Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Bitcoin Businesses The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Hackers Allege Mt. Gox Still Controls "Stolen" Bitcoins 228

Posted by timothy
from the other-side-of-anonymity dept.
The Verge reports that "Tokyo-based Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox lost $400 million worth of bitcoins in February. Its management said the amount was stolen after hackers exploited a transaction bug to divert the funds, but some of Mt. Gox's users are not so sure, suggesting instead that the exchange's owners pocketed the cash. Now, facing silence from those owners about the fate of the money and the methods by which 6 percent of all of the Bitcoin in the world could have been stolen, a group of hackers claims it has broken into the bankrupted Bitcoin exchange's network to get answers. ... Forbes reports that the group gained access to the personal blog and Reddit account of Mark Karpeles, Mt. Gox's CEO. The hackers used the platforms to post a message that claimed Karpeles still had access to some of the bitcoins that he'd reported stolen. In support of the claim, they uploaded a series of files that included a spreadsheet of more than a million trades, Karpeles' home addresses, and a screenshot purportedly confirming the hackers' access to the data." (The Forbes article on which the Verge report is based.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hackers Allege Mt. Gox Still Controls "Stolen" Bitcoins

Comments Filter:
  • by DarkOx (621550) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:24AM (#46443857) Journal

    I tend to think it has to be an inside job, that is being run by the folks pretty high up. Any kind of really really basic accounting and inventory control should have uncovered more coins going out than the transaction register indicates. This transaction malleability issue supposedly went on for months.

    Even a badly run business should have detected a problem like the time frame of weeks, whenever their next month end comes up. It would have been impossible to balance the books, unless someone was simply not doing them or cooking them.

    • by delt0r (999393) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:53AM (#46443915)
      Well i was on contract to fix bugs in a teleco accounting system where they could only find the missing cash every 3 months when a manual audit was done. Transaction volumes where a little over 1 Billion per year however, and it was only a million or so missing every 3 months.
      • by rmdingler (1955220) on Monday March 10, 2014 @08:47AM (#46444417)
        Interesting. Missing 1/1000th of the annual billion+ transactions every quarter can be found by a manual audit , but not detected by programmed oversight?

        Wait, it's those damn programmers, huh?

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          MICHAEL
          It's pretty brilliant. What it does is where there's a bank
          transaction, and the interests are computed in the thousands a day in
          fractions of a cent, which it usually rounds off. What this does is it
          takes those remainders and puts it into your account.

          PETER
          This sounds familiar.

          MICHAEL
          Yeah. They did this in Superman III.

        • by delt0r (999393)
          Manual is a little strong. As in its not like this is not all done on computers. Its was dropped accounts mostly. ie the system would just not bill people. Other times it was failed transfers. All up it was like 11 bugs. Well we found 11 bugs and they were happy enough over a year later (another contract).
      • by rimcrazy (146022)

        ".... So your are stealing?"
        "No. No. No. Think of it a the little penny jar by the cash register and we just take a fraction of a penny. We just do it a lot"
        " So you are taking money that does not belong to you?" "How is that not stealing?"

    • by Splab (574204) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:54AM (#46443919)

      Why high up? Most articles about Mt. Gox talks about lax security and bag change management.

      They had half a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, a "currency" which is extremely hard to track and ridiculously easy to steal if you have the keys to the city. Stealing half a billion dollars (without being a bank) requires a truck and some heavy lifting - a developer stealing the wallets and nuking the database takes only a few seconds and very little lifting.

      I find it harder to believe it took so long for someone to steal it...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think the so-called 'lax security' was simply a ploy to generate plausible deniability for the fat cats at the top. There's no other reasonable explanation.

        • by DarkOx (621550) on Monday March 10, 2014 @09:51AM (#46444905) Journal

          That would be my guess or perhaps just enable the theft in the first place by creating a culture where nobody will ask any questions being aware the documentation and logs won't exist to provide answers.

          If someone in authority was making a routine habit of bypassing organizational policies, or thwarting security control some pesky honest person might start to scrutinize their behavior and might even blow a whistle. On the other hand if there are no policies and no security control than nothing anyone does malicious or others is going to seem strange enough to stick ones neck out over.

        • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Monday March 10, 2014 @12:47PM (#46446483) Homepage

          There's no other reasonable explanation.

          So there's absolutely no chance that people who created a web site to trade Magic The Gathering cards, then hastily modified it to trade bitcoins, could possible get in over their heads technically and financially?

          • by exomondo (1725132)

            There's no other reasonable explanation.

            So there's absolutely no chance that people who created a web site to trade Magic The Gathering cards, then hastily modified it to trade bitcoins, could possible get in over their heads technically and financially?

            Nope, none at all. The pitchfork and torch bearers have their malicious scapegoat and they will sleep better knowing it was a calculated malicious act rather than them putting their trust in an entity that wasn't really capable or worthy of their trust. I'm not saying blame the victims here but the idea that MtGox was a corrupt corporate enterprise that stole their money is a lot more palatable to them than it being a start-up derived from a trading card website that got too big for its boots and made mista

      • It happened before.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by xtal (49134) on Monday March 10, 2014 @07:29AM (#46444141) Homepage

        This happened a few years ago and is why I have nothing to do with Bitcoin - I lost quite a few coins, then decided it was too risky to be involved with until the exchange problem was figured out.

        I am not sure why this is not more widely known, but there you go. I am not sure there is a solution to this problem.. without the involvement of traditional government.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They had half a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, a "currency" which is extremely hard to track and ridiculously easy to steal if you have the keys to the city. Stealing half a billion dollars (without being a bank) requires a truck and some heavy lifting.

        Oh come on. Here is a story [cbsnews.com] about a single person stealing about 7billions worth without Bitcoins, trucks and heavy lifting.

        • by Chas (5144)

          They had half a billion dollars worth of bitcoins, a "currency" which is extremely hard to track and ridiculously easy to steal if you have the keys to the city. Stealing half a billion dollars (without being a bank) requires a truck and some heavy lifting.

          Oh come on. Here is a story [cbsnews.com] about a single person stealing about 7billions worth without Bitcoins, trucks and heavy lifting.

          You apparently missed his "without being a bank" qualifier.

          Do not pass go. Do not collect your 200 francs.

      • by JoeMerchant (803320) on Monday March 10, 2014 @08:49AM (#46444425) Homepage

        I think what people miss is that they didn't have a half billion USD worth of currency when they set things up. When they set things up, BTC was trading for less than 1% of today's values, and (just speculating here) a couple of years back they probably had a small fraction of the BTC that they have today (had a few months ago, at least...). So, the half billion USD peak might have only been a hundred thousand or so when the organization started to "get serious."

        When your organization's total assets are less than a year's salary of a good software engineer, odds are, you don't have a good software engineer on staff full time to make sure things like change management are happening properly. Ditto for accounting and audits.

        Should they have hired up proper staff when assets started to resemble Scrooge McDuck's vault? Yep, they sure should have. Think about how long it takes to hire good people when you're looking for them. Now think about how long it takes management to start looking for good people, even when they have a clearly demonstrated need, but no immediate crisis.

        Not that I trust a damn thing written about fund managers on prospectuses, but this is why people should be looking for years of experience in relevant fields in the team that manages an investment. Then, when the fund goes bust and it turns out that the prospectus was a pack of lies, some lawyers can make a little money suing the bastards until they only have their offshore accounts left to live on.

        • by Splab (574204)

          BS. Just because you are a startup doesn't mean you can't get competent programmers.

          And whatever happened when the company started, doesn't change the fact that they had half a billion worth of bitcoin when they got screwed; with little to no security in place. as I said, it's more impressive that they didn't get run over before.

          • MBAs from Harvard aren't a magic elixir - I've watched plenty of 'em preside over S.N.A.F.U.s just like the rest of us.

            But you need to remember your George Carlin: "Think of somebody you know with a 100 I.Q. - now, realize, they are average. That means, half the people in the world are dumber than them..."

            Even though they aren't magic, MBAs from Harvard do tend to be above average - most of the startups out there are trying to make a go of it with less talent, less resources, and less common sense than you

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          Or maybe, just maybe, nobody there knew WTF they were doing? It was an online exchange for Magic:The Gathering trading ya know, dealing with cryptocurrency? Not exactly in the same ballpark as trading cards, not even the same sport.

          The moral of the story? Just because a company gets huge does NOT mean they know WTF they are doing, or are even competent in the field, it just makes 'em big, that's all. I'm sure they were secure as hell when it came to Magic:The Gathering trading, why anybody thought that m

    • by Goaway (82658)

      unless someone was simply not doing them

      Well the scary part is that this option is actually plausible, given the level of incompetence shown elsewhere.

    • by dbIII (701233)

      Any kind of really really basic accounting and inventory control

      There is the problem. They couldn't handle the scale enough to be able to do that.

    • Consider these Mt. Gox loses [bitcointalk.org]:

      • - June 2011: seller's administrator account was hacked by an unknown process. The priveleges were then abused to generate humungous quantities of BTC. None of the BTC, however, was backed by Mt. Gox. The attackers sold the BTC generated, driving Mt. Gox BTC prices down to cents. They then purchased the cheap BTC with their own accounts and withdrew the money. ... Many customers claim they have lost money from this reversion, but Mt. Gox claims it has reimbursed all customers fully for this theft. After the incident, Mt. Gox shut down for several days.
      • - June 2011: Users with weak passwords on MyBitcoin who used the same password on Mt. Gox were in for a surprise after the June 2011 Mt. Gox Incident allowed weakly-salted hashes of all Mt. Gox user passwords to be leaked. These passwords were then hacked on MyBitcoin and a significant amount of money lost.
      • - October 2011: Mt. Gox accidentally destroyed 2609.36304319 bitcoins.
      • - July 2012: A hacker infiltrated the Mt. Gox account used by Bitcoin Syndicate, sold off the USD owned, and withdrew all balances.
      • - July 2012: On July 13, 2012, a thief compromised the Bitcoinica Mt. Gox account. The thief made off with around 30% of Bitcoinica's bitcoin assets.

      But for any programmer, none of this is a surprise given he hacked up an ssh server in PHP, then deployed it on a production server [ycombinator.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by NotDrWho (3543773)

      Gee whiz, a scheme where the people at the top bring in lower-tier investors with big promises of wealth, only to pocket all the real money and run off at some point, leaving the lower level investors with nothing. Huh, where have I heard of such a scheme before?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PRMan (959735)
        Not in bitcoin. Because what you just described is nothing like it.
        • by NotDrWho (3543773)

          Did you hear that, everyone at Mt. Gox who thinks you've lost all our money? You're going to get it all back! PRMan said so!

          • by ttucker (2884057)
            They are not going to get their money back, but bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme.
            • by NotDrWho (3543773)

              Look around. The pyramid has already begun to collapse. A lot of bitcoin fans are just too stubborn to admit it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The developer of digitalcoin just lost $100k worth of various coins to a keylogger on his machine:

      http://www.reddit.com/r/digita... [reddit.com]

      Yes, you read that right, using a Windows box for his wallets.

      And it gets better. His exchange cryptoave.com is built on Windows+PHP. Before you think that's trollish consider this. What's the cost of a zero-day exploit for either IIS or Server? A few thousand dollars?

      Arbitraged against how many coins are on the exchange, wouldn't it make you think twice about using a propri

    • by jythie (914043)
      That assumes that the coins were actually transferred. If they simply walked off with the private keys for the cold storage wallets, they would not need to actually move the coins anywhere, they can just take the whole damn thing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mattack2 (1165421)

      Any kind of really really basic accounting and inventory control should have uncovered more coins going out than the transaction register indicates.

      Presumably everybody here knows this, but "The Cuckoo's Egg" started with a $.75 accounting error.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

  • by Rick in China (2934527) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:35AM (#46443889)
    Given how easily it would be to get away with the theft of anonymous cryptocurrency, I am surprised there aren't far more 'hacks' where exchanges rob all they can from their customers then close up shop. I know it has happened in China on much smaller scales, and I'm sure it will happen many more times, the question is who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:46AM (#46443903)

      who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared.

      If only there was some kind of existing business that had heavy government oversight that could take care of that issue.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by StripedCow (776465)

        If everybody used bitcoins, we wouldn't need any exchanges or banks.

        • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Monday March 10, 2014 @08:54AM (#46444451)

          No banks? How do you plan on borrowing money to buy things you can't afford outright, like a new car or a house?

          • by jythie (914043)
            That tends to be one of the holes in the anti-bank chain of thought, how to get loans. Though the more ironic group are the ones that hate banks because they foreclosed on 'their' house, setting aside that someone else paid for it.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by rioki (1328185)

            Then don't buy them simple as that.

            • Of course. It's so simple. We'll just stop buying houses and cars. That will do great things to the economy.

            • by Viol8 (599362)

              *sigh* Another kid pontificating on stuff he knows nothing about.

              Here's a fact for you sonny - almost no one can afford to buy a house outright. So your suggestion would mean we all either pay rent to the government or some rich landowner who owns all the housing stock , or we all live in self built shacks.

              Now run along, I think you have some economics homework to do.

            • by Laxori666 (748529)
              Or you could just have banks that operate using bitcoins instead of dollars...
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            No banks? How do you plan on borrowing money to buy things you can't afford outright, like a new car or a house?

            It's in the public interest to have people homed and transported.

            It's not clear that nationalizing the loan system would be a good way to actually achieve that, but clearly letting it be private isn't working either.

          • by medv4380 (1604309) on Monday March 10, 2014 @11:29AM (#46445751)
            Who would lend money in a deflationary currency? You're practically guaranteeing default. If I take out a loan for 100 bitcoins to be paid back in 10 years I'd never be able to pay it off because my wages wouldn't go up nearly as fast and the deflationary pressure. Wages go down with deflation not up. A bitcoin bank that issues loans is guaranteed mass defaults, and a bank that has that many defaults is guaranteed to fail. Ether you want the shangrala "Sound" money that has nether inflation, nor deflation, or you want an Inflationary currency that isn't so bad that money become worthless in a few years, but not so low that you have to worry about defaults caused by deflation kicking in. A banking system build on deflation is unstable, and prone to failures. It's what we had when we were on the Gold Standard, and is undesirable for any banking system to work long term. Then again some people enjoy watching people suffer.
    • by Z34107 (925136) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:55AM (#46443921)

      who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared

      No one, which is why you don't. There's no reason to keep your bitcoins in an "online wallet," or maintain a balance in an exchange, just like there's no reason to keep your life savings in PayPal.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2014 @06:30AM (#46444011)

        Right, instead you should keep it in an offline wallet! Just like how it's smart to keep your life's savings in an actual, physical wallet!
        Oh wait, no, that's fucking retarded.

        This is (one of) the (many) problem(s) with bitcoin: no one can actually come up with a sane answer of how you are supposed to store it safely. Trust it to an exchange and you're basically no better off than trusting real money to a bank -- worse off, in fact, because the lack of regulations means that if the exchange takes your money and runs you're SOL, while if a bank takes your money and runs it will be reimbursed (up to a limit) courtesy of the FDIC. Keep it in an offline wallet and you can be sure that no banker can abscond with it, but now your life's savings are tied to a single, stealable object.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Right, instead you should keep it in an offline wallet! Just like how it's smart to keep your life's savings in an actual, physical wallet!
          Oh wait, no, that's fucking retarded.

          This is (one of) the (many) problem(s) with bitcoin: no one can actually come up with a sane answer of how you are supposed to store it safely. Trust it to an exchange and you're basically no better off than trusting real money to a bank -- worse off, in fact, because the lack of regulations means that if the exchange takes your money and runs you're SOL, while if a bank takes your money and runs it will be reimbursed (up to a limit) courtesy of the FDIC. Keep it in an offline wallet and you can be sure that no banker can abscond with it, but now your life's savings are tied to a single, stealable object.

          Bullshit. Try keeping your life savings as cash in your house and it will both be more obvious and take up more space, though even then a creative person could still make it difficult to find so a thief would have to know it was there in the first place or else they'd miss it.

          With bitcoins you can hide them even more easily. TrueCrypt a tiny thumbdrive with an extra hidden partition to put the coins in then put other shit in the main partition that people would believe you would want to hide, even if it's f

          • by MachineShedFred (621896) on Monday March 10, 2014 @09:35AM (#46444775) Journal

            Tape it to the inside of your TV or some other device.

            Yeah, so when they steal your TV, they get your encrypted life savings too!

          • Or print out all of the coins and stick the papers at the bottom of a box of old tax documents or some other boring stuff in the back of your closet and don't keep any digital copies, whatever. There are many ways of doing this that are infinitely better and safer than trusting an exchange and are totally viable.

            Great idea. Now a fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, or earthquake can destroy your house *and* all of your money. It's so much more efficient.

    • by gox (1595435) on Monday March 10, 2014 @06:34AM (#46444029)

      the question is who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared.

      The answer is to never assign trust in a single point. That's the whole reason Bitcoin was designed for, and these thefts really show how backwards we are with regards to the technology we have.

      Surprisingly few people actually know this, but Bitcoin addresses are actually little programs that calculate the required criteria to move money out of the "address". It's purposefully Turing incomplete. The simplest defense against malevolent or incompetent parties is to require multiple signatory entities. For instance, one could be the deposit institution itself, another party for dispute resolution (e.g. a lawyer), and finally the customer. You can require only two of three signatures to move the amount so that the customer can extract the money with the help of the arbiter even if the deposit institution disappears.

      Other, more sophisticated solutions are also possible, and some of the businesses themselves can even become transparently automated. However, it seems like it won't be that easy to get there, even though the crucial technology is already available.

      • by TheCarp (96830)

        Close; but you are essentially correct. It isn't the address but, the transaction which contains a small program which defines what inputs are needed to spend the coin.

        Basically, you can think of a bitcoin transaction like a check. However, it is a check that allows for more nuanced cashing protocols. The standard default bitcoin transaction is exactly that, it defines the payee in terms of a public key, and requires the signature of the payee (by the private key) to "spend" (to make a new check out of it,

    • by pantaril (1624521)

      Given how easily it would be to get away with the theft of anonymous cryptocurrency, I am surprised there aren't far more 'hacks' where exchanges rob all they can from their customers then close up shop.

      The answer is easy - both of our presumptions are wrong. Bitcoin is not annonymous (it's mostly pseudoannonymous, like credit cards) and it is not easy to get away with exchange robbery - it's crime and the users/law enforcment would be after you.

    • by jittles (1613415) on Monday March 10, 2014 @08:17AM (#46444293)

      Given how easily it would be to get away with the theft of anonymous cryptocurrency, I am surprised there aren't far more 'hacks' where exchanges rob all they can from their customers then close up shop. I know it has happened in China on much smaller scales, and I'm sure it will happen many more times, the question is who can you possibly trust with something that can be so easily disappeared.

      Thank you for sharing my retirement strategy with all of Slashdot you unselfish bastard. Now my plan will never work.

  • by psymastr (684406) on Monday March 10, 2014 @05:58AM (#46443929) Homepage
    Reddit users have verified [reddit.com] via decompilation that the dump file includes a wallet-stealing executable. The executable attempts to send the wallet to a hard-coded IP address, whose ISP has been notified of this.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I love how people are attacking libertarians over this. Bitcoins are not designed to be a 'safe' currency. It's like cash. There is no reason this should be a problem for those who understand when, where, and how to use it. I wouldn't maintain more in a Bitcoin wallet than I would store in my real wallet. For me that would probably be a few thousand in US currency.

    Like cash Bitcoins have a downside. Bitcoins fluctuate in value. US dollars loose value over time. It's also not that easy to steal. Practice goo

    • by Talderas (1212466)

      People are attacking libertarians over it because they don't know the difference between anarchist, minarchist, and libertarian. Bitcoin is the anarchist/minarchist wet dream because it completely eliminates the need for government in money. Libertarians would be, rightfully, more divided on the issue but one thing is certain that the should be generally be constitutionalists. Strictly speaking, libertarians want the USD to be backed by something tangibile (like gold). Many are also in favor of FDIC insuran

      • People are attacking libertarians over it because they don't know the difference between anarchist, minarchist, and libertarian. ... Libertarians would be, rightfully, more divided on the issue but one thing is certain that [they] should be generally be constitutionalists. Strictly speaking, libertarians want the USD to be backed by something tangibile (like gold).

        Apparently you don't know either. Hint: these categories are not mutually exclusive. There are libertarian anarchists, libertarian minarchists, and even some (rather confused) people who are neither anarchist nor minarchist and yet like to think of themselves as libertarian. Some (but not all) constitutionalists would fall into the third category, bordering on minarchist but with significant exceptions.

        The defining characteristic of libertarianism, the Non-Aggression Principle, doesn't have anything to say

  • by pantaril (1624521) on Monday March 10, 2014 @07:55AM (#46444225)

    The reporter probably doesn't understand what's going on at all.

    1) the leaked data contains not only the mt.gox DB dump (which seems to be legit) but also the TibanneBackOffice.exe binary which is actualy malware which steals bitcoin wallets. So i wouldn't trust the hackers at all, they are scammers. See http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoi... [reddit.com] for more details.
    2) The article/the hackers claim that the mt.gox database dump shows that mt.gox should be in control of over 900k bitcoins and that it is an evidence that mt.gox is lying. Well it is evidence that the article/hackers don't understand anything. From the start, mt.gox is saying that because of a transaction malevability bug, their ballances in DB and their balances on their actual accounts were ouf of sync. This is the reason they didn't notice sooner. Their DB was showing everything was ok but in reality, their money was silently siphoned out of their accounts.
    3) Karpeles (mt.gox owner) is probably staing silent because his lawayers told him so. Nothing unusual here.

    • by PRMan (959735)
      Just looking at the blockchain you can see that Karpeles has 200,000 bitcoins in an address that he is known to have had control over in the past.
  • by Alarash (746254) on Monday March 10, 2014 @08:11AM (#46444265)
    There's something I don't understand. If they 'stole' the coins, they can't really trade them can they? Anyone I mean. As I understand every single transaction is tracked, so you can't really spend them without people knowing so right? Ok so you can hide your identity and whatnot, but wouldn't people know the instant these BTC are back on the market?
    • by codebonobo (2762819) on Monday March 10, 2014 @08:42AM (#46444375)
      Stolen coins can all be tracked but are still usable. There are numerous ways to make it harder to track with coinjoin, mixers, and trading back and forth between different crypto-blockchains that a thief can use to hide their assets however.
    • Yes, every bit of bitcoin that ever went through MtGox can be traced. Both downstream from MtGox and also upstream about where they came from. But the trouble is, all those trails start and end with the public keys of the users. You need some sort of government level power to track them from Bitcoin universe to real world.
      • You need some sort of government level power to track them from Bitcoin universe to real world.

        Is tracking them necessary? Why couldn't miners set a cost-prohibitive verify price on transactions to known "stolen" addresses?

        • My understanding of the "mining" process is this: Mining is nothing but repeatedly verifying a block, using different randomly generated salt, till the checksum matches a predefined criterion, like so many leading zeros or something. The bitcoins awarded to the the "miners" are basically fees paid to them to verify the transaction block. Bitcoin system has to create an incentive for large number of people with lots of computing power to do the drudgery work of verifying the transactions. They call it mining
        • by medv4380 (1604309)
          You can't distinguish between the ones that were stolen and the ones that were legit transactions. Even if you could this happened after a very long period of time, and the likely hood that it's been spent, or laundered is already very high. You'd more likely penalize "honest", more likely unwitting, bitcoin users who were used to launder the coins, and not the criminals who actually got the coins. There are lots of logistical problems with even attempting to implement this kinds of a system. To successfull
          • Bitcoins are not like real money. When the bank says I have 200$ in my account, all previous transactions I had and how I came to own 200$ in my account are totally opaque. The bank can figure out the transactions to some extent when it involves other accounts in the same bank. That is all. If the money is in the form of dollar bills in my physical wallet nobody knows how I came to own that 200$.

            In the Bitcoin universe, if I say I have 2.0345 bit coins, I am actually saying, "I mined 0.2 bit coins, then I

  • Hackers or the peddler of juvenile trading cards? Who you gonna believe?
  • The hackers who stole the bitcoins generated fake evidence to show that the owners of MtGOX still control the coins, thus muddying the waters for any investigation.

    Really, any "digital evidence" is suspect because it can be digitally generated and/or manipulated.
  • by RivenAleem (1590553) on Monday March 10, 2014 @10:11AM (#46445057)

    I called it.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

    I reserve the right to call "backsies" if the current story proves false.

  • The simplest explanation is that the MtGox executive stole the bitcoin.

In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.

Working...