I see the transaction. Thanks a lot!

Links are edited out of my post.
Good luck with your BTC!

It seems he's more close to LOSE the mtgox balance than run away with it.
And for some strange reason people also trusted "Tom Williams" and look what happened... doesn't matter if he was really hacked or if he scammed and run away with the money, people lost their bitcoin in the end.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Hoping for new exchanges that can dilute the share of bitcoins so that we have many smaller players rather than a dominant player, that would be best for bitcoin.

Wrong answer. I trust myself, and even so I must account for those times when I get high...
I haven't lost anything in mybitcoin and I don't plan on losing anything in any exchange. But others did and will.

Also, I'm not trying to get you to lose your faith on the hard working man charging you high fees. You are free to do whatever you wish, just don't be surprised when you lose Bitcoin in some service.

Or Intersango, never been hacked, run by bitcoin developers, been running since March 2011 and contributes back to the community. If you truly want to support the bitcoin world, then support us. We create projects through our group (Bitcoin Consultancy) which we use to fund further development on bitcoin and projects around it.

We were the ones that discovered the CSRF exploit in MtGox and other exchanges. TBH MtGox has a very poor track record when it comes to security, and they don't seem to have learnt from their lessons. We were the ones who had to respond to the media (by contacting them) when they crashed causing reporters to say bitcoin had been hacked and MtGox ignored all calls for a statement from them.

joepie, Diablo and some other people here lost money which MtGox has never paid back as a result of the CSRF exploit. They were also dishonest on multiple occasions, outright lying or covering things up. Even now they are blaming this on the bitcoin network not accepting transactions with inputs more than 255 (if you read the chatlog I pasted on page 2) which is wrong considering that a) there is no limit and b) the max number of inputs in any of their transactions was 4.

We're the only long running exchange that hasn't been compromised (formerly Britcoin) and are based in London with a development team. Our group (Bitcoin Consultancy) is also actively involved in developing other areas of bitcoin, operates other services and is working with merchants. And we charge no fees.

Our about us: https://intersango.com/about-us.php

Security: https://intersango.com/security.php

Fees: https://intersango.com/fees.php

Our development's group website: http://bitcoinconsultancy.com/

We were the ones just at SWIFT's (the messaging network used for international bank transfers) SIBOS conference on the future of banking discussing how bitcoin could be used to improve international transfers.

So we're pretty much heavily invested in bitcoin for the long term. The purpose of our group is to hire people to work full-time on furthering bitcoin. We release many of our project's source code for the community. We're also helping organise the European Bitcoin Conference.

If you appreciate our work, and wish for bitcoin to grow, then use our exchange. In return it allows us to grow our development team to push forwards and create more community projects we can contribute. It's my hope to turn this into a talent base to allow the brightest minds to prosper and develop cool technology- like Google or Apple but for specifically for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

No, it's not a flaw. You can read the chatlog I pasted on page 2 for more information why.

I read most of the post as it was very long.

For the most part I agree with you (I hate bloat as much as the next guy).  However, most of the examples you quoted were for things like web servers, HTML, (perhaps I'm missing one).  All of these protocols have no consequences for the entire body of people using these protocols.  If a web server in china screws up, it doesn't affect me at all.  If someone screws up with bitcoin and sends 2 million coins into the darkness, that affects us all.  That can only happen so many times before bitcoin is no longer worth anything to anyone in its current form.  It would be nice to be able to run a message through a validator to get some indication of _major_ screw ups.  This would not have to be part of your script language.

It's not about bloat, actually. The point is, it was not an invalid protocol message. This was perfectly allowed by the protocol. There is no reason to disallow things that look strange but are valid by the protocol, just because it looks "obviously wrong" to us.


Yes, it does affect us all. In fact, it makes the bitcoin you are holding worth more, not less.

What validator?  The exchange was writing their own custom code.  The client wouldn't allow you to make this transaction.  When you are working with raw code that is the risks you take.  

If you are indicating a miner should validate all scripts that quickly becomes very difficult.  The scripting language is very complex and there are many (some not yet even implemented) permutations of possible scripts.  What happens when miners start rejecting scripts that are valid but they think aren't valid and your transactions can't find their way into the blocks.  Lastly someone may decide they want to destroy currency and retain a public record of this.  

I don't think it's plausible to expect we could prevent screw-ups by blacklisting scripts. What are the chances that the same mistake will be made ever again? Next time it will be some other unforeseen error. And if you use heuristics for filtering, then what if there is a bug in the filter itself? I'm mostly impartial though, just not convinced about the usefulness of adding this particular mistake to the protocol specification. (I guess others wrote the very same reply.)