When I bought a small amount in Bitcoins a few years ago, I was very careful to read up on how to keep them safe and secure from hackers. I used long (very long) passwords, created my paper wallets on offline Linux machines, set up two-factor authentication for my exchange accounts, and kept all my backups encrypted. I did all this because I thought I knew who the crooks were. The crooks were hackers trying to take my Bitcoins for themselves.
The problem was that I was protecting myself against the wrong threat. The hackers weren't nearly as much of a threat as the people who thought they could get rich running fiscally irresponsible exchange businesses and insecure trading platforms. These people might not have intended to steal, but the end result is that they did.
I do not wish to divulge how much money I lost, but I will say that I have lost 90% of it. The only money I have left in Bitcoins is what I had on Bitstamp from selling XRP.
I began to realize this when the Bitfloor exchange, which had around 50% of my Bitcoins shut down.
This doesn't make sense. If you used very long passwords, created your paper wallets on offline Linux machines, and kept all your backups encrypted, then why did you put 50% of your Bitcoins on the Bitfloor exchange?
Of course Mt.Gox was an established exchange, they were registered, had proven security, and were experienced in carefully managed accounting practices. Mt.Gox wasn't another Bitfloor, or so I thought.
WTF? The only part of your statement that is mildly true is that Mt.Gox was an established exchange. Where were they registered? They had proven BAD security (see 2011 hack), and were obviously inexperienced in accounting (see 2013 withdrawal problems).
When Mt.Gox said they were shutting down withdrawals to manage a bug in the Bitcoin software which by all accounts should have been easy to deal with securely, my first reaction after outrage was that something wasn't right.
If I ran an exchange, I wouldn't think of shutting down for a month or two while we rewrite our software and cut customer's off from their money while I do so. No! It's not my money. Just as I argued that Bitfloor should have manually sent out money in BTC form if requested, Mt.Gox should have allowed transfers to a working exchange like Bitstamp. What? That would hurt their business? That's their problem. As a businessman in the industry of handling other people's money, your first priority is to meet obligations to your customers.
As another side note, did MtGox really think anyone would trust them after they shut down withdrawals? They were dead from the moment they did so.
As another side note, did MtGox really anything anyone would trust them after they were hacked in 2011? They were dead from the moment that happened.
Oh, wait...
MtGox and it's CEO grossly mismanaged funds in what should have been a very easy business in which to remain solvent. Look at the cash flow these people had! Apparently, however, they either mismanaged their funds or were negligent in security. It's one or the other. An exchange business doesn't lose almost ALL of its Bitcoins unless either its security or it's business practices are beyond horrible.
There's also no proof that they didn't falsify volumes (or give some people perpetual free trading to boost volumes).
I genuinely think this might be another Enron.
It's still very early days in Bitcoin. Enron had revenues exceeding $100 billion - with a "B"!