The coins move around and small amounts are sent away, but the majority ends up back in Mt. Gox's main (hot) wallet. This repeats a few times until the majority is paid back to the main Mt.Gox address.
Here is the transaction where it starts to get interesting:
What's left of the 500,000 (429.9k) is split into roughly half and sent to 2 new address. And then each of those address splits the coins in half and sends to two new address.
The end result is that the 429k was split again and again until the funds are split into many addresses, each of which now contain less than 1,000 BTC each. I stopped following the transactions there.
Why take 429k and split it into many addresses each containing less than 1,000 BTC each?
I'd like to see someone trace all of these coins and see if they end up coming together somewhere or show a pattern.
It would be interesting to put these transactions, or the whole blockchain, in a graph database like Neo4J. Dealing with it as a graph would make it easier to find the sinks for all the transactions that started from that wallet. It would also be interesting to look at deviations from the historical statistical distribution in the aggregate of these transactions as a function of time, that would show when a single actor moved a lot of bitcoins even if it is allocated among many addresses. I would bet that the thieves didn't bother to match their transactions with the background statistical distribution.
Edit: Guys, the original address. The one which contains the MtGox coins. If you track any large transaction. > $30k, even the recent ones. They follow the same pattern. Split into two. And they all end up in pretty big wallets.
As much as I want to call it a witch hunt, there seem to be some patterns (I may be biased as I do want this thing to end up in positive). There's still so much information missing.
I'm a bit new to bitcoins, but is it technically possible for the bitcoins community as a whole to make a blacklist of bitcoins addresses and "ban" the stolen bitcoins ?
Such blacklist would daunt robbers and enforce public trust in bitcoins.
> Why take 429k and split it into many addresses each containing less than 1,000 BTC each?
Ever heard the adage "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"?
It's possible that MtGox used to operate everything from a single, large wallet but decided to split it up into lots of smaller wallets, to avoid the risk of suffering a single, catastrophic compromise.
"Coming together" is a bit difficult to determine -- how do you identify a large group of recipient addresses as a single entity? How do you differentiate between a group of addresses belonging to a single owner, and a group of addresses belonging to multiple owners?
We can construct a graph tree all destinations beginning from that one address, but what good would that be? Where do you make inferences to determine the identity of the recipients? How do you group them together?
At some point your trail becomes so long and so disparate that any effort to continue following that trail would be a pointless endeavor.
Sure the technology is there to follow the trail indefinitely, and (where available) you can easily check all recipient addresses from this "poisoned" tree against regular fiat exchange logs, but within the BTC ecosystem? It's an interesting intellectual challenge, but not useful.
Yeah, and I'm sure this line of thinking, will eventually route out the person who stole all those bitcoins -- and I won't be surprised it it's The top execs of Mt. Gox - - who better to take the money and run? They KNEW that they couldn't possibly sell bitcoins at higher than market prices, and make a profit UNLESS they were running a Ponzi scheme.
I suspect that the bitcoins have been exchanged for something else and are back circulating around. The beauty of the heist is that any bitcoin in circulation invariably passes through transactions where the parties have a compelling interest in not being attached to the transaction.
After finding a stolen bitcoin, unravelling its history back to the Mt. Gox Heist is likely to meet a wall of resistence - e.g. if it passed through Silk Road the parties on both sides will be reluctant to come forward and provide information.
In terms of a tort, is it civil or criminal? Was the loss of the coins by Mt. Gox simply an unsatisfactory business transaction? Supposing there was a theft, how should the bitcoins be valued? By the amount of storage space they consume, by the cost of the resources required to create them? If by some market price, which one - some average at the time of their creation, at the time of their loss, at the time of their recovery, or at the time of the prosecution? Many of those values are zero.
Finally, how many of Mt. Gox's customers are going to come forward and claim ownership if such claims are accompanied by a risk of being asked "And how came you to acquire these bitcoins?"
Unlike fiat currency, no government has an interest in supporting the agreed upon fiction that bitcoins are not a fiction. Stealing cash is a crime because the government has an interest in cash being an asset.
The problem with cryptocurrency is the proportion of black and grey market interests it attracts. With bitcoin, they were there first and good citizens second. Separating good citizens from their money was always going to be an attractive option, probably more attractive than separating participants in the black and grey markets from theirs given the greater potential for more serious reprisals which might accompany theft.
It's been over since the first Bitcoin story on NPR.
With the possibility of getting down voted into oblivion.
The BTC lost/stolen are all available within blockchain/public ledger. Depending on who stole them, it would probably be distributed within multiple very smaller transaction.
It my be traceable, but likely unrecoverable, because this is a feature of Bitcoin. In other words authorities and forensic enthusiasts can find the BTC but they are most likely lost at the same time.
This is the issue. It can become a never-ending wild-goose chase. The thieves can continue to move the funds around until they're no longer tracked, or far enough ahead that from the trackers (assuming there's any enforcement or penalties or laws relating to accepting stolen Bitcoin - which there aren't currently) or just spend them if they're not being tracked or if there's no enforcement in place.
The thieves will move funds around at little cost in order to try to gain the value from the Bitcoin they stole.
The problem with Bitcoin is that because there's no fee associated with them, there's no money or resources being made available or directed towards policing and following of these thieves.
Edit: And it's not particularly fair to use the rest of society's resources to do this policing, when they're not contributing to the system - they're avoiding contributing, to a partially corrupt and currently inefficient system, yes - but it'd be better to fix these inefficiencies and deal with the corruption.
From what I understand, tracing them is also hard because (generally) there isn't any annotation on the blockchain to indicate who actually had them or what they were used for. So its hard to tell what point is just another place they laundered them, or someone who just got them in a transactions and then reused them elsewhere.
Let's assume eventually they will be 'spent' somewhere- its going to be damn near impossible to track them down unless they transfer all of them into a single wallet with their name/address in the comment.
If people manage to identify people behind the blockchains, I strongly suppose that law enforcements, depending on countries where the theift physically is, can force the thieft to give it back without any modifications to existing laws.
I think we can catch him when he is going to want to laundry his bitcoins.
Can anything they say or do be trusted at this point? I mean regardless of exactly how it happened weather it was theft, insider theft, incompetence, or blackmail Gox is not a party worthy of implicit trust any longer.
Mark has said repeatedly that Mt. Gox is under investigation and that he can't talk about it. There's a supposed IRC log from two days ago where he let it slip that he's under a gag order, saying two days ago "le gouv US ne veut pas qu'on disclose" (the US gov. doesn't want us to say anything)[0]. And he's said in public that he can't discuss the matter since he's under investigation.
So my guess is that the feds have seized his cold wallet as part of the Silk Road investigation, or even as part of the case against Mt. Gox itself, which was probably in a safety deposit box. They've already seized 5 million USD last year from Gox, why wouldn't they go after the Bitcoins, too?
And yes, the seized Bitcoins would not equal the number owed, but my guess is that they're the majority of them, say 80%.
If that's the case, account holders would have to petition the USD to prove they're not drug dealers and or tax evaders to get their money back.
This is another possibility people are overlook, that perhaps they never had them. Perhaps they simply built up a liability of 800k bitcoins by trading on their own exchange and making some bad calls.
Whilst the numbers quoted in US dollar terms are quite staggering, I would be interested to know what the actual losses are based on the initial investment dollar amount.
I'm guessing many of these coins were mined or bought before the astronomical price rises.
Of course I understand that that is irrelevant to people who have perceived millions of USD, but interesting nevertheless.
"The Pony botnet attack was an ambitious data collection program. TrustWave reported staggering data loss statistics from the event the following sensitive information was stolen.
1,580,000 website login credentials
320,000 email account credentials
41,000 FTP account credentials
3,000 Remote Desktop credentials
3,000 Secure Shell account credentials
Pony’s attack on the Bitcoin community took down the worlds largest Bitcoin exchange, and caused the price of Bitcoin to plummet. The attack reinforced security concerns over the currency. Can confidence in Bitcoin recover?"
Assuming they weren't lost because someone forgot a password, all of the BTC lost / stolen in transaction malleability are traceable. Whether or not its feasible to check every transaction from Gox over the last few years and add up all the partial BTC is something I can't comment on.
1. Split the wallet up into as many wallets as possible. Preferably by transferring them through a couple hundred compromised (but not emptied) accounts.
2. Sell each individual wallet of say, 100-1000 BTC, on the black market. Make sure the transaction happens outside the transaction chain (i.e. either in real life or using other wallets with some kind of alternative trust system).
3. Be prepared to lose 5-20% of the value, in exchange for turning the money "white".
If the money was stolen and the people who took it aren't stupid, I don't see how someone is ever going to find it.
Bitcoins have no intrinsic value. They only have value in trade.
If I started my own currency called a superdollar, and I had the only superdollar in existence, it would be worthless, despite the fact that it was very rare.
If a foreign entity can make the bitcoins you have disappear, that leads to less confidence in your ability to use the bitcoins for trade. The fact that there's fewer out there doesn't mean yours are more valuable. The number of bitcoins has been constantly increasing, yet the price has been going steadily up as well. That's because they've become more trusted, more usable. More places will accept them in trade, and more exchanges exist.
When places like Mt. Gox fail, or fear that foreign entities have the ability to essentially rob the banks with impunity, it makes the currency less trusted.
Consider this. The government issues a currency called digibux. They are matched to the USD, you can buy one digibuck for 1 USD, but they are limited in volume, only so many are offered. Looking at this naively, digibux has the same value as USD. Now consider the following happens, the government takes down a giant drug operation, and invalidates all of the digibux that were involved in the operation. A friend of yours who was a pizza delivery guy has hundreds of dollars removed from his digital wallet because they were tips from people who had participated in the drug trade.
Now you're sitting with 10,000 digibux, and you know that the government is pleased with the results of the previous sting and wants to set up more operations like that. Someone offers you 8,000 USD for your 10,000 digibux. You know that the 8,000 USD can never just vanish.
The number of digibux in circulation went down. But did that make the total value of digibux go up?
> So if the bitcoins are seized by some government entity....wouldn't that make the total value of bitcoin go up? Supply and demand and all that...
You are only considering the supply side and assuming that the government seizing bitcoins from one of the major exchanges (and, subsequently, collapsing the exchange) doesn't impact the perceived viability of the bitcoin ecosystem (since, presumably, the same thing could happen elsewhere) and reduce the demand for bitcoins as well as the supply.
Also, it further assumes, on the supply side, that the government simply throws the coins in, effectively, a digital landfill -- otherwise, the fact that they were forcibly transferred from the exchange to the government doesn't actually have any effect on supply.
Depending on whether people viewed the seizure as permanent or not, it would reduce the number of available bitcoins and, theoretically, cause a price increase. However, that assumes the volume of bitcoins demanded didn't also go down, which would most likely also happen since a large-scale seizure would reduce confidence in bitcoin and cause fewer people to use them (and many people holding them to try to sell them for traditional currency).
There have been hints that MtGox's losses were due exploitation of the transaction malleability issue.
I don't know if it's possible to identify (from the blockchain) transactions that have been altered in a way that exploits the malleability issue but it should certainly be possible to identify pairs of transactions with identical startpoints, endpoints and sizes (i.e. number of bitcoins).
If it turned out that pairs of such transactions turned out to come from MtGox's wallets to third-party wallets, that would probably be a good starting point.
-The government has no inclination to interfere (even though many US citizens lost their money) as they were against it (if not outright criminalizing it).
- The lost money, even if recovered in full, would not be the same. The time lost is money lost. Besides the emotional shock and pain people had to take.
- Someone somewhere is sitting on that money, and it will have value, because people won't stop trading Bitcoin even now.
I know people are not ready to take any criticism of bitcoin, but here it is, what needs to be fixed about it.
Since the story seems to be that this has been going on for years without anyone investigating, I'd guess that most of them are long since laundered and distributed between various innocent bystanders. Even if we could trace every single uBTC to it's current location, the percentage actually held by those responsible has got to be very small.
Somewhere in the blockchain, probably divided into smaller chunks. The way Bitcoin is set up, you can follow transactions, but it's very hard to track buyers/sellers. It's a paradox: Bitcoin's strength is that it's untraceable and unregulated, but in cases like this those exact strengths are pitfalls at the same time.
Wouldn't the sheer number of coins involved make tumbling services almost useless. What is the volume that a single tumbler gets per day? If you put in tens of thousands of coins, and there are only a few dozen coins in the Tumblr that day, your coins are going to be most of what comes back.
> Wouldn't the sheer number of coins involved make tumbling services almost useless.
Sure, if they were all stolen and tumbled at once. The descriptions of a cold storage "leak" suggest that if the loss was due to theft, it was a gradual over an extended period.
[+] [-] deweller|12 years ago|reply
I followed the 500,000 BTC for a bit beginning at https://blockchain.info/tx/b269bf1b82dae8a61f7f91dbf7a9d807e....
The coins move around and small amounts are sent away, but the majority ends up back in Mt. Gox's main (hot) wallet. This repeats a few times until the majority is paid back to the main Mt.Gox address.
Here is the transaction where it starts to get interesting:
https://blockchain.info/tx/478ea915aa3a2e54503c43e1c5659722b...
What's left of the 500,000 (429.9k) is split into roughly half and sent to 2 new address. And then each of those address splits the coins in half and sends to two new address.
The end result is that the 429k was split again and again until the funds are split into many addresses, each of which now contain less than 1,000 BTC each. I stopped following the transactions there.
Why take 429k and split it into many addresses each containing less than 1,000 BTC each?
I'd like to see someone trace all of these coins and see if they end up coming together somewhere or show a pattern.
[+] [-] freefrancisco|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] negamax|12 years ago|reply
https://blockchain.info/zh-cn/address/1BWxHjJMmfxfu3w9ESDx91...
And it goes back to MtGox address. What?
Following another chain and ended up here
https://blockchain.info/zh-cn/address/1Cz3BkgQ9NJGq5gvPLs5Yr...
Same. Goes back to MtGox.
Edit: Guys, the original address. The one which contains the MtGox coins. If you track any large transaction. > $30k, even the recent ones. They follow the same pattern. Split into two. And they all end up in pretty big wallets.
As much as I want to call it a witch hunt, there seem to be some patterns (I may be biased as I do want this thing to end up in positive). There's still so much information missing.
[+] [-] chevreuil|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackgavigan|12 years ago|reply
Ever heard the adage "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"?
It's possible that MtGox used to operate everything from a single, large wallet but decided to split it up into lots of smaller wallets, to avoid the risk of suffering a single, catastrophic compromise.
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
We can construct a graph tree all destinations beginning from that one address, but what good would that be? Where do you make inferences to determine the identity of the recipients? How do you group them together?
At some point your trail becomes so long and so disparate that any effort to continue following that trail would be a pointless endeavor.
Sure the technology is there to follow the trail indefinitely, and (where available) you can easily check all recipient addresses from this "poisoned" tree against regular fiat exchange logs, but within the BTC ecosystem? It's an interesting intellectual challenge, but not useful.
[+] [-] KiwiCoder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stef25|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neals|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andypag|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gizmo686|12 years ago|reply
Is there an API available for doing this type of analysis of the blockchain (or a program already built for this)?
[+] [-] mars|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|12 years ago|reply
After finding a stolen bitcoin, unravelling its history back to the Mt. Gox Heist is likely to meet a wall of resistence - e.g. if it passed through Silk Road the parties on both sides will be reluctant to come forward and provide information.
In terms of a tort, is it civil or criminal? Was the loss of the coins by Mt. Gox simply an unsatisfactory business transaction? Supposing there was a theft, how should the bitcoins be valued? By the amount of storage space they consume, by the cost of the resources required to create them? If by some market price, which one - some average at the time of their creation, at the time of their loss, at the time of their recovery, or at the time of the prosecution? Many of those values are zero.
Finally, how many of Mt. Gox's customers are going to come forward and claim ownership if such claims are accompanied by a risk of being asked "And how came you to acquire these bitcoins?"
Unlike fiat currency, no government has an interest in supporting the agreed upon fiction that bitcoins are not a fiction. Stealing cash is a crime because the government has an interest in cash being an asset.
The problem with cryptocurrency is the proportion of black and grey market interests it attracts. With bitcoin, they were there first and good citizens second. Separating good citizens from their money was always going to be an attractive option, probably more attractive than separating participants in the black and grey markets from theirs given the greater potential for more serious reprisals which might accompany theft.
It's been over since the first Bitcoin story on NPR.
[+] [-] sillysaurus3|12 years ago|reply
"MtGox still has at least 200k BTC"
Here are the possibilities, as far as I can tell:
1) That information is inaccurate.
2) MtGox lost their private keys.
3) The private keys were kept in a bank vault, which was seized by a foreign entity like the US government at some earlier time.
4) MtGox stole the coins.
The management of MtGox knows which of these is correct, but they probably aren't going to say.
[+] [-] bachback|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bushido|12 years ago|reply
The BTC lost/stolen are all available within blockchain/public ledger. Depending on who stole them, it would probably be distributed within multiple very smaller transaction.
It my be traceable, but likely unrecoverable, because this is a feature of Bitcoin. In other words authorities and forensic enthusiasts can find the BTC but they are most likely lost at the same time.
[+] [-] loceng|12 years ago|reply
The thieves will move funds around at little cost in order to try to gain the value from the Bitcoin they stole.
The problem with Bitcoin is that because there's no fee associated with them, there's no money or resources being made available or directed towards policing and following of these thieves.
Edit: And it's not particularly fair to use the rest of society's resources to do this policing, when they're not contributing to the system - they're avoiding contributing, to a partially corrupt and currently inefficient system, yes - but it'd be better to fix these inefficiencies and deal with the corruption.
[+] [-] tibbon|12 years ago|reply
Let's assume eventually they will be 'spent' somewhere- its going to be damn near impossible to track them down unless they transfer all of them into a single wallet with their name/address in the comment.
[+] [-] hartator|12 years ago|reply
If people manage to identify people behind the blockchains, I strongly suppose that law enforcements, depending on countries where the theift physically is, can force the thieft to give it back without any modifications to existing laws.
I think we can catch him when he is going to want to laundry his bitcoins.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yread|12 years ago|reply
1. They weren't stolen - lost in cold storage harddisk failure for example
2. Revealing it would show something extremely embarrassing - they only used a single wallet?
3. They still have them - yay?
4. They were stolen by Mt. Gox - gulp
[+] [-] drcode|12 years ago|reply
Though I agree a cold storage failure is still a good possibility, given the poor communication.
[+] [-] Crito|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmorici|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredgrott|12 years ago|reply
Feds sized silk road and the Bitcoin wallets
If any was stored or transacted at MTGox this might be some of the amount of losses MTGOX is now showing but NOT ALL OF The lOSSeS obviously
[+] [-] jnbiche|12 years ago|reply
Mark has said repeatedly that Mt. Gox is under investigation and that he can't talk about it. There's a supposed IRC log from two days ago where he let it slip that he's under a gag order, saying two days ago "le gouv US ne veut pas qu'on disclose" (the US gov. doesn't want us to say anything)[0]. And he's said in public that he can't discuss the matter since he's under investigation.
So my guess is that the feds have seized his cold wallet as part of the Silk Road investigation, or even as part of the case against Mt. Gox itself, which was probably in a safety deposit box. They've already seized 5 million USD last year from Gox, why wouldn't they go after the Bitcoins, too?
And yes, the seized Bitcoins would not equal the number owed, but my guess is that they're the majority of them, say 80%.
If that's the case, account holders would have to petition the USD to prove they're not drug dealers and or tax evaders to get their money back.
[+] [-] bombtrack|12 years ago|reply
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1z2xo5/specu...
[+] [-] eterm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junto|12 years ago|reply
I'm guessing many of these coins were mined or bought before the astronomical price rises.
Of course I understand that that is irrelevant to people who have perceived millions of USD, but interesting nevertheless.
[+] [-] uslic001|12 years ago|reply
http://www.doctrackr.com/blog/bid/376566/409-Million-in-Bitc...
"The Pony botnet attack was an ambitious data collection program. TrustWave reported staggering data loss statistics from the event the following sensitive information was stolen.
1,580,000 website login credentials 320,000 email account credentials 41,000 FTP account credentials 3,000 Remote Desktop credentials 3,000 Secure Shell account credentials Pony’s attack on the Bitcoin community took down the worlds largest Bitcoin exchange, and caused the price of Bitcoin to plummet. The attack reinforced security concerns over the currency. Can confidence in Bitcoin recover?"
[+] [-] aroch|12 years ago|reply
Assuming they weren't lost because someone forgot a password, all of the BTC lost / stolen in transaction malleability are traceable. Whether or not its feasible to check every transaction from Gox over the last few years and add up all the partial BTC is something I can't comment on.
[+] [-] oskarth|12 years ago|reply
1. Split the wallet up into as many wallets as possible. Preferably by transferring them through a couple hundred compromised (but not emptied) accounts.
2. Sell each individual wallet of say, 100-1000 BTC, on the black market. Make sure the transaction happens outside the transaction chain (i.e. either in real life or using other wallets with some kind of alternative trust system).
3. Be prepared to lose 5-20% of the value, in exchange for turning the money "white".
If the money was stolen and the people who took it aren't stupid, I don't see how someone is ever going to find it.
[+] [-] bdevine|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zacinbusiness|12 years ago|reply
Again, I know very, very little about bitcoin or economics in general.
[+] [-] zeidrich|12 years ago|reply
If I started my own currency called a superdollar, and I had the only superdollar in existence, it would be worthless, despite the fact that it was very rare.
If a foreign entity can make the bitcoins you have disappear, that leads to less confidence in your ability to use the bitcoins for trade. The fact that there's fewer out there doesn't mean yours are more valuable. The number of bitcoins has been constantly increasing, yet the price has been going steadily up as well. That's because they've become more trusted, more usable. More places will accept them in trade, and more exchanges exist.
When places like Mt. Gox fail, or fear that foreign entities have the ability to essentially rob the banks with impunity, it makes the currency less trusted.
Consider this. The government issues a currency called digibux. They are matched to the USD, you can buy one digibuck for 1 USD, but they are limited in volume, only so many are offered. Looking at this naively, digibux has the same value as USD. Now consider the following happens, the government takes down a giant drug operation, and invalidates all of the digibux that were involved in the operation. A friend of yours who was a pizza delivery guy has hundreds of dollars removed from his digital wallet because they were tips from people who had participated in the drug trade.
Now you're sitting with 10,000 digibux, and you know that the government is pleased with the results of the previous sting and wants to set up more operations like that. Someone offers you 8,000 USD for your 10,000 digibux. You know that the 8,000 USD can never just vanish.
The number of digibux in circulation went down. But did that make the total value of digibux go up?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
You are only considering the supply side and assuming that the government seizing bitcoins from one of the major exchanges (and, subsequently, collapsing the exchange) doesn't impact the perceived viability of the bitcoin ecosystem (since, presumably, the same thing could happen elsewhere) and reduce the demand for bitcoins as well as the supply.
Also, it further assumes, on the supply side, that the government simply throws the coins in, effectively, a digital landfill -- otherwise, the fact that they were forcibly transferred from the exchange to the government doesn't actually have any effect on supply.
[+] [-] glesica|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsaxton86|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theklub|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jackgavigan|12 years ago|reply
I don't know if it's possible to identify (from the blockchain) transactions that have been altered in a way that exploits the malleability issue but it should certainly be possible to identify pairs of transactions with identical startpoints, endpoints and sizes (i.e. number of bitcoins).
If it turned out that pairs of such transactions turned out to come from MtGox's wallets to third-party wallets, that would probably be a good starting point.
[+] [-] colinbartlett|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rikacomet|12 years ago|reply
-The government has no inclination to interfere (even though many US citizens lost their money) as they were against it (if not outright criminalizing it).
- The lost money, even if recovered in full, would not be the same. The time lost is money lost. Besides the emotional shock and pain people had to take.
- Someone somewhere is sitting on that money, and it will have value, because people won't stop trading Bitcoin even now.
I know people are not ready to take any criticism of bitcoin, but here it is, what needs to be fixed about it.
[+] [-] the_watcher|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dirktheman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickmolnar2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
Sure, if they were all stolen and tumbled at once. The descriptions of a cold storage "leak" suggest that if the loss was due to theft, it was a gradual over an extended period.
[+] [-] ryanSrich|12 years ago|reply
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/1z2xo5/specu...