J.T
06-21-2011, 07:32 PM
A catastrophic hack shuttered the world's largest Bitcoin marketplace Sunday in a security breach that exposed hundreds of accounts and led to the theft of approximately $8.75 million worth of the virtual money
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/bitcoin-mtgox-hack-collapse-anonymous-lulzsec/39023/
It's not the validity of the event that I question, it's the curious timing in an ominous news cycle for Bitcoin. What was once a fringe "underground" currency only known to open-source geeks has now stormed the mainstream media in dramatic fashion, not least because of extensive coverage by the alternative media. What's interesting about the coverage of the Bitcoin is its rapid decent from clear and sunny to treacherously cloudy in the blink of an eye. Well, more like three weeks, but breathtakingly fast nonetheless.
Bitcoin was introduced somewhat slowly with a sudden surge in interest coming in late May. It's construct of peer-to-peer anonymous trade quickly became glorified as "revolutionary." So much so that it prompted an immediate response from some U.S. Senators seeking to "crack down" on it. Next came reports of wild fluctuations in value to expose Bitcoin's vulnerabilities. And, finally, the mother of all bombs, there's a confirmed hack attack on the supposedly impenetrable Bitcoin technology causing a "collapse" of one Bitcoin exchange.
In short, Bitcoin went from being introduced to the public, to hailed as a savior of failed centralized banking and debt-based money, to being thoroughly discredited in less than a month. Does that seem strange to anyone but me? It seems that just the idea of peer-to-peer anonymous digital currency -- if as advertised by MIT and others -- is potentially a major threat to the banskter's monopoly on money and the state's ability to vampire the taxes from online transactions.
To qualify my paranoia, I have no doubt that your everyday thief has plenty of motivation for scoring a big payday, yet there is also enough evidence to speculate that very powerful interests have a vested interest in discrediting the Bitcoin. And this high-profile theft has certainly crippled Bitcoin's credibility; and the person least likely to benefit is the guy who just stole a half-a-million dollar's worth of it. Therefore, the thief had to know his booty would lose tremendous value in light of the security compromise. Hence, the stronger motivation has prevailed; the message being that Bitcoin -- or anything like it -- is not to be trusted.
Yet, as mentioned above, the victim admitted in his own words that he regretfully forgot to lock his door. Not that the house is not secure. In fact, Symantec labeled the malware a "Risk Level 1: Very Low," and suggested the following simple recommendation to protect Bitcoin wallets against such attacks:
If you use Bitcoins, you have the option to encrypt your wallet and we recommend that you choose a strong password for this in the event that an attacker is attempting to brute-force your wallet open.So, ultimately, this story is much ado about nothing, but it appears to have carried the desired impact of collapsing the public's interest in Bitcoin. The opponents of Bitcoin will now argue that "anonymity" is a problem, because it can't track the perpetrator, while they also may have solved their "decentralized" problem. Die-hard Bitcoin supporters will now likely be more inclined to store their wallet in a "secure" central location online like InstaWallet or MyBitcoin, which will probably be bought up by Goldman Sachs when all the sheep have been corralled.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/malware-theft-of-bitcoins-false-flag-to.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/bitcoin-mtgox-hack-collapse-anonymous-lulzsec/39023/
It's not the validity of the event that I question, it's the curious timing in an ominous news cycle for Bitcoin. What was once a fringe "underground" currency only known to open-source geeks has now stormed the mainstream media in dramatic fashion, not least because of extensive coverage by the alternative media. What's interesting about the coverage of the Bitcoin is its rapid decent from clear and sunny to treacherously cloudy in the blink of an eye. Well, more like three weeks, but breathtakingly fast nonetheless.
Bitcoin was introduced somewhat slowly with a sudden surge in interest coming in late May. It's construct of peer-to-peer anonymous trade quickly became glorified as "revolutionary." So much so that it prompted an immediate response from some U.S. Senators seeking to "crack down" on it. Next came reports of wild fluctuations in value to expose Bitcoin's vulnerabilities. And, finally, the mother of all bombs, there's a confirmed hack attack on the supposedly impenetrable Bitcoin technology causing a "collapse" of one Bitcoin exchange.
In short, Bitcoin went from being introduced to the public, to hailed as a savior of failed centralized banking and debt-based money, to being thoroughly discredited in less than a month. Does that seem strange to anyone but me? It seems that just the idea of peer-to-peer anonymous digital currency -- if as advertised by MIT and others -- is potentially a major threat to the banskter's monopoly on money and the state's ability to vampire the taxes from online transactions.
To qualify my paranoia, I have no doubt that your everyday thief has plenty of motivation for scoring a big payday, yet there is also enough evidence to speculate that very powerful interests have a vested interest in discrediting the Bitcoin. And this high-profile theft has certainly crippled Bitcoin's credibility; and the person least likely to benefit is the guy who just stole a half-a-million dollar's worth of it. Therefore, the thief had to know his booty would lose tremendous value in light of the security compromise. Hence, the stronger motivation has prevailed; the message being that Bitcoin -- or anything like it -- is not to be trusted.
Yet, as mentioned above, the victim admitted in his own words that he regretfully forgot to lock his door. Not that the house is not secure. In fact, Symantec labeled the malware a "Risk Level 1: Very Low," and suggested the following simple recommendation to protect Bitcoin wallets against such attacks:
If you use Bitcoins, you have the option to encrypt your wallet and we recommend that you choose a strong password for this in the event that an attacker is attempting to brute-force your wallet open.So, ultimately, this story is much ado about nothing, but it appears to have carried the desired impact of collapsing the public's interest in Bitcoin. The opponents of Bitcoin will now argue that "anonymity" is a problem, because it can't track the perpetrator, while they also may have solved their "decentralized" problem. Die-hard Bitcoin supporters will now likely be more inclined to store their wallet in a "secure" central location online like InstaWallet or MyBitcoin, which will probably be bought up by Goldman Sachs when all the sheep have been corralled.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/malware-theft-of-bitcoins-false-flag-to.html