When bitcoin started it was touted as anonymous, reliable and secure against fraud and theft by central authorities (especially government.)
I had some doubts (and other interests) so didn't bother getting into bitcoins.
Now we find out that bitcoin definitely isn't secure, and fraud by central authorities is just as possible as with any complex system of representing monetary value.
I really think it's a universal Law - let there be any kind of central body involved in a system where there are profits to be made by dishonesty, and there WILL be dishonesty.
MtGox turns out to be no different to the FED and any other fiat money authority. No different to the bullion markets, and their empty gold vaults (gold stolen, due to fractional reserve fraud.)
I think I'll stick to keeping gold and silver pieces in an old sock. The only true value store is in-your-hand allodial, and never, ever abstracted to ones and zeros (or paper.)
> Now we find out that bitcoin definitely isn't secure
If anything is secure, then bitcoin is. That doesn't mean that it protects people from their own incompetence when it comes to security, there's no getting around that at this stage.
> and fraud by central authorities is just as possible as with any complex system of representing monetary value.
Only when you actually trust a centralised authority with the private keys in question, which people should not be doing in the case of businesses like mtgox which were obviously utterly incompetent right from the start. Plaintext passwords in http get queries embedded in plaintext emails? Come on, that would've twigged my "this is a really dumb idea" sense even before I started software development.
> MtGox turns out to be no different to the FED and any other fiat money authority.
Exactly, which is irrelevant to the security of bitcoin itself. It's like saying a currency itself has a security vulnerability because a security guard at a bank was incompetent, it doesn't work like that.
> I think I'll stick to keeping gold and silver pieces in an old sock.
Gold and silver are just as vulnerable to centralised betrayal when held by a third party, and bitcoin is just as invulnerable to centralised betrayal when you hold it yourself. Your analogy compares two entirely different situations in order to make one look better than the other.
and fraud by central authorities is just as possible as with any complex system of representing monetary value.
It's actually less possible. It's just that the community lets the central authorities get away with it. With BTC, the exchanges can publically prove their assets. (Of course, if all of them got together to collude...)
> Now we find out that bitcoin definitely isn't secure
If Bitcoin is not secure because an exchange got hacked, then bank accounts are not secure because phishing exists. Or cash is not secure because it can be stolen.
I had some doubts (and other interests) so didn't bother getting into bitcoins.
Now we find out that bitcoin definitely isn't secure, and fraud by central authorities is just as possible as with any complex system of representing monetary value. I really think it's a universal Law - let there be any kind of central body involved in a system where there are profits to be made by dishonesty, and there WILL be dishonesty.
MtGox turns out to be no different to the FED and any other fiat money authority. No different to the bullion markets, and their empty gold vaults (gold stolen, due to fractional reserve fraud.)
I think I'll stick to keeping gold and silver pieces in an old sock. The only true value store is in-your-hand allodial, and never, ever abstracted to ones and zeros (or paper.)