[zbanks]

Although I can completely understand why this guy (the sumbitter?) disagrees with MtGox's solution, I thought it seemed perfectly reasonable.

Even though MtGox never stated they'd interfere, being hacked is unexpected enough to allow some leeway with follow-up. If the flashcrash happened organically, I doubt MtGox would revert the trades.

[kelnos]

It's not that they never stated they'd interfere, it's that they explicitly stated they would never interfere by publicly disclaiming any role as a counter-party.

If they were hacked, it's their responsibility to make things right with the party that was hacked, and not interfere with anyone else's accounts/trades. Anything less does severe damage to faith in the exchange, which tends to lead people to only keep money and BTC in the system for as long as they need to to make a trade, and then pull it out. That's not good for the exchange or the economy.

[bradleyland]

"If they were hacked, it's their responsibility to make things right with the party that was hacked, and not interfere with anyone else's accounts/trades."

Exactly. Trust and consistency are the foundations of a usable exchange. Without those two things, there is no confidence, and the house of cards falls down. Mt. Gox is acting in their own interest. They're changing the rules of the game as they go.

[zbanks]

Although I understand your perspective, and I agree that they have to do something to "make things right," I'm still inclined to accept the rollback.

As much as I hate to use analogies, its the best way I can think to explain my reasoning. If someone (a hacker) robs a bank (user on MtGox), and they throw the money on the ground as they fleeing the scene of the crime, only for it to be picked up by bystanders (profiting users), what do you do?

To me, simply returning the money (rollback) seems to be the simplest effective solution. Maybe I'm being too utilitarian, but it seems too complex to add additional funds into the system, especially when we're talking about nearly 10% of the entire value of BTC. Additionally, it establishes a strange and dangerous precedent: hackers can get away with upsetting the market. And who can make sure the hackers & profiteers aren't working together?

I don't think there's really much you can do to repair faith in the exchange in the immediate future. More importantly, people will keep money as BTC the exchange if it is value is stable (or deflating). Even now, I'd be more worried about the market than hackers.

I'd love to see an insurance company spring up. It'd require major capital, but it'd really help strengthen the value of BTC by providing security and resolving nearly all of these issues. (Things I'd do with $1M...)

[sneak]

In your analogy, the bank is actually MtGox, the organization in actual possession of the coins, NOT the user.

[ralfd]

True, but I guess they don't have a spare 500000 BTC (or eight million $), so for them criticism and "damage to faith" is preferable to going out of business.

[r00fus]

> Even though MtGox never stated they'd interfere, being hacked is unexpected enough to allow some leeway

What of the repeated security warnings and downplaying by MtGox mentioned by the author of this post?

At some point it becomes willful ignorance, which usually leads to bad outcomes.