Topic: New research proves: MtGox bitcoins NOT stolen using transaction malleability - page 2. (Read 25229 times)
March 28, 2014, 02:54:58 AM
"Honestly...I completely forgot about that old BTC wallet I swear!!" -MK :p
March 28, 2014, 01:50:59 AM
sounds like somebody took the cookie from the cookie jar eh? Maybe time for a proper spanking for all to see hmmm 
March 27, 2014, 05:59:01 PM
Let's see, so if I owned one of the largest bitcoin exchanges, I might be tempted to shut down as well; claiming that most of coins were stolen while I was secretly funneling them into multiple personal anonymous accounts. Then eventually when I had enough coins stored up, I would let the shit hit the fan by saying the coins are stolen, and then proceed to file for bankruptcy. Lastly, I'd sneak off and buy my own little island where nobody would find me.
March 27, 2014, 03:10:59 PM
Well, this is just another proof to something we already know. Mark Karpeles is a thief.
How long before a lynch mob hunts him down? How many people lost $10+?
March 27, 2014, 03:00:31 PM
As such, barely 386 bitcoins could
have been stolen using malleability attacks from MtGox or from other
businesses. Even if all of these attacks were targeted against MtGox,
MtGox needs to explain the whereabouts of 849,600 bitcoins.
No surprise here.
have been stolen using malleability attacks from MtGox or from other
businesses. Even if all of these attacks were targeted against MtGox,
MtGox needs to explain the whereabouts of 849,600 bitcoins.
No surprise here.
Gox/Mark is proved to be lying scum, yet again.
March 27, 2014, 12:18:15 PM
Gox/Mark is proved to be lying scum, yet again.
And the "researchers" demonstrated their incompetence by completely failing to understand the issue.The argument goes like this:
- This animal is a giraffe.
- No, you are lying, because the fruit over there is a bicycle.
They are proving something else by a method which is flawed, and come to a worthless conclusion.
March 27, 2014, 12:07:17 PM
WHy not send to authorities, in Japan and US, and lawyers involved in bankruptcy proceedings? Seems easy enough to do, if you have any stake in the matter.
March 27, 2014, 12:07:11 PM
As such, barely 386 bitcoins could
have been stolen using malleability attacks from MtGox or from other
businesses. Even if all of these attacks were targeted against MtGox,
MtGox needs to explain the whereabouts of 849,600 bitcoins.
No surprise here.
have been stolen using malleability attacks from MtGox or from other
businesses. Even if all of these attacks were targeted against MtGox,
MtGox needs to explain the whereabouts of 849,600 bitcoins.
No surprise here.
Gox/Mark is proved to be lying scum, yet again.
March 27, 2014, 12:03:28 PM
My question is, if only 1,811 bitcoins were attacks on Mt Gox, where are the 300,189 others stolen from?
Who said that they were stolen? 
March 27, 2014, 10:52:10 AM
Darn, I shouldn't have posted that when he answers the subpoena in NY, he'd better check into South Oaks Hospital and hopefully avoid remand to Nassau County jail because:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/03/27/mtgox-ceo-karpeles-refuses-travel-to-u-s-for-questioning/
There were a few shows on bounty hunters not long ago. Tough guys with a cameraman following them around as they took some felons into custody to turn over to the authorities. Could you picture them taking Karpeles with all the fanfare! Biker types with mullets and him in his nicely tailored suit.
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/03/27/mtgox-ceo-karpeles-refuses-travel-to-u-s-for-questioning/
There were a few shows on bounty hunters not long ago. Tough guys with a cameraman following them around as they took some felons into custody to turn over to the authorities. Could you picture them taking Karpeles with all the fanfare! Biker types with mullets and him in his nicely tailored suit.
March 27, 2014, 08:20:58 AM
The problematic transactions weren't accepted by normal nodes, or relayed, because the signature was on a non-standard format.
I seem to recall that this was first enforced on some recent version of bitcoin (0.8.6?), which is precisely what precipitated the gox demise.
March 27, 2014, 08:13:27 AM
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
March 27, 2014, 08:00:10 AM
All of these China bans and unbans also MtGox stolen, then possibly found GoxCoins etc. looks like one big market manipulation before next bitcoin boom 
I now, conspiracy theory but who knows, the truth can be shocking like history has proven many times.
I now, conspiracy theory but who knows, the truth can be shocking like history has proven many times.
global moderator
Activity: 3794
Merit: 2615
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
March 27, 2014, 07:52:22 AM
Thank you, looks like TM was just a convenient excuse for MK.
I thought pretty much everybody assumed this was most likely the case.
March 27, 2014, 07:48:36 AM
The problematic transactions weren't accepted by normal nodes, or relayed, because the signature was on a non-standard format.
I seem to recall that this was first enforced on some recent version of bitcoin (0.8.6?), which is precisely what precipitated the gox demise.
March 27, 2014, 07:40:20 AM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6676 <-- non-obscured link
While I suspect that their conclusion is correct, I really take exception to their methodology and assumptions. Mostly, they assume that a mutation will be visible as a double spend. However, the reference client's behavior regarding relaying transactions with degenerate signatures changed, so a sparse sensor network would likely only see the mutated transaction instead of a pair.
While I suspect that their conclusion is correct, I really take exception to their methodology and assumptions. Mostly, they assume that a mutation will be visible as a double spend. However, the reference client's behavior regarding relaying transactions with degenerate signatures changed, so a sparse sensor network would likely only see the mutated transaction instead of a pair.
I think that given bitcoin's 10 minute timeframe for rounds, and their decent connection of nodes, it is reasonable to assume that they customised clients logged the majority of such transactions.
A bit difficult to log something that you can't see because no one will relay, don't you think?
March 27, 2014, 07:12:38 AM
Still not sure about this - if for example Gox had a private arrangement with a certain mining pool, that would not re-broadcast it's transactions outside of this pool, could not someone take said transactions and broadcast a malleable form to the rest of the Network?
The data collection method in the article would not seem to account for such a possibility.
The problematic transactions weren't accepted by normal nodes, or relayed, because the signature was on a non-standard format. The transactions were only available through MtGox's API, where an attacker could change the signature into a standard format, mutating it and making it relayable. To me this entire paper seems seriously flawed. The authors haven't understood the issue specific to MtGox. The data collection method in the article would not seem to account for such a possibility.
March 27, 2014, 07:07:56 AM
Still not sure about this - if for example Gox had a private arrangement with a certain mining pool, that would not re-broadcast it's transactions outside of this pool, could not someone take said transactions and broadcast a malleable form to the rest of the Network?
The data collection method in the article would not seem to account for such a possibility.
The data collection method in the article would not seem to account for such a possibility.
March 27, 2014, 07:00:06 AM
My question is, if only 1,811 bitcoins were attacks on Mt Gox, where are the 300,189 others stolen from?
IIRC, once the malleability issue was revealed, some assholes started a DoS with it. They were mutating every transaction that went through them, only to fuck the network. That's probably what accounts for these +300kBTC. They were not stolen.
March 27, 2014, 06:31:54 AM
1. The data started in January 2013, so it's possible Gox was hit much harder in previous years. Although that would also mean the amount of time they spent oblivious to the problem increases.
Who said they were oblivious to the problem? They may have been operating as a fractional reserve since before 2013.
Jump to: