Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgemcbay | Hacker News Reader

I agree. Bitcoin exchanges should be free to lose and/or steal all the bitcoins they hold at any time with no repercussions. As a non-participant in bitcoin, lack of regulation makes the whole bitcoin economy so much more interesting to read about.

View on HN

It's already illegal to steal bitcoins. And if an exchange represents that it takes certain measures to secure wallets when it really doesn't, that's fraud. Other than that, what is there to regulate?

Well, I lost all of my Mt. Gox bitcoins, and it seems to me there were no repercussions for the founders. They could have stolen the coins and nobody would be the wiser. It's already become clear that there was much more to the story than Gox has revealed, e.g. that they knew about malleability since 2011 and then were reminded again in November.

Why hasn't anyone gone after the founders? Why haven't you?

Heh. Because I no longer have the money to.

Sorry for your losses. The silver lining is next time, you and others will probably be much more critical of an institution before trusting them with your valuables (even virtual ones). You'll be more apt to demand more transparency and evidence of solvency. That's the piece missing in the feedback loop for so many other parts of the financial system.

The great thing about bitcoin being unregulated is that governments haven't yet gone after mixers, so it's trivial to launder bitcoins. If you want to steal and not get caught, bitcoin is the place to be.

Curious what you think about PCI Compliance and whether it should exist. After all, stealing credit card numbers is already illegal.

That's a lot different. Credit card holders aren't even responsible for fraudulent charges. That's one advantage, but it takes a ton of infrastructure and cooperation to make that happen. There's plenty of room for a money transfer option that doesn't have those downsides, even if it gives up some upsides too.

PCI Compliance is entirely private/free market, isn't it?

Yeah. But is this a conversation about "if you want to participate in system X, follow rules Y" or specifically anti-government sentiment?

As the Wired article talks about the cost of coming into compliance, I think it is reasonable for the parent poster to ignore the source of the rules. Unless you wanted to make a point about the source of rules impacting compliance costs or voice your other reason for such a government/private distinction. But now that I've already started arguing with myself I'm not going to go any further.

I don't know much about PCI Compliance, but it appears to be an industry-imposed standard, and Nevada is the only state that mandates it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Industry_Data_Sec...

I'm sure this is a silly question, but... under what law is it illegal to steal bitcoins, exactly?

Presumably under any theft law in any state?

Nothing was "stolen", the state of the blockchain was altered in a way you did not want to occur. Now everyone using bitcoin agrees that any transactions you issue are invalid because you don't have any funds on the address you'd like to pay from.

Convincing a judge there was an actual theft is going to be your first challenge; unless laws are updated the theft of bitcoins doesn't obviously fit into existing rules that were designed around physical goods or fiat currency.

It's not that hard. Moving a few numbers around in a bank's mainframe could be described the same way.

Yes, but we have laws that specifically recognise existing currency. Is their applicability to bitcoin entirely clear?

Yes, but looting the corpse of a fallen enemy on an MMO could be described the same way, as well. Should that now be considered a crime?

The line gets very blurry especially when you start accounting for MMOs with official real-world economic links like EVE.

I'm not saying I think theft of bitcoins shouldn't be illegal, just that the situation is a lot blurrier than some people seem to think, and until someone is convicted for (or at the very least charged with) stealing bitcoins there's really no point in debating the matter.

Nothing was "stolen", a number in your bank account was just deducted in a way you did not want to occur.

There are laws specific to electronically stored fiat currency. They don't automatically apply to World of Warcraft gold, spaceships in Eve Online or Bitcoins.

If you can establish that bitcoins are personal property, then at least in California where I am, stealing is a violation of California Penal Code section 484a.

Define relevant measures for protection: too many exchanges (three so far) have gotten away with the equivalent of bacon advertising as “without any added sugar”.

I find it amusing when it’s about stupid-mocking the content of my breakfast, it's a lot less enjoyable when the security protocols being explosively undermined by jerks also protect and ensure trust in non-BitCoin economy.

You are not alone. Stop arguing that is your libertarian right to lick plague-ridden rags.

Article says: >>Not because protecting consumers isn’t important — it is — it’s just that regulators should balance their goal of protecting consumers with the equally important goal of fostering a climate that welcomes entrepreneurs and innovation.

Of course nobody wants random mass-bitcoin-holding businesses imploding with robberies and scams, but I don't think I want it to be like Banks/WesternUnion/etc either. One issue in particular; I don't want this[1] to be possible with bitcoin.

1. http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/20/europarliament-scolds-visa-m...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com