I've been thinking a lot about Decentralized systems and how Bitcoin enables us to conduct business globally and online. We have systems in place such as the WoT and the trust rating on this forum, which are both good rating systems but they have their downfalls. The problem with rating systems is that they can be manipulated rather easily for anyone that is wanting to put in the work, time, and effort. Also the trust system is built "freely", so no one really needs to invest or spend any amount of money in order to gain trust of other users. The people who have absconded with the most amount of money in the land of Bitcoin are unfortunately the people that we have trusted the most. The trust system works until it doesn't work, which is usually when the good guy turns into an evil villain and begins to scam, steal, and loot. We've seen this numerous times throughout Bitcoin history: Mt. Gox, Pirateat40, Inputs.io, WeExchange, BFL, on and on and on. The thing that most of these large heists have in common is that at one point they were very trusted and reviewed individuals / establishments. They received good trust ratings and reviews which snowballed then led to everyone blindly trusting these entities with large amounts of funds, which is never good and is not needed in the world of Bitcoin. submitted by
The beautiful thing about Bitcoin is the ability to create trustless transactions by using multi-sig escrow (2-of-3). There is no excuse why any service should be fully trusted in this day and age of Bitcoin, especially with large amounts of funds because it's no longer necessary. Multi-sig solves many problems, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem of reputation or identity.
It has became way too easy and profitable for scammers, shills, and trolls to be able to create new aliases out of thin air. After a couple of weeks they have padded their feedback, created fake history, and voila! They have a new "trusted" identity.
I recently was testing out Open Bazaar and I was very surprised by the feature of "Proof-of-Burn" for merchants. It allows a merchant to "burn" or "destroy" Bitcoin in order to prove their intent and legitimacy of doing business. This is also what Counterparty did when it created the XCP and distributed it. I believe we should start having users or online identities start "burning" coins in order to solidify their intentions and/or good will.
For example, Let's say that I "burned in" my identity for 1 Bitcoin (roughly $370 USD). It doesn't make sense for me to rip someone off or destroy my reputation for less than that. This definitely will set a barrier for evil-doers. Anyone with good intentions has no problem on establishing their identity and "burning" their funds in order to show their good will and commitment. You can also gauge the level of someone's commitment by looking at the amount of BTC they have "burned" into their identity. Someone who has burned 10 BTC into their identity is going to want to protect it, rather than just throw it away over a small squabble.
I don't believe that this should be the complete gauge or rating to determine if a user is legitimate or not, but I do believe that this is a very good tool to add to the collection. The system that is in place now is very flawed and it's easily gamed. You also have many users who are in fact legitimate, yet they are new and are unable to start forming relationships and transactions due to them not having high feedback or reviewed ratings. These users would be able to get a jump start by "burning" in their identity and proving to the community that they are here for legitimate and good reasons.
By using this "Proof-of-Burn" technique along with escrow and the WoT or other trust rating systems, I believe we will have fairly good metrics to go by in order to judge an identities character and intents. The great thing about these methods and concepts is that a user can also stay as private as they want with these systems, there is no need to disclose personal information. I would much rather trust in a user who has "burned" in his username (screen name) for 10 BTC rather than a user who has not but has published his real life identity.
Please let me hear the thoughts of the community on this concept! I'm not by any means claiming that I came up with this idea, this idea is actually a very old one within the Bitcoin ecosystem. I'm just hoping that we can implement this into our community for our users. I've been seeing many similar services pop up such as: Keybase, Onename.io, etc. I believe all these directories could also benefit by adding a feature for users to "burn" in their usernames / screen names.
From the standardcrypto blog:
I worry about MtGox. This week I worry less than last week, because the chatter about insufficient liquidity is dimmed, and the Gox/Bitstamp difference has recently been as low as $4, and is now under $10. Maybe everything will be fine. I speculated a couple of weeks ago that even with a serious bitcoin net short position MtGox could engineer its own bailout by supporting litecoin.
Still, like my scoutmaster used to say before a backpacking trip: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
A meltdown at MtGox would panic the bitcoin markets, antagonize US regulators, and slow down adoption. The bitcoin community should seriously think about how to avert, or at least cushion, worst case scenarios.
So, I worry.
I think, too, about just not hitting the publish button. After all, who wants to start a bank run on what is morally the bitcoin central bank? But I think there are enough people talking about potential problems at MtGox, and the situation has dragged on long enough, that I won't be adding too much fuel to the fire with my speculative maunderings. To my serious readers, especially those with money at Gox: please don't take this in the spirit of shouting fire in a crowded theater. Instead, understand a plea to treat a dangerous situation with the gravity it deserves, and ideally to stock up on fire extinguishers while there is still time.
To summarize the current situation, there is a problem withdrawing USD from MtGox, and here and there we see evidence of problems withdrawing EUR and even BTC. http://www.google.com/#q=site:bitcointalk.org+mtgox+withdrawals
BTC therefore trades at a 8-15% premium on MtGox compared to the other major exchanges, and traders talk of "MtGox price" for bitcoin versus the price elsewhere. http://bitcoincharts.com/
Big traders keep patronizing MtGox for several reasons. Habit/Inertia. The higher prices are great, if you believe MtGox will eventually solve it's problems, or that failing that you can beat the stampede to get out in time. MtGox has high volume, good for buying a large amount of bitcoin without moving the price too much. MtGox is bot friedly, and bot trading is profitable, so the bot traders stay. But every day, they're a little more antsy. The last Gox trader I talked said he watches Gox ask volume, and as long as it's over 30k he feels secure. It's well over 30k now. But change happens fast.
To understand the USD withdrawal problems, try to think like an AML/KYC (anti money-laundering/know-your customers rules) enforcer. A regulator's job, day to day, consists of attempting to open accounts under fake names or using fake documents, and then freezing accounts where that money resides, levying fines, and generally raining down bureaucratic hell on the offender.
MtGox doesn't hold customer fiat funds. Banks do.
MtGox doesn't have one bank account from customer. They pool funds from hundreds or thousands of accounts.
It's unknown how may total US bank accounts are held but MtGox, but my guess is not that many. Maybe tens. So every account freeze really hurts.
Unfreezing isn't easy, because it requires justifying all the cash inflows since the beginning of time, including when MtGox was being run with High School level IT as a trading card site for Magic nerds.
It doesn't take much to screw up accounting, and lose track of what funds came from where. When business is booming and you are on a roll, screw ups can be papered up by just sacrificing some profits. But that doesn't wash with hostile regulators, whose primary concern isn't how much funds are present but how and for whom the funds are accounted for. As little inconsistencies leak up, unfrozen accounts may be refrozen if the banking cops aren't satisfied.
My read on the situation is that USD withdrawal may never be a smooth and easy on MtGox, due to MtGox having fumbled the AML/KYC identity verification conditions in the early days. MtGox just don't have good relationship with any US bank, and while investigations proceed, they are unlikely to achieve one. And the investigations could continue forever for all intents and purposes, due to accounting irregularities early on.
So, the key question is does MtGox have enough bitcoin to support an orderly wind down with customers taking funds out in BTC, going forward.
Slow as molasses USD withdrawal isn't really a problem, as long as users can withdraw promptly via bitcoin, even if it is expensive bitcoin.
But how secure is the MtGox bitcoin position?
Absent audits from a creditable accounting company, there's no way to know for sure. There's a good write-up at https://pay.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1lc3is/pulled_article_from_tgb_5m_seizures_provide/
that covers the basics of what is known. The good news is that MtGox made huge bitcoin profits over its lifetime, which are more than enough to cover the holes in operating capital due to seized accounts and the lawsuit filed by Coinlab. The bad news is that no one knows if MtGox kept the bitcoin, or traded it for fiat. A worst case scenario has the MtGox operations team panicking when the bitcoin price was low (like 60-80) and cashing out to USD to cover the lawsuit+seizure shortfalls. Now the price is high again, but how much bitcoin do they actually have? As long as miners keep sending bitcoin to MtGox, and the bot traders are waving their magic wands, bitcoin withdrawals are probably safe for the time being, even if the bitcoin position is net short. But bank runs can come out of nowhere, or even be engineered by hostile players who want to drive the bitcoin price up and then down, by provoking a panic. We saw it in April, and we could see it again.
Who will buy MtGox?
Someone, I hope.
I think, for the right price, a deal could be made, and this would be very positive news for the bitcoin economy, .
Whoever buys MtGox would be buying a headache. They would have to deal with the mess of unknown and unverified account holders from back in the day. They might never get some USD accounts unfrozen, or at least have to wait a long time. There would be fines. And of course there is the matter of the Coinlab lawsuit.
But, it's a potentially very profitable headache. MtGox has enormous brand recognition and revenues to go with it, both bitcoin and fiat. And I think the right kind of buyer would inherit enormous goodwill for fixing what a lot of players known in their gut to be a serious problem. I think the ideal buyer would be an American credit union with a strong balance sheet, good IT, good relationship with regulators, and obviously bullish on bitcoin. I could also see a russian or chinese buyer. For the right kind of money, regulators can be made to see reason, and lawsuits go away.
If no one buys MtGox, the next best thing would be to bring back credit default swaps, like we had for PirateAt40 debt in 2012. A CDS mediated bankruptcy would still be painful for bitcoin, but it would be a lot more orderly.
As a parting thought, I'd like to take a second to recall everything good MtGox has done for bitcoin. MtGox took a lot of risks, and tGox put bitcoin on the map.
Maybe the MtGox operations team is just out of their depth, though well intentioned. Maybe they just want a nice payout, and for the stress to be over.
I know I would.
Laying rest to one and a half weeks of suspense, yesterday pirateat40, the pseudonymous operator of the Bitcoin Savings and Trust investment scheme, has officially announced that he is in default 1.BST was a high-yield investment scheme that opened in November 2011 2 and offered its customers interest rates of up to 7% per week, claiming to be able to offer such returns by “selling BTC to a ... If you had a Bitcoin deposit in the National Bank of Pirateat40, you no longer have to worry about your deposit: it’s gone. The scheme’s originator, known as ‘Pirateat40’, has pretty much evaporated from the scene leaving a large amount of investors wondering how to... The Bitcoin Savings and Trust Ponzi scheme was the first pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme in the world of bitcoin. Operating like an ordinary high yield investment program (HYIP), it promised users enormous returns for investing a small amount today. The scam was run by pirateat40, who described the investment opportunity as a “virtual hedge ... Between September 2011 and September 2012, Shavers’ Bitcoin Savings & Trust (BTCST) allegedly raised 764,000 bitcoins, worth roughly $4.5 million at the time (and over half a billion USD at current Bitcoin exchange rates), from clients that trusted him to invest the funds for them. These investors were promised returns of 7% per week, or ... Shavers raised at least 700,000 Bitcoin in BTCST investments, which amounted to more than $4.5 million based on the average price of Bitcoin in 2011 and 2012 when the investments were offered and sold. Today the value of 700,000 Bitcoin exceeds $60 million.
Amazon Affiliate Link - (If You Buy Something On Amazon, I Get A Small Commission As A Way To Support The Channel) - (There is NO extra cost for you) https://amzn.to/39MXp4q Computer I Use To ... Bitcoin Usd Historical Chart http://vanillain.com/BitcoinEvolution Bitcoin Evolution es un grupo reservado exclusivamente para aquellas personas que siempr... Urgente: Bitcoin listo para explotar por estos 4 catalizadores. No inviertas sin ver este vídeo. - Duration: 11:29. Trabajar Desde Casa Recommended for you A step-by-step walkthrough that shows when you should care about your altcoin's BTC price and when you should care about USD price. After Bitcoin's violent r... https://signalsandcopy.club Bitcoin (BTC) was invented by a pseudonymous individual or group named Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 and is the world’s first enduring...