Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mschuster91 4485 days ago
The point is that after going through all the bankruptcy process, they most likely will have all their code audited and checked, as well as external entities for monitoring.

MtGox will be one of the best secured exchanges after it, that's for sure - I don't count on MtGox going down at all.
2 comments
drakaal 4485 days ago
You assume they will come out. More likely everything will be sold. The value of the sale will be put in a pot, and that will be dished out to those owed money. Those most harmed will be paid first.

It is very unlikely Mt. Gox will ever reopen. It is unlikely anyone with less than $1000 in losses will ever see more than $20.

link
mbreese 4485 days ago
Except that exchanges need trust. Customers need to be able to trust that their money will be safe, that they can move their funds in and out freely, and that the exchange wont just take their money and run. This is especially true with an unregulated currency, like Bitcoin.

Do you really think that anyone will trust them going forward? If they can manage to get their business back in order, do you think that customers will go back to them as opposed to one of the other exchanges that now exist?

Plus, I was under the impression that one of the major reasons why US-based people still had accounts on MtGox was that it was so difficult to get USD out. It's not like they were winning customers before. A great deal of them were just locked in and couldn't leave.

link
CamperBob2 4485 days ago
Plus, I was under the impression that one of the major reasons why US-based people still had accounts on MtGox was that it was so difficult to get USD out. It's not like they were winning customers before. A great deal of them were just locked in and couldn't leave.

I'm a little unclear on that, myself. I don't understand the idea of holding someone's bitcoins hostage. As a depositor at MtGox, couldn't you just send the bitcoins out to another exchange or to your own wallet? What would possess someone not to do that at the very first hint of a liquidity problem?

I'm probably missing something rather fundamental but I don't see how these clowns ever had any genuine control over anyone's coins. Transferring them should always have been an option.

link
7952 4485 days ago
Surely trust is an insurance issue rather than a technical one? However secure an organisation may seem on the outside things can always go wrong.
link