Mt Gox > Cryptsy - Time for BTS?

[cube]

what if Polo had an api call :  Convert all funds to BTS and withdraw post-haste. lol

some features of the BTS network are marketable to traders.  The speed of the transfers is one thing, you can move in or out of an exchange in usually less than 10minutes.  You have some ability (albeit limited) to hedge your positions from your own wallet. Plus the fact that it uses a different api, it has different attack vectors which make it more likely to survive an exchange hack.

BTS is a cool fast network indeed but it does not have the liquidity to absorb polo's fund at one go yet.

[xh3]

what if Polo had an api call :  Convert all funds to BTS and withdraw post-haste. lol

some features of the BTS network are marketable to traders.  The speed of the transfers is one thing, you can move in or out of an exchange in usually less than 10minutes.  You have some ability (albeit limited) to hedge your positions from your own wallet. Plus the fact that it uses a different api, it has different attack vectors which make it more likely to survive an exchange hack.

[Akado]

http://www.bitcoinfuturesguide.com/bitcoin-blog/cryptsy-makes-deal-with-hackers-to-return-stolen-13000-btc-pays-13-fee-to-the-culprit


Cryptsy Makes Deal With Hackers to Return STOLEN 13,000 BTC, Pays 13% Fee To the Culprit LOL

[Shentist]

for example https://metaexchange.info/markets/METAEX.BTC/BTC

look left top you will see the maximum recommended sell side or, this is the created METAEX.BTC for customers.

In my opinion the best part will be something like BTC(on your wallet; no 3rd party risk)-->METAEX.BTC(3rd party risk)-->bitBTC(pegged asset on your wallet no 3rd party risk)

so goal should be to minimize the 3rd party risk as low as possible. so you should not hold all your coins on poloniex, bitshares UIAs or bitshares

in anycases you can loose some of your assets. spread the risk, use different computers, make yourself as risk free as possible.

[xeroc]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

The only way to be completely free of counterparty risk is to use pegged assets; that's where bitshares real strength lies.

make bitDOGE bitDASH bitETH bitLTC bitNNN available tomorrow!

Exchanges won't be creating any bitassets because of the amount of collateral required, specially when they can just create an UIA. It would be the best option but they won't do it.

If exchange issues UIA, it would need to make market for it. Issuing MPA instead is not a bad option for exchange. Yes, exchange would have to keep BTS collateral, but no trust would be involved in the process.

The cool thing is that you CAN market make them ..
you can have a market coinbaseBTCIOU : ccedkBTCIOU among others of course .. this wouldnt be pausible without the shared order books of centralized exchanges

[yvv]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

The only way to be completely free of counterparty risk is to use pegged assets; that's where bitshares real strength lies.

make bitDOGE bitDASH bitETH bitLTC bitNNN available tomorrow!

Exchanges won't be creating any bitassets because of the amount of collateral required, specially when they can just create an UIA. It would be the best option but they won't do it.

If exchange issues UIA, it would need to make market for it. Issuing MPA instead is not a bad option for exchange. Yes, exchange would have to keep BTS collateral, but no trust would be involved in the process.

[Akado]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

The only way to be completely free of counterparty risk is to use pegged assets; that's where bitshares real strength lies.

make bitDOGE bitDASH bitETH bitLTC bitNNN available tomorrow!

Exchanges won't be creating any bitassets because of the amount of collateral required, specially when they can just create an UIA. It would be the best option but they won't do it.

[karnal]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

The only way to be completely free of counterparty risk is to use pegged assets; that's where bitshares real strength lies.

make bitDOGE bitDASH bitETH bitLTC bitNNN available tomorrow!

[monsterer]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

The only way to be completely free of counterparty risk is to use pegged assets; that's where bitshares real strength lies.

[Akado]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

If this basic functionality is broken how the hell can BM say with a straight face the DEX is "done"?

And is it possible to expose when entities like ccedk, metaX etc are not using best practices in their account management? Seems like as a community we should put pressure on them to convince us they are indeed following best practices to insure user's funds are always safe.

Presumably we're only talking about the UIAs and IOUs administered by these organizations, b/c users' assets should be held on the BitShares blockchain, and they private keys under their own control.

What am I missing here?

It's ready in the sense that you own the assets on your wallet. When I say it's not it's because we're dealing with UIAs. Exchange can go rogue at any time with the real funds and user's are left with a useless asset from that exchange that no one will want because it can't be redeemed for whatever it is it's real asset.

That's why I insist on shared order books, on top of liquidity, it keeps users safe. There's still the problem of good exchanges carrying the burden of a rogue one so that's why I suggested multi sig accounts shared between all participant exchanges.

Atm I really don't see any other solution. Other would be sidechains I guess... Moonstone might be able to help with this? The wallet is supposed to have exchanges integrated if im not mistaken though Im not really sure how that would work or if it makes any difference at all in relation to this specific issue.

[gamey]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

If this basic functionality is broken how the hell can BM say with a straight face the DEX is "done"?

And is it possible to expose when entities like ccedk, metaX etc are not using best practices in their account management? Seems like as a community we should put pressure on them to convince us they are indeed following best practices to insure user's funds are always safe.

Presumably we're only talking about the UIAs and IOUs administered by these organizations, b/c users' assets should be held on the BitShares blockchain, and they private keys under their own control.

What am I missing here?

I see it from the other side.

What does BitShares actually provide that gives distinct value ?

All this hierarchial stuff doesn't seem to be an improvement over a well administered hot/cold wallet.  If the process is automated, then it can be hacked.  At best, you could have a convoluted automated withdrawal system that makes hacking seem less likely, but that is going to be a lot of work and complexity.  Complexity is great for allowing exploitable bugs to creep in. It is far from clear that it is even an advantage.

I am not sure what assets you can even protect with BItShares?  BitShares's assets?  Well there aren't that many.  People are interested in altcoins, not BitShares assets.

My question is why did CNX continue to go with such a weird non-standard system, when all it would do is slow adoption. Back whenever, we heard that the BTC api was crap, but who cares if everyone uses it ?  BTS was rewritten from scratch, so why repeat the same mistakes?  For an exchange to receive BItShares they have to use a memo field.  All that sort of stuff does is slow adoption. 

BitShares biggest allies have been BTC38 and Poloniex.

[Thom]

Why is BitShares not ready to offer protection against Mt. Gox / account hacking right now? Isn't it only a matter of educating admins (such as those for metaX, Blktrades & ccedk) on how to use the hierarchical account structure, i.e. multisig? Or are there still bugs in the GUI render that crippled?

If this basic functionality is broken how the hell can BM say with a straight face the DEX is "done"?

And is it possible to expose when entities like ccedk, metaX etc are not using best practices in their account management? Seems like as a community we should put pressure on them to convince us they are indeed following best practices to insure user's funds are always safe.

Presumably we're only talking about the UIAs and IOUs administered by these organizations, b/c users' assets should be held on the BitShares blockchain, and they private keys under their own control.

What am I missing here?

[Akado]

is bts ready ？  bts iou  have the same risk
atom cross trade  would it be possible?
QORA did have it?

Exactly, it's not. Please check the link above and give your input

[sudo]

is bts ready ？  bts iou  have the same risk
atom cross trade  would it be possible?
QORA did have it?

[CLains]

the insanity continues, bitcoin in distress and exchanges falling left and right, bitshares arise

[Akado]

BitShares is still not ready to deal with this and I urge the community to help come up with the plan. I suggested exchanges having multi signature accounts in order to monitor each other

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20947.75.html

Please give your input.

[xeroc]

But .. we have way better means to protect cold storage using hierarchical authorities ..
Whether exchanges use it for their coldstorage is another story though ..

[wallace]

Bitshares can fix this kind of Mt Gox issue? the answer is no. for this case, the difference is DEX will never been frozen.

For example, let's try to imagine a scenario when ccedk cold wallet been hacked: their BTC/LTC/BTS... was gone, if you have ccedk issued UIA you will lost money, but if you have already traded the UIA to some other smartcoin or UIA which not belongs to ccedk you will survive. the worst case is that you didn't know about this and you still bought the OPENBTC, OPENLTC.....

so before reintroduce our DEX to other community let's think it twice, what kind of problem Bitshares can fix?

[EstefanTT]

It would be nice that a respected member of  bitcoin.talk recall in a positiv and frendly way that since octobre the solution is out there, that we should as a community (all crypto community) stop loosing our funds and move together into the decentralised exchange of BitShares.

Even if we are still missing some of the features of poloniex , the Dex is pretty decent right now.

The only prob I see to start attracting crypto traders is the lack of (liquidity off course) altcoins to trade. Is there info somewhere on how/when is it planned to be implanted ?

[CoinHoarder]

Oops, I missed your thread..

TL;DR:
- Cryptsy was hacked
- 13,000 BTC and 300,000 LTC was stolen
- ran for a long time on fractional reserves
- blackmails their users at the end.. pretty much saying "don't light torches to come after crypsty, or you'll never get paid"
- they blame a "libelous article" for being the reason their exchange which was operating on fractional reserves failed...
- all withdrawals and trades have been frozen


http://blog.cryptsy.com

Cryptsy has had problems for some time now and it’s time to let everybody know exactly why.  These problems were NOT because of any recent phishing attacks, or even a ddos attack, nor does it have anything to do with me personally.
About a year and a half ago, we were alerted in the early AM of a reduction in our safe/cold wallet balances of Bitcoin and Litecoin, as well as a couple other smaller cryptocurrencies.   After a period of time of investigation it was found that the developer of Lucky7Coin had placed an IRC backdoor into the code of wallet, which allowed it to act as a sort of a Trojan, or command and control unit.   This Trojan had likely been there for months before it was able to collect enough information to perform the attack.  It does not appear that this was the original developer for LK7, as on 5/22/2014, we received this message from the new developer who wanted to maintain the codebase:
—
Hello,
Lucky7Coin is not maintained and I would like to take care of it. I have announced that on bitcointalk.org in Lucky7Coin thread. You’re the only exchange for this coin and I hope you will let me take care of it. I’m responsible. You don’t have to be afraid of errors or forks. I’m developing multipool and I know bitcoin internals and protocol.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295157.msg6861797#msg6861797
For a start I’ve changed irc network, so clients could synchronize blockchain. Please upgrade as soon as you can.
Github repo:
https://github.com/alerj78/lucky7coin
Branch “master” will always be for stable version, branch “devel” could be dirty. In a 2-3 weeks I’ll release new version with p2pool support and checkpoints. Before that I’ll contact you to check few blocks hashes for checkpoints and make sure there is no fork.
I hope we can cooperate and make this coin live again!
Jack
—
These are the approximate figures taken:
Bitcoin:  13,000 BTC
Litecoin:  300,000 LTC
This of course was a critical event for Cryptsy, however at the time the website was earning more than it was spending and we still have some reserves of those cryptocurrencies on hand.   The decision was made to pull from our profits to fill these wallets back up over time, thus attempting to avert complete closure of the website at that time.   This worked fine for awhile, as profits decreased due to low volume and low Bitcoin prices, we would adjust our spending accordingly.  It wasn’t until an article from Coinfire came out that contained many false accusations that things began to crumble.   The article basically caused a bank-run, and since we only had so much in reserves for those currencies problems began. 
Our current customer liabilities for BTC is around 10,000 BTC, so as you can see we would like to see the Bitcoins returned for both our users and for ourselves.
Here are the transaction details from the Bitcoin wallet:
https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/0c07e0bec1002bd2
As you can see,  2014-07-29 13:17:36 is when the event occurred.   A very interesting fact here, however, is that those Bitcoins have not moved once since this happened.    This gives rise to the possibility they can be recovered.   In fact, I’m offering a bounty of 1000 BTC for information which leads to the recovery of the stolen coins.
If you happen to be the perpetrator of this crime, and want to send the coins back no questions asked, then you can simply send them to this address: 
1KNi4E4MTsF7gfuPKPNAbrZWQvtdQBTAAa
If they are returned, then we will assume that no harm was meant and will not take any action to reveal who you are.  If not, well, then I suppose the entire community will be looking for you.
Some may ask why we didn’t report this to the authorities when this occurred, and the answer is that we just didn’t know what happened, didn’t want to cause panic, and were unsure who exactly we should be contacting.   At one time we had a open communication with Secret Service Agent Shaun Bridges on an unrelated matter, but I think we all know what happened with him – so he was no longer somebody we could report this to.    Recently I attempted to contact the Miami FBI office to report this, but they instead directed me to report it on the I3C website.  I’ve not heard anything from them.
I think the only real people who can assist with this are the people of the Bitcoin community itself.
Trades and withdrawals will be suspended on the site indefinately until some sort of resolution can be made.
Here are our options:
1.   We shut down the website and file bankruptcy, letting users file claims via the bankruptcy process and letting the court make the disbursements.
-   or –
2.   Somebody else comes in to purchase and run Cryptsy while also making good on requested withdrawals.
-   or –
3.   If somehow we are able to re-aquire the stolen funds, then we allow all withdrawal requests to process.
I’m obviously open to any other ideas people may have on this.

I feel for all of the people affected, but at the same time I think this is a good time for Bitshares to advertise itself within the crypto community. Let's get people in the cryptocurrency community to take a fresh look at Bitshares.

Let's start here? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1328530.0

[gamey]

So.  They kept their bitcoin and litecoin wallets on the same server that they kept their lucky7coin?

Lol yes!  and presumably didn't chroot the coinds etc. I mean getting competent admins isn't cheap, but christ all mighty.

The fact that the wallets were on the same server is sketchy at best.  I mean..  it must have been the cold wallet too ?  BigVern is one sketchy mofo.

He prob planted the malware in the coin himself

bahaha..  I wouldn't be surprised.  The thing to do would have been admit fault, create an asset and give the asset out to the people who lost the funds.  Instead you just screw other people down the road and knowingly do so.

I'd like to see BigVern do time. Taking in money and not being able to pay it back, sounds very close to fraud by a legal definition.

[jsidhu]

So.  They kept their bitcoin and litecoin wallets on the same server that they kept their lucky7coin?

Lol yes!  and presumably didn't chroot the coinds etc. I mean getting competent admins isn't cheap, but christ all mighty.

The fact that the wallets were on the same server is sketchy at best.  I mean..  it must have been the cold wallet too ?  BigVern is one sketchy mofo.

He prob planted the malware in the coin himself

[gamey]

So.  They kept their bitcoin and litecoin wallets on the same server that they kept their lucky7coin?

Lol yes!  and presumably didn't chroot the coinds etc. I mean getting competent admins isn't cheap, but christ all mighty.

The fact that the wallets were on the same server is sketchy at best.  I mean..  it must have been the cold wallet too ?  BigVern is one sketchy mofo. 

[puppies]

So.  They kept their bitcoin and litecoin wallets on the same server that they kept their lucky7coin? 

[btswildpig]

I lost 20 IQ points reading the Cryptsy blog excuses. Sounds like a time to reintroduce BitShares to the crypto community.

it will have the same problem if it's IOU trading .

[TravelsAsia]

I lost 20 IQ points reading the Cryptsy blog excuses. Sounds like a time to reintroduce BitShares to the crypto community.

[Brekyrself]

Cryptsy confirms they were hacked.

"These are the approximate figures taken:
Bitcoin:  13,000 BTC
Litecoin:  300,000 LTC"

http://blog.cryptsy.com/


Stealth is nice, but perhaps now is the time to push for pooled BitAssets and liquidity?