Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pyalot2 4511 days ago
The second it became apparent that Fiat withdrawal from Gox turned out to be problematic, it was clear nobody should have his assets on that exchange (that was over a year ago).

Why? Well, according to Gox the Fiat withdrawal issues where caused by "ye olde banking system". But, you only had Goxes word for that. So considering all possibilities, including that they simply might not have the money, one needs to make a risk analysis, what would it mean if they didn't have the money?

Well, if Gox doesn't have the Fiat to process Fiat withdrawals, it stands to reason that in an effort mitigate issues, they would exchange (themselves) customer funds between fiat <-> coins in order to try to weasel themselves out of the hole. So this means that any liquidity problem on either side (coins or fiat) would manifest itself on both sides (coins AND fiat).

Once you can recognize that there's a risk that Gox might have liquidity problems, and that those problems can mean that you will not be able to withdraw your coins, there's only one logical conclusion. This conclusion you could have reached over a year ago, withdraw all funds in any way possible from Gox.

And if you didn't do that, well, it sucks, a lot, been there, done that, consider it to be a valuable lesson about dealing with banks in general.
1 comments
tlrobinson 4511 days ago
"But, you only had Goxes word for that."

Roger Ver, who is well respected in the Bitcoin world, also posted this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

It's a little creepy though, like he's being held at gunpoint, forced to read a statement...

I agree it's risky to keep money in a Bitcoin exchange that's showing signs of trouble.

link
pyalot2 4511 days ago
You know, I saw that video when it came out (also known as the Roger hostage video). And somehow, strangely, it didn't give any more confidence in Gox.

Yes, that video looks like Roger is held at gunpoint by his captors forced to read a statement. Obviously, that's not what happened. However I believe that Roger had a choice of how to deliver his statement. And obviously, if he had seen something to suggest that there would be liquidity problems, or if he was unconvinced, he couldn't have said so. Gox would've probably sued him in the ensuing bank run.

Still, he went there, looked at it, and had to get the news out. So how to do it in a way, that doesn't make Gox sue him? Pretty much exactly how Linus did admit that NSA has approached him. Do it in a way to leave you least open to being sued, while still getting the message across.

And that's exactly how many interpreted this statement of Roger.

link
tlrobinson 4510 days ago
If he was unconvinced why would he have had to make a statement at all?
link
pyalot2 4510 days ago
Because it was known he was there. It would have looked very bad indeed if Roger went to Gox and didn't release a statement.
link
rytis 4511 days ago
like he's being held at gunpoint, forced to read a statement

Look at his eyes, he is actually reading the statement.

link