I'm Kevin, here's my side. - page 21.

relative

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:15:24 PM

Every major exchange has written policies saying when breaks will happen. MtGox specifically said they weren't a party to the trades, and had no policy for doing so.

no exchange is party to the trades (except maybe the clearing house of futures exchanges).
this doesn't mean they can't break trades.

the ONLY thing he could claim is that they're not allowed to break trades because there was no policy/agreement. but even that I doubt.

Quote

I also haven't said what I would do with that 643.

you basically admitted that you knew at the time you withdrew the 643 that it was the loot of a hacker.

bitrebel

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 251

Quote from: chihlidog on June 20, 2011, 04:25:13 PM

I actually agree with OP 100%. This is Mt. Gox's responsibility to make right. Especially in light of numerous complains regarding security well before the plummet. The fact is they were in over their heads and they dont know what to do now. Who are they to roll back a market?

THEY allowed their system to be compromised. They alone. I dont care if it was an auditor. That auditor had authorization to access their files and was acting on authority of the owner. No difference. I have zero pity for Mt. Gox. The only right thing to do is to reimburse the original owner for everything that he lost (since there arent enough bitcoins available, they need to BUY them for him. Period.) and the OP be allowed to retain the bitcoins fairly purchased. If I had money in Mt. Gox at the time, I would have been furiously trying to buy, too. There were plenty of posts here that thought it was a legitimate selloff. The OP did nothing wrong. Period.

Agreed

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:20:24 PM

No, I'm not claiming that they could have millions of dollars. But I am claiming that they've made many hundreds or thousands of bitcoins per day. Take the public volume, times their fee, and make a wild guess at how much is moving on the dark pool to add on top of that. If they don't have enough in BTC to cover the entirety of this, they're doing something very very wrong.

#1) Volume includes dark pool trading
#2) You are not claiming they have millions of dollars available, but you think they could cover the loss of over 300k bitcoins without being made insolvent?

Synaptic

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: Cusipzzz on June 20, 2011, 04:18:08 PM

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:15:24 PM

Quote from: Cusipzzz on June 20, 2011, 04:13:04 PM

You stole 643 btc. Congrats.

Every major exchange breaks trades. Too bad for you, consider yourself lucky if you don't get sued for the 643 btc.

Every major exchange has written policies saying when breaks will happen. MtGox specifically said they weren't a party to the trades, and had no policy for doing so.

I also haven't said what I would do with that 643.

Most exchanges have a general rule about 'clearly erroneous trades' - this is usually defined as 20%+ away from recent activity. Trades at .011 clearly fall under this globally accepted guideline.

Mtgox is charged with running a fair and orderly exchange. That obv did not happen here and he has no choice but to correct it. Again, you have balls asking for the rest after taking 643 btc.

Why couldn't it be a valid trade?

Because you and all your dumbasshole friends here think that BTC could NEVER be crashed by someone who just didn't give a fuck?

You all take your little play money market WAY too seriously...

DamienBlack

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:20:24 PM

Quote from: lemonginger on June 20, 2011, 04:16:32 PM

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:09:52 PM

+ Mt Gox has clearly made several times more revenue (through trading fees) than this incident would cost them to completely absorb.

I have no idea if you are who you so you are. I also agree that it is highly improbably that a single user was storing so many bitcoins on mt gox. However, this statement is not true. You are claiming that Mt Gox has already made millions of dollars and could absorb this loss without going under and taking the entire bitcoin economy with them.

No, I'm not claiming that they could have millions of dollars. But I am claiming that they've made many hundreds or thousands of bitcoins per day. Take the public volume, times their fee, and make a wild guess at how much is moving on the dark pool to add on top of that. If they don't have enough in BTC to cover the entirety of this, they're doing something very very wrong.

They aren't making "hundreds or thousands of bitcoins a day". The volume is usually around $300,000 USD. Times .013 is 3900 dollars. Or about 260 bitcoins a day. That isn't enough.

chihlidog

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

I actually agree with OP 100%. This is Mt. Gox's responsibility to make right. Especially in light of numerous complains regarding security well before the plummet. The fact is they were in over their heads and they dont know what to do now. Who are they to roll back a market?

THEY allowed their system to be compromised. They alone. I dont care if it was an auditor. That auditor had authorization to access their files and was acting on authority of the owner. No difference. I have zero pity for Mt. Gox. The only right thing to do is to reimburse the original owner for everything that he lost (since there arent enough bitcoins available, they need to BUY them for him. Period.) and the OP be allowed to retain the bitcoins fairly purchased. If I had money in Mt. Gox at the time, I would have been furiously trying to buy, too. There were plenty of posts here that thought it was a legitimate selloff. The OP did nothing wrong. Period.

toasty

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 12

Quote from: DamienBlack on June 20, 2011, 04:22:01 PM

So the only minus of option three is... it might be impossible. Well, a back of the envelope calculation tell me that it is impossible. Of all the options, I prefer the rollback.

Note that I phrased it as "to the best of their ability". Nobody wants to see them go under or get screwed.

Maged

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1015

I agree that rollback was wrong INITIALLY. However, once the database was leaked, it was clear that none of the trades could actually be trusted. I'm almost suprised that they aren't reverting back further, but I suppose those are losses they can cover on their own. They don't have the millions of dollars it'd take to fix this mess.

bitrebel

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 251

You are correct Kevin to take this approach. I believe Mt Gox tried to fuck everyone, especially you. I believe they may have stolen bitcoins from accounts, then tried to sell them to buy them back up, thus laundering them into their own hands.

That's just my opinion, based on everything I have read and heard so far.

Jaime Frontero

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

interesting can of worms.

i can't think i'd want to take the position of either party.

Oldminer

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1001

Tl;dr and no-one cares.

DamienBlack

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

So the only minus of option three is... it might be impossible. Well, a back of the envelope calculation tell me that it is impossible. Of all the options, I prefer the rollback.

Maged

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1015

Quote from: lemonginger on June 20, 2011, 04:16:32 PM

I have no idea if you are who you so you are.

He is. I've verified it.

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

Although an alternative view would be that this redistribution of bitcoins into more people's hands would be good for the economy. Both because people tend to spend "windfalls" more freely than other money and because it would get coins in circulation that were just sitting there. Still, assuming that there is a person out there that would go after Mt Gox for the loss, I'm not sure they could be made whole withot Mt Gox going under and a lot of people losing a lot of money.

toasty

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 12

Quote from: lemonginger on June 20, 2011, 04:16:32 PM

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:09:52 PM

+ Mt Gox has clearly made several times more revenue (through trading fees) than this incident would cost them to completely absorb.

I have no idea if you are who you so you are. I also agree that it is highly improbably that a single user was storing so many bitcoins on mt gox. However, this statement is not true. You are claiming that Mt Gox has already made millions of dollars and could absorb this loss without going under and taking the entire bitcoin economy with them.

No, I'm not claiming that they could have millions of dollars. But I am claiming that they've made many hundreds of bitcoins per day. Take the public volume, times their fee. If they don't have enough in BTC to cover the entirety of this, they're doing something very very wrong.

(edit to change incorrect comment about dark pool trade)

SpaceLord

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

I was assuming that your 0.01 trades were longstanding, and thus were the first 1 cent trades that were made(due to FIFO.) Now that I see that you did this while the price was crashing....well, I don't know what to think. Huh

TraderTimm

legendary

Activity: 2408

Merit: 1121

Executive summary:

1.) "I took advantage of an extraordinary event that turned out to be initiated by a rogue sell order, not legitimate trading."

2.) "Can I keep it? Look, here's why."

No, sorry. To allow the trade to stand would legitimize the attack, is that what you really want? (Besides bitcoins and dollars, I mean.)

Cusipzzz

sr. member

Activity: 334

Merit: 250

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:15:24 PM

Quote from: Cusipzzz on June 20, 2011, 04:13:04 PM

You stole 643 btc. Congrats.

Every major exchange breaks trades. Too bad for you, consider yourself lucky if you don't get sued for the 643 btc.

Every major exchange has written policies saying when breaks will happen. MtGox specifically said they weren't a party to the trades, and had no policy for doing so.

I also haven't said what I would do with that 643.

Most exchanges have a general rule about 'clearly erroneous trades' - this is usually defined as 20%+ away from recent activity. Trades at .011 clearly fall under this globally accepted guideline.

Mtgox is charged with running a fair and orderly exchange. That obv did not happen here and he has no choice but to correct it. Again, you have balls asking for the rest after taking 643 btc.

DamienBlack

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1

The rollback is inevitable. I feel bad for you because I would have felt like I one that lottery and then it was taken away. But, it simply has to happen.

It is possible that mt gox lost more than they have reported yet, but I don't think they lost enough to not be able to function. We'll see soon enough. I was never under the impression that the hacker was buying at a penny. It seems like the hacker was just acting crazy.

lemonginger

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

firstbits: 121vnq

Quote from: toasty on June 20, 2011, 04:09:52 PM

+ Mt Gox has clearly made several times more revenue (through trading fees) than this incident would cost them to completely absorb.

I have no idea if you are who you so you are. I also agree that it is highly improbably that a single user was storing so many bitcoins on mt gox. However, this statement is not true. You are claiming that Mt Gox has already made millions of dollars and could absorb this loss without going under and taking the entire bitcoin economy with them. I fail to see how Mt Gox being made insolvent and lots of people ending up with no cash is a better outcome than rolling back trades (which again, happens all the time). I agree that Mt Gox and all exchanges need to be more explicit about this in the future but I don't think they have a legal or ethical obligation to honor the trades.

Topic: I'm Kevin, here's my side. - page 21. (Read 258581 times)