you provide a link to even one instance in the past few days of someone from the Bitcoin Foundation (or any well-informed member of the bitcoin community) saying they were convinced Gox would be fine?

I don't have links, but i also read several of them saying that on the news, twitter etc, they were the ones who signed the contradictory statement.

If anyone has a single link to any of the following people saying they were convinced Gox would be fine during the past few days, I'd really like to see it. I suspect that the people saying such things were not the people whose names are on the "join statement":

That popular guy with a big strange east european name...find his twitter and you read several statements of this kind. I think he is from blockchain.info, i don't remember.
Everything else i read over the news, a research will have to be done.

The foundation message board is full of liars too.

I don't see any strange east European names on the "joint statement". This is exactly what I'm talking about. You heard some guy say something you don't like, and you automatically attribute it to a group you don't like.

I don't know if he is a company owner. But he is someone very relevant and popular, almost sure that he is from blockchain.info, he was supposed working to help Gox to fix his bug. You guys must know who i'm talking about.

So, one guy that you think is popular says something. He's not a board member of The Bitcoin Foundation, and he's not a signatory on the "joint statement". And because this "popular" guy says something, you decide that: "read several of them saying that on the news, twitter etc, they were the ones who signed the contradictory statement"?

Sorry, that's not how it works.

He was from one of those companies and was directly in contact with Mark.

grifferz

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 01:07:53 PM

Quote from: grifferz on February 25, 2014, 01:02:14 PM

You are debating with someone who felt it was okay to start a topic entitled "MtGox CEO confirms insolvency" and then refused to change that to reflect facts. It is a lost cause.

I know. I'm not doing it for his sake. The point is to make sure that other more logically thinking people that happen to stumble into this thread have a logical response to read. If claims are made that aren't refuted, it can create an impression that the claim stands as accepted by the community. Eventually I'll get bored with the conversation and move on, but by then there will at least be plenty of evidence in the thread that the claims being made are unsupported.

It's a bit disheartening when they just flood the place with whatever bizarre statements they feel will get views, regardless of truth, wait until any calls to reason have fallen off the front page and then start new topics that say the same things. Sad

You're doing good work and I do appreciate it.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: grifferz on February 25, 2014, 01:02:14 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 25, 2014, 01:00:07 PM

Sorry, that's not how it works.

You are debating with someone who felt it was okay to start a topic entitled "MtGox CEO confirms insolvency" and then refused to change that to reflect facts. It is a lost cause.

I know. I'm not doing it for his sake. The point is to make sure that other more logically thinking people that happen to stumble into this thread have a logical response to read. If claims are made that aren't refuted, it can create an impression that the claim stands as accepted by the community. Eventually I'll get bored with the conversation and move on, but by then there will at least be plenty of evidence in the thread that the claims being made are unsupported.

On the other hand, I truly mean it when I say that if there is any evidence of the claims I'll wholeheartedly refuse to use any service that the accused is associated with and will consistently recommend that others avoid the service as well.