Topic: Mt Gox thinks it's the Fed. Freezes acc based on "tainted" coins. (unlocked now) - page 3. (Read 17935 times)

This is possibly the most retarded thing I read on this forum. And just for the record, there is a lot of retarded shit here.

Ah. No. Definitely not.

I have my questions when someone knows there is a presumed lack of privacy and then objects vehemently when the lack of privacy is experienced. If the rules change after the deal is made, well...I certainly understand objections!

I have my questions in most business transactions when one party wishes to remain anonymous. While in some cases I might do business anonymously, those cases are fewer than those in which I'd like to know whom it is I'm to hold responsible for the other side of the transaction.

If I ran a service that had a big potential for fraud, and I had no other way to protect myself from the other party, I'd have to insist on knowing who they are. I guess the bigger the biz, the more rote and bureaucratic it winds up being.


And - MagicalTux: best to have everyone in on policing coins, indeed. best to only act when you have public consensus or governmental compulsion. It's not going to do anyone any good if you police the coins and decide when to lock accounts, certainly not with your apparent marketshare. It's a recipe for bad PR at the least, and lawsuits in due course.

Edit: removed incorrect citation for the quote above

there is no such thing as tainted coins, there are people who do not take sufficient care of their private keys & their are possible crimes committed by others to access those private keys but all coins are equal, the whole concept of tainted coins is both wrong & unworkable - it is just your (or any other make up your own rules) blacklist of what you may feel like impounding for any reason you happen to decide, all coins are equal & any attempt to second class some will fail, just like a gram of gold that may have been obtained in some manner that you may suspect is dodgy, once it is melted down & mixed with kilos of other gold & moved around in a non regulated market then it can not be blocked - just try & get being an exchange right & leave trying to be the FBI up to what a court that you are under the jurisdiction of orders you to do, if one ever does that is

just my 2c

We are trying to have the law enforcement agencies contacting us working with the "Bitcoin Police" (which is the most exchange-neutral entity working toward a legal bitcoin), and offload the tainted coin verification to them. It'd work a bit differently (no way for us to know which coins are tainted until they hit us) but it'd also allow other people to be part of the process easily and know they received tainted coins before spreading these.

Or terrorist.

The sad thing is some people would be like "damn right".  The whole "you shouldn't care unless you got something to hide" nonsense.

Patriot Act = no problem.   You got nothing to hide unless you are terrorist.
Warrantless searches = no problem. You got nothing to hide unless you are a criminal.
Mt.Gox invasion of privacy = no problem.  You got nothing to hide unless you are a money launderer.

Anyone think that maybe some people don't want Mt.Gox to have their ID (likely in a pile of thousands of other ID poorly protected).  That an image which will give any identity thief an erection.  Remember this is the company too stupid to salt user passwords.  I mean it is understandable since per user salting was only invented in 2010 ... er wait no it wasn't it has been around since the 1960s.

Surely anyone who cares about privacy must be a criminal 

+10 on both of the above!

Perhaps you'd like ICBIT better?
 

I just love that line

Isn't it retarded? It's only the people who are constantly trying to hide that have something to hide.

They go around preaching their love of anonymity to everyone, then they want to use public services like everyone else and demand that they be allowed by their own rules.

 

So far, I would say that your tenacious refusal to submit the required info is suspicious enough to warrant an AML flag.

I explained what I mean like 6 times now. They marked my account nothing to do with AML, suspect linode hacked coins is their excuse. I think MtGox is going above and beyond legal requirements for profit. I think they probably have a system to do this with up to hundreds of different variables to maximize profit by locking accounts most likely to not verify after deposits. That's what I think is dishonest and unethical. You can disagree with my opinion there as I have no evidence of that and never have claimed to.

 you mean being a real company trying to respect local laws and world AML laws is "dishonest and unethical business practices" ?

 mtgox need to have bank accounts, to have banks accepting to open ( and not close later ) a bank account for a bitcoin exchange is real hard, and you have to respect many laws, including AML laws , which means requiring Id docs for any suspect account.

Most of the things we've discovered we haven't brought to the public's attention. We have become known to be able to investigate and resolve manners much more reliably and have been paid to do penetration tests for other bitcoin exchanges.

For mtgox there were people for over a week specifically complaining that their account was hacked into. After less than 40 seconds of investigating MtGox's security, Patrick Strateman was able to verify a security flaw. We spent hours trying to contact Mark however knowing it might be a week before MtGox replied and that they could potentially have been losing 10s of thousands per hour we made an alert. This almost certainly sparked the price drop exclusive to mtgox as the person exploiting mtgox realized now he or she only had a limited time to deplete as much as they could instead of staying under the radar. We could not have known that there was another mtgox security flaw aside from the CSRF flaw which allowed someone root access.

To this day users like our friend who had their accounts hacked into with the CSRF have not been paid.

In the case of BTC-e someone specifically asked us to check a potential vulnerability. We did attempt to contact BTC-e (just like with mtgox). After being unsuccessful we reported the issue. The person who asked us to investigate was doing so because they had heard from someone else that there was a problem meaning that knowledge of a potential problem was at least wide spread.

We keep security vulnerabilities private unless we feel it is unethical to do so. One exception is when keeping it secret is completely useless as it is already public to the extent that it is likely either already being exploited or someone is actively working on exploiting it.

It is wasn't for Patrick Stratemen alone the value of a Bitcoin would, in my opinion, be at most $2.

No one said it's a scam the most I said was "dishonest and unethical business practices"

The 'conspiracy' I'm suggesting is gox uses some algorithms that looks for accounts with a high chance to not verify then lock the account "pending review". Either the person sends docs and makes it easier for gox on the regulatory side of things or they forfeit the account. It's a win/win for them. You can decide how crazy I am for thinking that way. There's multiple other posters on reddit and other forums where others have also had their accounts locked like this right after deposits.

I'm saying if you use gox and convert to USD (buy or sell) it's not if they will lock the account, it's only a matter of when. I used gox for months before they locked my account so people saying their unverified account made withdrawals without problems will be back here soon posting about their locked accounts.

I've read it and I don't see what's the point to be honest.

You don't need to trust Intersango to have your ID, they don't have mine. So what's the point again?

Also, didn't you imply that discrediting MtGox was somehow a bad thing?

Rather than just taking an opportunity to fail at discrediting Mt.Gox by quoting my post out of context, maybe you could have read it?

following & to see Gox's further info re their policy on this, like how much money do they have locked down atm - either because they believe it may once have been stolen or because people have not provided the ID that Gox requested/demanded & what is going to happen to these funds, how much money have they ever returned to those who claimed it stolen from them - if any, when Gox say that you may have to explain the where, why & from whom you received your coins just how can they prove what you say is true in this regard or not, especially if the Internet person (I've both sent & received large quantities of coins from peeps that I have no clue about in rl - just a forum name) you claim to have received the funds from chooses not to cooperate with the inquisition

What other competition are you talking about?

I wasn't actually referring to Mt.Gox in that paragraph.

Handling ~80% of all exchange trade makes them infrastructural. It would be virtually impossible to introduce a sizeable number of new users at this point without exchanges, and they hold 80% of that capacity.

Also, that 20~35% of BTC trade already is a lot of money. So it is a great scam really.

I can't see the contradiction. Discrediting MtGox is a service to the community at this point.