Topic: Peter R Rizun's theory on the collapse of MtGox and its effect on the price of bitcoin - page 2. (Read 77173 times)

Apparently the lawsuit is still in progress and is scheduled to be tried in Nov/2014, may drag on to 2018:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5261573

Reply by MtGOX to the lawsuit:
http://numismatics.pwnz.org/coinlab-v-mtgox-answer-complaint/

Reply by CoinLab to MtGOX's reply:
http://thegenesisblock.com/coinlab-files-response-mt-gox-lawsuit/

Lawsuits are often settled out of court, but if that had happened I suppose that we would have known.

However, if MtGOX had settled the lawsuit by handing over 750,000 BTC instead of 75 M$, CoinLab obviously would not denounce him.

The only things I personally know for sure is that MtGox was indeed hacked or "hacked" on June 19, 2011, but that Mark denied heavy losses and then moved 424242 BTC to prove or "prove" solvency.  One reason I like the theory is that it also explain why the bear market of 2011 was so severe: the hacker was selling about a million coins into an illiquid market.  

I've heard rumours that Mark was on IRC asking the developers, in a panic, to help "reverse the blockchain," but no one has been able to give me actual evidence of this.  I also have heard whisperings of some "secret" that Mark had, but again I have no real information.  This thread from June 20, 2011 is really interesting [https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/im-kevin-heres-my-side-20207].  Kevin bought 260,000 BTC for under $3000 during the crash and thinks he could have snuck them out of Gox if he were more prepared.  This trade was apparently rewound.  

Hopefully we will learn the truth in time.  


I don't buy this theory.  If it were true I think we'd have strong evidence that CoinLab actually received $75 million.  And if those coins were sold in May 2013, I expect we'd have seen a much sharper decline in the bitcoin price.  EDIT: and most importantly, if this were the case, Mark would have undeniably been illegally operating an insolvent business--even CoinLab would have known this.  Word would have gotten out sooner.

Nice proposal.  I hope that it can be confirmed and improved as more data and analyses become available.

I have two questions:

(1) The proposed loss of 1 M BTC at that time could have been theft by hackers, or could have been any of the other hypotheses that were suggested (theft by insider, Mark selling the coins off-market,  police seizure, lost keys, etc.).  Are there evidence or testimonials that point to hacker theft, specifically?

(2) What do you make of this theory, that MtGOX sold/used 750 kBTC to settle the 75 M$ CoinLab lawsuit? http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1z8vaq/crowd_detectives_reveal_mt_gox_bitcoin_heist_as/

When a miner finds a new block, he is permitted to issue what's known as a "coinbase" transaction to an address under his control.  The value of this coinbase transaction must be equal to or less than the block reward plus the sum of all transaction fees included in the block.  

The problem is that these new coins could disappear should his block get orphaned or a major blockchain re-org event were to take place.  For this reason, these new coins are considered immature and un-spendable until they are buried 100 blocks deep in the blockchain.  If you try to spend a coinbase output before it has "matured," it will be rejected by the network.  

Why might MtGox have had immature coins to begin with if such coins can't be transferred?  The answer is that some miners were mining directly to their MtGox deposit addresses.  

hy,
nice writing!
could you explain what "immature coins" means?

Still offensive though.

This makes more sense than any other theory or explanation I've heard.

On the other hand, the loss of all of the fake GoxBTC is a deflationary event. People are no longer spending their money to buy the fake coins, they are going to buy the real ones, which may drive the price further up.

It's not racist if he's a n...african american.

This is the most interesting part of this theory imo, if the price has been manipulated to this degree until last week then what are bitcoins really worth? Looking at the charts there is a definite change in patterns since the Gox related crash on 25th Feb. This could be explained by the removal of a good portion of traders via Gox, but the volume (outside of whale moves) is remarkably low. Is there nearly as much interest as we thought?

Most interesting theory of Gox to date.

                                                                                     
                                                                                                ^^^^
                                                                                          Ban this racist asshole!

 You just showed your true colors.

So how does one find the fckers that stole the coins, or is that impossible?

Quite the interesting read Peter R.  Nice summary of events with a sprinkle of what-if that seems quite plausible.  My hats off to you good sir.

It always seemed like the growth was just to much and unnatural. It always felt like there was so much buying pressure.  If there really was a Willy it would be really bad news now.  Now there isn't as much buying pressure.

If this is true, then a huge majority of bitcoin's price is not 'natural' or sustainable growth (no more ?Willy?). This seems like incredibly bearish news if true. Anyone else wanna think this through with me?

This has to be the best explanation I've seen. Excellent article well done Peter R.

I just ignored someone with an activity of 5.  That's a new record for the bright Idea.

excuse me?

nEVER understood the irony of pointing out trolls (maybe one of you trolls can explain it to me, by inbox of course), anybody that can comprehend the definitions of words and knows how to use them, feel free to reply to my post, constructive comments about post are always accepted, everything else is cowardly. Im in LA, never scared of niggers anywhere