Hacker News Reader

> I'm sure there are still some anti-fraud regulations that would kick in...

I don't know, but I don't think so. For the law you may be trading in monopoly money at your risk.

Intentional misrepresentation of fact for material gain doesn't seem to require currency of any sort.

So Kome I'll make you a deal, I've got a ownership title for the Brooklyn Bridge and I'll trade this title to you for a case of beer... deal? Deal. Sucka. Then it goes to court. Assuming you can convince the court I knew the title was fake, and the case of beer is worth more than the fake title (maybe the title has artistic merit, or maybe the beer was worthless American Lite "beer" of negative worth) then its pretty cut and dried as fraud.

What's the fake in this case? They would be convincing people that bitcoins are worth less due to their actions (and it is worth less during this period, as people have lost much faith), buying at the reduced priced, and then covering their losses and supposedly restoring at least some faith in the market, once again raising prices. Where's the fake title? Where's the lie?

What about the people who exploited transaction malleability to defraud MtGox? Will someone go after them? Doesn't MtGox have their details?

If not fraud, then simple theft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com