I guess I meant left the wallet of the thief to say an exchange i.e. Mt. Gox  or off to silk road to purchase $15,000 dollars worth of guns and drugs.

I thought Taint was the space between the vajayjay and the brown eye.

It would seem Linode is the weakest link for those hosting bitcoin stuff. Customers will need to implement a system that can thwart Linodes retardedness.

Could this be another attempt to manipulate the market with bad news? The stolen funds would remain in hibernation because they are not needed when the theft is for damaging BTC value via bad news.

Well, before you can determine that, you have to determine how vigilant their security should have been, and that depends on whether you think Linode was marketed as suitable for high-value, easy theft targets like hot Bitcoin wallets.

Well, we don't know yet. But from just the evidence we have so far, I think it's at least reasonably probable that negligence on Linode's part was involved if you think the appropriate standard is sufficient security to host high-value Bitcoin sites.

Take my $50,000 Rolex in the coat room example. If the coat check attendant goes to the bathroom and doesn't have another employee watch the coat room, is that negligent? Yes if the coat room is supposed to be suitable for storing $50,000 Rolexes. Otherwise, no.

They're not covering anything up. I think it's quite likely an inside job involving a Linode employee or former employee. Linode hasn't said so, but they haven't denied it. It's possible they don't know.

You can certainly expect the police to come and the employee, if caught, to go to jail. But you aren't likely to recover $50,000 from the restaurant. They're not required to make Fort Knox to check coats.

If it looks like an insider job, and it smells like an insider job, it is.... ... an insider job.

First off, what strikes me as odd (and forgive me not to read through everything that's been written about these issues in the forum for the last hours) is that the attacker targeted just Linode customers that had bitcoind running. I mean, if it was only Bitcoinica that was targeted, an outside attacker would seem more plausible, but eight customers that all ran bitcoind, and those were the only ones affected ? Seems very plausible that it's a superadmin that did this. After all, that makes logical sense, when tracks are hidden that well.

The first thing I would do if I were to investigate this case would be to interview everyone that have superadmin access at Linode, and I mean though confrontive cross examination, and lie detectors tests, everything you can throw at them + getting at all and every server logs. I assume Bitcoinica works with law enforcement on this one ? It's a lot of money gone here.

Anyway, let's take the lessons we can, and thumbs up for all the good operators that decided to use their own money to reimburse the customers.

So you are not willing to believe that the Dole food chain (salads specifically) were poisoned in order to profit from put option trades?
There are hundreds more of this type of examples for stocks. Of course there are no put options for Bitcoins but the method can still be used to profit or attack the value. Good and bad news has reactive tangible effects on volatile markets, of which Bitcoin is one.

Guys, CoinExchanger is turning out to be the likely culprit in the hack.



CoinExchanger.com is an admittedly unregistered MLB (money license business) that must be registered by FinCEN within 6 months of opening their doors and sharing their first stored value. They have not done so and are in direct violation of federal law.

The owner of CoinExchanger.com is Leo Camilo, who advertises his address as 440 9th ave, New york, New York,10001 US and personal telephone number 1 (347) 469-1040.

His private email (search google) is atqcapital@gmail.com.

He has publicly stated on multiple occasions that:

• bitcoin is fake money, "monopoly money" and has no value and should not be trusted for this reason.
• his exchange is functional with a large user base, when not a single user has ever reportedly done business with him
• he is holding coins stolen from Zhou Tong's Bitcoinica and says "fuck you Zhou, you're just a stupid 17 year old kid, these coins are mine now" basically.

He also:

• goes under the sock puppet scammer account name "Maria"
• claims to be a millionaire and restaurant owner

He is currently in possession of stolen Bitcoins from the Linode hack and any coins purchased from him will not be accepted by MtGox or anyone in the Bitcoin community.

The part in big letters there... how do you know that he is in possession of coins from the hack?

Got it - thanks.

The point is the difference between using a service in a way that requires the normal level of security and using a service in a way that requires an extraordinary level of security from the provider.

Yes, but don't expect to get back the $5 million if you store a prototype car there.

Yes, but don't expect them to cover the costs if your shipment was diamonds, unless they knew and agreed to extra security appropriate to diamonds.

In your world, every business would have to provide security adequate to cover the most bizarre uses of their service. FedEx would have to have a team of armed guards follow every truck they dispatch just in case a package had millions of dollars worth of diamonds in it and the owner of the shipment made the shipment details public so thieves knew just what to target. But in fact, that's not how such services operate. They have precisely-defined liability limits and they require shippers to declare high-value operations and pay extra if you want them to insure them.

Yes or no, do you believe FedEx is legally obligated to defend every package they ship in a way that's suitable to protect millions of dollars worth of diamonds from an inside job? If yes, how do you think they should pay for that? If no, how can they be negligent if their security was adequate for ordinary shipments?