I personally believe that Karpeles committed fraud and stole users' money, but I believe that category of risk was absolutely known and correctly priced into the instrument. What do you folks think?
EDIT: A rational response is a much more satisfying outcome for you, if you can pull it off, rather than mere downvoting to attempt to force your hopes for reality onto the world.. yes, you do achieve a minor victory, a move forward against the hurt, downvoted opponent.. but not truly closer to victory, secure in a rational interpretation of events.
I'm inclined to believe that it was incompetence & overconfidence that lead to the collapse. I suppose we will have a better understanding of what happened in the months to come.
Incompetence can be criminal. I was speaking towards intent. It's doubtful there was intent to defraud. This doesn't mean that those involved shouldn't suffer the consequences of their actions.
That would seem to mean either something went horribly and abruptly wrong with his scheme, or he forgot "and run". Which one are you postulating, and why?
With carefully staged incompetence, you can commit fail-safe theft (where if you are discovered, you can claim it was all an accident/a product of your incompetence/a misunderstanding).
I've covered one way that this can work here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7302672 If I were going to even attempt a theft as large as this (if in fact it was an attempted theft), I would make the scheme being fail-safe the highest priority. The scheme being fail-safe should be a higher priority than even the scheme working.
And I can't tell you why. Maybe I'm projecting. But it's my gut intuition. Though is this not a category of thought that should be discerned via "fast thinking"? Are there any studies that compare test subjects' judgments of guilt, based on defendant photographs, to jury verdicts?
Any jury, anywhere, for any case. People who think they can infer guilt from an utterly neutral facial expression captured in a still image are not fit to participate in any system of justice.
edit: hahahaha, all right, whatever. he still looks guilty to me. sorry if he's innocent. regardless, there is definitely a sentiment, and i voiced it. i don't regret contributing. maybe my tone or something could have been improved? i'm not sure, because i don't disagree with my actions.
Companies not involved with BitCoin lose large amounts of money and/or customer payment details (which is the same as losing their customers' money, in a sense) all the time, for reasons having nothing to do with malice on the part of the companies.
Why do you hold BitCoin-based companies to be different?
I've been at some places with pretty horrific internal security. It's easy to imagine that someone was trusted who shouldn't have been, and had access to nearly everything, including "cold" wallets. Heck, if they were working remotely they might not have even needed to "run".
Exactly. The reason I don't think it was Karpeles who did it is that his name is all over the place. He has (had?) a lot to lose if he decided to do something as brash as this.
EDIT: A rational response is a much more satisfying outcome for you, if you can pull it off, rather than mere downvoting to attempt to force your hopes for reality onto the world.. yes, you do achieve a minor victory, a move forward against the hurt, downvoted opponent.. but not truly closer to victory, secure in a rational interpretation of events.