No shit. The obvious reason for this is that Mt. Gox does not do a good job of communications.
For my part, a lack of information is a neutral indication of incompetence. Deliberate mis-information such as what they have produced with their 'several weeks' assertions are no longer neutral. This has turn me hostile to Mt. Gox over the last few weeks.
A fun thought experiment: Take the information you think is true. Your task is to find Mt.Gox actions that enables
all Mt.Gox users
equally to act without destroying the exchange beyond the possibility of repair.
Tell us your findings here.
P.S.: If you are Mt.Gox friendly, you could add that counterparties are interested in aggravating the situation through
altering perception (i.e. through blogs, forum entries ...). Bitcoin-land I love you.
Very difficult for me. I almost never think anything is true with 100% certainty. I usually can only assign a probability to something, then shift it around as observations come in. Anyway, I don't really understand your experiment as stated. I'd like to though because I delight in fun thought experiments.
I'm much more hostile then friendly as long as they sit on my money and give me false information about when (and if) I can expect it. OTOH, I had to force the situation in order to get verified, and I was under no false illusion about the severity of their problems and the kinds of difficulties I was very likely to face. I'd prefer to see Mt. Gox emerge as a viable entity because I think it would be good for Bitcoin, and because I feel that they have done generally positive things for the ecosystem over it's life. I think it a fair bet that if they survive at all, they will never achieve the dominance that they once commanded. That is also a good thing in my opinion.
